591 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That aside, I don't see what is so forced with sacrificing the geth. The reapers are synthetic. You have a weapon that destroyes synthetics...indiscriminately.

It´s forced because we also have Synthesis as an option. So there you have an energy wave that can´t tell AIs appart (it´s not even Reaper code, it´s all AIs), but sum you "organic energy"  to the green beam and it´ll reboot the concept of life galaxy wide with no ill effects for anybody (not even emotional ones). If that´s not forced, please gime me an exmple of something you consider forced.

And ME3 is no more schoolchildren gathering against an army than SW or LotR were. Anyway I referred to the tone of the story, not the impossible odds of the plot, which is usually way above the main characters´ rank in so many tales.

[Fawx9]

Let's take the Diablo 2 ending. You beat the big bad and break his soulstone (OMG Spoilers), but you end up finding out that you forgot about another prime evil that is now free, and teverything is going according to plan.

The main difference between this and ME3, is that you actually felt like you did accomplish something. You beat down Diablo, on his home turf, and while there is still a huge mess to cleanup you can at least take that away with you.

ME3 (especially the original endings) didn't have that feeling at all. It was a scripted 5-10 minute cutsence in which you got to choose one of the Reaper approved solutions. There was nothing there that gave you the feeling 'Ha eat that Harbinger'. You saw some pretty lights, the relays destroyed, and some bad attempt at an adam and eve parallel.

For an ending to be bittersweet it needs the right amount of sweetness in order to make it work. Without it, it just becomes bitter, and if I wanted that I'd just have Buckley's cough syrup.

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Because you don't like happy endings. I'm just trying to give you what you want, while giving me what I want. as much as possible.

As someone who wants the entire ending to be bittersweet no matter what, our interests are mutually exclusive.

The game will tell you that, but I think we both know that very, very few players will let it seriously affect their opinions.

Dragon Age 2 helped gain more Templar supporters despite the fact that both sides were horribly flawed, who's to say the next game won't change people's opinions even further? Perhaps they'll finally show the true threat of mages.
'

Also, the mage side is chaotic good (or just Good, if you're using 4e alignments), although I find it interesting that you acknowledge it as being good.

Could've said "paragon" instead, I don't like any alignment system but it's obvious people adhere to them and most players go with the "good" options--doesn't mean I find said options "good" myself. One quick read through this thread shows most of them didn't play Renegade, the "themes" which they identify Mass Effect are not present within that.

It's no surprise that people side with mages because they're the "innocent oppressed".

Anyway, while I have no logical ethical issues with your side being able to win, I request that you let mine do so too.

I have no problems with the mage side winning, I just don't want them to win without cost. Perhaps the entire nation of Orlais is left severely weakened as anarchy fills the streets, allowing Nevarra to invade Orlais without issue and the Qunari decide it's the best time to strike.

Meanwhile, Templar ending leaves them vulnerable as most mages are dead or unwilling to fight. Etc.

Ah, so you're now a priori claiming that only one side could possibly have a happy ending?

No, I'm claiming that a completely "happy ending" for mages is unreasonable. I don't want either side to get a happy ending. I'm against the idea of unbalanced endings where one side has happy and the other bittersweet.

As a result of becoming personally invested in one's own character, it can frequently lead one to become more attached to the others, too, feeling that the story is more personal.

RDR made you attached to John Marston and his family.
PS:T made you attached to The Nameless One and those he'd encounter on his quest.
GTA4 made you attached to Niko and the people around him.
God of War made you attached to Kratos.

Perhaps it's just me that doesn't need to create a character to feel attached?

And to use one of your examples, who gets attached to anyone in God of War, for instance? It's obvious that everyone will be horribly slaughtered at some point.

I know of some people who wept / felt sad during some of the God of War games, specific examples:
When you have to defend your dead family from illusions of yourself.
When you try to kill yourself to be with your family but you're made into a god instead.
When you meet your daughter and have to leave her behind to do your quest.
Third game's finale.

It's a very "actiony" plot but it does invoke emotion among the audience. They "win" but at the end of the day, Kratos is still burdened with the horrors of the things he's done.

