591 réponses à ce sujet

[Vicious]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Let's take a basic look at Redcliffe, it's entire premise and how it failed at creating a difficult decision. When you're initially presented with the Redcliffe, you're told that Connor has temporairly regained control and you've got to pick how to deal with him:

• You kill Connor.
• You kill Isolde.
• You go to the Circle.

Plenty of reasons to do all three and avoid all three, though it's interesting of note that the third option has no consequences unlike the previous two, something which makes it the superior decision in the long run. The game's written to imply that things might go bad but it never does, leaving many players with the ultimate satisfaction of "I WIN".

This reaction makes me groan hard, it's less about caring about the narrative and the themes which the scene were trying to portray and more about celebrating how you "won" with little regard to the actual writing. The other two decisions--which make the player feel uncomfortable--serve their purpose but are unfortunately invalidated as no-one will bother to take it among the "happy ending" crowd.

"WELL IF YOU WANT TO BE DARK AND EDGY, IGNORE IT" doesn't work as an argument, my character can ignore it but I--as a player--cannot and this leads to me feeling nothing but failure, a reaction which you shouldn't feel as a player.

This was especially worse in the Mass Effect series, where the Renegade alternative would often be invalidated by the Paragon option and resulted in useless sacrifices which made you hated by everyone for no reason. The only time which the Paragon player was forced to do a decision which didn't yield significant better results was the ending (which, surprise, is hated for not being "happy").

The fact that people dismiss you winning over the Reapers and freeing the galaxy from them forever simply because the protagonist dies (or if you picked Destroy pre-EC, wouldn't reunite with their LI) simply goes to show me how many people simply don't care about bittersweet writing because they don't understand it.

Any "make choices lead to a good ending" demands simply asks for the player to have the option to print out a cheat-sheet which will make them not feel any drama at all, something which a lot of people did when they found out Alistair won't marry their non-Human Warden and ditches them.

You're supposed to feel uncomfortable, you're supposed to dislike that you didn't get the ending you wanted. That's the entire point of bittersweet, you won but with cost. A victory without cost feels empty, neglectful of the true realities and horrors which people might be forced to experience to achieve their victory.

Great post.

[Dave of Canada]

Not going to bother.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 28 octobre 2012 - 11:19 .

[Vandicus]

Vicious wrote...

I disliked ME3's ending for those reasons, however..

I was rather disappointed when presented with TIM's choice and Saren's choice(arguably Synthesis is Saren's route of assimilating living and synthetic culture, and is physically represented by his personal transformation)

They couldn't have made it more obvious unless they threw an image of Saren jumping into the beam... which would have gone over the heads of every PS3 player, ever.

The player isn't really given an option to side with Cerberus(one which I would not have taken anyways, but was notable by its absence)

They were written to be indoctrinated. Cerberus was not poor writing, unless you wanted to actually SEE them be doctrinated [out of the scope of the game]


I see where you're coming from, but it was all out of ME3's scope. The game did a good job illustrating the complete desperation of the situation, people just dislike that it was such a change from the first two games [which could end in complete triumphs.]

I evaluate Cerberus as poor writing because it invalidates the pro-Cerberus stance that players could take in ME2, it contradicts that renegade and highly fractious nature of the organization(how many times do we find Cerberus operations being misdirected without TIM's knowledge or consent in ME2?) and becomes a fairly straightforward evil cult(the whole idea of Cerberus should lend it to having people with rebellious and individualistic natures, not compliant ones), and that they are ultimately always wrong. They pretty much became a race of Chaotic Evil cannon fodder in ME3. Yes, how it happened is explained in the narrative, doesn't make the direction the narrative took in this area good.

The ending choices in of themselves weren't bad, but in the context of the game, we are told(and use Shepard to say)Destroy=good, TIM/Control=evil, and Synthesis just really comes out of left field. This theme of Control=bad/stupid(all of Cerberus was indoctrinated trying to do this after all), while Destroy=smart/good/required is contradicted by the conversation with the Catalyst, and again, Synthesis was never even addressed or foreshadowed in ME3.

