275 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Judging by your signature, it would seem that you may not like it when these types of events happen. But do you not find them to often be the most emotionally engaging moments of the game?

I'm not following a lot the ME forums, but that signature is more related to the fact that a lot of people think that the endings sucked, not for the fact that certain characters died in ME3.

I've largely seen "the ending sucked" come from some variation of "the ending wasn't happy enough." Could certainly be that I'm mistaken in extrapolating this from her signature. But that's why I asked.

Yeah,  but nearly everyone who didn't like the endings didn't like the fact that  theywere basically the same (from what we saw in ME3) and the plotholes in the final part, as the lack of any explanation in the final dialogue (as in my case, since I'm fine with a bittersweet or most tragic ending); not everyone want a happy ending, though I think that the people who want a happy ending are the majority.

Modifié par hhh89, 10 avril 2012 - 10:39 .

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
Would I have liked the option for a "happy" ending (as in Shepard reunited with the crew, not sunshine and butterflies lol) sure, I would have liked that option. I would have also liked the option for the Reapers to win. Did I mind Shepard sacrificing herself? Not at all, I thought that was a very moving scene (I picked synthesis.)

I see. So, if characters in your party end up dying, even if there's nothing you can do to keep them all alive and happy, this does not conflict with your approach of playing the game mostly to become close to the characters?

Well, of course it sucks when they die but does that mean I shouldn't get to know them because of this factor? Of course not, if anything it makes it more emotionally satisfying when they do die. We knew Thane was dying yet we still took the time to get to know him, some even romanced him... that didn't take away from the experience when he did finally die, even if we wished we could have found a cure for him.

[the_one_54321]

hhh89 wrote...
Yeah,  but nearly everyone who didn't like the endings didn't like the fact that  theywere basically the same (from what we saw in ME3) and the plotholes in the final part, as the lack of any explanation in the final dialogue (as in my case, since I'm fine with a bittersweet or most tragic ending); not everyone want a happy ending, though I think that the people who want a happy ending are the majority.

I'm moving away from whether or not the ending was "good" with this next bit. More conerned over player motivations.

What do you think would have happened if you had a group of dramatically different endings, but in every ending Shepard had to be sacrificed in order to win? Perhaps not simply die, but in some shape or form, Shepard's epilogue would be sad.

LolaLei wrote...
Well, of course it sucks when they die but does that mean I shouldn't get to know them because of this factor? Of course not, if anything it makes it more emotionally satisfying when they do die. We knew Thane was dying yet we still took the time to get to know him, some even romanced him... that didn't take away from the experience when he did finally die, even if we wished we could have found a cure for him.

This sounds largely like the way I approach games that have very few or no story options. eg. Final Fantasy.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 avril 2012 - 10:49 .

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
Yeah,  but nearly everyone who didn't like the endings didn't like the fact that  theywere basically the same (from what we saw in ME3) and the plotholes in the final part, as the lack of any explanation in the final dialogue (as in my case, since I'm fine with a bittersweet or most tragic ending); not everyone want a happy ending, though I think that the people who want a happy ending are the majority.

I'm moving away from whether or not the ending was "good" with this next bit. More conerned over player motivations.

What do you think would have happened if you had a group of dramatically different endings, but in every ending Shepard had to be sacrificed in order to win? Perhaps not simply die, but in some shape or form, Shepard's epilogue would be sad.

I think a lot of people would have kicked off about it most definitely. What would I have done personally? Played through each of them to see how many different endings there are are be pleased about the variety. I think even if Shepard did get a "happy" ending it still would be sad because he/she still lost crew mates along the way, Anderson died, races are stranded etc.

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Doesn't this imply that some kinds of consequences are off limits in the game, even if your actions are supposed to affect the world around you?

Yes.

[The Elder King]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
Yeah,  but nearly everyone who didn't like the endings didn't like the fact that  theywere basically the same (from what we saw in ME3) and the plotholes in the final part, as the lack of any explanation in the final dialogue (as in my case, since I'm fine with a bittersweet or most tragic ending); not everyone want a happy ending, though I think that the people who want a happy ending are the majority.

I'm moving away from whether or not the ending was "good" with this next bit. More conerned over player motivations.

What do you think would have happened if you had a group of dramatically different endings, but in every ending Shepard had to be sacrificed in order to win? Perhaps not simply die, but in some shape or form, Shepard's epilogue would be sad.

I'll be perfectly fine, as I said in my post. I don't have problem with bittersweet or tragic endings, when they are well done.
The problem that I have with the final part of ME3 is the fact that the last dialogue (other than creating a lot of problem for nearly everyone who played the game, but I'll not say more since it's a lot spoiler) should've been longer, to explain well a lot of thing, but was too short (or cut off); plus, as I said the endings are similar, since we don't see any difference in the game based on the ending's choice (with the exception of two small one).
I'm sorry for all the people who wanted an happy ending, but for me it wasn't a lot important, since I can enjoy happy, bittersweet and tragic endings, if they're well done.

Modifié par hhh89, 10 avril 2012 - 11:03 .

