839 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

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?

Well, I'd definitely say mandatory  death of the LI wouldn't fit (unless it was broadcast pretty much from the start so the player knows it's a doomed relationship) since that pretty much by definition means it's not a Happy ending.  At least to me

 

The bolded part is the big question, yes.  And there is no easy answer to the question because different people have different levels of "too high a cost"

 

I mean to touch on ME3 (again) I feel the cost is simply too high even if Shepard did survive.  However, I have mentioned costs I would be willing to pay, and have people say I'm crazy, that it would have been worse than what we got.  

 

As for an "earned" victory, as I said I think it would be a matter of a victory that comes as a result of the player's choices, rather than a contrivance.  To use ME2 as an example, people like that Shepard's choices as well as the loyalty of the crew contributed to how successful the mission was.  The complaint about it is that it was too easy to figure out.  Part of this I think comes from how easy it is to earn the loyalty of your squad.  In almost all cases,  once you start their mission, you will gain their loyalty regardless of what Shepard actually does.  There's a couple of missions that are fail-able, or you can succeed without gaining their loyalty, but those are the exceptions.  Similarly, once loyalty is gained, losing it is impossible save for two arguments on the Normandy where you can potentially lose the loyalty of one character (and even then it's possible to get it back with a dialogue check later).

 

 I'd say that the SM would have been considered more satisfying than it already is if it were harder to gain the loyalty of the squad, or even impossible to retain the loyalty of everyone (it is possible to get everyone out alive without everyone's loyalty, depending on who is or is not loyal.  You just have to be more careful)

 

This is, I think the trick to "earning" the ending you want:  Give the players several "payment options" and let them decide which they are willing to follow.  I'm sure it still wouldn't satisfy everyone.  But it would satisfy more than just leaving "We demand the PC's blood" for all of them.  And of course, the cost needs to make sense, and not be an arbitrary sacrifice simply to add bitterness to the ending.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

I could do with less of the '''Power through friendship'' Shepard-messiah (and Hawke-messiah) nonsense. That's why I like the idea of the Inquisition, it's an actual organisation with employees, people who may not like you but still fight with you because of the cause, not because they are drawn to you like flies because of your incredible world-shattering charisma.

 

I also like quite liked the '''sacrifice yourself... or just have sex with Morrigan and win'' approach of DA:O.

[Maria Caliban]

I've played a number of BioWare games, and I never got the sense that it was 'power through friendship.' They're less band of brothers and more adoring cult.

[Dabrikishaw]

I've played a number of BioWare games, and I never got the sense that it was 'power through friendship.' They're less band of brothers and more adoring cult.

That's always stricken me as a simplification of someone's problems with the morality systems in each game.

[Zjarcal]

You only find out at Redcliffe when Riordan tells you. You may be confusing that with knowing the Joining kills you, eventually.

 

Yeah, the only thing you know is that being a warden by itself is a death sentence in that you will die earlier than most, but even then, that's around 30 more years of life for the PC (as Alistair puts it), so it's not like the PC can't be looking forward to life after the blight.

 

That a sacrifice is actually required to end the blight is most definitely not information you carry with you through the whole game.

 

Personally I'll be ok with another DR like thing as in DAO, a "cheery" outcome tainted by a question mark or some other not so insignificant issue. I also wouldn't mind one tied to pure gameplay and difficulty factors either, but then you'd probably have people complaining that's unfair to players that aren't good.

[frylock23]

Eh, I could be wrong, but I thought I remembered having that knowledge for a good portion of the game. At the very least, I had no preconceived notions about what to expect about it. It has been a very long time since I've played DA:O.

 

The things that made me angriest about the ending of ME3 that I would hate to see replayed in DA:I:

 

1.) The ending directly contradicted the theme of the previous games in that in the previous two and the entire ME3 up to the platform raising, Shepard was allowed to pull off the impossible in mostly unscathed fashion.

 

2.) The endings were dictated to the player by the antagonist and every choice was a bad one forcing a compromise of either mission or ethics/morals and/or sacrifice of the PC. So not only did the player arrive at the endings artificially but they were more like the terms of a negotiated surrender than a victory.

 

3.) It honestly felt that rather then being the logical outcome of a choice, some of the consequences were shoehorned only to weight each outcome appropriately and keep players from disproportionately choosing some over others.

