557 réponses à ce sujet

[Kilkia123]

Am I the only one here who was more satisfied with the ending to ME3 than that of DA:O? And why all the antagonism towards txgoldrush? He or she brings up valid points that I find myself agreeing with, barring some of the negative opinions about Origins. Say what you want about ME3's ending, but the ending in DA:O literally amounts to a celebratory ceremony and then an epilogue slideshow. I enjoyed playing the game a great deal, but was left after the ending thinking, "Cool. Now what?"

What txgoldrush states is true. BioWare needs to continue taking risks with its storytelling in order to truly succeed. Relying on archaic or overly used ideas is a recipe for losing player interest in such games.

I thought ME3 was by far the best out of the trilogy; sure, some of you indubitably believe that the ending was atrocious and are irked by some other aspects of the game, but ME3 was the only game in the trilogy that really stood out to me and felt polished in terms of cinematic storytelling and characterization. ME1 was great story-wise, but (sense we are discussing endings) ends in a very typical manner. Slight suspense suggesting Shepard's death. Reveal that he or she is actually okay. Cue heroic music and make Shepard out to be a boss. ME2's story was basically Shepard going around gathering people. It's story may possibly be the weakest out of the three; its ending basically revolving around whether or not you destroyed the Collector Base and who else survived. That was it.

[frostajulie]

Greed1914 wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

I don't like throwing that "art"-thingy around.

DAO-Endings fitted the story and gave each player plenty of ways to conclude the story:

Sacrifice yourself? Check 

Sacrifice the seconfary-villain? Check

Sacrifice you longterm-companion? Check

Choose the way out, with unknown consequences,
offered by you by a character with you throughout the game? Check

No forced sacrifice, no last-minute-silliness? Check

The craving to play the game again? Check

Oh no!  Those sound like options based on the player's decisions!  We certainly wouldn't want those in a video game.

Why is it when I read that post  I heard Joker's voice saying it.

OP thanks for making me lose 2 hours to youtube. DAO  MOST AWESOME GAME EVER

[blueumi]

Kilkia123 wrote...

Am I the only one here who was more satisfied with the ending to ME3 than that of DA:O? And why all the antagonism towards txgoldrush? He or she brings up valid points that I find myself agreeing with, barring some of the negative opinions about Origins. Say what you want about ME3's ending, but the ending in DA:O literally amounts to a celebratory ceremony and then an epilogue slideshow. I enjoyed playing the game a great deal, but was left after the ending thinking, "Cool. Now what?"

What txgoldrush states is true. BioWare needs to continue taking risks with its storytelling in order to truly succeed. Relying on archaic or overly used ideas is a recipe for losing player interest in such games.

I thought ME3 was by far the best out of the trilogy; sure, some of you indubitably believe that the ending was atrocious and are irked by some other aspects of the game, but ME3 was the only game in the trilogy that really stood out to me and felt polished in terms of cinematic storytelling and characterization. ME1 was great story-wise, but (sense we are discussing endings) ends in a very typical manner. Slight suspense suggesting Shepard's death. Reveal that he or she is actually okay. Cue heroic music and make Shepard out to be a boss. ME2's story was basically Shepard going around gathering people. It's story may possibly be the weakest out of the three; its ending basically revolving around whether or not you destroyed the Collector Base and who else survived. That was it.

yes I think you are the only one no offence ment to you

[Nightwriter]

Kilkia123 wrote...

I thought ME3 was by far the best out of the trilogy; sure, some of you indubitably believe that the ending was atrocious and are irked by some other aspects of the game, but ME3 was the only game in the trilogy that really stood out to me and felt polished in terms of cinematic storytelling and characterization.

I fully agree with this. But the culmination of an experience has awesome power over the whole. As jaw-droppingly impressive as I found some aspects of the game, its ending overshadows its strengths.

Kilkia123 wrote...

ME1 was great story-wise, but (sense we are discussing endings) ends in a very typical manner. Slight suspense suggesting Shepard's death. Reveal that he or she is actually okay. Cue heroic music and make Shepard out to be a boss.

Saw nothing wrong with it. It was infinitely better than ME3's ending.

