186 réponses à ce sujet

[ziloe]

wright1978 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

What I would really like to see? Little to no option offered at the end.

In DA:O, you killed the Archdemon. Blight ended. Sure, you had some choice about the Dark Ritual or the Ultimate Sacrifice, but, all in all, it was one solution - you took the Big Bad down. The endings were still wildly varied and ranged in consequences mainly because it reacted to your choices made throughout the game, not to one big one at the end.

That's what I'd hope to see. A few choices at the end, but no Big Choices at the end. Let the choices the player has been making all game define how the game ends and where the chips fall.

I agree that choices player has already made should define how the game ends rather than having a big showstopping make a giant decision at the very last second that is going to have huge ramifications

This isn't a request for fewer choices, right? It's a request to have the choices that do exist displaced back further in the tiimeline of the game?

Well yeah, technically DAO only had one ending, kill the archdemon and not sit down on the archdemon's lap with a cup of cocoa and choose how to end it. Your choices beforehand including dark ritual decided the fate of things in ending and epilogue. Hopefully as mentioned(village destruction because of choice in DAI) DAI will reflect choices too in the story itself as well as ending and epilogue.

I'd like to think the epilogue counts too, though, I think I'd like to see it play out in a more animate form, like my original examples, as opposed to flash cards.

[AlanC9]

ziloe wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
ME3's a pretty lousy example of this, since the three endings result in radically different situations. Might I suggest substituting The Witcher instead? Nothing Grealt devcides makes much differnece there. He can't engineer a Scoia'tael victory, for instance.

Unless we're just talking about how different the cutscenes are or some such.

The majority of the ending choices of Witcher 2, developed over the final act. The entire section was essentially an epilogue. Witcher 1 was different in the fact that it played out very differently, if you either remained neutral or sided with either of the warring factions. ME3, however, before the free dlc, was literally just a few colour swaps. Even so, that visualization of how vastly different it could be, simply wasn't there. And we were left with little closure to our characters or their allies. It just... ended.

Did TW 1 really play differently? There were three different next-to-final missions, all converging on an identical final mission. That's not a very large part of the game

And are we talking about the gameplay, the final state of the game-world, or the cutscenes? If gameplay is what we're talking about  then I guess TW1 passes, barely, but  KotOR fails since the LS and DS endings play the same except that you skip the Bastila boss fight and fight different people on the Temple mount. Of course, the cutscenes are different, though KotOR's only got one LS set and one DS set.

What I'm getting at is that I don't see a good operating definition of what's a failed ending and what's a successful one.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 août 2013 - 09:47 .

[ziloe]

AlanC9 wrote...

ziloe wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
ME3's a pretty lousy example of this, since the three endings result in radically different situations. Might I suggest substituting The Witcher instead? Nothing Grealt devcides makes much differnece there. He can't engineer a Scoia'tael victory, for instance.

Unless we're just talking about how different the cutscenes are or some such.

The majority of the ending choices of Witcher 2, developed over the final act. The entire section was essentially an epilogue. Witcher 1 was different in the fact that it played out very differently, if you either remained neutral or sided with either of the warring factions. ME3, however, before the free dlc, was literally just a few colour swaps. Even so, that visualization of how vastly different it could be, simply wasn't there. And we were left with little closure to our characters or their allies. It just... ended.

Did TW 1 really play differently? There were three different next-to-final missions, all converging on an identical final mission. That's not a very large part of the game

And are we talking about the gameplay, the final state of the game-world, or the cutscenes? If gameplay is what we're talking about  then I guess TW1 passes, barely, but  KotOR fails since the LS and DS endings play the same except that you skip the Bastila boss fight and fight different people on the Temple mount. Of course, the cutscenes are different, though KotOR's only got one LS set and one DS set.

What I'm getting at is that I don't see a good operating definition of what's a failed ending and what's a successful one.

The cutscenes. The final part, where you stop playing, sit back, and watch. Your time is over, and now you just watch it all play out.

Witcher 1, had a specific ending designated to your choice (using the pictures they'd done to detail other events), before the CG cutscene with the King. Alongside Geralt's narration.

The best example of a failed one, is unfortunately the original endings for ME3. The best, are various ones listed throughout this thread. However, my favourite are the ones listed in my original post.

[Renmiri1]

I don't think the writer of ME3's ending realized he wasn't writing the ending for a 2 hour movie. We spent years and hundreds of hours in that universe and to have it all demolished and reshaped in 10 minutes was awful.

