27 réponses à ce sujet

[Chron0id]

Anyone else really, really, really hoping this game doesn't pigeon-hole us into an ending or various endings that all end in what has been the most over-used cliche in this generation of gaming?  I am of course talking about the

 

Hero sacrifices himself to save the world cliche. 

 

This trope has been so overdone I am beyond sick of it at this point.  What I loved about Dragon Age: Origins was that it gave you options.  Wanted to have your cake and eat it too? Perform the dark ritual with Morrigan.   Would you rather be a boring ponce (I'm kidding it's your choice) and heroically lay down your life by forgoing hot sex and get a bittersweet ending?  You could do that as well!  All the bases were covered.   This was something a certain team forgot with a certain other game that shall not be mentioned. 

 

Here's hoping there's options at the end of Dragon Age Inquisition.  I want my happy ending!  I  also think Sean Connery in The Rock said it best. 

 

"Losers try their best.  Winners go home and f*** the prom queen."

[Allan Schumacher]

Those people hit puberty and now appreciate happy endings as well

 

Really though people have a problem with everything being the same. If every ending is happy it's just as bad as every ending being tragic.

 

It was only after I hit puberty that I felt a preference towards introspective endings.

 

That's not to say I don't enjoy happy endings (The Shawshank Redemption is my favourite movie), nor do I have a particular aversion to a movie having a happy ending (most do).  But I do prefer narratives that make me think.  As an RPG gamer, I like choices and specifically ones that have consequences.  This includes the opportunity cost of the choice not made.

 

I find there's a divide, however, between those that value choice.  At least from interactions I first had when I joined the forums.

 

That is, some value choice from the stand point of "I can choose to drive the narrative in a direction that I like."  Whereas I prefer choice to be having to make decisions within the game and accepting the consequences of those decisions.  My evaluation is done in game, so the idea of "choosing" a choice that appear to be an ostensibly poor one isn't really a choice for me, even though the game affords me the opportunity.

 

 

With respect to a game's ending, the reality is that it's going to be very difficult to give people an ending that everyone will enjoy.  The biggest issue I have with the "work hard for it" happy ending is that a lot of the times, it simply means "play the game in its entirety" (ME2 almost fits this, if not for the fact that characters can die based on the decisions you make on the suicide mission).  That said, I think that having an ending where the suicide mission can be achieved without anyone dying isn't as interesting of an ending as it could have been.  It'd be like being able to save Ashley and Kaidan.

 

 

Endings that make me think and feel emotion (as long as its within the context of the game and my character) are powerful and the endings that I tend to love.  PST and The Walking Dead are two of my favourite endings.  Fallout 1 also had an amazing ending.

[Allan Schumacher]

But is it not better for the game to make you think before the ending so that you might be able to find the best one? Of course, anyone could just read how to do it online and not think at all, but that's on them. I still find it somewhat difficult to understand this notion of disliking a happy ending that you have to work for.

 

It entirely depends on what it means to "work for" the happy ending.  If it's simply a "happy ending" because I happened to play the game thoroughly, I don't find that as interesting.  If working for the happy ending means overcoming difficult challenges (and maybe having less than happy events) throughout the game, it comes across as more interesting to me.

 

So, for example, if someone wants the entire party to survive, maybe it means not helping someone earlier in the game because the circumstances of that event results in the death of a companion.  I find it interesting, though, because I consider it a "happier" (as in more enjoyable) ending to honor the sacrifice of a fallen comrade that helped the greater good than choosing to let bad things happen to good people.  And maybe suffer the consequences as a result.

 

It can become particularly interesting, because lets say that (if we frame this within Inquisition - note this is hypothetical still) by choosing to not help those people, it comes at the consequence of your Inquisition losing power and influence.  Perhaps that loss of power and influence impacts other things that influences the ending as well?  That sort of stuff is interesting to me.

[Allan Schumacher]

I respect your answer but I personally have to disagree on this point, of course there can be moments in which you can only have one way or the other but IMO the suicide mission in ME2 was one of the best moments i've ever experienced in a videogame ever for the very reason that i can choose how it can end up, sometimes my shepard would be a hero and be able to save everyone, sometimes i'd roll a shepard who was more reckless and in so doing cost the lives of a few squadmates.

 

And this is the conundrum with the term "choice."  You like it because you can "choose how it all plays out."  I dislike it because I feel there isn't any really meaningful choice, for me.

