186 réponses à ce sujet

[ziloe]

wright1978 wrote...

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.

I find endings can always evolve, as they should. You might have a central theme you want for the ending itself, but it also needs to acknowledge what happened along the way. And with how many stories leave the ending up to the last minute, it's no wonder things can get a bit... complicated.

[Renmiri1]

It is interesting to note that even having a known ending can not prevent a series from disappointing fans. The recent BBC series Merlin has had it's story arch and it's ending known for at least 200 years. We all knew Arthur dies, killed by Mordred, in a war with Morgana's troops. That wasn't a surprise and was foretold through the entire series.

What spoiled the last episodes of BBC's Merlin IMHO was the abruptness the series went into the last war, and the lack of some believable way for Arthur to die in Merlin's arms. I mean, the guy is a dragon lord and spends 2 days dragging a mortally wounded Arthur through the country, when he could have called his dragon friend to take them there ? And then to add insult to injury, he calls the dragon to take Arthur's body to Avalon ? And in a 5 year series to leave Mordred as a nice guy until the next to last episode when he then "turns" and has mortal hate for Arthur made the entire thing seem rushed. The problem wasn't lack of planing or introduction of a new plot, the problem was in the pacing of the series. Alas, the writers didn't have a lot of choice since the actor who played Arthur was leaving the series. ME3 had no such problem and blew it on pacing, foretelling, closure....

I think Babylon V, Harry Potter, Fringe and other series show the right way to have a plan for a series and a plan for an ending that works. Lost and ME3 show the "Oh sh*t how do we end this thing" approach that blows up in everyone's face, with ME3 taking the lead in that area. And ME3's lack of an editor or any kind of peer review for the ending made it even worse.

Fortunately I think the DA team doesn't suffer from the same problem and they also have the advantage of hindsight. They know how NOT to do an ending and they are good writers. I trust they will come with great stuff. Besides, it is not the series end so even if they mess up it won't be as bad.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 23 août 2013 - 01:41 .

[Taleroth]

Renmiri1 wrote...

It is interesting to note that even having a known ending can not prevent a series from disappointing fans. 

I find totally known endings to be the most disappointing. When they're unwilling to change what needs to change.

So there's two general ways you can do a bad ending:
1) Having no idea how you will end it, so you pull one out of your hindquarters.
2) Being so overly attached to your planned ending that it doesn't connect with what changed along the way.

[ziloe]

Taleroth wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

It is interesting to note that even having a known ending can not prevent a series from disappointing fans. 

I find totally known endings to be the most disappointing. When they're unwilling to change what needs to change.

So there's two general ways you can do a bad ending:
1) Having no idea how you will end it, so you pull one out of your hindquarters.
2) Being so overly attached to your planned ending that it doesn't connect with what changed along the way.

Sometimes you need to take liberties with endings that are already known. Put your own spin on it. 

In the PSP game, Joan D' Ark, the ending was pretty dark. But they didn't have her burned at the stake, instead, it was her best friend who at the time had been in disguise, trying to be a distraction, and who was inevitably captured. Joan was too late, her army being held up elsewhere, and they watched her burn. After that, there was one final section for the boss and a bittersweet ending and that was it. But it shows you how much something can be changed, if you just consider it for even a second. Especially considering the whole game, I thought Joan herself was going to die. 

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

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.

It's a good thing that didn't happen in ME3, eh?

Yes, we had a plan, but it was very vague. We knew we wanted to focus on some key themes and bring in certain key elements: organics vs synthetics; the Reapers; the Mass Relays. Beyond that, we didn’t go into detail because we knew it would change radically as the game continued to evolve.

I guess I'm unsure why you mentioned it.

On the flip side, the ending of DA:O WAS known and established. Essentially, you kill the Archdemon - the end. ME3, on the other hand, knew what themes they wanted to touch on, but didnt know what they wanted to HAPPEN. I think that is a difference that is not something that can be easily ignored. 

[Tarek]

people would have forgave the crazy matrix wanna be ending if the game did not end like this:

reapers are dead and so is everyone mehh ... the end
reapers are controlled but ur dead and probably half ur friends if not all u can guess ... the end
reapers and everyone are one with the universe ur dead and its does not make sense.... the end

[Boycott Bioware]

actually that is better than in one of a popular game....

A: "What you want to do?"
B: "I will fight them on earth"

The End

[wright1978]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

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.

It's a good thing that didn't happen in ME3, eh?

