150 réponses à ce sujet

[Hambacon]

Mr Gaider, hats off to you and your peeps who have made this universe that I love so much I hope it lasts for many many many years to come.
It's not often I feel awe as a grown-up (I deliver babies and stuff as a doc- the miracle of life is just part of the job now), and y'alls world managed to surprise me make me laugh, freak out, hop around with joy.
So kudos, and I hope you guys get to fulfill your vision and goals, cause I wanna be there to see it.

[xnode]

Eh I get it all, but the fans are the sales, sales are what talks to a company and nothing more. I mean don't take me wrong, we are all human, david just like us does the daily deals (IE eat, etc) but in the end, in a companies opinion it comes down too. How can we keep our current fanbase happy and get more fans into the fold? It's never, how can we keep our current fanbase happy. There is always more involved then most seem to realize. It's like the notion that has been going around about EA being the evil entity of gaming and killing all our loved titles because they force a team to rush it ect.

Well the plain simple truth is, it is a business, if EA dedicated so much allocations to a project and that project exceeds it's numbers, then it comes down to caculated outcomes, Bah, going on a rant, but point being we are not the only influance to a game being made or not. Thou it is nice to know we have some impact be it minor or not.

I personally like EA, they have made plenty of titles I enjoy and others I don't , but overall when I see that EA emblem I think, well at least there is something in this game, good or bad, I will at least get some enjoyment out of it and always have. Bioware when taken in by EA did change the way they do things, (pretty obvious to anyone that pays attention) thou I think they are finally understanding what is practical and what is not.

I have no doubt on our next installment there will be some guy in the meeting representing EA's interest saying "hmm.. well couldn't you just re-used that part and color it differently?" as any good exec will do, they will streamline a project and learn what does and does not work. Again this is all past experiance of my own jobs with other companies in this arena, but that is in the end what it comes down too.

There is something to be noted thou, take no doubt no matter what is said, anything and everything that has to do with a particular section of a company is note worthy. If you think the outcry of ME3 ending might have something to do with it, you could be right or wrong, david says no, but in the end I have no doubt that somewhere , in some meeting that issues comes up and is addressed beyond just ME3 but all games. I have no doubt that starwars the old republic with it's issues also effects those in charge. In the end you take what you have and learned from and implment from that experiance. It would be silly and let's face it , dumb not to look at all aspects of your company , be it in development, productions or whatever your company makes.

[kingtigernz]

Ystitans78 wrote...
I can't think of a single game company that has patched a game almost a full year after it's release.

 I can and the DLC is free.

[kingtigernz]

TomekN86 wrote...

The Witcher 2 killed Dragon Age 2... In short span of time players could see successful realisation of all the things they were promised, but not in a game made by Bioware.

I would have said Dragon Age 2 killed Dragon Age 2 myself ,The Witcher 2 just added salt to the wound.

[Firky]

David Gaider wrote...

So Mark is my boss's boss, and the end boss of DA. Mike is my boss, and thus is that boss you fight shortly before the end boss. I am the boss of one of the first major plots you play, the one who gives you information which leads you to the end boss.

It doesn't quite fit your description but I'll henceforth picture the three of you as Tazok, Conster and Firkraag.

It's interesting to get some insight into the workings of who does what in the hierarchical sense. People throw around logical sounding guesses about who does what, without even seeming to realise its all guesswork.

I find the process really odd. It didn't even cross my mind that this announcement was related to ME3 and people not digging the ending. I've had people on gaming forums call me "naive" about business, on things like Day 1 DLC and "PR speak", but I don't feel naive. I just don't picture devs/publishers micromanaging every piece of info. Just getting about their jobs, I guess, working as a creative team, working to a budget, passing on info when they've finalised stuff. (But I could be wrong, who knows?)

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Firky wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

So Mark is my boss's boss, and the end boss of DA. Mike is my boss, and thus is that boss you fight shortly before the end boss. I am the boss of one of the first major plots you play, the one who gives you information which leads you to the end boss.

It doesn't quite fit your description but I'll henceforth picture the three of you as Tazok, Conster and Firkraag.