 

Choosing "I'm going to make this choice even though I know it's going to be bad for this character" isn't really interesting to me.  That's not to say ME2 didn't have positive parts.  I mean, I lost Thane because I sent him in the tunnels, and that was cool.  That was something where, if I looked more closely, I could have avoided and I'm okay with that.  But everyone survived simply because I played through their stories and, in effect, earned their loyalty mission?  It's not as interesting to me and emotionally falls flat.

 

 

Choice from the standpoint of "I want the narrative to play out this particular way" isn't as interesting as choice between "I'm presented with a choice and it isn't clear which one is the best thing for myself, my friends, or my goals."  And I enjoy the consequences of knowing that sometimes, with the imperfect information that I have, what I think is ideal at the time ultimately doesn't turn out that way.  An example is Bhelen vs. Harrowmont.  I sided with Harrowmont, and as such probably made the bad choice overall even though, in character, it seemed like the best way to go.

 

 

 

 

I appreciate endings that make me think. Deus Ex (1) was very good in that, as was PST and Fallout1. The thing is, however, none of those games left you without hope for your character if you chose to play them that way.

 

You and I have very different interpretations of the PST ending.

 

An ending with no hope for the protagonist I will never like, but in a book I can accept it, because there can only be one ending and I'm not forced into complicity in bringing in about. The same situation in an RPG makes me rather rebellious against the writers, because I feel I should have at least agency enough to avoid the feeling that I'm forced into complicity in bringing about my own doom. Unless it's a noir story, but then you usually know that from the start, which makes all the difference.

 

This strikes me as purely meta, however.  I don't see a conflict of player agency if the player's actions result in the player's death at the end of the narrative.  Player agency, to me, doesn't mean "I am in control of what does or does not happen to my character" but rather that the game allows me appropriate responses to what happens in the game.  The idea that the player can be placed into a spot, for instance, where performing an action results in their death is fine.  But if we metagame and decide to NOT perform that action (presumably a type of inaction, if we're at the end of the game) I don't feel it takes away from player agency if it still results in the player's death.

 

Imagine a situation where DAO's narrative is different, and you're the only Grey Warden left alive (even more special snowflake!) and no dark ritual.  I'd be a-ok with allowing the player to have the agency to say "eff this, I'm out" and allowing the player to choose to not kill the archdemon.  I don't think it's a removal of player agency if the player still ends up dead as a result of this action.  But I think it's safe to say that we probably have different interpretations of player agency and certainly different acceptance over what should and should not be possible within the context of a game in how it allows player agency.

[Allan Schumacher]

I prefer it if the possible consequences of my actions make sense.

Upgrading the Normandy so it holds together for the Collector Base? That makes sense.

Dealing with crew loyalty so they're more focused and competent? The specific reactions didn't 'make sense' but it was obvious that gaining loyalty would have narrative benefits.

Sera dies because two hours into the game, I delivered supplies for a quest-giver? Eh, that sounds too random. It would be fine if it were a minor NPC - the Witcher does something similar - but we're talking about a major character death being tied to something you probably won't even remember.

 

Agreed.  My hypothetical would entail that, during the course of the "helping someone" that the actions directly involved with helping that person led to the companion's death.  My imagination was thinking of something simple, like running into a burning building to save some innocent people (I was likely thinking of TW2 on some level, now that you mention it).  A situation where you can't go it alone to help the people, but if you bring companions one of them ends up a casualty.  You did the greater good... and your sacrifice may show just how far the Inquisition is willing to go for the people and you achieve a lot of influence as a result... but your friend is dead.  For me, it's interesting.

 

Exceptions would be ostensibly helping someone that is pretty clearly not a good person, and having that have negative consequences down the road for you.  But I also find that interesting and perhaps because I still have too many memories of RPGs basically being "if you're a good guy who is uncharacteristically helpful and a bastion of good, everything turns out awesome always."  Easy examples of this are "I am helpful, and I still get all the rewards/benefits that I would have gotten even if I had chosen to be a jerk... I just get the warm fuzzy feelings associated with it."  And the requisite Lightside/darkside points....

[Allan Schumacher]

And if my character gets to ride off into the sunset, it should be because that's the ending I earned.

 

What does that really mean, though?  To "earn" the ending?

[Allan Schumacher]

One you have metagame knowledge though, it's clear cut. It's the same for the Connar choice; that decision is clear cut once you know that saving the mages gives you a third option, and that you can leave the village for the entire Circle quest and nothing bad will happen.