 

So to keep DA:I out of trouble, I need a story that keeps prepares me for the endings. They need to be thematically appropriate, logical when looked at with the rest of the story in the game, the illusion of control needs to remain with me, and any consequences of those choices and endings also needs to follow logically from the choices made in the game and not feel artificially imposed.

[Zjarcal]

Eh, I could be wrong, but I thought I remembered having that knowledge for a good portion of the game. At the very least, I had no preconceived notions about what to expect about it. It has been a very long time since I've played DA:O.

 

Could be you just assumed the right thing before it was actually explained (or maybe someone spoiled you and you forgot, lolz).

[Kabraxal]

I want the whole range... the reason Origins worked so well is you could have an extremely happy ending and one that is as close to tragic as you can get while still winning.  The only thing that game didn't have is the "you lose" option.  The problem with ME3's ending was two fold, first there were few differences in a tone that didn't fit the rest of the trilogy and there was no real exposition on how the choices you made altered the universe and the characters in it.  It was a completely intellectual ending that was divorced from the emotional tone the rest of the trilogy had set up.  Even if the endings hadn't been a slap in the face, the tonal shift still would have been extremely jarring.

 

Hopefully, Inquisition learns from both DA2 and ME3's mistakes and gives us the range of endings and actually decides to show a little about how the world and characters moved on from the events, whatever they might be.

[Kreidian]

It sounds like people have a really warped sense of what makes up a Happy Ending. People are so quick to jump on the idea of everything being nothing but sunshine and flowers and everyone lives happily ever after. For one, I worry about the sort of people who believe that people being happy and alive is a bad thing. The idea that just because things turn out really well for all involved somehow makes such an ending invalid is flat out wrong - and that's something you just can't convince me otherwise. It might be a less interesting ending, but that doesn't make it invalid. But then most people are also mistaken when they assume that this is all a happy ending can be.

 

What's most important about what makes a happy ending is simply that it's an ending that you are happy with. The details of what makes up such an ending will vary greatly with different people. ( all the more reason why having a range of ending options is so important ) Sure some people will want unicorns and rainbows for everyone, but some people are happier with a noble sacrifice for their ending. Others want a grim but worthwhile hardship leading to a better world. Others want to see the world burn knowing that it was better then submitting to something they hated. While broad examples, the key is that whatever the actual end, the person playing it can walk away happy and satisfied with the resolution. Whatever the end is, the goal is for the ending to be something the player enjoys. This is hugely important, particularly for a game. Something which - annoyingly - so many people seem to forget. At its core the whole point of a game is to entertain the player. If the player walks away from a game and they're not happy then that product is a failure as a game. Full Stop.

 

Arguing about introspective purposes or artistic nuances of such an ending is meaningless in that regard. Certainly from a purely artisitc standpoint you can make a decidedly non-enoyable ending with the purpose to express whatever artistic measure you wish to convey. I don't argue that you can create such artwork very successfully. And no doubt there will be someone who will enjoy that. But for the average person that walks away feeling worse for it, whatever else it may be, it is no longer a game. Or at the very least, it's no longer a good game.

 

And yes, this does mean that on the opposite side of the spectrum you can have an ending filled with candy and Disney characters dancing all over the place and still have it be a terrible ending. Particularly if it comes off as undeserved or worthless.

 

There is a never-ending discussion of how to create an ending that players will be happy with. That is, in part, what game developers work at constantly. Like many people here I also enjoy the idea of an optimal ending where everyone you care about wins in some fashion being something you have to work hard for. Something to earn through whatever high challenge the game can provide. This is integral to the concept of risk/reward in gaming. To make such an optimal ending a reward for player who do put in the work and do make the effort to reach it.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever about an optimal ending being a reward for a thorough playthrough. If such a level of success is a reward for all the time spent grinding away at every nook and cranny of the game it is in its own way ENTIRELY deserved. Most people don't even finish the whole game, fewer still put in the effort to do absolutely everything they can. So they are completely justified in my opinion with a reward at the end for it. Mind you, my preference is more on worthy story elements and game challenges determining how optimal your ending becomes. Something which many of Bioware's games excel at. But then everyone will have a different level of what they would be willing to endure or deal with in order to feel they have earned a better ending.

