642 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

garrusfan1 wrote...

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

Again what happens if this does not fit the story, the story should not be compromised just to make peopel happy at the end. Doing everything and being rewarded with everything is stupid more so when everything we know about the story makes this battle hoepless, everything turning out ok because you decided to spend some extra time on fetch quest is plain stupid.

[Hiemoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

And the discussion was never about having to die, at least not to me. The discussion here has been that what are our thoughts on tragic endings, or perhaps bitter sweet ones, which do not always require the main character to die. All those options you listed have something sacrificed and are thus bittersweet, even though DAO was mostly "How awesome was the Warden, people" after that, but that is a different discussion. The game still requires a sacrifice, no matter what was done before that. Yes, you got to choose a sacrifice, but it was still there. If the only thing required for the ending to be a happy one for you was that your character survived, then your definition of a happy ending is different than mine or many others. Which again highlights the difficulty of talking which endings and impacts are meaningful.

iakus wrote...

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.

I never argued that limitations justify more limitations, I wrote that it is curious that initial limitations, which are much heavier than the ending limitations, are acceptable, but the endings are not. And by the way, the DAO endings were quite limited, someone had to die or Morrigan had to get a mystical baby. There were no other approaches for the solution of the problem, as the Archdemon's soul needed to be incapacitated. I'm not complaining about that, but disagree that DAO's endings were in some sense somehow so much more diverse than to say DA2 or ME3.

And yeah, RPGs should give some freedom, but they also need to be practical and constrained by available resources. We can sit here and discuss the merits of different story approaches until the end of times, but ultimately someone needs to write that story, or somebodies in this case, and that story is written by the merits which they feel will make it emotionally impactful. That story they write will, in the best case, be guided by that vision of the end, but that end will always be constrained due to the limitations of the story that are there from the very beginning. So if there is a story about war and crisises, it seems kind of unlikely that story would have " And you win so hard" ending, in which case it might not be a game you want to play.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The problem with an optional tragic ending, is that most players would consider it the "wrong" ending, and reload another save.

[Hiemoth]

Misticsan wrote...

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.

Yeah, and by your definition and example, the ending of DAO is kind of bittersweet. Although not really in my opinion, as with certain choices it is such an "You win" ending, but that is besides the point.

Lets take your tvtropes definition. As it states, the bittersweet ending is somewhere between the utter victory and tragic loss, with the victory coming with a price having been paid. That no matter what the hero did and defied, everything could not be won and that price had to be paid. That is ultimately what the TVtrope is alluding to.

So, now, as an alternative to that we have an ending where actually everything was won. Turns out that those sacrifices in the bittersweet ending weren't actually necessary, but rather the result of the hero sleeping in on one day or deciding to raising the whole army. How does that not rob the impact of the bittersweet ending? How does that not just make it an ending where the actual sacrifices were rather due to the hero not really trying enough?

[Iakus]

Hiemoth wrote...

So, now, as an alternative to that we have an ending where actually everything was won. Turns out that those sacrifices in the bittersweet ending weren't actually necessary, but rather the result of the hero sleeping in on one day or deciding to raising the whole army. How does that not rob the impact of the bittersweet ending? How does that not just make it an ending where the actual sacrifices were rather due to the hero not really trying enough?

Because not all heroes are perfect?  Some fail at their tasks, and learn from their mistakes (or don't)?

Because some people like to play those kinds of characters? 

Which of the four basic endings in DAO is the one that is a result of the Warden not trying hard enough?

[JosieFrances]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

[Iron Fist]

How many endings do you all expect them to write?

As far as the state of the world (or world state) goes, I'm expecting two endings tops.

And one of those two will not be "importable" or "keepable" into DA4 (i.e. the world literally ends).

Modifié par MevenSelas, 29 janvier 2014 - 11:02 .

[Hiemoth]

iakus wrote...

Hiemoth wrote...

So, now, as an alternative to that we have an ending where actually everything was won. Turns out that those sacrifices in the bittersweet ending weren't actually necessary, but rather the result of the hero sleeping in on one day or deciding to raising the whole army. How does that not rob the impact of the bittersweet ending? How does that not just make it an ending where the actual sacrifices were rather due to the hero not really trying enough?

Because not all heroes are perfect?  Some fail at their tasks, and learn from their mistakes (or don't)?

Because some people like to play those kinds of characters? 

Which of the four basic endings in DAO is the one that is a result of the Warden not trying hard enough?

I don't think we are quite grasping each others arguments and positions here.

Your questions didn't address my point at all. I am not discussing. You are arguing for the player to actively sabotage their own choices in order to reach a sub-optimal ending, because they might like that. If so, good for them, but then that ending is not exaclty bittersweet, because it was something they were actively trying to achieve and those sacrifices weren't exactly unavoidable.