Are you just asking for situations where a 'fresh' player will be unsure? Or are you asking for situations where there's no optimal path even if you've read the guidebook?

 

I do have a bias towards the first playthrough, for sure.  But I also think if we can look back and say "that's the right choice" then, depending on the circumstances, maybe we didn't do it well enough.

 

Particularly from a consensus point of view (i.e. if there's two choices and a 50/50 split on people wondering which is the right choice, then I think that that is more interesting).

Even then, though, you can argue (fairly) that supporting Bhelen doesn't justify the means.  Are you willing to support bad things if it works out better in the end?

[Allan Schumacher]

Earn Your Happy Ending

 

That it is a result of the choices I as the player made.  Rather than a deus ex machina, or some other arbitrary contrivance that leaves victory feeling unearned.  Just as an arbitrary "heroic sacrifice" contrivance forced on the player is something to be avoided as well.

 

This still isn't particularly helpful for me, because I suspect that we'll have differing agreements of what it means to "a lot more hardship, anguish and grief than is really necessary."

 

Love interest sacrifices themselves to complete the journey in a more ideal way.... Satisfies the trope and ensures PC survives.  Are you satisfied?  What level is the cost acceptable, and what level is the cost too much?

 

At what point does victory feel "unearned?"  And how do we reconcile if an earned victory for you feels different than an earned victory for me?

[Allan Schumacher]

Archengeia, a person who i respect deeply mostly conveys in a more eloquent manner my feelings on the subject.

also, because i'm feeling too lazy/tired to type my thoughts right now.

 

video

 

(starts at 1:43:00) it's about 10 minutes that he takes to explain his point.

 

I disagree with the disassociation he makes of the loyalty missions and upgrading the ship as being not "grinding."  Both things are basically "complete the game in a thorough manner." 

 

It could be argued that "grinding" and a host of other things are also active choices (I personally would like to see more consequences for this type of behaviour, but it's never been particularly popular in my experience, for example).  The player is choosing to do those activities instead of aspects of the narrative that are more urgent.

 

 

The active choices that I like in the Suicide Mission are the choices made during the suicide mission.  There's a degree of challenge and interesting choice that comes with them.  I picked Thane, because I felt if he were to die at least his certain death would not be in vain.  But a lot of the suicide mission and end game content is "be presented with the content, and complete it in a way that isn't really self-sabotaging."  IIRC, can't you upgrade the entire ship?  Because if so, then saving crew members is simply a matter of grinding out the planet scanning.

 

 

I do like that the ending isn't dependent on level or anything like that.  But I still feel that the Suicide Mission is weakened by the fact that I find it really easy to complete it without losing anyone.  On my first playthrough, and I don't really consider myself a completionist and I do consider myself to be someone that doesn't neglect urgent main storylines for very long, the only reason why I didn't have a flawless Suicide Mission is because I didn't spend a bit more time thinking about who the best person to send into the tunnels would be.  I'm glad that it wasn't super obvious to me who to choose for the tunnels, but when I learned that it was possible to complete the mission with everyone coming back, I was disappointed.  Especially after ME1 which made me make the awful choice of having to sacrifice a crew member and being helpless to do anything about it.

[Allan Schumacher]

To me it was the complete opposite really

 

That's part of the challenge though, isn't it?

 

How do we reconcile that different people want different experiences out of their games and that often those desires are mutually exclusive.

 

 

But what I Felt was that I could end up making so many different shepards and stories and end up talking with my friends on how their shepards did their adventures. we weren't disappointed that our squadmates could be saved, a few of our playthroughs had some squadmates die because it felt right in that particular playthrough, And...when on some playthroughs we could save everyone it was for the same reason, because It Felt right.

 

This touches on what people want from the idea of "choice" in video games that I mentioned earlier.  Some want to drive a narrative in a particular way that because that particular narrative makes for an interesting story.

For myself, I like to attempt to influence the narrative, as well as react to the circumstances of the narrative, as the game player.  With this comes an actual hope that I will not have an excessive amount of ability to influence the narrative... the reality that I'm still just a small player and that I can have influence on some things, but not all things.

 

I don't think one interpretation of narrative choice is particularly superior than the other, on an objective level.  I do have my preference, based upon my own tastes and what I seek out of a video game, however.

 

 

It may not be the feedback you want or not even that informative, but it's genuine.

