45 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

They do seem to have become regarded as obligatory to Bioware games - Dark Ritual, Save the Council, Meredith vs Orsino, Collector Base etc - but should they be?

When done right they're good, but they can also feel tacked on, or make it seem like everything else you did in the game is irrelevant.  They're never followed up on properly in subsequent games, and in fact doing so would likely require a seperate games to do so.

So I think that if a game has plenty of choice before the end, and hopefully an ending sequence or epilogue that will reflect the consequences of those earlier choices, the writers could skip on the Big Final Choice rather than force the plot to provide one.

But I don't know if I'm right about this, or if the forums would rise in revolt at not having one.

[Kail Ashton]

Dragon Age 2 didn't think so, look how well that turned out

[Wulfram]

Kail Ashton wrote...

Dragon Age 2 didn't think so, look how well that turned out

Picking Mages vs Templars was a Big Final Choice.

edit:  It's just DA2 felt the need to tell us it made no real difference during the game, rather than waiting until the sequel.

Modifié par Wulfram, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:15 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

It depends on how it's contextualised within the story, really. If the choice is something absolutely core to the narrative and the themes it presents the player, sure it's necessary. If not, then it's not a necessity.

Dark Ritual is a good example. Not really necessary and one that bite BioWare on the arse.

The other aspect of it is the build-up.

For an endgame in a choice-centric RPG to feel satisfying, it has to feel like a culmination of your choices. Whether it's in terms of skills/abilities (everything you've learned sets you up for this), or in terms of decisions you've made along the way altering the specifics/details of the endgame.

So in essence, the BIG FINAL CHOICE is a BIG FINAL CHOICE, because it's been built up by the rest of the game and is at the heart of the central narrative arc. At least, ideally. It's why for example, the Landsmeet (and Loghain choice) is considered the climax of Origins, because that's what the game built up as one of two core narrative arcs.

Is it necessary? No, not really. But if pulled off well, it's really satisfying.

See: Alpha Protocol.

[TonberryFeye]

Wulfram wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

Dragon Age 2 didn't think so, look how well that turned out

Picking Mages vs Templars was a Big Final Choice.

edit:  It's just DA2 felt the need to tell us it made no real difference during the game, rather than waiting until the sequel.

DA2 had no choices at the end.

For proof, please try to guess which of these is the 'mage' ending, and which is the 'templar' ending:

> Orsino turns out to be a Blood Mage, becomes a Harvester and you kill him. Meredith tries to have you executed, goes insane due to an evil relic. You fight her and she dies. You become a hero to the Mages.

> Orsino turns into a Harvester and you have to kill him. You then confront Meredith, who has gone insane due to an evil relic, and kill her. You become a hero to the Mages.

The choice here was... what exactly?

[Kleon]

Let the final segment of the story be a consequence of players previous choices.
You did that and that -> trololol look at what you did, DEAL WITH IT.
Big final choice is a little overused.

Then again, so many scenerious seem to eventually lead to "BIG FINAL CHOICE". 
Next Dragon Age is supposed to be about a war, perhaps instead of "you MUST unite the lands/factions" let it go the full blown war ending with a peace treaty that the player will have to coordinate with influence limited by the players choices.

Modifié par Kunkryst, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:34 .

[Sir JK]

Yes and no. A final big choice does not really add or detract much from the plot unless it has been properly set up. Done right it can be immensely satisfying, done wrong it feels tacked on. In theory there is no neccessity of them t all.

However, it is also the last chance we have to to take a stance for our character. If we have been doing that the entire game, then perhaps it is not neccessary. But at least in part the purpose of a rpg is to create a character the narrative responds and reacts to. The final big choice is the last true opportunity to do so. Not providing it can be percieved as robbing the player of the last opportunity to express their character.

[fchopin]

Wulfram wrote...

Picking Mages vs Templars was a Big Final Choice.

If this is what you call an ending then i don’t want an ending from Bioware, it was rubbish.

[RedArmyShogun]

Necessary? Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own Urin? No, but I do anyways because its sterile and I like the taste!

Now if you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball.

[Fast Jimmy]

Nobody makes me bleed my own blood... NOBODY!

