1331 réponses à ce sujet

[wcholcombe]

I like the sacrifice ending. It was by far my favorite. Whereas the become king of Ferelden was my least favorite.

[Fast Jimmy]

It's a good thing if you enjoy the feeling. How are those of us who are happy being swalloed by despair going to get our kicks?


And I disagree about ineffectual and hopelessness. We were literally the opposite of ineffectual. And hopeless/ness is totally subjective--the world has plenty of hope.

See, I completely disagree. I'm talking more about the original endings than the EC... simply because a DLC ending released after tons of fan outcry shouldn't be what people refer to when talking about the ME3 endings. The lessons, the hard, good lessons, that developers should learn are in the base game and its (in my opinion) complete lack of basic gaming psychology when crafting the ending to their game.

[Xilizhra]

Star fury wrote...

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.

Varric makes his confirmation after, and you also see mages successfully fleeing.

Also, there are plenty of mages who die without having used blood magic.

[dragonflight288]

@ OP

Bad for the protagonist but good for the world, and vice versa.....

That's the case for two out of the three endings for this game.

EDIT: I think the format works really well, when done correctly, as this game does.

PS: The third ending had me on the floor rolling around and clutching my side I was laughing so hard.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 28 octobre 2013 - 05:09 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Star fury wrote...

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.

 

Just because you didnt like the fact that Mage's resort to blood magic under pressure doesn't make it "bad writing".
Perhaps you need to examine why you thought that portrayal was "Bad" and then come to grips with the Fact that most Mage's arent as powerful as Hawke, Warden,Wynne,Morrigan,Bethany. And so it's a terrible thing that DEMONS are tearing through the veil because the majority of "weaker" Mage's are in Twice the danger considering the Templar threat.

[Dormiglione]

@op

I wouldnt mind a meaningful death if the whole story is really good written. Even if it was the only possible ending. But i would like to see my pc losing his temper,, going mad in rage, loving and living like no other. Than i had absolute no problem with "the end".

Honestly, i understand people who wants their happy end, but its some kind of repetitive, its nothing new and predictable. I prefer endings that surprise me in some manner.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 28 octobre 2013 - 05:48 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I didn't mind Shepard's death in ME3 for a couple reasons. For one, I'd grown to really value the ME-U, and that was definitely something worth dying to preserve. For two, I felt ("my") Shepard had a good run. He accomplished so many meaningful things, and just about all those things would last. Still a sad end, but those things help me make peace with it.

Neither DAO-equivalents are true for me, and as such, I see the final decision as a non-decision: the 'ritual is the only way to go, and I even have some issues with that option. In the end, I felt it was a great story/game, but it kinda left me wanting...


If I truly see the death of a character -- be it "mine" or otherwise -- at the end of the game as "meaningful" then I should likely be OK with such an ending. If I don't, I won't, of course. Alternatively, if I live, it depends on the price I paid for it.

If it was substantial, I imagine I'll feel conflicted: happy the hero gets to live, but bothered by losing something to get it. If written well enough, I may accept it as feeling the way I'm supposed to feel. If it's contrived, as many felt about High EMS Destroy in ME3, I bet I'll feel the same way as those people -- unhappy. Finally, there's a possibility I'll have to sacrifice something I don't care about at all or possibly even dislike outright for my PC to survive. And come to think of it, that sounds like an incredibly desirable and satisfying ending. I'll volunteer Merril for the hero's forced sacrifice.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 28 octobre 2013 - 07:10 .

[Zobo]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

Do you want an empty life, or a meaningful death?

I'll take an empty life any day, thank you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

 There was a thread dealing with a failed ending, where you lost at the end.  I'm curious as to whether players would accept a choice between an ending that was bad personally for their Inquisitor, but good for Thedas, or one where your character survived, but the world was in worse shape because of it.

I think different characters might disagree about what constitutes "worse shape".

What makes any choice interesting is particular to the character making that choice.  When I play DAO, some choiecs are interesting and some are not, but which choices fall in which group changes from playthrough to playthrough.

[Martyr1777]

After reading the OP I'm going to say my piece the read the other replies.