I wanted the Old God to remain.

And if it yields to a significantly worse result, would you still consider it a happy ending?

And none of the cards really "got" me, possibly because I was paying attention.

Grats.

[Bernhardtbr]

iakus wrote...

I've said before PS:T is a unique case.  Death has been the ultimate goal pretty much from the start of the game (just one example of how it turns standard rpg tropes on their heads)  Dying isn't a consequence imposed by a policy of "needs moar sadz" .  It's a victory in itself.  It's putting things right that has been out of whack for so long even immortals no longer remember what started it.

In addition, this is the D&D universe it takes place in.  Death isn't always the end.  Yeah we see The Nameless One take up an axe and join the Blood War, but at this point, he's grown so powerful one can hope he might find a way to claw his way out of even this.

Great point. Indeed, the setting and goal from the start was so different that everything that went after was unpredictable as well. Compare that to DAO where you know from the beggining you will have to destroy big evil threathening the land (Loghain´s betrayal was so silly I don´t even count it as plot).

So, if from the start the premise of DA3 is that there´s a big evil, or there is some good guy that turns out to be evil at the end... not necessarily it will be a bad game, but won´t be a great one.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:34 .

[The Elder King]

Dave of Canada wrote...



Could've said "paragon" instead, I don't like any alignment system but it's obvious people adhere to them and most players go with the "good" options--doesn't mean I find said options "good" myself. One quick read through this thread shows most of them didn't play Renegade, the "themes" which they identify Mass Effect are not present within that.

It's no surprise that people side with mages because they're the "innocent oppressed".

I can't talk about others, but the only Shepard I played in ME3, who got ParaControl, had a lot of Renegade points . The difference between them isn't that great. The right definition would be Paragade, but I hate the alignment systems. I understand having it a SW game like KOTOR/KOTOR 2, not much in ME (expecially when it leads one choice to be insta-win, and the other to have no advanteges in the game, and leads the PC to be considered a jerk).
I have Renegade/Renagon Shepard to import in ME3, but at the moment I don't  have neither the time or the interest to play ME3.

I have no problems with the mage side winning, I just don't want them to win without cost. Perhaps the entire nation of Orlais is left severely weakened as anarchy fills the streets, allowing Nevarra to invade Orlais without issue and the Qunari decide it's the best time to strike.

I think the Qunari will be a threat in the next game regardless the outcome of the magi-templar war. About Orlais, I'd say that there are high chances that lot of players will not care about Orlais (they might be more interested in the side they picked than Orlais), so they would still consider the ending "happy".

Modifié par hhh89, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:55 .

[barbara2012]

fchopin wrote...

Bernhardtbr wrote...

Goddamit the 100000th discussion about ME? In DA3 forum nonetheless?

GTFO, do you people need a moderator to wake you up?

People are saying that they don't want an ME3 style ending for DA3 so what should we talk about then if not the ME3 ending to find out why they don't like it.

exactly this

[Xilizhra]

Dragon Age 2 helped gain more Templar supporters despite the fact that both sides were horribly flawed, who's to say the next game won't change people's opinions even further? Perhaps they'll finally show the true threat of mages.

They admitted that they showed too few good mages in the last game to be a decent sample of reality. I believe that issue will be toned down in DA3.

I have no problems with the mage side winning, I just don't want them to win without cost. Perhaps the entire nation of Orlais is left severely weakened as anarchy fills the streets, allowing Nevarra to invade Orlais without issue and the Qunari decide it's the best time to strike.

Meanwhile, Templar ending leaves them vulnerable as most mages are dead or unwilling to fight. Etc.

So it's more or less the same cost regardless?

No, I'm claiming that a completely "happy ending" for mages is unreasonable. I don't want either side to get a happy ending. I'm against the idea of unbalanced endings where one side has happy and the other bittersweet.

Define "happy ending."

Perhaps it's just me that doesn't need to create a character to feel attached?

One can be attached without feeling the need to direct the story themselves and choose an outcome for the protagonist. If the protagonist is one's own, most will want to do more of that.