They need to remember that this time. Even on movies or books, when it is a series - Harry Potter, Lost, Lord of the Rings, etc.. - the series ending can not be a 10 min kill everyone "artsy angst" thing. Followers of the series feel cheated with good reason. They have been spending days, years loyally following the series, they deserve a properly thought out ending.

Even killing half of the cast - like ME3 - can be done, if done properly. witness Harry Potter 7. JK Rowling didn't introduce something completely out of the HP Universe in the last 10 pages, rendering the entire work done by Harry useless... It was a grim ending were many beloved characters died. Yet it was well received by fans because it was well done and it was entirely in universe. If you read back the books you will see hints to the ending and the spoiler about why Harry was the boy who lived since book 1. It is all there and it shows the work of a good writer who has good editors. ME3's ending lacked an editor.

[ziloe]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't think the writer of ME3's ending realized he wasn't writing the ending for a 2 hour movie. We spent years and hundreds of hours in that universe and to have it all demolished and reshaped in 10 minutes was awful.

They need to remember that this time. Even on movies or books, when it is a series - Harry Potter, Lost, Lord of the Rings, etc.. - the series ending can not be a 10 min kill everyone "artsy angst" thing. Followers of the series feel cheated with good reason. They have been spending days, years loyally following the series, they deserve a properly thought out ending.

Even killing half of the cast - like ME3 - can be done, if done properly. witness Harry Potter 7. JK Rowling didn't introduce something completely out of the HP Universe in the last 10 pages, rendering the entire work done by Harry useless... It was a grim ending were many beloved characters died. Yet it was well received by fans because it was well done and it was entirely in universe. If you read back the books you will see hints to the ending and the spoiler about why Harry was the boy who lived since book 1. It is all there and it shows the work of a good writer who has good editors. ME3's ending lacked an editor.

I don't think their screen test of the ending helped either, seeing as apparently no one thought it was an issue to begin with. And maybe that's what seperates the writer from the reader. We write something for the reader to appreciate and become engrossed with, while stepping away from getting too attached so that we can still write a good story too.

Like with George R.R Martin, who I grew to respect after having a hard time killing off my own characters. There's no doubt he loves his characters, but he also knows when they've served their purpose and need to die. And it's the same with story arcs too. At some point, they just need to end so that something new can grow from it.

Modifié par ziloe, 22 août 2013 - 10:51 .

[Renmiri1]

I heard there was no screen test of the ending. Casey and another writer did it alone and kept it in the dark to avoid leaks.. and because game was almost at release time. It wasn't even vetted by the rest of the team, let alone market tested.

[ziloe]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I heard there was no screen test of the ending. Casey and another writer did it alone and kept it in the dark to avoid leaks.. and because game was almost at release time. It wasn't even vetted by the rest of the team, let alone market tested.

I'm not really surprised, to be honest. I met Mark Meer awhile ago, and whether he's being honest or not, he apparently has had no time to finish it, to really form an opinion on the matter.

I think this time, they might need to open it up a little more to the studio, if that's really the case. As the player, I really don't want something that's trying to be "artsy". Because really, there's a difference between being deep, and being pretentious.

Modifié par ziloe, 22 août 2013 - 11:18 .

[Urazz]

TristanHawke wrote...

Endings are very important to games in my opinion. They can make or break a game.

A good ending must include emotion, closure, tie up loose ends, let us know what has happened to all the characters and how our choices have played out through an epilogue sequence.

Things the ME3 ending lacked until they released a free DLC that expanded upon it and then it was just at the acceptable level of things.

I think the ME3 ending was fine in general but the fact that they lacked it lacked closure and didn't tie up loose ends until future DLC bought it down.  The emotional level of things were bad as well asides from the last major death of a character in game (didn't want to give out spoilers) and again the DLC helped expand upon that.

[Kidd]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

For instance, for DA:O, did you know that originally there was no Dark Ritual offered by Morrigan, but a questline to go find a magical weapon that the Grey Wardens used to kill the Archdemon? There was no death of a Warden involved originally. The change to the Sacrifice/Ritual dichotomy wasn't added until later in the development phase. Yet many feel it was a perfectly done choice, one that the entire tone of the series matched.

Did not know this. Are you sure? Got a link to sate my curious mind? It sounds odd to me given that I could've sworn the idea of the dark ritual predated the entire plot of Origins completely - from when the Origins plot sounded a lot like Nature of the Beast.

[frostajulie]

I know we've been made fun of before in game no less but many of us myself included feel that a game should be able to be won at the end not become 1 of multiple flavors of lose.

