I never care as much about the hero as I do the world. In the end you're saving everyone except your hero.
Plus "Hero sacrifices himself to save the world cliche. " is hardly overdone imo, most games you somehow magically defeat some incredibly powerful foes and manage to survive. The hero actually dying gives a lot more taste to the story, it's why I loved my Mass Effect ending.
Not overdone? It's been done since ancient Greece and the Bible...you can't be serious?
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?
I wouldn't go that far. But I would say sending mixed messages is a bad idea. Especially in a game that is meant to respect player agency.
Indeed. Ambiguous consequences are best served in a game ending, I agree. It's interesting because it's a talking point.
Ambiguous consequences can be fine. They allow the player to make up new stories about what their characters did after the adventure was over. I can't imagine how many people speculated on what "their" Warden did after the Fifth Blight ended. OR after dealing with The Mother. However, a tragic ending, especially with a forced sacrifice, limits what can be done at that point. Living characters have all sorts of possibilities ahead of them. Dead have comparatively few
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.
Well, as the gamer saying goes "Crit happens" At least your GM didn't say "Rocks fall, everyone dies, I hope?" 
As for the rest, my apologies. I honestly didn't intend to sound dismissive or disparaging. I think of the "gaming experience" as when the player can take an active roll in what's going on: dialogue options, decision making., turning left instead of right in a corridor. Do you spare your defeated foe or finish them off? While the "cinematic experience" (I guess I should think of different terms) is more passive involvement: NPC interactions, listening to what they say to each other.
Observing a cut scene play out. Watching events unfold after you have made a decision.
Both are important, though yes sometimes one overwhelms the other. But I think players like it when one reflects the other. I think players like the idea that their decisions shape what they see on the screen. And they like how what they see and hear can challenge assumptions. They (or I at least) like to be a participant in the story. And by extension, they like to have a hand in how it ends.
This is purely my own mental processes at work, though.
I'm not going to debate how the nature of "happy" endings and how interpretation affects how "happy" things turn out. What I will say is that what ultimately dooms the possibility of a "happy" ending is when events are completely out of your control. Case in point: Goddamnit Anders. No matter what happens from that point on, no happy ending is possible - the rest of the story is "clean up the mess that he left you with." Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not. Oh, you supported the mages? Congrats, you're driven from your home and you have no idea what happens to all your friends, party members and otherwise. Supported the templars? Man, it's nice to be the Viscount of a devastated community full of broken trust on a global scale... and you and your friends mysteriously scatter to the winds offscreen anyway. Heck, when you think about it, DA2 probably had only one genuinely happy ending out of all its subplots, and that's hooking up Aveline and Donnic... if you bothered to do her quests.
Well, there is Varric's mention of whichever LI being by the side of Hawke, though the mysterious disappearance thing is a weird addition to the ending, one that I sort of suspect may not amount to much in the next game. The part that baffles me is that there's no mention of the sibling at all, since there's no good reason for the sibling and Hawke to part ways, unless the sibling is a Warden.
Well, there is Varric's mention of whichever LI being by the side of Hawke, though the mysterious disappearance thing is a weird addition to the ending, one that I sort of suspect may not amount to much in the next game. The part that baffles me is that there's no mention of the sibling at all, since there's no good reason for the sibling and Hawke to part ways, unless the sibling is a Warden.
Well, I will say this much about interpretation and happy endings: until proven otherwise, headcanon can allow for happy-ish endings even in the bleakest situations. I've mulled over the notion of writing a mini-fic for it, but my headcanon over the gradual splitting of the party is that Bethany went with Sebastian to reclaim Starkhaven after everyone left Kirkwall. As for the rest, Anders was killed post-boom, Rival!Fenris split off immediately after leaving Kirkwall, Aveline and Donnic were almost forcefully kicked out of the group so that they could live away from the Mage-Templar conflict, Isabella acquired a boat, and Merrill was still with Hawke when Varric left.
