46 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Please try and keep this constructive and calm.

Admittedly, I have not played Mass Effect 3, yet I've watched entire playthroughs and watched most variations of decisions and I've seen many things which they've done which I greatly enjoyed (some, less so). Though what it's done right was well executed, enough so to impress me.

Namely, the emotional attachment to the atrocities which the player can commit in the game to try and win over the Reapers. There's third options which are presented and I'm sure there's people which greatly enjoyed those but the simple fact that the atrocities existed--and sometimes were the superior alternatives in the game--were brilliant.

Two large examples are the shooting of Mordin in the Genophage subplot and the destruction of the Quarians or Geth, you've "won" and achieved your goal of getting reinforcements but can't help but feel horrid as the scenes play out.

It motivates players to try and desperately strive for the happier alternative, sometimes forced to accept it or struggle and then lose out in the end. Nothing cuts deeper than being forced to shoot Mordin, which sabotages the Genophage and has everyone talking about missing him. Shepard throwing away his pistol in disgust at himself/herself was amazing. 

The player who allowed Mordin to "redeem" himself might be saddened at his death, though the player who shot him? Those words are burdening, they're all happy Mordin sacrificed himself but they don't know your involvement. Very generic words suddenly have a new meaning, a much darker meaning.



Commander Shepard--the great unstoppable hero which everybody praises--has skeletons in his closet, it creates a conflicted character which games very rarely allow you to do. The atmosphere onboard the Normandy changes based on the player's own guilt--unless they feel nothing, which then it doesn't matter.

Hell, allow Legion to upload the code and watch the Geth destroy the Quarian species. Tali's disheartening gasps of shock is touching enough even for the most resolute Quarian hater, getting the message across.

As you and the Geth converse about your future together, you can't help but feel bad as Quarian ships crash from space. The Normandy discussions afterwards with most characters change drastically, some confronting you about your decision and allowing you to portray guilt or be distant about it all.



One thing I'd like to see is similar situations being introduced in the Dragon Age universe. You've already got plenty of atrocities in both DAO and DA2, though usually they're not as involved. When you've wiped out the Dalish and sided with the Werewolves (or deciding to wipe out the mages in DA2), the group doesn't seem as sombre (though certain characters mention it).



Scenes like Leandra in DA2 were great for the emotional aspect (the love interest comforting Hawke was great) but they weren't created by the player themselves, they were events which occured regardless. The player feels hurt but they're not as involved as they could be.

Ostagar is touching--though imagine a similar situation where you play as the "Loghain" figure and pull out--abandoning your friends to die, you've got those who confront you about the deaths of their family and those who question how you could abandon your friends but you saved many lives by not charging in.

The player may hate themselves, hate their character and reflect it (be cold and distant or agree with them and admit you hate yourself). A conflicted character--atleast for me--is far greater than the great hero who always wins out, which is why I enjoyed how ME3 handled it at times.

My 2c.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 24 juin 2012 - 11:38 .

[LadyJ28]

I think the Leandra plot in DA 2 could have been executed in a way that the player was directly responsible for getting his/her mother killed. Maybe during the course of the investigation the killer realized you were getting close to finding him and decided to take your mother as collateral damage. I hated the fact that no matter what I did I did not get there in time to save the mother. It took away that element that mass effect has where your actions have a consequence whether direct or indirect.

Modifié par LadyJ28, 25 juin 2012 - 01:14 .

[Fallstar]

LadyJ28 wrote...

I think the Leandra plot in DA 2 could have been executed in a way that the player was directly responsible for getting his/her mother killed. Maybe during the course of the investigation the killer realized you were getting close to finding him and decided to take your mother as collateral damage. I hated the fact that no matter what I did I did not get there in time to save the mother. It took away that element that mass effect has where your actions have a consequence with direct or indirect.

