1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

(although we're trying to be more liberal with that in DAI. You can say one thing, but are free to still make anotehr choice if you decide).

That's the best news I've heard today.

[Iakus]

Estelindis wrote...

I would like to ask people some questions.  What do you think are the specific strengths of the endings for DA:O and DA2?  How do you think those endings could be improved?  Maybe we can consolidate some data on the basis of this discussion.

For DAO the strengths were there were four (main) ways to slay the archdemon.  Allowing for possibilities where the Warden can live or die.  And with variations based on the player's choices earlier on.  And none of these endings are "wrong" or "right". 

DA2's ending was much weaker, amounting to more or less the same outcome, just with different lines from Varric afterwards.  But while Hawke invariably disappears afterwards, at least he/she isn't forced to die (that we know of, anyway)  Would have been greatly improved with more tangible changes based on siding with the Templars or Mages.

[crimzontearz]

Oh FFS

NO, mine was an example people, I am not saying that practice would be welcome.

Br3ad: no, I want ONE ending with proper "hero is not forced to die and reunites with the characters I, as a players, got emotionally invested into", I'll even take mandatory Geth death for it.. So do others, but as you see IF The EXISTENCE of such ending becomes incompatible with other people's tastes then, again, why should they be catered to and not us?

It is that simple, hell the existence of such ending and the player choosing it could be UTTERLY OOC

[Mr.House]

crimzontearz wrote...

Oh FFS

NO, mine was an example people, I am not saying that practice would be welcome.

Br3ad: no, I want ONE ending with proper "hero is not forced to die and reunites with the characters I, as a players, got emotionally invested into", I'll even take mandatory Geth death for it.. So do others, but as you see IF The EXISTENCE of such ending becomes incompatible with other people's tastes then, again, why should they be catered to and not us?

It is that simple, hell the existence of such ending and the player choosing it could be UTTERLY OOC

If said ending does not fit, it should not be there just for the sake of it being there for the happiness.

[Dave of Canada]

iakus wrote...

DA2's ending was much weaker, amounting to more or less the same outcome, just with different lines from Varric afterwards.  But while Hawke invariably disappears afterwards, at least he/she isn't forced to die (that we know of, anyway)  Would have been greatly improved with more tangible changes based on siding with the Templars or Mages.

I feel DA2 wasn't too bad, they gave you a lot of room--least in the Templar ending as I've only played the mage ending once--to explain your decision and why you're doing it. You could be doing it because of the Templar, because you're interested in protecting Kirkwall, etc.

It isn't as varied as Origins but that's the curse of trying to tell a story which has to lead to one point.

[Fast Jimmy]

Morocco Mole wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I think we need to ditch the notion of a "golden ending", especially for Dragon Age.

Probably. Much like Fallout I think the setting works better on bitter sweet endings and with choices that often end up not having the happy ending you think they should.

e: as badly written as the endings are in ME3, I can at least respect Bioware for what they did with Destroy.

If ME3 had just ditched the Star Child and offered only Destroy, with no "big choice" at the end, but then had endings that varied dramatically based on your personal decisions throughout the entire series (instead of having three choices offered in the last five minutes and made them dominate the entire ending sequences), it would have been a lot better. Players had been focused on these choices, ideas and themes primarily over the course of hundreds of hours, so to basically sweep the ramifications of those choices under the rug and feature, instead, some "pull a rabbit out of a hat" type of galaxy-changing themes and options made many players feel like "nothing you did up to this point mattered."

THAT'S the flaw of ME3. Not that it tried to do a semi-sad ending. It's that, in the last ten minutes, you are basically handed down faulty logic and contradicting lore as to be just accepted wholeheartedly and forced to make choices you didn't see coming and have no frame of reference on. Players were fighting the good fight, talking down the bad guy (why they mad TIM the Big Bad of ME3 is STILL a mystery to me) and then, suddenly, they have a gun to their head saying "pick a color, or everyone dies!"

People don't like the ME3 endings because they are poorly written. The fact that they have an element of sadness to them just makes the experience all the worse. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:37 .

[Dave of Canada]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

People don't like the ME3 endings because they are poorly written. The fact that they have an element of sadness to them just makes the experience all the worse. 

Eh, I disagree. Had the ending remained identical to this but removed the element of sadness, it wouldn't have been as controversial because people are a lot more tolerant of terribly written feel-good scenes than terribly written scenes which crush the player's power-fantasy.

EC didn't fix many problems but I remember dozens of people going around clamouring it fixed everything simply because it implied reunion in Destroy.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:42 .

[crimzontearz]

Mr.House wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Oh FFS

NO, mine was an example people, I am not saying that practice would be welcome.

Br3ad: no, I want ONE ending with proper "hero is not forced to die and reunites with the characters I, as a players, got emotionally invested into", I'll even take mandatory Geth death for it.. So do others, but as you see IF The EXISTENCE of such ending becomes incompatible with other people's tastes then, again, why should they be catered to and not us?

It is that simple, hell the existence of such ending and the player choosing it could be UTTERLY OOC

If said ending does not fit, it should not be there just for the sake of it being there for the happiness.

The fact that it does not fit for you is irrelevant, it fits FOR ME, and it would for others and arguably it fits better with the trilogy as a whole....so once again we are back to the very same question, why your tastes over mine?

[crimzontearz]

Morocco Mole wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I think we need to ditch the notion of a "golden ending", especially for Dragon Age.

