642 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Hiemoth wrote...
One of the core counter-arguments I would have here is that the game is already forcing you on a certain path to begin with. In DAO, you are forced to become the Warden and fight the Blight. In ME you are forced to become the Spectre. In DA2, you are forced to move to Kirkwall. These are all already obligations within the start of the game. Furthermore, the game gives you only a limited amount of choices as to how to approach the problem at hand and how those challenges can be solved.

Thus if we can accept all those limitations, arguing that an ending that requires a sacrifice of some sorts is a limitation too great seems somewhat arbitrary.

A "sacrifice of some sort" is different from having to die. In DAO, you can...

(1) Die
(2) Make a friend die in your place
(3) Make an enemy die in your place but lose a friend
(4) Compromise your moral integrity with the dark ritual (at least it's presented that way. Doesn't work for me, but that's the intention)

Here you have a downside forced on you, but you have options and can select one that feels acceptable to you. I have Wardens who have done everything but (1). (1) I've only done once to get the achievement.

[TheChris92]

I like them when they work - Like in Snake Eater, Silent Hill 2, Persona 3 etc. Most of my favorite games of all time all have downer endings or relatively bittersweet ones. But there's underlying powerful atmosphere to most of them and they really have touched me.

[Quill74Pen]

My characters have always viewed the Dark Ritual as an opportunity to learn more about the Old Gods, but to do so in a manner that shouldn't bring ruin to the world.

Well, unless Morrigan turns out to not be a good mother ... in which case, all bets are off. Or if the child's Old God soul is innately evil, then all bets are also off.

So, uh, yeah. Loghain? Git yer butt over here!

[Iakus]

Hiemoth wrote...

Well written argument explaining what you desire in a game in a clear and understandable manner.  I do not completely agree with it, but it does argument the case well.

One of the core counter-arguments I would have here is that the game is already forcing you on a certain path to begin with. In DAO, you are forced to become the Warden and fight the Blight. In ME you are forced to become the Spectre. In DA2, you are forced to move to Kirkwall. These are all already obligations within the start of the game. Furthermore, the game gives you only a limited amount of choices as to how to approach the problem at hand and how those challenges can be solved.

Thus if we can accept all those limitations, arguing that an ending that requires a sacrifice of some sorts is a limitation too great seems somewhat arbitrary.

I do not accept that limitations justify more limitations.  At that point, where does it end?

Gratned computer games do force a certain degree of on-rails storytelling, and every story needs a beginning (or "origins" in DAO) but it's what the player does from that point on that is the essence of roleplaying.  And games, especially rpgs, should strive to expand possibilities as much as posible, rather than contrain the player durther.

In addition, imo "a forced sacrifice isn't"  It's one thing to have a player pay a price for a desired outcome.  It is something quite different to mandate what is required.  To say that only this price will do. "The hero must die"  "The hero must betray an ally"  The beauty of DAO is that while a sacrifice is needed, there was a degree of flexibility in who paid and under what circumstances.

[Quill74Pen]

I don't think the devs could go wrong if they followed DAO's approach to ending an RPG adventure.

[Rotward]

Mr.House wrote...

iakus wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

This.

An unavoidably tragic ending defeats the purpose of the whole "This is your story" thing.

Hardly.

Any unavoidable ending defeats the purpose. All stories need a start, but if the ending is just as locked in, there's no RP. You're just watching a movie with some combat mechanics thrown in.

[KaiserShep]

Quill74Pen wrote...

I don't think the devs could go wrong if they followed DAO's approach to ending an RPG adventure.

I agree. This tragedy business is for the birds anyway.

[Ieldra]

Quill74Pen wrote...
I don't think the devs could go wrong if they followed DAO's approach to ending an RPG adventure.

Absolutely. I haven't seen anyone who didn't like DAO's ending setup, and it really had something for everyone. Bioware's games tend to be strictly formula in so many aspects, why the hell didn't they re-use *that* already? 

[TheChris92]

An unavoidable tragic ending doesn't=A bad ending or deny it from being 'Your story'. It's the context that matters and how it was played out. Tragic doesn't necessarily mean that your playable 'character' has to die. Opportunities for roleplaying doesn't just exist alone in what ending you get.

