839 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

Well at least i can bet there won't be so much swearing and we will have more control over our protagonist actions.

[PsychoBlonde]

Jade Empire offered the first of these. I can't quite remember the details of what happened after your 'noble' sacrifice, but there was definitely a 'You idiot' message being given.

 

You didn't "sacrifice" yourself, you defeated the Emperor and then Sun Li killed you.

[Nefla]

You didn't "sacrifice" yourself, you defeated the Emperor and then Sun Li killed you.

At the end you can choose to let him kill you for good to supposedly restore peace. They build a statue of you and he rules with an iron fist.

[Maria Caliban]

It was a choice. You can continue fighting or submit to his will.

[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?

[AresKeith]

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?

 

The bolded part is what the Mass Effect series heavily lacked in the choice department IMO

[TheKomandorShepard]

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?

Considering that Harrowmont had as much "moral" ground as Behlen but unlike him he was incompetent so you didn't have much choice there as you either way supported bad things just that 1 worked better other not.    

[frylock23]

I guess IMO opinion, saying to "earn" the ending is wrong. I would rather say to get lucky enough to find the right chain of events that would lead to the ending would be a better description. And really, if it was done perfectly in my mind, the "right" chain of events wouldn't necessarily be the obvious chain of events, but would be one that followed a rather crooked path with some decisions that were crystal clear and common sense and others that seem to be not so obvious or rather unimportant (sort of butterfly flaps its wings) so that a person could think they could skip that detail entirely and not realize what they're missing or not setting in motion and some decisions that seem quite counterintuitive.

 

They got close with the Geth heretics in the whole Quarian peace, but it was a concept that didn't carry across enough.

 

IMO, the idea that the perfect outcome leading from the perfect chain of events is overdone from a doing everything "right" in a common sense way all too often. To me, it seems that the more believable perfect outcome would actually come from a far more messy scenario of less clear cut events where it's far less easy to see how you go from point A to point Z.

[Urazz]

Yes but dao had faulty consequences system i would say it was more beginning of the series and devs were experimenting and pretty much it followed rule be nice and heroic and it will always turn positively even devs were complaining about connor decision.Then we have da 2 where no matter what you do you are screwd.If that what they say about dai is true it will be more focused on consequences so it won't be "be nice and heroic and everything will end good" type of game but more witcher type of game. 

DAO was fine for the most part I think in terms of consequences.  Even when you recruit the Dalish, the option to actually get Zathrian to lift the curse does require you to do some investigating and try to find out the reasons the werewolves are doing what they are doing.

 

The only thing I thought that didn't have consequences was Redcliff where you could easily get assistance from the Circle even if you didn't do the Circle first.  You could easily go the Circle, do the Circle quest, and then get back to Redcliff without any kind of consequences for leaving Conner unattended for that long.

 

I think getting the best outcome should require some luck (i.e. doing things in the right order in the first playthrough), investigation, thoroughness, and some difficulty gameplaywise.

[TheKomandorShepard]

DAO was fine for the most part I think in terms of consequences.  Even when you recruit the Dalish, the option to actually get Zathrian to lift the curse does require you to do some investigating and try to find out the reasons the werewolves are doing what they are doing.

 

The only thing I thought that didn't have consequences was Redcliff where you could easily get assistance from the Circle even if you didn't do the Circle first.  You could easily go the Circle, do the Circle quest, and then get back to Redcliff without any kind of consequences for leaving Conner unattended for that long.

 

I think getting the best outcome should require some investigation, thoroughness, and some difficulty gameplaywise.

I would argue point is in fact in dalish quest we have right choice in typical manner for high fantasy and heroic resolve , of course im not saying it is bad simple it doesn't rly fit to dark fantasy.We didn't even need bother much all what was needed is go for destroy curse not even persuasion was required.

[Iakus]

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

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.

[Han Shot First]

Can someone make me a list of games where the main protagonist dies as a sacrifice (not optional) because like... honestly the only one I have played is ME3 (or its the only one I remember)... but even that is optional technically? 

 

I just really don't get how it's so "overplayed" in videogames...

 

It isn't. 

 

Some people who really want their happy ending like to criticize tragic or bittersweet endings as being cliche or overplayed, because it makes what is really just a personal preference seem like the more intelligent choice. To be fair, some of those who prefer a more bittersweet finale are guilty of this as well.