Yes, we had a plan, but it was very vague. We knew we wanted to focus on some key themes and bring in certain key elements: organics vs synthetics; the Reapers; the Mass Relays. Beyond that, we didn’t go into detail because we knew it would change radically as the game continued to evolve.

I guess I'm unsure why you mentioned it.

On the flip side, the ending of DA:O WAS known and established. Essentially, you kill the Archdemon - the end. ME3, on the other hand, knew what themes they wanted to touch on, but didnt know what they wanted to HAPPEN. I think that is a difference that is not something that can be easily ignored. 

Yep, that's the truth of it.

[esper]

ziloe wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

It is interesting to note that even having a known ending can not prevent a series from disappointing fans. 

I find totally known endings to be the most disappointing. When they're unwilling to change what needs to change.

So there's two general ways you can do a bad ending:
1) Having no idea how you will end it, so you pull one out of your hindquarters.
2) Being so overly attached to your planned ending that it doesn't connect with what changed along the way.

Sometimes you need to take liberties with endings that are already known. Put your own spin on it. 

In the PSP game, Joan D' Ark, the ending was pretty dark. But they didn't have her burned at the stake, instead, it was her best friend who at the time had been in disguise, trying to be a distraction, and who was inevitably captured. Joan was too late, her army being held up elsewhere, and they watched her burn. After that, there was one final section for the boss and a bittersweet ending and that was it. But it shows you how much something can be changed, if you just consider it for even a second. Especially considering the whole game, I thought Joan herself was going to die. 

There must be two differen games with the same name and the same way to save Joan, because I would say that the psp game I played, the fire burning thing was more halfway or 2/3 way through, after all there was a hughe thing with the love interest balancing between just a little crazy and bat**** insane as a consequence of the burning, the whole demon invasion to finish off, and of course the end game.

So it wasn't so much the ending that was altered as the whole story and thus it was not the case of knowing the ending, which can't really be compared to Merlin where it was made clear from the get go how the series would end.

[ziloe]

esper wrote...

ziloe wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

It is interesting to note that even having a known ending can not prevent a series from disappointing fans. 

I find totally known endings to be the most disappointing. When they're unwilling to change what needs to change.

So there's two general ways you can do a bad ending:
1) Having no idea how you will end it, so you pull one out of your hindquarters.
2) Being so overly attached to your planned ending that it doesn't connect with what changed along the way.

Sometimes you need to take liberties with endings that are already known. Put your own spin on it. 

In the PSP game, Joan D' Ark, the ending was pretty dark. But they didn't have her burned at the stake, instead, it was her best friend who at the time had been in disguise, trying to be a distraction, and who was inevitably captured. Joan was too late, her army being held up elsewhere, and they watched her burn. After that, there was one final section for the boss and a bittersweet ending and that was it. But it shows you how much something can be changed, if you just consider it for even a second. Especially considering the whole game, I thought Joan herself was going to die. 

There must be two differen games with the same name and the same way to save Joan, because I would say that the psp game I played, the fire burning thing was more halfway or 2/3 way through, after all there was a hughe thing with the love interest balancing between just a little crazy and bat**** insane as a consequence of the burning, the whole demon invasion to finish off, and of course the end game.

So it wasn't so much the ending that was altered as the whole story and thus it was not the case of knowing the ending, which can't really be compared to Merlin where it was made clear from the get go how the series would end.

Really? I could have sworn it was pretty much near the end. Ah well.

[ziloe]

bump

[Renmiri1]

wright1978 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

On the flip side, the ending of DA:O WAS known and established. Essentially, you kill the Archdemon - the end. ME3, on the other hand, knew what themes they wanted to touch on, but didnt know what they wanted to HAPPEN. I think that is a difference that is not something that can be easily ignored. 

Yep, that's the truth of it.

See that is an interesting example.

On DAO the Player Character can die. You can do the Ultimate Sacrifice and your PC dies. Alistair makes this very poignant speech but your character is dead.

Yet it was one of the best ending paths IMHO. In my Dalish Warden story it fit like a glove. She was not at home in the court,  her best friend was turned into a darkspawn, she saw her mentor / savior die (Duncan). And she wanted to prove the Dalish were worthy of respect by the people from Thedas. She willingly took the US.

But it was MY decision for one character RP story that fit the theme.

On ME3 your PC dies in 3 out of 4 outcomes and you don't get to decide, the Catalyst just tells you those are the rules and you meekly take it - or refuse and then you are responsible for the death of the entire roster of intelligent humanoids in the galaxy. And before EC you didn't even get a poignant speech after your sacrifice.

