642 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

CELL55 wrote...

Why MUST the PC blow himself up? I prefered the Ultimate Sacrifice ending in DAO, so my PC dying isn't the issue, it's the sudden lack of choice in an otherwise choice-driven game. Removing options just at the end is arbitrary.

The PC isn't blowing himself up. He dies in a cave-in. Over which he has no control, and therefore, makes no sense that he cna change by his choices in other places.

Options and EXPECTED results are two very different things.

I'll use ME3 as an example - even tough it's presented badly - but destruction of all reapers, reaper victory, and merger are 3 VERY different outcomes. The galaxy is compeltey changed depending on your choice. Forever.
Let's say the Citadel blows up in all 3.

What does Sheppards survival mean in light of all of that? Nothing. Insignificant.

[December Man]

Nevermind.

Modifié par December Man, 03 février 2014 - 03:08 .

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

A tragic ending doesent need to be a bad ending, and a happy ending isnt always a good ending.

If it isnt possible to mess things up and get a tragic ending. Then a good ending has no value and becomes a bad ending by default.

If the only variable and possible outcome of the game is "HAPPY YAY ENDING, EVERYONE MADE IT SAVED THE WORLD!", then:

1) Replay value = gone
2) Sense of freedom (vital to an rpg) = gone
3) Satisfaction over any game choice over another = gone

This is why RPGs should have a: Perfect - good - average - close to failure - utter failure endings and "Became a powerhungry tyrant OR became a morally upstanding selfless saviour" variables both.

Hard to appease everyone due to time constraints I guess. But my definition of a good ending is an ending that reflects the choices you made, an ending with various outcomes both subjectively (morally, ethics or lack of these) and objectively (THIS happened because you didnt or did THIS and THIS).

Again - A tragic ending doesent need to be a bad ending, and a happy ending isnt always a good ending. Take ME3 for example. One of the story writers mistakingly thought people didnt like the ending because it was a dark ending. It had nothing to do with the ending being dark. But everything to do with lack of closure, explanation and not to mention the complete lack of good writing on a logical level.

I love dark fantasy with tragic and sinister endings, and I love "Feel-good" endings. But they need to be well written. Too often bad writers blame fans for not liking their story based on dark vs light outcomes when that isnt always the case.

[ElitePinecone]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What does Sheppards survival mean in light of all of that? Nothing. Insignificant.

Only if you're expecting players to care about the Reaper plotline more than the fate of their player-character, though. I'm not saying one or the other is more sensible, but a fair number of people took the character interactions in the Mass Effect series very, very seriously. 

It's no use telling people who were genuinely heartbroken about Shepard's fate that it doesn't matter because the galaxy is irrevocably changed - to them, the character relationships and personal bond they felt to Shepard were far more important than the wider implications of the ending. Whatever you think about the people who just wanted a happy ending or the ability to ride off into the sunset with [character X], they clearly exist - and Bioware clearly underestimated how much they felt attached to Shepard.

Then you also have to ask the question - why was a sacrifice necessary for those ending choices to happen? Beyond the answer that the game required it (for a whole host of silly pseudoscientific reasons), what did the creators want to achieve with that outcome? Could that theme of sacrifice been done in a different way? 

Bioware have been very reluctant to talk about their reasoning in writing the ending, and I suspect we'll never really get a good explanation - if only because everything they've ever said has just caused more controversy. But Geoff Keighley's "Final Hours of ME3" article has a lot of great background information on what they were aiming for, and it does include Mac Walters' page of notes brainstorming ideas for the end of the game. It's fair to say that the tone is pretty incoherent. 

[Zobo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'll use ME3 as an example - even tough it's presented badly - but destruction of all reapers, reaper victory, and merger are 3 VERY different outcomes. The galaxy is compeltey changed depending on your choice. Forever.
Let's say the Citadel blows up in all 3.

What does Sheppards survival mean in light of all of that? Nothing. Insignificant.