It's funny...I was picturing an epic boss fight myself.

[MICHELLE7]

PillingPower wrote...

I must admit that I for one think it's a shame and a mistake, that Hawke's story will not be resolved fully through gameplay - it lacks closure now.

Personally I don't think Hawke's story needs the kind of closure Shepard's story would. ME is more about Shepard....DA is more about the Dragon Age world with the story being told through the eyes of different characters...when the Warden or Hawke are done they simply fade into the sunset and the story continues through someone else...I was kinda satisfied with Hawke just disappearing after Kirkwall...kinda what happens to legends...people don't always know what happens to them. I did think the dlc's were great though and would have liked more but I'm alright with them moving on. I was one of those that liked DA2 better than DAO and actually wound up playing DA2 more times than any other game I've ever played. Am looking forward to what they come up with in DA3.

[Aly666]

can i get the unfinished expansion?

[Maria Caliban]

My Hawke started as a poor immigrant and refugee, reclaimed her ancestral home, became the Champion of the city, and later became the Viscount.

That's really all the closure I need.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
That's really all the closure I need.

Without implying anything about the people involved, I think when people say "I need closure" they're not really all talking about the same thing. Some people seem to refer to closure as "I still have questions" or "there still seems to be things my character could do"... in which case I'm not sure there's any ending other than death which would actually give them the closure they seek. Perhaps not even then.

Regardless, it's not invalid as they're clearly feeling like things aren't "finished", but it's one of those things I'm not sure can (or should necessarily) be addressed. It also doesn't help when it's one of those terms (like "cliche") which often get used by people who mean entirely different things when using it.

[Dutchess]

The ending felt more unfinished due to Leliana's remark about the Warden and Hawke both disappearing, which is apparently "no coincidence". That turned the ending more into an odd and unexpected cliffhanger, raising a little too many questions for many people.

[David Gaider]

renjility wrote...
The ending felt more unfinished due to Leliana's remark about the Warden and Hawke both disappearing, which is apparently "no coincidence". That turned the ending more into an odd and unexpected cliffhanger, raising a little too many questions for many people.

Sure, but the existence of questions-- even new ones-- does not mean an ending has not occurred. Characters do move off into the sunset, their lives not quite finished and going onto other adventures outside of the narrative... being personally invested in that tale, and left wondering what those "other adventures" might be, is understandable (and complimentary). Not complete closure, sure... but then again I'm not certain "complete closure" is always required.

Just my opinion, of course. I don't think there's an accepted route for this sort of tale, especially considering the differences between this sort of story and a regular one.

[motleykroot]

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
That's really all the closure I need.

Without implying anything about the people involved, I think when people say "I need closure" they're not really all talking about the same thing. Some people seem to refer to closure as "I still have questions" or "there still seems to be things my character could do"... in which case I'm not sure there's any ending other than death which would actually give them the closure they seek. Perhaps not even then.

Regardless, it's not invalid as they're clearly feeling like things aren't "finished", but it's one of those things I'm not sure can (or should necessarily) be addressed. It also doesn't help when it's one of those terms (like "cliche") which often get used by people who mean entirely different things when using it.

For me at least, the 'lack of closure' issue had less to do with my characters having things to do, and more about simply producing the feeling that they did something, after. Part of a trend in storytelling media in general (not just games) is increasingly not having a denoument, or anything that happens after the climax at all, really.

In some ways this makes sense, since the primary means of player expression in RPGs is conversation and combat, and you want to go out on both of those things. That being said, my main dissatisfaction with what Exalted Marches being cancelled means for the DA2 conclusion (and the ME3 thing, really) is that it expends all the narrative momentum of the characters in one shot. They do what they need to do to get to the climax, perform (or witness, in Hawke's case) the climactic act, and then effectively cease to exist. Even Varric ends his interview with '...and then Hawke probably got out of the city alive.'

One of my favorite things about the denoument of Origins isn't so much the slide show explaining where everybody went, but the moment after the coronation (or funeral) where you can just take a minute to breathe and sort of see where the survivors think they might go, and what they might do. Whether they actually do it or not doesn't matter as much as simply establishing the feeling that time and life didn't cease after the big epic ending.