[Rotward]

TheChris92 wrote...

An unavoidable tragic ending doesn't=A bad ending or deny it from being 'Your story'. It's the context that matters and how it was played out. Tragic doesn't necessarily mean that your playable 'character' has to die. Opportunities for roleplaying doesn't just exist alone in what ending you get.

False. role play requires choice and impact. If even one of those is lost, there's no role play. A predetermined ending removes 100% of impact, therefor rpis gone.

I suppose I should elaborate. Impact sustains immersion, and immersion is required for role play. If you need to create some elaborate explanation to explain why your law abiding citizen and your revolutionary end on the same note, it's not rp anymore, it's fanfiction.

[KaiserShep]

It sure kills the replay value if you ask me. If it's a forced tragedy where the PC can't do anything other than die, why the heck should I bother doing it again? The "journey matters more than the destination" was never really something I gave much credence to.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 29 janvier 2014 - 09:16 .

[TheChris92]

Rotward wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...

An unavoidable tragic ending doesn't=A bad ending or deny it from being 'Your story'. It's the context that matters and how it was played out. Tragic doesn't necessarily mean that your playable 'character' has to die. Opportunities for roleplaying doesn't just exist alone in what ending you get.

False. role play requires choice and impact. If even one of those is lost, there's no role play. A predetermined ending removes 100% of impact, therefor rpis gone.

I suppose I should elaborate. Impact sustains immersion, and immersion is required for role play. If you need to create some elaborate explanation to explain why your law abiding citizen and your revolutionary end on the same note, it's not rp anymore, it's fanfiction.

So, did you feel that Mass Effect 1 & 2's ending 'removed' the impact 100 %? Because there certainly wasn't any choice in the matter there and I'd reckon that they could easily be clarified as being 'pre-determined'. The decisions, the choices themselves, they are an illusion to give the player a true sense of agency. It's only until the part when someone, somewhere, has to make a canon out of certain plot events that the illusion becomes transparent. We enjoy the illusion of having a choice when playing Origins, watching those little slideshows at the end hinting on the after effects of the 'choices' we made. There's nothing there's 'false' here. It's a matter of whether someone enjoys a tragic ending or happy ending. I don't think choices have anything to do with it, to be honest.

Modifié par TheChris92, 29 janvier 2014 - 09:22 .

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A good written ending is a good ending, regardless if the protagonists lives or dies.

Agreed.

If I think the writing is crap, I'll dislike it, good or bad ending.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 janvier 2014 - 09:28 .

[Il Divo]

Zu Long wrote...

Dunno if I agree with that last bit. Plenty of people chose to lose people in the Suicide Mission because they argued it's how their Shepard would have done it. Likewise, I don't know if going Dark Side on KOTOR 1 means a failed ending there. Your ending should reflect your actions. Some Wardens chose not to save both Vigil's Keep and Amaranthine because their Warden didn't care.

I disagree. Your KotOR 1 character isn't presented as an incompetent, but rather someone who enjoys causing death and destruction across the galaxy. Hence why the death of more than a few characters is acceptable.

Even the most Renegade Mass Effect character is still in it to be "the best" he can be.

[Senya]

I support a tragic ending as a choice. I'd like to see a variety of endings ranging from happy to bittersweet to tragic to "Your choices led to the bitter end of this world."

[Ieldra]

I'd like to add one more thing:

If the protagonist's death is the cumulative result of your choices, that's perfectly acceptable even if it's not apparent for most of the story, and even if the game is outright deceptive about it until the last chapter. One element I liked from ME3's ending setup was that if you had very low EMS, you'd be forced into one choice determined by what you did with the Collector Base in ME2. I would like to see more outcomes of that kind. It just didn't work as intended because the threshold was so low it was more effort to stay below it than to pass it, and because of the more general problems with the ending.

[PinkysPain]

JCAP wrote...
Do you think a tragic ending is more promising?