ME3's ending was NOT done well at all. DAO handled the same grim choice much better.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 24 août 2013 - 09:57 .

[Caellis]

I think the "readiness" they've been talking about should influence the ending, much like in japanese games where you have good ending, bad enging, perfect ending and hidden ending most of the time, depending on what you did and how well you did.

[Ieldra]

I agree DAO's endings handled things extremely well, indeed. 

IMO the most important diffference to ME3's ending is this: you had some reason to trust the people who explained things to you. OK, you may distrust Morrigan, but in that case there's still Riordan, who's a Warden like you and who would have done the sacrifice had he been able to, as the cinematic sequence shows you. Even for Morrigan, it's your choice to trust her or not, and there is a way out if you don't that still achieves your objective.

Compare that with ME3: the entity who explains things to you is the one that started the whole mess in the first place and is responsible for the most repulsive actions you could ever imagine. It's not the Reaperization itself, no, it's the needlessly cruel and painful Reaperization, the body horror and the disfigurations which make the Catalyst into a bad guy you just don't want to go along with, regardless of what it tells you. For three games, the story screams "This is really bad, bad, bad" at you at high volume, and suddenly you're supposed to along with the plans of this "evil god"? Well, there is no reason why a story couldn't end this way, but a writer who makes it so shouldn't be surprised if for many players, the ending is devoid of any emotional satisfaction.

Yet another example: the original Deus Ex: you had your choices explained to you by those on whose agenda they were. All had helped you in the past, and you might not agree with any of them, but they all had a point somewhere in their explanations, and their solutions made sense in the context of the story from a point of view that was understandable. Then you had your brother explain to you some more that none of the choices are really bad but built on different priorities. The result: you could go and make your choice with confidence that you're doing the best you can.

What is there to learn for DAI: give us expositors we can reasonably be expected to trust. Even a neutral source works, like a book. Just don't make it the main antagonist, and don't expect players to trust a god-like entity on its credentials as a god-like entity. For many players, including me, that's rather a reason for *distrust*.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 août 2013 - 10:25 .

[Blind2Society]

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.

And that is exactly where ME3 went worng. BioWare should have done exactly that.

[ziloe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I agree DAO's endings handled things extremely well, indeed. 

IMO the most important diffference to ME3's ending is this: you had some reason to trust the people who explained things to you. OK, you may distrust Morrigan, but in that case there's still Riordan, who's a Warden like you and who would have done the sacrifice had he been able to, as the cinematic sequence shows you. Even for Morrigan, it's your choice to trust her or not, and there is a way out if you don't that still achieves your objective.

Compare that with ME3: the entity who explains things to you is the one that started the whole mess in the first place and is responsible for the most repulsive actions you could ever imagine. It's not the Reaperization itself, no, it's the needlessly cruel and painful Reaperization, the body horror and the disfigurations which make the Catalyst into a bad guy you just don't want to go along with, regardless of what it tells you. For three games, the story screams "This is really bad, bad, bad" at you at high volume, and suddenly you're supposed to along with the plans of this "evil god"? Well, there is no reason why a story couldn't end this way, but a writer who makes it so shouldn't be surprised if for many players, the ending is devoid of any emotional satisfaction.

Yet another example: the original Deus Ex: you had your choices explained to you by those on whose agenda they were. All had helped you in the past, and you might not agree with any of them, but they all had a point somewhere in their explanations, and their solutions made sense in the context of the story from a point of view that was understandable. Then you had your brother explain to you some more that none of the choices are really bad but built on different priorities. The result: you could go and make your choice with confidence that you're doing the best you can.

What is there to learn for DAI: give us expositors we can reasonably be expected to trust. Even a neutral source works, like a book. Just don't make it the main antagonist, and don't expect players to trust a god-like entity on its credentials as a god-like entity. For many players, including me, that's rather a reason for *distrust*.

Yeah, I was really disappointed I couldn't "break" the god child, like you can for the boss of Fallout. The fact that you couldn't mess with his logic at all, and get him to shut down the program at all, didn't make sense. After all, Shepard proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were plenty capable of getting that far, and even the god child admitted surprise. So just on that alone, it should have had the realization that it was wrong and essentially destroyed itself from within.

THAT, would have been an awesome hidden ending.

[Fredward]

DA2's ending wasn't really an ending. It was a cliff hanger. But there was nothing (in my own subjective, personal, flawed human opinion naturally) wrong with ME3's ending 'cept people's lack of imagination. The people who object based off of technical in world reasons for why the ending did not make sense may or may not have a point, I've never gotten (or read) into that argument.

