1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Try thinking, not from the perspective of the character, but from the perspective of the world.

Even the character perspective matters. People sacrifice themselves for the betterment of their families, atonement, their own honor, etc.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 28 octobre 2013 - 02:47 .

[Iakus]

KainD wrote...

I don't believe in meaningful death. If the character is dead, then it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the world, because dead don't care.

After ME3's spectacular failure at creating a universal "bittersweet" ending, I'm all bittersweeted out.  Give survival a price if you must, but that price bettwer be worth it, not some arbitrary "needs moar sadz!" I'll take a meaningful life over a meaningful death, thanks.

[Welsh Inferno]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Slightly off-topic and related to your daily save import bash:P. I just had an utterly terrible idea for what they could do for the OGB if you saved it: have it turn back into a dragon or something and force you to fight it again.

If that happens I think I am just done with this series.

[Dave of Canada]

iakus wrote...

KainD wrote...

I don't believe in meaningful death. If the character is dead, then it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the world, because dead don't care.

After ME3's spectacular failure at creating a universal "bittersweet" ending, I'm all bittersweeted out.  Give survival a price if you must, but that price bettwer be worth it, not some arbitrary "needs moar sadz!" I'll take a meaningful life over a meaningful death, thanks.

ME3's ending wasn't bittersweet, it was poorly written. There's infinitely more endings which are well-recieved across all types of games which are bittersweet or flat-out "bad".

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

ME3's ending wasn't bittersweet, it was poorly written. There's infinitely more endings which are well-recieved across all types of games which are bittersweet or flat-out "bad".

And most of those games allow little to no player choice.  If you allow for player agency, you pretty much have to allow for the player wanting to survive, and not apreciate being punished for that sentiment.

I can think of exactly two games which managed to combine player choice and unavoidable death in a manner which didn't totally suck.  Both were due largely to incredible writing which managed to overcome that lack-of-choice hurdle.

[Fast Jimmy]

KainD wrote...

I don't believe in meaningful death. If the character is dead, then it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the world, because dead don't care.

But the WORLD will care. Which is why I think the funeral/eulogy scene of DA:O worked so well. It's not just "your character dies a heroic death... <fade to black>"

That is exceptionally nihilistic. Which is to say a bad choice to give. Nihilism over living is a poor choice. But seeing that your choice leads to everyone living and celebrating your choice is good. The fact that you died to do so will be ancillary. 

Focusing too much on the death in a heroic death and not on the benefit it have afterwards (see: the original ME3 endings) will make your choice, your endings and, overall, your GAME feel hollow, empty and depressing, not invigorating, uplifting and heroic. It turns your game into a 30+ hour Shakespearean tragedy, made all the worse feeling in video game format by A) the game's length and the natural tendency to project and connect with a character you control in a video game. This means it could be exponentially more depressing and dejecting for the player. That's not a good thing, unless your goal is to make the player feel ineffectual and hopeless.

[Iakus]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

KainD wrote...

I don't believe in meaningful death. If the character is dead, then it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the world, because dead don't care.

But the WORLD will care. Which is why I think the funeral/eulogy scene of DA:O worked so well. It's not just "your character dies a heroic death... <fade to black>"

That is exceptionally nihilistic. Which is to say a bad choice to give. Nihilism over living is a poor choice. But seeing that your choice leads to everyone living and celebrating your choice is good. The fact that you died to do so will be ancillary. 

Focusing too much on the death in a heroic death and not on the benefit it have afterwards (see: the original ME3 endings) will make your choice, your endings and, overall, your GAME feel hollow, empty and depressing, not invigorating, uplifting and heroic. It turns your game into a 30+ hour Shakespearean tragedy, made all the worse feeling in video game format by A) the game's length and the natural tendency to project and connect with a character you control in a video game. This means it could be exponentially more depressing and dejecting for the player. That's not a good thing, unless your goal is to make the player feel ineffectual and hopeless.

DAO worked because living and dying were both valid choices.  Some Wardens' stories fit better with dying in a blaze of glory.  Some Wardens may find another way.  None of the endings were inherently "better" than the others.  It's your Warden, how do you want the story to end?

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...
I can think of exactly two games which managed to combine player choice and unavoidable death in a manner which didn't totally suck.  Both were due largely to incredible writing which managed to overcome that lack-of-choice hurdle.