Kilkia123 wrote...

ME2's story was basically Shepard going around gathering people. It's story may possibly be the weakest out of the three; its ending basically revolving around whether or not you destroyed the Collector Base and who else survived. That was it.

I agree with this as well. Yet, its ending also did not prevent me from ever playing it again.

[spinachdiaper]

SW:KotOR+DA:O+ME1 are greater than DA2+ME2+ME3

[MisterJB]

blueumi wrote...

Kilkia123 wrote...

Am I the only one here who was more satisfied with the ending to ME3 than that of DA:O? And why all the antagonism towards txgoldrush? He or she brings up valid points that I find myself agreeing with, barring some of the negative opinions about Origins. Say what you want about ME3's ending, but the ending in DA:O literally amounts to a celebratory ceremony and then an epilogue slideshow. I enjoyed playing the game a great deal, but was left after the ending thinking, "Cool. Now what?"

What txgoldrush states is true. BioWare needs to continue taking risks with its storytelling in order to truly succeed. Relying on archaic or overly used ideas is a recipe for losing player interest in such games.

I thought ME3 was by far the best out of the trilogy; sure, some of you indubitably believe that the ending was atrocious and are irked by some other aspects of the game, but ME3 was the only game in the trilogy that really stood out to me and felt polished in terms of cinematic storytelling and characterization. ME1 was great story-wise, but (sense we are discussing endings) ends in a very typical manner. Slight suspense suggesting Shepard's death. Reveal that he or she is actually okay. Cue heroic music and make Shepard out to be a boss. ME2's story was basically Shepard going around gathering people. It's story may possibly be the weakest out of the three; its ending basically revolving around whether or not you destroyed the Collector Base and who else survived. That was it.

yes I think you are the only one no offence ment to you

No, he isn't. I agree with him.

DAO's ending relied on a very used, very tired formula. The Dragon of Doom is slain, there is a coronation, everyone is happy.
It's a typical fantasy ending that has been seen countless times. It worked in the sense it gave the player the feeling of satisfaction but it's still a very cliched ending apart from the Epilogue Cards.

ME3's ending took risks. It introduced a problem to which there was no perfect solution, only three options that with both positves and negatives. It made us think, it mades us debate. And I loved that about it.

Modifié par MisterJB, 08 août 2012 - 10:27 .

[Essalor]

Kilkia123 wrote...

Am I the only one here who was more satisfied with the ending to ME3 than that of DA:O? And why all the antagonism towards txgoldrush? He or she brings up valid points that I find myself agreeing with, barring some of the negative opinions about Origins. Say what you want about ME3's ending, but the ending in DA:O literally amounts to a celebratory ceremony and then an epilogue slideshow. I enjoyed playing the game a great deal, but was left after the ending thinking, "Cool. Now what?"

What txgoldrush states is true. BioWare needs to continue taking risks with its storytelling in order to truly succeed. Relying on archaic or overly used ideas is a recipe for losing player interest in such games.

I thought ME3 was by far the best out of the trilogy; sure, some of you indubitably believe that the ending was atrocious and are irked by some other aspects of the game, but ME3 was the only game in the trilogy that really stood out to me and felt polished in terms of cinematic storytelling and characterization. ME1 was great story-wise, but (sense we are discussing endings) ends in a very typical manner. Slight suspense suggesting Shepard's death. Reveal that he or she is actually okay. Cue heroic music and make Shepard out to be a boss. ME2's story was basically Shepard going around gathering people. It's story may possibly be the weakest out of the three; its ending basically revolving around whether or not you destroyed the Collector Base and who else survived. That was it.

I'm sure DA:O ending is not for everyone. Once again, if you only care about thematic continuity there's a chance you'd like ME3 ending. however from any other point of view: genre, lore, story, consistency, it doesn't match up.

I find that sacrificing the cohesion of the world and the plot in order to make the point is unjustified in any medium, especially in the last 5 minutes of the game ending the established trilogy which includes roughly 80-100 hours of total gameplay and story. 

[Nightwriter]

MisterJB wrote...

No, he isn't. I agree with him.