To repeat myself, I am not claiming that a player shouldn't want to have a happy ending. If that is what is to, for example, to you the greatest and bestest experience, then of course you should be arguing for it. What I am saying is that repeating that you getting that ending and those preferring bittersweet endings can get it in the same game, as my example above was trying to show that is a false claim. That bittersweet ending loses a lot of impact if there is a way to avoid those sacrifices, as it at that point just becomes a point of the player not having done enough. And framing it in the terms of the hero is also kind of misleading, as it isn't a problem with the hero, it is a question of how much effort the player is willing to spend.

Finally, I don't really understand why you keep bringing that DAO ending as somekind of a counter-argument, as I have repeatedly agreed that that point of the ending is bittersweet, although, to be honest, I always felt the Dark Ritual to be kind of a cop-out. To turn the question, how does that required sacrifice at the end of DAO mesh with your for a 'Earn your happy ending'? As that sacrifice was always requiered, no matter how much you did in the game leading to that point.

[Hiemoth]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Killing off the protagonist can be a great ending, but only if it fits the character and their arc. Given that Bioware gives you relative freedom in deciding your character's personality in DA, I can't really see a forced death for the PC really working.

For example, I can't see Sarcastic Hawke making a heroic sacrifice without it coming off as completely ridiculous.

Sarcastic Hawke could easily make that choice, as the tones didn't define of the actions of the character. Aggressive Hawke could be a heroic champion by his deeds, while diplomatic Hawke could be a backstabbing coward of a snake.

[Demx]

I feel that only having a tragic ending for the player is limiting in an RPG where the player is often asked to make decisions that could effect their game. Sure overall we are all funneled down the same path to fight the same final boss, but does that mean we should all have the same ending?

In DA:O, you could sacrifice yourself, save everyone, have someone else sacrifice them self, and you could even gain a boon. There were lots of different endings. In DA2, endings were limited and vauge but still very different. Mage Hawke is allowed to leave while Templar Hawke is offered the position of Viscount. Personally I would have wanted to seen a third or fourth option where it's a variant of how Hawke refuses both parties.

[Dagr88]

As long there is an epilogue that at least somewhat summarizes my playthrough...

A scenario where MC has to sacrifice all that precious to him/he has to reach the goal would be more tragic, than him/her dying. But this will be hard to acheave unless there isn't a strong emotion investment in all those things s/he will lose.

On the other hand, if you pick some other dialog options, this creates a scenario where your MC can be viewed as a hardcore "at all cost and no tears" Renegade.

Modifié par Dagr88, 29 janvier 2014 - 11:36 .

[Quill74Pen]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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? 

WRT the DA and ME dev teams, maybe they simply didn't communicate with each other on that matter. Or, maybe they did, and the ME team said the hell with it and forged ahead with what they wanted to do.

As for DA2, hmm, well, part of me thinks a more compressed develeopment cycle brought about the endings we got. Or, maybe since DA2 is the middle of at least a 3-game cycle, maybe such an ending was determined to be necessary by the devs in order to benefit the overall story arch that's unfolding not only in the games, but DG's novels as well.

[Rotward]

Mr.House wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

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

Again what happens if this does not fit the story, the story should not be compromised just to make peopel happy at the end.

*facepalm* you're a special kind of stupid, aren't you. There isn't one story. If there was, it wouldn't be a role playing game. 

[TheInquisitor]

I want this to be a choice. Some of my Inquisitors I would sacrifice, others I wouldn't... There are always other options.

[Il Divo]

Hiemoth wrote...

To repeat myself, I am not claiming that a player shouldn't want to have a happy ending. If that is what is to, for example, to you the greatest and bestest experience, then of course you should be arguing for it. What I am saying is that repeating that you getting that ending and those preferring bittersweet endings can get it in the same game, as my example above was trying to show that is a false claim. That bittersweet ending loses a lot of impact if there is a way to avoid those sacrifices, as it at that point just becomes a point of the player not having done enough. And framing it in the terms of the hero is also kind of misleading, as it isn't a problem with the hero, it is a question of how much effort the player is willing to spend.

Very well said.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The problem with an optional tragic ending, is that most players would consider it the "wrong" ending, and reload another save.

How is that a problem?

[Mr.House]

Rotward wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

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

Again what happens if this does not fit the story, the story should not be compromised just to make peopel happy at the end.

*facepalm* you're a special kind of stupid, aren't you. There isn't one story. If there was, it wouldn't be a role playing game. 

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly. Ok smart ass, tell me what the story of DAO and how is it diffrent then my game. Come on. You wanna use insults, then tell me what the main story was when you played DAO and how the Blight was stopped. Guess what moron, IT'S THE SAME THING, with the only diffrence being the fact that your warden is diffrent and who you recuited is diffrent but the Blight still happens, Duncan still dies, Loghain still becomes Regent, the Blight always happens, the Archdemon is always defeated, the Landsmeet always happens, oyu must always work with Eamon. These are constants, DA2 has the same stuff so before you yap your gums and act like a idiot which you always act like because you have nothing better to do, how about you think before you type and instead of showing me you have fallen for the illusion of choice. No matter what, the story of DAO is stopping the Blight, no matter what, the story of DA2 is about becoming champion and what happen to cause the war(which ironicly Asunder showed DA2 was useless but that's a new can of worms) ect. So yes there is in fact "one" story, the diffrence is some events are changed because of choices(which at best are cosmetic, it's very rare these days to have a RPG that really changes based on choices now) If the story is very dark and beats you over the head that you very well might not survive and the ending is in fact a tragic ending, with a scale of bittersweet to really sad, guess what? There is no problem because it fit the ending, but if all of this happens but all of a sudden you survive and laong with the main cast that ismoving away from the main story and being no diffrent then ME3s ending tone change, of course people like you will eat it up because it's happy and power fantasty always shut the babies up.