Modifié par Vandicus, 28 octobre 2012 - 11:26 .

[Malanek]

Just to address the op, I don't mind if there is a bittersweet ending. That wasn't the problem with the ME3 ending, in fact I thought that before the extended cut it was actually emotionally flat, I didn't feel anything in contrast to the rest of the game which was dripping with raw emotion.

I want DA3 to be as emotionally engaging as possible, and that will involve sad things happening at some stage of the game. If it happens in the ending that's ok as long as it is also emotionally uplifting.

If I could give Bioware any advice over the ending I would say avoid making it nonsensical and illogical. There were quite a few things that didn't really add up in ME3 or DA2 about the endings. Think carefully about it and how you are going to convey what is happening to the player, avoid clumsy execution and excessive railroading. If a plot element doesn't work naturally, there is a good chance it shouldn't be there. Don't leave the ending until the end of the development cycle, work it out well in advance because the endings have been the weakest part of the last couple of games.

[AlanC9]

Dave of Canada wrote...

How many times do you reload to get the best chocie in the Virmire situation?

None. Completionism and exploring does that for me by my own.

Hypothetical: what if the escape hatch with Wrex's side mission wasn't there? Characters with enough points in dialog skills can save him, others can't. (Are your skill choices decisions in the same way that in-game decisions are?)

[Brodoteau]

Part of the discussion here is whether or not the ending needs to be happy for it to be heroic. And no, it doesn't. Nor does it need to be dark for the sake of darkness. Bittersweet means there is hope.
Look if you read A Song of Ice and Fire, which I would argue has influenced DA quite a bit, there are some pretty dark gritty and terrible things that happen to the characters (Red Wedding to those who know, and don't look it up if you don't want to be spoiled) but there is the ultimate hope that things will, somehow, get better. That the character of Ned Stark won't be meaningless at the end of the series (trying to avoid spoilers). I have no proof of this, of course, but the impression is there.
Or if you look at Buffy and Angel (again, two series that I think have influenced DA) both of those series ended with some tragedy. But the heroes won in the end -- especially in Buffy. Angel's series finale is actually quite good in the sense that you know that the work will continue and you get hope for the future. So there is a way to do an ending without it being everything has to suck.
Lastly, I would just like to agree with the OP. There is nothing wrong with saving the day, unambiguously. My favourite video game series is Baldur's Gate. And in all those endings you simply save the day. That's not a bad thing... and writers need to realize that it's not a bad thing.

[Iakus]

Brodoteau wrote...

Part of the discussion here is whether or not the ending needs to be happy for it to be heroic. And no, it doesn't. Nor does it need to be dark for the sake of darkness. Bittersweet means there is hope.
Look if you read A Song of Ice and Fire, which I would argue has influenced DA quite a bit, there are some pretty dark gritty and terrible things that happen to the characters (Red Wedding to those who know, and don't look it up if you don't want to be spoiled) but there is the ultimate hope that things will, somehow, get better. That the character of Ned Stark won't be meaningless at the end of the series (trying to avoid spoilers). I have no proof of this, of course, but the impression is there.
Or if you look at Buffy and Angel (again, two series that I think have influenced DA) both of those series ended with some tragedy. But the heroes won in the end -- especially in Buffy. Angel's series finale is actually quite good in the sense that you know that the work will continue and you get hope for the future. So there is a way to do an ending without it being everything has to suck.
Lastly, I would just like to agree with the OP. There is nothing wrong with saving the day, unambiguously. My favourite video game series is Baldur's Gate. And in all those endings you simply save the day. That's not a bad thing... and writers need to realize that it's not a bad thing.

Bolded for truth

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It sounds like you're letting your metagaming get in the way of your RPing, Dave.

My last two DA:O character have not gone to the circle, because they haven't gone to the Circle yet at all.

Of course, you can go to the Circle second without any problem. But that's just a technicality.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 octobre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Big I]

There's nothing wrong with a story in which the hero can die, win incompletely or win only at great cost. What matters is that the story retain a consistent tone with regard to protagonist impact.