DAO's ending relied on a very used, very tired formula. The Dragon of Doom is slain, there is a coronation, everyone is happy.
It's a typical fantasy ending that has been seen countless times. It worked in the sense it gave the player the feeling of satisfaction but it's still a very cliched ending apart from the Epilogue Cards.

ME3's ending took risks. It introduced a problem to which there was no perfect solution, only three options that with both positves and negatives. It made us think, it mades us debate. And I loved that about it.

Tired formula?

The only thing I'm tired of is people rejecting good writing just because it follows old patterns and praising bad writing just because it follows new patterns.

[blueumi]

I almost envy people who can shut off and lke the mass effect 3 ending

best I can do is try to enjoy finding something else that makes no sense and is weird in there and try to be amused by it

not completely working it's still too raw for me how bad it really is to end an outstanding game like this

[MisterJB]

Nightwriter wrote...
Tired formula?

The only thing I'm tired of is people rejecting good writing just because it follows old patterns and praising bad writing just because it follows new patterns.

It's a safe and boring ending, the Undoubtedly Good Guys defeat the Undoubtedly Bad Guys and everyone is happy. These old patterns were bad when George Lucas used them and they are bad when Bioware uses them.

There are many questionable things about the ending of ME3 such as the Catalyst, the sudden and major focus on synthetic and organic conflict among others.
But the attempt to introduce grey morality into the Reapers, to make us wonder if they are not, in fact, necessary, the unsolvable problem with no perfect solution, only three equaly valid ones are what makes ME3's ending better than DAO's.

[Tritium315]

MisterJB wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Tired formula?

The only thing I'm tired of is people rejecting good writing just because it follows old patterns and praising bad writing just because it follows new patterns.

It's a safe and boring ending, the Undoubtedly Good Guys defeat the Undoubtedly Bad Guys and everyone is happy. These old patterns were bad when George Lucas used them and they are bad when Bioware uses them.

There are many questionable things about the ending of ME3 such as the Catalyst, the sudden and major focus on synthetic and organic conflict among others.
But the attempt to introduce grey morality into the Reapers, to make us wonder if they are not, in fact, necessary, the unsolvable problem with no perfect solution, only three equaly valid ones are what makes ME3's ending better than DAO's.

It's a safe ending, but calling it boring is subjective. I happen to like endings like that, makes me feel satsified which is kind of the point of entertainment. If I wanted to be depressed I'd take a trip to Africa.

[Iakus]

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]Nightwriter wrote...
Tired formula?

The only thing I'm tired of is people rejecting good writing just because it follows old patterns and praising bad writing just because it follows new patterns.
[/quote]


It's a safe and boring ending, the Undoubtedly Good Guys defeat the Undoubtedly Bad Guys and everyone is happy. These old patterns were bad when George Lucas used them and they are bad when Bioware uses them.[/quote][/quote]

So different=good for no other reason than it's different?  Old is bad because it's been done before?



You know why old tropes get used a lot?  Because people like them.  People like it when the heroes triumph and bad guys get their comuppance.  They like it even more when they can pretend they are the ones doing it.  RPGs may be a niche market, but grimdark "everybody dies, there is no good or evil" is (I hpoe) even more niche.

[quote]
There are many questionable things about the ending of ME3 such as the Catalyst, the sudden and major focus on synthetic and organic conflict among others.
But the attempt to introduce grey morality into the Reapers, to make us wonder if they are not, in fact, necessary, the unsolvable problem with no perfect solution, only three equaly valid ones are what makes ME3's ending better than DAO's.
[/quote]

See, that's the thing.  A lot of us don't see these decisions as "equally valid"   The struggle is to find the  "most valid" but the "least invalid" option,   Three valid options would have people weighing the benefits of each one.  But people seem to be going "which one screws the galaxy least?"

Doens't it say something about these choices that "Rocks fall.  Everone dies" became a valid fourth option?  That maybe, just maybe, Bioware tuned the darkness up a bit too much?

Modifié par iakus, 08 août 2012 - 10:54 .