 

I think an excellent example of this is the Genophage arc of the Mass Effect series. To get the absolute best possible ending you had to absolutely work your ass off to get it. Not only did it require completing a number of missions successfully, but it also required making the right choices, making sure the right people survive, and making the right things happen. Wrex, Mordin, Eve, all alive, all working together, and that's before you even reach Tuchanka. And if you skip out on the wrong side missions, all you efforts could be undone.

 

And after all that, Mordin still dies, sacrificing himself to save the Krogans.

 

That is a happy ending. Genophage cured, Mordin redeemed, Wrex and Eve leading the Krogans into a new age. This wasn't something simply handed to players, this was something you had to earn. There was real hardship and sacrifice required to get there, but the result was something truly wonderful.

 

The Geth-Quarian war was the same way, it's a huge challenge to get all the elements down just right if you want to save everyone. And even in the best case scenario you will still lose Legion.

 

People like to criticize the suicide mission in ME2, but I really liked the idea that it was possible to come out with everyone alive. I loved the idea that everyone else would constantly assuming that there was no way to come out of it alive, simply because no one ever has. Shepard, however, was determined to prove everyone wrong. It was a challenge to do so and required the right resources and the right decisions in order to make it out the other side. I think it's fair to argue that it should have been harder to accomplish a suicide mission without any casualties. But the notion it itself I found nothing wrong with.

 

ME3's endings by contrast were a disaster. It wasn't simply that there was no happy ending in any of them, it was that there was no way to walk away from any of the endings feeling any sense of satisfaction, much less enjoyment. No matter how hard you worked, or what decisions you made, what you were left with in the end was never something you could be happy with.

 

To bring it closer to home, DA:O's endings were very well done, with a wide range of options to give people an ending they would be happy with. For some it was marrying the king/queen and becoming royalty, while others were more then happy making the noble sacrifice knowing that there would be no one less old god to worry about in the future of Thedas. Others were more then happy to risk whatever the future may hold with the Old God baby knowing that their enemies were defeated and they remained alive to deal with the consequences should it come to that.

 

What's more, for truly optimal endings in DA:O you had to complete a large number of missions, and do so in the right way, so that the final world state could be tailors to something you truly can be happy with.

 

DA2's endings, however, were much more limited. No matter what your actions were, you remain the one blamed for igniting the Mage-Templar war. For some the way they were able to handle that still left them quite happy with the end of that story. While for others, being forced into that position and possibly feeling no sense of agency or resolution of those events could leave them very unhappy indeed.

 

Whatever ending the Inquisition might bring, I intend to put in all the work and effort required to reach an ending I'm happy with. Just make sure such an ending exists in the first place.

[Chron0id]

 While broad examples, the key is that whatever the actual end, the person playing it can walk away happy and satisfied with the resolution. Whatever the end is, the goal is for the ending to be something the player enjoys. This is hugely important, particularly for a game. Something which - annoyingly - so many people seem to forget. At its core the whole point of a game is to entertain the player. If the player walks away from a game and they're not happy then that product is a failure as a game. Full Stop.

 

Whatever ending the Inquisition might bring, I intend to put in all the work and effort required to reach an ending I'm happy with. Just make sure such an ending exists in the first place.

 

This entire post deserves a raised pint. 

[Iakus]

 

Kreidian, on 03 Aug 2014 - 4:56 PM, said:
While broad examples, the key is that whatever the actual end, the person playing it can walk away happy and satisfied with the resolution. Whatever the end is, the goal is for the ending to be something the player enjoys. This is hugely important, particularly for a game. Something which - annoyingly - so many people seem to forget. At its core the whole point of a game is to entertain the player. If the player walks away from a game and they're not happy then that product is a failure as a game. Full Stop.

Whatever ending the Inquisition might bring, I intend to put in all the work and effort required to reach an ending I'm happy with. Just make sure such an ending exists in the first place.

 

 

This entire post deserves a raised pint. 

 

 

Agreed.

[Allan Schumacher]

For me, a story where all your choices don't matter except in how they define your character sends a message of futility that transfers easily to the character I'm playing. Why try hard, why even think about what you're doing, if it all ends up in the same way? Sure, some decisions are like that, sometimes you can't make a difference, but a pattern of such decisions is depressing. Also, yeah, "you can't make a difference" is a possible and legitimate message to send for a story but pardon me if I tend to avoid that kind of story.