DAO did it perfect you could US, you could force someone else to US and Enjoy the glory of being the hero of Ferelden or you could do the dark ritual. Then you got the little after dialogue the one last hurrah with your entire party if you lived The first time I played that I was crying with happiness and sadness because I knew the end was coming just around the corner and there is nothing like your first and 2ns playthru. Then I got the slide show reflected all the consequences of my many decisions and they were always different. I have never played a game as awesome as DAO sadly I played the **** out of it and now I cannot stand it but I remember how awesome I felt the first few times I beat it.

ME3 forces you to capitulate to the will of the enemy and choose one of his endings even if the Shepard you've been playing up to that point would always stand in defiance of such tyranny. Then when you finally do get to stand up and say what you always knew Shepard would say you lose.

Now don't get me wrong I am thankful that the refusal option was available it has become my favorite ending but it leaves me feeling depressed about THE GAME (do not confuse my depression with the way the game turned out with real life) I just wish that after all thse years and all those Shepards there was a way to walk away from the trilogy with something more than a feeling of bitter dissatisfaction. Some of the best story was in ME3 Tuchanka, Victus' son, Grunt, the citidel DLC which I don't care if some consider it fanservice was fun! but I can't load up a ME3 save or new game without feeling frustration and that feeling of why bother it all ends bad anyway.

That feeling is what endures and that feeling for this fan is the legacy of ME and it is in the forefront of every thought I have as I watch the development of DAI. Now what I have seen so far I won't lie excites me, it looks good the guy they got talking about the game seems to be very human and in love with what he does and he's not psyching people up with false promises, everything he has said is supported by what he has showed and I appreciae that and I am hoping for the best. But I am braced for the worst and will be waiting for lets play videos and user reviews and yeah I'm gonna spoil the ending for myself to make sure I can win. Because really there's no good reason for a video game which I indulge in for relaxation and joy to leave me feeling so disappointed and infuriated and let down.

The journey is important and so is the destination and it is definitely about both.

[ziloe]

krul2k wrote...

your a minority, a vocal minority who had a problem with there ending

You know this "vocal minority" is all PR speak, right? If it was a minority, they would have done nothing at all when the so called few complained. And I say this as someone who is familiar with the industry in general, as I work and attend gatherings with game designers on a weekly basis.

[ziloe]

krul2k wrote...

yeah i know m8, still find the statement humorous, why i use it

Didn't catch the sarcasm, ha. Guess that's the trouble with text.

[cindercatz]

frostajulie wrote...

 the citidel DLC which I don't care if some consider it fanservice was fun! but I can't load up a ME3 save or new game without feeling frustration and that feeling of why bother it all ends bad anyway.

 

Citadel was near perfect, seriously. I wish ME3 had ended something like that, with the entire crew playing parts, in a unique kind of endgame story, following up with full playable epilogue. As it is, I have a hard time picking it up to finish my femShep, too. I went ahead and replayed the ending with my first Shepard for every DLC, and multiple rewinds trying to get around that sense of hopelessness, but playing through it again, even with a different Shep with different choices and relationships and all of it, is just tough to do, because I know that's the finale and the end I'm gonna get, no matter what. I'm finding it a lot tougher to get back into than DA2, much as I don't like act3 of that (Anders situation I like, it's the rest of it).

[Fast Jimmy]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

For instance, for DA:O, did you know that originally there was no Dark Ritual offered by Morrigan, but a questline to go find a magical weapon that the Grey Wardens used to kill the Archdemon? There was no death of a Warden involved originally. The change to the Sacrifice/Ritual dichotomy wasn't added until later in the development phase. Yet many feel it was a perfectly done choice, one that the entire tone of the series matched.

Did not know this. Are you sure? Got a link to sate my curious mind? It sounds odd to me given that I could've sworn the idea of the dark ritual predated the entire plot of Origins completely - from when the Origins plot sounded a lot like Nature of the Beast.

It was on the BSN forums, I'm fairly confident. I've given it a legitimate shot, but I'm coming up with bumpkis from Google's advanced search.

If I am remebering my context correctly, it was a conversation that drfited and started talking about the ME3 Crucible and how terrible of a McGuffin it was to just find plans for a weapon to fight the Reapers lying around. Gaider chimed in that DA:O originally had a McGuffin in terms of a secret weapon that the Wardens used to kill the Archdemon, instead of the entire bit of lore about having tainted blood and needing a Warden to die (and, hence, the entire Dark Ritual section that escews said ritual).