[fainmaca]

MisterJB wrote...
But the attempt to introduce grey morality into the Reapers, to make us wonder if they are not, in fact, necessary, the unsolvable problem with no perfect solution, only three equaly valid ones are what makes ME3's ending better than DAO's.

Seriously? In today's media, morally grey and relatable villains are a dime a dozen. I would say that your straightforward evilly evil villain is a rare thing these days. I mean, there was nothing grey about The Dark Knight's Joker, and that's part of what made him great. There was no way to fathom his motivations, no way to find his trigger, to understand what might stop him. Why can't the reapers be like that? Why do they have to be infected with understandability and moral greyness? When done right, a villain who is villainous for villainy's sake is a thing to be cherished.

Instead this crown went to Cerberus, an organisation for whom great pains were taken to depict them as morally grey in ME2. And, seeing as the narrative can'r properly support so many morally grey factions, they instead switched to wholly evil so that the Reapers could be greyed up. This switch was jarring and not necessary.

[MisterJB]

fainmaca wrote...
Seriously? In today's media, morally grey and relatable villains are a dime a dozen. I would say that your straightforward evilly evil villain is a rare thing these days. I mean, there was nothing grey about The Dark Knight's Joker, and that's part of what made him great. There was no way to fathom his motivations, no way to find his trigger, to understand what might stop him. Why can't the reapers be like that? Why do they have to be infected with understandability and moral greyness? When done right, a villain who is villainous for villainy's sake is a thing to be cherished.

Instead this crown went to Cerberus, an organisation for whom great pains were taken to depict them as morally grey in ME2. And, seeing as the narrative can'r properly support so many morally grey factions, they instead switched to wholly evil so that the Reapers could be greyed up. This switch was jarring and not necessary.

And I find each and everyone of them more interesting than the Archdemon who was, basically a force of nature.

The Joker presents an interesting case. There is nothing grey about his methods, no greater good to be achieved.
However, we could ask a very simply question. Is the Joker really insane? Or is he simply someone who sees civilization for what is truly is, a lie we tell ourselves?
And that is what made him great. He is not a villain for villainy's sake. The Joker is any ordinary man who had a really, really bad day.

I do agree regarding Cerberus.

[Essalor]

MisterJB wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Tired formula?

The only thing I'm tired of is people rejecting good writing just because it follows old patterns and praising bad writing just because it follows new patterns.

It's a safe and boring ending, the Undoubtedly Good Guys defeat the Undoubtedly Bad Guys and everyone is happy. These old patterns were bad when George Lucas used them and they are bad when Bioware uses them.

There are many questionable things about the ending of ME3 such as the Catalyst, the sudden and major focus on synthetic and organic conflict among others.
But the attempt to introduce grey morality into the Reapers, to make us wonder if they are not, in fact, necessary, the unsolvable problem with no perfect solution, only three equaly valid ones are what makes ME3's ending better than DAO's.

The story needs a villain mostly to show grey in between. Yes Repers were inherently bad. They had a plan: perpetuate their existence by harvesting Organic races, which they harvested every 50.000 years or so. Was there more explanation needed? Once again, I don't think so, the fact that their motives and origins are unknown is better than giving them purpose especially the one where they are just slaves to the AI and are not evil/mysterious at all, nor grey. They are reduced from bad guys to tools.

We have a lot of grey choice in the story in ME and DA:O but having a reference black is a good option. In DA:O you always "won" against the Blight, but you never had a happy end. That's unless you chose to make a demon baby, paid 7$ extra, romanced Morrigan and considered her and the ritual as inherently "good" which is a bold statement to say the least.

Moreover introducing once again morality and thematic whatever continuity while abandoning the story coherency and lore is not skilled writing.

(NB. I'll reapeat once again, that I consider all games art in their entirety and in the title used the phrase as a pun towards a horrible justification for a bad ME3 ending but who bothers to read 12 pages of posts nowadays ) 

[MisterJB]

iakus wrote...
So different=good for no other reason than it's different?  Old is bad because it's been done before?

You know why old tropes get used a lot?  Because people like them.  People like it when the heroes triumph and bad guys get their comuppance.  They like it even more when they can pretend they are the ones doing it.  RPGs may be a niche market, but grimdark "everybody dies, there is no good or evil" is (I hpoe) even more niche.