[the_one_54321]

LolaLei wrote...
I think a lot of people would have kicked off about it most definitely. What would I have done personally? Played through each of them to see how many different endings there are are be pleased about the variety. I think even if Shepard did get a "happy" ending it still would be sad because he/she still lost crew mates along the way, Anderson died, races are stranded etc.

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Doesn't this imply that some kinds of consequences are off limits in the game, even if your actions are supposed to affect the world around you?

Yes.

hhh89 wrote...
I'll be perfectly fine, as I said in my post. I don't have problem with bittersweet or tragic endings, when they are well done.
The problem that I have with the final part of ME3 is the fact that the last dialogue (other than creating a lot of problem for nearly everyone who played the game, but I'll not say more since it's a lot spoiler) should've been longer, to explain well a lot of thing, but was too short (or cut off); plus, as I said the endings are similar, since we don't see any difference in the game based on the ending's choice (with the exception of two small one).
I'm sorry for all the people who wanted an happy ending, but for me it wasn't a lot important, since I can enjoy happy, bittersweet and tragic endings, if they're well done.

Interesting contrast.

[The Elder King]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...
I think a lot of people would have kicked off about it most definitely. What would I have done personally? Played through each of them to see how many different endings there are are be pleased about the variety. I think even if Shepard did get a "happy" ending it still would be sad because he/she still lost crew mates along the way, Anderson died, races are stranded etc.

Maria Caliban wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Doesn't this imply that some kinds of consequences are off limits in the game, even if your actions are supposed to affect the world around you?

Yes.

hhh89 wrote...
I'll be perfectly fine, as I said in my post. I don't have problem with bittersweet or tragic endings, when they are well done.
The problem that I have with the final part of ME3 is the fact that the last dialogue (other than creating a lot of problem for nearly everyone who played the game, but I'll not say more since it's a lot spoiler) should've been longer, to explain well a lot of thing, but was too short (or cut off); plus, as I said the endings are similar, since we don't see any difference in the game based on the ending's choice (with the exception of two small one).
I'm sorry for all the people who wanted an happy ending, but for me it wasn't a lot important, since I can enjoy happy, bittersweet and tragic endings, if they're well done.

Interesting contrast.

Agreed, but as I said, people who didn't like ME3 endings have in common the fact that there is no difference between the endings and the plotholes in the last part (plus the presence of a certain character in the end:sick:). Othen than that, you'll find people who wanted an happier ending in one of the endings (I think they're the majority), people who don't want an happy ending because it decrease the value of a bittersweet ending (though I'd say that Bioware did well enough this with DAO) and people who are fine with having only bittersweet or sad endings or both bittersweet and happy endings, because they like both if they're well done (as myself, but I don't think that there a lot of people who share my view).

Modifié par hhh89, 11 avril 2012 - 08:53 .

[Taleroth]

The only thing I really ask is that they be relevant. Leliana and Sten were cool. But they had no relevance. They were just people we stumbled upon.

Every character comes with their own personal story. But why can't that story ever be linked to the greater conflict? I guess it's great to have characters show off bits of the far away elements of a setting, but I've come to question the lack of cohesion.

It's not bad. This isn't criticism. It's more of an honest question. Or just something I'd like to see tried.

[lx_theo]

Dear Mr. Gaider and the writing team...

I don't believe that the problem people are getting ( I was perfectly fine how it is) is based on badly written or made characters. I think it stems that from the majority of their class quest and real interaction with them is based around their faults so much in DA2, thats it feels as though this defining trait makes them almost one dimensional.

So here is my suggestion for change. Make more conversations and quests where they are just living their life. See the banter where they talk about playing cards and stuff. Why not let the PC be apart of all that. Maybe even make small multiple character quests. Like, going back to the card playing example, you could play cards as a group. It would make for a great character moment among all of them.

Thank you for your time,
LX_Theo

[Takamori The Templar]

simfamSP wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Takamori The Templar wrote...
Dear Mr. Gaider, I mean no offense to your person, but can you or your writer team craft a character with that complexity?

I wrote Irenicus, but beyond that I really can't answer your subjective question in a way that will satisfy you. Fans have a variety of reactions to followers-- some brand them "whiners" when they utter the first complaint, some love the drama, some adore them and some hate them passionately... really I'm happy with the followers being anything that isn't simply unremarkable.

As for your estimation of a complex character, you're welcome to hold whatever bar you wish. Whether we reach it is not really something I'm worried about, so long as our characters do what we need them to do.

I don't see the need to make characters complex. There is an elegance to simple characters that I like. Look at Varric, or Aveline. They are pretty 'simple,' but are amongst the best characters in DA2. Complex characters should be left to villains and other major characters. Companions don't really need to be all that 'in-depth' to be enjoyable.

And you wrote Irenicus? Bravo Mr.Gaider!

Like someone mentioned before, having everyone as a complex character its impossible.
But having a few to suprise the player is no harm and actually adds in terms of story.