DA:O had a protagonist who couldn't always get an optimal outcome. This was established in the origins and then carried through the rest of a game. You're a powerful mage...who inadvertently helped a blood mage escape; a child of the dwarven king...who's betrayed and exiled by their brother. Because that theme of "can't always win" is present throughout the narrative, the end choice (sacrifice a Grey Warden or use a dangerous and mysterious blood magic ritual) comes as no surprise, even if you wanted a standard victory. Contrast this with Mass Effect.


Shepard is presented as invincible. In between taking out whole armies of geth and Collectors, Shepard's out there taking down the Shadow Broker or discovering the origins of the Reapers. Suicide Mission? Done with no casualties. Confronting Saren and the Illusive Man? Talked them both into committing sucicde. No matter what the obstacle, Shepard overcomes it, and while there may be collateral damage (killing the colonists on Feros, wiping out the geth or quarians) Shepard never loses personally, or fails to finish the mission in whatever way they deem fit. And then, out of nowhere, the ending of ME3 sidelines Shepard and forces them to achieve victory through the one thing they've never had to do - compromise, and an inevitable death. It goes completely against the established tone of the series.


Furthermore, you can't expect players to feel staisfied if they're told their character is a hero of myth and legend who can do anything...except where the plot demands. That's part of the reason the plot of DA2 was so frustrating. Hawke could take out dragons by the dozen, but couldn't kill Petrice in Act 1. Hawke could easily kill an ogre and an army of darkspawn, but not before the scripted death of a sibling. Hawke could convince Anders that being an abomination was a mistake, but couldn't stop him from blowing up the Chantry anyway. Any story with two conflicting portrayals of character importance and agency, even if that diffence is only a gameplay/story divide, will not deliver a satisfying ending to the audience.

[Firky]

I'm really interested in this thread but the spoilers are freaking me out.

(I haven't finished the ME series.)

[Kerilus]

David Gaider wrote...

The Mass Effect and Dragon Age games are written by different teams. Whether or not that's a good thing really depends on who you ask. Mainly it means that we're going to do different things with our storytelling.

Insofar as the storytelling itself, I do not and will never believe that every story must have a happy ending in order to be considered a good game. I would edge towards a preference that the player must feel like they've accomplished something, even if they had to pay a heavy price for it, but that's not required for a good story. Whether or not that's required for a good game is slightly different, if not entirely divorced from the story which is told in the context of that game.

Whether or not you feel we've made a good game, or written a good story... well, that's what opinions are for. The day that someone can state objectively what makes for a good game or a good story, we may as well shut down the Internet and send everyone home. Seeing as that's never going to happen, I'll just state that DA2 was intentionally trying to do something quite different with its story from DAO (whether or not you think it accomplished that notwithstanding), and DA3 will likely try something different from both. Well-intended advice aside, there is no way to please everyone with whatever we do, so my team will simply do our best and leave the judgment to you guys.

The problem with DA2 is not that there're no "good" outcome (preventing the conflict between the Qun/chantry, mage/templar and the death of Leandra etc.), but rather, it is the lack of impact your choices make in these outcome. As the op stated, if we're playing a hero, namely the CHAMPION of Kirkwall, surely we would expect our action to matter? The result could be not as we intended, but it sould be ACCORDING to our choices! For example, I'd take it if Hawke loses his mother due to following a wrong lead that I can choose, instead of having her die no matter what.
And I'd also like to fail at convincing the Arishok to leave, without the game forcing me to. Not to mention how ridiculous I feel when that bloody idiot Orsino wrapped the non-existent corpses of his pupils to himself and became an abomination while I made a deliberate effort to keep every single one of those sissies alive!
Make our choices MATTER, please. It does not have to be according to our intention, because that'd be rather boring. The only reason you have for the decision you guys made with DA2's story-telling is the same as the notoriously re-used maps: lack of resource and time. I suppose you shall have plenty of both this time around, I hope?

[force192]

I like bittersweet endings. The sacrifice ending in DA:O is one of my favorite endings, so I hope we get another one like that one.