According to whom? In cosmic scales everything is insignificant, even should the whole Milky Way galaxy blow up, there are 170 billion of other galaxies out there. Who is to ultimately judge significance? For some, in real life people they know and like are all that matters, millions of strainers die and that is just statistics. That's IRL, in games even more so. The galaxy is changed forever (in the most silly and untrusted way possible), so what, why should it be more important from Shepard dying for me? It is not.

[Ianamus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

CELL55 wrote...

Why MUST the PC blow himself up? I prefered the Ultimate Sacrifice ending in DAO, so my PC dying isn't the issue, it's the sudden lack of choice in an otherwise choice-driven game. Removing options just at the end is arbitrary.

The PC isn't blowing himself up. He dies in a cave-in. Over which he has no control, and therefore, makes no sense that he cna change by his choices in other places.

Options and EXPECTED results are two very different things.

Expected results and expecting options to actually have results are two different things. 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What does Sheppards survival mean in light of all of that? Nothing. Insignificant.

Shepard and the Normandy crew's fate meant more to me than the fate of the galaxy, becuase I was far more invested in the characters and their relationships than the backdrop. 

Modifié par EJ107, 03 février 2014 - 03:46 .

[Iakus]

Zobo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'll use ME3 as an example - even tough it's presented badly - but destruction of all reapers, reaper victory, and merger are 3 VERY different outcomes. The galaxy is compeltey changed depending on your choice. Forever.
Let's say the Citadel blows up in all 3.

What does Sheppards survival mean in light of all of that? Nothing. Insignificant.

According to whom? In cosmic scales everything is insignificant, even should the whole Milky Way galaxy blow up, there are 170 billion of other galaxies out there. Who is to ultimately judge significance? For some, in real life people they know and like are all that matters, millions of strainers die and that is just statistics. That's IRL, in games even more so. The galaxy is changed forever (in the most silly and untrusted way possible), so what, why should it be more important from Shepard dying for me? It is not.

 For this fight, want personal connection. Can't anthropomorphize galaxy. But can think of favorite nephew. Fighting for him.  -Mordin Solus

Not everyone wants to fight for an abstract concept.  But for those you have an emotional attatchment to?  Absolutely.

[LPPrince]

I certainly feel a strong personal connection to my created playable character if the writing is strong enough.

I certainly cared about Shepard until ME3 ruined everything.

I definitely cared about The Warden, which was fantastic all things considered.

Didn't care much for Hawke;was just let down far too many times.

Three different scenarios- Great writing and wonderful experiences that led to an absolute trash of a finale, great writing and wonderful experiences that led to a satisfying and awesome conclusion, and not so great writing and terrible experiences that led to me never really caring much at all.

[Zobo]

iakus wrote...

Zobo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'll use ME3 as an example - even tough it's presented badly - but destruction of all reapers, reaper victory, and merger are 3 VERY different outcomes. The galaxy is compeltey changed depending on your choice. Forever.
Let's say the Citadel blows up in all 3.

What does Sheppards survival mean in light of all of that? Nothing. Insignificant.

According to whom? In cosmic scales everything is insignificant, even should the whole Milky Way galaxy blow up, there are 170 billion of other galaxies out there. Who is to ultimately judge significance? For some, in real life people they know and like are all that matters, millions of strainers die and that is just statistics. That's IRL, in games even more so. The galaxy is changed forever (in the most silly and untrusted way possible), so what, why should it be more important from Shepard dying for me? It is not.

 For this fight, want personal connection. Can't anthropomorphize galaxy. But can think of favorite nephew. Fighting for him.  -Mordin Solus

Not everyone wants to fight for an abstract concept.  But for those you have an emotional attatchment to?  Absolutely.

Point is, the person I have the biggest emotion attachment ever to is myself. In ME universe that is Shepard.

[Iakus]

Zobo wrote...
Point is, the person I have the biggest emotion attachment ever to is myself. In ME universe that is Shepard.

Yep, that is totally understandable.  You have put a bit of yourself into the character.  You made Shepard, or the Warden, or Hawke your own.  You are, as Tolkien might have put it the "sub-creator".  And you are fighting for their existence.

[LinksOcarina]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

On paper, ME3's ending is heads and shoulders above pretty much any other recent Bioware game, and most games to note. The difference is emotional impact, not a lack of player involvement in influencing it.