Which is pretty interesting. I don't think it was discussed (or, at the least, I certainly don't remember) how far along in development this had changed, but it was definitely not the case from onset.

[ziloe]

krul2k wrote...

im one of the few that never liked citadel dlc apart from the arena, all it did for me was make me fear an have nightmares about the future of my gaming lol, i preferred Leviathan an to a lesser extent Omega over it

I guess this is where you're the minority, haha. For what it's worth, I enjoyed my second playthrough of the series moreso, but only because I lowered my expectations on account of the fact that I already knew what was to come. 

But unlike DA:O, I simply can't bring myself to play it a third time due to how linear it becomes. It also didn't help that the previous game I played, while waiting on ME3, was Deus Ex, which had the exact same concept for an ending.

[ziloe]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

For instance, for DA:O, did you know that originally there was no Dark Ritual offered by Morrigan, but a questline to go find a magical weapon that the Grey Wardens used to kill the Archdemon? There was no death of a Warden involved originally. The change to the Sacrifice/Ritual dichotomy wasn't added until later in the development phase. Yet many feel it was a perfectly done choice, one that the entire tone of the series matched.

Did not know this. Are you sure? Got a link to sate my curious mind? It sounds odd to me given that I could've sworn the idea of the dark ritual predated the entire plot of Origins completely - from when the Origins plot sounded a lot like Nature of the Beast.

I'd actually be curious to see this too.

[ziloe]

bump

[Rann]

I like good endings. I often despise the fight at the ending, though. I like an ending that affects me emotionally, rather than a forced fight (YMMV, of course). As such, I liked the DA:O ending, because the boss fight was reasonably straightforward, and then there was an appropriate emotional payoff (appropriate to the story, that is), where you could say goodbye to everyone.

PS:T is still the golden standard for me overall, because I could actually avoid the fight by being clever earlier in the game, and still get a great emotional payoff. The converse would be NWN2, with essentially no emotional reward after the (to me, very annoying) fight.

The thing that gets me about endings these days is that boss fights have fallen into a bad cliché, in which you always have to kill the boss 2-3 times in a row and/or some variant of "we have to smash the pillars to stop his invincibility power" every time the boss loses a quarter of its power. It's such a cliché trope these days that I actually have a tank run over to anything that looks like an energy source at an obvious change of stage in a boss fight, just in case. The Shadow King from NWN1, the Harvester from GoA & DA2, the Bone Dragon from DA:A, Duke Prosper, Meredith, and the Bone Pit Dragon all have variations on these tropes, along with many other bad guys -- I'm sure some folks like these sorts of fights, and that's fine, but I just found them annoying and much preferred the straight out takedown of the Archdemon by comparison. I really, really hope that the boss fights (and, in particular, the end boss fight) at least have different tricks up their sleeves, even if they don't go for the straight take-down or "diplomatic victory."

[9TailsFox]

I imagine DA3 ending Inquisitor army and allies battle against army of demons glorious.

[wright1978]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

For instance, for DA:O, did you know that originally there was no Dark Ritual offered by Morrigan, but a questline to go find a magical weapon that the Grey Wardens used to kill the Archdemon? There was no death of a Warden involved originally. The change to the Sacrifice/Ritual dichotomy wasn't added until later in the development phase. Yet many feel it was a perfectly done choice, one that the entire tone of the series matched.

Did not know this. Are you sure? Got a link to sate my curious mind? It sounds odd to me given that I could've sworn the idea of the dark ritual predated the entire plot of Origins completely - from when the Origins plot sounded a lot like Nature of the Beast.

It was on the BSN forums, I'm fairly confident. I've given it a legitimate shot, but I'm coming up with bumpkis from Google's advanced search.

If I am remebering my context correctly, it was a conversation that drfited and started talking about the ME3 Crucible and how terrible of a McGuffin it was to just find plans for a weapon to fight the Reapers lying around. Gaider chimed in that DA:O originally had a McGuffin in terms of a secret weapon that the Wardens used to kill the Archdemon, instead of the entire bit of lore about having tainted blood and needing a Warden to die (and, hence, the entire Dark Ritual section that escews said ritual).

Which is pretty interesting. I don't think it was discussed (or, at the least, I certainly don't remember) how far along in development this had changed, but it was definitely not the case from onset.

Very interesting, hadn't heard this. Still shows how important it is have an ending in place conceptually that can be tweaked rather than last minute scrambled eggs that implodes.