72 réponses à ce sujet

[CRISIS1717]

No Dragon Age Origins on it's own is a self-contained story that has a goal and a purpose to the story and at the end of the game it is concluded with the death of the Archdemon.

[Malja]

Eudaemonium wrote...

I always assumed the question for DA2 was "who was the CHampion and what did they do to put the world where it is?" - Cassandra's question. That gets answered at the end as well, even if the answer to the latter can sometimes be "absolutely nothing".

Exactly why I'm confused with how this ending is any different  based on that line of thought.

[RolandX9]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Foryou wrote...

Didn't Dragon Age also end in a cliffhanger..?

No.

A story has a question that it needs to answer by the end. The question for Origins was "Will the Warden defeat the Blight?"

We got the answer to that question in Origins, so the story finished. That things happen after the story finishes doesn't matter. 

QFT. DA:O and DA:A alike end with their central conflicts resolved. Witch Hunt is an extended epilogue (and only worthwhile if you romanced Morrigan, IMHO). DA II ends with its central conflict just getting started. None of this is especially complicated.

[MKDAWUSS]

RolandX9 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Foryou wrote...

Didn't Dragon Age also end in a cliffhanger..?

No.

A story has a question that it needs to answer by the end. The question for Origins was "Will the Warden defeat the Blight?"

We got the answer to that question in Origins, so the story finished. That things happen after the story finishes doesn't matter. 

QFT. DA:O and DA:A alike end with their central conflicts resolved. Witch Hunt is an extended epilogue (and only worthwhile if you romanced Morrigan, IMHO). DA II ends with its central conflict just getting started. None of this is especially complicated.

DAO did contain the DR, which was a developing plotline coming out of Origins.

[noxsachi]

In all even though I enjoyed the story and its straying for traditional "Kill x, save the world." narrative, it is totally more of a cliffhanger than Origins or even Awakening simply from the fact that we 100% know something interesting and major is happening right at the end of the game. Sure we know life goes on after Origins but the big exciting thing we did wasn't immediately followed by something bigger and more interesting.

Imagine if at the end of Origins it had something about the other two Old Gods awakening and fighting the Dark Spawn, oh sure it would be a complete story but thats a hell of a cliffhanger and it leaves people wanting more. That's how I view DAII's story. It was good for setting up the champion and the reason for a huge civil war, but the fact of the matter is we want to jump right into the civil war that makes it intolerable. If they hadn't been so blatant about why Cassandra was looking for you after your story ending, it wouldn't have seemed like such a cliff hanger.

[thesnowtigress]

Battle Los Angeles ends kind of the same way as DA2. Because it wasn't a story about the world being invaded by aliens, but about the soldier guy (sorry forgot his name) finding his way to command with confidence again. Or something like that. DA2 is much the same. It is a story of Hawke's rise to power. We saw his/her rise to power, why should we see what happened to the world?

As for Dragon Age, the story of the Warden ending the blight was told. It was complete. But like others said, the Dark Ritual could be considered a cliffhanger, only if they did it though. I guess with DA2 its that in everyone's game there is total war beginning. So yeah, I don;t know what I'm saying anymore, I'm just going to shut up now.

[highcastle]

My guess is that people dislike DA2's cliff-hanger over Origins because in Origins there's still a sense that you "won." Whereas in DA2, everything's gone to hell. The last hour or so of the game is emotionally draining. Once Anders blows up the Chantry, you could very well find yourself betrayed by other companions. Whichever side you picked will betray you. If you spent the whole game working to gain power or even to make peace, you still ultimately fail.

I happen to like this. I think it's more engaging, I think it's the kind of ending we don't often see in games. But I don't think people like the idea of failing. And thus they lament the ending for not properly concluding the story (by not letting them win, really).

[Lithuasil]

highcastle wrote...
I happen to like this. I think it's more engaging, I think it's the kind of ending we don't often see in games. But I don't think people like the idea of failing. And thus they lament the ending for not properly concluding the story (by not letting them win, really).

