45 réponses à ce sujet

[OMTING52601]

I think it'd be nice if the third game had a TW2 style - at some point the player picks one faction or the other and the plot plays out from there. That doesn't mean if one chooses the mages every decision from there on out has to be mage-friendly or whatever, just that when the end comes, whatever side one is on is the side one is fighting for/with to win/end the war. It would offer obviously replayability, but would also keep the big final battle without the last minute 'choice' where in the games story creator might decide that player choice doesn't matter(like in DA 2). Heck, if they wanted to make it more interesting, they could even toss in moments on either path where the player character could change sides, if they wanted.

[Pzykozis]

Hmm no, not at all I'd prefer if the divergence was fairly self contained per game rather than completely all over the place, Strong fairly linear end whereby previous choices have affected it in some small way. but having big divergence in the middle or maybe even at the beginning. Choices that are narrative based and not just personal based made at the end are just kind of left hanging in limbo until the next game inevitably doesn't pick them up because.. well you have a really big important event that did or did not happen.. and important events need fairly impressive conclusions usually.

[AkiKishi]

Depends on the game and how the plot of the game is structured. The last event in Atelier Totori for example is going to get your final grade. All the choices have already been made by that point.

The ending that plays out (there are around 18) then depends on what you did during the game.

[Blacklash93]

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

That example did prove to make the final chapter of Orgins more interesting, though. It made the conflict a bit more than "Kill the giant dragon and save the world." It called the motivations, significance, and nature of Morrigan and Flemeth into question, for one. It also made it so no one had to be sacrificed to slay the Archdemon. It wasn't necessary, but it was welcome and served to deepen the story and its outcomes. I wouldn't want Origins without it, anyway.

And it hasn't bit Bioware just yet. That depends on how they ultimately decide to handle it which is yet to be seen.

[Amycus89]

I would much, much rather have a few "minor" choices spread out through the story, leading to the end, than just one big final choice.

In the cases when you have one big, final choice, you can usually just save right before that one, and then reload to get each different ending. That doesn't give much replayability, and your choices feel shallow.

However, when you have to make some "smaller" choices early on, it means that you will have to replay large sections no matter what if you want to see all the endings. And thus, it feels more like your choices has meaning. The "dark ritual" in DA:O, and the decision of who will rule Ferelden, are examples of this... though it would have helped if these choices that one way or the other affected the ending could have been spread out a bit throughout the game.

Take alpha protocol for example, the dialogue choices you picked in the prologue/tutorial turns out to affect the final battle.

[Cimeas]

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.

Yeah the thing about the Dark Ritual is especially sad because that could have been made a key element of the next game, but now it can hardly be more than a side quest since the whole OGB might never have happened. 

[Plaintiff]

TonberryFeye wrote...
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.

I guess that means Star Wars: Episode V was a terrible film and  that A Song of Ice And Fire is a terrible novel series, by extension making Game of Thrones a terrible television series. In fact, pretty much any story in any medium that is told over multiple installments automatically sucks!

[SirGladiator]

I suppose it all depends on what it is. In KOTOR, you get the big choice of siding with Bastilla and going to the dark side, or staying with the rest of your team and going light side, that was quite well done. Obviously the 'dark ritual' thing in DAO was sheer brilliance, giving you multiple options with huge impact, both in the game itself as well as the potential for a huge impact in the future. ME/ME2 had plenty of big decisions at the end. DA2 had a big decision, but it seemed largely irrelevant, perhaps because the whole ending of having to fight both Orsino and Meredith no matter what, for no logical reason, just ruined whatever good idea there was behind it. I don't think there 'has' to be a big decision at the very end, but clearly when executed well they're pretty great. Looking at TW2 as an example, the biggest decision with real consequence is in the middle, not at the end. Your big decision at the end doesn't really have any in-game consequence whatsoever, as far as I can tell, you just have the satisfaction of knowing that you spared the life of the beautiful maiden (who also happens to be a dragon), or you can take the evil path of killing her. But whatever you do it doesn't effect anything the rest of the game, as far as I know.

