I'd also would also love the ability to not save the world. Atleast early in the game. Or better yet: can choose to side with the big bad! Of course it'll end with a game over scene or my death by my comrades.
Make it happen! Morrigan did say i can lead this world tomits end.
They already said there is ending where demons win but they said i won't be nice ending. 
Guest_TheDarkKnightReturns_*
Guest_Morrigan_*
Make it happen! Morrigan did say i can lead this world to its end.
'Tis true.
What matters is the impact, the consistency to the overall theme and the execution -- Tone doesn't matter at all since it doesn't necessarily equate to quality and/or satisfactory closure. All in all, I don't care much to discuss how an ending should be when there's no context to talk about. It's more fun talking about an ending when it's over and done instead. You're always running a risk when playing a game as to how it ends so yeah..
Of course I want a happy ending! and a Bad ending! and a bittersweet ending! and a sad ending! and a hopeful ending!
But most of all...
I want the ability to choose those endings, all from Black to Gray to White!
Thisthisthisthisthisthis
I seriously doubt we'll actually be able to join the villains and destroy the world, but it'd certainly make for an interesting choice. That's the sort of choice that I'd find out about on my first playthrough and then spend an entire second playthrough leading up to it so it's as in-character as possible.
Have you ever played Jade Empire? It had a range of endings that would suit many tastes. You could defeat the bad guy and everyone gets a happy ending, you could defeat him and take his place as the new evil emperor, you could let the bad guy kill you in hopes of bringing peace to the people of the land and there might have been more. The you become the evil emperor ending was also hinted at maybe half way through the game so it wasn't just a random last minute choice with no context. I'd be happy if they did something along those lines again 
The heroic sacrifice, or what I like to call "symbolic Jesus Christ's sacrifice because white men in the western world are really obsessed with their heroes symbolically being Jesus Christ", is horribly over done. However, it ultimately needs to be written right for it to work.
ME3 ending was horrible because it was written so poorly, and I argue that the rest of the game being so poorly written compounds it, but that's something for another thread. But I certainly do not think it was because it was an unhappy ending. I don't want a "happy ending" and I thought two of the three final choices of ME3 were pretty happy endings. It baffles me that everyone says the ME3 ending choices are unhappy ending just because Shepard dies. When one of the endings seems to end all war, death, disease(if only Thane survived till the end), and blesses everyone with super intelligence, how is that not a sickeningly happy ending? (Funny enough, the one I think is the actually bitter ending is the one Shepard can survive in. )
Happy or not, the ending just ultimately has to be written well. It has to make sense, it has to build from the plot, it has to resolve the plot.
KOTOR2 remains one of my favorite games, although released incomplete, the story was written just that well in my opinion. The light side ending was just chill, riding off into the sunset quietly, no fancy parades, nor shocking twists (Kreia mocks this even), just a hint for a future game and the end. This plot is resolved, time for a new one, good night folks.
If Bioware would just let go of the big shocking plot twist charade, I think there would be a vast improvement with their stories.
The heroic sacrifice, or what I like to call "symbolic Jesus Christ's sacrifice because white men in the western world are really obsessed with their heroes symbolically being Jesus Christ", is horribly over done. However, it ultimately needs to be written right for it to work.
ME3 ending was horrible because it was written so poorly, and I argue that the rest of the game being so poorly written compounds it, but that's something for another thread. But I certainly do not think it was because it was an unhappy ending. I don't want a "happy ending" and I thought two of the three final choices of ME3 were pretty happy endings. It baffles me that everyone says the ME3 ending choices are unhappy ending just because Shepard dies. When one of the endings seems to end all war, death, disease(if only Thane survived till the end), and blesses everyone with super intelligence, how is that not a sickeningly happy ending? (Funny enough, the one I think is the actually bitter ending is the one Shepard can survive in. )
Happy or not, the ending just ultimately has to be written well. It has to make sense, it has to build from the plot, it has to resolve the plot.
KOTOR2 remains one of my favorite games, although released incomplete, the story was written just that well in my opinion. The light side ending was just chill, riding off into the sunset quietly, no fancy parades, nor shocking twists (Kreia mocks this even), just a hint for a future game and the end. This plot is resolved, time for a new one, good night folks.
If Bioware would just let go of the big shocking plot twist charade, I think there would be a vast improvement with their stories.
The real problem with ME3's ending is that it tries to do for the Reapers what DAA did for the darkspawn in the space of about five minutes.
Agreed.
Bittersweet was appropriate tone for Mass Effect 3's ending. The problem was that it so badly executed.
I liked the way DAO did its endings. You could have the heroic, sacrifice ending but you could also have your happy ending. However, to prevent it from being all kittens and rainbows, there was always an edge to the happy endings. Sure your Warden got to stay with Alistair as queen, but what have you truly unleashed by going through with the Dark Ritual? Not to mention all of the enormous problems left over that your Warden could never even hope to tackle.
The trick is to always have a choice for at least a somewhat happy ending. You can put a bit of that darker twist into it, but there should always be an element of "I won" even if it's hard to obtain. The initial Mass Effect 3 endings lacked that and that was its main flaw, for me. It felt like all of the effort I put in over three games meant nothing at all.
I can only hope that DAI won't be that way!
This is how I feel about. I love DAO endings, but not because there are different endings ranging from happy to sad, but because there were a variety of ending which for me are all grey. I can't possibly think of the DR as a perfect ending, but that's ok, because I don't need one, I just want to feel that I won, something I don't get with ME3 endings.