Also, the outcome influences how we feel about a decision. If it doesn't work out, that's frustrating, if it does, it's satisfying. I consider a good mix of emotional moments as desirable for a story. If nothing matters, that's as boring as "everything works out" only with more depression added to the mix.

So, yes, I think it is very important that our decisions make a difference here and there, that within some limits, I can influence how things turn out.

I don't feel that the player should never experience success. A mix is best. If what you want always works out, then thought isn't really necessary when making choices. If what you want never works out, the same thing applies.

With respect to sending messages, though, are you of the opinion that we should use the game as a vehicle to send social message? It tends to be a pretty polarizing sentiment, I find

  

Possibly. That I'm not religious may come into it here. Anyway, Grace alludes to my interpretation...

I'm not religious either. I just don't see much optimism in being condemned to the Blood War.

 

Technically, no, but if that comes as a surprise, I feel betrayed. In my tabletop roleplaying games, there is an unspoken contract that the GM will try to keep the player characters alive as long they don't do something stupid or deliberately and knowingly take an extra risk. Not everyone plays that way, and there are campaigns where "death by random die roll" is common. Those can be fun too. Your scenario, however, sounds like "death by fiat of the GM". There is a reason why those are almost universally disliked. There are games which end with everyone dead, where only what you did before matters in the end, but....and haven't I said something like this before...potential players are usually informed in advance so that they know what they're getting into. I see Bioware's writing teams as acting in the role of the GM. There's little worse that can happen to you as a roleplayer than to step unsuspecting into a "PC death by story design" scenario.

I don't consider RPGs to be a perfect analogue to the PnP game (even if that's where some of their foundation comes from) and the ones I enjoy the most are the ones that have stronger focus on narrative than PnP analogue.

I understand, though, that this is my view, not everyone else's. I don't come from a legacy of PnP background at all. My PnP experience has actually all come in the last year, but my RPG experience started with Ultima 6 and then continued on with the Gold Box games even though I had no lick at all what AD&D was. So that difference in background may play a strong role in why our expectations diverge.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is hugely important, particularly for a game. Something which - annoyingly - so many people seem to forget. At its core the whole point of a game is to entertain the player. If the player walks away from a game and they're not happy then that product is a failure as a game. Full Stop.

There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever about an optimal ending being a reward for a thorough playthrough. If such a level of success is a reward for all the time spent grinding away at every nook and cranny of the game it is in its own way ENTIRELY deserved. Most people don't even finish the whole game, fewer still put in the effort to do absolutely everything they can. So they are completely justified in my opinion with a reward at the end for it. Mind you, my preference is more on worthy story elements and game challenges determining how optimal your ending becomes. Something which many of Bioware's games excel at. But then everyone will have a different level of what they would be willing to endure or deal with in order to feel they have earned a better ending.

These positions seem to be in conflict with each other though. Particularly because of the implication that "most" people want what you describe out of their video games, while at the same time "most" people don't even experience the end of the game.


Your suggestion for a perfectly okay effort for a happy ending isn't the same as mine. Is it irreconcilable? If so, does that mean I just have to deal with it?

[Xilizhra]

For me personally, I think ME2's general concept did it perfectly. You had the thought-provoking dilemma of whether to save or destroy the Collector base, and then you had the effort-based earned happy ending of saving your crew. DAO could also apply with the dilemma of the dark ritual, and the happy ending of finishing everything with your companions and doing the various other quests of the game properly. DA2 possesses that to a somewhat lesser extent, as everything but Hawke's own circle falls apart at the end, but it's still present. Still, though, ME2 is my favorite model personally.

[Iakus]

I don't feel that the player should never experience success. A mix is best. If what you want always works out, then thought isn't really necessary when making choices. If what you want never works out, the same thing applies.

With respect to sending messages, though, are you of the opinion that we should use the game as a vehicle to send social message? It tends to be a pretty polarizing sentiment, I find

 

I think what Iledra meant was that how the choices matter (or don't matter) is in itself a message.   Dooming a character, or forcing them to do extremely questionable actions in order to "win" sends a message, even if it's one you didn't intend to send.