It's important to feel that NPCs the player grows attached to have some sort of future implied, if not outright stated, since once they've been painted with the player agency brush they're probably not having much of a role in future content. It's actually a bit less important for the PC, since the player has had (the illusion of) control of them up to that point and so probably is more comfortable with assuming what happens after.
...unless we ever see Flemeth's Canned Hero Collection at some point. That works too.

[Dutchess]

 

David Gaider wrote...

Sure, but the existence of questions-- even new ones-- does not mean an ending has not occurred. Characters do move off into the sunset, their lives not quite finished and going onto other adventures outside of the narrative... being personally invested in that tale, and left wondering what those "other adventures" might be, is understandable (and complimentary). Not complete closure, sure... but then again I'm not certain "complete closure" is always required.

Just my opinion, of course. I don't think there's an accepted route for this sort of tale, especially considering the differences between this sort of story and a regular one.

 
Of course it does not mean an ending has not occurred. But it can make an ending feel less satisfactory. I don't need to be told the rest of Hawke's life till he/she reaches his/her death bed, so I don't need "complete closure" in the ultimate and absolute sense. For example I found the ending to Dragon Age Origins more satisfactory, more like a bit of closure, even though the epilogue said my Warden's adventures were far from over.
I think my issue with DA2's ending is that a completely new plot seems to be introduced, while it's supposed to be the ending. I do not mean everything should be solved by the end. I understand the need for a new/lingering threat for future games. For instance the ending where Hawke leaves the Gallows/has the templars bowing for him/her, had for me been a better ending than the final part with Leliana. Perhaps that's is because that part interferes with the "moving off into the sunset" and "going onto other adventures". Not the fact that Hawke disappeared, because he/she could have moved into the sunset and the Seekers are simply not able to find him/her, but because of the "that is no coincidence". That suggests a link between Hawke and the Warden, and not that they both have ridden into the sunset with their romance. It kind of removes the free interpretation of what happened both to Hawke and the Warden, and that makes it unsatisfactory.

Modifié par renjility, 22 mars 2012 - 05:56 .

[Mr Fixit]

David Gaider wrote...

renjility wrote...
The ending felt more unfinished due to Leliana's remark about the Warden and Hawke both disappearing, which is apparently "no coincidence". That turned the ending more into an odd and unexpected cliffhanger, raising a little too many questions for many people.

Sure, but the existence of questions-- even new ones-- does not mean an ending has not occurred. Characters do move off into the sunset, their lives not quite finished and going onto other adventures outside of the narrative... being personally invested in that tale, and left wondering what those "other adventures" might be, is understandable (and complimentary). Not complete closure, sure... but then again I'm not certain "complete closure" is always required.

Just my opinion, of course. I don't think there's an accepted route for this sort of tale, especially considering the differences between this sort of story and a regular one.

Touching upon renjility's remark, are you planning for DA3 to address (even in a small way) the disappearance of Hawke and the Warden?

[Sylvianus]

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
That's really all the closure I need.

Without implying anything about the people involved, I think when people say "I need closure" they're not really all talking about the same thing. Some people seem to refer to closure as "I still have questions" or "there still seems to be things my character could do"... in which case I'm not sure there's any ending other than death which would actually give them the closure they seek. Perhaps not even then.

Regardless, it's not invalid as they're clearly feeling like things aren't "finished", but it's one of those things I'm not sure can (or should necessarily) be addressed. It also doesn't help when it's one of those terms (like "cliche") which often get used by people who mean entirely different things when using it.

Cliche... I fear sometimes that writers take too seriously this criticism. This word doesn't seem to mean anything on internet, especially on the bsn. It is almost always used for everything people don't like in a story. I mean, I read this forum and each time I' ve seen this word, it just seemed meaningless, other than the fact, the guy didn't like something. There are people who don't like happy endings, and I can understand that, but why happy endings are cliche, and not bittersweet endings, tragedy, or even heroic death, etc ? Why those things aren't cliche ? There are many of them out there ?

