1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The problem with the "happy ending" is that it invalidates every other, I loved the feeling of the Suicide Mission but felt it died off when absolutely no-one died because I completed side-quests and didn't make weird decisions like send the technician to lead a squad.

When I mention that the Suicide Mission would've been more impactful if there were mandatory deaths and you had to pick and choose who lived, who died and who were abandoned until you ultimately escape the Collector Base? I'm told to kill them off, I'm ruining their fun and that it would be "forced".

I've tried to enjoy the game by being obtuse; it doesn't work, characters reference the mistake as if the writers are nudging me and telling me where I screwed up and there's absolutely no "sweet" in the decision making. 

Personally, I don't need a no-downside happy ending.  Or if there is one, it should be incredibly hard to get.  What I do want is to be able to shape an ending I want, to find the proper balance of what I want and what I'm willing to pay for.  DAO's ending as opposed to ME2 (or ::shudder::  ME3)

I mean, some people will swear that the DR is the obvious best ending.  Others will disagree.  I prefer Redeemer.  Others might say Knight Commander.  Some even say US is the best ending.  And best of all, none of them are wrong.  And even these four endings have tons of variation among them based on choices right down to your race/class selection.  Heck two different Wardens created by the same player can have two different "best" endings.

I want an ending that fits how I played the game.  Not an ending that fits how a no-import, no choices action-mode Shepard plays out.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

That's fair enough - and me too. I just often see things like 'DA isn't dark and gritty enough'. What could be darker and grittier than hero dies to save everyone or hero lives but is forever tarnished?

I actually can't see too many people being on board with the idea, was just curious to see reaction.

This is a different setting. This is a setting where there is a character class called "rogue" with a specialization of assassin. Essentially a character can be a lying cheating s***. There is no such thing as forever tarnished. The character may simply not care, move on and adopt a new alias. 

DA is plenty dark and gritty, by the way. DA2 wasn't gloomy enough? DA wasn't gloomy enough? Maybe the hero should be drawn and quartered on screen this time? Would that suffice for people? Or impaled and you get to watch for 10 minutes while your character bleeds to death. Gritty enough then? 

No thank you. After the ME3 ending I'd like my inquisitor to go out a big goddamn hero for a change.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Many people (fans of the old school especially) argue yes. And I can see the value in their point and in many ways I agree. Even if you're shoe horned down a particular path, and in a video game plot there ARE limits to the options available, that choice is still your choice, even if the consequences end up the same.

Consider another alternative to your example.... would it be preferable to stand in front of only a single door?

This is actually what a lot of people reference to when they discuss why they love the older text style dialogues, and the specifics of the infamous Torment picture that happens all the time.

A lot of the issue people had with the ME3 original ending was that Shepard couldn't question the Catalyst. They felt like the agency over their character was stripped as a result. Even if things still end up the same, the idea of being allowed to express the view that you wanted is still important to defining your character.

That you understand this makes me very happy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

That'll never completely happen in a non-proceduraly generated, story-focused video game. It's simply not possible for the developers to account for a Dragonborn who wants to use his shout and his necklace of water breathing to become part of a dolphin pod, or a Warden who's a coward who gets killed by Sten, or a Shepard who becomes the king of dance. There HAS to be direction of some sort.

I think you've undercut your own argument, here.

First of all, I think DAO handles the cowardly Warden who gets killed by Sten really well.  I played one - it was the most fun I had in DAO.

Second, the point about the limited resounrces in a game is important, but that doesn't mean the choices mustn'y be offered.  it just means that not all paths are equally modelled.  If the Dragonborn wants to travel under the sea to search for dolphins, he can do that.  The game doesn't model any dolphin-related content, but that doesn't mean the Dragonborn didn't have that choice.  Similarly, I objected to how NWN2 kept talking about how there were two ways to get to Neverwinter, but in fact there was only one.  The characters kept telling you you had to use one path in particular, because the other was too dangerous, but what should have come after was a choice as to which path to follow.  And one of those paths may well have produced a very quick and painful death for the character, but the choice still should have been offered.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The problem with the "happy ending" is that it invalidates every other

I completely disagree.  If you make your decisions from an in-character pespective, you don't even know when you're making them that the happy ending choice exists.

The happy ending choice can only invalidate the other options if you metagame.  And it is not the job of the game developers to protect you from yourself.  If you want to ruin your experience by metagaming (which is exactly what you're describing), that's up to you.

[David7204]

The idea that the player 'earns' a good ending for their character is a fallacy that only leads to dead ends.

It doesn't matter if you're an Olympian supermodel with sevens Ph.D and breeze through the game on the super-ultra extra hardest difficult, or a basement-dwelling intellectually challenged societal reject who struggles over and over to complete the game on the easiest setting.