[Xilizhra]

What's ideal, to me, is a choice between endings that are equally happy, but for different reasons for different people. I.e. a more successful choice between the mages and Chantry, perhaps, in DA3. That way, there won't be a "clearly superior" choice, but the outcome can still be good nonetheless.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

What's ideal, to me, is a choice between endings that are equally happy, but for different reasons for different people. I.e. a more successful choice between the mages and Chantry, perhaps, in DA3. That way, there won't be a "clearly superior" choice, but the outcome can still be good nonetheless.

Bolded for truth.

People keep focusing on "sacrifice" and "bittersweet" and forget about this, I think.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What's ideal, to me, is a choice between endings that are equally happy, but for different reasons for different people. I.e. a more successful choice between the mages and Chantry, perhaps, in DA3. That way, there won't be a "clearly superior" choice, but the outcome can still be good nonetheless.

Bolded for truth.

People keep focusing on "sacrifice" and "bittersweet" and forget about this, I think.

Indeed. I personally consider the soul-annihilation of "Redeemer" to be horrible and I don't particularly want the Old Gods gone, so the Dark Ritual is an easy choice for me, but this is evidently not the case for everyone.

Also, I found the DA2 ending uplifting, in its own way: things were finally getting done about the templar problem, genocide was at least partially averted, templar ass was righteously kicked, and my whole team made it out alive.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 29 octobre 2012 - 03:34 .

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What's ideal, to me, is a choice between endings that are equally happy, but for different reasons for different people. I.e. a more successful choice between the mages and Chantry, perhaps, in DA3. That way, there won't be a "clearly superior" choice, but the outcome can still be good nonetheless.

Bolded for truth.

People keep focusing on "sacrifice" and "bittersweet" and forget about this, I think.

Indeed. I personally consider the soul-annihilation of "Redeemer" to be horrible and I don't particularly want the Old Gods gone, so the Dark Ritual is an easy choice for me, but this is evidently not the case for everyone.

Also, I found the DA2 ending uplifting, in its own way: things were finally getting done about the templar problem, genocide was at least partially averted, templar ass was righteously kicked, and my whole team made it out alive.

Indeed.  And I prefer Redeemer because I'd rather not have an Old God wandering around.  I can have Logain atone for his past deeds, and I'd rather have Alistair angry at me than dead.  

DA2 was...adequate.  I didn't particularly care for either faction by the end.  But my "canon" Hawke had Bethany as a Circle mage.  So I can justify siding with the mages as "No one's annulling my sister"  I can be content with that motivation.

See, differnt endings, different reasons for liing the endings.  All valid.  No need to railroad us down a path of bitterness.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

This is a silly thread. DA:O could have a bittersweet ending depending upon the player's choice near the end of the game. If the DA: Inquisition writers want to work a bittersweet ending into the game as one of the options, they're more than welcome to. Also, OP it is possible to get your point across without writing a bloody novel...

[Foolsfolly]

Currently, in my mind... yeah. I'd rather have multiple good and multiple bad endings.

Like say Alpha Protocol or New Vegas or even Origins which had a multiple endings for all the different factions and characters in the game.

Does this mean I as a gamer will aim for the best ending possible? Yes. Yes like most people I want to see these characters and organizations get through the conflict alive and well. Does it mean I will never see the less than optimal endings? No. I will run all kinds of characters with all kinds of squad make-ups and ending places.

Do I think optimal endings should be cut? No. What's wrong with choosing your ending? We choose our gender and friends and live and death.

Now should it be hard to get the best ending? Sure. How do you make that hard? Do all the side quests? Collect all the pieces to reform an ancient bone saber of Zumaclais? Do you have it keyed to certain skill checks so the guy who runs the Persuasive character gets the best ending? Is it a choice like Sophie's Choice where there's "no right answer" because both are equally detestable?

That's what the real question here should be. How hard do you want your happy ending. At what cost. And how do you even present the choice?

