Aller au contenu

Photo

What are your thoughts about tragic endings?


642 réponses à ce sujet

#626
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 106 messages

LinksOcarina wrote...

The main plot may be linear, but the fact that it can be ignored is what I am talking about. If you can log in over 60 hours without doing anything plot-related, then your game is sandbox yes, but also very non-linear. Baldur's Gate cannot do that because most of the questlines are tied to the plot. Just because you can skip aspects of it doesn't mean your not following it either, you basically are, which is the point being made.

The thing that makes BG non-linear, I think, is that it's not clear when you're playing it which questlines are tied to the plot, or how.  It's just a bunch of quests, and some of them fit together to form a larger narrative, but you can't tell which ones until after the fact.

The first time I played BG, I thought the main plot started with the trip to the Gnoll Stronghold to kill/rescue Dynaheir, because I hadn't happened to meet the two groups of companions (Xzar/Montaron and Khalid/Jaheira) who want to go to Nashkel.  The companions I met, in order, were Kivan, Garrett, Branwen, Edwin, and Minsc.  I had no idea there even was a quest in the Nashkel mines until quite a bit later.

And then, when I did complete the mines, I didn't know that questline went anywhere, because I missed the note about Tranzig, so then I had to trail to follow until I happened upon Tranzig in Beregost (he was staying in the room where I kept my extra potions).

A linear plot lays a clear trail of breadcrumbs for you to follow, and BG didn't do that.  In that respect, it was an non-linear as a TES game (Oblivion's another game where I never even found the main plot - I literally never even started it because the game gave me a roleplaying incentive not to pursue that lead).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 février 2014 - 08:32 .


#627
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The thing that makes BG linear, I think, is that it's not clear when you're playing it which questlines are tied to the plot, or how. It's just a bunch of quests, and some of them fit together to form a larger narrative, but you can't tell which one's until after the fact.


I think you may mean non-linear here.

#628
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 106 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The thing that makes BG non-linear, I think, is that it's not clear when you're playing it which questlines are tied to the plot, or how. It's just a bunch of quests, and some of them fit together to form a larger narrative, but you can't tell which ones until after the fact.

I think you may mean non-linear here.

Indeed I did.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 février 2014 - 08:32 .


#629
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 675 messages
I'm not sure ignorance of what's a core quest or not can really be a basis to claim plot non-linearity, but it can certainly be a great means of providing the illusion thereof. There's definitely something to be said for having side quests indestinguishable from primary quests in quality.

I remember someone who bemoaned the lack of any good sidequests in ME3 because it was just story quests or planet scanning. When someone pointed out Grissom academy, the AY monastary, and how the Rannoch planetary missions weren't all required, they were embarassed to admit that they had forgotten about them because they were so good they seemed like story quests.

#630
Dabrikishaw

Dabrikishaw
  • Members
  • 3 240 messages
I don't care about the ending, only whether or not I complete my objective. I don't care about how Mass Effect 3 ended, but I would have if none of the options allowed for destroying the Reapers.

#631
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm not sure ignorance of what's a core quest or not can really be a basis to claim plot non-linearity, but it can certainly be a great means of providing the illusion thereof. There's definitely something to be said for having side quests indestinguishable from primary quests in quality.

I remember someone who bemoaned the lack of any good sidequests in ME3 because it was just story quests or planet scanning. When someone pointed out Grissom academy, the AY monastary, and how the Rannoch planetary missions weren't all required, they were embarassed to admit that they had forgotten about them because they were so good they seemed like story quests.


One could argue that if Priority Earth did a much better job at reflecting the player's choices in terms of the resources and forces gathered, you could argue these side quests would have been truly playing into the major plot. Ater all, the main plot was recruiting and all of those side quests did just that.

Since there was a very set, linear display of the ending conflict, though, these can truly be deemed side quests, as none of them brought anything substantive to the table other than a slight change to the EMS score and a possible video-chat cameo at the Priority Earth base if the side quest involved a former squadmate.