 

 

 

I'm not religious either. I just don't see much optimism in being condemned to the Blood War.

 

Falls-From-Grace promises (or can promise, at least) to scour the Lower Planes for The Nameless One and try to rescue him.  In addition, once TNO regains all his memories, he is a truly formidable being with innumerable lifetimes of combined experiences.  One could interpret the ending as being condemned to the Blood War as being but a temporary setback.

 

 

 

I don't consider RPGs to be a perfect analogue to the PnP game (even if that's where some of their foundation comes from) and the ones I enjoy the most are the ones that have stronger focus on narrative than PnP analogue.
I understand, though, that this is my view, not everyone else's. I don't come from a legacy of PnP background at all. My PnP experience has actually all come in the last year, but my RPG experience started with Ultima 6 and then continued on with the Gold Box games even though I had no lick at all what AD&D was. So that difference in background may play a strong role in why our expectations diverge.

 

Indeed, the PnP experience gives the players a sense of ownership over their own character.  A sense that there is a path through the maze, if you are creative enough and determined enough to figure out the path.  it's what I think of as the gaming experience vs the cinematic experience.

[Neon Rising Winter]

I'm not sold on the idea of quality of outcome as a result of in game effort for one simple reason, DAO. That had a selection of good endings which were to a great extent determined by late game dialogue choices and your party composition. It's a bit of a proof by contradiction for me because I would be loathe to say you should only consider a model of determining endings that excluded a historical example that worked so well.

 

That doesn't mean it can't work that way as well. Pull up case study 2, ME2, where your ending was greatly determined by whether you put in the hours. And yup, that worked as well. Personally I thought not as satisfying story wise, but still bloody enjoyable and it obviously worked well for a lot of people.

 

I think the key, as Kreidian said above, is an ending where the player walks away feeling satisfied (maybe not happy). Be it glorious triumph, pyrrhic victory, inevitable disaster or just watching the world burn, they can all work so long as the credits roll and you as a player are left thinking - yeah, that was a good ending for that story, it made sense, it packed an emotional punch and seals the deal on 40 hours of my time well spent.

[Maria Caliban]

".... Oh and you've let an ancient dark entity of untold power live.... Surely that isn't gonna come back to haunt anyone!"
 
Yes, you can make an ending that turns out optimal results for your liking. You cannot make a happy ending.

Until such time as BioWare actually does something with the Old God Baby, the idea that the ending is unhappy or negative in any way is baseless.

The archdemon died, my friends lived, and I became Warden Commander. These are all happy thing. That there maybe, might be a bad consequence at some point doesn't matter because it's true for everything.

I saved the Circle. Maybe there are possessed mages still within it who go onto slaughter a village.
I saved the Dalish. Maybe that clan uncovers a lost ruin and unleashes small pox on Thedas.
I let Conner live. Maybe he is responsible for finding the next Archdemon and causing a Blight a century earlier than it would have otherwise.

Any of these are possible, but they're no more than fan speculation. If your speculation means the DR is unhappy for you, that's fine. The idea that your speculation changes the actual ending though is nonsensical.

[falconlord5]

Speaking as some who not only enjoyed the original ME3 endings, but saw them coming way back in ME2, I gotta say...

 

Endings don't interest me. I know what's coming. Turn on the game, read the first page in the book, and you know how this story is going to end. Bat's always wins, Shep dies, yadda yadda. Same old, same old.

 

Gimme a good beginning and middle, dead antagonists, and witty one-liner and that's a happy ending.

[Fortlowe]

I wouldn't say I want a happy ending. Maybe a hopeful one? The end of The Walking Dead Game, for example. The hero's journey ends, but a tenuous glimmer of hope for a better world remains. So although the threat of calamity remains, or even if a greater danger looms, hope is still there.

Another good example for a bittersweet, hopeful ending is a book called 'The Road'.

[Elite Midget]

The main thing that the ending must provide is closure.

 

DA:O/A and DA2 didn't provide closure considering what eventually happened leading into DA:I. At some point the characters need their chapters closed, especially the player character, and granted the ending they ended up with. None of this whole "And than the vanished and no one knows why" stuff. If DA:I does the same thing yet again, and doesn't also give closure to the Warden and Hawke and an explanation as to what happened to them, it will leave a very sour taste in my mouth.