This, lots of it. In dark Messiah, of the three optional endings (the lawful evil, the chaotic evil, and the selfish evil), all leave the world in a considerable worse state, then the mage/templar war - but whatever evil ending you picked, your character still largely came out the winner - and nobody minded, even though there was nothing even close to resembling closure.

The thing is, people have hard times accepting endings they don't like, even in books or movies. In games, the feeling of "but someone else should have won" gets amplified tenfold, because the player itself wants to be the winner. It's just, that for a good story to be told, we sometimes (well, lets be realistic, most times) need to get over that.

[kedcoleman]

Maria Caliban wrote...


No.

A story has a question that it needs to answer by the end. The question for Origins was "Will the Warden defeat the Blight?"

After Luke blows up the Death Star, stuff still happens, but it doesn't matter for that story. 
 

'Course in Empire a lot of questions go unanswered, too.  The conflict between Luke and Vader is, ultimately, unresolved.  The Rebellion got a curb-stomping, but you know they're coming back for more.  A lot of loose ends.  Different endeavours, different story-telling styles.  

DA:O was the first offering, just as A New Hope.  It should be mostly-wrapped-up, just in case it doesn't take off and they can appear to have the story more or less completed.  With Empire Strikes Back, and DA2, there's momentum behind it, a solid notion that there will, most likely, be at least one more episode after.  

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
No.

A story has a question that it needs to answer by the end. The question for Origins was "Will the Warden defeat the Blight?"

We got the answer to that question in Origins, so the story finished. That things happen after the story finishes doesn't matter.

After Robin Hood overthrows the evil Prince, stuff still happens, but it doesn't matter for that story. After Luke blows up the Death Star, stuff still happens, but it doesn't matter for that story.

Lord of the Rings could end when the ring goes into the volcano. It has a very long denouncement but the story question has been satisfied.

Indeed. There's lots of criticisms one can make about the ending (and I've seen many)-- not having enough closure to be satisfying might be one, depending on how you feel about it, but there were people who said the same thing about Origins even before Awakening came out. The hero "walking off into the sunset" was insufficient, to them. Some people are always going to be unhappy when they want the story to continue on, particularly if they were drawn into it.

Which is fine. I'd argue that not every story ends with every plot thread neatly resolved, or even necessarily any. As you point out, the story poses a question which must be answered by the end. A lack of desired closure, however, is not a cliffhanger-- the lack of a climax would be.

It's one of those terms that gets misused, on the internet in particular, much like "cliche" (which seems to boil down to "I've seen this once before" mingled with "I don't like it") or "plot hole" ("I didn't get it" mingled with "I didn't like it"). That said, I understand the origin of the complaint, if not the conclusion drawn. From my perspective, I don't think people wanting to know what happens next is necessarily a bad thing, but I do indeed get some people not liking where it was left off. Food for thought.

[_Aine_]

I think what people are missing, whether they state it as such or not, is the epilogue. It was a summation of your journey in DA:O and the Effect to your Cause, the consequence to many of your choices and actions. DA2 gives it rather bluntly: and everyone left except for <insert love-interest here> who vanished with Hawke. It leaves you with a stumbling: "but...if....what about.... ugh. *sigh* " and you accept it (or not) from there. 

I think in DA:O you could say, "Check it out! I *touched* the world and it changed!" and in DA2 your effect was either more discreet or not as plainly stated. Whether it is a statement on the actual mechanics is up to arguement probably but it does make a difference to the player's perception of The End I think.

That was my biggest take-away feeling: that in DA:O I touched the world and it changed (for better or worse) and in DA2 I was like....crap, no matter what I do it ends the same. Sometimes it is the *details* that make the difference.

Modifié par shantisands, 30 mars 2011 - 11:51 .

[The Angry One]

Personally I feel it's an unsatisfying because it doesn't finish anything it started.
Hawke's fate? Unknown. Nature of the idol? Unknown. Outlook of the mage/templar war? Unknown. Results? Unknown - wait for DA3 to find out!

