You completely missed my point, and as soon as I finish checking out the new forum stuff I'll be back to tell you why.
Clearly this is all unresolved sexual tension, right xD?
On a more serious note, I must ask what do you mean by "earning your happy ending."
Clearly this is all unresolved sexual tension, right xD?
On a more serious note, I must ask what do you mean by "earning your happy ending.
I don't know that that is necessarily the best phrase to describe it, but basically I think that if you reach the decision point and everyone gets a decision wheel with
--- Bad Ending
--- OK Ending
--- Good ending
then it's not very meaningful, is it? But if everyone gets a couple of choices that are mixed bags of good and bad, and people who have put effort into it (finding certain info in the form of codex entries, forming relationships through dialog and side missions with NPCs, killed and optional boss, etc.) have a third option that wouldn't be there if they hadn't done the extra stuff, then you've earned that third option, right? And that third option should really be what you want it to be, and not a turd sandwich on a gilded plate.
A good "earned" third option is peace between the geth and quarian races on Rannoch. A really, really bad one is synthesis. Even if you are sympathetic toward synthesis, it is still a bad "earned" option for one simple reason: it's not what you would want when you show up in the first place. In the case of Rannoch, I think most people who had done all the stuff you need to do in oder to unlock the dialog options to get peace between the geth and quarians probably reached that point hoping to be able to achieve that end. They were rewarded, and it was good. No one--regardless of how high his or her EMS was--rode the elevator to the top of the Citadel thinking "Y'know, if I could just add some kind of synthetic element to all life in the galaxy, and program all synthetics with an appreciation for organic life, that would totally be worth dying for!"
What we wanted was to save everyone we cared about and end the reaper threat. A best case scenario for me had Shepard retiring with the LI to run a group home for war orphans of every species, like a united colors and textures of Beneton. That would have been worth earning.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Of course, definitely a good topic.
I should not be forced to give the Collector Base to TIM to keep it.
Nor should I be forced to decide something as huge as the fate of a species, the Rachni, when I'm a foot soldier who doesn't even know what the Genophage is.
Nor should I have the power to decide who the dwarven king is.
These are all particularly unfortunate examples of choices that, in some sense, are artificially difficult, rather than truly so.
Of course, definitely a good topic.
I should not be forced to give the Collector Base to TIM to keep it.
Nor should I be forced to decide something as huge as the fate of a species, the Rachni, when I'm a foot soldier who doesn't even know what the Genophage is.
Nor should I have the power to decide who the dwarven king is.
These are all particularly unfortunate examples of choices that, in some sense, are artificially difficult, rather than truly so.
Artificial difficulty in choices, that's a new one.
I agree, we should have more complex choices rather than black and white all the time.
I suppose they feel the need for a little drama in there to prevent stagnation. Can't really make a game based on "shall I wear the blue socks or green socks today?"
Part of this is a problem in scale creep. For each to seem enticing enough, the stakes have to be higher than before. Many were disappointed Hawke was claimed to be 'most important in Thedas' history' but they didn't have much to do with anything. Would the game sell well as "DA: Exodus - play as a guy or girl that bums around a bit and then kills two bosses for arbritrary reasons" (the summary many may feel is more accurate).
This can write creators into a corner - the choices NEED to be dramatic or, by comparison, it ISN'T AS DEEP. Scale creep and power creep are real issues, unfortunately. :/
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Well we always have the choice of which boot to put on first. Joke aside I do see your point but I don't think there would always be a middle chioce. The thing about DA2 was that choice to go the middle ground was taken away and I actually liked that. Sure it could of been a bit better, but it is what it is.
That was a terrible, terrible idea. you should not be forced to defend something you don't believe in. They can have the opposite group attack you, but you should not be forced to choose to support one or the other.
I'll say it again--you should have had the option to refuse to take sides there, with Hawke doing something like standing in between both groups to stop them from fighting, and this resulting in you having to fight both at the same time. This would only be for the purpose of preventing the passive choice from being the easy choice--but it still should have been there.
it be nice to not have to side with crazies, in fact I want a scene in da: I where you meet a few mages and templars actually like the do in da 2. choices being, side with mages, side with templars, let them kill each other, or kill them yourself.
as ME 3 ending, I had no problems with it. then again I didn't think the ending was going to be much anyway. or maybe because I wasn't distracted by the last minute info dump that really didn't matter.
That was a terrible, terrible idea. you should not be forced to defend something you don't believe in. They can have the opposite group attack you, but you should not be forced to choose to support one or the other.
I'll say it again--you should have had the option to refuse to take sides there, with Hawke doing something like standing in between both groups to stop them from fighting, and this resulting in you having to fight both at the same time. This would only be for the purpose of preventing the passive choice from being the easy choice--but it still should have been there.
I agree with EA. I'd even been fine with this hyphotethical third path being suboptimal in comparison of the other two, but I wanted to have it.
I have to ask, if you're not gonna do the DR, then how is Logain's sacrifice not perfect? I also really like the Alistair romance ending for an elf, where you leave his ass at the gate and die for lost love. That's pretty damn epic.
