642 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

wiccame wrote...

I hate playing a game, where the big focus is choice. I shape a character, the story, to my liking, to how I want it played out. I don't want to reach the end and not be able to determine how my story ends.
So if there has to be a tragic ending, I would also want there to be a happy ending, because that should be a choice too.

Choice of character action and choice of consequence/resolution is not the same.

A player is a citizen, a traveler in a world he does not control.
But you want to control the world.
The important thing to rememeber is that you are not the story maker. You're not the Dungeon Master.

IF you want to create your own world, take up a pen and paper and start writing. In a game you're mererly along for the ride.
You do not get to choose all the destinations.

Someone earlier said "It's all about the Journey and not the
destination", to that I have to disagree, because if the destination
sucks eggs than the entire journey was damn pointless after all that.
Since why would I want to make a return trip and second time?

The destination sucks eggs only if you expectations are not met. If you go in expecting to be led to a giant statue of you made of gold and don't, your'e gonna be dissapointed regardless of how good the ride was.

Curb your expectations and don't automaticly label thigs like crap just because it's not what you expect.
Again, you don't want a ride, you want to drive. In which case you best get your own car.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 30 janvier 2014 - 02:42 .

[Jaison1986]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

wiccame wrote...

I hate playing a game, where the big focus is choice. I shape a character, the story, to my liking, to how I want it played out. I don't want to reach the end and not be able to determine how my story ends.
So if there has to be a tragic ending, I would also want there to be a happy ending, because that should be a choice too.

Choice of character action and choice of consequence/resolution is not the same.

A player is a citizen, a traveler in a world he does not control.
But you want to control the world.
The important thing to rememeber is that you are not the story maker. You're not the Dungeon Master.

IF you want to create your own world, take up a pen and paper and start writing. In a game you're mererly along for the ride.
You do not get to choose all the destinations.

You are forgetting metagaming allow people not only to control the characters, but also how the wolrd around them goes.

[KaiserShep]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone earlier said "It's all about the Journey and not the
destination", to that I have to disagree, because if the destination
sucks eggs than the entire journey was damn pointless after all that.
Since why would I want to make a return trip and second time?

The destination sucks eggs only if you expectations are not met. If you go in expecting to be led to a giant statue of you made of gold and don't, your'e gonna be dissapointed regardless of how good the ride was.

Curb your expectations and don't automaticly label thigs like crap just because it's not what you expect.
Again, you don't want a ride, you want to drive. In which case you best get your own car.

Personally, I've never been fond of the idea of lowering expectations. It always struck me as giving a pass for something that I would normally think is sub par. I've always felt that if you're excited about a game or movie, go in with high expectations and require quite a lot out of the work. Why lower standards to mitigate the potential blow of disappointment? Where's the fun in that? I expected a lot out of Dragon Age: Origins, and it was rather rewarding as a result.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 30 janvier 2014 - 03:04 .

[Ianamus]

Jaison1986 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Choice of character action and choice of consequence/resolution is not the same.

A player is a citizen, a traveler in a world he does not control. 
But you want to control the world. 
The important thing to rememeber is that you are not the story maker. You're not the Dungeon Master. 

IF you want to create your own world, take up a pen and paper and start writing. In a game you're mererly along for the ride. 
You do not get to choose all the destinations.

You are forgetting metagaming allow people not only to control the characters, but also how the wolrd around them goes.

Only to the extent that the narrative lets you control the story. No amount of metagaming will allow the player to avoid becoming a Grey Warden in Origins.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone earlier said "It's all about the Journey and not the 
destination", to that I have to disagree, because if the destination 
sucks eggs than the entire journey was damn pointless after all that. 
Since why would I want to make a return trip and second time? 

The destination sucks eggs only if you expectations are not met. If you go in expecting to be led to a giant statue of you made of gold and don't, your'e gonna be dissapointed regardless of how good the ride was.

Curb your expectations and don't automaticly label thigs like crap just because it's not what you expect. 
Again, you don't want a ride, you want to drive. In which case you best get your own car.