The plot, while well written, has too much meandering that when it gets to the substance, the game just stops. Doesn't end, just stops.

[Brockololly]

MKDAWUSS wrote...
DAO did contain the DR, which was a developing plotline coming out of Origins.

True.

I mean, I totally get the whole notion of Origins boiling down to being the story of the 5th Blight and how the Wardens stopped it. In terms of the Blight no longer stomping all over the countryside, yes, its done and over. I think the thing with the DR, if you accepted it, is that well, if the soul of an Old God, of Urthemiel, still survived the 5th Blight would that plot really be over or is it just starting a new branch off of the Origins story at the end of the game?

So sure, any Old God Baby/Morrigan story would  technically be a "new" story, but it would firmly have its roots in what happened at the end of Origins with the Warden. Just as much as at the end of A New Hope, the Death Star is destroyed, but Darth Vader remained to come back later.


With respect to DA2, I have issues with how some things were presented, but it would seem the story of Hawke's "Rise to Power" is done. Anything beyond that would be a new story, but just because it would be "new" wouldn't have to mean it doesn't build off of what Hawke's Rise to Power established. Same goes with Morrigan/OGB/Warden stuff.


Really, my biggest issue with DA2's ending was the lack of any meaningful dénouement. Certainly most games don't have anything beyond the climax, but the inclusion of a little extra at the end of Origins made the ending that much more memorable- as opposed to the rushed and abrupt endings of Awakening, Witch Hunt and now DA2.

[Foolsfolly]

I really don't see how anyone could say that Origins ended on a cliffhanger. Loghain was defeated, the archdemon was killed, and you live happily ever after or are in fact dead and a hero.

Seriously, Casteless Dwarf Ultimate Sacrifice ending's one of the finer endings in last handful of years. A person below notice rises to save the world and then the whole family is given their own House. How epic was that ending?

Now the epilogue bits, those are hooks for sequels. But the story was firmly wrapped up. And the epilogue hook (the big one with Morrigan) was entirely optional. Of course, that optional part became more and more required once Awakening and the DLC rolled out. But the Origins ending was rather final.

[Rifneno]

It's completely different. DAO ended with a loose end they could tie a sequel to, but the immediate danger was resolved. The is archdemon dead and Ferelden is at peace. DA2 ended with the danger not just being still there, but the danger only just truly coming to the surface. It was an extremely well developed prologue in my opinion. Akin to if Origins gave us 50 hours of gameplay that ended at the fall of Ostagar. I'm sure the ME comparisons will come, so I want to point out: they're still trapped God knows how deep in dark space. The *immediate* danger is dealt with when the game ends.

I think it was a mistake. The writing team is clearly talented enough to come up with enough material to make a reasonably sized series out of Dragon Age without unnecessarily stringing along a single story. I'm likely in the minority on this, but I actually hope they decide to wrap up the mage-templar story with DLC or flat out expansions. People will call it money grubbing, cut content, ect. but it's better than the alternative of DA2's story simply remaining an ultimately meaningless prologue.

[Vicious]

Personally I feel it's an unsatisfying because it doesn't finish anything it started.
Hawke's fate? Unknown. Nature of the idol? Unknown. Outlook of the mage/templar war? Unknown. Results? Unknown - wait for DA3 to find out!

Holy crap! YOU NAILED IT.

[88mphSlayer]

i think there was more closure on what happens to Ferelden, the warden and the companions

i do remember everybody complaining about the lack of information on Morrigan tho, that was a cliffhanger moment for sure

i enjoyed act 3 tho, and thought it closed out pretty well, an extra 30 minutes focused on kirkwall & companions would've helped for me but i'm not everybody - i'm sure some people wanted an act 4 or something completely different

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 31 mars 2011 - 12:14 .

[Ryzaki]

Vicious wrote...