#632
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 106 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm not sure ignorance of what's a core quest or not can really be a basis to claim plot non-linearity, but it can certainly be a great means of providing the illusion thereof. There's definitely something to be said for having side quests indestinguishable from primary quests in quality.

Depending on the details of the main quest, having those sidequests be indistinguishable from the main quest elements is sometimes the only way to justify doign the sidequests at all.

ME1 is, I think, a good example of this.  You could freely explore the galaxy, even without having cause to do so (ME was the first BioWare game since BG1 to allow this).  But, given the urgency of the main plot, why would you?  Only if you could reasonably believe that all that exploration was potentially relevant to the main plot could you justify it within the confines of the authored narrative.

#633
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 514 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

The main plot may be linear, but the fact that it can be ignored is what I am talking about. If you can log in over 60 hours without doing anything plot-related, then your game is sandbox yes, but also very non-linear. Baldur's Gate cannot do that because most of the questlines are tied to the plot. Just because you can skip aspects of it doesn't mean your not following it either, you basically are, which is the point being made.

The thing that makes BG non-linear, I think, is that it's not clear when you're playing it which questlines are tied to the plot, or how.  It's just a bunch of quests, and some of them fit together to form a larger narrative, but you can't tell which ones until after the fact.

The first time I played BG, I thought the main plot started with the trip to the Gnoll Stronghold to kill/rescue Dynaheir, because I hadn't happened to meet the two groups of companions (Xzar/Montaron and Khalid/Jaheira) who want to go to Nashkel.  The companions I met, in order, were Kivan, Garrett, Branwen, Edwin, and Minsc.  I had no idea there even was a quest in the Nashkel mines until quite a bit later.

And then, when I did complete the mines, I didn't know that questline went anywhere, because I missed the note about Tranzig, so then I had to trail to follow until I happened upon Tranzig in Beregost (he was staying in the room where I kept my extra potions).

A linear plot lays a clear trail of breadcrumbs for you to follow, and BG didn't do that.  In that respect, it was an non-linear as a TES game (Oblivion's another game where I never even found the main plot - I literally never even started it because the game gave me a roleplaying incentive not to pursue that lead).


I guess I never had that experience, because I went right for the inn where Khalid and Jaheira were, which filled me in on what was going on, for the most part. I did go around and dealt with the gnolls to save Dynaheir first, avoided Xzar and Montaron, and went for Tranzig after finding the note.

It was decicively linear progression to me, because the trail was easy to spot. Maybe it is experience talking or just dumb luck, but I never saw it any other way. 

#634
Hiemoth

Hiemoth
  • Members
  • 739 messages

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

The main plot may be linear, but the fact that it can be ignored is what I am talking about. If you can log in over 60 hours without doing anything plot-related, then your game is sandbox yes, but also very non-linear. Baldur's Gate cannot do that because most of the questlines are tied to the plot. Just because you can skip aspects of it doesn't mean your not following it either, you basically are, which is the point being made.

The thing that makes BG non-linear, I think, is that it's not clear when you're playing it which questlines are tied to the plot, or how.  It's just a bunch of quests, and some of them fit together to form a larger narrative, but you can't tell which ones until after the fact.

The first time I played BG, I thought the main plot started with the trip to the Gnoll Stronghold to kill/rescue Dynaheir, because I hadn't happened to meet the two groups of companions (Xzar/Montaron and Khalid/Jaheira) who want to go to Nashkel.  The companions I met, in order, were Kivan, Garrett, Branwen, Edwin, and Minsc.  I had no idea there even was a quest in the Nashkel mines until quite a bit later.

And then, when I did complete the mines, I didn't know that questline went anywhere, because I missed the note about Tranzig, so then I had to trail to follow until I happened upon Tranzig in Beregost (he was staying in the room where I kept my extra potions).

A linear plot lays a clear trail of breadcrumbs for you to follow, and BG didn't do that.  In that respect, it was an non-linear as a TES game (Oblivion's another game where I never even found the main plot - I literally never even started it because the game gave me a roleplaying incentive not to pursue that lead).


I guess I never had that experience, because I went right for the inn where Khalid and Jaheira were, which filled me in on what was going on, for the most part. I did go around and dealt with the gnolls to save Dynaheir first, avoided Xzar and Montaron, and went for Tranzig after finding the note.