I play my escapist waifu collecting fantasy to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

[javeart]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for heroic sacrifices, I greatly dislike them and I almost never play them because most of the characters I play just aren't the type. They're also often tainted by the hint that it's my moral obligation to sacrifice myself, and I do not believe in such a notion. This is, in fact, the main reason why I tend to be hostile towards the idea. If such an ending arises naturally from the story, I like it if the option is there, but I will always tend to avoid it.

For DAI, this means that I will not accept an ending that inevitably entails my character's death. If it deserves the term "roleplaying game", then my character will be too much mine and the character types I want to play most will not be the type for either a tragedy or a heroic sacrifice. If the option is there, I might make a character who is the type in some replay or other because I do like to play something different once in a while, but I won't be forced into it with my mains. 

I don't see why a good roleplaying game would necessarily give us the option to achieve our goal without dying. I could see how a good roleplaying game would necessarily gives us the option to fail and survive  (or even different options to fail), like the refuse ending in ME3. I agree that not every character would sacrifice herself, but neither every character would achieve her goal independently of the circumstances (and sacrifice it's very circumstances-forced, not just something would like to do, at least usually ) 

It would be much better though, like it's been said in the thread a lot of times, that the circumstances which may or may not make the sacrifice the only solution, would vary depending on our previous choices... Which I don't think is the case in DA:O, because the scenario where you make your decision is almost completely unaltered by them (even the Loghain/Alistair choice is just a last minute thing). I think the DA:O ending is great though, in offering a variety of this kind of not-100%-happy endings. But I'd rather die in all of them if each dead would reflect better the story of each character (as long as I feel I'm winning, that goes without saying)

[Mistic]

Hiemoth wrote...

iakus wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

If we are given an option to fight for our happy ending I'll take it. Like if we need to go the extra mile and it's difficult I'd be for that.

Earn Your Happy Ending

I'm all for that.  But it is predicated ontheir being a happpy ending to earn

And I realize that I am somewhat repeating what I wrote earlier, but the mere mention of that trope highlights why I argued that you cannot have a bittersweet ending as an alternative for the happy ending. The very name of that trope indicates getting the happy ending means doing everything one can to reach it, thus any of the bad/sad endings are due to the player not having done everything or just having half-done it. So in that case the ending would be an indicator of player failure to reach that happy ending. Which, and I cannot stress this enough, is not what a bittersweet ending is.

This is my definition for Bittersweet Ending:
http://tvtropes.org/...ttersweetEnding

I believe that there are different kinds of endings in video games, and not just "happy ending" or "failure". Even for happy endings and failures, there are several options, so having bittersweet endings in-between is not only possible, but expected, at least from my point of view.

Of course, maybe there's a watsonian vs. doylist argument to be made, so from a metagaming perspective you could say not achieveing the 100% completion goal is a failure in itself. However, I prefer the storytelling aspects of Bioware games and the possibility to make different stories with them.

Take DA:O, for example. What's a happy ending in DA:O? The Warden lives? Ok, that's good. But how? Most of the characters could die, and the Warden could send another person to die for them. Is it happy or sad? Or they could sacrifice themselves, and the DA story will go on. You can pick your ending flavour in that game and that's what I'm expecting of Inquisition.

[Rotward]

TheChris92 wrote...

So, did you feel that Mass Effect 1 & 2's ending 'removed' the impact 100 %? Because there certainly wasn't any choice in the matter there and I'd reckon that they could easily be clarified as being 'pre-determined'.

Yes but not because of the endings. First off, they weren't really endings.  You continued the same story with the same character in each installment. Aside from that, the ending to me1 was terrible, almost as bad as the end to me3. Me2 handled the end better, the outcome was highly variable. The series finale, as you might have guessed, irritated me. I went into the series after me3 was released though, so I knew what I was getting into (it was still worse than expected). The gameplay itself lacked any agency, though. Every important decision you should be able to make, accepting spectre status, working for cerberus, etc was made for you. Even small choices and impact from me1 were retconned in the start of me2. Me3 was the only game with real chioces and impacts, until the end, where it fell flat on its ass. 

There's nothing that's 'false' here. It's a matter of whether someone enjoys a tragic ending or happy ending. I don't think choices have anything to do with it, to be honest.

Incorrect. Any ending that is locked in breaks the illusion. It's great to have a tragic possibility, but there is no need for a single "cannon." The "need" is bioware feeling lazy, or pressure to release a game early. 

