616 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I would disagree with your statements about the races. We have no proof of that, at all, whatsoever.

I would continue this, but we're wildly out of DA territory.

Thank you.

[brushyourteeth]

Abraham_uk wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Daralii wrote...

... Or people will throw a tantrum that will blot out the sun.

Then Bioware will continue to make games in the shade.

THIS IS BIOWARE!

I LOL'd. 


Really, I don't need to have a *happy* ending. Just a complete one.

DAII was just as guilty of being unsatisfactory to me in this department as ME3 was. I still hope we find out what became of Hawke and our DAII companions in the next game.

[Medhia Nox]

@nobody in particular...

What does "a cost" have to do with a happy ending?

You can "pay a price" and still achieve a happy ending.

There's a world of difference between the nihilistic grimdark of the ME 3 ending... and the family who found each other after the tsunami in the movie "The Impossible" (actual event)

If you think those people didn't "pay a price" just because their family was in tact and two thirds weren't maimed or killed or turned into zombies by trendy blood mages - you're a fool.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 02 mars 2013 - 09:19 .

[svenus97]

KingsTiger wrote...

Makes perfect sense to me. There is a place for dark endings, brutal lessons that sometimes you just can't win. A videogame is not that place. We go there to live another life, one where our actions ultimately determine our fates. You can tell a dark tale, take a serious look at serious issues, but this is not a medium suited for tales of life's capriciousness. You can make us work for it, but the possibility of victory should never be taken off the table.

You obviously haven't played The Walking Dead. Probably my favourite video game ending, and purely because of the fact it's so sad and bleak.

[Medhia Nox]

((kinda sorta Walking Dead spoiler))

@svenus97: And yet, I would consider that a happy ending.

The goal you are supposed to want to achieve - is achieved.

[AppealToReason]

Gaider said at the panel in Edmonton that he wants the ending to be "a kick in the gut that you're glad you recieved" or something like that.

[TheJediSaint]

AppealToReason wrote...

Gaider said at the panel in Edmonton that he wants the ending to be "a kick in the gut that you're glad you recieved" or something like that.

I'm all for being kicked in the gut, I just want to know WHY I'm being kicked in the gut.

[Bekkael]

AppealToReason wrote...

Gaider said at the panel in Edmonton that he wants the ending to be "a kick in the gut that you're glad you recieved" or something like that.

I support kicks in the gut. Two of my favorite gaming moments are the creepy poem in the Deep Roads in DA:O, and Franken-Mom in DA2. Those were the big "moments" for me in those games. I'm wondering what the big emotional thing will be in DA3.

Plus, as long as it's a kick I enjoy.... Well, I think that makes all the difference.

[R0vena]

Massa FX wrote...

The lesson: Some people don't want to spend money on a video game to see their avatar die a painful death, or a hinted at death.

Most people play games to enjoy them, not get a life lesson. Video games used to be a form of escapism from real life. A way to relieve stress. Now video games are here to inform players that life is difficult. Excuse me? I learned that when I was a mere child. Thanks, but no thanks.

Amuse me. Make me laugh. Make me a hero. Make me feel good. Make me do incredible things. Make me defeat enemies. Make me work hard for all that... and then kill me off? No. just No.

I agree with this, "happy" personal ending for our hero (hero lives, reunites with LI directly or at least hinted - it can be done without going into rainbows and unicorns, surely) should at least be one of the possible outcomes. Some kind of DAO ending, maybe with a bit more variety would be great. 

[Annie_Dear]

Why not have multiple endings?

[Nefla]

For an ending to be good, it has to fit with the story and theme. If you take a series like Game of Thrones where it's really dark, tragic, often depressing or bittersweet, if you have an ending where the good guys win unconditionally, everyone who died came back to life through magic that wasn't previously hinted at and they all live for thousands of years in peace in a flowery meadow that's a crappy senseless ending that doesn't fit. However if the theme of a story had been like Mass Effect with the themes being joining together to become strong, triumph over adversity, near misses that eventually end with almost complete success and very few losses and to have an ending like we got...The theme had been overall very positive. It was an adventure story and a personal story but it was never a hopeless tragedy.

