642 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

eluvianix wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Does this mean that the player can't be  -- shouldn't be allowed to be -- mistaken?

No, what I am saying is that until something in game proves a person wrong, they are free to make any theory they want and it is equally valid and possible.

Ah... so until the DR actually results in a disaster, or we see that it didn't, the player can think what he pleases.

[KaiserShep]

Blackrising wrote...

A tragic ending is fine in a story that isn't about a character the player creates and shapes.

The ending of The Walking Dead was absolutely fine and very fitting. I cried my eyes out, yes, but it didn't leave me feeling unsatisfied and unhappy. The endings of the Bioshock games can be very tragic or heartbreaking, but I never once felt that an ending was lacking in anyway. That's because they're not MY stories, the main characters are not MY character. There's a certain distance that keeps me aware that it's someone else's story and I am simply an observer.

I didn't expect the ending of TWD to affect me as much as it did. It really is a great ending, and a really good example of a tragic ending that works.

[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.")

[Dave of Canada]

iakus wrote...

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

People would've cried, many would like it but others would've hated it. Look at games like Red Dead Redemption, The Walking Dead, etc which end on a tragic note and people adore everything.

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 the player should never make difficult decisions to reach the conclusion they want? Quite frankly, that's a game I'm not interested in.

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.

But you don't want negative consequences, how's it possible to balance "bitter" and "sweet" in this case?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 février 2014 - 03:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

Out of curiosity, in Jade Empire, does the possibility of the drought returning play any part in your choice in the fate of the Water Dragon?

Generally, no. Partially because Closed Fist playing out as Jade Empire's version of dark side. Despite how Smiling Mountain attempts to present the philosophy at the start of the game, Closed Fist characters are typically just selfish ****s. Hence my not caring about the ability to stop the drought doesn't rank high on Closed Fist priorities when the game sets you up to be a terrible person anyway.

I disagree about Closed Fist.  Yes, many of its followers are terrible people, but, based on Smiling Mountain's description of it, that's not mandatory.

I prefer Closed Fist by a fair margin, but I've always saved the Water Dragon, because not saving the Water Dragon is insane.  I might not be nice, but I'm also not crazy.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

No, they don't.  It's like pointing out the Redcliffe scenario and saying that the player has several options which hold up well, despite having a magic button for a perfect ending. The perfect Redcliffe ending is exactly what prevents the other options from holding up well.  

Bioware isn't likely to flesh out the dark ritual and its supposed negatives in any meaningful fashion. Again, ultimate sacrifice involves your Warden dying. Alternatively, Alistair dies. You're relying on the idea that the import system will result in some meaningful content, when I've seen you write several in-depth criticisms of said import system. What is the basis for your confidence?

Actually I am not relying on the import system at all.  I have little interest in it anymore, save in cosmetic details for Thedas.  Whether the DR ever gets fleshed out matters very little to me personally.  The Dark Ritual is not to me a happy ending, nor a sad one.  It is an uncertain one, and I accept it as such.

What matters is what would my Warden do in that situation.  Not knowing what the future could bring.  I have done all four endings with different Wardens and they all felt right for the Warden I was working with.  Even Ultimate Sacrifice.

But the important thing is:  happy, sad, or uncertain, these endings were all different for the different stories being told.  I could choose to tell a story with a happy or sad ending.

Well, if I were to look at it from a narrative perspective, I would be claiming the Warden's story isn't even done, given that (my Warden at least) passed with Morrigan through the Eluvian and is heavily invested in whatever is going on with our dear OGB.

Your Warden may be invested in the OGB, but the Warden's story is, for all practical purposes, done.  Now he's a supporting character in the OGB's story, essentially.  

Right, but that's my point here. I believe you, in more than a few cases, have expressed a lack of desire to return to play Mass Effect 1 because of Shepard's lack of survival. This doesn't apply any less to someone judging DA:O's efforts at presenting equivalent endings.  

My problems with Mass Effect run a lot deeper than Shepard's survival, actually.    More akin to moral and thematic dissonance.  But toi go any deeper would seriously derail the thread.

[AlanC9]

Blackrising wrote...

But characters I help shape myself aren't 'someone else'. They feel like they're mine, because I created them, I decide what they do and what they think. Sometimes they feel like my children, sometimes they feel like myself, sometimes they simply feel like a beloved fictional character. But the point remains: I want them to be happy. I have a deep, personal desire to give them a happy ending, to see them succeed, to feel like what they had to go through ultimately paid off. Which is why the ME3 ending hit me so hard. It was a mixture of seeing my little person never achieve her own happiness and the tragedies of her personal life hitting a bit too close to home. It wasn't just sad, it was deeply depressing and I would like to never have to repeat that experience.