This word is always accompanied by hype and generalities that are intended to describe negatively.

Let's take an example. Apparently it's cliche to see creatures like the Archidemon, to be the bad guy in a story. Does that mean that we cannot create  anymore a story like that ? Does it have to forbid us to explore in this area ? Is it impossible to innovate and to do something really different ? Why the bad guy needs to be necessarily human ? What is the difference ? The most important isn't that we can create a new story, a different story and enjoy it ? Why should we limit ourselves because of this word ? Why should we limit the range of possibilities because of this fear ? It's cliche, so we can't think about this or that.

Why  focus on a story about intrigue and politics would be less cliche, than great events sweeping the world ? Why can we have both for example ?

As far as I am concerned, this story of categorization, kills creativity.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 mars 2012 - 06:24 .

[Rorschachinstein]

renjility wrote...

 

David Gaider wrote...

Sure, but the existence of questions-- even new ones-- does not mean an ending has not occurred. Characters do move off into the sunset, their lives not quite finished and going onto other adventures outside of the narrative... being personally invested in that tale, and left wondering what those "other adventures" might be, is understandable (and complimentary). Not complete closure, sure... but then again I'm not certain "complete closure" is always required.

Just my opinion, of course. I don't think there's an accepted route for this sort of tale, especially considering the differences between this sort of story and a regular one.

 
Of course it does not mean an ending has not occurred. But it can make an ending feel less satisfactory. I don't need to be told the rest of Hawke's life till he/she reaches his/her death bed, so I don't need "complete closure" in the ultimate and absolute sense. For example I found the ending to Dragon Age Origins more satisfactory, more like a bit of closure, even though the epilogue said my Warden's adventures were far from over.
I think my issue with DA2's ending is that a completely new plot seems to be introduced, while it's supposed to be the ending. I do not mean everything should be solved by the end. I understand the need for a new/lingering threat for future games. For instance the ending where Hawke leaves the Gallows/has the templars bowing for him/her, had for me been a better ending than the final part with Leliana. Perhaps that's is because that part interferes with the "moving off into the sunset" and "going onto other adventures". Not the fact that Hawke disappeared, because he/she could have moved into the sunset and the Seekers are simply not able to find him/her, but because of the "that is no coincidence". That suggests a link between Hawke and the Warden, and not that they both have ridden into the sunset with their romance. It kind of removes the free interpretation of what happened both to Hawke and the Warden, and that makes it unsatisfactory.

It's a taste for what's to come. Not necessarily a "dun* dun* dun!" plot twist at the end. Think back at DA:O. Morrigan, Sten and Oghren rode of into the sunset after their respective endings while Leliana, Shale are doing something whacky at the moment. But the overall ending to DA:O was the Archdemon was dead and there was much rejoicing despite whatever side info you were fed.

Now in DAII, sure the closure was vague. But an unsatisfactory is a bit to far into the world of Thedas rather than Hawke's personal story.

[Adynata]

I wouldn't say DA2 lacked closure for me, and after playing ME3 I would gladly take a terse "they rode off into the sunset and were never heard from again" anyday. It would have been nice to get an expansion on the scale of Awakening that could more fully explore the lands around Kirkwall and perhaps other areas that were mentioned in the game (I'm thinking of Sebastian). But I'm good with the hope that some of that will be explored in the next iteration of the game.

[Sylvianus]

I don't like Hawk, but to be fair toward those who care about him, yes, he lacked closure to me. He becomes viscount but disappears a while after, so it's not true that it is fine. Why did he need to vanish while he was the viscount ?

The same for the mage ending. Hawk just vanishes ( and immediately this time ), but that makes more sense since he can't stay to Kirkwall for obvious reasons as well. 

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 mars 2012 - 07:35 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvianus wrote...
I don't like Hawk, but to be fair toward those who care about him, yes, he lacked closure to me. He becomes viscount but disappears a while after, so it's not true that it is fine. Why did he need to vanish while he was the viscount ?

See, this is what I mean.

