642 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Precisely.  None of them are superior.  But you have endings where the Warden lives alongside endings where the Warden dies.  One does not diminish the other.  The Warden is not a failure for choosing to die to save Ferelden any more than the Warden who does the Dark Ritual is.  Nor the one who takes Alistair or Loghain's offers are.

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?

What is acceptable as "the extra mile" is hard to pin down without knowing details of the game in question.

 It could be something like having particular allies at the end, or types of allies, at least.

It could be solving certain quests in a particular manner.   Making certain choices.  Perhaps several choices over the course of the game.

It could be having access to certain items or resources .  Or putting them to a particular use.

It could be combinations of all of the above.  There could even be multiple paths available.  Like I said, it's hard to say without knowing details.

What I would say is unacceptable would be forcing the player to go outside the game itself to achieve it.  One should not have to import a previous game, or purchase particular dlc, orengage in "optional" multiplayer, to cite some obvious examples.

[Slayer299]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Why would I want to not expect good things from the game to begin with? That's like going to Walt Disney World but expecting the park to be closed, just so I won't be disappointed. So again, why would I have made the trip to begin with or even bother returning if I have to lower my expectations to be so low and not be disappointed? 

Things are crap because they are sub-par quality-wise and not my expectations.

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Redeemer, Ultimate Sacrifice and Warden-Commander all fall under the branch of the "sacrifice" ending with the Dark Ritual offering a way out with potential consequences down the line, the Warden who decides to sacrifice themselves doesn't mean they want a tragic ending, it just means they don't want the Dark Ritual to be done.

In a sense, it's a "bittersweet" ending. You've either sacrificed a friend or yourself to end the Blight or you might've spared yourself at the cost of leaving a variable at play, something which might cost you a lot more than you want it to.

How many people would've praised DA:O's ending if the Dark Ritual had an epilogue slide that said thousands of people were killed as a result of your choice or another Blight was triggered which lasted for decades/centuries is something I've always asked myself.

And it's a fair question.  But as we have seen, the costs for these endings (at th emoment, for the DR) appears to be reasonable enough that people can consider them happy, or at worst "bittersweet"

How do you think the reception might have been if only Ultimate Sacrifice was avaiable?

I've always said that you should get a happy outcome if it's "difficult", the thing is the "difficult" part is different from person to person. What does "difficult" mean to you? For me it means doing a certain chain of choices which have negative consequences throughout the game in order to reach a particular ending which you might find positive. Someone else might find this "tragic" and hate the very idea of it.

What do you mean when YOU say "difficult"?

Like I said before, it's hard to say without knowing what kind of game we're speaking of.  But yes, enduring a chain of negative consequences is probably not the answer.  It's simply shifting the tragedy from the end to the middle.  One or two such missions might be okay, but a constant stream of it. would just put people off, I suspect.

So shouldn't varying shades of "tragic" count as a "happy ending" to people? Some might not mind say... their chosen side in the Mage/Templar war losing if it means closing the Veil tears, yet someone else might find the veil tears something which can be resolved at a later time and has their mage/templar faction of choice win.

i don't think it's the shades of tragic that make a game happy.  It's the sliding scale of "bitter and "sweet"  The trick with DAO is that the options allow a range of prices to pay.  It lets the player decide what flavor of bitterness complements the sweetness they want.

As a side question, why do some find the Destroy ending the "happy ending" but others hate it? Is it because the Destroy ending--although offering a lot of players what they desire--isn't flawless?

I can't speak for all.  And I personally hate all the ME3 endings.  But it has been my experience that those who find Destroy the "happy" ending don't consider synthetic life forms to be alive.  Therefore, there was little to no collateral damage.  So the bitterness in teh bittersweet ending is minimal for them.

[Steelcan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

[masster blaster]

Hey Steel

[Steelcan]

masster blaster wrote...

Hey Steel

hey saintist

[masster blaster]

Steelcan wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Yet Branka went mad and then she had a war with either H, or B. Short names for the both. And not to mention honestly if you play the golems of Arggmaka then it makes more sense to have destroyed the anvil.

And about the collector base well........let's leave it at that.