Hm. I take a rather big issue with the idea that War Assets are at all an adequate mechanism to translate player decsions into ending states, though. Only in the most abstract sense could you say that making any *specific* choice impacted the way the game ended (Collector Base aside, I suppose). And as Allan was talking about earlier in this thread, being able to fill your meter with multiplayer characters rather undermines the importance of even making those choices. It's extremely unfulfilling that the results of three games boils down to a numerical value, particularly when those values don't actually reflect anything beyond an arbitrary number needed for each ending.

ME2's system felt far more inclusive of the player in its decision-making. Decisions before and during the Suicide Mission had weight to them, and *felt* meaningful. 

Perhaps this is fundamentally a question of different tastes and perceptions - but I was struck by how bland Priority; Earth was compared to the finale of its predecessor, and how little reflection there was of anything we'd done as unique players for the last hundred hours or so. It also has to be said that the expectations resting on ME3, as the finale of a trilogy, were probably higher than any of Bioware's previous games to date. 

Yet the results of Mass Effect 2 boiled down to a numbers game as well, an abstract bit regarding time and loyalty, and luck to make sure you pick the right characters for the job on the ground. Not to mention your final stand being a pure numbers game based on how "durable" characters are. The difference is the numbers were hidden to you.

Honestly, the problem people present is mostly due to perception of what is important; we care more about the Suicide Mission because it is affecting characters we have been playing the game with. It is a personal story; one with some drama, weight, and less at stake than the destruction of the earth in the long run. Mass Effect 3 has the better ending in some ways because of the emotional weight of the decisions put forth to you and to your Shepard, but its putting itself outside the comfort zone of what is important to the personal level, rather than the world itself. Even Dragon Age: Origins didn't go this far; it was a personal choice because it was a choice made well before the final battle occurs, thanks to Morrigan and her ritual.

In truth, the ending to 3 is the equivalent of Icarus flying too high; it shows a brave new world, but it burned our wings off in the process. This is why Inquisition I feel will be playing it safe a bit too much; there won't be a self-sacrifice involved with your character, there won't be any world-defining moments that let us wax poeticlly or ponder what is correct, and what is not. It will be simple, black and white, and with less weight attached, because BioWare wants to play it safe for now. Tragic endings should be a part of the mix, but it is hard to sell it to anyone at this time. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 février 2014 - 04:27 .

[LPPrince]

Honestly, I feel if Bioware wants to force us down a certain path(not giving an option to save Hawke's mother at the end of Act Two, forcing us to lose our family member one way or another at the end of Act One, making Shepard's survival impossible or at least an uncertainty, etc etc), they should stop making these games with multiple choice options.

I feel as if some of the Bioware developers want to tell certain stories, but because of whatever it is they're trying to get across, they HAVE to tell it a certain way. That takes choice away from us.

Normally it wouldn't be a problem, we've all played games where the story is something you follow and don't affect in any way. But Bioware games offer the ability to take multiple paths and create our own woven stories, leading from point to point until we get to our objective.

I don't see what the hell the point is of these opportunities to shift and change where our character is headed if its guaranteed to lead us to the same miserable end anyway. At least a successful happy ending is a positive feeling, that'd leave me feeling good. I don't want to be led to believe my character has a chance of saving the day his or her own way only to be told LOLNOPE U FAIL KTHXBAI at the end.

But really, it shouldn't even be just a happy ending either. If my character weaves their own path, going one place ahead of another, making one choice instead of another, they should have their results vary.

I want the opportunity to succeed and I want the opportunity to fail.

Kinda like how the Suicide Mission worked, except this time maybe a little harder to achieve that total success.

And I DO want total success to be an option. In a perfect world with all the money and time offered up for development I'd like to see everything from total success to total failure offered as a conclusion to my character's story.

Mass 2 came closest to it. I still feel The Suicide Mission was the best finale to a Bioware game that I've personally played, even if I feel Mass 2 as a whole is responsible for leading Mass 3 into the failure of a finale that it was.