Personally I feel it's an unsatisfying because it doesn't finish anything it started.
Hawke's fate? Unknown. Nature of the idol? Unknown. Outlook of the mage/templar war? Unknown. Results? Unknown - wait for DA3 to find out!

Holy crap! YOU NAILED IT.

Agreed. I felt like I was got pretty much answers to nothing. 

Other than Hawke having a sucky origin story. 

[greyman33]

David Gaider wrote...

Indeed. There's lots of criticisms one can make about the ending (and I've seen many)-- not having enough closure to be satisfying might be one, depending on how you feel about it, but there were people who said the same thing about Origins even before Awakening came out. The hero "walking off into the sunset" was insufficient, to them. Some people are always going to be unhappy when they want the story to continue on, particularly if they were drawn into it.

Which is fine. I'd argue that not every story ends with every plot thread neatly resolved, or even necessarily any. As you point out, the story poses a question which must be answered by the end. A lack of desired closure, however, is not a cliffhanger-- the lack of a climax would be.

It's one of those terms that gets misused, on the internet in particular, much like "cliche" (which seems to boil down to "I've seen this once before" mingled with "I don't like it") or "plot hole" ("I didn't get it" mingled with "I didn't like it"). That said, I understand the origin of the complaint, if not the conclusion drawn. From my perspective, I don't think people wanting to know what happens next is necessarily a bad thing, but I do indeed get some people not liking where it was left off. Food for thought.

Not getting into any of the other criticism of the final act or ending one way or the other (I'm sure you've heard more than enough from plenty of people), I think a part of the issue you're talking about isn't so much resolution of plot threads, or lack thereof, but the sense of being left hanging.

The game almost feels like more of a setup for something more important down the road and, to me anyway, that took away some of the sense of acomplishment I felt like I should have had after completing a game of this scope.

To an extent middle acts (if, indeed, that's what you have in mind here) all suffer from this problem.  The two most obvious examples that come to mind for me are The Two Towers and The Empire Strikes Back.  There are some big differences for me though between those and DA2.  For one, Two Towers was really not intended to be a stand-alone work. The three books were supposed to be bound together as one volume.

More than that, both Empire and Two Towers had a sort of "Oh s**t!" feel to the endings.  Both were clearly setups for future instalments in their respective worlds, but they ended with our heroes themselves in a state of actual peril that made us care about the fate, not of some fictional world, but of people we've had the chance to grow close to through the narritive.

That connection was the real draw and helped make up for the fact that those second acts were really just set ups for book/film 3.  People weren't spraypainting "Frodo Lives" on London metro station walls because they were happy to read descriptions of how bleak Mordor was, they loved the character and were happy to learn he survived (sorry to have spoiled that for the three of you on this board who've never read it/seen the films ).

In my oppinion this is one of the things DA2 was missing.  Our hero does just walk off into the sunset.  That's fine and good for a story that has some conclusion (Clint Eastwood made a lot of money walking off into the sunset with a pile of bad guys rotting in the desert behind him).  The problem here for me is that our hero walks away from all the conflict and chaos, this clear setup for act/game/whatever 3, taking any real emotional connection to it all with him.  The hero is no longer in peril.  There's no "but what about Han?" moment, no "Holy s**t, Frodo's dead?" moment, no real character connection for all this set up to hook into.

Not sure how much sense that makes to you, but it's my 2 cents.

[aftohsix]

Well I mean if you want to get technical but all you're doing is taking away something for people to whine about you party pooper.

[TheBlackBaron]

The Angry One wrote...

Personally I feel it's an unsatisfying because it doesn't finish anything it started.
Hawke's fate? Unknown. Nature of the idol? Unknown. Outlook of the mage/templar war? Unknown. Results? Unknown - wait for DA3 to find out!

The plot, while well written, has too much meandering that when it gets to the substance, the game just stops. Doesn't end, just stops.

Bingo. 