[ziloe]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

DA2's ending wasn't really an ending. It was a cliff hanger. But there was nothing (in my own subjective, personal, flawed human opinion naturally) wrong with ME3's ending 'cept people's lack of imagination. The people who object based off of technical in world reasons for why the ending did not make sense may or may not have a point, I've never gotten (or read) into that argument.

If you know anything about the lore, it's definitely a valid argument for some of the things that happened.

[Fredward]

ziloe wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

DA2's ending wasn't really an ending. It was a cliff hanger. But there was nothing (in my own subjective, personal, flawed human opinion naturally) wrong with ME3's ending 'cept people's lack of imagination. The people who object based off of technical in world reasons for why the ending did not make sense may or may not have a point, I've never gotten (or read) into that argument.

If you know anything about the lore, it's definitely a valid argument for some of the things that happened.

Feel free to elaborate.

[Elhanan]

Am fine with the previous conclusions in other Bioware games, but esp like DAO and Awakenings as they seemed tailored more to me as a Player, and not to the character itself. These were my choices and decisions for a specific Warden; not so much for any Warden or Commander that happened along.

[Ieldra]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
DA2's ending wasn't really an ending. It was a cliff hanger. But there was nothing (in my own subjective, personal, flawed human opinion naturally) wrong with ME3's ending 'cept people's lack of imagination. The people who object based off of technical in world reasons for why the ending did not make sense may or may not have a point, I've never gotten (or read) into that argument.

DA2's ending was ok. Not great, but ok. The wielder of the lyrium idol is defeated, Hawke walks away from Kirkwall because there is no place for them here anymore. The mage rebellion starts in the epilogue, leading over to the  next chapter.

ME3's ending premise is logically sound, and the EC outcomes are definitely interesting and not at all bad, but the execution, starting with almost all scenes covering the main theme in the main game, is riddled with narrative and thematic inconsistencies and things I feel justified in calling pseudomystical crap because it doesn't fit the tone of the story which came before. As for the original ending, it was "a thing that ruined dreams", as a review called it.

IMO the main difference is that the writers of ME3's ending forced half a dozen themes into it that weren't a natural part of it. It didn't just ask the question: how would you resolve this main conflict? They put religious stuff in, misconceptions about evolution, sacrificed believable fictional science with "space magic" and so on. DA2's ending asked nothing more than this: knowing what you know, having experienced what you did, which side do you take? You could place your decision within a greater philosophical context, and I guess many of us hardcore fans did that, but it was something that the player was free to add or not. For instance, you weren't faced with the problem "If I want this outcome I like, I have to accept that pseudomystical crap"

The only thing I hold against DA2's ending is that I couldn't walk away from both sides and let them fight it out, because in the end, both sides had disqualified themselves enough to be thoroughly sick of the whole thing.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 août 2013 - 12:02 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

DA2's ending wasn't really an ending. It was a cliff hanger. But there was nothing (in my own subjective, personal, flawed human opinion naturally) wrong with ME3's ending 'cept people's lack of imagination. The people who object based off of technical in world reasons for why the ending did not make sense may or may not have a point, I've never gotten (or read) into that argument.

My big problem with that is that ME3's ending (especially the original cut) left EVERYTHING open to the player's imagination. They based a series on choice and consequence, but then leave the endings so wide open to interpretation, you let the player assume anything is possible. As I said earlier, that can mean wildly different outcomes based on the exact same information - outcomes such as large swaths of the playerbase becoming convinced the entire thing was a Reaper-induced bad dream and that the "real" ending had yet to be revealed. 

And if that happens when you don't intend it to, that is extraordinarily bad.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 août 2013 - 12:30 .

[Maria Caliban]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

But there was nothing (in my own subjective, personal, flawed human opinion naturally) wrong with ME3's ending 'cept people's lack of imagination.

Lack of imagination?

[Get Magna Carter]

In general, games do not need endings and when they have one it is not important
HOWEVER, for a story the ending is the most important part and Bioware games ae not just games but also Stories so the ending is very important.
My personal dissapointments with recent endings have been linked to the central conflicts.
Dragon Age 2 offered a choice between tyranny and anarchy with no middle ground.
You either support the punishment of innocent people by a madwoman (who uses her support of the principle of "mob rule" to defend her approach) and become ruler
or you make a stand for justice and get run out of the city.

With Mass Effect 3 the ending seemed to require you to accept that organics and A.I.s could not peacefully co-exist but that simply destroying all the A.I.s was wrong because they could peacefully coexist with organics..