 

In truth both types of endings have been done countless times before. There are only so many ways you can wrap up a story, and they've all been done before. 

[Iakus]

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?

It depends on how "bad" the bad things are.

 

Harrowmont and Bhelen still leave me torn even with metaknowledge.  On at least one occasion I actually flipped a coin to decide who to give the crown to.

 

It's pretty obvious how I feel about the ME3 endings.  So I'll just leave it at that.

 

But it just goes to show how delicate it is to create a "bittersweet" ending that will appeal to a large audience.  Different people are willing to tolerate different degrees of darkness.  This is what made the DAO endings so great.  The heroic sacrifice can be seen as just as valid an option as one where teh Warden lives.

[Iakus]

It isn't. 

 

Some people who really want their happy ending like to criticize tragic or bittersweet endings as being cliche or overplayed, because it makes what is really just a personal preference seem like the more intelligent choice. To be fair, some of those who prefer a more bittersweet finale are guilty of this as well.

 

In truth both types of endings have been done countless times before. There are only so many ways you can wrap up a story, and they've all been done before. 

I will say that the tragic ending is harder to do well.  Especially in an rpg where the player have a sense of ownership or agency with the character.

[Iakus]

At the end you can choose to let him kill you for good to supposedly restore peace. They build a statue of you and he rules with an iron fist.

As seen here

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8VepzrQ-M

 

Though the most well-known "forced sacrifice" and, imo one of the very, very few that did it well, was Planescape: Torment.  But even then, the final scene hints that it wasn't necessarily the end for TNO

[Han Shot First]

I will say that the tragic ending is harder to do well.  Especially in an rpg where the player have a sense of ownership or agency with the character.

 

A tragic ending may well be impossible to pull off in an RPG. I'm not sure if anyone wants to sink 30 or 40 hours into a game, only to lose at the end.

[TheKomandorShepard]

A tragic ending may well be impossible to pull off in an RPG. I'm not sure if anyone wants to sink 30 or 40 hours into a game, only to lose at the end.

It can be done correctly but only if you can convince player that thing you sacrifice yourself for is worth it.  

[Maria Caliban]

I do have a bias towards the first playthrough, for sure.

I am the same.

In Mass Effect 2, if you want to keep everyone alive, you have to save the Derelict Reaper mission until you've done all the loyalty missions and fully upgraded your ship, and after the Reaper you have to do Legion's loyalty mission. I had no idea that the Reaper mission meant my crewmembers would get kidnapped, and I had to decide whether to finish my various loyalty missions or to save the crew.

I did the missions and so had to watch the engineers and Kelly Chambers get liquified.

If you know what to do, it's simple to avoid. I didn't though.

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.

It depends on the nature of the choice, how it’s presented, how often you have to make choices like that.

For example (ME 2 again), a House Divided, where you have to brainwash the rogue geth or destroy them, is not an unambiguously good or evil decision, nor is there an optimal solution from a mechanical perspective. There isn’t even a consequence to it.

It works well specifically because it’s nothing but an interesting choice.

Alternatively, the Mirandra vs Jack confrontation lets you side with one and lose the loyalty of the other (a more RP choice) or retain both their loyalty if your morality meter is high enough on one side. There’s a clear ‘best’ and that works because it’s a game, and you need to feel as though you’ve won sometimes.

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?

I picked Harrowmont. I’m not even sure why I did so, but I think it was easier to work with him.

But it’s important to note that this somewhat ambiguous choice didn’t end in you having to slit a child’s throat while her mother screamed on in horror, one of your companions abandoning you, or fewer dwarves joining you for the final battle.

Your example with Sera is one where you can explicitly lose something of (presumed) value. It’s different because it has serious narrative and mechanical consequences, unlike A House Divided or picking the ruler of Orzamarr.

And it’s not really a moral question. We all know the heroic thing to do is sacrifice your companion to save the people burning in the building. The question is whether we’re willing to pay a price for being good.

Actually, I’m having trouble thinking of a situation in a BioWare game like that. The Virmire decision had someone on your crew die regardless. The end of DA:O had the Dark Ritual, which I think was meant to be morally questionably but I never found it to be so. It’s certainly not on par with letting a bunch of people burn to death because you don’t want to make a sacrifice.