On its own I think being helpless in that situation could have been a good thing to do, to show that sometimes you can't save everyone. I also kind of liked how that quest sort of snuck up on you, I was completely surprised when I first heard about the white lilies being left for you. On a side note, realising due to the lilies that Leandra had been abducted, rather than something blatantly obvious was well done too.

However, as Hawke stands around gaping whilst the Ogre kills one of your siblings, being unable to do anything again seems like a bit too much, kind of making you feel that Hawke can't do anything even in his personal life.

[LadyJ28]

Yeah as a standalone quest/scene the Leandra plot would have been ok. However, it did not seem that Leandra's death really had a great impact on Hawke. It did not appear that it was a defining moment in his life. It was just an event that happened. Like the op stated, in mass effect you get a feeling that these actions and consequences are really affecting the main character.

[LolaLei]

Agreed. It was like "****, my mothers dead... ah well, who wants to kill some bad guys!"

Modifié par LolaLei, 25 juin 2012 - 12:59 .

[LadyJ28]

I'm just hoping for an awesome story for DAIII that shows a continuation of both DA:O and DAII. The only thing that really linked the DA:O and DA:II was the Blight. I wished they would have furthered the story of the old god baby in DAII.

[Brockololly]

Dave of Canada wrote...
One thing I'd like to see is similar situations being introduced in the Dragon Age universe. You've already got plenty of atrocities in both DAO and DA2, though usually they're not as involved. When you've wiped out the Dalish and sided with the Werewolves (or deciding to wipe out the mages in DA2), the group doesn't seem as sombre (though certain characters mention it).

I think in the case of something like the Werewolf/Dalish choice, one way to make it feel more impactful would have been if you had a companion on each side of that conflict, like you have Tali/Legion on each side of the Quarian/Geth conflict. It makes the more abstract bigger issue into something more personal, and, makes for a tougher choice if you like either of the companions, knowing there isn't a third option out (unless there is a third option).

Dave of Canada wrote...
Scenes like Leandra in DA2 were great for the emotional aspect (the love interest comforting Hawke was great) but they weren't created by the player themselves, they were events which occured regardless. The player feels hurt but they're not as involved as they could be.

So are you implying the player should have had more opportunity to affect the outcome of Leandra's plot or that there should have been more variability in how Hawke or the companions reacted to the preordained outcome of Leandra's plot?
I agree there should have been more ways for the player to have been involved in that. Even if there was a third option to save Leandra but with some delayed consequence that bites you in the ass down the line- like being able to save her but doing so lets Quentin get away only to do something worse later on.

Dave of Canada wrote...
Ostagar is touching--though imagine a similar situation where you play as the "Loghain" figure and pull out--abandoning your friends to die, you've got those who confront you about the deaths of their family and those who question how you could abandon your friends but you saved many lives by not charging in.

Yeah, a situation where you're the commander of some force and engaged in battle only to have 2 of your generals confront you with a dilemma. General #1 tells you to send the signal for some force to flank the enemy which will surely win the battle but possibly at great cost to the flanking force. And maybe some character/companion close to the PC is in that flanking force. And then general #2 urges you to pull back all of your forces to save your men to live and fight another day.

Result being if you go with General #1, you win the battle but the flanking force is decimated and your companion/buddy in the flanking force is dead.But maybe this opens up the possibility of a new recruitable companion you couldn't meet otherwise- somebody who was a survivor of the flanking group you basically sent to die; somebody who'll remind you of that choice.  Or if you go with General #2, you retreat and your companion/buddy lives but you've lost the battle which affects how events go more broadly and people begin questioning your reputation as a commander. This sort of thing would probably need to work like Alpha Protocol and the hubs in how certain choices and the order you approached the hubs affected the plot and what characters you'd end up meeting.

Dave of Canada wrote...
The player may hate themselves, hate their character and reflect it (be cold and distant or agree with them and admit you hate yourself). A conflicted character--atleast for me--is far greater than the great hero who always wins out, which is why I enjoyed how ME3 handled it at times.