In ME your goal throughout the whole series was defeating the reapers, not melding with them and not becoming one. There was never anything that hinted at the reapers being redeemable or anything other than extremely powerful horrors that saw every form of life as scum to be harvested for tech and then wiped out. They killed millions, wiped out entire civilizations previously, even taunted their victims (sending video footage to the Turians as they were killing their people) none of this says "oh I'm just an innocent mindless VICTIM of a computer boy that's introduced in the last second!" Why would the reapers suddenly be willing to make "peace" when before they just killed everyone including those who surrendered? The whole "we kill you now to save you from being killed by machines later!" was retarded and obviously thrown in. Why would reaper-boy allow you to take his place through control? He even says he doesn't want to, why tell you to do it? Why the hell would the reapers LET themselves be destroyed (and again your sense of accomplishment is even taken away in the one fitting ending because you don't beat the reapers, you don't earn the victory, the reapers decide to just go ahead and die) in the destroy ending? Why would breaking part of the device get it to activate? Why would grabbing sticks turn you into a reaper? Why would being atomized merge all live in the galaxy into creepy cyborgs? None of it makes logical sense let alone fitting with the story. The ending isn't sad, if's frustrating and retarded.

[Robhuzz]

AppealToReason wrote...

Gaider said at the panel in Edmonton that he wants the ending to be "a kick in the gut that you're glad you recieved" or something like that.

That'll only work properly if the team can manage to write a consistent story with a protagonist that the player gets attached to and feels as his/her own. They didn't manage that with DA2 - not for me anyway.

Why not have multiple endings?

Yeah I'll say. Give us a few different (widely different) endings like they did with DAO and you'll make most people happy.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 02 mars 2013 - 09:36 .

[wright1978]

R0vena wrote...

I agree with this, "happy" personal ending for our hero (hero lives, reunites with LI directly or at least hinted - it can be done without going into rainbows and unicorns, surely) should at least be one of the possible outcomes. Some kind of DAO ending, maybe with a bit more variety would be great. 

Yep as far as i'm concerned choice over the fate of the protaganist should be there in the ending.

[Dave of Canada]

Medhia Nox wrote...

If you think those people didn't "pay a price" just because their family was in tact and two thirds weren't maimed or killed or turned into zombies by trendy blood mages - you're a fool.

You're leading the battle against the Templar (I'll assume you're pro-mage), you've got your forces at the ready and your best friend will be diverting some of your forces to flank the Templar and help destroy their camp. All is going according to plan until a scout reports that Templar forces from around Orlais are on the march towards your location and they'll be arriving mid-battle.

• You're given the option to retreat but your friend's forces won't have the time to react, they'll probably be trapped between both armies and be wiped out by the Templar.
• You're given the option of charging into battle anyways, you're underprepared but you've got to save your friend.
• Finally, you're given the option of having blood mages summon demons, raise the dead and possibly make abominations out of the non-mages of the group to serve as Shock Troopers.

Option 1 results in half your army being defeated, your best friend being taken by the Templar (possibly made tranquil or tortured) and you gain sympathy from the masses as the Templar are painted as monsters. The war effort suffers but you've gained public sympathy, something which can come into play later to help you.

Option 2 results in almost your entire army being devastated, you've saved your best friend but he's horribly pissed off at you and you escape and leave your men behind to die or worse. The war effort suffers greatly, you don't gain as much public sympathy due to you actually fighting back but least you've got your friend by your side.

Option 3 results in your army suffering minimal losses, you've strong-armed the Templar down and your best friend is saved. As everyone tries to deal the ramifications of blood magic (perhaps a thinner veil due to the mass-death or the blood mages enjoying tormenting templar much to the disgust of everyone else), your friend feels nothing but out-right hatred of you being you resorted to blood magic. War effort doesn't suffer much, Templar are set back greatly, public sympathy for the Templar increases and you've still got your "friend".

If you get too much public sympathy but don't focus on the war effort, you lose the war and the public riots in protest but they're put down by the Templar.

If you focus on the war effort but don't get too much sympathy, the mages are "freed" but everyone else riots against them and mages have  to put down the mundanes.

If you focus too much on personal relationships, both suffer and you might end up not winning the war.

It's a question of "what is your happy ending", do you want to see mages freed no matter the cost? Do you want to see people's opinions on mages change, perhaps allowing for reform down the line? Do you want mages to live like normal men? Do you seek personal happiness? Do you want all your friends to live?

Choose your happy ending and go with it, you pay the price for what you desire. You just don't get your cake and eat it too, leaving tangents of bittersweet. Imagine the protagonist lamenting in the corner as everyone praises mage freedom because none of your friends made it out alive.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 mars 2013 - 09:35 .

[Reidbynature]

I hope that the ending of DA: Inquisition will provide more choices than they did with ME3 rather than an A, B or C of which death you prefer (with a possible hint of survival at best for one of them). I think Bioware have been taking on feedback that we as players would like our choices to matter, so I'm more optimistic that Inquisition won't force a couple of depressing choices on us and the endings will be down to what the player prefers.

