839 réponses à ce sujet

[Gileadan]

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

I suppose it varies wildly from player to player as to when a good ending feels truly earned. Few games have managed that for me.

 

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.

 

You got the best, the "epic victory" ending only if your score was high enough AND the overall infestation was low enough. You had to constantly do well to achieve that, because of iron man mode. That was an "earned victory by gameplay" in my books.

 

As far as an "earned victory by story" goes, I think that most protagonists that aren't complete jerks in games like Dragon Age (actually, DA is one of the games that works best for this kind of victory) earn a bit of happiness by default in my opinion.

 

Why?

 

What they do in the game's story is usually for some greater good, not just for personal gain (in which case none of this applies!).

 

Someone who goes through all that stuff the protagonist goes through in a medieval-like fantasy setting deserves a bit of a reward in the end. We, the players, sit comfortably in our chair or sofa while our protagonist camps out in the wild, doesn't sleep because some monsters howl in the distance at night, has to stand guard after two hours of half-sleep, wakes up fatigued and has some cold leftovers from last night's charred rabbit haunch for breakfast. Not to mention getting cut up and fireballed to almost-hell during nearly every combat they run into. That's a *crappy* way to be, especially if it goes on for months or even years. If someone goes through all this to help other people or the world as a whole, don't they deserve a little payoff after it's all done? I think it's pretty miserable if they die in the end on top of all that.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

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

Sure. You have that option if you want it. 

[Lieutenant Kurin]

I think that what constitutes a 'happy ending' differs from player to player. Some would see it as happy if the PC survives, others would prefer there to be no loose ends. I think that the problem here is not 'happy endings' but 'perfect endings'. To some they're the same, others maybe not. Everyone surviving in ME2 would be an example of a perfect ending. This is reinforced by a trophy specifically attached to getting everyone out alive. To me, it's only a happy ending if the base is destroyed, but as long as everyone gets out alive, it's a perfect ending. ME3 it's even more different to me. 

 

EDIT: to be clearer, not every game has a perfect ending. I never felt DA:O had one. No option comes out as 'obviously the better choice'. No option makes me feel like I've lost out on fighters or something.

Modifié par Lieutenant Kurin, 03 août 2014 - 11:01 .

[nightcobra]

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.

 

seeing as how they were depicted in DA2, if by inquisition they can't be convinced to see reason and not be insane.

then i'd see the destruction of both sides as a happy ending for the rest of thedas.

 

it's like choosing between a control hungry tyrant and a homicidal pyromaniac, it's best if both don't exist.

[TheodoricFriede]

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."

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.

[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.

[javeart]

I think that what constitutes a 'happy ending' differs from player to player. Some would see it as happy if the PC survives, others would prefer there to be no loose ends. I think that the problem here is not 'happy endings' but 'perfect endings'. To some they're the same, others maybe not. Everyone surviving in ME2 would be an example of a perfect ending. This is reinforced by a trophy specifically attached to getting everyone out alive. To me, it's only a happy ending if the base is destroyed, but as long as everyone gets out alive, it's a perfect ending. ME3 it's even more different to me. 

 

EDIT: to be clearer, not every game has a perfect ending. I never felt DA:O had one. No option comes out as 'obviously the better choice'. No option makes me feel like I've lost out on fighters or something.

 

That's also what I think. There's a difference between getting best possible outcome for doing something right, like in the SM, when it's something mostly technical, like combat, and getting a happy ending that it's tied to RP choices.

 

And for the later, I think everyone should have the same options to get that happy ending, regardless of what kind of PC they're rolepaying: if everyone gets a happy ending, that's fine, but if one does not, then no one should

[Ianamus]

I just want a bittersweet ending. I expect some people to die but I also expect the player and a fair few of their companions to come out alive, should I make the sacrifices which allow for that. 

[nightcobra]

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.

 

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

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

[Dean_the_Young]

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, personally, desire delimmas and consequences that stand up to the meta as much as the initial. While I certainly recognize that most people only beat the game once, if at all, I feel that moral delimmas and their consequences should stand up to meta-knowledge for at least three playthroughs: the initial blind playthrough, the second 'let's choose everything other than what I did the first time' playthrough, and any future playthroughs in which metaknowledge can not be avoided but in which choices should still have some tension and balance.

 

Part of that, to me, is only rarely having unqualified successes, and having even things that clearly seem 'bad' at the time have little payoffs later on. ME was horrible at this, but SWTOR has many examples of the sort of thing I'm thinking of, albeit in limited email form. In Mass Effect, killing anyone was about as sure a way as possible to never hear about the decision again. In SWTOR, decisions in which grateful survivors would inevitably send an email and token of gratitude were balanced by beneficiaries of even the Dark Side choices. At one point you have the option to kill everyone in a tram carrying both enemy reinforcements and civilians. Refuse to, and your side takes more casualties but the civilians survive- one such civilian sends you an email with a token of gratitude. Do the Dark Side option and kill the civilians as well, and... a private who would have been amongst the dead defenders sends you an email grateful for how he survived and got to see a bunch of dead imperials fall out of the tram.

 

That's the sort of moral delimma I prefer- where there are strong and valid reasons for both choices, whether emotional or tactical. I strongly, strongly disliked ME's habit of linking the emotional with the highest tactical success, in that neither you or anyone else ever really suffered for prioritizing morality first and foremost (and you usually came off better for it). That created the sort of unbalanced 'choices' in which the optimal was obvious and boring to me.

 

 

[Lieutenant Kurin]

That's also what I think. There's a difference between getting best possible outcome for doing something right, like in the SM, when it's something mostly technical, like combate, and getting a happy ending that it's tied to RP choices.