The problem with ME3 at least was too often the game automatically gave Shepard internal motivations and feelings- like the stupid PTSD nightmares of the dumb kid. That kind of gets to the issue of whether you're going to have a more clearly fixed protagonist or a player character thats truly of the player's creation.

But in general I'd agree with you. More rock and a hard place choices (so long as they're set up appropriately). More choices that pit the player character in situations where they're forced to decide between companions/factions and choices between satisfying some greater goal versus satisfying a companion or somebody you're more personally tied to.

I guess Gaider's desire for bittersweet endings ties into this sort of thing too. But like you mentioned, you need adequate opportunity for the player character to emote and reflect on past events to let those past tough choices sink in. Depending on how you played it, the end of Origins could have sort of went this way, if you romanced Morrigan and she ends up leaving- you have the chance to tell Alistair or Anora you're going to go look for her. It would be nice for more moments a la the end of Metal Gear Solid 3-  Snake "winning" and being praised for his accomplishments but feeling like **** on the inside knowing he had to kill someone he loved-except with a greater sense of player agency as the player has genuine choices and diverging consequences.

[Blastback]

The thing is I think that there need to be those third options which lets the player avoid making choices that will upset them. I get how some people enjoy the conflicted hero who takes actions that makes him hate himself, but for a game, I can't enjoy it. It's just depressing. Which is something I have enough of in real life, I don't need that forced on me in my entertainment. ME3 did it right for most of the game, until the end, where in order to have a chance of surviving, you have to kill an entire species.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Whatever the ultimate verdict on ME3 is in four or five years, I will always love the game for the Genophage choices.  I had my favorite Shepard go with the idea that the Krogan deserved a second chance.  But the whole time I was saying to myself "You ****ers had better not screw it up this time."  Because after their discussions of taking a planet or ten for themselves... I just could not be sure I was doing the right thing.  All I could do was shake my head and feel more conflicted than I ever have at any video game decision before.

In general, I very much would love to see more hard choices that generate a emotional baggage on the player character.  But is it possible to create a meaningful atrocity (yes, I just linked those concepts) in a game 1 or a game 2 or a series?  Dooming the Krogan in ME3...  There's more behind that choice than character model and romance options.  There's time, and companions, shared story, and emotion.  I didn't care as much when killing the Dalish, and probably wouldn't have care if that had been all the Dalish in the world.  Now, if I had to make that same choice for the Dalish in DA3 or DA5?  After having adventured with and saved and been saved by Dalish a dozen time?  I would almost certainly feel something along the lines of the Genophage decision.  A big choice needs to have weight behind it.  I need to feel things in the game world shift when I make that decision, otherwise the choice doesn't leave a mark.  There's no skeleton, there's just dry bones.

I like Brockololly's idea of assigning your companions tasks, and then having to decided who lives and who dies.   It's like ME1 when you choose if Kaiden or Ashley will survive, but both can't live.  I think for a game 1 or a game 2, choices on the companion level could give the best sense of regret or guilt because it's pretty easy to become attached to a person, but much more difficult to become attached to a People.

I would love DA3 to have the kind of hard, No-Shiny-Bubbles answers and events that ME3 had.  (I'd also like it to have a horse that poops money, since we're wishing here.)  I'm ok with the PC losing now and again.  Hawke staring into the fire while his scruffy uncle tries to buck him up, or Shepard listening to the comm relay beeping and just not ready to face the fact that the beacon was gone...  Scuffs like that on a character make the character all the more interesting.  I think in DA3 the story and experience will have gathered the kind weight needed to impact me as a player with the decisions my character faces. 

[deuce985]

Yea and this is the biggest difference between Dragon Age and Mass Effect to me. While Dragon Age has excellent characters too, I do not get attached to them like the ME characters(well, except Morrigan). The emotional parts in DA2 were beyond awkward, as you mentioned.

Mom is dead but Hawke seemingly didn't give a ****. She/he didn't dwell on it, it was a short event that lasted about a few minutes and it didn't have much impact on his/her life?