[masster blaster]

Steelcan wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Hey Steel

hey saintist

lol not a saintist thank you, just simply me. Just checking out the DA stuff on here for a bit. Wanting to see what's new and all. Plus to get my mind off of some personal problems in my life.

[Steelcan]

save it for the chat MB, this isn't a board for personal conversation

[masster blaster]

Steelcan wrote...

save it for the chat MB, this isn't a board for personal conversation

I know. that is why I am here to just talk about DA, and well ME stuff I guess.

[SgtSteel91]

masster blaster wrote...

Yet Branka went mad and then she had a war with either H, or B. Short names for the both. And not to mention honestly if you play the golems of Arggmaka then it makes more sense to have destroyed the anvil.

More sense how? More evidence that the Anvil should be destroyed or that the adventure seems like a waste since the Dwarves can already make golems with the Anvil perserved?

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 01 février 2014 - 07:11 .

[masster blaster]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Yet Branka went mad and then she had a war with either H, or B. Short names for the both. And not to mention honestly if you play the golems of Arggmaka then it makes more sense to have destroyed the anvil.

More sense how? More evidence that the Anvil should be destroyed or that the adventure seems like a waste since the Dwarves can already make golems with the Anvil preserved?

I meant the plot to " The Golems of Arggmaka." lol

But it should be either way. Although having a golem army would be good they have to be wiling to join it, yet i can understand just like the wardens people can be conscripted.....the fact that from what Cariden told me about what happened when the King started to go mad with the power......I rather not, and " The Golems of Arggmaka" are prime examples of how the anvil is better off destroyed and not recreated. It was good for a time of dark hour, but now it should be no longer used UNLESS all hope seems lost and the darkspawn are about to consume all of Theads.

[SgtSteel91]

It was going to consume Fereldan, that's desperate enough for my patriotic Cousland Warden to not destroy it.

Once again, different strokes. V:mellow:V

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 01 février 2014 - 07:23 .

[masster blaster]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

It was going to consume Fereldan, that's desperate enough for my patriotic Cousland Warden to not destroy it.

Once again, different strokes. V:mellow:V

Ohh Cousland Warden nice. My favorite Origin story. It just fits so well and becoming king, or well prince XD

Personally I say it was not needed because I already have mages. Mages are very powerful and a force to be reckoned with plus with the Dwarves, Redcliff troops and the elves from what I picked I knew it was enough. Plus I had Shale and well I just only need ONE golem. XD

Modifié par masster blaster, 01 février 2014 - 07:28 .

[Steelcan]

Keeping the anvil is the right decision, killing darkspawn and ending the Blight is more important than anything else

[SgtSteel91]

masster blaster wrote...

Ohh Cousland Warden nice. My favorite Origin story. It just fits so well and becoming king, or well prince XD

Personally I say it was not needed because I already have mages. Mages are very powerful and a force to be reckoned with plus with the Dwarves, Redcliff troops and the elves from what I picked I knew it was enough. Plus I had Shale and well I just only need ONE golem. XD

But what it had powerful mages AND indestructible golems 

Plus the Anvil issue gets resolved either by H and B banning it's use. It's just that either there's a war with Fereldan or Orzammar after the ban.

But I totally understand why one would destroy the Avnil. My Shepard destroys the Collector Base at the end of ME2.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 01 février 2014 - 07:34 .

[masster blaster]

Steelcan wrote...

Keeping the anvil is the right decision, killing darkspawn and ending the Blight is more important than anything else

It feels wrong though. how helpful it may be aside, it's a very risky move, and I did not trust branka at all. She was CRAZY! she could just turn on you just like that. I mean not to mention after the blight is over she basically has a war with Ozammar and well endless cycle right there. Plus the power is to great for one person to handle. Cariden saw this and in all honesty I felt it was just the right call in my opinion.

[Steelcan]

masster blaster wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Keeping the anvil is the right decision, killing darkspawn and ending the Blight is more important than anything else

It feels wrong though. how helpful it may be aside, it's a very risky move, and I did not trust branka at all. She was CRAZY! she could just turn on you just like that. I mean not to mention after the blight is over she basically has a war with Ozammar and well endless cycle right there. Plus the power is to great for one person to handle. Cariden saw this and in all honesty I felt it was just the right call in my opinion.

pfft what something feels like isn't important.  If the end result is more dead darkspawn than its probably a good idea.