And if it yields to a significantly worse result, would you still consider it a happy ending?

It won't.

[Derengard]

Sorry, I can only very barely distinguish the OPs distinction of "bittersweetness" and his laudation of heroism. And I think that might be the main reason why that criticism is relatively well received (in a bittersweet way). I have nothing much against "heroism", but I don't think it is a great achievement in storytelling or rare at all. In fact, some great literature was created in deliberate avoidance or questioning of it.  I don't see how in such a note criticism is supposed to achieve anything, or how overstated heroism (that I would count in one breath next to bittersweetness of Bioware's most pronounced characterstics) would improve anything. I think Bioware is relatively melodramatic and emotic in all their newer franchises. Sometimes it works well enough, but overall it is making a very limited and naive impression. Questions of style mostly don't concern them, their world feels like one big community where issues are basically "arguments" but everyone is seeing the world in a monotonous, distinctly "modern" way.

Modifié par Derengard, 31 octobre 2012 - 08:46 .

[WhiteThunder]

Derengard wrote...

Sorry, I can only very barely distinguish the OPs distinction of "bittersweetness" and his laudation of heroism. And I think that might be the main reason why that criticism is relatively well received (in a bittersweet way). I have nothing much against "heroism", but I don't think it is a great achievement in storytelling or rare at all. In fact, some great literature was created in deliberate avoidance or questioning of it.  I don't see how in such a note criticism is supposed to achieve anything, or how overstated heroism (that I would count in one breath next to bittersweetness of Bioware's most pronounced characterstics) would improve anything. I think Bioware is relatively melodramatic and emotic in all their newer franchises. Sometimes it works well enough, but overall it is making a very limited and naive impression. Questions of style mostly don't concern them, their world feels like one big community where issues are basically "arguments" but everyone is seeing the world in a monotonous, distinctly "modern" way.

I would even argue that there needs to be a cost for an action to be Heroic.  A happily-ever-after ending in which everyone turns out A-Okay is not heroic because the hero never had to sacrifice anything.  They just went along there way and good things happened to them, and Oh! they stopped the Big Bad, too.

[Iakus]

WhiteThunder wrote...

Derengard wrote...

Sorry, I can only very barely distinguish the OPs distinction of "bittersweetness" and his laudation of heroism. And I think that might be the main reason why that criticism is relatively well received (in a bittersweet way). I have nothing much against "heroism", but I don't think it is a great achievement in storytelling or rare at all. In fact, some great literature was created in deliberate avoidance or questioning of it.  I don't see how in such a note criticism is supposed to achieve anything, or how overstated heroism (that I would count in one breath next to bittersweetness of Bioware's most pronounced characterstics) would improve anything. I think Bioware is relatively melodramatic and emotic in all their newer franchises. Sometimes it works well enough, but overall it is making a very limited and naive impression. Questions of style mostly don't concern them, their world feels like one big community where issues are basically "arguments" but everyone is seeing the world in a monotonous, distinctly "modern" way.

I would even argue that there needs to be a cost for an action to be Heroic.  A happily-ever-after ending in which everyone turns out A-Okay is not heroic because the hero never had to sacrifice anything.  They just went along there way and good things happened to them, and Oh! they stopped the Big Bad, too.

But if the cost is too high, it kills any desire to repeat the story.  That's why I prefer "Earn Your Happy Ending"  Even if there's a cost, the protagonist comes out ahead.  Even if the gratification is delayed until the very end.

Too much bittersweet, I find means you run out of sweet way before you run out of bitter.

[blueumi]

dragon age 1 had the right mix of dakr and light

if I as the warden did bad things then it would get really dark but if I went out of my way to help people in that game I could make the world a little less dark

dragon age 3 needs to find a good balance because dragon age 2 got old because it never stopped being dark

[Masha Potato]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I have no problems with the mage side winning, I just don't want them to win without cost. Perhaps the entire nation of Orlais is left severely weakened as anarchy fills the streets, allowing Nevarra to invade Orlais without issue and the Qunari decide it's the best time to strike.
Grats.