This actually sounds like an argument in favor of tragic endings. 

Edit: that's unclear. What I meant was that this sounds like a big advantage of the RPG format is its ability to connect the player to the tragedy in a way that other media can't, and it's a shame to forgo that.

And why "little person"?

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 février 2014 - 04:54 .

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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 the player should never make difficult decisions to reach the conclusion they want? Quite frankly, that's a game I'm not interested in.

How did you get "never make a difficult decision" out of what I wrote?  I was responding to your thought of

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.

Which sounds like you're simply moving the tragedy around rather than doing anything to actually avoid it.

But you don't want negative consequences, how's it possible to balance "bitter" and "sweet" in this case?

By offering a variety of choices, with a variety of sacrifices.  And letting the player decide what is worth paying.  By giving the player a chance to balance the bitter and the sweet.

 It's not going to be 100%, there will always be people who won't like the offered prices, people who complain about magic buttons that dispenses rainbows and unicorns.  And there will be those complaining that any sacrifice is unacceptable.  But overall, you catch more fish with a wider net.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...


By offering a variety of choices, with a variety of sacrifices.  And letting the player decide what is worth paying.  By giving the player a chance to balance the bitter and the sweet.

 It's not going to be 100%, there will always be people who won't like the offered prices, people who complain about magic buttons that dispenses rainbows and unicorns.  And there will be those complaining that any sacrifice is unacceptable.  But overall, you catch more fish with a wider net.

And there will also be people who see the intended "good/happy"- or even "bittersweet"-options as "sad/GRIMDARK!™"

Hell, I've seen fans bash an ending for being "GRIMDARK!™" and a "Disney Ending!™"

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

And there will also be people who see the intended "good/happy"- or even "bittersweet"-options as "sad/GRIMDARK!™"

Sure.  But I'd hope a AAA game developer would be able to judge audience hopes and expectations well enough to avoid a situation like that...

Hell, I've seen fans bash an ending for being "GRIMDARK!™" and a "Disney Ending!™"

Well, there's always Old Yeller 

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

By offering a variety of choices, with a variety of sacrifices.  And letting the player decide what is worth paying.  By giving the player a chance to balance the bitter and the sweet.

This is tantamount to ruling out tragedy, isn't it? ( I'm not sure if we're still on topic here or not.)

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 février 2014 - 05:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is tantamount to ruling out tragedy, isn't it? ( I'm not sure if we're still on topic here or not.)

Is it?

Players can still tell a tragic story, but they have to choose to do so.

And sometimes we will.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

By offering a variety of choices, with a variety of sacrifices.  And letting the player decide what is worth paying.  By giving the player a chance to balance the bitter and the sweet.

This is tantamount to ruling out tragedy, isn't it? ( I'm not sure if we're still on topic here or not.)

Not really.  It's letting the player choose if the story they want to tell is tragic or not (or at least, how bittersweet it is).  

DAO managed to to do this.  Though clearly some seem to think the DR undermines this

[CELL55]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

This is tantamount to ruling out tragedy, isn't it? ( I'm not sure if we're still on topic here or not.)

Is it?

Players can still tell a tragic story, but they have to choose to do so.

And sometimes we will.

The important thing here, as Sylvius points out, is choice.
If the story must necesarily be tragic, then it can not also be a choice-and-consequences driven RPG. Tragedy can be an option, but it must never be the only one.

[MadCat221]

iakus wrote...

DAO managed to to do this.  Though clearly some seem to think the DR undermines this

Errr... I'm apparently not around here enough to know this... What is "DR"?

[SgtSteel91]

Dark Ritual

The option of allowing a Warden; you, Alistair, or Loghain, to sleep with Morrigan in a Blood Magic-like ritual which will transfer the soul of the Old God that the Archdemon was into the unborn child. Normally, a Warden close to the Archdemon when it dies will have it's soul transfer to the Warden, because of their connection to the Taint, and destroy both souls which will kill them both. Then she leaves with the child for her own purposes.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 02 février 2014 - 06:37 .

[Direwolf0294]

What I hate is when RPGs make it so the only way to have a happy ending for your character is to do something evil, ala DA:O's dark ritual or ME3's genocide ending.