I'm not quite sure what kind of ending DAI will give us. Actually I have absolutely no idea what kind of ending we'll get.
But hopefully there's only ONE ending. If there's one thing we should learn from ME3 is that making multiple endings that are totally different from each other is a big no-no. That is basically throwing the story into a deep pit and losing all hope of getting it back out.
Anyway, I saw some posts about their "earned" ending and I have to say that there really isn't an "earned" ending because it's not your story to tell. You don't work for anything. You make bad choices or good choices. No matter how many different combinations of in-game choices you make, the game still has its own backbone that will keep the story going towards a set destination. Which is fine because you don't want the story going all over the place to the point that it's really hard to set the next installment because of all the possible outcomes. Yes you'll make decisions, but that's not really "earning" anything. That's just playing the game. Make a mistake first time around? Go back and choose a different path until you "earn" that ending. That's all it is.
The best possible thing that can happen is to get the player emotionally invested in the story and characters, then through decisions, make it possible for them to get an ending where it feels like the emotional investment wasn't for nothing.
Edit: Also, you should definitely see the consequences of your actions in the ending. There are no choices that don't have consequences, and eventually people will debate about which choice is the right one. The DR consequence is not known right now, but someday it will be, and the person in charge of writing what happens to OGB may look at the choice as something leaning towards evil than good. Or the opposite.
Either way there's going to be a "set" consequence, and we will all interpret it differently. Our interpretations of those consequences are what's going to make an ending "happy" or "sad".
But hopefully there's only ONE ending. If there's one thing we should learn from ME3 is that making multiple endings that are totally different from each other is a big no-no. That is basically throwing the story into a deep pit and losing all hope of getting it back out.
We already know there's an ending where the demons can win, so that idea's shot.
The demons-can-win ending is probably similar to the Shepard-dies ending to Mass Effect 2. It can happen, but it's simply a non-importable alternate ending.
The demons-can-win ending is probably similar to Shepard-dies ending to Mass Effect 2. It can happen, but it's simply a non-importable alternate ending.
I hope it is more smiliar to The bard's tale ending (spoiler) and who will say it isn't happy 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.
I agree with most of what you'd said in your post but I disagree that the "happy ending" for the Krogans is particularly difficult to achieve. Its basically side missions + paragon = win which is the case a little too often in Mass Effect if you ask me. I did like that Mordin dies (sorry Mordin I do like you really) in order to cure the genophage but its not as though you can save him by not curing the genophage (unless Wrex died in ME1). For me the renegade ending for this mission is a lot more satisfying, it involves making tough decisions and real sacrifice. According the the statistics only 4% of people shot Mordin (I'm guessing by now more people have done so in second or third playthroughs) and I know of people who were planning on sabotaging the genophage cure but couldn't go through with it when it came down to shooting Mordin. To me that's what makes a choice interesting, when your torn between the two options.
I hope it is more smiliar to The bard's tale ending (spoiler) and who will say it isn't happy ending.
I was kind of hoping it would be more in line with the True Demon Ending of SMT Nocturne . (spoilers as well)
It's actually the most difficult and time consuming of all the endings to achieve.
Though that Bard's Tale ending is quite a happy one if I say so myself
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?
Not really, but allow me some clarification then.
At its core, I'm trying to frame a strict definition of a happy ending as an ending that the player is happy with. The difficulty is that different people will be happy with different things. There is no doubt that what is a great ending for one person will be considered a horrible end for another. But I feel that in the end the goal of the game developer is to create an experience that they think their audience will be happy with.
My point in the second part is that I don't consider an extensive, thorough play-through to be somehow invalid and not worthy of a happy ending. It does take effort to play through everything, it does take work and perseverance. I use the fact that many people don't finish such games only as a counter point to show there is real effort involved. The people who don't finish the game are those who were unhappy before they reached the ending. In the framework of this conversation, their ending came much, much sooner then expected, when the game stopped being fun for whatever reason.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that this idea of grinding out a happy ending is what I want most out of a game. I'm saying that I disagree with your notion that what you label as "perfectly okay" effort is somehow unworthy of a happy ending. You may not consider it much effort, but the same can't be said of everyone who will play the game.
