839 réponses à ce sujet

[Feybrad]

I don't see things quite as dire as you do. For an example look at Dragon Age Origins when you go to save Anora. For me that fight was handled perfectly. If you lose the fight or surrender you're taken prisoner. If you kill all the soldiers you just don't go to the dungeon. I'd been fine if in Mass Effect 3 you could kill Kai Leng on Thesia and simply went to sanctuary to save the people or didn't go at all.

 

The Anora Sitation is a good Example, yes. In my View as in Yours - for me, this Situation shows the Inability to create true Freedom of Influence, because going to the Dungeon or not doesn't have any Repercussions on the further Storyline or Gameplay. It is simply as Bonus Level, albeit implemented in a very good Way.

 

And ME3... let's not open that Can of Worms, shall we? That Game had a whole Bunch of Issues, but it also serves as a good Example for my, as you put it rightly, dire View on the Matter.

[Chron0id]

It seems weird to say heroic sacrifice is a huge cliche and should be avoided and then advocate the only bigger cliche in storytelling. It's a tricky topic for me. I mean I like unambiguously happy endings as much as the next guy, who doesn't like warm fuzzies? But they're boring. They don't stick. There's no gravitas. There's no thinking required because everything is tied in a nice ribbon with a helpful dollop of rainbow to add to the already saccharine goodness. It's hard to complain about happy other than it's all too often jejune when it's delivered.

 

I loved how Origins handled the ending. The only word I can think to describe it is elegant. You could have your happy ending but the specter of doubt and the potential future cost would always hang over it. And unlike maaaaaannnyyyy others I had no problem with ME3's ending. It was only 3 different colours if you were focusing solely on Shepard and co. But it had none of the subtlety that seemed to go into Origins ending. ME2 was nice as well, a nice amount of variables without feeling arbitrary or forced. I kinda forgot where I was going with this post but I do know that I don't envy the devs when they get to thinking 'bout endings.

I didn't say it should be avoided.  I just said I was getting tired of it in this generation of games.  In which it has reared its ugly head way too often.

[frylock23]

The thing with a tabletop RPG is that there are always more than one way out of a scenario. Things can and do change on the fly unless you have a GM who is determined to script the game and run it right down by the numbers. In computer game, this simply isn't possible. They game must pay the way it's programmed to. If you can't sneak past the bad guys because the developers meant for you to kill whole rooms full, then that's what you have to do even if you discover that you can indeed sneak past them. In some cases, the game simply won't open the next area to you until it registers that you have killed all of the mobs. At the table, the GM is always free and able to reward the inventive and clever appropriately and on the fly.

[Inprea]

The thing with a tabletop RPG is that there are always more than one way out of a scenario. Things can and do change on the fly unless you have a GM who is determined to script the game and run it right down by the numbers. In computer game, this simply isn't possible. They game must pay the way it's programmed to. If you can't sneak past the bad guys because the developers meant for you to kill whole rooms full, then that's what you have to do even if you discover that you can indeed sneak past them. In some cases, the game simply won't open the next area to you until it registers that you have killed all of the mobs. At the table, the GM is always free and able to reward the inventive and clever appropriately and on the fly.

 

Then the developers need to give the guards a high enough level of observation to keep that from happening. Computer rpg's do have a ways to go but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them in that direction. Take vampire bloodlines for example. You're responsible for retrieving some high explosives to make a warehouse go away in a hurry. During the retrieval you have many choices you can go full stealth, kill everyone in site, purchase the explosives or if female seduce the chemist into making them for you. Then if you want you can drain all his blood and kill him out of spite. All these choices and indeed many missions in the game have several options on how to handle the situation.

 

Later for the warehouse you can Rambo your way through, assassinate or stealth through without hurting a fly. Until the bomb goes off.

 

I believe what's hindering the story from really branching out is the cinematic sequences as while they help certain people get more immersed into the story they also make each branch more costly.

[Zjarcal]

So I'm thinking back to the defense of Redcliffe village, I think that is how I would like for optimal outcomes being tied to story decisions and gameplay challenge, just on a larger scale obviously. It doesn't even have to be tied to difficulty settings (I knew that was gonna be unpopular ).

 

First choice is obviously agreeing to help the village to begin with, then comes the preparation part which is basically similar to the preparation for the ME2 suicide mission, upgrading equipment and boosting troop morale, and finally you need to play the battle properly in order to keep everyone alive. Simply choosing to fight and getting the upgrades doesn't guarantee anything, it just makes your task easier, achieving the optimal outcome still requires overcoming a gameplay obstacle.