That would constitute a happy ending though. 

[nos_astra]

The easiest ways to achieve bittersweet and still give the player some sense of accomplishment would be:
- the hero sacrifices personal happiness, but it you leave the world in a better state than it was before (or would have been without their intervention)
- the world is screwed and the hero failed or merely managed to prevent the worst case scenario but at least he managed to find personal happiness in dark times

ME3 gave us nothing before the EC. Shepard dies (or barely lives), the LI is stranded on Planet Plothole - no personal happiness to be found here. The Reapers were stopped but we didn't really know what was actually left behind. The state of the galaxy as players perceived it (hello, dark age!) was at odds with what Buzz Aldrin told us after the credits had rolled.

The EC worked hard to make the loss of personal happiness more bearable (a second goodbye scene), provided easier access to the "Shepard gasps in the rubble after being in the middle of an explosion"-easter egg and tried to remove the ambiguity of the galaxy's state. It made things better for many (but of course didn't fix the issues with the narrative/themes/logic/lore for others).

DA2 always led to the same outcome, but at least you got the impression that Hawke still had their LI around.

DAO mixed things up a lot, there were many combinations but you always got the impression that for now Ferelden was better off. The Blight was stopped and whoever was the ruler would do at least allright (or better). On top of that you got other pay-offs, depending on your choices.

So maybe make sure the player is not left guessing what happened? Details matter. And always leave the player one clearly good thing that they can hold on to.

Modifié par klarabella, 31 octobre 2012 - 10:10 .

[Nerevar-as]

WhiteThunder wrote...

I would even argue that there needs to be a cost for an action to be Heroic.  A happily-ever-after ending in which everyone turns out A-Okay is not heroic because the hero never had to sacrifice anything.  They just went along there way and good things happened to them, and Oh! they stopped the Big Bad, too.

I´m getting tired of this concept that if you are a hero then you have to lose things. Michael Carpenter (Dresden Files) for instance was a hero before the event that got him forcibly retired, and had (and went on having) a more or less happy life. Being a hero it´s about rising to a great challenge (IMHO), not having your life screwed. I hate that grimdark seems to be the aesop nowadays, at least in comic books. You keep fighting, you slowly lose everybody and everything, and the world is slowly getting worse despite your best efforts. I can´t help thinking that more than heroes they are masoquists.

[Dave of Canada]

Nerevar-as wrote...

I´m getting tired of this concept that if you are a hero then you have to lose things.

Because having the hero always win is boring. Hell, the original comics of super heroes are always laced with tragedy because it creates history with the character and allows us to relate to them. Bruce Wayne wouldn't be the Batman without the death of his parents, Gwen Stacey's death was important to Spider-Man (unsure if this was rewritten or not), ect. Hell, Disney even killed Bambi's mother.

When such themes are present, they must be confronted as well. You can't introduce tragedy and dismiss it as irrelevant afterwards, it becomes core to the narrative. For example, during DC's "The Killing Joke" they draw parallels between the protagonist and the antagonist and how events shaped them.

Humans are attracted to tragedy, it's part of the human condition and will always be part of every story told. You don't like how Dragon Age is trying to shift towards darker tones? I'd recommend other games, there's three games that end happily ever after for each one that ends with bittersweet / bad endings.

Being a hero it´s about rising to a great challenge (IMHO) not having your life screwed.

Depends on the type of story told, not every story is about a "hero" and not every story is about the same conflicts and themes. The "hero" surpassing the odds is one type of story.

I hate that grimdark seems to be the aesop nowadays

Considering how many people see the world as nothing but black and white, of course anything except for total victory looks like grimdark.

I can´t help thinking that more than heroes they are masoquists. 

Or they're people trying to do their damned best under the circumstances.

[Kileyan]

After several pages of reading, I can't help but wonder where some people get their ideas. A common theme seems to be that for every good thing you do, there must be some cost(bad event), why?

I understand that an occasional repercussion makes it interesting when a good choice bites you in the ass. However, it seems several folks think it is some sort of mathematical balance that is required, that for every good choice there must be some sort of punishment. You act as if for every time I offer to carry my elderly neighbors groceries in her house, there must be an elderly person who is mugged across town.