Modifié par Reidbynature, 02 mars 2013 - 09:36 .

[KingsTiger]

svenus97 wrote...

KingsTiger wrote...

Makes perfect sense to me. There is a place for dark endings, brutal lessons that sometimes you just can't win. A videogame is not that place. We go there to live another life, one where our actions ultimately determine our fates. You can tell a dark tale, take a serious look at serious issues, but this is not a medium suited for tales of life's capriciousness. You can make us work for it, but the possibility of victory should never be taken off the table.

You obviously haven't played The Walking Dead. Probably my favourite video game ending, and purely because of the fact it's so sad and bleak.

Yeah, I haven't. I'm sort of... zombie'd out. Too many of the damn things these days.
But from what I heard, at the end of the day, you do (technically) win. You just have to lose your character's life to do it. I'm not against sacrifice for the sake of victory, but the problem with the ME3 original cut endings was that the sacrifice seemed meaningless. From out of nowhere, you were taken from possible happy ending territory to three unpalatable with no chance to argue (which was a major disappointment because the little loser's logic was terrible).

ANYWAY. While I might quibble with the OP's definition of "happy ending," the fact doesn't change that in a game like Dragon Age, where choice is paramount, ripping those choices away at the end is a bad idea, and they probably shouldn't do it again.

Also, I can't STAND bleak/depressing stories and endings because they're well... depressing. And unnecessary. You can look into deep topics without making your readers/viewers/players feel bad; it's just harder.

Modifié par KingsTiger, 02 mars 2013 - 09:39 .

[Sjpelke]

Annie_Dear wrote...

Why not have multiple endings?

IF choices matter......

[Annie_Dear]

TsadeeHekate wrote...

Annie_Dear wrote...

Why not have multiple endings?

IF choices matter......

[Sable Rhapsody]

KingsTiger wrote...
You can look into deep topics without making your readers/viewers/players feel bad; it's just harder.

Case in point: Avatar the Last Airbender (and its sequel series Legend of Korra).  These are kids' shows that tackle everything from domestic abuse to terrorism, and do it on Nickelodeon with colorful graphics and animation.

That being said, I don't mind bleaker approaches to storytelling.  I'm playing Spec Ops: The Line right now, and that game is depressing as all hell.  I just want the story to be good and make sense.

[perfect_victime]

The difference for me on the subject of Mass Effect vs Dragon Age is bothe the protagonist (ie shepard/Normandy) and the antagonist (Reapers) were constant in all three games. At the end even the extended cut, I felt left out of the result, nothing I did mattered. In Dragon Age both the hero and enemy change each time. Had DA 2 been about the Warden more investment into the character would have been made. Now I hear Hawke will not be in DA:I so now investment in him looses value.
Think Of it like DA: 1 being about Hawke. Then DA: 2 being about Hawke. Now your investment in the protagonist is stronger. Witcher = Geralt, Tomb Raider = Lara Croft, Devel May Cry = Dante. In Balder's Gate through Thrown of Bhaal the protagonst is the same. Has anyone read old articals on the uproar of the NWN OC character not being the hero of SoU and HotU?
It is possible in ME2 to have various sad outcomes, with Shepard himself dying. Fine. So whats wrong with a happy ending for Shepard? It should be one possible outcome even if it was the hardest, you had to make all the best choices and that you can only get on Nightmare mode. Fans should have been given the chance to sit back on a beach with Garrius and collect royalties. IMHO

[Iakus]

Annie_Dear wrote...

Why not have multiple endings?

In a choice-based rpg?

Blasphemy! 

[Sjpelke]

Annie_Dear wrote...

TsadeeHekate wrote...

Annie_Dear wrote...

Why not have multiple endings?

IF choices matter......

PERFECT !

[Sharn01]

mickey111 wrote...

And don't invent an utterly random new antagonist a couple of hours before the credits roll.

Minutes, ME3 brought in a new antagonist a couple of minutes before the credits rolled, and the ending choices where a short list dictated to Shepard by this near omnipotent being that it would allow him or her to make.

[InfinitePaths]

If Mass Effect 3 had a bittersweet sad ending i would enjoy it very much but it is dissapointing,going against the lore,no sense,just stupid.My favourite DAO ending is with the warden dying,it is such a beutifull story.His last adventure,he finally found a pourpose and saved Ferelden,he died happily and made the world a better place,Now that is an ending.

I don't like the ending where everyone survives + you get a god child it's a win-win that is not satisfactory IMO