It was decicively linear progression to me, because the trail was easy to spot. Maybe it is experience talking or just dumb luck, but I never saw it any other way. 


Same here, which is why I personally felt it to be so linear. Even more so when I replayed it through last year. To me, the clearest example of the linear structure is the mere fact that it is built around chapters, with each chapter requiring a certain action before you can advance to the next.

#635
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 106 messages

LinksOcarina wrote...

I guess I never had that experience, because I went right for the inn where Khalid and Jaheira were, which filled me in on what was going on, for the most part. I did go around and dealt with the gnolls to save Dynaheir first, avoided Xzar and Montaron, and went for Tranzig after finding the note.

It was decicively linear progression to me, because the trail was easy to spot. Maybe it is experience talking or just dumb luck, but I never saw it any other way.

It depends how you interpret the information your given within the game.

Some people just went straight to the Friendly Arm because Gorion told them to, and it never occurred to them to do something else.  Whereas, I would have needed another reason to listen to him (since I only ever interpret in-game events from an in-character perspective).  Similarly, when Khalid and Jaheira tell you what's going on, I see no reason to take what they say at face value, or to assign their quest more importance than Minsc's or Edwin's, or the bounties for Brage or Bassilus.  They're all just quests until I see them tied together.

One of my complaints about more modern games is how they make the main quest/sidequest divide explicit with the organisation of the journal.  This isn't something I think games should do (or, at least, is should be optional).  I don't want to know, in advance, which quests are main quests.  From my character's point of view, they're all just quests.

#636
Thomas Andresen

Thomas Andresen
  • Members
  • 1 134 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm not sure ignorance of what's a core quest or not can really be a basis to claim plot non-linearity, but it can certainly be a great means of providing the illusion thereof. There's definitely something to be said for having side quests indestinguishable from primary quests in quality.

Depending on the details of the main quest, having those sidequests be indistinguishable from the main quest elements is sometimes the only way to justify doign the sidequests at all.

ME1 is, I think, a good example of this.  You could freely explore the galaxy, even without having cause to do so (ME was the first BioWare game since BG1 to allow this).  But, given the urgency of the main plot, why would you?  Only if you could reasonably believe that all that exploration was potentially relevant to the main plot could you justify it within the confines of the authored narrative.

This. All of this.

While I don't see the relevance to the OP, this is important when it comes to RP.

#637
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm not sure ignorance of what's a core quest or not can really be a basis to claim plot non-linearity, but it can certainly be a great means of providing the illusion thereof. There's definitely something to be said for having side quests indestinguishable from primary quests in quality.

Depending on the details of the main quest, having those sidequests be indistinguishable from the main quest elements is sometimes the only way to justify doign the sidequests at all.

ME1 is, I think, a good example of this.  You could freely explore the galaxy, even without having cause to do so (ME was the first BioWare game since BG1 to allow this).  But, given the urgency of the main plot, why would you?  Only if you could reasonably believe that all that exploration was potentially relevant to the main plot could you justify it within the confines of the authored narrative.

This. All of this.

While I don't see the relevance to the OP, this is important when it comes to RP.


I feel like we deviated from the OP when we started discussing how games that drive you direclty toward a certain ending as being overly linear, whether that ending is "happy" or "tragic."

Just as an attempt to chronicle the transition.

#638
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 106 messages
Yes, I'd suggest that this tangent is still fairly closely related to the original question. If we think tragic endings should be optional (a common response to the original question), what does that mean for the linearity of plot design overall?

#639
Thomas Andresen

Thomas Andresen
  • Members
  • 1 134 messages

I feel like we deviated from the OP when we started discussing how games that drive you direclty toward a certain ending as being overly linear, whether that ending is "happy" or "tragic."

I would argue that's immensely subjective, but...

Just as an attempt to chronicle the transition.

Thanks.

#640
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 675 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm not sure ignorance of what's a core quest or not can really be a basis to claim plot non-linearity, but it can certainly be a great means of providing the illusion thereof. There's definitely something to be said for having side quests indestinguishable from primary quests in quality.