[AshenEndymion]

The main thing that the ending must provide is closure.

 

DA:O/A and DA2 didn't provide closure considering what eventually happened leading into DA:I. At some point the characters need their chapters closed, especially the player character, and granted the ending they ended up with. None of this whole "And than the vanished and no one knows why" stuff. If DA:I does the same thing yet again, and doesn't also give closure to the Warden and Hawke and an explanation as to what happened to them, it will leave a very sour taste in my mouth.

 

Origins has an open ending about various aspects, in that the future is uncertain on a number of things, but Origins does provide closure on the subject of the fifth blight, which is what the story was ultimately about.  Awakening is also open ended about various aspects, but it too provides closure on the subject of the darkspawn roaming Amaranthine, which again, is what the story was ultimately about. DA2's closure is more along the lines of "this is what happened in Kirkwall" than anything else.  Again, there are unresolved questions, but the core of the game is closed...

 

DA:I will be similar.  Assuming the core of the story is about the veil tears, I have no doubt that the story behind that will be revealed and solved within DA:I(meaning, closure on that subject).  But there will be unanswered questions about other aspects of the game, and we won't get all the answers we want from the list of unanswered questions from Origins and 2.  Anyone that thinks otherwise is deluding themselves...

[Elite Midget]

It doesn't provide closure to the Warden because what closure it offered was written off in favor of the Warden, and even Hawke, vanishing without a trace with none of the companions, not even a romanced one, knowing where they are.

 

The story is also about the Warden, Hawke and the Inquisitor. Closure must include them as well.

 

Anyone that believes that the characters shouldn't also have any closure is deluding themselves. 

[Zjarcal]

DAO does provide closure for the Warden, that it was undone by DA2 is an issue of DA2 in and of itself.

 

Any story that doesn't flat out kill the character will be at risk of having its closure undone by a sequel, so you can't really take it out on DAO.

 

That being said, I most definitely want DA:I to bring closure to both the Warden and Hawke (and the Inquisitor too for that matter).

[Allan Schumacher]

I think what Iledra meant was that how the choices matter (or don't matter) is in itself a message.   Dooming a character, or forcing them to do extremely questionable actions in order to "win" sends a message, even if it's one you didn't intend to send.

I framed my question the way it did because I see plenty of very outspoken people suggesting that we, as a game studio, should never seek to send a message with our games. I gather you do not feel that way and that we should strive to tell stories that send positive messages?

 

Falls-From-Grace promises (or can promise, at least) to scour the Lower Planes for The Nameless One and try to rescue him.  In addition, once TNO regains all his memories, he is a truly formidable being with innumerable lifetimes of combined experiences.  One could interpret the ending as being condemned to the Blood War as being but a temporary setback.

Indeed. Ambiguous consequences are best served in a game ending, I agree. It's interesting because it's a talking point.
 
 

Indeed, the PnP experience gives the players a sense of ownership over their own character.  A sense that there is a path through the maze, if you are creative enough and determined enough to figure out the path.  it's what I think of as the gaming experience vs the cinematic experience.

As a note, I have had two sustained PnP game experiences in the past year. Both involved player characters being killed (and people being okay with that). They also involved PC surviving because of luck (rolling a natural 20 during dire circumstances. My desire to save scum in the PnP game, unfortunately, was denied.

As for the bolded, I'm not very interested in you co-opting the term "gaming experience" for "Thinks Iakus likes." My preference holds regardless of how cinematic the game is, and it comes across as disparaging and dismissive that my preference is some how less "gaming" related, particularly since people spend an awful lot of their time trying to claim ownership on what it means to be a "true gamer" and how, particularly on these boards, the idea of a "cinematic experience" is often seen as a pejorative.

[BubbleDncr]

I want there to be multiple endings to DA:I - the variance of ending DA:O had was enough for me, as an example. But I don't think one of the multiple endings should be "the happy ending" and one be "the sad ending" - that just makes it too simple, and implies that there are right and wrong choices to make throughout the game. And to me, the strength of Bioware games is that the choices are grey area, difficult choices.

 

Though I am fine with there being a "you lose" ending, like in ME2, for players who don't bother to put any effort into saving the world.