[LinksOcarina]

LPPrince wrote...

Honestly, I feel if Bioware wants to force us down a certain path(not giving an option to save Hawke's mother at the end of Act Two, forcing us to lose our family member one way or another at the end of Act One, making Shepard's survival impossible or at least an uncertainty, etc etc), they should stop making these games with multiple choice options.

I feel as if some of the Bioware developers want to tell certain stories, but because of whatever it is they're trying to get across, they HAVE to tell it a certain way. That takes choice away from us.

Normally it wouldn't be a problem, we've all played games where the story is something you follow and don't affect in any way. But Bioware games offer the ability to take multiple paths and create our own woven stories, leading from point to point until we get to our objective.

I don't see what the hell the point is of these opportunities to shift and change where our character is headed if its guaranteed to lead us to the same miserable end anyway. At least a successful happy ending is a positive feeling, that'd leave me feeling good. I don't want to be led to believe my character has a chance of saving the day his or her own way only to be told LOLNOPE U FAIL KTHXBAI at the end.

But really, it shouldn't even be just a happy ending either. If my character weaves their own path, going one place ahead of another, making one choice instead of another, they should have their results vary.

I want the opportunity to succeed and I want the opportunity to fail.

Kinda like how the Suicide Mission worked, except this time maybe a little harder to achieve that total success.

And I DO want total success to be an option. In a perfect world with all the money and time offered up for development I'd like to see everything from total success to total failure offered as a conclusion to my character's story.

Mass 2 came closest to it. I still feel The Suicide Mission was the best finale to a Bioware game that I've personally played, even if I feel Mass 2 as a whole is responsible for leading Mass 3 into the failure of a finale that it was.

You know, a friend of mine played Mass Effect up until the Suicide Mission, but stopped when Tali was killed by a rocket to the face on the first run of the mission. She found the fact that her fate was to die because of a choice she made for squad leader to be grating enough to stop playing the game. It made little sense for her to continue because it didn't fit with what her choices reflected.

and this is a girl who plays tabletop RPG's with me all the time. 

I need to also point out, that BioWare always puts us on a path we can't escape from. Being Darth Revan, destroying the Golden Mountain Monastary, Gorion dying, becoming a Warden, death of characters; its something we don't control and never did because were not supposed to control it. Other instances, we can control it but it is not a happy ending. You bring up the death of your sibling in Dragon Age II, I was fine with it because I didn't see it coming, but understood that it was my decisions that made this possible.

This is what people kind of forget, the nature of the choices is still a choice all the same. When it presents an outcome you don't like is often inconsequential to the fact that you made that choice. Unlike my friend, who hates being surprised in her RPG's because of choices beyond her control, we should be used to this by now because of how BioWare makes their games. Whether or not they did it better back in the day is a matter of debate, but such moments of moving the plot forward are a BioWare M.O at this point, be it in the beginning, middle or end. Why do I have to be a Jedi in knights of the old republic? Do I really have to save Arl Eamon, couldn't I just get support elsewhere? As I have said many times, the plot never changes, the narrative to it does. How you respond to a situation, who you bring with you, what you decide to do in the end are those points that weave together the story, they tighten the plotline into place fully.

Even if given an oppertunity to suceed or fail, it becomes inconsequential. Look at failure for Mass Effect 2 and the suicide mission, how pointless it has become to the point where few people talking about how invalid that choice is. Success or failure shouldn't be the barometer of the choices, the impact you put into it yourself should, being "rewarded" depending on what you do, how you approach things, is the crux of good choice making, something BioWare does do well for narrative, not plot, choices. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 février 2014 - 04:52 .

[wright1978]

I don't want the contrived death of the protaganist anymore than i'd want the contrived death of all mages by Templars to be a consequence in DAI no matter the choices made during the game whether to side with them or not. I think it should be one of the variables in the various ending scenarios.

[ElitePinecone]

LinksOcarina wrote...
This is why Inquisition I feel will be playing it safe a bit too much; there won't be a self-sacrifice involved with your character, there won't be any world-defining moments that let us wax poeticlly or ponder what is correct, and what is not. It will be simple, black and white, and with less weight attached, because BioWare wants to play it safe for now. 