I remember someone who bemoaned the lack of any good sidequests in ME3 because it was just story quests or planet scanning. When someone pointed out Grissom academy, the AY monastary, and how the Rannoch planetary missions weren't all required, they were embarassed to admit that they had forgotten about them because they were so good they seemed like story quests.


One could argue that if Priority Earth did a much better job at reflecting the player's choices in terms of the resources and forces gathered, you could argue these side quests would have been truly playing into the major plot. Ater all, the main plot was recruiting and all of those side quests did just that.

I think this is an entirely fair argument, and a fair criticism. I can see why they wouldn't/didn't (time and resource constraints: it's not like developers make games backwards and start from the end, and it shows), but I think it would have been a feasible way to do it.

Suggests I've seen and made in the past include letting cameos turn the entire level into a veritable walk-by that you wouldn't even have to fight yourself if you had enough support. Things like-

-Rachni swarmers clearing out the first LZ, dying in the process but reducing the number of enemies up the steps.
-A Geth Prime dropping at the start of the street, serving as an overpowered turret against an initial mass of Ravagers. It struggles under combined fire, but opens up room for Shepard.
-In the same area, a Quarian engineer who does negligable damage but restores Shepard's shields and provides ammo and grenades. Naturally it can also buff the Prime as well, making the shooting lane easier.
-In the garage where you fight two brutes, Krogan or Salarians are laying a trap.

And so on. Former companions could also have their own scenes of badass support.

-Jack and/or her student biotics (if put on the front lines) throwing shockwaves and biotic artillery during the rooftop onslaught while waiting for the shuttle, tossing aside unshielded husks and cannibals.
-In the alley where a Brute bursts through a wall, having Grunt burst through the other wall to tackle and take it out.
-Ex-squadies providing sniper support during that turret section, in a case of 'the Reapers are trying to overrun the FOB' emergency.

And, in a DAO and DA2-inspired final battle for those waves of enemies at the Thannix missiles, all the companions/significant NPCs could provide fire support from the barricades and sides, sort of like how they did in Citadel DLC. In short, the final level could range from exceptionally difficult to extremely easy depending on your number of cameos.

Of course, this is easy to write and harder to implement. The cost for so many potential cameos could be prohibitive, and certainly taking away from other things. Implementation could be tricky, especially in justifying why these cameos don't carry forward on your path but stay in their assigned spots. There might even be technical difficulties with cameo contributions in battle that we can't appreciate: given the limited gunship role in Thessia and how it wasn't until Citadel DLC that we got a sequence in which companions could be on the field and do significant damage,  there might be difficulties in implementing meaningful fire support as oppossed to scripting.

And, of course, the possibility for bugs. Something with that many variables to reflect in so short a space would be a recepie for glitches or save read errors. Quality control would be a total ****.

Since there was a very set, linear display of the ending conflict, though, these can truly be deemed side quests, as none of them brought anything substantive to the table other than a slight change to the EMS score and a possible video-chat cameo at the Priority Earth base if the side quest involved a former squadmate.

Pretty much. And to be fair (or more brutal), even cameos wouldn't make something not a sidequest- cameos are nice, but hardly impacting the plot. But it would still be great reflection, which is its own value in RPGs.

One thing I will congratulate ME3 for is with tying its major sub-arcs into the main plot. While Rannoch is still isolated like old creamy middle arcs, and could honestly be called a side quest, both the Genophage and Cerberus arcs are tied into the central narrative. Tuchanka is a bit awkward, but the genophage arc as a whole is effectively the requirements of forging the galactic coalition, Shepard's Act 1 plot. Cerberus also ties in its repeated interferences and ambitions for the Crucible and resolving the Reaper threat: of those, only the Citadel Coup really stands out as a 'why are we doing this?' level since its purpose and goals are never explained or reflected upon.

#641
Martyr1777

Martyr1777
  • Members
  • 190 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

Can't say i agree with you stance on linear here Jimmy.

The game play is not linear. The story is completely linear.