Sometimes a good choice or even a good ending, is just that, a good thing. This requirement that every 'good' thing must have a drawback isn't mature and gritty writing, it is just trite. Trying to enforce that kind of balance imho ends up making it become one of those games where you start to feel that no matter what you do everything is a wrong choice, or worse don't matter. That is something to avoid just as much as Alan and Mr. Gaiders insistence that good choices and endings make all the other choices the wrong choices.

[Dave of Canada]

Kileyan wrote...

Trying to enforce that kind of balance imho ends up making it become one of those games where you start to feel that no matter what you do everything is a wrong choice, or worse don't matter.

That's the point.

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

Trying to enforce that kind of balance imho ends up making it become one of those games where you start to feel that no matter what you do everything is a wrong choice, or worse don't matter.

That's the point.

Then why play?

[Kileyan]

Why is that a good thing? I can't speak for anyone else, but once I start getting the sinking feeling that everything I choose will backfire on me or be a wrong choice, I stop caring and just click a choice, tap the space bar fast as I can to skip the cutscene. I lose interest, and it become just a race to see how fast I can get past the non choices and endless chatter, and get on with the combat engine.

I don't know if any of you even have a background in pen n paper gaming, but when a story teller/dungeon master has that kind of attitude vs players, when they start seeing the trend that no matter what choice they make, it is the bad one, the players stop caring, stop feeling like they are part of the world, and just want to fast forward the talky bits of the game and go find the treasure.

It is a fine line and not easy to do, but the story teller or dev, can ruin an experience if the relationship between the player and the person telling to story becomes adversarial.

Modifié par Kileyan, 31 octobre 2012 - 11:40 .

[Nerevar-as]

iakus wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

Trying to enforce that kind of balance imho ends up making it become one of those games where you start to feel that no matter what you do everything is a wrong choice, or worse don't matter.

That's the point.

Then why play?

Masoquism? Maybe to escape real life? I usually prefer the characters I invest my time and emotion on to succeed, but maybe for some people escapism consist on seeing how much worse they are.

I have no idea, but I´ve gotten really tired of grimdark by the sake of it.. It can be done right (The Witcher, some endings in Origins), but done for a concept of True Art is Angsty... just no. And some authors also seem to mix bittersweet for Downer endings.

[BlueMagitek]

Kileyan wrote...

I don't know if any of you even have a background in pen n paper gaming, but when a story teller/dungeon master has that kind of attitude vs players, when they start seeing the trend that no matter what choice they make, it is the bad one, the players stop caring, stop feeling like they are part of the world, and just want to fast forward the talky bits of the game and go find the treasure.

Every choice isn't going to end in tragedy, nor is every chocie all sunshine and rainbows is the point.  If one option is just perfect and great for everyone, then there's no point in picking another option.  There's your golden scenario right there. 

Let me take an example from Dragon Age Origins.  You can choose to Annul the Circle or not.  And nothing really bad happens if you choose to spare everyone, including the Blood Mage who begs for her life.  So while you may choose the Templar for the first playthrough, that requires you to kill women, elderly and children, and for later playthroughs you know perfectly well that nothing bad happens for sparing the Mages.

Now, choosing the Templar, from the character's point of view, may make perfect sense.  There don't seem to be many, if any, mages left, the Templar are sending for reinforcement so you know there are more of them.  You may know about Darkspawn Emissaries.  And mages are dangerous and you don't really have anyway of knowing if they've been dominated by blood magic or not..  So the Templar joining would not be a bad idea.  But, unfortunately, the Player knows differently. 

However, if instead, the ending for Sparing the Circle involved some of the mages being bloodmages hiding amongst a flock of sheep who escape and go about killing innocent people (ala Cullen), suddenly the Mage Choice is a bit blemished.

And it would be... unwise for player characters to avoid dialog.  I've turned one of them into a tree for doing so.  They had it coming.