Probably. Much like Fallout I think the setting works better on bitter sweet endings and with choices that often end up not having the happy ending you think they should.

e: as badly written as the endings are in ME3, I can at least respect Bioware for what they did with Destroy.

you respect them for refusing to give the main character, my character, closure and telling me to do their job?


 
Really????

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Have you never played a roleplaying game?

Is this the best argument the BSN can give me?

That wasn't an argument.  It was a question.

Have you ever played a roleplaying game?  Ideally a tabletop game, because it's harder to get by without roleplaying in one of those.

[Fawx9]

Dave of Canada wrote...

iakus wrote...

DA2's ending was much weaker, amounting to more or less the same outcome, just with different lines from Varric afterwards.  But while Hawke invariably disappears afterwards, at least he/she isn't forced to die (that we know of, anyway)  Would have been greatly improved with more tangible changes based on siding with the Templars or Mages.

I feel DA2 wasn't too bad, they gave you a lot of room--least in the Templar ending as I've only played the mage ending once--to explain your decision and why you're doing it. You could be doing it because of the Templar, because you're interested in protecting Kirkwall, etc.

It isn't as varied as Origins but that's the curse of trying to tell a story which has to lead to one point.

The EC also reverted the dark age scenario in all endings. That's what people were happy about, not just the implied reunion for one of them.

There is also MEHEM which further proves the point.

MEHEM does both. It removes the contradictions star jar brings and also completes the reunion instead of simply ending it at the rubble scene. It's not a complete ending its a patch for one already present.

Judging it as a fix for the entire ending fairly is impossible since its impossible to do that with the current resources modders have.

Modifié par Fawx9, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:49 .

[Mr.House]

crimzontearz wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I think we need to ditch the notion of a "golden ending", especially for Dragon Age.

Probably. Much like Fallout I think the setting works better on bitter sweet endings and with choices that often end up not having the happy ending you think they should.

e: as badly written as the endings are in ME3, I can at least respect Bioware for what they did with Destroy.

you respect them for refusing to give the main character, my character, closure and telling me to do their job?


 
Really????

You got closure. Reapers are dead. For crying outloud. The issue with ME3s ending was not because it was not happy.

Modifié par Mr.House, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:47 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

People don't like the ME3 endings because they are poorly written. The fact that they have an element of sadness to them just makes the experience all the worse. 

Eh, I disagree. Had the ending remained identical to this but removed the element of sadness, it wouldn't have been as controversial because people are a lot more tolerant of terribly written feel-good scenes than terribly written scenes which crush the player's power-fantasy.

EC didn't fix many problems but I remember dozens of people going around clamouring it fixed everything simply because it implied reunion in Destroy.

That's fair enough. But I feel like it's got to AT LEAST be one or the other. 

Bad writing + happy feel good = not upset fan base.
Good writing + crushing sadness = not upset fan base (in my opinion, at least)
Bad writing + crushing sadness = internet and forum rage for years


If they had done the ending I suggested, where when you hit that button, it fired the Catalyst, blew up the Reapers and then you got to how the galaxy played out based on the decisions you made in the trilogy with the Geth, the Krogan, Cereberus, your comapnions, etc. in a way that was well written and incorporated a lot of thought... well, that would have been the proper send off to the ME series. Instead... we got ME3's ending. And the entire IP is now left in ruin and disarray. 

[crimzontearz]

Morocco Mole wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...


you respect them for refusing to give the main character, my character, closure and telling me to do their job?


 
Really????

Look. The ending of high-ems Destroy shows Shepard taking a breath in the rubble. Shepard isn't dead. Its heavily implied he will meet up with his squad again and the people that whine about him potentially dying in the rubble are sorta dumb.

dumber than Shepard surviving the explosion? Dumber than Shepard WALKING into said explosion? Dumber than that lovely dev saying the breath scene could very well be Shepard's last breath?

[crimzontearz]

Mr.House wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I think we need to ditch the notion of a "golden ending", especially for Dragon Age.

Probably. Much like Fallout I think the setting works better on bitter sweet endings and with choices that often end up not having the happy ending you think they should.

e: as badly written as the endings are in ME3, I can at least respect Bioware for what they did with Destroy.

you respect them for refusing to give the main character, my character, closure and telling me to do their job?


 
Really????

You got closure. Reapers are dead. For crying outloud. The issue with ME3s ending was not because it was not happy.

Really? My character is stuck in the rubble, I do not know his fate and I am told to use "imaaaaaagination". While the 2 other endings get full closure


 
So WTF are you on about??

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

If you have an ethical system that basically posits that people can't choose suicide (with a lot of qualifiers), you can make the anvil an a priori sort of evil. 

I can think of others, if you'd like.

Okay, granted.  I hadn't considered a rejection of voluntarism.

[crimzontearz]

Morocco Mole wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

dumber than Shepard surviving the explosion? Dumber than Shepard WALKING into said explosion? Dumber than that lovely dev saying the breath scene could very well be Shepard's last breath?

Shepard survived a point blank Reaper shot and this is what you take issue with?

I am shown Shepard getting up after that explosion am I not? Had it ended there I would have questioned if he survived too

[Ravensword]

Morocco Mole wrote...

So basically you hate ambiguity.

Eternal ambiguity.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

I think shepard managing to dodge roll a reaper blast is more pressing an issue then the destroy ending, in terms of bad writing.

[crimzontearz]

Morocco Mole wrote...

So basically you hate ambiguity.

depends on its quantity, quality and placement