The exact same thing with the siblings. Hey look! Bethany is coming out the Circle and I haven't seen her in years. Not even a hug? Just a "hey". That was one of the most awkward sequences for the family. Shouldn't my Hawke and Bethany be overwhelmed with joy, regardless of what is going on? I mean c'mon. Take two seconds to love your sister.

Then you have the Carver/Bethany death sequences. Well, they're both awkward at the beginning and the Deep Roads. It's the same problem--no emotion...or rather, they do show some emotion but it felt like a short event just there for filler...

When events like that happen, it needs to have profound impacts on my character. He/she needs to revist it throughout the game. Hawke is human. Even a cold Hawke would be impacted in some way. He's human. Grief is not something you get over in a matter of minutes. You don't bundle it inside and never talk about it.

This is something Mass Effect definitely does better. In ME3, it actually takes a psychological hit on Shepard. While it's a event that's scripted, depending on who died in your adventures, they show up more in his dreams. He remembers that. He's human. Not even a strong character like Shepard can avoid grief or be mentally strong all the time. You can choose not to talk about it with your companions so you don't show signs of weakness but you still have to see what he sees. Other touches in ME3 like the memorial were well done too.

That's definitely an area they need to improve in DA3. As I mentioned in another thread, I'd also like to have more control over my tone when an emotional situation presents itself. Sad, Angry, etc. icons should pop-up in that emotional scene where I can control my tone.

Modifié par deuce985, 25 juin 2012 - 05:47 .

[In Exile]

Blastback wrote...

The thing is I think that there need to be those third options which lets the player avoid making choices that will upset them. I get how some people enjoy the conflicted hero who takes actions that makes him hate himself, but for a game, I can't enjoy it. It's just depressing. Which is something I have enough of in real life, I don't need that forced on me in my entertainment. ME3 did it right for most of the game, until the end, where in order to have a chance of surviving, you have to kill an entire species.

But put another way, making it possible to fail makes those 3rd options worth it. I thought Mordin having to make that sacrifice was really, really worth it, and not a 'dark' choice at all. It was his personal redemption, to boot.

And despite the quarians clutching the idiot ball for dear life the entire game, trying to broker a peace was also worth it.

DA2's problem - and Bioware's problem in general - is that they don't know how to strike the right balance between the player agency and emotional involvement.

[Fallstar]

In Exile wrote...

But put another way, making it possible to fail makes those 3rd options worth it. I thought Mordin having to make that sacrifice was really, really worth it, and not a 'dark' choice at all. It was his personal redemption, to boot.

And despite the quarians clutching the idiot ball for dear life the entire game, trying to broker a peace was also worth it.

DA2's problem - and Bioware's problem in general - is that they don't know how to strike the right balance between the player agency and emotional involvement.

Agreed here. As an example, the ability to convince Zathrian to lift the curse in the Nature of the Beast should have required 4 levels of coercion in my opinion. These 'ideal' solutions shouldn't be easy to do, but should generally be possible.

Having said that, I'm also not opposed to things like what happened with Leandra, where we had no choice. Although I personally think there should have been one 'way out' in that situation, specifically if your Hawke was a mage, he could have performed the ritual without going to Gascard DuPuis first, saving enough time and finding Leandra directly, saving her. However he would have been forced to use blood magic to do so. This would be a plot specific spell that wouldn't require you to have picked BM as a specialization, but it would be an effective way of seeing how far some people might go to maintain their morals.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 25 juin 2012 - 06:41 .

[AkiKishi]

Aside from Tuchanka and Ranoch ME3 was not very good.

The problem with Mordins sacrifice is this. Either a couple of games of MP and it means nothing, or it means nothing in SP anyway since you will never reach that cap.

By adding MP they effectively gave you the best ending without ever having to do anything plot related.

