I liked the DAO "happy ending" because it wasn't a perfectly happy ending, especially if you use fridge logic:
1.The darkspawn/blight will always be a looming threat
2. The OGB
3. Then there's the epilogue slides
4. The taint will catchup and kill you eventually
The blight is over for now so I'll let future generations deal with it
Disney heroes will eventually die as well i don't think that prevents them from happy ending . 
Besides if you spared avernus you have 200 years life more. 
There's no point in even putting the other options in there if the Destroy ending just kills reapers and nothing else.
At that point it would be "hey, do you want to either, 1) win the war, 2) rule the universe, or 3) perform galaxy spanning science experiment? Only one of those is in character for Shepard, even a renegade Shepard. You'll notice that throughout the series they typically limited your choices to things that are in character for Shepard as an elite soldier and commander and hero (as opposed to Dragon Age Origins where you're given broader options to support the broader possibilities inherent in their Origins system, both approaches are valid). If Shepard could just win the war with no further cost, he/she wouldn't consider the other two. But facing the possibility of slaying EDI and the Geth and doing lots of infrastructural damage is enough to make him/her at least consider the other options.
Agreed, though it didn't have a good execution, its actually a sound concept since its meant to present a dilemma. If there was a choice that offer's a perfect outcome while the rest are all flawed then there isn't really a point in having a choice in the first place since all the other choices are clearly inferior.
@OP as for having happy endings deciding if a game should have a happy ending or not really depends on what is happening in the story and what means are used to achieve it.
The problem is that there is no real logical reason for them to have put a gun to EDI and the Geth in destroy. It was done solely to force players to consider the other options. That is the only real reason it is there, and that is only the beginning of reasons why the endings fail.
Endings, particularly endings with those kinds of consequences need to make sure they make sense when put in context with the rest of the game or else the players will not buy them (i.e. the players stop suspending their disbelief). And if you lose the players, then your intent with the story has failed.
Actually, that makes more sense than a device that solely destroys reapers. Especially since the Geth and EDI both use varying degrees of reaper tech.
Maybe I can clarify my position a bit better. Imagine a hypothetical new player posting here for the first time: "I can't decide whether to kill or spare Loghain. Help?" That'll unleash twenty pages of discussion even after five years. Can you imagine the same sort of passion about the Circle choice? I want DAI's choices to evoke that passion.
Fortunately, its entirely possible to have both types of choices within a game as big as DAI would seem to be (though a single choice can't be both types as we've been arguing.) There will no doubt be areas where you're forced into difficult dilemmas and other places where you will think you're in a dilemma only for there to be a golden option. We even see that in Mass Effect 3 as we've been discussing. The Krogan situation is a true dilemma. The Geth Quarian situation is an averted dilemma by now for most players.
And that can be effective. The presence of avoidable dilemmas will leave you wondering about the unavoidable dilemmas while the unavoidable dilemmas make it that much sweeter when you find a difficult situation you can avoid (if you could simply avoid all of them, thats not going to feel as rewarding for most players. It lacks tension)
This is good because you can't really die in a game so that device is taken off the table. The Inquisitor will live till the end of the game at least (thats just common sense). Threatening his/her life has no dramatic impact because of this (at least till the end). Facing him/her with difficult decisions is a good way to make up for that.
And it's fine if the choice inspires that kind of passion. However, I think that the choices a player makes need to flow from the story. If I have to stop and pause over my decisions, then I want it to be because they all are reasonable decisions for a person in the game to be making. And while I can't say that I can recall too many times where I have had to stop and really agonize over making a choice in the Dragon Age series, I do know that when I come here and see others defending their choices to go another way, most of the times their arguments can be made reasonably from the context of the game, even if I disagree with them.
The problem comes when you are forced into picking from a variety of choices and you feel that none of them flow logically from the story and when you come here and see the many pages of discussion. Most of the arguments are centered on why none of them made sense.
Maybe I can clarify my position a bit better. Imagine a hypothetical new player posting here for the first time: "I can't decide whether to kill or spare Loghain. Help?" That'll unleash twenty pages of discussion even after five years. Can you imagine the same sort of passion about the Circle choice? I want DAI's choices to evoke that passion.
Passion is a fine thing. But as ME3 shows, that passion can backfire
Passion is a fine thing. But as ME3 shows, that passion can backfire
So can bland standard "hero saves the day" endings. Especially for a company like Bioware. That doesn't mean you don't try.
So can bland standard "hero saves the day" endings. Especially for a company like Bioware. That doesn't mean you don't try.
Bland?I can say the same for "dark and depressing" endings as well.
Just because those types of endings aren't your cup of tea doesn't mean they are bland.
So can bland standard "hero saves the day" endings. Especially for a company like Bioware. That doesn't mean you don't try.
I wonder what the after game wandering around will be in that situation....