You get the exact. same. story.

The player character is just as brave. Just as competent. Just as attractive. Just as intelligent. Just as strong.

The simple truth that so many people on this forum seem vehemently opposed to is that the qualities of the character flow from the character. Never from the player.

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 05:42 .

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...

When I argue for bittersweet endings, I'm told that they're too dark and I should be miserable quietly and leave them to their good ending because I love to spoil other people's fun.

I think part of the problem is that bittersweet has become a bit of a buzzword that some works use to justify what is an unsatisfying ending that's often thematically inconsistent with the story told thus far. 

When I mention that the Suicide Mission would've been more impactful if there were mandatory deaths and you had to pick and choose who lived, who died and who were abandoned until you ultimately escape the Collector Base? I'm told to kill them off, I'm ruining their fun and that it would be "forced".

I don't think their(ah! heresy!) they're wrong, if 100% of ME2 before the suicide mission is exactly the same. Because before that mission, Shepard is an unstoppable engine of slaughter and death. The Arrival DLC scene - where Shepard massacres a whole room of mooks before Harbinger uses space magic to knock you out - is a good example of that. The protagonist is so empowered - so far beyond human - that these choices feel artificial and "forced" because the game worked really, really hard to build up the feeling that the player is night unstoppable. 

Part of the reason the US works is that the plot coupon - old ancient magical abomination can only die if a GW kills it, killing the GW - is that most (not all) players can buy into it. And those who don't get an escape option - the DR. 

For ME to be able to pull off a dark suicide mission, where there are actual sacrifices, the game has to make you feel that the sacrifices are required. That you can't stop the incredible army rushing toward you. That fighting means death. 

I think Fire Emblem: Awakening has the good set-up for a bittersweet ending (though they totally wiff on it at the end), because they built up the apocalyptic threat so well the entire game. Not just through gameplay, which at a high difficulty does get the feeling of the struggle across, but in terms of the existential threat.  

Modifié par In Exile, 30 octobre 2013 - 05:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

The idea that the player 'earns' a good ending for their character is a fallacy that only leads to dead ends.

It doesn't matter if you're an Olympian supermodel with sevens Ph.D and breeze through the game on the super-ultra extra hardest difficult, or a basement-dwelling intellectually challenged societal reject who struggles over and over to complete the game on the easiest setting.

You get the exact. same. story.

The player character is just as brave. Just as competent. Just as attractive. Just as intelligent. Just as strong.

The player shouldn't earn the happy ending.  The character should.

And if my character doesn't earn that ending, then he shouldn't get it.  Because if he does get the happy ending, regardless of his choices, then that destroys any element of heroism in his actions.  If he succeeds no matter what he does, then anyone could have succeeded in his place, and the character becomes unnecessary to the story.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And if my character doesn't earn that ending, then he shouldn't get it.  Because if he does get the happy ending, regardless of his choices, then that destroys any element of heroism in his actions.  If he succeeds no matter what he does, then anyone could have succeeded in his place, and the character becomes unnecessary to the story.

That's why I think games should have dead ends. There should be some choices and actions that are possible, that the player can choose, and that quickly wrap up. I think a really good example is the surrender ending in Jade Empire. 

... And you did get a statute in that game, so... 

[David7204]

If you accept that the character earns the success and not you, then you also ought to accept that your difficulty in playing the game is ultimately irrelevant. That your character's actions are just as meaningful regardless of how easy the player finds the challenges. And thus, that stripping heroism and success from the story on the justification that the challenge was an 'easy win button' is therefore absurd.

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 05:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And if my character doesn't earn that ending, then he shouldn't get it.  Because if he does get the happy ending, regardless of his choices, then that destroys any element of heroism in his actions.  If he succeeds no matter what he does, then anyone could have succeeded in his place, and the character becomes unnecessary to the story.

That's why I think games should have dead ends. There should be some choices and actions that are possible, that the player can choose, and that quickly wrap up. I think a really good example is the surrender ending in Jade Empire. 

... And you did get a statute in that game, so...

Absolutely.  Not all choices need to lead to comparable gameplay content.

You should never reach "the end" of a game.  You should merely reach "an end", and wonder if maybe there's a different end you could find.  And that end might have a shorter path to it, or a longer path, but it should always be a path your character finds himself on as a result of his choices.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

The simple truth that so many people on this forum seem vehemently opposed to is that the qualities of the character flow from the character. Never from the player.

Please, for the love of all that's decent in this realm, play Dragon Age: Origins.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

If you accept that the character earns the success and not you, then you also ought to accept that your difficulty in playing the game is ultimately irrelevant.

I do accept that.