 

I'm speaking more as a game player than a game developer for this discussion.  These also aren't the decisions that I get to make, so perhaps that's a silver lining of hope for yourself?

[Allan Schumacher]

That will always exist though. Even among Mass Effect 3's endings, where none were a "Everybody lives happily ever after" type of ending, there are huge arguments about which ending is the 'right' one that go on to this day. 

 

The arguments will always exist.  The issue is whether or not there is consensus.  The thing I like about ME3's endings is that I don't know which of the choices is the best choice.  Which I find hella interesting on a self-introspective level.

 

Do you think that people would disagree on which of the endings in ME2 would be considered optimal?

[Allan Schumacher]

Yes, actually. Some think destroying the Collector Base is optimal. Others think keeping the Collector Base is optimal. 

 

So there's one discussion point.  How about the crew?

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, there are some who think *insert character here* dying would be optimal. Are those people outliers? Of course. But the disagreements on whether *insert character here* living or dying is the optimal outcome still happen.

 

The existence of some people that find a particular person dying to be "optimal" isn't interesting nor relevant.  This is always going to happen, but someone telling me that joining the Master in Fallout 1 is the "best ending in the game" isn't going to convince me that that is actually the case.  It's an outlier, and one that I would not consider to be anywhere near having consensus nor agreement.

 

I do not believe that, if you were to take a random sample of the fan base, that there'd be much traction beyond "all crew members survive" if asked what is the ideal/optimal outcome of the crew in Mass Effect 2.  I don't mandate that an idea has 100% support to be seen as the preferred outcome.

 

 

 

It's like the Mages and the Templars.  There's plenty of people that fully believe siding with one or the other is the right course of action.  That people argue so much about it is, in my eye, a fascinating response and indicative of the fact that we likely made an interesting and complicated situation.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yeah, but it is also a game, which implies it can be "won". Most people would see the happy ending as "winning the game".

The idea of "winning" is often used to support the idea of having the happy ending.  That people want to feel that they have won (which is fine and reasonable enough of a perspective to have)

 

 

The thing I liked about the endings of stuff like Deus Ex (the first, and human revolution) as well as even ME3 is that I don't see the consequences of my choice (Extra Credits had a recent analysis of choices vs consequences).

By not seeing the consequences, for instance, people can debate and discuss the pros and cons of whether or not JC Denton's decision to merge with Helios was the best idea, or if granting the Illuminati power was best for the world going forward.  Or maybe, we just needed a reset like Tong suggested.  I know I have MY thoughts about it.  But if they went into the consequences of each of those actions, then it's less of a choice.  Imagine if picking Tong's city-state idea had an epilogue of how humanity simply returned to the same state that it was at when Denton pulled the switch?  Arguably, now, it's seen as a "meaningless choice" because it doesn't make any difference.  Especially if, for example, Denton merging with Helios results in a new Golden Age utopia for humanity.

 

All the interesting discourse over the choice is made irrelevant, and it becomes pretty clear which is the "right" choice.

 

 

Some games can make this work better.  I loved the endings of Vampire: Bloodlines.  Likely because there's such a smaller scale adventure so the idea of "winning" is much less impactful on the state of the game setting.  But when you side with the Kuei Jin, I simply go "bravo game" and it's a masterful ending.  But still, it's seen as a "losing" ending.  I think it's reinforced because you declare your allegiance a fair ways before the epilogue of the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

Um...yeah it does?

 

You can sure as hell make a happy ending if you try hard enough.

 

"Survived the blight. Alister is great king. Zevran lives. Sten respects you. Shale takes a mortal form. Connor survives. Dagna is useful at the circle. etc."

 

All of these are aspects of the happy ending you can create for yourself.

 

Except that it requires you to have done the Dark Ritual.  Which is a huge unknown, and it's the debating point of the game.  I think that the US is seen by enough people to be the "happy ending" that I think it's something we did right with DAO's ending.  There isn't a clear consensus over which ending is considered the best/ideal outcome.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't agree.  Confusing, inconsistent or plain non-existant details and contrived negatives for the more sympathetic side adds up to plenty of controversy, but I don't think it makes a particularly interesting situation.

 

I'm curious, what are the "contrived" negatives?

[Allan Schumacher]

There is nothing to indicate that the old god baby is/will be evil. Merely that it has the soul of an Old God. Soul's are not intentions, or memories.

 

You can make a happy ending. Very very easily.

 

Then I'd say you made the choice irresponsibly.  I guess we'll find out though, won't we?