What a ridiculous argument. Your basically saying that nobody has any right to ever criticise a piece of fiction, no matter how low the quality is.

I always found the whole "It's the journey not the destination" thing makes little sense. For me, the "destination" is not the resolution of the story, but the state of mind I find myself in when a stroy has completely finished. When I look back and realise just how concise, well written and enjoyable the story was and can't stop thinking about it and it's characters I know I've reached a good destination. 

For me Mass Effect 3's ending was still a part of the journey of playing the games, and the destination I found myself in was a state of disbelief, confusion and frustration upon completing the game. Not only was the destination awful but the most important part of the journey, the climax, was incredibly poor as well. 

Modifié par EJ107, 30 janvier 2014 - 03:14 .

[Nefla]

If a tragic ending is what fits the tone of the series and the whole thing is well done then great! I was happy to be sad at the end of TWD. If the tone of the series was adventure with friends, saving the day by overcoming differences similar to Star Wars (Mass Effect had this tone) them throwing in a tragic ending with no hope an where everything you've done and achieved was for nothing it doesn't work.

[Dubozz]

Not enough badly written bad endings from Bioware. New tragic ending? Sounds good. Video game should give us a hard lesson. Thats exactly what we need. 

Modifié par Dubozz, 30 janvier 2014 - 07:01 .

[Iakus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone earlier said "It's all about the Journey and not the
destination", to that I have to disagree, because if the destination
sucks eggs than the entire journey was damn pointless after all that.
Since why would I want to make a return trip and second time?

The destination sucks eggs only if you expectations are not met. If you go in expecting to be led to a giant statue of you made of gold and don't, your'e gonna be dissapointed regardless of how good the ride was.

Curb your expectations and don't automaticly label thigs like crap just because it's not what you expect.
Again, you don't want a ride, you want to drive. In which case you best get your own car.

The destination is part of the journey.  If the destination sucks, the journey was a waste.

The three most important parts of a story are the beginning, the middle, and the end.

[Sundance31us]

iakus wrote...

The destination is part of the journey.  If the destination sucks, the journey was a waste.

So if the final destination of life is death and nothing else (no afterlife blah blah blah)...would that not make life a waste according to your post?

[Tubercle]

I really do not find tragic endings in a game to be enjoyable, unless it is optional. The game will be awesome, maybe.

Who spends all that time playing a game, building up a character only to go to the ending as a tombstone pushing daisies? I mean, do you not have enough despair in your ham or something that you need your games to be sad too?

[Iakus]

Sundance31us wrote...

iakus wrote...

The destination is part of the journey.  If the destination sucks, the journey was a waste.

So if the final destination of life is death and nothing else (no afterlife blah blah blah)...would that not make life a waste according to your post?

How odd, I must be in the wrong forum.  Is this a thread about storytelling in video games, or philosophy?

[Mr.House]

iakus wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone earlier said "It's all about the Journey and not the
destination", to that I have to disagree, because if the destination
sucks eggs than the entire journey was damn pointless after all that.
Since why would I want to make a return trip and second time?

The destination sucks eggs only if you expectations are not met. If you go in expecting to be led to a giant statue of you made of gold and don't, your'e gonna be dissapointed regardless of how good the ride was.

Curb your expectations and don't automaticly label thigs like crap just because it's not what you expect.
Again, you don't want a ride, you want to drive. In which case you best get your own car.

The destination is part of the journey.  If the destination sucks, the journey was a waste.

The three most important parts of a story are the beginning, the middle, and the end.

Being tragic does not make the destination suck though.

[KaiserShep]

Sundance31us wrote...

iakus wrote...

The destination is part of the journey.  If the destination sucks, the journey was a waste.

So if the final destination of life is death and nothing else (no afterlife blah blah blah)...would that not make life a waste according to your post?

I can't say that this is comparable, since the journey in question likely only spans a small percentage of the protagonist's lifetime. As such, there has to be some kind of payoff for the story to be worthwhile, at least in my opinion. That said, tragic or otherwise does not necessarily determine whether or not it sucks, but if the ending is sub par, tragic or no, that does spoil the path taken to get there.