First I absolutely hated the ending of ME3, but what most people who haven't played it don't get is the real reason it was so terrible. It made absolutely no sense at all, I'm not just talking about the choice though. While I felt the final choice was lame, half ****ed and down right stupid it was everything happening around you that was completely disconnected to the events oft he game. Why were my squad mates suddenly on the Normandy? Why the hell was the Normandy jumping?! Why did every choice just f'up the whole universe we busted our asses saving by stranding every races fleet in the Sol system?!?!

Yeah I've heard some dlc has tried to explain all that crap but the fact is they released a terrible ending to an otherwise amazing story and only changed it when wecalled them on it. Very bad form.

Now onto DAI, I have no problem with 'negative' endings. I want to see end ending where everyone doesn't live happily ever after if you make negative choices. Like you could save the day but die in the process and the inquisition once more fall into ruin if you didn't build it up strong. I want to see more stuff like that but ME3 wasn't it was just a hot mess they (likely EA) didn't want to take the time to fix.

So yes, please make more of that, but only if you are gong to do it right.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote... 

See, I completely disagree. I'm talking more about the original endings than the EC... simply because a DLC ending released after tons of fan outcry shouldn't be what people refer to when talking about the ME3 endings. The lessons, the hard, good lessons, that developers should learn are in the base game and its (in my opinion) complete lack of basic gaming psychology when crafting the ending to their game.

I'm talking about the originals as well. The EC annoys me.

The original unequivicably had hope: the sentient spaceships that haunted the galaxy for untold millenia were wiped out. That's hope in every sense of the word. * It was desolate on a personal level, and hopeful on a broader level. Perfect.

Yes, but every choice made up to that point was made invalid.

What did curing the Krogan matter? The relays were gone, so they would be isolated in their own system for decades, if not centuries. Who cares about Geth/Quarian? The all-knowing Ghost Child says that if peace was brokered or not, more AI uprising would happen and kill organics. Collector Base? Well, the endings of ME3 didn't mess that up, but having Cereberus as the boogeyman enemy for 90% of the game sure did. Companions living... or dying... what does it matter? You've now just dropped everyone into a galactic Dark Age, where millions, perhaps even billions, will die, including your companions.

It's not a totally terrible idea, this concept of "Apocalypse to defeat the enemy" if it wasn't for the Control and Sunthesis options, which effectively offer back doors to instant happiness... at the risk of "drinking the Kool-Aid" of a fleet of genocidal spaceships and their glowing sociopath of a leader. Being in the mere presence of a dead Reaper caused people to lose their minds, to turn and kill each other... yet we're going to upload our conscious and take the reins of ultimate power/be the template for all hybrid life, no strings attached?

Call me crazy, but that just reeks of naïveté. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 octobre 2013 - 08:27 .

[DragonKingReborn]

It is certainly true that different characters should feel differently about the choices they're offered, Sylvius. I was much the same in my Origins playthroughs. The choices my *slightly* evil Amell Warden made without thought contrasted with the ones my Paragon good Cousland Warden made with great difficulty. For the purposes of the thread I sort of went arbitrary with the choices to simplify things, but you're right. Infinite shades of gray in how each of your characters might approach this choice, but they are still fundamentally the same choice. Your evil/sociopathic (or just apathetic) Inquisitor might not care the world hates him/her for the choice they made, but the world will still hate them, and that was the point. The choice was defined by an outcome, not the Inquisitors level of engagement with the outcome. An Ultimate Sacrifice might not mean anything to a Dwarf Warden that felt they couldn't go home, but it would still mean a lot to the world.

[Fast Jimmy]

To get more back on topic, I'd like the "negative" outcomes be in the forms of personal choices, rather than the giant play out of events.

For instance, in order to complete the final sequence, you die, your LI dies or another companion does. Or a villain NPC gets spared - you pick who (assuming there are multiple villains). Not "all magic is destroyed or everyone becomes one with the Fade." Those are too large and earth shattering to deal with.

Keep things localized and offer lots of variability based on the choices you made throughout the game in the ending, but don't have it be "you did or the world is Blighted." That's too dichotomous.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 octobre 2013 - 08:32 .

[Face of Evil]

I'd like to take a third option - a fulfilling undeath.

[Abraham_uk]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

To accept death is to accept weakness. The great do not die.

So in order to be great, you must be immortal.

[Fast Jimmy]

Face of Evil wrote...

