Sylvius the Mad wrote...
David Gaider wrote...
The only part where I would disagree with you, Allan, is when the "optimal ending" comes without cost... at least in those situations where a cost is appropriate. Sometimes happy endings should just be happy endings. They're grand. But when you have a dramatic situation, offering an easy out cheapens it no matter how much a player might want it.
Of course they want it. If we've done our job right, they care about having that happy ending enough to want it because they want everything to work out for everyone involved. Giving it to them is not always a good idea.
I hold Redcliffe up as my own personal failure on this front. I wimped out and gave the "third option" of a consequence-free solution just by doing something the player was going to do anyhow... when that really should have come with its own cost. Yes, you should have been able to save both Isolde and Connor... at the price of returning and seeing the village of Redcliffe desolated just the same as if you'd abandoned it to the zombie horde.
Which is not to say that all plots should exist to batter the player over the head with their grimdark realness (in my opinon). But neither would I ever agree that just because a player wants their escapist everything-works-out ending that it's my job to give it to them.
Just my two cents.
I really like the third option in Redcliffe. The third option in Redcliffe requires, as Allan points out, really bad decision-making on the part of the Warden. There is no in-game reason to think the third option will work. It's an incredibly high-risk option, and only the most blindly optimistic person would try it. That it works out for well is terrific. That's wonderful drama.
The high-risk gamble should sometimes work. As mentioned above, the best storytelling usually arises from game systems, not the authored narrative, but what makes that system-based storytelling work is the improbabilty of many of the outcomes. That's what the Redcliffe third option mimicked, and it was wonderful.
I'm not convinced. If there was a confluence of factors that made going to the Circle work out, then fine, I'm all for a rainbow and sunshines outcome.
Say, for instance, if you recruited everyone possible for the defense of Redcliffe, including the Dwarven mercenary and Dwayne, got the amulets of protection, got the best armor, made sure everyone survived the actual attack on Redcliffe, spared Jowan and had already freed the Tower, then when you got back, a happy outcome that the undead rose again, but with all the combined might, the town was able to resist unscathed, would be totally earned then!
If you did not have everyone survive the Redcliffe fight, did not complete every objective to give Redcliffe the absolute highest chance of defending itself (including sparing Jowan, a somewhat nebulous choice), then you have varying degrees of consequence, up to and including the death of Connor, Isolde, the town and Teagan. Similarly, if you had not freed the tower and then had to slog through the long Tower and Fade levels, complete the entire CIrcle quest, THEN returned to Redcliffe, this would result in a similar "most people are dead" outcome, even with the highest defense options.
Happy endings are not the devil. Making them as easy to choose as "Dialogue Option 1 - Not best outcome, Dialouge Option 2 - best outcome" is.
In regards to Rannoch, I thought that if getting the perfect ending was a llittle harder, it would have been totally acceptable. If you reprogrammed the Geth instead of destroying them, if you had stood for peace during Tali's trial, if you had been given more options in how things progressed in ME3 that would have made all the decisions lining up over 2 games give the best possible option , then I'd be fine. Instead, it was just a matter of the highest Repuatation rating... a mechanic that was already nerfed with the removal of separate Paragon/Renegade persuassion rankings.
As is, the Rannoch ending was still really good to me (I'm a sucker like that), as well as the Tuchanka ending (although that actually did require correct choices over a number of games).
I proposed in a separate thread weeks ago of something along the lines of having the order you do main quests be a pretty weighty factor.
For instance, in DA:O, doing the Circle first and the Brecialian Forest last would have allowed you to get the best possible Circle ending (if you so choose) but the ending for the Dalish/Werewolves may have been more limited or dark. Say... the Darkspawn had spread over much of the forest, so the werewolves had become corrupted by the Taint, now stronger enemies and possibly no longer able to be saved. Similarly, the elves may have succumbed to more of the werewolf plague, and so characters like the apprentice Keeper (my mind is blanking here) or the weaponsmith who makes you the iron bark items are already dead.
This could allow for a much darker outcome of the quest, even in the best scenario. Zathrien might sacrifice himself to end the curse, but then the taint kills all the werewolves immediately, there is no apprentice Keeper to guide the clans and their numbers are already dwindled due to the werewolf plague. They honor the Warden's oaths that bind them to battle, knowing it is likely a death march for the last of their kind.
That's pretty dark. But also not DEFAULTING on dark. If you went to the Brecillian Forest first, you could get the rainbow and sunshine ending that we saw in DA:O... but that means saving the Circle or Redcliffe for last, which would darken their endings.
As a player, I'd love this, as it would give a TON of weight to every choice I make. I'm not sure how this would play out in the plot of The Next Big Thing, but a mechanic like this could allow a dark option to be the ONLY option, but one that could be avoided in some circumstances... at the sacrifice of other outcomes being good.
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 juin 2012 - 08:32 .
Retour en haut