 

While keeping everyone alive in the battle isn't the greatest challenge (especially with a spirit healer), it's still a quest I enjoy a lot due to the combining factors involving getting the best resolution. Failing to keep everyone alive doesn't result in a punishing outcome either, you just miss the cherry on top of the cake.

[King Dragonlord]

But a good many stories in other media succeed on delivering that gut punch. The hero IS fighting for the house and the blue babies and all that.

 

And then the end comes. There's one more thing to do.

 

And the hero has to do it.

 

And its going to cost them the house and the blue babies and everything else they were hoping for.

 

Otherwise, what does a sacrifice in a video game even mean? My hero dies at the end? Well fine. I was done playing him anyway. But if I have to sacrifice the things I wanted to fulfill the duty I was tasked with, then it means something. Then it actually feels like a sacrifice.

 

And I have to take issue with the OP. The heroic sacrifice may be cliche in any other media but not in video games. The hero almost always wins and gets everything he wanted (or at least can work to get everything he wanted.) And its because we feel that closer connection to the hero so its harder to accept that we die. 

 

But thats exactly why its important that we do occasionally end a game with an unavoidable sacrifice of some sort. Because in this media, we can feel that sacrifice more intensely than is possible anywhere else. You're invested in the success because you're doing the work, so the sacrifice, rather than affecting you by way of your attachment to the character, actually affects you directly. 

 

If you leave open a "golden ending" option in an rpg, it tends to invalidate the other "lesser" endings, especially in an age of multiple saves and game wikis. It becomes akin to your character dying in the middle of a level. You simply reload and try again and get it right and nothing bad ever actually happened. The way we're conditioned, if we get the less than perfect ending or the bad ending, it means we screwed up and we have to reload and try again. Just like with all those times we die in a level, that less than perfect ending never happened because we reloaded and did it again and got the perfect ending.

 

Now this is where I'm hoping that DAI kind of takes a page from its own book. I think its easier to accept the sacrifice if we choose what is being sacrificed, you just need to make sure our choices are all things or people we care about. Like we all hated the scene on Thessia where Kai Leng got away with the Prothean Artifact because we got no choice, but what if he can get away with the Prothean Artifact but only if you're willing to sacrifice Liara's life? Then it becomes a little easier to accept that he got away (even if he taunts you like a smug jerk), or you get a nice gut wrenching scene where you have to bury your teammate and ask yourself if it was really worth it.

[cjones91]

There should be bittersweet endings,happy endings,and everything in between.That way everyone gets what they want.

[cjones91]

But a good many stories in other media succeed on delivering that gut punch. The hero IS fighting for the house and the blue babies and all that.

 

And then the end comes. There's one more thing to do.

 

And the hero has to do it.

 

And its going to cost them the house and the blue babies and everything else they were hoping for.

 

Otherwise, what does a sacrifice in a video game even mean? My hero dies at the end? Well fine. I was done playing him anyway. But if I have to sacrifice the things I wanted to fulfill the duty I was tasked with, then it means something. Then it actually feels like a sacrifice.

 

And I have to take issue with the OP. The heroic sacrifice may be cliche in any other media but not in video games. The hero almost always wins and gets everything he wanted (or at least can work to get everything he wanted.) And its because we feel that closer connection to the hero so its harder to accept that we die. 

 

But thats exactly why its important that we do occasionally end a game with an unavoidable sacrifice of some sort. Because in this media, we can feel that sacrifice more intensely than is possible anywhere else. You're invested in the success because you're doing the work, so the sacrifice, rather than affecting you by way of your attachment to the character, actually affects you directly. 

 

If you leave open a "golden ending" option in an rpg, it tends to invalidate the other "lesser" endings, especially in an age of multiple saves and game wikis. It becomes akin to your character dying in the middle of a level. You simply reload and try again and get it right and nothing bad ever actually happened. The way we're conditioned, if we get the less than perfect ending or the bad ending, it means we screwed up and we have to reload and try again. Just like with all those times we die in a level, that less than perfect ending never happened because we reloaded and did it again and got the perfect ending.