Modifié par Mr.House, 30 janvier 2014 - 12:24 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr.House wrote...

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly. Ok smart ass, tell me what the story of DAO and how is it diffrent then my game.

Is anyone claiming that DAO is the paragon of game design?

DAO's overall story is quite linear.  Frankly, I think DA2's story was better.

But at least DAO let the player choose things for his character.  The Warden got to sacrifice himself to save others, or sacrifice others to save himself, or even risk the fate of the world to save everyone he knew.

On a personal level (for the Warden), I'd say the endings in DAO were quite diverse.

Is the same true of DA2?

[Jorji Costava]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The problem with an optional tragic ending, is that most players would consider it the "wrong" ending, and reload another save.

How is that a problem?

Roger Ebert's probably not a popular figure around these parts, but his argument was this: If you could go back and "undo" the events of Romeo and Juliet or Othello such that Romeo and Juliet end up happily ever after, or such that the whole misunderstanding between Othello, Cassio and Desdemona was cleared up before it led to any harm, that would greatly diminish the impact of these works. Truth be told, I find this argument a bit patronizing and not persuasive, but if there is supposed to be a problem with 'optional' tragic endings, then it would lie along those lines.

[Mr.House]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly. Ok smart ass, tell me what the story of DAO and how is it diffrent then my game.

Is anyone claiming that DAO is the paragon of game design?

DAO's overall story is quite linear.  Frankly, I think DA2's story was better.

But at least DAO let the player choose things for his character.  The Warden got to sacrifice himself to save others, or sacrifice others to save himself, or even risk the fate of the world to save everyone he knew.

On a personal level (for the Warden), I'd say the endings in DAO were quite diverse.

Is the same true of DA2?

You can't claim there is one story when there are rpgs with one story, which is the point. Whatever DAo story is linear is moot, DAo has one story that you can change aspects in more ways but it's still one main story, and that is ending the blight which always ends with the Archdemon being defeated.

[Sylvius the Mad]

osbornep wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The problem with an optional tragic ending, is that most players would consider it the "wrong" ending, and reload another save.

How is that a problem?

Roger Ebert's probably not a popular figure around these parts, but his argument was this: If you could go back and "undo" the events of Romeo and Juliet or Othello such that Romeo and Juliet end up happily ever after, or such that the whole misunderstanding between Othello, Cassio and Desdemona was cleared up before it led to any harm, that would greatly diminish the impact of these works. Truth be told, I find this argument a bit patronizing and not persuasive, but if there is supposed to be a problem with 'optional' tragic endings, then it would lie along those lines.

But even then that would only diminish the story for those people who chose to do that.

Are we protecting people from themselves, now?  That more than just a little patronizing.

People should be allowed to play however they like.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr.House wrote...

]You can't claim there is one story when there are rpgs with one story, which is the point. Whatever DAo story is linear is moot, DAo has one story that you can change aspects in more ways but it's still one main story, and that is ending the blight which always ends with the Archdemon being defeated.

Why are you focusing on the least interesting narrative in DAO?

[Mr.House]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

osbornep wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The problem with an optional tragic ending, is that most players would consider it the "wrong" ending, and reload another save.

How is that a problem?

Roger Ebert's probably not a popular figure around these parts, but his argument was this: If you could go back and "undo" the events of Romeo and Juliet or Othello such that Romeo and Juliet end up happily ever after, or such that the whole misunderstanding between Othello, Cassio and Desdemona was cleared up before it led to any harm, that would greatly diminish the impact of these works. Truth be told, I find this argument a bit patronizing and not persuasive, but if there is supposed to be a problem with 'optional' tragic endings, then it would lie along those lines.

But even then that would only diminish the story for those people who chose to do that.

Are we protecting people from themselves, now?  That more than just a little patronizing.

People should be allowed to play however they like.

Ok then I want the Warden to die no matter what at Ostagar along with Alistair and all the other Wardens but I still want Ferelden to survive. Freedom is good but in story focused games you need to set restrictions and draw a line at what is enough. This is not FO or TES and it never will be.

[Mr.House]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

]You can't claim there is one story when there are rpgs with one story, which is the point. Whatever DAo story is linear is moot, DAo has one story that you can change aspects in more ways but it's still one main story, and that is ending the blight which always ends with the Archdemon being defeated.

Why are you focusing on the least interesting narrative in DAO?

Because that least intresting narrative is the main story of the game.