That is not what I mean. I am simply not very appreciative of stories where you can easily distinguish between the good and the bad guys.
For instance, I adore the mage/templar conflict exactly because both sides are right and both sides are wrong.
However, is it a completely original storyline? No, it has been done many times before. For example, the Equalists vs Benders from "Legend of Korra" is almost identical.

See, that's the thing.  A lot of us don't see these decisions as "equally valid"   The struggle is to find the  "most valid" but the "least invalid" option,   Three valid options would have people weighing the benefits of each one.  But people seem to be going "which one screws the galaxy least?"

Doens't it say something about these choices that "Rocks fall.  Everone dies" became a valid fourth option?  That maybe, just maybe, Bioware tuned the darkness up a bit too much?

I consider the very fact we can argue over which choice is better (or less bad if you prefer) to be a good sign.
Would anyone argue plunging a blade into the Archdemon's brain is the better solution?

[Nightwriter]

MisterJB wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Tired formula?

The only thing I'm tired of is people rejecting good writing just because it follows old patterns and praising bad writing just because it follows new patterns.

It's a safe and boring ending, the Undoubtedly Good Guys defeat the Undoubtedly Bad Guys and everyone is happy. These old patterns were bad when George Lucas used them and they are bad when Bioware uses them.

"Everyone is happy"? When DA:O's ending came out there was actually a lot of talk about it being too dark. You can die quite easily unless you perform a dark ritual involving some sacrificial actions regarding an unborn child. Sure, it was brighter than ME3's ending, but that's like saying it was brighter than the ending of The Sunset Limited.

The darkspawn are allowed to be the Undoubtedly Bad Guys because Loghain was there to take the place of the morally gray antagonist. People debate about him still to this day. Hell, the same format is pretty much used in ME3 as well. Replace the darkspawn with the Reapers and Loghain with TIM. Pretty much the same scenario, except that Loghain is better written and is way better at the moral ambiguity bit. And you're still saying ME3 is a trailblazer?

MisterJB wrote...

There are many questionable things about the ending of ME3 such as the Catalyst, the sudden and major focus on synthetic and organic conflict among others.
But the attempt to introduce grey morality into the Reapers, to make us wonder if they are not, in fact, necessary, the unsolvable problem with no perfect solution, only three equaly valid ones are what makes ME3's ending better than DAO's.

If you want to praise a scenario with no perfect solution and complicated moral issues, praise BDtS. The situation it presented us with was believable and suited the themes of the series well. We had to make sacrifices, but they were completely well written, and the presentation was great.

ME3's ending fails where BDtS succeeded. In order to achieve the things you praise it for, it mutilated previous themes, invalidated some of our most uplifting accomplishments, introduced a last minute character who comes out of nowhere, forced grimdark down our throats, and jerked the rug out from under the momentum of our journey.

And for what? For these great sacrifices, what did they achieve? They failed at what they intended to accomplish. The Catalyst and his revelation didn't inject any moral ambiguity into the Reapers. It turned them into amoral tools, nonentities. Even that was iffy. They had been trolling us and calling us worms for three games, no ten minute conversation is going to turn that around. The Catalyst's revelation was more blink-worthy than applause-worthy. This was mitigated in the EC, but it still doesn't feel quite right. They didn't present "an unsolvable problem with no perfect solution," either. They presented me with a problem that the Catalyst said was legitimate but which I didn't agree was inevitable. They failed to sell me on the entire thing. 

I get the impression you're saying they should just get "points for trying," but nothing about the intent of ME3's ending makes it deserving of being lauded over DA:O's.

[1Nosphorus1]

MisterJB wrote...
I adore the mage/templar conflict exactly because both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

DA2 was a very poor game and that conflict ended up being completely useless due to the fact that no matter what option you chose the mages were all rail-roaded into Blood Mages.

Now onto the discussion about shades of grey, these days I think it's overkill, everything is is rationanlised enough so that the viewer can sort of agree with the actions said person is doing.

Where are all the villains? Where are all the heroes?

These stories have stood the test of time for thousands of years, morally grey is over-saturated at the moment.