[masster blaster]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ohh Cousland Warden nice. My favorite Origin story. It just fits so well and becoming king, or well prince XD

Personally I say it was not needed because I already have mages. Mages are very powerful and a force to be reckoned with plus with the Dwarves, Redcliff troops and the elves from what I picked I knew it was enough. Plus I had Shale and well I just only need ONE golem. XD

But what it had powerful mages AND indestructible golems 

Plus the Anvil issue gets resolved either by H and B banning it's use. It's just that either there's a war with Fereldan or Orzammar after the ban.

Remember though Branka still holds up and she did not back down without a fight, she still doesn't if you let her live. I say she is crazy and needed to die. She just did and so did the anvil. my opinion that is.

[SgtSteel91]

Yeah I get that. Different strokes. V^_^V

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 01 février 2014 - 07:37 .

[masster blaster]

Steelcan wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Keeping the anvil is the right decision, killing darkspawn and ending the Blight is more important than anything else

It feels wrong though. how helpful it may be aside, it's a very risky move, and I did not trust branka at all. She was CRAZY! she could just turn on you just like that. I mean not to mention after the blight is over she basically has a war with Ozammar and well endless cycle right there. Plus the power is to great for one person to handle. Cariden saw this and in all honesty I felt it was just the right call in my opinion.

pfft what something feels like isn't important.  If the end result is more dead darkspawn than its probably a good idea.

And thus a civil war happening within ones own kingdom over either banning or wanting more golems.....ya. kill more darkspawn only to kill one another over the usage of the anvil.

Sounds like a plan.

[DaringMoosejaw]

I'm absolutely fine with tragic endings, ...if they are executed well. Red Dead Redemption is one of my favorite endings of all time where I thought ME3's was horrible (and that's all I'm saying about that). Meanwhile, DA:II (a game I actually really liked, despite its flaws) had an ending where pretty much most people you care about survive along with the protagonist but I still thought it was pretty bad.

So many people, when there's a tragic ending executed poorly, will respond to those complaining about it that they aren't happy because it isn't a happy ending with the usual strawman of calling it a unicorns and rainbows ending. I'm certain people like that exist, but just because the ending is tragic doesn't automatically make it superior. They can be executed extremely badly.

[Steelcan]

masster blaster wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Keeping the anvil is the right decision, killing darkspawn and ending the Blight is more important than anything else

It feels wrong though. how helpful it may be aside, it's a very risky move, and I did not trust branka at all. She was CRAZY! she could just turn on you just like that. I mean not to mention after the blight is over she basically has a war with Ozammar and well endless cycle right there. Plus the power is to great for one person to handle. Cariden saw this and in all honesty I felt it was just the right call in my opinion.

pfft what something feels like isn't important.  If the end result is more dead darkspawn than its probably a good idea.

And thus a civil war happening within ones own kingdom over either banning or wanting more golems.....ya. kill more darkspawn only to kill one another over the usage of the anvil.

Sounds like a plan.

Thats after the Blight is over and thus not my problem

[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)

[masster blaster]

Steelcan wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Keeping the anvil is the right decision, killing darkspawn and ending the Blight is more important than anything else

It feels wrong though. how helpful it may be aside, it's a very risky move, and I did not trust branka at all. She was CRAZY! she could just turn on you just like that. I mean not to mention after the blight is over she basically has a war with Ozammar and well endless cycle right there. Plus the power is to great for one person to handle. Cariden saw this and in all honesty I felt it was just the right call in my opinion.

pfft what something feels like isn't important.  If the end result is more dead darkspawn than its probably a good idea.

And thus a civil war happening within ones own kingdom over either banning or wanting more golems.....ya. kill more darkspawn only to kill one another over the usage of the anvil.

Sounds like a plan.

Thats after the Blight is over and thus not my problem

That is what I look after though. What will happen afterwards. Much like if I know if I let the Werewolf's kill the Dalish elves I know how people would react, and how blood would be ahead. I understood it's importance, and how it could have added the fight against the blight, yet this was to high and while it could have been a huge mistake in the end though we only get four steel golems that pretty much died during the market district battle for me XD.