[TonberryFeye]

The issue with DA2's "plot" can be summarised thusly:

If you side with the Mages, Meredith is blatantly evil and crazy... and the Mages resort to Blood Magic in the last stand because they've all decided they're going to die anyway, so "ends justify the means." You turn on them, slay them, then kill Crazy ****. You are remembered as a hero to the Mages.

...so in my second run through I sided with the Templars. Every mage turned out to be a Blood Mage, an abomination, or one about to become another.Thus they were all evil and so it wasn't wrong to commit genocide because they would have killed all of Kirkwall if they'd lived.
Then Crazy **** does her thing and we kill her too. All the Templar bow in admiration of me and sing my praises from the top of the Chant- of whatever the highest point in their temporary church is... and yet I am still a hero to the Mages and a symbol of their fight for liberty from the circle.

I don't know how to express how mind-destroyingly stupid that is. In the final moments of my last playthrough of DA2 everything I just did was rendered pointless! I fought tooth and nail to maintain the status quo - I was always on the side of the Templars, of maintaining the Circle, etc. even when my own Sister protested. What is my reward? To become the exemplar of those who are against everything I stand for!

That kind of stupid needs to stop now! It is why DA2 should be burned, cast aside and never spoken of again. For the sake of the Dragon Age franchise, I hope Bioware take nothing from this game over into DA3.

[Reznore57]

I loved the Tuchanka part ,and Mordin...But Shepard? Hell , no.
Shepard shows emotions but at the cost of the player choice, and it sucks a lot.I didn't care much about earth , I didn't care neither about my ex lover Kaidan , but I had to suffer Shep caring about it a lot.
The highlight of ME is Mordin , he evolves a lot during both games.
And people from ME are really good at cinematics , when the writing is also good , it's just great.
Mordin singing when he dies , Tali and the cliff...
I thought Legion Death was badly done , He dies , i was about to cry .Then Shep goes "hey Tali what about that house on Rannoch?" ...And i was like "Really?!"

DA could have those moments ,the DA team have better writers .They just need to work on their cinematics .
Besides Hawke was a much better anti hero than Shep , but again DA2 was too unpolished to really shine. Act 3 could have been great , but sadly too many short cuts.

About decision , sometimes you should win the day and sometimes you can't and have hard choices.
And yes , your party reaction to these choices should be heard.

But again I hope DA team won't look too much at ME3 , it has its great moments , great cinematics .But it also made me witness one of the most badly written thing i could imagine.And a pc that got taken away from the players , too many auto dialogue , too few dialogue choices , and forced behavior going on.

Modifié par Reznore57, 25 juin 2012 - 10:49 .

[Withidread]

The cinematics in ME3 are certainly beatifully done. The eye candy outside the cinematics is good too.

Unfortunately it's impossible for me to have an intelligent discussion about plot points in the ME series anymore. As far as I'm concerned none of them have any meaning whatsoever.

[Blastback]

In Exile wrote...

Blastback wrote...

The thing is I think that there need to be those third options which lets the player avoid making choices that will upset them. I get how some people enjoy the conflicted hero who takes actions that makes him hate himself, but for a game, I can't enjoy it. It's just depressing. Which is something I have enough of in real life, I don't need that forced on me in my entertainment. ME3 did it right for most of the game, until the end, where in order to have a chance of surviving, you have to kill an entire species.

But put another way, making it possible to fail makes those 3rd options worth it. I thought Mordin having to make that sacrifice was really, really worth it, and not a 'dark' choice at all. It was his personal redemption, to boot.

And despite the quarians clutching the idiot ball for dear life the entire game, trying to broker a peace was also worth it.

DA2's problem - and Bioware's problem in general - is that they don't know how to strike the right balance between the player agency and emotional involvement.

Having the possiblity of failure is great.  It makes for a great alt run for me, and lets others like Dave play the kind of character they want.  I just don't want it forced on players, which is what ME3's ending feels like, and also the quest All that Remains.

[Sanunes]

LadyJ28 wrote...