It would have great to have the possibility for Shepard to clock out at the end of ME3, but writing it in as an unavoidable (rubble breath excepted) heavy handed device for no apparent reason was just dumb. The possibility of death makes survival more appreciated.
I find it the best ending, imo. But even then it's not perfect.
Alistair runs of to become a drunk or, if you made him king, your friendship with him is heavily strained.
Morrigan abandons you. And in the game where I Redeemed Loghain, Morrigan was my LI. Wasn't until Witch hunt where that was resolved. And I still liked that ending best.
But yeah, at least DAO didn't go the ME3 route and make all the "choices" Ultimate Sacrifice.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
If Anders didn't blow up the Chantry then I would of try staying in the middle grounds and support peace, but truth be told it would just been delaying the inevitable. War was going to break out regardless of what we did.
It being inevitable doesn't mean you should be forced to support either group.
...
Alistair runs of to become a drunk or, if you made him king, your friendship with him is heavily strained.
Morrigan abandons you. And in the game where I Redeemed Loghain, Morrigan was my LI. Wasn't until Witch hunt where that was resolved. And I still liked that ending best.
But yeah, at least DAO didn't go the ME3 route and make all the "choices" Ultimate Sacrifice.
Well, King Alistair does seem to have gotten over it by the time of the intro to Awakening, and you have to give credit to the dev team for coming out with Witch Hunt to give you a reunion.
I think i need to comment on a few things that came up on the last pages:
(1) About the "earn your happy ending" principle
This is problematic because if that happy ending is one with no downsides, every other ending will appear like a failure in comparison, and you'll feel like you need to be a completionist to get a good ending. There need to be specific circumstances for this to work. One possible way is to reward a consistent pattern of choices, such as the ones leading to peace on Rannoch in ME3 or sabotaging the genophage cure without the krogan finding out. This often works, but can result in problems if players make decisions from different motivations. For instance, I am anti-krogan but I don't usually kill companions unless necessary.
For DAI, this could mean that, for instance, a consistent pattern of...hmm....let's say "pro-old-mysteries" choices (this includes the DR) results in an outcome which has no downsides if you are of that mindset and make a related final choice. On the other hand, if you play a game with a consistent pattern of...hmm... say "pro-modernity" choices (this includes a restriction of access to magic) you'll get a related good ending for someone of that mindset.
So, the "Bioware principle" of making outcomes that are good for people with a specific philosophy is still the best approach IMO, rather than one perfect outcome that always applies if you do X1, X2, etc...There does not need to be downside, since the main effects are already downside enough for anyone with a different philosophy. If this "Bioware principle" applies, there is no need for a choice "between two lesser evils".
However, outcomes like these tend to be extreme and exclude compromise, which is not always what I would wish for. Given the above examples, what if I wish for a choice where magic and modernity can coexist? If I don't want to remove access to the Fade and spirits but rather apply a modern mindset to their exploration? I will not have a satisfying ending then. If outcomes are made to appeal to specific philosophies, there will always be players left at the wayside with their preferences. Since I am usually one of those, I am somewhat skeptical even though I think this approach is the best in principle.
(2) Decisions and outcomes
In the OP, I called for less extreme plot choices. That applies to the decisions themselves, not necessarily their outcomes. I do not want to be forced to support a faction whose philosophy I disgree with. That is a roleplaying matter. A related but different matter: a decision I make for unrelated reasons results in the ascendancy of such a faction. That is not necessarily a problem because I don't control the world, but it can feel like a betrayal by the writers.
(3) The pitfalls of adding non-instrinsic downsides
As I said in (1), if the principle of making outcomes that are good from specific viewpoint is successfully implemented, there do not need to be added downsides to an outcome since the main effect is already downside enough for those who disagree. However, if a need is seen for adding downsides for other reasons, these must not be of a kind that they would taint the outcome in the eyes of those it's made for beyond redemption. Two examples: ME3's Destroy ending results in the death of the synthetics. The main group adopting this ending is the one which thinks that the Reapers need to be gone but otherwise wants things to stay more or less the same. I'm sure that most people would be fine with a big sacrifice, even of millions of people, to make that happen. However, since the sacrifice is a specific domain of life the decision acquires a decidedly anti-synthetic theme, and that is not acceptable for the majority of that group. It sends a thematic message people detest. This illustrates one possible problem with the principle of making endings for specific mindsets: if the writers fail to identify the dominant mindsets of the players (in this case, "synthetic life isn't true life" is not among the dominant mindsets), the number of players who won't get a satisfying outcome will be high.
Second example: ME3's Synthesis. This is adopted by players who think that the "melding of man and machine" is a desirable path to take. In short, a roughly transhumanist mindset. However, this is a usually extremely individualistic philosophy, and thus, the downside of forcibly changing all life in the galaxy taints this outcome specifically in the minds of those people most likely to adopt it. It is also a usually somewhat anti-religious mindset...need I say more?
These thoughts ended in the phrasing I used in the OP: For future games, I wish for a set of options that all feel as if I might want to take them depending on how I envision my character, rather than all feeling as if I might want to avoid them.