Here's to hoping that BioWare hasn't forgotten about things like catharsis.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 30 janvier 2014 - 07:55 .

[BubbleDncr]

I like bittersweet endings. I like ending where you basically have to choose between 2 (or more) not-good things, but that each have their own feeling of satisfaction.

To me, DA:O did this perfectly.

1) You can die, but know you saved the world
2) You can let someone else die, giving up being the one "to save the day," but living (and possibly being sad about who died instead)
3) You can make a deal that you have no idea what the consequences for the world will be, but be the hero and live

When it's like ME3 (pre-dlc ending), and it's just all tragedy - you pick from 3 equally bad things that all basically destroy galactic civilization. That ending sucks. There's no satisfaction from that.

But I also would like for, if DA:I has bittersweet endings, they don't involve the option/potential for the PC to die. I'm getting a little tired of the PC dying being the go-to way to give games an emotional ending. I think its much more interesting for the PC to have to live with what they did.

[Dr. Doctor]

I'd actually like to have the "tragic" option to be similar to ME2's Suicide Mission mechanic. Yes, you can win and everyone makes home alive but it's incredibly hard to do so. I suppose everyone would just metagame so they got the "best ending" but it would be a neat option to have.

In the case of ME3, people seemed to care about the fates of their party members than the general "fate of the galaxy". Would sacrificing yourself so that your companions/LI might live be a better option?

[mopotter]

I don't want an ambiguous ending, and as long as there is a non-tragic ending to balance it out, I'm fine with one of my characters taking one for the team. Tragic endings actually bore me, but I know some people like them, so i don't care if it's an option, as long as it's not the only ending.

I had a warden who died, but I also had a warden who was Queen and one who shared the road with Zev and one was chancellor, along with whatever else i could do.

[Martyr1777]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
To me the survival of the protagonist is irrelevant to the qualtiy of the plot/story. That said, I do not mind an option to walk away at any time. It would end the game early with a slide card (and if the stakes are high enough, like in ME3, the end of the world), sure...but it's STILL a choice the player should be allowed to make.

I personally have no problem with a "rocks fall, everybody dies" ending.
Or a "stray bullet catches X in the head".
Because people die.
There doesn't have to be a heroic sacrifice. Or a willing one. Sure, if you want to play a character who runs away to live in a land with blackjack and hookers, go for it. I'd support the game that allows that. But I'm agaisnt the idea that we get to direct the consequences of our action and be the ultimate director.


Yes, your character CHOSE to go to the land of LasVegasia. However, what happens htere is not and should not be under the players control - EVER. The player should control ONLY the the PC and nothing else. Not the action of hte others or hte enviroment.

PC climbs a volacano and the volcano blows up? He defeats the big bad in a cave and the cave come down crashing? Too bad, you're dead. You don't get to control the volcano or the cave. In other words, the PC's survival should NOT be a guarantee and it's NOT something that must be in.

If you don't like it, reload or play another game.

I can actually a gree with this, I want things to make sense and be fitting of course. But yeah why can't completely unexpected seemingly random stuff happen the kills someone.

And the way you describe it reminds me of Dragons Lar.

[wright1978]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

I'd actually like to have the "tragic" option to be similar to ME2's Suicide Mission mechanic. Yes, you can win and everyone makes home alive but it's incredibly hard to do so. I suppose everyone would just metagame so they got the "best ending" but it would be a neat option to have.

Yep an approach where a largely happy ending is possible but hard to achieve is one i'd like to see adopted.

[BubbleDncr]

wright1978 wrote...

Dr. Doctor wrote...

I'd actually like to have the "tragic" option to be similar to ME2's Suicide Mission mechanic. Yes, you can win and everyone makes home alive but it's incredibly hard to do so. I suppose everyone would just metagame so they got the "best ending" but it would be a neat option to have.

Yep an approach where a largely happy ending is possible but hard to achieve is one i'd like to see adopted.

Everyone surviving the suicide mission was not hard to achieve. Do people just not play the loyalty missions or something? Those are like, majority of the game....

[TK514]

Tragic endings? Not a fan.