The idea that a character might move onto a new story is not really a lack of closure-- for the character, perhaps, but not the story. Wondering what a character is going to do next is not a lack of closure... or, at least, not the sort we would worry about. I don't really see a requirement to end a story with "and the character went on to be happy and nothing of interest occurred to them again", and players wanting to know more is understandable but not really an issue.

And I know that's not necessarily the sentimenet being expressed. Someone might feel the ending they did receive wasn't satisfactory... but, again, that's not the same thing as lacking closure in the narraive. Which makes it difficult for me, when people talk about this, to discern whether they're talking about one thing or the other.

But it's cool. Discussing one's feelings isn't a science, after all.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 mars 2012 - 07:44 .

[Dutchess]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

renjility wrote...

Of course it does not mean an ending has not occurred. But it can make an ending feel less satisfactory. I don't need to be told the rest of Hawke's life till he/she reaches his/her death bed, so I don't need "complete closure" in the ultimate and absolute sense. For example I found the ending to Dragon Age Origins more satisfactory, more like a bit of closure, even though the epilogue said my Warden's adventures were far from over.
I think my issue with DA2's ending is that a completely new plot seems to be introduced, while it's supposed to be the ending. I do not mean everything should be solved by the end. I understand the need for a new/lingering threat for future games. For instance the ending where Hawke leaves the Gallows/has the templars bowing for him/her, had for me been a better ending than the final part with Leliana. Perhaps that's is because that part interferes with the "moving off into the sunset" and "going onto other adventures". Not the fact that Hawke disappeared, because he/she could have moved into the sunset and the Seekers are simply not able to find him/her, but because of the "that is no coincidence". That suggests a link between Hawke and the Warden, and not that they both have ridden into the sunset with their romance. It kind of removes the free interpretation of what happened both to Hawke and the Warden, and that makes it unsatisfactory.

It's a taste for what's to come. Not necessarily a "dun* dun* dun!" plot twist at the end. Think back at DA:O. Morrigan, Sten and Oghren rode of into the sunset after their respective endings while Leliana, Shale are doing something whacky at the moment. But the overall ending to DA:O was the Archdemon was dead and there was much rejoicing despite whatever side info you were fed.

Now in DAII, sure the closure was vague. But an unsatisfactory is a bit to far into the world of Thedas rather than Hawke's personal story.

We already got a taste of what is to come: the mage and templar war. It was clear this problem had only just started, and that is fine. I do not find that unsatisfactory. The non-coincidential disappereance of Hawke is, especially when Hawke will not be the focus of DA3. I know there probably will be some kind of explanation for this in DA3, at least I hope there will be, but that does not make the ending of DA2 any better. This "plot twist" could have been saved for the next game, and I honestly think that would have fitted better. It removes the possibility for Hawke to have ridden into the sunset, because apparently something else is going on, something that has made both the Warden and Hawke disappear. I do not necessarily want to keep my own imaginary happily ever after, but if the game deprives me of the chance to imagine the needed closure for my character, I do want to know what it is that has happened then. 

[Ryenke]

For me at least, the 'lack of closure' issue had less to do with my characters having things to do, and more about simply producing the feeling that they did something, after. Part of a trend in storytelling media in general (not just games) is increasingly not having a denoument, or anything that happens after the climax at all, really.

In some ways this makes sense, since the primary means of player expression in RPGs is conversation and combat, and you want to go out on both of those things. That being said, my main dissatisfaction with what Exalted Marches being cancelled means for the DA2 conclusion (and the ME3 thing, really) is that it expends all the narrative momentum of the characters in one shot. They do what they need to do to get to the climax, perform (or witness, in Hawke's case) the climactic act, and then effectively cease to exist. Even Varric ends his interview with '...and then Hawke probably got out of the city alive.'

One of my favorite things about the denoument of Origins isn't so much the slide show explaining where everybody went, but the moment after the coronation (or funeral) where you can just take a minute to breathe and sort of see where the survivors think they might go, and what they might do. Whether they actually do it or not doesn't matter as much as simply establishing the feeling that time and life didn't cease after the big epic ending.