The worst part is that dragon age installments are more self contianed than mass effect, yet bioware does a poorer job of transfering impact from game to game. It's not nearly as difficult when each game has a different character, location, objective, and companions.

[SgtSteel91]

I, personally, prefer happy endings, or at least bittersweet (light on the bitter), to role-playing games like this and Mass Effect, where I have a lot of agency over the main character in choosing who my friends, enemies, lovers, even choosing who lives and dies, etc.

I find enjoyment out of experiencing a happy ending to a stroy. Just as some people may find enjoyment out of experiencing a tragic ending.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 29 janvier 2014 - 10:01 .

[Mr.House]

KaiserShep wrote...

It sure kills the replay value if you ask me. If it's a forced tragedy where the PC can't do anything other than die, why the heck should I bother doing it again? The "journey matters more than the destination" was never really something I gave much credence to.

I've played Infinte, RDR and Persona 3 more then any Bioware game. Three games with very tragic, sad endings.

Modifié par Mr.House, 29 janvier 2014 - 10:03 .

[TheChris92]

Rotward wrote...
Yes but not because of the endings. First off, they weren't really endings.  You continued the same story with the same character in each installment. Aside from that, the ending to me1 was terrible, almost as bad as the end to me3. Me2 handled the end better, the outcome was highly variable. The series finale, as you might have guessed, irritated me. I went into the series after me3 was released though, so I knew what I was getting into (it was still worse than expected). The gameplay itself lacked any agency, though. Every important decision you should be able to make, accepting spectre status, working for cerberus, etc was made for you. Even small choices and impact from me1 were retconned in the start of me2. Me3 was the only game with real chioces and impacts, until the end, where it fell flat on its ass. 

They are endings - Just as much as the ending to Metal Gear Solid 2 or Empire Strikes Back were endings. You can make up any excuses you like but they are endings as long as they provide any form of closure without leaving it hanging like a bad disease ala Assassins Creed. I suppose you could argue whether or not they all provided the closure you wanted. The choices in ME3 were hardly choices at all given that it was either Paragon or Renegade, whereas the Renegade options were so cartoonishly evil one would have to be Jefferey Dahmer to pick them without reloading. Choices need to make sense because it's not letting us role play as we'd always be Mr. Shepard McNice or Shepard McDick. Without no grey areas or obscurity then it's just petty moral choice.

There's nothing that's 'false' here. It's a matter of whether someone enjoys a tragic ending or happy ending. I don't think choices have anything to do with it, to be honest.

Incorrect. Any ending that is locked in breaks the illusion. It's great to have a tragic possibility, but there is no need for a single "cannon." The "need" is bioware feeling lazy, or pressure to release a game early. 

The worst part is that dragon age installments are more self contianed than mass effect, yet bioware does a poorer job of transfering impact from game to game. It's not nearly as difficult when each game has a different character, location, objective, and companions.

Most RPG endings are pre-determined locked in endings with some slide shows added in to tell how helping that one chap in that one place made this stuff happen.. maybe, you only have the slideshow's word that it happened. It's spelled 'canon' btw. This is a cannon. The discussion here isn't about choices mattering anyway, it's about whether or not a tragic ending will work for an RPG which it most certainly will -- Because as we've already discussed, the execution is what matters here and not so much about whether Shepard gets to heroicly stroll down the streets of the Citadel embracing his/her love interests.

Modifié par TheChris92, 29 janvier 2014 - 10:24 .

[ThatGamerWithSouvlaki285]

Il Divo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A good written ending is a good ending, regardless if the protagonists lives or dies.

Agreed.

If I think the writing is crap, I'll dislike it, good or bad ending.

I have to agree, it has to be considered with the story as a whole. Gamers now ideas feel too intiteled in games that offer player choice, there ending, or everything on that matter, has to be determined by there choices. This is true in some cases, but a good story know when to add in the reality that even if you do everything right things dont work out. You might be the most important person in the galaxy but other factors still take effect against you.

[garrusfan1]

I want an OPTION for a sad ending. I would like an option to do everything amazing and get a good ending