Interesting theory, but how can you possibly know this?

Also, you're talking as if the reason ME3's ending was controversial was because it attempted to make a poetic point, or tackle complex themes, or was morally grey. Like, it was really brave but we just didn't appreciate its genius?

I don't think that's true at all, even if you could isolate the reasons people were pissed off down to two or three things. 

By far the most common concerns I saw were about the narrative structure and execution - not whatever themes they were trying to include. 

[dragonflight288]

I have no problem with tragic endings if it's done well.

[LPPrince]

Eh, its not like Bioware can't do it the way I'm making it sound.

For example, losing Bethany at the end of Act One. She gets sick and dies if you bring her along, she's fine if she doesn't come with you but gets taken anyway.

Bring her along with Anders and she can be saved after getting sick, but then has to leave anyway.

^All results end with basically the same thing, which sucks ass.

But, what if bringing Anders along with her and saving her allowed her to stick around with you the rest of the game?

That'd be a change I'd welcome. Because it leaves a different result. I want differing results.

At the end of Act One in The Witcher 2, a single choice leads to massive changes in Act Two. Its the same act, but you're primarily located in one of two different locations, you run into different characters, you complete different side missions, and the ones that ARE the same have different ways of completion.

Thats what I want. I want a choice to really cause a difference. What I don't want is different choices leading to the same bloody thing.

Modifié par LPPrince, 03 février 2014 - 05:00 .

[LinksOcarina]

ElitePinecone wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
This is why Inquisition I feel will be playing it safe a bit too much; there won't be a self-sacrifice involved with your character, there won't be any world-defining moments that let us wax poeticlly or ponder what is correct, and what is not. It will be simple, black and white, and with less weight attached, because BioWare wants to play it safe for now. 

Interesting theory, but how can you possibly know this?

Also, you're talking as if the reason ME3's ending was controversial was because it attempted to make a poetic point, or tackle complex themes, or was morally grey. Like, it was really brave but we just didn't appreciate its genius?

I don't think that's true at all, even if you could isolate the reasons people were pissed off down to two or three things. 

By far the most common concerns I saw were about the narrative structure and execution - not whatever themes they were trying to include. 

In part of that, yes. In part by execution too. See, you can't deny it did something brave, but you can argue it did it poorly.

And you could isolate what pissed people off to a few, its pretty much clear in the end with all the happy ending mods out there being so prevelant and popular, which change structure, execution, and theme all at once.

as for Inquisition, I don't know. That is why I said "I feel". We have no way of knowing without playing it. 

[LinksOcarina]

LPPrince wrote...

Eh, its not like Bioware can't do it the way I'm making it sound.

For example, losing Bethany at the end of Act One. She gets sick and dies if you bring her along, she's fine if she doesn't come with you but gets taken anyway.

Bring her along with Anders and she can be saved after getting sick, but then has to leave anyway.

^All results end with basically the same thing, which sucks ass.

But, what if bringing Anders along with her and saving her allowed her to stick around with you the rest of the game?

That'd be a change I'd welcome. Because it leaves a different result. I want differing results.

At the end of Act One in The Witcher 2, a single choice leads to massive changes in Act Two. Its the same Act, but you're primarily located in one of two different locations, you run into different characters, you complete different side missions, and the ones that ARE the same have different ways of completion.

Thats what I want. I want a choice to really cause a difference. What I don't want is different choices leading to the same bloody thing.

How important was act 2 to The Witcher 2 though, when the important aspects of the game all boiled down to the same chokepoint in act 1?

Plus what you describe is not different results; its the same result with different context, much like your sibling in act one in Dragon Age II. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 février 2014 - 05:03 .

[LPPrince]

Cause it feels different. It does a better job of disguising it. In the end, whatever we play is whatever the developers provide for us, but the better disguise it has, the more it can feel like we the player are creating the path given.

Just saying, it was better in TW2 than DA2. In DA2 it boiled down to "One way or another you're losing this person". In TW2 I can't even boil it down. Someone else probably could.