Big win.  I want a game to give me an ending AND a denoument.  DA:O delivered big time.  For my sacrifice ending, I wished there had been a complimentary scene to the post coronation talks, but other than that - it delivered in a big way. 

I think about the ending as being like my graduation ceremony.  The denoument, was the gathering afterwards where I hugged, cried, and laughed with my friends.  The emotional catharsis, the feeling that I touched these people and was touched by these people in return one last time after the big event.

DAII?  Fans of that title seem to be saying (as I read it) they didn't get enough of this especially considering the DAII story was so much more personal focused than the DA:O story.  Full disclosure:  I didn't really enjoy DAII so I'm not talking for myself, but interpreting others comments. 

Replacing a denoument was a teaser (which I think many are incorrectly calling a cliffhanger) about some big Warden/Hawke entaglement in the Thedas crisis post the events in Kirkwall.  That teaser replaced the chance to say goodbye to Hawke & Co. and, imo, was not a satisfying last look at the DAII story.  Not the taste I'd have recommended leaving in the customer's mouths as it were, if BioWare was not fully intending to come good on what that teaser promised.

Just my opinion.  I think the call for closure is more a call for denoument and/or a call to make good on the implied promise in the teaser of a story about the disapearances.

Modifié par Ryenke, 22 mars 2012 - 08:00 .

[monima]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
I don't like Hawk, but to be fair toward those who care about him, yes, he lacked closure to me. He becomes viscount but disappears a while after, so it's not true that it is fine. Why did he need to vanish while he was the viscount ?

See, this is what I mean.

The idea that a character might move onto a new story is not really a lack of closure-- for the character, perhaps, but not the story. Wondering what a character is going to do next is not a lack of closure... or, at least, not the sort we would worry about. I don't really see a requirement to end a story with "and the character went on to be happy and nothing of interest occurred to them again", and players wanting to know more is understandable but not really an issue.

And I know that's not necessarily the sentimenet being expressed. Someone might feel the ending they did receive wasn't satisfactory... but, again, that's not the same thing as lacking closure in the narraive. Which makes it difficult for me, when people talk about this, to discern whether they're talking about one thing or the other.

But it's cool. Discussing one's feelings isn't a science, after all.

But why make  both the warden and Hawke disappear. I guess thats what leaves us wondering. Are we missing some great adventure they are having without us:blink:

[Mike_Neel]

For me personally lack of closure meant that Hawke was just leaving during the climax. Sure we had 3 seperate acts, each with its own story and climax. But Hawke, well Anders I guess really but Hawke was there, essentially started the great "Mage/Templar war" and just leaves. Walks away right in the middle of this upcoming conflict.

Of course I understand that's the entire purpose of a game where the title ends in 2. Essentially it's supposed to end on a climax cliff hanger so people are more invested in the 3rd title. Halo 2, Mass Effect 2, Gears of War 2, Modern Warfare 2. All these "2" titles purposely end on a cliffhanger with no closure so you'll be more likely to go into 3. That's just how it is. So I understand why they did it.

[Brockololly]

For me, I think any sense of "closure" in finishing a story based game like DA or ME comes down to whether or not the plot threads that you're personally invested in come to a satisfying point where you can step away with some sense of accomplishment or satisfaction in the given narrative.

So I can totally acknowledge that if you're looking at DA2 as the story of how Hawke became Champion of Kirkwall, then yeah, for better or worse, that story seems finished. Same as with Dragon Age: Origins, where if we're going to consider the story being told to be about how the Warden stopped the Fifth Blight, that story is over (although the prospect of Urthemiel's soul living on in the OGB sort of makes it not really over...)

I think the problem areas come up when people get more invested in the characters than the main overarching story. For me, the Blight wasn't that interesting in Origins. It was my Warden's relationship with all of the companion characters that sold the game for me, specifically Morrigan. So when Morrigan bailed after defeating the Archdemon, some may say that was a "bittersweet" ending, but since I wasn't too interested in the Blight story anyway, I was primarily interested in the relationship between my Warden and Morrigan, the Dark Ritual and the prospect of my Warden being the father to an Old God Baby.