I wouldn't mind having Charles the simple peasant that joined the militia and today is my party tank, though due to his past he don't have much cultural education, leaving him as a person depending on personality to be more reserved due to not understand more complex stuff or to be more curious since he is being put in a new level of knowledge.
Love fleshing out a characters personality, adds life to a game.Instead of he is what it is and don't bother with it.

[GhostKiwi]

My thing is... everyone in real life has a life that is a complete mess. Everyone in real life has some kind of issue. The characters in DA2 are relateable. You want a playable version of Lord of the Rings where the one person who ever messes up is killed in his redemption, which would make a terrible game. I consider these games more like Terry Pratchett's writing-- everyone is a mess, with messy lives and neurosis and issues. It's beautiful. Even Wynne and Aveline are not as stable as people try to make them seem.
As for condemning Anders and his actions, put go read The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, or In the Time of Butterflies (Warning both have REALISTIC people as characters, not perfect archetypes, so you probably won't like them). You'll get an idea what it's like to live under such an oppressive system as the Chantry. It had it coming, and he absolutely did the right thing. Count yourself lucky you can criticize your system of government without disappearing in the night.
Medieval romances were crap. Even the intelligent people of the time thought so, or you wouldn't have Don Quixote.

[the_one_54321]

He blew up a bunch of innocent people along with the group he viewed as the enemy. Yeah, totally the right thing.

Also, this is fiction, not social commentary. I read books and international news articles for social commentary. It's not entertaining, it's part of life. This is supposed to be entertainment. I would like realistic presentation, but I want fiction in the story.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 12 avril 2012 - 04:30 .

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Also, this is fiction, not social commentary.

All fiction* is social commentary.

*With a coherent narrative and above a certain length.

[the_one_54321]

Of course there's going to be some social commentary. I don't mean that every instance of social commentary should be eliminated. But social commentary should be secondary, or even less than secondary.

[The Elder King]

the_one_54321 wrote...

He blew up a bunch of innocent people along with the group he viewed as the enemy. Yeah, totally the right thing.

Agreed. Even if he was right in asking for more freedom for mages, his actions were unforgivable. He killed innocent people, and the member of the Chantry who defended the mages against the Right of Annulment. He wanted to starting a war.
Though I have to say that Meredith's reaction was extreme and unneccessary, but she is an example of Kirkwall's madness, so her reaction is expected.

Modifié par hhh89, 12 avril 2012 - 05:30 .

[Demx]

I can handle the psychos, the stoics, the moneygrubbers, the sultry, and the good do-ers. I just can't handle the level brooding and "woes is me" that was done in DA2.

[Persephone]

As long as one of the screw-ups is called Loghain Mac Tir, I'm on board.

Yeah, yeah. Unlikely, 'cause so many kill him off.

A girl can dream though, right? And if we ARE in Orlais...he IS in Orlais and....

Just gimme Simon Templeman already!

Modifié par Persephone, 12 avril 2012 - 08:51 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Persephone wrote...

As long as one of the screw-ups is called Loghain Mac Tir, I'm on board.

Yeah, yeah. Unlikely, 'cause so many kill him off.

A girl can dream though, right? And if we ARE in Orlais...he IS in Orlais and....

Just gimme Simon Templeman already!

I can at least second the part about wanting him back in some capactiy. Since I always off Loghain, I'm afraid that barring a canon decision about him, he has zero chance of traveling around with my Warden. If he does show up voicing a new character that would definitely be awesome.

[Aggie Punbot]

the_one_54321 wrote...

(this is halfway tongue-in-cheek, so try to take it with equal measures of humor and seriousness)

I know it's a stretch, but maybe for the next installment we can put together a team of capable and reliable and emotionally stable companions? People that can handle their own problems for a change. And more specifically, how about we not recruit a whole party of colossal ****-ups that will alternate between throwing wrenches in your works, and stabbing you in the back as a result of mental instability or a lack of mental fortitude.

I'd like to see some party NPCs that provide you with extra quests and a greater range of story, without them needing you to hold their hand or solve all their problems for them. And, most preferably, I'd like to avoid casual social simulation fun time. If I wanted to play dating sims, I'd go play dating sims. What I would like to see come from party interaction is rousing heroics and romance.

In summary; strong, capable characters, and heroic thematics.

But capable, reliable and emotionally stable NPCs are boring and won't provide any wiggle room for entertaining speculations (or opportunities for tacked-on angst). [/sarcasm]

[the_one_54321]

I think it would allow plenty of wiggle room. There's lots of other ways to make a character interested, that don't involve them being screw-ups.

[filetemo]

Maybe I'm wrong but I will express my concerns:

We'll never again get companions as fleshed out as the ones in DA:O because the development cycles are much shorter and there's less time for iteration.

[Aggie Punbot]

I believe you are correct. How long did they have to work on DA:O? I had heard rumblings of five years due to repeated delays. This allowed for more content to be added along the way. Something like that would never be allowed in today's competitive video game market.

[Maria Caliban]

filetemo wrote...

Maybe I'm wrong but I will express my concerns:

We'll never again get companions as fleshed out as the ones in DA:O because the development cycles are much shorter and there's less time for iteration.

The DA II companions were every bit as fleshed out as the DA:O companions.