Which games are those?

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

Id take a empty life, part of being a selfish bastard is that i dont really give a **** about the world

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...
I can think of exactly two games which managed to combine player choice and unavoidable death in a manner which didn't totally suck.  Both were due largely to incredible writing which managed to overcome that lack-of-choice hurdle.

Which games are those?

1) The Walking Dead. 

2) Planescape: Torment.  Though even in this case, being the D&D universe, death isn't necessarilly the end anyway.

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...
I can think of exactly two games which managed to combine player choice and unavoidable death in a manner which didn't totally suck.  Both were due largely to incredible writing which managed to overcome that lack-of-choice hurdle.

Which games are those?

1) The Walking Dead. 

2) Planescape: Torment.  Though even in this case, being the D&D universe, death isn't necessarilly the end anyway.

Indeed. Grace appears to think you might meet again. You can choose oblivion though, which brings us back to the matter of choice.

Haven't played The Walking Dead.

[nightscrawl]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

If you could win, and win well, but your character died, would you accept that as a game well written and made?

Sure.

Players' reception all depends on how it's portrayed. I haven't played the ME games either, but from what I understand a certain being appeared at the end and offered you these various choices. To me that is a cheap ending.

In DAO, although you can certainly rig it to get the ending you want, it is still the culmination of several events, and not simply a choice at the end of the game. If you do not do the DR, an Alistair who is in love with the female Warden will sacrifice himself no matter what. The only alternative if you want an US ending in that case is to leave him at the gate, which (to me) is less than ideal since you probably would want both of your Grey Wardens fighting the Archdemon. In that instance, you have no choice; Alistair takes it from you. That is a real ending.

So, as long as my PC dying is a logical progression of events, while I might be bummed out or even pissed off, I would still think it was a worthy ending.

[Ieldra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

KainD wrote...

I don't believe in meaningful death. If the character is dead, then it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the world, because dead don't care.

But the WORLD will care. Which is why I think the funeral/eulogy scene of DA:O worked so well. It's not just "your character dies a heroic death... <fade to black>"

That is exceptionally nihilistic. Which is to say a bad choice to give. Nihilism over living is a poor choice. But seeing that your choice leads to everyone living and celebrating your choice is good. The fact that you died to do so will be ancillary. 

Focusing too much on the death in a heroic death and not on the benefit it have afterwards (see: the original ME3 endings) will make your choice, your endings and, overall, your GAME feel hollow, empty and depressing, not invigorating, uplifting and heroic. It turns your game into a 30+ hour Shakespearean tragedy, made all the worse feeling in video game format by A) the game's length and the natural tendency to project and connect with a character you control in a video game. This means it could be exponentially more depressing and dejecting for the player. That's not a good thing, unless your goal is to make the player feel ineffectual and hopeless.

Well, that's exactly how ME3's original ending made me feel. I had just destroyed my civilization as a side effect of dealing with the Reapers, and nothing of what I actually got to see on screen indicated a desirable future. As one of my favorite reviews said, it tainted the story that came before and poisoned even nostalgia.

[errant_knight]

Heh, I think the US ending and the surprise at the Landsmeet worked great. People are STILL having kittens, which is pretty much the writing definition of success.

As a player, I didn't like the DA2 ending because for me (and I know others felt entirely differently) the failure to achieve a meaningful victory at the end created an overarching sense of futility so profound, the sense of loss was existential. It was the last in a series of victories that turned to ash, with each one being accompanied by a loss or failure. Now, I didn't find that fun, but judged as writing, it was pretty damn good. I didn't feel happy, but I did feel strongly.

If I separate myself as a player from myself as one who appreciates effective writing, regardless, I'd say that I like 'bad' endings to be possible, even most likely, but only when a 'good' ending is also possible.

Modifié par errant_knight, 28 octobre 2013 - 04:07 .

[Xilizhra]

As a player, I didn't like the DA2 ending because for me (and I know others felt entirely differently) the failure to achieve a meaningful victory at the end created an overarching sense of futility so profound, the sense of loss was existential. It was the last in a series of victories that turned to ash, with each one being accompanied by a loss or failure. Now, I didn't find that fun, but judged as writing, it was pretty damn good. I didn't feel happy, but I did feel strongly.