I would like it if, as other posters have alluded to, the culmination of your prior choices made the big choice for you. Sided with the mages at every opportunity? That should be reflected at the end, instead of it not being a factor at all when deciding Mage or Templar.

[Reznore57]

I think the "final choice " is nice , it often tries to deal with moral dilemmas.
Sometimes it's good , when you think about it for like more than 5 minutes , sometimes it's bad ...when the story didn't lead you up to those final questions.

But like mentions above , Bioware seems to have a hard time dealing with consequences .
If you're a new player to DA franchise , you probably won't notice ..if not , well it's getting a bit tiresome .
I think they write themselves into a corner with the Dark ritual , and tried to change that in DA 2 .
I hope in DA 3 , we 're gonna at least see a bit of differences if you side with the mages or templars...I'm not asking for world shaking things .
Just something that makes us feel like what Hawke choose and did somewhat matters.
Because for now it seems Hawke was just some figurehead.

[Cultist]

Big Final Choice is worse than a lot of small choices during the game. And it is always better is multiple choices determine the final, not just beat final boss and select destroy the darkspawn, control the darkspawn or...well, you know.

[Fortlowe]

CrustyBot wrote...

It depends on how it's contextualised within the story, really. If the choice is something absolutely core to the narrative and the themes it presents the player, sure it's necessary. If not, then it's not a necessity.

Dark Ritual is a good example. Not really necessary and one that bite BioWare on the arse.

The other aspect of it is the build-up.

For an endgame in a choice-centric RPG to feel satisfying, it has to feel like a culmination of your choices. Whether it's in terms of skills/abilities (everything you've learned sets you up for this), or in terms of decisions you've made along the way altering the specifics/details of the endgame.

So in essence, the BIG FINAL CHOICE is a BIG FINAL CHOICE, because it's been built up by the rest of the game and is at the heart of the central narrative arc. At least, ideally. It's why for example, the Landsmeet (and Loghain choice) is considered the climax of Origins, because that's what the game built up as one of two core narrative arcs.

Is it necessary? No, not really. But if pulled off well, it's really satisfying.

See: Alpha Protocol.

Exactly. Execution is key. You play through this amazing narrative, building you character up, physically, socially, and finacially and as much as you enjoyed doing it, at the end of the game you want all that work to pay off! I mean, who doesn't want to make the big decision in a Bioware game? Even if that decision is not to decide? 

Also: Crusty I cannot look at you avatar without laughing my ass off. Well done sir. 

[PsychoBlonde]

scyphozoa wrote...

Not at all. I love games with choices, but choices without consequences feel hollow. ME3 is a good example of this. There didnt need to be a final choice at the end of a trilogy, there needed to be a culmination of consequences for all the choices already made. The end of a game is the best and usually the last opportunity for a player to see these consequences. If too many resources are spent on a final choice rather than reflecting consequences, both the choices made during the game and that final choice are less significant if the consequences arent shown. On short, choice is only half of the design, the other half is consequence. To place greater emphasis on one than the other undermines the quality of both.

I agree with this 100%.  I'd rather the last 20-30 minutes of the game be a bunch of results from things you did earlier in the game instead of having some last-minute this-or-that decision that has basically nothing to do with anything else in the game up to that point.

Now, if they wanted to do it REALLY well, they'd have some hard decisions potentially come up that were the results of things you'd done earlier.  Put Harrowmont on the throne?  Your dwarven allies are all casteless dwarves (because Harrowmont is a traditionalist who won't allow dwarves who've been on the surface to return to their caste) who don't take well to organization.  Put Bhelen on the throne, and maybe the dwarves take advantage of the confusion to stake a claim to a large chunk of  Fereldan countryside.  Now you have to decide what to do about it.

[Pasquale1234]

No, I don't think it's necessary.

In fact, I think it could be really refreshing to have the end game play out the consequences of the choices you've made throughout the game.

I also think it could be a pretty complicated undertaking to construct a story in that way, but if it was done right, it could be spectacular.

[EricHVela]

I would like to have a big, final tally of the consequences from the player's actions throughout the game like ... say ... Dragon Age: Origins.

(I don't care if the consequences carry over into other games. I won't know what's canon until the other games arrive anyway so I'll likely try to get as many endings as possible so one of them would be canon.)