I'm just hoping for an awesome story for DAIII that shows a continuation of both DA:O and DAII. The only thing that really linked the DA:O and DA:II was the Blight. I wished they would have furthered the story of the old god baby in DAII.

To me I am the complete opposite of wanting a linking story because to me that is what annihilated Mass Effect, for because of how BioWare games work there was only mentioning of your actions or minor quests that could easily be ignored or missed and there would be no impact.  If choice from previous games has a bigger impact on the game and the game world itself I could see linking of previous games to be a good thing, but otherwise I think it does more harm then good to the story.  

If I had to give BioWare one piece of advice is that the fan's aren't always right, for it seems that the first game in both series was superior to the sequels in key areas for me and its not just because of another company for the changes in both games seem to be based on complaints and comments from these very boards.  People didn't like the Mako in Mass Effect 1, so BioWare removed ground combat (granted it was an extreme measure, but it was based on people's complaints) or people wanted a connection between Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect 1 and 2 and we got the Readiness System and characters that felt dropped in or exchanged with no impacting connection to the story. 

Modifié par Sanunes, 25 juin 2012 - 03:05 .

[Brodoteau]

While DA solves this with its rotating protagonist, I have always wanted someone to come after me for killing their father/mother/family etc. I always thought BG2 should have a scene where the son of an Iron Throne guard tries to get revenge for the death of his father or something like that.
While we are whirling dervishes of death in these games, there seems to always bee very little consequence for our mass slaughter. DA2 did this a lot worse than DAO, where at least you were killing Darkspawn most of the time or could justify it as being at war.
When I kill a templar or guard or thug, don't these people have families? Girlfriends? Best friends? Shouldn't they come after me to get a revenge? Shouldn't people be intimidated by me when I walk through the streets for fear that I will kill them?
So I agree with the OP, let us feel the consequences of our choices especially in regards to the wanton death that we deal out.

[schalafi]

I just can't remember an rpg game where I felt I was completely in control of my character and his/her destiny. There was always something... a direction which I was forced to take, a fight I wanted to run away from, but couldn't, a dialogue that didn't let me say what I wanted, a moral decision that I couldn't change, etc.

What games have any of you found where your pc had good control over the important decisions, and the final outcome?

[LadyJ28]

Sanunes wrote...

LadyJ28 wrote...

I'm just hoping for an awesome story for DAIII that shows a continuation of both DA:O and DAII. The only thing that really linked the DA:O and DA:II was the Blight. I wished they would have furthered the story of the old god baby in DAII.

To me I am the complete opposite of wanting a linking story because to me that is what annihilated Mass Effect, for because of how BioWare games work there was only mentioning of your actions or minor quests that could easily be ignored or missed and there would be no impact.  If choice from previous games has a bigger impact on the game and the game world itself I could see linking of previous games to be a good thing, but otherwise I think it does more harm then good to the story.  

If I had to give BioWare one piece of advice is that the fan's aren't always right, for it seems that the first game in both series was superior to the sequels in key areas for me and its not just because of another company for the changes in both games seem to be based on complaints and comments from these very boards.  People didn't like the Mako in Mass Effect 1, so BioWare removed ground combat (granted it was an extreme measure, but it was based on people's complaints) or people wanted a connection between Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect 1 and 2 and we got the Readiness System and characters that felt dropped in or exchanged with no impacting connection to the story. 

 I am totally in favor of having a new story for each DA game. I guess what I really would like is a resolution to the dark ritual and the consequences of doing it. I felt like bioware was teasing me with a really awesome storyline that was never discussed in DAII. The whole time I was playing DA II I was like, "Cool qunari war, mage/templar war...now we get to hear about the OGB right??!!" Nope. I enjoyed playing both games but you are absolutely correct when you say that first game(Both ME and DA:O) was superior to the sequel. That's evident in many movies too (The first pirates of the caribbean was waaaay better than dead's man chest).  I hope that for DA 3 bioware re-visits what worked so well with DA:O and takes a little bit of worked in DAII and creates an impressive mesh that fans of both games will be able to love.