Or, rather, I accept that in terms of the game's mechanics.  The difficulty should come from the choices and the roleplaying.

I do, however, think that the game's mechanics should support that decision-making by offering a world that is internally consistent, and ideally coherent.  So, while I don't require that the player be challenged, I do require that the character be able to fail.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

The simple truth that so many people on this forum seem vehemently opposed to is that the qualities of the character flow from the character. Never from the player.

Have you never played a roleplaying game?

[David7204]

Is the player character charismatic because you're charismatic? No. S/he's just as charismatic regardless of whether you're a cult leader or a mumbling vagrant.

If the player character smart because you're smart? No. She's just as smart whether you're a top scientist or an illiterate fool.

Is the player character attractive because you're attractive? No. S/he's just as attractive regardless of whether you're a two or a ten.

Is the player character strong because you're strong? No. S/he's just as strong whether you're a world-class fighter or a 90 pound weakling.

How much clearer can it be? No matter what you are, the player character is the same. These qualities do not flow from you. They flow from within the character. The idea of the playing 'earning' good outcomes for the player character is thus ridiculous for the vast majority of games, which includes any AAA game from BioWare.

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 06:00 .

[Dave of Canada]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The problem with the "happy ending" is that it invalidates every other

I completely disagree.  If you make your decisions from an in-character pespective, you don't even know when you're making them that the happy ending choice exists.

The happy ending choice can only invalidate the other options if you metagame.  And it is not the job of the game developers to protect you from yourself.  If you want to ruin your experience by metagaming (which is exactly what you're describing), that's up to you.

It's a mix of both meta-game and roleplaying. I prefer dark endings, it's obvious if you've read any of the countless posts I've made on the subject over the years but there can be some "good" too. Look at the Ultimate Sacrifice and Dark Ritual, they're done well by presenting the player with a way out but leaves a loose-end which might backfire.

Many of the characters I've played have very different reasons for going both ways, I don't avoid the Dark Ritual because it leads to a "more" optimal solution because some of my characters just want to become King of Ferelden and care very little about anything else.

The problem stems from when writing involves itself to nudge the player a bit too much, indicating that what you've done was incorrect and that there's an even better solution. Aside from how immersion-breaking this type of writing is, most of these "solutions" come across as common-sense.

One again using the Suicide Mission as reference; my preference in darker storytelling and harsh decisions is ruined by the game's constant pressure on pointing out the obvious and hoping I choose it, scolding me if I pick otherwise.

I've sided with the Werewolves, I've slit Connor's throat and I've burned down Amaranthine--all "sub-optimal" choices--but they don't involve the protagonist acting like an idiot, they involve the protagonist acting in a certain way.

Though I've got my issues with Connor being saved if you travel to the Mage Tower, that's for another thread.

EDIT: Having mandatory deaths in the Suicide Mission would've been great because it could've given more to the idea of roleplaying, you're traveling along and your previous squad is surrounded: press forward or go back? What if they tell you to leave them? The behavior which you could exhibit ranges wildly and I'd love that a lot more than "hey, send a tech expert in there. Want to send in Grunt?"

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 octobre 2013 - 06:15 .

[David7204]

Why is it at all un-immersive for the narrative to indicate you've done something wrong?

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

Why is it at all un-immersive for the narrative to indicate you've done something wrong?

Cause when you do something in real life, no-one comes along and points out that you should've done something else.

"Dammit, I don't have enough money to buy this candy bar."
"Hey David, we wouldn't be in this tight of spot had you not given money to that homeless man!"

[AresKeith]

Can Allan reply to David again?


*insert Bane comment here*

Modifié par AresKeith, 30 octobre 2013 - 06:23 .

[David7204]

So according to you, the very existence of themes of stories is 'un-immersive.' Because that's precisely what a theme is - the narrative 'telling' you something. Themes such as 'friends are important' or 'you can't escape your past' or 'small actions have big consequences' or 'learn from your mistakes.'

Or even 'giving to charity is stupid.'

All of that - All of it - is the narrative 'telling' you something. Every scrap of acclaimed fiction in existence has them. But you're saying that the narrative should never 'tell' audiences anything, and thus, all themes should be purged from fiction. Or at least role-playing games.

Is that right?

Modifié par David7204, 30 octobre 2013 - 06:28 .

[Fredward]

Dave of Canada wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Why is it at all un-immersive for the narrative to indicate you've done something wrong?

Cause when you do something in real life, no-one comes along and points out that you should've done something else.

"Dammit, I don't have enough money to buy this candy bar."
"Hey David, we wouldn't be in this tight of spot had you not given money to that homeless man!"

-blink- I just stumbled in here and read that but seriously has no one ever said something like that to you IRL? Haha. You have much better friends than I do evidently.