[Maclimes]

The problem with DA2's ending was that it had nothing to do with the player.

In DA:O, technically, you don't have a say in the ending: If you play the game all the way to the end, the Archdemon dies and the Blight is defeated. Future games obviously hinge on that, and there's no way to change that. Your choices, however, feel more impactful. You decide WHO kills the archdemon and you decide HOW it's done. Throughout the game, you've also decided who rules (and lives or dies) in every single major community in Ferelden (from the king of the dwarves, fate of the mages, survival of the Dalish...). The end result is a unique ending, just for you, despite the fact that the "big event", death of the archdemon, happens regardless.

Future games don't need to be completely re-written based on your Ferelden-changing decisions, because they don't take place in Ferelden. People can simply make reference to "those poor mages at Lake Calenhad" or something similar.

That's where DA2 failed. Throughout the game, every single decision you make is defeated by the narrative. At the end, you decide only which side YOU join, but it has no impact on the final event. None at all. A better option would have been thus:

1 - You side with the mages. With the Champion's assistance, the mages emerge victorious in the battle, and Orsino never resorts to dark magic (because the Champion's support made that battle-tipping advantage unnecessary). Meredith is killed in a dramatic final battle between the Champion and herself, in which she does insane and berserk.

2 - You side with the templar. With the Champion's assistance, the templar emerge victorious in the battle. Meredith never goes insane, because the Champion's support helps her feel more justified and more secure in victory, making her less likely to freak out. Orsino, desperate, resorts to dark magic, and is killed in a final dramatic battle with the Champion.

In this way, the war between the mages and the templar still begun, right there in Kirkwall. And DA3 can still be about that war. But when referring to the spark that ignited the fire, people will either refer to "that power-mad Meredith", or "that blood mage Orsino". Orsino/Meredith can have small cameos in DA3, based on your decision, like how Alistair has in DA2 (Perhaps a side quest to help them completely overcome their own brand of madness that was temporarily avoided by the Champion's assistance).

[thats1evildude]

But the side you choose determines whether or not you become the viscount of Kirkwall. That is a big difference.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 05 juillet 2012 - 07:27 .

[TonberryFeye]

fchopin wrote...
If this is what you call an ending then i don’t want an ending from Bioware, it was rubbish.

Dragon Age 2 doesn't have an ending; it just stops.

From what I've heard, this is common in Bioware games now; they just stop.

DA:O ended. You slay the Archdemon, you get to see how the Ritual choice plays out, and an epilogue describing how your choices impacted the world. Curtain falls, and the plot is over.

Whilst Origins doesn't wrap up everything no matter how you end it (the world doesn't stop because the game does, after all), it doesn't rely on a cliffhanger. Cliffhangers are a terrible idea and should never be used if there is any other alternative. DA2 had no need to be a cliffhanger; it's just one more piece of proof it was a terrible game.

[Dragoonlordz]

DA3 needs a big end battle, considering the probable plot. But it does not need a choice of picking sides. This time make it them all vs you. Both Mages, Templars, Chantry and Circle. You have the Fereldan armies and maybe Wardens plus Seekers as allies who come to your aid through the game to help put end to the war once and for all. There need be no end choice because it would be a combination of all choices made through the game up till that point including choices made in previous games for example who leads the ferelden army, is there any aid from kirkwall or wardens keep in amaranthine etc. Being no end game choice itself, you need to make all the choices in the game very well done and have large impact to make up for it. The end game itself plays out based on the previous choices not just some end final choice that ends up overriding all previous ones.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 juillet 2012 - 11:16 .

[element eater]

no infact i think they should avoid big final choices in favour of smaller more personal ones

[KDD-0063]

It is unnecessary. In fact I don't think big final choices fit into many stories well.
The best I've seen is probably NWN2: MotB, but that's because there are uncut strings with previous gameplay and choices.

[Emzamination]

Of course it's necessary, that's why it's called a climax.The final choice is suppose to put the fate of w/e, wether it be the galaxy in mass effect or thedas in your hands.I'm glad david & jennifer are the ones writing the stories, you guys would write boring,lifeless, husk of stories. Bleh