Honestly, my personal preferences lie a little closer to your end where I want to earn my happy ending through a mix of challenging gameplay and making careful decisions. I too want my decisions to have consequences. But if all the possible decisions still lead to an ending that I'm not happy with then I still think that the game failed to deliver a proper entertainment experience for me.
But I'm talking about individual opinions now so this quickly becomes entirely subjective and impossible to really argue the point. What I can say is that while I prefer my style of a happy ending, I don't consider other reward systems like what we've been describing to be wrong either.
Regardless of my opinion, however, as the game developer it's up to you to decide what you feel is the best ending and the best way to arrive at it. It's perfectly fine if we have different opinions on what is worthy of a happy ending. I don't think that has to be irreconcilable. What matters is the understanding that players will ultimately want to be able to finish the game with a smile on their face.
I don't think there is an obligation to do that, but it's very hard for any story with elements meanningful to those who read/play it to avoid sending a message. And if that's the case, care should be taken to avoid sending messages you wouldn't want to be sent.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 agree with most of what you'd said in your post but I disagree that the "happy ending" for the Krogans is particularly difficult to achieve. Its basically side missions + paragon = win which is the case a little too often in Mass Effect if you ask me. I did like that Mordin dies (sorry Mordin I do like you really) in order to cure the genophage but its not as though you can save him by not curing the genophage (unless Wrex died in ME1). For me the renegade ending for this mission is a lot more satisfying, it involves making tough decisions and real sacrifice. According the the statistics only 4% of people shot Mordin (I'm guessing by now more people have done so in second or third playthroughs) and I know of people who were planning on sabotaging the genophage cure but couldn't go through with it when it came down to shooting Mordin. To me that's what makes a choice interesting, when your torn between the two options.
See I think that for you this was your happy ending. Admittedly, perhaps the word "happy" isn't as appropriate, but you were able to work towards an ending that you were truly content with, even if it meant such huge sacrifices. I find it just as interesting that one option does allow you to save Mordin, but that too requires its own huge sacrifices because both Wrex and Eve would be dead, and the Genophage remains. Depending on what your personal goals are there is a range of possible resolutions to this story arc.
Personally I did this as a Renegade Shepard, so it was a lot tricker for me to get the happy ending I described. But then I really enjoyed that level of challenge.
I don't think there is an obligation to do that, but it's very hard for any story with elements meanningful to those who read/play it to avoid sending a message. And if that's the case, care should be taken to avoid sending messages you wouldn't want to be sent.
Agreed- especially in that some messages may be real even if they aren't unintentional. Mass Effect, as a series, repeatedly played the Lovecraftian Horror card in regards to technological advancement- whether it was intended or not, there were regular anti-technology overtures of 'there are some things that mere mortal are not meant to know': this came from the incomprehensible themes of always-evil Reaper tech, the relative rarity of benevolent technologies assisting the plot vis-a-vis the extremely hostile and malevolent technologies most of the plots were built around overcoming, and how the factions and people of note most dedicated to understanding and advancing technology were simultaneously the most prone to abuse it in frequently over-the-top horrifying ways. 'Advanced technology' that factored into the plots almost always came with a blood cost, while mysticism and non-technological elements were often far more important to resolving the conflicts posed by evil technology.
Do I think the ME team set out to craft a deliberate anti-technology message? Probably not- certainly not in the way they repeatedly pounded the 'politicians and rule of law are useless: the military and Men of Action are the effective problem solvers!' drum as a theme. But were there enough overtures that it was one of my less interesting elements of the ME universe? Certainly.