Personally, I didn't consider DA2 futile. It wasn't a clean victory by any means, but I defeated my prime foe and brought my entire party and many more innocents out alive. And I didn't really care about living in Kirkwall anyway.

[Star fury]

Xilizhra wrote...
Personally, I didn't consider DA2 futile. It wasn't a clean victory by any means, but I defeated my prime foe and brought my entire party and many more innocents out alive. And I didn't really care about living in Kirkwall anyway.

Really? Every damn mage throughout the game turned out a blood mage. Then almost all remaining mages are slaughtered by templars or made into a bloody harvester by Orsino. 

Modifié par Star fury, 28 octobre 2013 - 04:24 .

[errant_knight]

Hmm... I suppose if one's character backed Anders and supported his actions and beliefs that could have been considered a victory in that you helped instigate the war he wanted. For a lot of people there was no win of any kind there, though.

Modifié par errant_knight, 28 octobre 2013 - 04:23 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Unless, even untainted, the soul of the Old God is inherently dangerous or malignant. And, of course, you trust Morrigan isn't lying, isn't obscuring a huge truth or isn't going to use said soul (even if it is harmless) to do irreparable harm to the world. 

The unknowns are the biggest deterents here, from my perspective. Which is why I think it is going to be VERY interesting when that ambiguity is removed when the OGB question is tackled. 

Yet I believe the Save Import neutered the choice to a level of non-importance, so it could wind up making everyone angry here before it is all said and done. 

I wouldn't say unknown means "don't find out." At least within fiction. Unknown almost universally means "found out about it!"


Slightly off-topic and related to your daily save import bash:P. I just had an utterly terrible idea for what they could do for the OGB if you saved it: have it turn back into a dragon or something and force you to fight it again.

I don't have a problem with finding out. But there is a huge issue where the future game isn't functionally capable of reacting to a choice on any level other than a very superficial, cosmetic method. If the OGB can't be anything more than a novelty in a future game, then it will be harmless. Meaning everyone who did the US did so rather foolishly. 

Doing this isn't terribly bad... but with the Save Import, it means the player can go back and change their decision (even more easily now with the Dragon's Keep). That means players who feel the OGB was indeed harmless would feel jaded about their decision, like Bioware was saying "you have chosen... poorly." If there was a canon set, one way of the other, no decision would be flagged as purely right or wrong, there would just be consequences. 

In FO:3, the game sets canon for events in the second game that you recruited a NPC (Harold) and that he died in a very specific location (which was not a plot death or anything that would have occurred in the game outside of a random death). This highly unlikely set of events nonetheless was assumed and made a huge, multi-quest and NPC section of the subsequent game that, I think, was awesome. 

Since that level of reactivity would be improbable (if not impossible) with a Save Import system, it makes the cost of any prior game choice too steep to do anything with it. So it retroactively makes the decision less meaningful, simply because the follow through can't be big or meaningful on any scale. 

[errant_knight]

I doubt they'd have introduced the OGB if they didn't plan on using it at some point. Morrigan could have had a back up plan that we know nothing about, with the situation being slightly different if one took the bargain, or did not. And there's nothing to say that your choice to make the US couldn't have been a poor one, so what that difference is...that's pretty open. The nobility of an action doesn't guarantee the excellence of the result.

Modifié par errant_knight, 28 octobre 2013 - 04:30 .

[Xilizhra]

Really? Every damn mage throughout the game turned out a blood mage. Then almost all remaining mages are slaughtered by templars or made into a bloody harvester by Orsino.

It helps that I don't give a damn about blood magic. Additionally, Varric confirms that "many survived to tell the tale."

Hmm... I suppose if one's character backed Anders and supported his actions and beliefs that could have been considered a victory in that you helped instigate the war he wanted. For a lot of people there was no win of any kind there, though.

I support most of his beliefs, though I don't condone what he did. However, even if the situation was bad, I brought as many people out of it as I could, and it was more a victory than it was not.

[Star fury]

Xilizhra wrote...
It helps that I don't give a damn about blood magic. Additionally, Varric confirms that "many survived to tell the tale."

It's not inherently evil but it would have been nice to see some mages, who when cornered in a hopeless situation had the dignity not to use the blood magic. But we never saw one. Bad writing killed DA2.
Dunno, in the end if you support mages you'll see only dead bodies and Orsino making a harvester.

Modifié par Star fury, 28 octobre 2013 - 04:40 .