 

Now this is where I'm hoping that DAI kind of takes a page from its own book. I think its easier to accept the sacrifice if we choose what is being sacrificed, you just need to make sure our choices are all things or people we care about. Like we all hated the scene on Thessia where Kai Leng got away with the Prothean Artifact because we got no choice, but what if he can get away with the Prothean Artifact but only if you're willing to sacrifice Liara's life? Then it becomes a little easier to accept that he got away (even if he taunts you like a smug jerk), or you get a nice gut wrenching scene where you have to bury your teammate and ask yourself if it was really worth it.

You could just not pick the ending and choose the ones you like.That's the wonderful thing about RPGS and video games,nobody is forcing you to choose the golden ending nor does it invalidate the "lesser" ones.

[Felya87]

I really can't understand this "a happy ending invalidate the dramatic one". to me seems more a fear/justification for the people who like sad endings for not having a happier one.

 

Why should the presence of differents endings, one more positive than the other be seen as "best"? as long as to have the ending there is a satisfating fight/gameplay feature, it all end up in different tastes and preferences.

I can almost understand it in ME3, since there is no boss fight, nothing even remotely fun to do to end the game (even the ME2 final mission, even if it was the all dead ending, there still was all the fight and gameplay fun, same for DAO) and it was only a "push the botton", like in the most sad quiz show ever.

 

but in the end is only personal taste. I can't really understand this "hate" many pro sad endings have against people who prefer happier ones. If a game have multiple endings, happy sad or in between, why would anyone care what kind of ending prefer another person? as long as there is the chance of differents endings different persons like, sad or happy, why should people care about wich one the others like?

[cjones91]

I really can't understand this "a happy ending invalidate the dramatic one". to me seems more a fear/justification for the people who like sad endings for not having a happier one.

 

Why should the presence of differents endings, one more positive than the other be seen as "best"? as long as to have the ending there is a satisfating fight/gameplay feature, it all end up in different tastes and preferences.

I can almost understand it in ME3, since there is no boss fight, nothing even remotely fun to do to end the game (even the ME2 final mission, even if it was the all dead ending, there still was all the fight and gameplay fun, same for DAO) and it was only a "push the bottom", like in the most sad quiz show ever.

 

but in the end is only persona taste. I can't really understand this "hate" many pro sad endings have against people who prefer happier ones. If a game have multiple endings, happy sad or in between, why would anyone care what kind of ending prefer another person? as long as there is the chance of differents endings different persons like, sad or happy, why should people care about wich one the others like?

Exactly,people should choose the ending they like best and not worry if it's the "golden" one because that does'nt matter.

[jtav]

If there is a golden ending, any other ending becomes a failure state by default. Dragon Age is a story, but it's also a game and we naturally want to do as well as possible. The PC is rarely a masochist; they'll seek the best possible ending for them. There's no compelling reason to choose anything else except for curiosity. Or having played badly. But tragedy inspired by playing badly doesn't inspire the same feeling as tragedy woven into the plot.

[cjones91]

If there is a golden ending, any other ending becomes a failure state by default. Dragon Age is a story, but it's also a game and we naturally want to do as well as possible. The PC is rarely a masochist; they'll seek the best possible ending for them. There's no compelling reason to choose anything else except for curiosity. Or having played badly. But tragedy inspired by playing badly doesn't inspire the same feeling as tragedy woven into the plot.

How are the other endings considered failures?Because one is better than the other in some small way?Tragedy for the sake of tragedy never works well in games where player choice is paramount.

[Felya87]

If there is a golden ending, any other ending becomes a failure state by default. Dragon Age is a story, but it's also a game and we naturally want to do as well as possible. The PC is rarely a masochist; they'll seek the best possible ending for them. There's no compelling reason to choose anything else except for curiosity. Or having played badly. But tragedy inspired by playing badly doesn't inspire the same feeling as tragedy woven into the plot.

 

on the contrary. tragedy that came from choices is way more inspiring than "tragic because". In my first run at ME2 I lost Mordin and Legion. I was incredibly sad, I felt remorse. I felt a parvence of what a person can feel when ours errors are the cause of others death.

way more powerful than the forced death no matter what.

 

death happening because of choice give the imput to play again and again, until you have seen all the outcomes. forced outcomes kill replayability. and as long as there is a good final fight, you are already quite happy to have come tho the ending. is already a victory for the player.

 

and why try to have the better outcome would be a bad thing? is what people try to do every day, in every moment of their life. why a sad endig, that for many is not enjoyable must be forcend on people who don't likeit, only to "give" it importance?