 

But it's a personal perspective of yours, and one that I (and many others) don't agree with.  It's a complete unknown... there's no indication if it will NOT be evil either.

[Allan Schumacher]

But there probably will be when the Dark Ritual plot is resolved

 

Most likely yes, it will add fuel to the discussion.  And depending on how it's resolved people will retroactively apply it to the ending of DAO.

Given it's a different game and 5 years after the fact, however, I consider it a timeline that is acceptable enough.

[Allan Schumacher]

I made in irresponsible choice for...not agreeing with you?

 

You already "found out" Alan. I dont have that luxury.

 

I'm speaking within the context of DAO's ending.

 

It's fine that you feel that there's no risk involved.... but it's a position based on the knowledge that DAO provides that I disagree with.  I don't actually know how the Old God Baby plot resolves in DAI, so I haven't actually "found out."

 

EDIT: Spoken as someone that did the Dark Ritual too.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 03 août 2014 - 10:55 .

[Allan Schumacher]

well if i'm honest, i know in DA2 you wanted to show the worst of both sides but making almost every mage and templar we encountered (apart from the reasonable mages and templars that were conveniently killed off by insane mages/templars) were batshit insane. i though it was a bit hammered on my head while i played. "don't trust mages/templars, they'll go insane. If you do find reasonable mages/templars they will die at the hands of the insane ones"

 

Wulfram made reference to a sympathetic side.  While I won't begrudge you from feeling that DA2 had issues with the Mage-Templar war and how it was depicted, your still provide the perspective of it being relatively equivalent/debatable.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

[Allan Schumacher]

I feel Rocket Raccoon sums up my response to a lot of these posts:

 

Couldn't I use a similar response to posts of people that I disagree with?

[Allan Schumacher]

It's easiest to implement via gameplay parameters. The one that did it best, so far, was the RTS/RPG Dawn of War 2 (vanilla).

 

DoW2 automatically ran in iron man mode. There was no going back to old save games.

Your characters could not die permanently, but each failed mission advanced the story timeline by one day.

On each day that passed, the tyranid infestation of the planets involved in the campaign most likely went up.

Optional missions were only available for a few in game days and disappeared after that time elapsed.

Scores for individual missions depended on how many enemies you killed, how quickly you completed it, and how many of your guys were still in action at the end.

 

It's been a long while since I last played DOW2, but I did enjoy its campaign a lot   (played it co-op for extra fun)

 

What you describe is the type of thing that I really enjoy.  It utilizes some mechanics (ironman saving) that I think many (most?) wouldn't support, however.

[Allan Schumacher]

I dont believe there aren't any risks. I believe that im willing to accept the risk.

 

There is nothing saying that the Old God baby will be evil. Its entirely possible that it could be a powerful force for good. Or it could be a nobody. A failed magical experiment getting drunk in a tavern.

 

Further, i know that because it is a choice in a videogame that will be addressed in sequels, and not everyone will take it, and the outcome can only be a certain level of catastrophic.

 

It's the level of acceptance of that risk that makes it interesting.  People can (and will) disagree with you, whereas I don't really see people going "I sure am glad that Thane and Mordin died in my game.  I think that that makes for the best ending!"

 

I see the Old God baby as almost entirely an unknown.  I wouldn't be surprised if it backfired and was very, very bad for Thedas.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was completely benign.

[Allan Schumacher]

it's not really "I'm glad they died!"

I'd say it's more "Theirs death fit this particular journey"

 

My response isn't really towards you.  You may think it makes for an interesting story, but I also don't think it's considered the best solution for any playthrough and that your Shepard in that game wouldn't rather that both of those characters remain alive.

 

I thought it was reasonably clear we're arguing from different philosophies of what we want out of a video game narrative and that what choice in a video game means to you is not the same thing that I am looking for.

 

 

I understand why you like it.  Your response gives me the indication that you don't understand my perspective, however.

[Allan Schumacher]

The old God Baby isnt even the same thing as the suidice mission.

 

Im sorry, but the suicide mission IS NOT meaningful choice, and i dont think it was ever meant to be meaningful at all. Certainly no more meaningfull then "Oh, i blew it. Ill do better next time."

 

But it's a happy ending, and one that people use as an example of an earned happy ending (and there are people in this very thread that disagree with you).  The one video basically called it out as the ideal ending.

 

Like I said to the thread in general, it's not a simple solution.