I'd like to take a third option - a fulfilling undeath.

Ah, to embrace the cold embrace of an immortal dead animate. THAT would be a great ending option. 

[DragonKingReborn]

Yes, the empty life option was definitely meant to be a 'localized' choice. The Veil Tears must be closed for the game to be over and you've won. But, if, at the end, you're presented with the option of letting the person(s) responsible for the Tears in the first place go free, or killing them but you die also, I think that is as much difference as was present in any of the Origins endings.

[CroGamer002]

Abraham_uk wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

To accept death is to accept weakness. The great do not die.

So in order to be great, you must be immortal.

Makes sense to me.

[esper]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

It is certainly true that different characters should feel differently about the choices they're offered, Sylvius. I was much the same in my Origins playthroughs. The choices my *slightly* evil Amell Warden made without thought contrasted with the ones my Paragon good Cousland Warden made with great difficulty. For the purposes of the thread I sort of went arbitrary with the choices to simplify things, but you're right. Infinite shades of gray in how each of your characters might approach this choice, but they are still fundamentally the same choice. Your evil/sociopathic (or just apathetic) Inquisitor might not care the world hates him/her for the choice they made, but the world will still hate them, and that was the point. The choice was defined by an outcome, not the Inquisitors level of engagement with the outcome. An Ultimate Sacrifice might not mean anything to a Dwarf Warden that felt they couldn't go home, but it would still mean a lot to the world.

Yeah, but that is why you cannot make a contrasts between sacrificing yourself for the world and an empty life, because what gives life meaning and thus rendering it non-empty would be different from character to character.

For example my warden spared the architect simply because she thought figting him would be a what the world thought of the decision was utterly meaningless to her as long as Zevran was stilling willing to... massage... her when she occassionally drops by. Life wouldn't be empty for her no matter who in the world hated her guts. You can't have a choice that is devoid of the character's engagement in the choice, because their engagement is what makes the choice difficult. If there is no engagement in one choice, if the character see no problem with one consequence, then the choice is not difficult at all.

Also on a side note. Thedas is in no way unified enough that everyone would hate a character for one choice. Even if it was unleashing a plague of demons someone (cultist) would properly be for it.

I do think I see what you want to have. A choice between a personal gain for the main character at the price of the world be slightly worse off or the choice of a sacrifice of some sort, but a world slightly better off. Am I right?

I am not against such a choice in principle, but I think it can be difficult to find a choice that is general enought to hit most characters.

My personal preference is no big ending choic, but just a consequence or an endning choice were all options have ups and downs.

And under no circumstances and golden ending where everyone are happy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't want ****ty false dichotomies.

[Zobo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Face of Evil wrote...

I'd like to take a third option - a fulfilling undeath.

Ah, to embrace the cold embrace of an immortal dead animate. THAT would be a great ending option.

Those people speak the truth.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mesina2 wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

To accept death is to accept weakness. The great do not die.

So in order to be great, you must be immortal.

Makes sense to me.

Most Bioware series seem to have an ending where immortality/godhood is achieved. Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect... there definitely seems to be a precedent for doing something morally/ethically questionable to seize the reins of unending existence and ultimate power. 

[DragonKingReborn]

Perhaps the empty life tag was a poor choice of words. How about, 'life with an impossibly tarnished name and reputation'? No choice can be presented to a player at the end of a game like this one where they don't engage even fractionally with one or more of the options. It just wouldn't work. People would cry - "I don't want to do either of those things! I demand EC!". In the case of your Warden who spared the Architect, assuming a similar personality gets played through Inquisition, if you reached then end and were presented with that choice, your character wouldn't care about the worlds opinion of them, but would very much care about their own life (I'm guessing). In that case, you'd choose living with a tarnished reputation, losing everything you'd worked to achieve (possibly even losing recognition for the acts of closing the tears), but you'd live and that was all that mattered to that character. Engaged, but only with one option. Which is fine, I think.

In terms of is it what I want? Not sure, that's why we have the conversation, I guess. Other peoples ideas, both for and against a concept help me to better form my own opinion of those options. Conceptually it might be cool to see how it works, but it would need to make sense from a whole raft of points of view. Maybe it would be too hard. Maybe just not worth it?