Maybe its just different interpretations, but lets look at a book. Cant get more linear, you have no choice in how you progress through it. Well a book tells a story, the same way a game tells a story. But with a game that story can branch in different directions in the story and hence create different events or responses from the world. But aside from a few things in DAO all the others of the two series are almost completely linear in how the story plays out.

Im trying to think of a good example of a good non-linear story but they are just so very rare because of how difficult they are to make.


There are very few books that are, say, 5 chapters long and yet allow you to read chapters 2, 3 and 4 in any order. Yet that's exactly what ME1 and DA:O do - you can choose to play that content in any order you like.

The content doesn't change and it doesn't react to being done last instead of first... but that doesn't, somehow, make it linear. Books are linear - you need to read chapter 2 for chapters 3 and 4 to make any sense. Sure, a theoretical book that allowed you to move around would always have chapters 1 and 5 and not change much depending on the order of chapter 2, 3 and 4... but that doesn't make it a linear story. Because you are no longer progressing in a line.


In a way you are correct. However for me if you were to translate ME1 or DAO to a book then you could publish it with the middle missions in any order sure but they are still the exact same chapter. with the same story.

Just because you can do a few things in a varied order, or even not do them, I don't call it non-linear. I mean if you consider that then basically ever RPG is non-linear because of the side quests. My definition to non-linear is for a branching story not to do things in varied order. Compare Skyrim and  DAO, Skyrim you can completely ignore any of the main quest lines but still 'progress' the game (I say that very loosely), DAO while you can do the *middle* peices of the game in whatever order you like you still have to follow certain rails to progress the game.

That being said, DAO is the one Bioware game that is very nice in that depending how or if you do, or don't do,  some things they can change how some aspects of the story play out but have no real overarching effect on the game. There is no true branching of the story. But I'm ok with that, its just I very much think they are quite linear.

Back on topic though, this only matters if we can get some story branches that provide more divergent endings to more completely offing 'good' and 'bad' endings.

#642
Uccio

Uccio
  • Members
  • 4 696 messages
A tragic as sole ending is not something I want or care. If all the trails lead to a single tragic ending ala ME3 then I probably will not buy such game (didn't buy ME3 for that reason). Takes the fun out of it.

#643
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 675 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm not sure ignorance of what's a core quest or not can really be a basis to claim plot non-linearity, but it can certainly be a great means of providing the illusion thereof. There's definitely something to be said for having side quests indestinguishable from primary quests in quality.

Depending on the details of the main quest, having those sidequests be indistinguishable from the main quest elements is sometimes the only way to justify doign the sidequests at all.

ME1 is, I think, a good example of this.  You could freely explore the galaxy, even without having cause to do so (ME was the first BioWare game since BG1 to allow this).  But, given the urgency of the main plot, why would you?  Only if you could reasonably believe that all that exploration was potentially relevant to the main plot could you justify it within the confines of the authored narrative.

I agree. In a sense, ME1 and ME2's side quest structure would have been more logical had they been swapped for eachother.

In ME1 with ME2's side quests, Shepard's planet scans could be framed in looking for outposts tied to Saren's support network. The mineral scans and data are passed onto the Alliance, but the short strikes on merc bases and the like are framed as attacks on Saren's affiliates, and possibly providing clues on what Saren has been up to or is doing. Nothing pans out as necessary like the core missions, but they provide the information regarding Saren's habits and actions. Obviously there's the other occasional Alliance high-importance request, like the Biotic hostage crisis or SOS, but these are false-flags (suspicions the Biotics are linked to Saren) or the exception to the rule. Shepard's focus is The Chase, and so the side quests are at least nominally in pursuit of that.

Come ME2, when Shepard is killing time waiting for the Collectors to make a move he can respond to, more varied planet exploration makes sense. Finding surface deposits of rare minerals allows Cerberus to harvest resources on the quick. Historic artifacts are sold to regain funds to further your preparations. You have the time to kill, and so exploring random worlds in pursuit of rumored potential resources that can be used on your behalf makes more sense. You have the time to kill, so no-rush exploration on the frontier makes more sense.