[EricHVela]

I think the lesson for everyone is that you cannot rush a story and expect anything good from it.

I think the lesson for us is that EA is pushing everything towards multiplayer (including Dead Space 3). Sadly, the lesson that keeps repeating itself is that multiplayer integration damages the single-player experience with minimal impact on the multiplayer experience. Multiplayer is a purchase that can easily continue to bring in revenue where single-player experiences are limited to a single sale of each component and nothing further.

In the end, the final lesson is that nothing can be done when someone does not believe the niche market has any validity in profits.

[Dave of Canada]

Quickie as I don't have much time to post today.

I understand your position Blastback, as many people share it. I'm just arguing for the sake of discussion and sharing my opinion.

Blastback wrote...

The thing is I think that there need to be those third options which lets the player avoid making choices that will upset them.

Isn't upsetting the player the reason behind tough choices? If you're not upsetting the player, the choice isn't tough--it's just a choice. Why wipe out the Dalish or the Werewolves if you can have both? Why annihilate the entire Quarian or Geth fleet if you can make peace?

The tough choices become meaningless, it makes the consequences of the "non-optimal" choices seem more like you've failed as a player--rather than you have decided what you'd suffer through. 

I get how some people enjoy the conflicted hero who takes actions that makes him hate himself, but for a game, I can't enjoy it. It's just depressing.

I won't argue it's depressing, though doesn't that make the other aspects stand out more?

Look at A Song of Ice and Fire, the world is harsh and cruel but you've got those few comfortable chapters in the books which people are spending time enjoying themselves--a brief respite from the harshness of the world, either through drink or enjoying themselves or whatever.

Imagine always compromising your ethics / morals while fighting for mage freedom, causing you to win battles and everyone praises you. Maybe you're conflicted and hate yourself for it, though what would you say when the mages gather you around a camp fire and raise their mug in your name and praise you for everything you've done?

It has a much different atmosphere than always winning the battles without sacrifice and compromise, it's far more comforting when you know that you're doing things for others.

Perhaps you don't sacrifice your ethics / morals, maybe more mages die and they don't raise their mug in celebration to you because you've not won as many battles. Wouldn't keeping your ethics / morals be the "celebration" here?

You sleep soundly at night and maybe your friends survive as you didn't risk them as much, they comfort you and always like you but you're not winning as much.

What do you value more? What *happy* ending do you desire the most? Do you care about mage freedom, self interest, morals, ethics, the opinion of others, the friendship of others (ect)? Wouldn't working towards one--depression or not--make the emotional payoff in the end more satisfying?

Mages yell out your name in celebration because you've freed from them from Templar, they're all happy and stuff. What would your reaction be if you had to blow up a thousand and two chantries to achieve this?

Which is something I have enough of in real life, I don't need that forced on me in my entertainment.

I'd question why all video games must not be depressing for the sake of escapism as no such limitations exist in literature / film / ect.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 25 juin 2012 - 08:17 .

[Withidread]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd question why all video games must not be depressing for the sake of escapism as no such limitations exist in literature / film / ect.

They do exist. There's exceptions to every rule, but, in general, people want happy endings and so depressing literature / films / video games / etc... are not as popular as those that are not.

Whether or not that's a limitation is really a question I'd ask the artist.

[schalafi]

I like realistic endings to games. I'm not necessarily looking for "happily ever after", but there has to be some recognition for a job well done. In Origins you received congratulations and thanks for defeating the Darkspawn and the Archdemon, which was appropriate.

In DA2 you received a title (Champion) and the thanks of the citizens of Kirkwall for defeating the Qunari, That was ok, but in the end, after defeating Merideth, all you got was the ability to walk away. No thanks, not any recognition for saving the mages, and the city from being torn apart. That wasn't the ending I had expected, and I was left with the feeling "is that it?"

Modifié par schalafi, 26 juin 2012 - 01:48 .