Dragon Age is better in this regards, mostly, thanks to shifting themes between works, but it can still have its own unintended messages and themes. DA2 is an extremely sympathetic take on corruption: not only are most of the cast (including the protagonist) exceptionally corrupt individuals, but this is almost universally cast as a good thing, generally intended to elict sympathy rather than condemnation. When the player and company do it, it's often a selling point- they're just looking out for their own, for their beliefs, it's for the greater good, pretty much the universal costs of corruption. Pay no mind to the costs of corruption- in fact, never bring up them up, or that what they are doing is corrupt in the first place. In the few cases where corruption is intended to be condemned (Sister Petrice, Ser Alrik), it's also so over the top villainy and so explicitly unsanctioned that it's more of a cabal at work than everyday corruption. As far as DA2 was concerned, corruption was cool and completely uncontroversial so long as you weren't being a ****** about it. Somehow, for a developer studio that is quite sensitive to other issues, I doubt this was intentional.
If there's a single Bioware trend of unfortunate implications and messaging, though, it's probably with the companions. If I wanted to raise a child to understand that lying, murdering, and general criminality were bad things and that people who do them routinely should be condemned and brought to justice, not admired and enabled, I would not give them any of the Mass Effect of Dragon Age games.
Bioware treats criminality and even brutality as character spice, something to make the character interesting and appealing in the 'bad boy' way rather than, holy ****, Sten and Samara and Wrex have murdered a bunch of people and it barely gets mentioned or considered once we recruit them. Bioware's emphasis on making sympathetic companion characters almost universally means watering down or outright whitewashing or even ignoring past (and even current) crimes, because criminality is unsympathetic even if the reputation is exciting. So instead of dwelling on what got them that reputation, we get 'character development' that provides context/sympathy/whatever to downplay or mitigate whatever actually caused the reputation. It can get to bizarre extremes with the fanbase that takes to these characters, like the Jack-fan who once insisted that Jack never once harmed an innocent or killed someone unprovoked (because all her past was the woobie victim and self-defense, don'tcha know), but even ongoing acts that would be unacceptable if you knew better are uncontroversial or hand-waved away when it comes to companions. Professional blackmailers? Ah, they cover for the team and we can have faith that they will never do anything bad and that they reign in their organized crime networks from hurting people. Terrorists? Not a crime to their name. Veteran mercenaries and bounty hunters? Never killed anyone who didn't deserve it! (Unless they did, but they regret it so the sympathy for the innocent murder victim makes the rest of it alright.) All kinds of **** not only gets waived when it comes to companions, but is actively partaken: sure, let's help our best buddy by setting out as a kill team to take down person X, who totally deserves it because they're totally bad and no one will care (or we are unaccoutnable). Perjury and covering up war crimes? Anything for a friend!
If there's an unintended message going out from Bioware's cast of companions, it's that murderers and criminals make the best True Companions to be adored and admired, rather than being treated like, you know, murderers and criminals who have committed the crimes they have. Or at least I really, really hope it's an unintended message. It's definitely not the sort of thing I want to see normalized. I'm just saying- the most moral and reasonable people in Mass Effect 2 (and two of the most moral and reasonable people in the entire trilogy) are a terrorist and a war criminal who led a genocide project. Guess which parts of them were (not) treated as flaws within the narrative?
Not overdone? It's been done since ancient Greece and the Bible...you can't be serious?
It has certainly been done many times in stories for thousands of years. But so has the hero riding off into the sunset.
Words like overdone or cliche really have no place in a discussion about happy endings versus tragic ones, considering they've both been done countless times before.
Not overdone? It's been done since ancient Greece and the Bible...you can't be serious?
So you want a sad ending? You could just watch the 6 o'clock news you know.
Not overdone? It's been done since ancient Greece and the Bible...you can't be serious?
Alrighty then, name five games in the past hmm 10 years? that forced you into a sad ending.
I'm not quite sure what kind of ending DAI will give us. Actually I have absolutely no idea what kind of ending we'll get.