 

And for the later, I think everyone should have the same options to get that happy ending, regardless of what kind of PC they're rolepaying: if everyone gets a happy ending, that's fine, but if one does not, then no one should

I dunno, I feel that comes too close to having choices not matter. If you go out of your way to alienate allies, for example, even if you do win, you should be left with a mess in your wake. Choices need to have consequences, what matters is the degree. I.e. you shouldn't be able to befriend every possible ally for example.

[Ajna]

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.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend yesterday.  He's never played the Mass Effect series but just started playing ME3 yesterday, he got to Tuchanka and he's messaging me about the feels "Eve!", I swear the guy was crying and he's never experienced the games before, I think Mordin killed a little piece of him too "Oh man, I can't take this!", aanyway I sent back "You can save her with an import!" to which he replied "Nah, I like it..I think it makes for a good story".

[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.

[TheodoricFriede]

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.

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."

[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.

[Dean_the_Young]

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?

 

Not to rib you too hard, Allan, but this is a rather odd thing for a Bioware developer to ask. It's only a major cornerstone of the epic 'let's commit countless unsanctioned intrusions, kill people by the dozens (even if they're just defending themselves from us), steal their pants and possessions willy-nilly, kill rare and exotic animals just because we can, befriend career criminals and murderers and liars and sleep with them, and invoke legal or de facto unaccountability whenever in order to maintain pretenses of legitimacy' that has been the Bioware shitick for the last decade.

 

Of course we're willing to support bad things if it works out better in the end. Quite often we're so willing to do it that you call it the 'good' route.

[TheodoricFriede]

But it's a happy ending (and there are people in this very thread that disagree with you).

It is, in fact, a happy ending.

Scandalous.

[nightcobra]

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.

 

 

I know it wasn't towards me and i do understand your perspective.

 

chalk it up to being very tired yet unable to sleep.

 

actually this is what i'd like to see in a bioware game, an antagonist that you can befriend but are too different on a fundamental level

like in suikoden 2 or the chinese stories of enemy generals sharing tea and a good time right before a battle. 

 

two opposing sides do not need to be both bad to be imcompatible.

the tricky part is conveying that imcompatibility with it being contrived

[javeart]

I dunno, I feel that comes too close to having choices not matter. If you go out of your way to alienate allies, for example, even if you do win, you should be left with a mess in your wake. Choices need to have consequences, what matters is the degree. I.e. you shouldn't be able to befriend every possible ally for example.

 

Well, if there's reasonable bad consequences for some actions, I expect them to be for the rest too. Though I think it's perfectly possible to give different consequences and still have happy endings. Different "flavours" of happy, I guess.

 

Otherwise, it's like someone is rewarded for aligning perfectly with the writters' perspective on what should work better, and for me its alienating and feel a lot like an unfair punishment.

 

Is it nice to pick Jacob and find out that he cheats on you, when people who picked Garrus live happily ever after? Luckily is a relativey "minor" issue, as is Connors dilemma, but I find something like that in the end of a game, it'd annoy me immensely. In fact that's what happened to me the first time I played ME3, I thought I picked the wrong colour!  And I was not happy, at all.

 

It would be of no consolation in such a case knowing there's a way of getting everything right, like it would be in the case I got some one killed in the SM, but quite the opposite. 

[Wulfram]

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

 

Primarily Mages randomly turning into abominations.

 

Which I think does a lot to bring the sides closer to being more balanced in terms of support, but obliterates the underlying debate about the consequences of people having power and how to combat the abuse of it - which is an interesting issue that naturally arises from the basic fantasy premise of "Mages exist" and plays the predominant role in the debate in-universe, but is basically beside the point in the forum debate.

 

I suppose other people might fairly consider that the possibility of mages turning into abominations is central to the debate, and thus can't be considered a contrived addition, but that's not how I see it.

 

Similarly, in ME3 having Destroy kill the Geth does a lot to make Control more attractive, but it also, to me, makes the choice and the debate a lot less interesting, because it's no longer really about Destroy vs Control.

 

I don't think controversy is a good measure of the interestingness of a choice.

[Chron0id]

I heavily disagree with those saying you can't have an outright happy ending due to the notion that any other ending will feel like a loss.  With Mass Effect 3, there weren't wildly different outcomes.  Everything was one note-depressing, grey, bleak.  Which not only didn't fit with the themes of the series but felt extremely homogenized and left the player feeling unsatisfied.  Variety is the spice of life.  I don't recall many people complaining about Jade Empire's endings, which were EXTREMELY polarized.  One was quintessentially happily ever after and the other was Evil guy wins.  But if I recall, that game was freaking awesome  and remains one of BioWare's favorite projects. 

 

So...in other words....there goes that theory of yours. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

I heavily disagree with those saying you can't have an outright happy ending due to the notion that any other ending will feel like a loss.  With Mass Effect 3, there weren't wildly different outcomes.  Everything was one note-depressing, grey, bleak.  Which not only didn't fit with the themes of the series but felt extremely homogenized and left the player feeling unsatisfied.  Variety is the spice of life.  I don't recall many people complaining about Jade Empire's endings, which were EXTREMELY polarized.  One was quintessentially happily ever after and the other was Evil guy wins.  But if I recall, that game was freaking awesome  and remains one of BioWare's favorite projects. 

 

So...in other words....there goes that theory of yours. 

Uhm... No? You actually just reinforced it. The quality of the game itself has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[Chron0id]

Uhm... No? You actually just reinforced it. The quality of the game itself has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

And....how exactly did I reinforce the theory that a broad gambit of endings is bad?

[Xilizhra]

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.

Personally, I believe that any supposed moral equivalence between the mages and the templars is wholly false, and I find it slightly appalling that Bioware attempts to push the situation as being such.