I think the ending of DA2 would have been considerably improved if they hadn't wanted to force you to fight every battle and see all the content. Orsino turning on you when you side with the mages makes no sense in context, and Meredith doing the same if you join with the Templars only works because she's out of her head on red lyrium.
IMHO, it would have been optimal if the PC had been able to make three choices. Side with the Templars, side with the mages, or refuse either option and stay neutral. Whatever you do, Meredith still attacks you. She's certainly loopy enough by that point to go after you simply because you won't join with her even if you're not actively in oposition to the Circle being annulled. The war still starts - but the player has more agency about how their character reacts to the situation. As for why history has Hawke down as instrumental in the whole mess, even if Hawke stayed neutral he or she still would have ended up killing Meredith in self-defence.
I agree, we should have more complex choices rather than black and white all the time.
Wait, how are the choices black and white?
Wait, how are the choices black and white?
there is obvious good and an obvious bad most of the time, rachni in ME 1, whip out a race or let them live, dragon age 2, help a few mages escape or have them killed, its always one way or the other and one side always seems better, who sided with the werewolves to kill all the dalish in dragon age 1? who honestly thought saving the anvil was a good idea? its all very black and white, we need more grey, that said if we get grey in inquisition i wont find out till my second playthrough, i plan on playing in the black for DAI for my first time line, but for future refrence we need more grey and more options, the DA2 ending was black or black choice and fighting orisino while siding with mages was such a bad choice, glad its cleared up on the wiki that it was not planned to be that way
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
there is obvious good and an obvious bad most of the time, rachni in ME 1, whip out a race or let them live, dragon age 2, help a few mages escape or have them killed, its always one way or the other and one side always seems better, who sided with the werewolves to kill all the dalish in dragon age 1? who honestly thought saving the anvil was a good idea? its all very black and white, we need more grey, that said if we get grey in inquisition i wont find out till my second playthrough, i plan on playing in the black for DAI for my first time line, but for future refrence we need more grey and more options, the DA2 ending was black or black choice and fighting orisino while siding with mages was such a bad choice, glad its cleared up on the wiki that it was not planned to be that way
Actually, I've heard people defending the anvil choice.
The problem I have is not with one choice SEEMING better than the other, but with us having unrealistic power, and with us being forced to use that power actively, rather than shuffle the decision off to others better qualified (or simply shuffle it off, period).
there is obvious good and an obvious bad most of the time, rachni in ME 1, whip out a race or let them live, dragon age 2, help a few mages escape or have them killed, its always one way or the other and one side always seems better, who sided with the werewolves to kill all the dalish in dragon age 1? who honestly thought saving the anvil was a good idea? its all very black and white, we need more grey, that said if we get grey in inquisition i wont find out till my second playthrough, i plan on playing in the black for DAI for my first time line, but for future refrence we need more grey and more options, the DA2 ending was black or black choice and fighting orisino while siding with mages was such a bad choice, glad its cleared up on the wiki that it was not planned to be that way
With the rachni was not a fully obvious choice. They stated they were used by someone else for war, what's stopping that from happening again? The leviathan did so, the protheans, the being of this cycle did, and then the reapers. Is it a good idea to let a loose end like that out in the galaxy?
The mage issue was not black and white ether. What if they were blood mages...and ironically they were. And a pro dwarve player who want to turn the tide on the dark spawn would see keep the anvil as a good idea.
Do not remove gut-wrenching decisions in DA, ala Connor from DAO. I wrestle with that section of the game every time, precisely because it makes me squirm. Some game dev somewhere I recall explained painful in-game decisions best (paraphrasing): if we can present you the player with tough decisions that don't make you feel like a psychopath then we've done our job.
Do not remove gut-wrenching decisions in DA, ala Connor from DAO. I wrestle with that section of the game every time, precisely because it makes me squirm. Some game dev somewhere I recall explained painful in-game decisions best (paraphrasing): if we can present you the player with tough decisions that don't make you feel like a psychopath then we've done our job.
The one that was made incredibly easy by giving you the choice to save Connor, Isolde, or both, with no consequences whatsoever? I don't think that's a good example. Now the choices you were presented with in Orzammar or during the endgame are another matter entirely.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
The one that was made incredibly easy by giving you the choice to save Connor, Isolde, or both, with no consequences whatsoever? I don't think that's a good example. Now the choices you were presented with in Orzammar or during the endgame are another matter entirely.
If one roleplays, it's a bit more difficult.
While I admit to wanting different choices sometimes, but you have to respect that story consideration are the purview of the media creator. I'd rather have clear distinctions than several options you might as well just throw them into a hat and pick one as they all end up nearly the same or are so generically cliche. Devs should not be hancuffed in how they make their games to fullfill the wishes of specific users. it can completely change the character of the games if they made middle of the road options plus lowered the distinction between what ever moral/repuation system they have in place. if the middle option had the worst outcomes because you abstain from any moral quandry or try to get by without choosing a side I doubt you'd find it of any value. The fact you make specific examples points to wanting to rewrite parts of the story to your liking. If they followed everyone's" make it like i want it" then the game would be very terrible indeed.
Retour en haut