"Cliffhanger" is not the right word, I think, when you consider that the story was out to tell about Hawke rose to prominence; that was more or less accomplished. The problem is that all these other threads that Hawke rose to prominence amidst and sometimes because of are left twisting in the wind in a very abrupt way. 

So yes, while not every thread has to be resolved neatly, to have so many be left completely unfinished and with no guarantee of being picked up again given the track record of continuity between DA:O --> DA2 feels very unsatisfactory. 

[Foolsfolly]

Also Empire is all about 'getting home.' The Empire does its strike at the beginning of the movie, that's the inciting incident that starts everything except Luke's training (but Luke's training dovetails into the Han/Leia plot before the credits).

All the Rebels know they can't fight on Hoth so they start to evac everyone and attempt to hold off the Empire. Han/Leia/Chewie/3PO all get off Hoth and now have to hide and eventually regroup with the Rebellion.

Their adventures, largely hampered by the Falcon's state of disrepair, take them eventually to Cloud City and the Empire catching them. The Luke comes, the rescue is underway, and they all escape save Han.

They regroup with the Rebellion, they've lost people but the Rebellion's survived this trial of fire. The fleet is gathered, the heroes are together but the Fellowship is Broken until they can get Han back. You get the feeling at the end of that movie that the Rebellion's not defeated, they've just suffered a defeat. They will be able to attack again and while Han's gone Chewie and Lando are going now to start the rescue operation.

It's an ending, with a cliffhanger, but the story was always about making regrouping...they just lost people before they regrouped.

It's a fine ending.

DA2 is about the mage/templar argument and it's never answered. It's left hanging after the first fight of the war. Nothing's decided at that fight since both leaders are killed and the ending's the same anyway, the Circles start rebelling.

It's kinda like if Origins had you stuck in Denerim the whole time doing missions and trying to get by and then joining the army, going to Ostagar, and then ending after Loghain leaves the field.

You hit it on the head with this paragraph:

In my oppinion this is one of the things DA2 was missing. Our hero does just walk off into the sunset. That's fine and good for a story that has some conclusion (Clint Eastwood made a lot of money walking off into the sunset with a pile of bad guys rotting in the desert behind him). The problem here for me is that our hero walks away from all the conflict and chaos, this clear setup for act/game/whatever 3, taking any real emotional connection to it all with him. The hero is no longer in peril. There's no "but what about Han?" moment, no "Holy s**t, Frodo's dead?" moment, no real character connection for all this set up to hook into.

[Edge2177]

There's the end of Shadows of Amn also, which just has Elisimee(sp) pontificating how awesome you are, but not much actual closure.

In a sense Varric's story conclusion had a little more detail.

[txgoldrush]

The Angry One wrote...

Personally I feel it's an unsatisfying because it doesn't finish anything it started.
Hawke's fate? Unknown. Nature of the idol? Unknown. Outlook of the mage/templar war? Unknown. Results? Unknown - wait for DA3 to find out!

The plot, while well written, has too much meandering that when it gets to the substance, the game just stops. Doesn't end, just stops.

Dealing with uncertainity and the unknown is one of the games major themes.

[Foolsfolly]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Personally I feel it's an unsatisfying because it doesn't finish anything it started.
Hawke's fate? Unknown. Nature of the idol? Unknown. Outlook of the mage/templar war? Unknown. Results? Unknown - wait for DA3 to find out!

The plot, while well written, has too much meandering that when it gets to the substance, the game just stops. Doesn't end, just stops.

Dealing with uncertainity and the unknown is one of the games major themes.

Debatable.

Saying uncertainity is a theme of an unfocused game is a really easy out to take just to defend the story. And dealing with the unknown? Most games have unknowns lying ahead of the character, that's part of the fun, and again debatable if that's a theme.

The thing that makes it really hard to believe these are themes come from the fact that the story/characters never reference this. You never hear a character lament about the uncertain times. You don't have Hawke shake his head and sigh about how there's no clear answer.

You just have a few choices and a story that's disconnected from the main character.