[BatmanPWNS]

spinachdiaper wrote...

SW:KotOR+DA:O+ME1 are greater than DA2+ME2+ME3

Lol, obviously ME2 side is gonna lose if you put with those other two games.

[Arisugawa]

I found DA:O's ending to be infuriating. In one conversation, you speak with Riordan about creating new Grey Wardens, and he says it would be impossible as it would require Archdemon blood, and that Loghain would surely have destroyed it after taking control of the Warden centers in Denerim.

Right after the Landsmeet, Riordan pops and basically says that Loghain should be made a Warden.

Yeah...so how does Riordan know that any Archdemon blood remains in the Warden stores? It's not as though at that moment at the conclusion of the Landsmeet that anyone has had opportunity to check what remains of the supplies. And if Loghain can be turned into a Warden, why can't other Wardens be created prior to the final push against the Darkspawn? All of this is just assumed - none of it is verified in any way during the game itself. It just happens and you have to accept it, or, in the case of creating more Wardens since it is obviously possible with the creation of Loghain, it is never even brought up as an option. So, if it was possible to make Loghain into a Warden, why not simply kill him and use the Archdemon blood to make someone else into one?

Very contrived, and very infuriating. You are railroaded into the endgame as much as you are in Mass Effect 3. It only appears that have you have more choice, or that your choices have greater significance.

The key difference is that you are not railroaded into this choice at the last moment of the game by a character who has no previous ties to anything. Riordan, at least, is another Warden, and Morrigan has been with you the whole of the game, unless you caused her to leave earlier. It feels like more an option in DA:O, where in Mass Effect 3 it does not.

Modifié par Arisugawa, 08 août 2012 - 11:33 .

[Iakus]

MisterJB wrote...
That is not what I mean. I am simply not very appreciative of stories where you can easily distinguish between the good and the bad guys.
For instance, I adore the mage/templar conflict exactly because both sides are right and both sides are wrong.
However, is it a completely original storyline? No, it has been done many times before. For example, the Equalists vs Benders from "Legend of Korra" is almost identical.

But that's how you are rpesenting yourself, calling DAO's ending as "old and tired" when it does in fact have its share of morally grey characters and decisions.  

I consider the very fact we can argue over which choice is better (or less bad if you prefer) to be a good sign.
Would anyone argue plunging a blade into the Archdemon's brain is the better solution?

No, I think debating over which is the least bad choice is a very, very bad sign for Bioware.  Especially since "Let everyone die" has joined the crowd.  I'm fine with "no perfect choice"  but the choices need some merit.  Like I said, if Refuse became a valid option, what does it say about the others?

Too much dark.  Too much bleak.  DAO's endings were all imperfect.  But all had merit.    And you face the archdemon on your own terms. 

[txgoldrush]

Nightwriter wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

No, he isn't. I agree with him.

DAO's ending relied on a very used, very tired formula. The Dragon of Doom is slain, there is a coronation, everyone is happy.
It's a typical fantasy ending that has been seen countless times. It worked in the sense it gave the player the feeling of satisfaction but it's still a very cliched ending apart from the Epilogue Cards.

ME3's ending took risks. It introduced a problem to which there was no perfect solution, only three options that with both positves and negatives. It made us think, it mades us debate. And I loved that about it.

Tired formula?

The only thing I'm tired of is people rejecting good writing just because it follows old patterns and praising bad writing just because it follows new patterns.

Please...the use the same plot.....you join a secret special order, you have four special quests to achieve the plot, you have the same character archtypes a sparty members, you start the same as your life is turning upside down from a sudden attack.

Its lazy....and DAO is lazy. A 10 year old can write this story.

And its not good writing, DAO lacks thematic cohesion, thats BAD writing. So is the lack of character development, th elack of plot participation in the party characters. Its just throws crap on th ewall to make it stick.

Like I said, there are better RPGs similiar to DAO like NWN2 that came out years before...better written, better executed, and more ambitious.

Player Mask of the Betrayer...it makes DAO suck.

[txgoldrush]

MisterJB wrote...

blueumi wrote...

Kilkia123 wrote...