[Martyr1777]

EJ107 wrote...
What a ridiculous argument. Your basically saying that nobody has any right to ever criticise a piece of fiction, no matter how low the quality is.

I always found the whole "It's the journey not the destination" thing makes little sense. For me, the "destination" is not the resolution of the story, but the state of mind I find myself in when a stroy has completely finished. When I look back and realise just how concise, well written and enjoyable the story was and can't stop thinking about it and it's characters I know I've reached a good destination. 

For me Mass Effect 3's ending was still a part of the journey of playing the games, and the destination I found myself in was a state of disbelief, confusion and frustration upon completing the game. Not only was the destination awful but the most important part of the journey, the climax, was incredibly poor as well. 

Hmm, I really like that way of looking at it, and have to say without even thinking about it that's exactly how I work. The eneding of the story is just the last part of the journey and the final desitination is what is going through my mind as I consider that journey.

And pretty much the exact same result with ME3...

Others have mentioned people need to not use the terms good and bad with endings. There can be an awesomely good end that is very dark and tragic. Good and bad in this context should mean how well thought out and writen the ending is, not if it was happy or sad. A very well thought out sad ending I think has FAR more impact then a happy ending. Because a happy ending there is nothing to take away from what just happened. Everything is all good and everyone lives happily ever after. I think even if people don't claim to enjoy them as much, most people get much more of an OMG moment when there was at least some aspect that wasn't 'happily ever after'.

This is exactly why I was digging ME2, suicide mission, ****s gonna hit the fan and I have no idea how this will turn out., wow I'm so intruiged! I do all the side missions and stuff just because I like experienceing everything. Then I get to the end and the the 'choices' are rediculously easy and noone dies. Now I was slightly disappointed, but it was still a fun ride over all. Not nearly the same negative impact ME3 had. Comparitively DAO I love the variety of endings based on choices.  DA2, well everyone agrees that was just bad, there were some fun parts and characters but the overall plot, bad.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Martyr1777 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
To me the survival of the protagonist is irrelevant to the qualtiy of the plot/story. That said, I do not mind an option to walk away at any time. It would end the game early with a slide card (and if the stakes are high enough, like in ME3, the end of the world), sure...but it's STILL a choice the player should be allowed to make.

I personally have no problem with a "rocks fall, everybody dies" ending.
Or a "stray bullet catches X in the head".
Because people die.
There doesn't have to be a heroic sacrifice. Or a willing one. Sure, if you want to play a character who runs away to live in a land with blackjack and hookers, go for it. I'd support the game that allows that. But I'm agaisnt the idea that we get to direct the consequences of our action and be the ultimate director.


Yes, your character CHOSE to go to the land of LasVegasia. However, what happens htere is not and should not be under the players control - EVER. The player should control ONLY the the PC and nothing else. Not the action of hte others or hte enviroment.

PC climbs a volacano and the volcano blows up? He defeats the big bad in a cave and the cave come down crashing? Too bad, you're dead. You don't get to control the volcano or the cave. In other words, the PC's survival should NOT be a guarantee and it's NOT something that must be in.

If you don't like it, reload or play another game.

I can actually a gree with this, I want things to make sense and be fitting of course. But yeah why can't completely unexpected seemingly random stuff happen the kills someone.

And the way you describe it reminds me of Dragons Lar.

Rocks fall, everyone dies and variations thereon work fine as the ending of a short story or an element of a novel, but that alone is insufficient to support the end of a novel length work, where you'd expect the finale to pull together the themes that have run throughout the story.

Beyond that, I don't think this style of computer game can support anyone can die as a theme. You know damn well your carefully created protagonist will not die mid way through - at least not in a way that prevents them continuing with the story - which neuters the idea. Anyone can die so long as it happens conveniently after or during the resolution of the main plot doesn't have the same ring.

And now having said that, I'd now love to see the inquisitor die two thirds of the way through and be forced to pick up with one of the companion characters!

None of this means I think the main character dying at the end is a bad thing. Just that it won't work as an arbitrary death without any connection to other themes of the story.