[nightcobra]

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.

 

 

I would agree with this, but it's missing a key component. let's see...

 

"that's the right choice for this particular warden/hawke/inquisitor/shepard/spirit monk/bhaalspawn"

 

this is where i'm getting at, this is what matters to me and IMO if I can look back and say that, then it's a success.

because for every pc i create there's a range of journeys i can guide them through, all ranging from light and heroic to dark and grim.

From White to gray to Black, not just shades of grey.

The choices will still make me think, but from the PC's perspective, like "If I was reckless/a genius/naive/simple/noble/honorable/dishonorable/opportunistic/serious/stressed/etc then what choice would best represent that mindset" and pick it accordingly.

[Maria Caliban]

Even though it's a role-playing game, I think it's good to acknowledge that some solutions are generally better.

If your Warden hates mages then annulling the Circle and murdering Conner is the best option. However, generally speaking, the 'best' option is using lyrium to save Conner without killing anyone.

We know that 86% of people pick the 'good' choice, so a solution that lets them avoid them avoid a lose-lose situation based on previous decision, can be considered the optimal one.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

@Allan: Nice read. I agree somewhat on your critique that "earning a good ending mostly means do everything". If simply being a completionist gives the "perfect ending" then its kind of cheap aswell.

I think one of the main issues is that a good ending for some is a bad ending for others.

 

If you play a chaotic evil character that purposely sabotages the inquisition - then a "The villain wins" becomes the best ending for that character when it comes to goals.

 

For one of my inquisitors this is a good ending:

Death of morally upstanding advisors and companions.
Continued life and service of the companions that symphatize with me.
Personal power is good, suffering of the "Little people" is inconsequential.
Ending is "My Inquisitor became a demi-god".

This is the powerhungry selfish type of good ending for me. While for another people this may be a bad ending. 

As for: 

Fade + main villain being stopped.
Survival of the highest amount of innocents + all companions.
+ Other "good" outcomes.

This would be a BAD ENDING for my powerhungry inquisitor, but might be a good ending for many others. 

It is also often a problem that the consequenses of your actions are too easy to forsee as for what happens down the line. 

A bad and a good ending is completely relative to who your Inquisitor is.



 

[javeart]

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?

 

 

I agree about Bhelen choice not being optimal, and in fact my canon is picking Hawrromont. 

 

I think that with Connor's mission is completely different though, and, personally, I hate that there's a choice so clearly superior to the others. I usually force myself to let his mother die, because to me it is what makes the most sense for the story (keeping in mind that I want to save Connor and protect the people in the castle and in the village), but it always bugs me that, in the end, I know that going to the circle is the right choice. IMO, It should be a choice to define your PC's personality and deal with specific consequences, and having one specific PC's personality (the kind that refuses to do anything s/he don't feel comfortable with, whatever the risk) getting a better outcome than anyone else, doesn' feel "fair" to me

[Sarcastic Tasha]

The only thing I thought that didn't have consequences was Redcliff where you could easily get assistance from the Circle even if you didn't do the Circle first.  You could easily go the Circle, do the Circle quest, and then get back to Redcliff without any kind of consequences for leaving Conner unattended for that long.

 

Yeah maybe Conner should have ate a few villagers or forced a few knights to fight to the death while you were away or something. But Dragon Age never made sense if you take travelling time into account. Once I started the Redcliffe quest, did the fight in the village then left Teagan waiting at the windmill for a few weeks while I went to the circle of magi. In reality after about an hour he'd start to think the warden wasn't coming back.

 

As for the Conner quest if you're an idiot like me you can accidentally mess it up. I went to the circle tower intending to save the mages but I didn't know how to use the litany so all the mages turned into abominations and I had to kill them. So I had to go for the not so perfect blood magic solution. This made Alistair angry and escalated into a huge argument between Alistair and the Warden. Their friendship was irreparably damaged and as a result the Warden ended up supporting Anora's claim to the throne. I like how messing one thing up spiralled and gave longer reaching consequences. In subsequent playthroughs I've done that quest the "right" way but its never as interesting. But of course purposefully sabotaging myself to try and replicate my first playthrough isn't as interesting either. 

 

 

EDIT: Grammar