Just once I'd like the selfish option to backfire on the protagonist and the self sacrificing option to be pulled off without the sacrificing part. Good guys should have good things happen to them occasionally.

[ElitePinecone]

Il Divo wrote...

Bioware isn't likely to flesh out the dark ritual and its supposed negatives in any meaningful fashion. Again, ultimate sacrifice involves your Warden dying. Alternatively, Alistair dies.

You don't think Loghain's atonement counts as a good ending? That is another option, you know?

It's redemption for his actions earlier in the game - and, if you were being Machiavellian, also ensures that an influential Ferelden hero now poses no threat to whoever is on the throne out of Anora/Alistair/both. 

That ending leaves Alistair and the Warden alive, and kills the Archdemon once and for all. 

[SgtSteel91]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Just once I'd like the selfish option to backfire on the protagonist and the self sacrificing option to be pulled off without the sacrificing part. Good guys should have good things happen to them occasionally.

Fire Emblem Awakening has something like that

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Actually I am not relying on the import system at all.  I have little interest in it anymore, save in cosmetic details for Thedas.  Whether the DR ever gets fleshed out matters very little to me personally.  The Dark Ritual is not to me a happy ending, nor a sad one.  It is an uncertain one, and I accept it as such.

Out of curiosity, how's the Shepard's breath scene working out as uncertain endings? I still see plenty of people griping over that. Likewise with the Rachni, where I doubt people would've been content if neither ME2 or 3 brought them back.

But the important thing is:  happy, sad, or uncertain, these endings were all different for the different stories being told.  I could choose to tell a story with a happy or sad ending.

And if that floats your boat, by all means. Me? I think such endings create cop-outs. I prefer Kaidan vs. Ashley to the suicide mission.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 février 2014 - 11:29 .

[Il Divo]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Bioware isn't likely to flesh out the dark ritual and its supposed negatives in any meaningful fashion. Again, ultimate sacrifice involves your Warden dying. Alternatively, Alistair dies.

You don't think Loghain's atonement counts as a good ending? That is another option, you know?

It's redemption for his actions earlier in the game - and, if you were being Machiavellian, also ensures that an influential Ferelden hero now poses no threat to whoever is on the throne out of Anora/Alistair/both. 

That ending leaves Alistair and the Warden alive, and kills the Archdemon once and for all. 

Depends. Doesn't keeping Loghain alive also result in a huge schism between the Warden and Alistair? Still perhaps not on par with sacrificing your life or Alistair's, but I was also under the impression that was a very prominent moment.

[Get Magna Carter]

My opinion is that a game should on successful completion end with a victory ...an accomplishment.
If this has a price (possibly including self-sacrifice) that is okay as long as we can see our achievement.
The ultimate sacrifice in Origins was fine for me - I was more bothered by the side with mages consequences of Dragon Age 2 as Hawke gets run out of the city as a "reward" for dealing with the out-of-control maniac Meredith and we don't see how Kirkwall is afterwards.

[ElitePinecone]

Il Divo wrote...

Depends. Doesn't keeping Loghain alive also result in a huge schism between the Warden and Alistair? Still perhaps not on par with sacrificing your life or Alistair's, but I was also under the impression that was a very prominent moment.

It's possible to 'harden' Alistair beforehand through some other choices so that he doesn't get so angry. I don't think there's much of a schism, but it's been years since I played through it so I'm nt sure.

In my game, though, Loghain sacrificed himself, and Anora/Alistair were on the throne together. 

[bEVEsthda]

I'm pretty convinced a compulsary tragic ending is a commercial mistake of too great proportions. In the current state of matters, Bioware and EA need to steer clear of such. While "tragedy" was, relatively, a very, very microscopic part of the ME3 end-failure, just try imagine them saying things about "artistic vision" again.


As for the question otherwise, I'm with these two guys:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Any tragedy in the ending should be a result of our choices. It should not be pre-determined.

Get Magna Carter wrote...

My opinion is that a game should on successful completion end with a victory ...an accomplishment.
If this has a price (possibly including self-sacrifice) that is okay as long as we can see our achievement.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 02 février 2014 - 01:53 .

[AnnJuly]

I hate tragic endings with passion.
Especially in RPG games and especially when there is no other options.
I have enough of this sh*t in real life, thx.
So, yep, I want good old boring medal ceremony and celebration party, sorry to all "artistic integrity" fans.