5 réponses à ce sujet

[JCAP]

Let's just imagine this:

The Inquisitor, no matter his personality or race or gender, is a really good protagonist. You just love him. But as the ending is coming closer, you start to understand one thing: his days are numbered. To close the tear, he needs to sacrifice himself or his soul. Imagine that he needs to make a deal with a powerful demon to close the tear, imagine he turns into a powerful spirit, imagine... well, anything. He's just not coming back.

(Before anyone turns this into ME3 Ending Sucks topic, I will say it first, this kinda reminds the ME3 ending, but that is not the point of this thread. I believe most people didn't like ME3 ending because it was vague and not because it was tragic. So forget ME3 in this thread. This thread point is: the ending is tragic)


So what are your thoughts? Do you think a tragic ending is more promising? Should all endings be tragic? Or should we have bittersweet endings too? Or just bittersweet endings? please no

[Allan Schumacher]

I am not trying to sound condescending, I simply don't understand why people take the position that a happy ending somehow takes something away from a sad ending.

Why do people continue to argue against it? I have heard the what by not the why.

It is the (personal) perspective that their character and playthrough is subpar... you didn't win/weren't as successful/whatever. It's personal, much like how the death of your character is perceived by you as not being a happy ending and seems to take away from the game experience for you. By extension, I'm sure there are probably some that do not understand your perspective and preferences, either. It's two sides of the same coin, really; people are different and have different preferences.

The notion of subpar/suboptimal comes from the idea of, at least on my playthroughs, I am actively trying to come away from all encounters flawlessly.  If that is my goal, and I do not achieve it though it was possible, then it's possible for my mind to conclude "you didn't do as well as you could have."  (note, I don't really feel this way anymore... Thane died on my ME2 playthrough and I stuck with that.  Having said that I still felt that a "suicide mission" where everyone survives simply as a result of "playing the entire game" wasn't the best way of doing that)


Additionally, there is also the notion that everything working out in a rather bleak situation comes off as implausible (i.e. why I tend to not be a fan of Hollywood endings).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 février 2014 - 04:34 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I think if the ME team was ignoring the choices, you'd not have gotten any points for them and multiplayer would've been the only way to gain points for galactic readiness.

Unless people are making an argument that having two different paths to get to the same conclusion means that one's choice is ignored (intentionally framed this way to distill down to the root of how I read the complaint).

If that's the case though, then BioWare's entire legacy is filled with games where the developers ignored the player's choice, and that the only time we ever really offered choice was at the very end of the game.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 février 2014 - 05:16 .

[Allan Schumacher]

That is an understandable concept. However, DAO allowed you to sacrifice your Warden at the end, and it's not really seen as a lesser ending than the ones where the Warden can survive (at least I haven't seen it being derided as a fail ending). It is in that context that I wonder how such endings can't exist side by side more often.

Its entirely up to perspective, however. There are some that feel that the happy ending of the game is the one with the Dark Ritual because nobody has to sacrifice themselves. I think this is more a reflection of how Dragon Age: Origins did a good job of making endings where none of them are really intrinsically superior to the other.

Most people I see that consider the ultimate sacrifice to be the bestest ending are the ones that don't feel that the Dark Ritual is worth the risk. While those that feel it is worth it, pick that one.

As I said upthread, I am not opposed to a happy outcome being difficult to get. If I have to go the extra mile, do more than simply play through the content, that's okay (as long as I don't have to dive into MP or purchase additional content of course)

What do you mean by "extra mile" though? I could easily manifest a reason that would work for myself, where the "extra mile" that I have to go includes sacrificing my own character, ensuring that everything works out the best for everyone involved. But that isn't satisfactory for you.

I suspect where we differ is not so much on whether or not an ending is happy (though I think there are important, personal preferences we have that are not the same), but on what it means to "go the extra mile."

If go the extra mile is simply "play all the content" then I don't think that's as interesting as it could be. If it is "do all the things a certain way" then I don't think that that is a good thing either. So what sort of things are considered acceptable for "going the extra mile" and which things are unacceptable?

[Allan Schumacher]

Steelcan wrote...

What I meant in regards to ME is how no matter what you pick events play out the same.

In DA:O saving the anvil had tangible in game benefits, summoning golems to break darkspawn into little bits.  Your companions reacted to it and told you their thoughts.  You then had that choice tying into the choice of monarch for Orzammar for bonus boints in the epilogue.

Compare that to saving the Collector base, three lines of dialogue are changed, four if you do a certain side mission, and 10 arbitrary points.  The story is not affected in any meaningful way, either way Cerberus becomes super-powerful and indoctrinated.

That's fair and it's a perfectly valid criticism.  I was more addressing the idea that because you could compensate with multiplayer, the choices were effectively meaningless.

But if that's the case, then any alternative path that takes you to the same place is a meaningless choice, and I don't think people actually believe that (most of our conversations are small branches that return to the same place shortly afterward, and I don't think people would prefer that we just have a single dialogue choice or would consider it equivalent to only having a single dialogue choice)

[Allan Schumacher]

Steelcan wrote...

Well MP affecting SP progression is a whole other can of worms, and it is one I hope the DA:I team stays far away from.

I agree!

I don't think anyone is saying that each indicidual conversation needs to hae vast and far reaching consequences.  That's obviously not a possibility.

You're right, no one is saying that.  I'm making an analogy by using it.  I'm saying that if doing something different, like multiplayer, means that "choices are ignored" then wouldn't that mean that allowing anything that ultimately came back to the same place mean that BioWare is "ignoring choices?"  But as you say, it's not possible and I think we can both agree that having different ways to get to the same thing can still be a good thing.

To summarize, if there's issues with ME3 ignoring previous player choices, the multiplayer aspect is a red herring and not relevant, and other examples would probably be more useful for conveying the point.  Multiplayer influencing the single player is, as you say, a whole different can of worms.


(Just to be clear, this tangent was explored further by me with the notion that "the existence of multiplayer contributing to war assets is evidence that ME3 ignores player choice.")