[CELL55]

I think that Bittersweet endings are, by there nature, much harder to do properly than either a great or a terrible ending. I imagine that one would have to be really careful and cover all of their bases, because millions of players will be playing through it and may pick up on 'holes'. With so many people playing through it, it's pretty likely that someone will be able to stop and think "Hey, Anders is totally up to no good and I should stop him" or some such thing that makes the ending seem arbitrarily bittersweet. Games are of course limited in what or how many options that they can provide, but when it seems like there's a relatively easy way out of a bittersweet ending but that we are not allowed to choose it, the bittersweet ending loses some of its meaning, IMO, and can just leave me angered or apathetic.

[Iakus]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Currently, in my mind... yeah. I'd rather have multiple good and multiple bad endings.

Like say Alpha Protocol or New Vegas or even Origins which had a multiple endings for all the different factions and characters in the game.

Does this mean I as a gamer will aim for the best ending possible? Yes. Yes like most people I want to see these characters and organizations get through the conflict alive and well. Does it mean I will never see the less than optimal endings? No. I will run all kinds of characters with all kinds of squad make-ups and ending places.

Do I think optimal endings should be cut? No. What's wrong with choosing your ending? We choose our gender and friends and live and death.

Now should it be hard to get the best ending? Sure. How do you make that hard? Do all the side quests? Collect all the pieces to reform an ancient bone saber of Zumaclais? Do you have it keyed to certain skill checks so the guy who runs the Persuasive character gets the best ending? Is it a choice like Sophie's Choice where there's "no right answer" because both are equally detestable?

That's what the real question here should be. How hard do you want your happy ending. At what cost. And how do you even present the choice?

I generally agree with all this.  I am a big fan of Earn Your Happy Ending  Victory tastes all the sweeter when you're on the edge of losing it all (otherwise I wouldn't be as big a Dresden fan as I am).  But as I said a few pages back, this assumes there's a happy ending to earn. I'm willing to work for it, but I want it to be there.  ME3 did not provide that.  Not a personal happy ending at least I know, I know some folks are perfectly content with "we won the war".  I am not

[Foolsfolly]

iakus wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Currently, in my mind... yeah. I'd rather have multiple good and multiple bad endings.

Like say Alpha Protocol or New Vegas or even Origins which had a multiple endings for all the different factions and characters in the game.

Does this mean I as a gamer will aim for the best ending possible? Yes. Yes like most people I want to see these characters and organizations get through the conflict alive and well. Does it mean I will never see the less than optimal endings? No. I will run all kinds of characters with all kinds of squad make-ups and ending places.

Do I think optimal endings should be cut? No. What's wrong with choosing your ending? We choose our gender and friends and live and death.

Now should it be hard to get the best ending? Sure. How do you make that hard? Do all the side quests? Collect all the pieces to reform an ancient bone saber of Zumaclais? Do you have it keyed to certain skill checks so the guy who runs the Persuasive character gets the best ending? Is it a choice like Sophie's Choice where there's "no right answer" because both are equally detestable?

That's what the real question here should be. How hard do you want your happy ending. At what cost. And how do you even present the choice?

I generally agree with all this.  I am a big fan of Earn Your Happy Ending  Victory tastes all the sweeter when you're on the edge of losing it all (otherwise I wouldn't be as big a Dresden fan as I am).  But as I said a few pages back, this assumes there's a happy ending to earn. I'm willing to work for it, but I want it to be there.  ME3 did not provide that.  Not a personal happy ending at least I know, I know some folks are perfectly content with "we won the war".  I am not

I really dig Fallout: New Vegas's endings.

You have your downer ending - The Caesar's Legion endings (especially with Caesar dead).
You have your bittersweet endings- Indepedent Vegas with its worrying Yes Man comment and all those dead and betrayed to get you there. Or the House ending with all its dead and poor that got you there.
You have your positive ending- NCR ending which with work can get the majority of the factions and every companion a happy ending.

Of course in FONV fashion even these aren't exactly cut and dried since every town, group, and many of the NPCs have multiple (like 7-10) endings. Mixing and matching is entirely possible to make things has impossibly happy, bittersweet, or crap-tastic as you want.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 29 octobre 2012 - 04:40 .