[King Dragonlord]

How are the other endings considered failures?Because one is better than the other in some small way?Tragedy for the sake of tragedy never works well in games where player choice is paramount.

Its like he said, we're conditioned by our experience as gamers that these are failure states. When Commander Shepard gets gunned down fighting some Yellow Sun mercs, that is not the ending of the Mass Effect saga, thats a fail state. We reload the game and keep playing.

 

Furthermore, games have conditioned us such that even a win is not necessarily enough. There are achievements and high scores to consider. All of this leaves us unsatisfied with a less than perfect ending if a perfect ending exists. 

 

But lets take it a step further. What if it turned out in DAO that there was a Silverite Javelin that you could use with Andraste's Ashes to kill the Archdemon and destroy its soul without anyone dying. Then it becomes pointlessly irresponsible to take a chance on Morrigan's ritual, it becomes monstrous to sacrifice Alistair and it becomes stupid to sacrifice yourself. The golden ending would indeed invalidate those other endings by taking away the dilemma.

[cjones91]

Its like he said, we're conditioned by our experience as gamers that these are failure states. When Commander Shepard gets gunned down fighting some Yellow Sun mercs, that is not the ending of the Mass Effect saga, thats a fail state. We reload the game and keep playing.

 

Furthermore, games have conditioned us such that even a win is not necessarily enough. There are achievements and high scores to consider. All of this leaves us unsatisfied with a less than perfect ending if a perfect ending exists. 

 

But lets take it a step further. What if it turned out in DAO that there was a Silverite Javelin that you could use with Andraste's Ashes to kill the Archdemon and destroy its soul without anyone dying. Then it becomes pointlessly irresponsible to take a chance on Morrigan's ritual, it becomes monstrous to sacrifice Alistair and it becomes stupid to sacrifice yourself. The golden ending would indeed invalidate those other endings by taking away the dilemma.

The solution is simple then....don't use the Javelin and defeat the Arch Demon however you want.That's what player choice is for:If I want to explore a outcome where nobody dies I can do that,if I want to get a "Everyone dies and the world as we know it is destroyed" ending I can do that as well.

 

Besides having multiple endings that are actually different in some way isn't a bad thing,who cares if most players pick the so called "golden" ending.

[Felya87]

 

But lets take it a step further. What if it turned out in DAO that there was a Silverite Javelin that you could use with Andraste's Ashes to kill the Archdemon and destroy its soul without anyone dying. Then it becomes pointlessly irresponsible to take a chance on Morrigan's ritual, it becomes monstrous to sacrifice Alistair and it becomes stupid to sacrifice yourself. The golden ending would indeed invalidate those other endings by taking away the dilemma.

 

my Brosca would surely go for the Morrigan ritual. She is the woman he love, and don't believe in human's mith.

My Tabris may think about it: she is Andrastian, and she had see the powers of the Andrastian ashes. But she believe in Morrigan too.

My Surana believe in the Dalish religion. and she don't believe much Morrigan. she would send Alistair to his fate.

 

see? roleplay. And videogame wise, I've still defeated the dragon after a fight.

[King Dragonlord]

The solution is simple then....don't use the Javelin and defeat the Arch Demon however you want.That's what player choice is for:If I want to explore a outcome where nobody dies I can do that,if I want to get a "Everyone dies and the world as we know it is destroyed" ending I can do that as well.

 

Besides having multiple endings that are actually different in some way isn't a bad thing,who cares if most players pick the so called "golden" ending.

 

But thats not the solution. Because now my Warden is a bad person because he didn't go get the javelin and spare himself having to do one of these other things. He can no longer be a good person forced into a bad situation because there is nothing forcing him into it. 

 

And the DAO ending does serve most people. Even after reading the wiki, you can evaluate how the variables play together and decide whats important to YOU and get YOUR best ending. That allows us to have a situation where we make difficult choices while allowing each person to decide on their own ideal ending. For example, maybe you don't care if Loghain dies a hero and maybe you actually like the idea of Anora sharing the throne with Alistair. If so, there's your perfect ending. If the idea of Morrigan trying to cleanse the taint from an old god appeals to you, then your choice is clear. Different endings for different people but we all take chances and make sacrifices with imperfect information.

 

Thats all gone the moment you introduce the Silverite Javelin.