*This is just picking one of the scenarios, this is not a topic about mages

[WhiteThunder]

Nerevar-as wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

I would even argue that there needs to be a cost for an action to be Heroic.  A happily-ever-after ending in which everyone turns out A-Okay is not heroic because the hero never had to sacrifice anything.  They just went along there way and good things happened to them, and Oh! they stopped the Big Bad, too.

I´m getting tired of this concept that if you are a hero then you have to lose things. Michael Carpenter (Dresden Files) for instance was a hero before the event that got him forcibly retired, and had (and went on having) a more or less happy life. Being a hero it´s about rising to a great challenge (IMHO), not having your life screwed. I hate that grimdark seems to be the aesop nowadays, at least in comic books. You keep fighting, you slowly lose everybody and everything, and the world is slowly getting worse despite your best efforts. I can´t help thinking that more than heroes they are masoquists.

Courage isn't a man with a gun in his hand.  It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.

I like courageous heroes, myself.

[Kileyan]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

I don't know if any of you even have a background in pen n paper gaming, but when a story teller/dungeon master has that kind of attitude vs players, when they start seeing the trend that no matter what choice they make, it is the bad one, the players stop caring, stop feeling like they are part of the world, and just want to fast forward the talky bits of the game and go find the treasure.

Every choice isn't going to end in tragedy, nor is every chocie all sunshine and rainbows is the point.  If one option is just perfect and great for everyone, then there's no point in picking another option.  There's your golden scenario right there. 

I think I covered that. There is nothing wrong with the occassional surprise of a choice you tought was good, having a twist to it.

I am more talking about the attitude that any good ending or good choice must be balanced by dire consequences.........just because.

Sure you can beat the big bad Mage and his body guards...........btw, your wife and the rest of your immediate family were killed by a curse he placed upon them. Putting that type of thing in a game because it is important to the story is ok, puttiing that type of thing in a game just because you have this idea that you don't want your players to choose a single good ending too much, just ensures that they have a wide variety of really crappy endings that they don't like very much.

It doesn't even seem to be about art. It seems game devs want a wide variety of ending choices, and see the only way to do that is to make sure all of them are undesirable. You are left with a game designed so that people aren't choosing endings they like, instead they are choosing the ending they hate the least. Maybe thats the only way to create a game without a single ending being the "good" one, just doesnt' seem like a very good ending choice for the players.

Modifié par Kileyan, 01 novembre 2012 - 12:28 .

[BlueMagitek]

No, a surprise result has the same issue with giving the Player knowledge. 

Consequences must be attached to actions because the setting calls for consequences.  Thedas is fairly bleak, when it comes down to it.  So a 'everybody lives happily forever' outcome is unlikely.  That nothing happened with the 'Go to the Circle' option with Connor was a miracle.

I don't recall anything of that sort happening in Dragon Age at all.   Are you talking about Orsino in Dragon Age 2? 

Uh, what?  If the only ending you find acceptable is "Everybody lives happily ever after and there was no problem with anything the protagonist did ever" then yeah, I can see why you would dislike the ending, but while a number of Dragon Age endings left on a high note with change on the horizon, there was still a dark undertone.  Maker's Breath, you made an Elf a Bann?  You're defying the Chantry to free the Circle?  You're inviting a hostile group of nomads people to live in the south?  Clearly you've gone crazy.

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 01 novembre 2012 - 01:00 .

[Kileyan]

I'm sorry Blue, didn't mean to confuse you. I was talking more in generalities about idea that every action must have an opposite and equal reaction style of consequences. That is just weird to me. Choosing a good thing demands a bad thing must happen because Thedas is bleak?

If the story demands that everytime you save some peasants from bandits, something terrible happens, then go for it if it means something to the story. If it becomes a repeated theme for no other reason than people think every good act must have a consequence because it doesn't reward the players who let the peasants die, then that is bad story telling and bad game design.

Again, that type of design becomes just as predicable as the shining hero stories that many seem to loathe. Once you get the feeling that nothing matters, no matter what you do, its a net zero sum, it becomes a story experience where you feel no control..........just pick a color coded choice and go kill some stuff!