[LinksOcarina]

LPPrince wrote...

Cause it feels different. It does a better job of disguising it. In the end, whatever we play is whatever the developers provide for us, but the better disguise it has, the more it can feel like we the player are creating the path given.

Just saying, it was better in TW2 than DA2. In DA2 it boiled down to "One way or another you're losing this person". In TW2 I can't even boil it down. Someone else probably could.

That is irrelevent though. Better masking the fact the choices are an illusion means nothing at all when its still an illusion. Even if that was a fair argument to make (both witcher 2 and dragon age 2 are on par for me as games) it still doesn't make a fair argument. just because something feels different doesn't mean it's not different mechanically, which is kind of the point I am making here.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 février 2014 - 05:07 .

[LPPrince]

I don't play games to break them down mechanically. I play games to have fun. If a game with multiple choices can lead me to believe I'm creating a different path with choices that matter, fantastic. If it can't lead me to that belief, then I won't be happy with it.

Bioware used to lead me to that belief. They don't anymore. They did it enough in the past that I can hold out hope they can do it again. After a certain point my ability to hold onto that hope will fail.

[LinksOcarina]

LPPrince wrote...

I don't play games to break them down mechanically. I play games to have fun. If a game with multiple choices can lead me to believe I'm creating a different path with choices that matter, fantastic. If it can't lead me to that belief, then I won't be happy with it.

Bioware used to lead me to that belief. They don't anymore. They did it enough in the past that I can hold out hope they can do it again. After a certain point my ability to hold onto that hope will fail.

If you aren't happy with the game than don't play the game.

I am just pointing out there is no difference in the end. Take it as you like. 

[LPPrince]

LinksOcarina wrote...

If you aren't happy with the game than don't play the game.

Why do people always say this like it adds to the discussion?

DA2 was the only Bioware game I've played that I couldn't complete twice.

Caveman- "Game bad, I no like, I no play" *beats chest*

I get it, thanks. I think everyone gets it.

People aren't stupid.

What we're talking about is how these options, including a tragic ending, are gonna affect how we feel about a game that we haven't played yet.

Ignoring history leads to repeating the same mistakes in the future, so we're bringing up these types of things as we've experienced them before.

Catch up.

[LinksOcarina]

LPPrince wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

If you aren't happy with the game than don't play the game.

Why do people always say this like it adds to the discussion?

DA2 was the only Bioware game I've played that I couldn't complete twice.

Caveman- "Game bad, I no like, I no play" *beats chest*

I get it, thanks. I think everyone gets it.

People aren't stupid.

What we're talking about is how these options, including a tragic ending, are gonna affect how we feel about a game that we haven't played yet.

Ignoring history leads to repeating the same mistakes in the future, so we're bringing up these types of things as we've experienced them before.

Catch up.

As a historian, that line is mostly bull****, because the same mistakes are rarely made by the same people. It is often filtered to be that way because of the guise of the historians themselves framing the debate like that tend to make it simple for people to digest. Simply put, mistakes happen but are often different mistakes, with similar outcomes.

Plus, you pretty much proved my point by saying you didn't play it again because you didn't like it. Just stop pretending that the illusion of your choices actually matters to the grand discussion here though, and then we will be square really. The issue at hand for a game is always rooted in mechanics, which is why it is important to discuss them. Which is why many people talked about choice in this thread, over how it makes you feel. Why and how the game presents a choice is vastly more important than how it makes you feel in the end, especially when discussing if an ending or not is tragic, heroic, happy or sad. 

How somethng makes you feel is personal, and irrefutable. It gives us nothing to discuss though because we can't take that away from you. You want BioWare to not make the same mistakes, but you don't see mechanics of how they are done as important,  Instead it is something superficial on your personal tastes because "it feels different." and gives you the options to do "different things" that, in the truth of the matter, are really no different in the end anyway fromt he standpoint of the design of the game.  

Mechanics are important to that, understanding how they work, and how its no different than other games out there, is key to this discussion. Your taste on things is your taste, if you don't like, don't play it again then.

It really is that simple. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 février 2014 - 05:54 .