[Il Divo]

The solution is simple then....don't use the Javelin and defeat the Arch Demon however you want.That's what player choice is for:If I want to explore a outcome where nobody dies I can do that,if I want to get a "Everyone dies and the world as we know it is destroyed" ending I can do that as well.

 

 

If I want to offer someone a thought experiment designed to question their (or their character's) moral values, a way out doesn't build dramatic tension. 

 

Case in point: Circle Mages saving Connor at Redcliffe, which (unfortunately) is Bioware at their worst in offering players consequences. 

[King Dragonlord]

my Brosca would surely go for the Morrigan ritual. She is the woman he love, and don't believe in human's mith.

My Tabris may think about it: she is Andrastian, and she had see the powers of the Andrastian ashes. But she believe in Morrigan too.

My Surana believe in the Dalish religion. and she don't believe much Morrigan. she would send Alistair to his fate.

 

see? roleplay. And videogame wise, I've still defeated the dragon after a fight.

Right, thats the perfect ending for you and its achieved without taking the dilemma away from anyone else. 

[King Dragonlord]

If I want to offer someone a thought experiment designed to question their (or their character's) moral values, a way out doesn't build dramatic tension.

 

Case in point: Circle Mages saving Redcliffe. 

I mostly agree with you but that one does kind of work on the first playthrough if you don't go to the wiki. There's the possibility that the town getting hit and the game has already established that things don't always go well. I personally felt like I was taking a big chance leaving the castle to go to the Circle.

 

Now on subsequent playthroughs, you're right, that one does lose all impact.

[Il Divo]

If there is a golden ending, any other ending becomes a failure state by default. Dragon Age is a story, but it's also a game and we naturally want to do as well as possible. The PC is rarely a masochist; they'll seek the best possible ending for them. There's no compelling reason to choose anything else except for curiosity. Or having played badly. But tragedy inspired by playing badly doesn't inspire the same feeling as tragedy woven into the plot.

 

Well said. Obviously the player and the character are not the same being, but often share the same goal of wanting to maximize their optimal outcomes in any given scenario.

 

If I know I'm choosing a sub-optimal outcome, all this does is create an awkward disconnect between me as a player and me as a character. 

[Il Divo]

I mostly agree with you but that one does kind of work on the first playthrough if you don't go to the wiki. There's the possibility that the town getting hit and the game has already established that things don't always go well. I personally felt like I was taking a big chance leaving the castle to go to the Circle.

 

Now on subsequent playthroughs, you're right, that one does lose all impact.

 

Fair. I could be a bit biased in that. I feel like so many Bioware games have featured that fetch quest of "go here, bring me this before something bad happens" format that I'm pretty much deadened to the possibility that they might try something different. 

 

I would applaud them for it, but as written I thought the whole notion of demon-possessed Connor not getting out of control again a bit too clean a set-up. 

[cjones91]

But thats not the solution. Because now my Warden is a bad person because he didn't go get the javelin and spare himself having to do one of these other things. He can no longer be a good person forced into a bad situation because there is nothing forcing him into it. 

 

And the DAO ending does serve most people. Even after reading the wiki, you can evaluate how the variables play together and decide whats important to YOU and get YOUR best ending. That allows us to have a situation where we make difficult choices while allowing each person to decide on their own ideal ending. For example, maybe you don't care if Loghain dies a hero and maybe you actually like the idea of Anora sharing the throne with Alistair. If so, there's your perfect ending. If the idea of Morrigan trying to cleanse the taint from an old god appeals to you, then your choice is clear. Different endings for different people but we all take chances and make sacrifices with imperfect information.

 

Thats all gone the moment you introduce the Silverite Javelin.

 

Just because the option exists does'nt mean you're forced to use it.

If I want to offer someone a thought experiment designed to question their (or their character's) moral values, a way out doesn't build dramatic tension. 

 

Case in point: Circle Mages saving Connor at Redcliffe, which (unfortunately) is Bioware at their worst in offering players consequences. 

There are playthroughs where I kill Connor,again nobody forces you to pick the option where he lived without nobody dying.

[Felya87]

the "problem" here is: why there shouldn't be something like DAO again? why can't we with ours decisions get our preferred ending? why must we be forced to have a dramatic ending like in ME3?

 

and I ask again: why tryng to have the better ending is wrong? why people are so scared about sad endings be seen as "minor"? why should people care, this is something I don't understand.

 

why should be bad playng to have the best outcome? is what many people play for. and taking away this is injust.