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Which is fine. Part of the reason that folks like me hate Destroy in ME3 though is that it isn't some others, but an entire species. That's way to much.

How much is way too much? How do we measure that? Why shouldn't it happen?

The issue for me (at least) is that the Crucible is incongruous with the universe, it's a gigantic plot-important missile of space magic that drives the narrative for the first 95% of the game then completely controls it in the last 5%. Apart from making no sense, it just feels immensely contrived.

There's no reason why a superweapon would only target Reaper components (what *are* Reaper components, anyway?), we're given no information on what the Crucible actually does in any of the endings, and it's basically a vehicle for a specific subset of themes to be presented to the player. Quite clearly Casey wanted an Eden reference and transhumanism to feature prominently, and practically the only thing Mac had on his notepad of ME3 ending ideas was "Shepard dies?". The Crucible is simultaneously capable of energy pulses that destroy pieces of technology while leaving everything else intact, an energy pulse that converts Shepard into an AI overlord while also controlling Reapers, and an energy pulse that miraculously converts organic matter into synthetic and vice versa. 

(What is an energy pulse? Does it have matter inside? How is it made? What do the mass relays do? Why are they different colours? Do they cover the galaxy? How do they cover the galaxy? Is it faster than light?)

If the point of the endings was "ooh, hard choices" or "lots of speculation for everybody", then they probably succeeded - but it felt far too much like the last ten minutes of the game was shoehorning *everything* in a direction it never seemed to be heading towards. Choosing one ending wasn't "the best of three bad options", for me it was choosing the least nonsensical and baffling.

That's really frustrating.

Edit: I guess a shorter version is: I *like* bittersweet endings when they make sense in the universe. Ashley or Kaidan couldn't outrun a nuclear bomb, Mordin couldn't stop an exploding tower, Thane couldn't beat Kepral's Syndrome.

If the geth had sacrificed themselves by DDoSing Harbinger on Earth to give Shepard a chance, or if they'd opened their collective consciousness to the Reapers as a trap, or something that *made sense* in this universe, and died that way - it would've been great. Moving. Even redemptive.

But dying as a side-effect of an artifact we know absolutely nothing about seems like it was included specifically as a downside to Destroy, not because it made any sense in the narrative. 

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 29 octobre 2012 - 04:46 .

[TheJediSaint]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Which is fine. Part of the reason that folks like me hate Destroy in ME3 though is that it isn't some others, but an entire species. That's way to much.

How much is way too much? How do we measure that? Why shouldn't it happen?

The issue for me (at least) is that the Crucible is incongruous with the universe, it's a gigantic plot-important missile of space magic that drives the narrative for the first 95% of the game then completely controls it in the last 5%. Apart from making no sense, it just feels immensely contrived.

There's no reason why a superweapon would only target Reaper components (what *are* Reaper components, anyway?), we're given no information on what the Crucible actually does in any of the endings, and it's basically a vehicle for a specific subset of themes to be presented to the player. Quite clearly Casey wanted an Eden reference and transhumanism to feature prominently, and practically the only thing Mac had on his notepad of ME3 ending ideas was "Shepard dies?". The Crucible is simultaneously capable of energy pulses that destroy pieces of technology while leaving everything else intact, an energy pulse that converts Shepard into an AI overlord while also controlling Reapers, and an energy pulse that miraculously converts organic matter into synthetic and vice versa. 

(What is an energy pulse? Does it have matter inside? How is it made? What do the mass relays do? Why are they different colours? Do they cover the galaxy? How do they cover the galaxy? Is it faster than light?)

If the point of the endings was "ooh, hard choices" or "lots of speculation for everybody", then they probably succeeded - but it felt far too much like the last ten minutes of the game was shoehorning *everything* in a direction it never seemed to be heading towards. Choosing one ending wasn't "the best of three bad options", for me it was choosing the least nonsensical and baffling.

That's really frustrating.

Yeah, that was pretty much my probelm with the ending to ME3.  That and the "press button to choose your ending" mechanic, which is something I've always hated in games.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 29 octobre 2012 - 04:46 .