But hopefully there's only ONE ending. If there's one thing we should learn from ME3 is that making multiple endings that are totally different from each other is a big no-no. That is basically throwing the story into a deep pit and losing all hope of getting it back out.
Perjury and covering up war crimes? Anything for a friend!
Just throwing this out there quickly, but unless the quarian justice system does not allow those under it to remain silent, it's not perjury. It also isn't perjury to accuse the court of political corruption. Also, isn't it a serious ethical breach if not completely illegal for an advocate to enter a plea their client doesn't want them to?
I'm not going to debate how the nature of "happy" endings and how interpretation affects how "happy" things turn out. What I will say is that what ultimately dooms the possibility of a "happy" ending is when events are completely out of your control. Case in point: Goddamnit Anders. No matter what happens from that point on, no happy ending is possible - the rest of the story is "clean up the mess that he left you with." Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not. Oh, you supported the mages? Congrats, you're driven from your home and you have no idea what happens to all your friends, party members and otherwise. Supported the templars? Man, it's nice to be the Viscount of a devastated community full of broken trust on a global scale... and you and your friends mysteriously scatter to the winds offscreen anyway. Heck, when you think about it, DA2 probably had only one genuinely happy ending out of all its subplots, and that's hooking up Aveline and Donnic... if you bothered to do her quests.
To be fair, there were many signs that Anders was cracking throughout the game which Varric, and other companions, make note of in their banter with him. You can even try to talk him down but the Spirit wont let it rest.
Though I do agree, the mysterious vanishing thing was pretty bad and I would have liked ending slides detailing what my choices lead to like in DA:O. Instead it was a cliffhanger ending and now no one know where Hawke is, regardless of your decisions or who you romance. It's bad for the Warden too as their LI doesn't know where they are either even if they're King!
Just throwing this out there quickly, but unless the quarian justice system does not allow those under it to remain silent, it's not perjury. It also isn't perjury to accuse the court of political corruption. Also, isn't it a serious ethical breach if not completely illegal for an advocate to enter a plea their client doesn't want them to?
Shepard and Tali aren't entering a plea or merely remaining silent. They are explicitly denying any evidence was found, when it indisputably was.
Hiding the existence of evidence that would clear a wrongful conviction and identify the real perpetrator is by far the more serious ethical breach.
Shepard and Tali aren't entering a plea or merely remaining silent. They are explicitly denying any evidence was found, when it indisputably was.
Hiding the existence of evidence that would clear a wrongful conviction and identify the real perpetrator is by far the more serious ethical breach.
Then what of the other route where you don't say anything one way or another about evidence?
Then what of the other route where you don't say anything one way or another about evidence?
Then you are still covering up a war crime by refusing to truthfully answer a direct question. It may or may not be perjury (I have no clue if the Chewbacca Defense would count), but you are deliberately undermining the fundamental point of a justice system. Which is to identify wrongdoing, wrongdoers, and met out the appropriate punishment as determined by the consensus of the culture that recognizes the system, even if it is post-mortem justice at best.
Any Shepard with a loyal Tali who condemns anyone else in the setting for carrying out a coverup is being a nepotistic hypocrite.
Then you are still covering up a war crime by refusing to truthfully answer a direct question. It may or may not be perjury (I have no clue if the Chewbacca Defense would count), but you are deliberately undermining the fundamental point of a justice system. Which is to identify wrongdoing, wrongdoers, and met out the appropriate punishment as determined by the consensus of the culture that recognizes the system, even if it is post-mortem justice at best.
Any Shepard with a loyal Tali who condemns anyone else in the setting for carrying out a coverup is being a nepotistic hypocrite.
Are there any other coverups in the game that you can criticize?
And for a different point, wherein lies the majority of the corruption in DA2? Hardly any of your companions have official positions, with the exception of Aveline; not even Hawke has one that has explicit responsibilities. Criminality, sure, you can argue a great deal of that, but many of the ingredients necessary for corruption don't seem to exist.
Retour en haut