Am I the only one here who was more satisfied with the ending to ME3 than that of DA:O? And why all the antagonism towards txgoldrush? He or she brings up valid points that I find myself agreeing with, barring some of the negative opinions about Origins. Say what you want about ME3's ending, but the ending in DA:O literally amounts to a celebratory ceremony and then an epilogue slideshow. I enjoyed playing the game a great deal, but was left after the ending thinking, "Cool. Now what?"

What txgoldrush states is true. BioWare needs to continue taking risks with its storytelling in order to truly succeed. Relying on archaic or overly used ideas is a recipe for losing player interest in such games.

I thought ME3 was by far the best out of the trilogy; sure, some of you indubitably believe that the ending was atrocious and are irked by some other aspects of the game, but ME3 was the only game in the trilogy that really stood out to me and felt polished in terms of cinematic storytelling and characterization. ME1 was great story-wise, but (sense we are discussing endings) ends in a very typical manner. Slight suspense suggesting Shepard's death. Reveal that he or she is actually okay. Cue heroic music and make Shepard out to be a boss. ME2's story was basically Shepard going around gathering people. It's story may possibly be the weakest out of the three; its ending basically revolving around whether or not you destroyed the Collector Base and who else survived. That was it.

yes I think you are the only one no offence ment to you

No, he isn't. I agree with him.

DAO's ending relied on a very used, very tired formula. The Dragon of Doom is slain, there is a coronation, everyone is happy.
It's a typical fantasy ending that has been seen countless times. It worked in the sense it gave the player the feeling of satisfaction but it's still a very cliched ending apart from the Epilogue Cards.

ME3's ending took risks. It introduced a problem to which there was no perfect solution, only three options that with both positves and negatives. It made us think, it mades us debate. And I loved that about it.

DAO is just silly power fantasy with no real meaning outside a few sidequests, nothing more. Its just that clueless Bioware fans think its an epic masterpiece.

Nevermind the fact that the problem in ME3's ending was introduced well before the ending...the dilemma on how the Crucible will fire and what does it affect.

[txgoldrush]

fainmaca wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
But the attempt to introduce grey morality into the Reapers, to make us wonder if they are not, in fact, necessary, the unsolvable problem with no perfect solution, only three equaly valid ones are what makes ME3's ending better than DAO's.

Seriously? In today's media, morally grey and relatable villains are a dime a dozen. I would say that your straightforward evilly evil villain is a rare thing these days. I mean, there was nothing grey about The Dark Knight's Joker, and that's part of what made him great. There was no way to fathom his motivations, no way to find his trigger, to understand what might stop him. Why can't the reapers be like that? Why do they have to be infected with understandability and moral greyness? When done right, a villain who is villainous for villainy's sake is a thing to be cherished.

Instead this crown went to Cerberus, an organisation for whom great pains were taken to depict them as morally grey in ME2. And, seeing as the narrative can'r properly support so many morally grey factions, they instead switched to wholly evil so that the Reapers could be greyed up. This switch was jarring and not necessary.

Please.....Cerberus was EVIL in ME1......what do you call an organization that experiements husk technology on colonists....EVIL. And this was ME1.

The portrayal in ME2 of a morally grey organization was a trick by TIM. When you attach the word "necessary" to the word "evil"...you can suucker people right through.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Please...the use the same plot.....you join a secret special order, you have four special quests to achieve the plot, you have the same character archtypes a sparty members, you start the same as your life is turning upside down from a sudden attack.

Its lazy....and DAO is lazy. A 10 year old can write this story.

And its not good writing, DAO lacks thematic cohesion, thats BAD writing. So is the lack of character development, th elack of plot participation in the party characters. Its just throws crap on th ewall to make it stick.

Like I said, there are better RPGs similiar to DAO like NWN2 that came out years before...better written, better executed, and more ambitious.

Player Mask of the Betrayer...it makes DAO suck.

I've played NWN2 and Mask of the Betrayer.  Good games.

DAO was better.  Even if the plot wasn't that original, it was told well and stayed consistent.  As opposed to ME3 which decided it was set in the 40k universe in the last ten minutes.