[Mr.House]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

I'd actually like to have the "tragic" option to be similar to ME2's Suicide Mission mechanic. Yes, you can win and everyone makes home alive but it's incredibly hard to do so. I suppose everyone would just metagame so they got the "best ending" but it would be a neat option to have.

In the case of ME3, people seemed to care about the fates of their party members than the general "fate of the galaxy". Would sacrificing yourself so that your companions/LI might live be a better option?

Uh wut? It was not hard at all to get everyone out alive in ME2, in fact it was harder to kill people off and die in ME2 which is just sad.

[Martyr1777]

Mr.House wrote...

Dr. Doctor wrote...

I'd actually like to have the "tragic" option to be similar to ME2's Suicide Mission mechanic. Yes, you can win and everyone makes home alive but it's incredibly hard to do so. I suppose everyone would just metagame so they got the "best ending" but it would be a neat option to have.

In the case of ME3, people seemed to care about the fates of their party members than the general "fate of the galaxy". Would sacrificing yourself so that your companions/LI might live be a better option?

Uh wut? It was not hard at all to get everyone out alive in ME2, in fact it was harder to kill people off and die in ME2 which is just sad.

There is some point to this though... The concept was very good, bioware just made it really really easy to make the suicide mission a cake walk instead.

They've talked about being less afraid of letting the player make choices that end up cutting them off fomr content with DAI. So maybe the are more willing to make high risk choices actually risky.

[dreamgazer]

Yeah, you have to really try for a FailShep in ME2. It's a game in and of itself.

[Martyr1777]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
To me the survival of the protagonist is irrelevant to the qualtiy of the plot/story. That said, I do not mind an option to walk away at any time. It would end the game early with a slide card (and if the stakes are high enough, like in ME3, the end of the world), sure...but it's STILL a choice the player should be allowed to make.

I personally have no problem with a "rocks fall, everybody dies" ending.
Or a "stray bullet catches X in the head".
Because people die.
There doesn't have to be a heroic sacrifice. Or a willing one. Sure, if you want to play a character who runs away to live in a land with blackjack and hookers, go for it. I'd support the game that allows that. But I'm agaisnt the idea that we get to direct the consequences of our action and be the ultimate director.


Yes, your character CHOSE to go to the land of LasVegasia. However, what happens htere is not and should not be under the players control - EVER. The player should control ONLY the the PC and nothing else. Not the action of hte others or hte enviroment.

PC climbs a volacano and the volcano blows up? He defeats the big bad in a cave and the cave come down crashing? Too bad, you're dead. You don't get to control the volcano or the cave. In other words, the PC's survival should NOT be a guarantee and it's NOT something that must be in.

If you don't like it, reload or play another game.

I can actually a gree with this, I want things to make sense and be fitting of course. But yeah why can't completely unexpected seemingly random stuff happen the kills someone.

And the way you describe it reminds me of Dragons Lar.

Rocks fall, everyone dies and variations thereon work fine as the ending of a short story or an element of a novel, but that alone is insufficient to support the end of a novel length work, where you'd expect the finale to pull together the themes that have run throughout the story.

Beyond that, I don't think this style of computer game can support anyone can die as a theme. You know damn well your carefully created protagonist will not die mid way through - at least not in a way that prevents them continuing with the story - which neuters the idea. Anyone can die so long as it happens conveniently after or during the resolution of the main plot doesn't have the same ring.

And now having said that, I'd now love to see the inquisitor die two thirds of the way through and be forced to pick up with one of the companion characters!

None of this means I think the main character dying at the end is a bad thing. Just that it won't work as an arbitrary death without any connection to other themes of the story.

Well obviously it can't truely be random. It would have to have something to do with the plot yes. But if it happened before the end it would SEEM random and very unexpected.

And what you say about the Inquisitor dieing 2/3 of the way through and the companions picking it up. Why not? Aside from it would ****** off all the happy happy joy joy people... I would love to see that, especially because Bioware does have a good track record of every players making some kind of connection with the NPC's, so it wouldn't be like the player lost all connection to a character if the initial protaganist dies.

That all being said, will never happen except maybe in an indie game.