Seeing as that new plot thread grabbed my interest more than the existing main one of the Blight, how the ending to Origins was handled with Morrigan felt pretty weak, considering where my main investment was. Witch Hunt fixed that to some extent and certainly provided closure for now, but I'm still of the mind that any such future plot/story involving Morrigan would be most engaging to me, if I was playing as my Warden, given his past history. But of course, that would indeed be a new story to tell and thats fine.

While I didn't care much for any of the characters in DA2, including Hawke, I can see why people think it lacked "closure" even beyond latching on to the characters. Its not like Origins where it has a clear structure or narrative goal from the onset. Its not like BG2 where you know you need to save Imoen or take on Irenicus to get your soul back. Its not like Origins where you need to stop the Blight.

You're just sort of ambling around jumping from time frame to time frame. Thats not a bad thing, but it creates a situation I think where it wasn't ever really clear what I was ultimately working towards. After the big battle at the end, I felt like it could have just as easily have opened up to a new chaper on Hawke, just as easily as it ended. Maybe thats where the framed narrative could have done a better job of providing some structure to the overall story, not unlike Alpha Protocol where the framed narrative actually caught up to present day, giving you a satisfying ending.

David Gaider wrote...
The idea that a character might move onto a new story is not really a lack of closure-- for the character, perhaps, but not the story. Wondering what a character is going to do next is not a lack of closure... or, at least, not the sort we would worry about. I don't really see a requirement to end a story with "and the character went on to be happy and nothing of interest occurred to them again", and players wanting to know more is understandable but not really an issue.

I think its more in the actual execution of handling how to present to the player the notion that characters are going to keep on living their lives at the end of a game and doing stuff thats the issue. Just dropping a cliffhanger bomb like the end of DA2 with Leliana talking about the Hero of Ferelden and Hawke "vanishing" isn't very satisfying. Especially if we never end up playing as those characters again.  The player doesn't choose to have Hawke vanish just as much as they didn't choose for some of their Wardens to "vanish" at the end of Awakening. Its a player agency issue to some extent. Its more satistfying when its something like Origins where you're asked what you're going to do next by Anora/Alistair and then the game takes that into account  later on.

I think Origins did endings far better than most games in recent memory. In that, you had some sense of dénouement in the narrative to ease the player down from the sort of high of killing the Archdemon and either dying or surviving. It didn't just toss up a massive stop sign and cut to credits. The funeral scene or the throne room scene gave the player a little bit of time to sort of collect themselves and have the game basically say "Ok, now you're actually at the end of the game, say your goodbyes." It gives the player a little bit of time to think back on what they've accomplished within the world of the game and not just by having a lame achievement pop up saying you've become Vicount...for some random reason.

Then you had the epilogue slides that offered a glimpse of what the other characters you cared about are up to after the game ends. I think thats a more satifying sense of closure and gives the player a better sense of accomplishment than having some prerendered cutscene dropping a one sized fits all cliffhanger bomb on the player's head when they're still wondering if they're actually at the end of the game or not.

David Gaider wrote...
And I know that's not necessarily the sentimenet being expressed. Someone might feel the ending they did receive wasn't satisfactory... but, again, that's not the same thing as lacking closure in the narraive. Which makes it difficult for me, when people talk about this, to discern whether they're talking about one thing or the other.

Again, I would only say that I think its important to recognize what other plots/characters people might end up getting attached to beyond the main plot. Obviously you can't account for everything and the game will end when the main plot is over. But especially if we're going with only one player character per game and never playing as old player characters again, I think its important that as many personally important plots/character relationships be adequately wrapped up by the end of a given game.

I think thats maybe difficult though when you have more plot related characters like Alistair or Morrigan since you can potentially have your player character intimately tied to whatever they're doing. But I guess thats moving on to another issue entirely, with how to deal with old player characters in the world while simultaneously not making them conveniently written out of big events (especially if connected to an important NPC) and not having them do ridiculous things that they never would have done under the control of the player.

Modifié par Brockololly, 22 mars 2012 - 08:34 .