The ending being a mess or a poor fit for a story is a different issue than a story being upsetting. There's nothing about an RPG that says it must have a happy ending, even if the player works really hard. ME3's ending was atrocious on a number of levels, but tragedy is still legitimate. That ME3 bungled it badly is no reason DAI shouldn't make the attempt if and only if the story calls for it. But it's consistency and not the tone per se that's the issue. Citadel is even worse for ME3 than the ending.
The ending being a mess or a poor fit for a story is a different issue than a story being upsetting. There's nothing about an RPG that says it must have a happy ending, even if the player works really hard. ME3's ending was atrocious on a number of levels, but tragedy is still legitimate. That ME3 bungled it badly is no reason DAI shouldn't make the attempt if and only if the story calls for it. But it's consistency and not the tone per se that's the issue. Citadel is even worse for ME3 than the ending.
The Citadel Dlc should've been something that took place years after the Reaper War,because it felt disconnected from everything else.
Citadel is even worse for ME3 than the ending.
Add more time with waifus and Husbandos and you get plenty of barking seals who love it. Simply brilliant.
But it has clones, who doesn't enjoy a good clone fight. Or even a bad clone fight.
The ending being a mess or a poor fit for a story is a different issue than a story being upsetting. There's nothing about an RPG that says it must have a happy ending, even if the player works really hard. ME3's ending was atrocious on a number of levels, but tragedy is still legitimate. That ME3 bungled it badly is no reason DAI shouldn't make the attempt if and only if the story calls for it. But it's consistency and not the tone per se that's the issue. Citadel is even worse for ME3 than the ending.
I can forgive Citadel. The story was already wrecked. This was as close as they could come to giving the put out fans what they wanted without flatly retconning huge chunks of the story.
They tried their best to make it fit. If you can accept that the war takes place over a long time, it only makes sense that at some point the crew might have enough time to unwind when the Normandy needs maintenance (And Anderson offering his house might be sort of making up for Shepard being incarcerated after all he'd done).
The ending being a mess or a poor fit for a story is a different issue than a story being upsetting. There's nothing about an RPG that says it must have a happy ending, even if the player works really hard. ME3's ending was atrocious on a number of levels, but tragedy is still legitimate. That ME3 bungled it badly is no reason DAI shouldn't make the attempt if and only if the story calls for it. But it's consistency and not the tone per se that's the issue. Citadel is even worse for ME3 than the ending.
I'd say that Citadel demonstrates that a happy ending is more easily accepted than a sad one, even if it doesn't make sense. It's a lot harder to make a truly tragic ending than a happy one.
Especially if player choice is involved. As it tends to send the message that the player somehow doesn't deserve a good outcome.
I'd also say that ME3 bungling the ending is making people really skittish about Bioware's definition of what a tragic of "bittersweet" ending really is. No one wants a repeat of that. At least, I hope not.
I have to admit I'm somewhat taken aback by the subset of fans who place a priority on a personal happy ending with the LI.
I'd say that Citadel demonstrates that a happy ending is more easily accepted than a sad one, even if it doesn't make sense. It's a lot harder to make a truly tragic ending than a happy one.
Especially if player choice is involved. As it tends to send the message that the player somehow doesn't deserve a good outcome.
I'd also say that ME3 bungling the ending is making people really skittish about Bioware's definition of what a tragic of "bittersweet" ending really is. No one wants a repeat of that. At least, I hope not.
Given that Dragon Age has a different team for the most part, I doubt DAI's ending is going to be anything like ME3's. Which is not to say that an unmitigated good ending is in the cards. I think Players are going to get more than a few lumps to the feels before the credits roll in DAI.
To be fair I feel the DA team bungled up the ending of DA2. Not to the ME3 extent by FAAAR, but it still wasn't that great.
To be fair I feel the DA team bungled up the ending of DA2. Not to the ME3 extent by FAAAR, but it still wasn't that great.
The problem with DA2's ending was that it was too abrupt. ME3 had the opposite problem, it went on for too long and told too much.
The problem with DA2's ending was that it was too abrupt. ME3 had the opposite problem, it went on for too long and told too much.
Also, ME3 had no boss fight, but DA2 had an extra unnecessary boss fight.
Also, ME3 had no boss fight, but DA2 had an extra unnecessary boss fight.
Yes, there's that too. If the final confrontation with Meredith was more like the final confrontation with the Illusive Man, I think that would've been much better.
Yes, there's that too. If the final confrontation with Meredith was more like the final confrontation with the Illusive Man, I think that would've been much better.
It should've depended on what side you took. If we HAD to face both at the end,
Side with Mages- Physically fight Meredith, have a mental/psychological/spiritual battle with Orsino
Side with Templars- Physically fight Orsino, have a mental/psychological/spiritual battle with Meredith
How did we get to DA2 and ME3's terribad endings when we had fantastic endings like Mass 1's with the Saren conversation, DAO's with God knows all its possibilities, and ME2's with its incredible Suicide Mission?
Bioware pls
Biowhere did the good endings go
Biowhy
Bio-y u do dis
Just for amusement's sake, it will be interesting if we can get the Breach to close by talking to it.
Retour en haut