I'd like to see DA3 take a page out of the TW2 playbook in terms of their big decision with consequence coming in the middle, and as a result the game plays out an entirely different way. TW2 didn't execute it well though, if you side with the 'good' guy in your big choice, you're forced to support the bad guy in the next chapter, you're only allowed to side with the good girl over the bad guy in chapter 2 if you first side with the bad guy over the good guy in chapter one. It doesn't make any sense, theres lots of room for Bioware to do it a LOT better, while still keeping the good aspects of it. For example, you make a decision that clearly puts you on the side of the mages. You then, the rest of the game, have access to the home base of the mages, the mages are friendly to you, the templars either try to kill you on sight or at least are hostile to you, certain quests are unique to that side and/or play out differently than they would if you'd sided with the templars, etc. and vice versa. That would be a way of doing what TW2 did right, but in a way that is actually satisfyingly logical. Of course that doesn't mean there couldn't be a nice big decision at the end too, there should be, and once again it should have more obvious consequence than the DA2/TW2 final decisions. There's lots of different ways to go, and I'm confident that DA3 will learn its lessons well, from a wide range of sources, and make the choices great again!

[Kidd]

The end is the part where your consequences are laid out imho. Depending on the story itself, you may get a choice there or not (ME2's final choice for instance worked very well - no real consequences in ME3 but it was a good choice to give the player), but ultimately it is about consequence. We didn't have any choices after the Dark Ritual in DAO - after that it was just a stroll toward the ending and the epilogue which showed consequences. And that worked fine, methinks.

[Leoroc]

I would have preferred making the DA2 choice at the start of act 3 and hving the whole of act three be either leading a rebellion or putting it down.

[Saphean71]

Having to choose at the end of the game is fine, but after all the choices made in DAO importing into DA2 made no difference at all (well apart ro a few conversations which ultimately had no affect n the game). In one DAO playthrough I ended up with Cullen going mad, killing some mage apprentices and being hauled off to prison - yet there he was at the Gallows as if none of this had ever happened. Choosing to side with mages or templars could be good if the choices made throughout the game and at the end carry on into DA3 and have an effect on how the game evolves or how characters react to you. I think they should make charactes react to what you are as well (eg blood mage or templar etc.)

[bloodmage13]

I personally like the big final choice but do not like the way they did it in DA 2. Final choice should not be able to undo everything you did earlier in the game. I liked being able to decide make some last minute important decisions. 

[Swordfishtrombone]

I think ME3 certainly would have benefited greatly if the final choise was simply removed.

If everything between the Anderson scene and the "destroy" ending epilogue was simply cut away, and the game smoothly transitioned from that Anderson scene to the activation of the crucible, and the following destruction of the reapers, that would actually have been a great ending!

That it would have left some things as a mystery - like how the crucible did what it did, and why the reapers did what they did - would have been totally fine. The reapers were a better "bad guy" before the explanation, and trying to explain the crucible, at leasf for two of the endings, was a pathetic failure, ending up with space magic.

Thus eliminating the final choise, and all the scenes surrounding it, and thus eliminating a certain utterly jarring new character, would have made the end emotionally gripping, and very satisfying.

Given that I think this would have worked great, I have to say that no, the final choise isn't necessary.

The most important thing is that the ending is done right, and while most of the time it'll involve some major decisions, I'd rather see an end without those decisions, than have those decisions poorly executed, and ill fitting to the story.

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:25 .

[mopotter]

TonberryFeye wrote...

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?

This is what aggravated me about DA2.  I liked the idea of supporting the mages or the templars and was really irritated that both Meredith and Orsino were crazy no matter which side i fought for.  

I don't know, maybe it is impossible to do this but it would have been so much better if the leader of the group i was fighting for didn't do something so bizarre that I had to kill them.      Agree with the mages, and Orsino does not erupt into an evil blood mage, but meredith goes crazy because of the relic.  Side with the templars and Orsino goes all blood mage but Meredith's evil relic is destroyed and she fights with you or is just unconscious till everything is done.  Surely they could have done something.

As far as a final choice being a large one.  As long as it makes sense to the story I don't mind whether its a large, medium or small choice.  Though generally adventure stories have some kind of major event towards the end.

[byzantine horse]

I'd rather not, look how that ended up in ME3. It would be much more interesting if all your actions and choices throughout the entire game was factored in at the end, determining where the pendelum swings. I find it very odd that you in many games can favour one side completely but then at the very end you can say "nah, ima switch teams now" and the ones you've been fighting all the time win because you said so. People always ask for cause and effect and this is an area where it really should matter.

[Chiramu]

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.

Walking away from Kirkwall should have been a choice for that too...

[Ophir147]

Kail Ashton wrote...

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

It's official; Dragon Age 2 is now the Hitler Ate Sugar of video games.

Surely we can think of something that isn't an association fallacy?

[MKDAWUSS]

Wulfram wrote...

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.

The problem, IMO, is when it essentially becomes the defining choice of the game, trumping any and all choices that came before it. If the smaller choices could shape the BFC, then it might be a different scenario.

The BFC, though, can be easier to manage from a development standpoint, which is probably why it's used so many times lol