Contrary to most people, in fact, I like it that every option has its own downside, because for me is preferable if main variations in the ending are related to roleplay decisions, not to being a compulsive completionist or not, to be honest. And I don't like some RP choices being severely punished, while others are highly rewarded. For me it's better if all of them get some rewards and some punishing
The real problem with ME3's ending is that it tries to do for the Reapers what DAA did for the darkspawn in the space of about five minutes.
Indeed so. In both cases, I appreciate the attempt because I dislike "Always chaotic evil", but DAA made me think, and I was pleased with the new options, while ME3 made me shake my head even as I followed the atrocious writing into a future I liked.
As for this topic:
I think that heroic sacrifices are extremely hard to do right in video roleplaying games. The thing is, nobody wants to sacrifice themselves so if an heroic sacrifice is used, it absolutely must have a significant benefit that the character enacting it would consider worth their life. On the other hand, there are quite a few players who seriously hate this trope and would be seriously p*ssed off by such a setup. For me personally, I hate not the trope as such but the frequent implication that there is some intrinsic magical virtue in it, in that something is worth more if it has been achieved through a sacrifice. I think the same thing is worth more with no sacrifice. A protagonist's death is a bad thing, that's what writers tend to forget all too often. There's no way to make a good thing of it, really, the only thing you can do is balance it, make it worth it. Which runs into the aforementioned problem.
So what setup could be used to include this without annoying many players. I say make options, so that the players who like stories ending in an heroic sacrifice can orchestrate events so that their sacrifice is the only way towards an acceptable big-picture outcome. This implies that those players would have to intentionally "fail" at one or more points in the story, because if you always manage to get one of the better outcomes, then no sacrifice should be necessary. Make it so that failing is possible even if you're not making obviously stupid decisions.
This also necessitates a certain attitude of the players, and metagaming. A video rpg like DAI lets you basically write your own story with a given framework. I've often said my first playthrough is never my "personal canon" because I tend to orchestrate events so that the best story results, the one most fitting the specific protagonist I have envisioned. That usually means I have some bad outcomes, because a story with mixed outcomes tends to be more interesting than one where everything goes well, and those "failures" are tailored to my character's personality and the kind of story I want this to be. I never want a heroic sacrifice but it should be possible to orchestrate one that appears convinving if I really wanted it.
Edit:
I liked the way DAO did its ending, although a scenario where I have to make the US and not be stupid (such as having left my second Grey Warden behind) is a little finicky to orchestrate.
(...)
I think they way DAO incorporated a sacrifice ending was fine, and I consider not having to metagame anything a big advantage.
I also don't like the idea that there are stupid decisions at all. Unless you're refering to decisions related to strategy and combat, not RP decisions
A protagonist's death is a bad thing, that's what writers tend to forget all too often. There's no way to make a good thing of it, really, the only thing you can do is balance it, make it worth it. Which runs into the aforementioned problem.
This was something I felt was done exceptionally well in the end of Telltale's The Walking Dead Season 1. I thought it was heartbreaking and depressing, but in a very good way.
I don't think the US stupid. I actually have to metagame not to take it. (Playing DAA after gives me a headache). Alistair/Loghain's life is more important than mine.
Indeed so. In both cases, I appreciate the attempt because I dislike "Always chaotic evil", but DAA made me think, and I was pleased with the new options, while ME3 made me shake my head even as I followed the atrocious writing into a future I liked.
As for this topic:
I think that heroic sacrifices are extremely hard to do right in video roleplaying games. The thing is, nobody wants to sacrifice themselves so if an heroic sacrifice is used, it absolutely must have a significant benefit that the character enacting it would consider worth their life. On the other hand, there are quite a few players who seriously hate this trope and would be seriously p*ssed off by such a setup. For me personally, I hate not the trope as such but the frequent implication that there is some intrinsic magical virtue in it, in that something is worth more if it has been achieved through a sacrifice. I think the same thing is worth more with no sacrifice. A protagonist's death is a bad thing, that's what writers tend to forget all too often. There's no way to make a good thing of it, really, the only thing you can do is balance it, make it worth it. Which runs into the aforementioned problem.
So what setup could be used to include this without annoying many players. I say make options, so that the players who like stories ending in an heroic sacrifice can orchestrate events so that their sacrifice is the only way towards an acceptable big-picture outcome. This implies that those players would have to intentionally "fail" at one or more points in the story, because if you always manage to get one of the better outcomes, then no sacrifice should be necessary. Make it so that failing is possible even if you're not making obviously stupid decisions.
This also necessitates a certain attitude of the players, and metagaming. A video rpg like DAI lets you basically write your own story with a given framework. I've often said my first playthrough is never my "personal canon" because I tend to orchestrate events so that the best story results, the one most fitting the specific protagonist I have envisioned. That usually means I have some bad outcomes, because a story with mixed outcomes tends to be more interesting than one where everything goes well, and those "failures" are tailored to my character's personality and the kind of story I want this to be. I never want a heroic sacrifice but it should be possible to orchestrate one that appears convinving if I really wanted it.
It's like I have said in the past about ME3: There were no endings worth dying or living over. Even if my Shepard did survive an outcome, he'd probably eat a bullet shortly afterwards anyway.
But DAO, the sacrifice seemed far ore worth it. It's not my first choice in an ending, but it's still handled well. And I have used it in the past without feeling like I doomed Thedas. And most of all, it was, as you said, a result of player choice.
Somehow I am reminded of the song from Lord of the Rings, that Pippin sings for Denethor as Faramir makes his hopeless attempt to retake Osgiliath. It sounds like such a sad song. But that's because several important lines were removed:
Home is behind, the world ahead,
And there are many paths to tread
Through shadows to the edge of night,
Until the stars are all alight.
Then world behind and home ahead,
We'll wander back to home and bed.
Mist and twilight, cloud and shade,
Away shall fade! Away shall fade!
Fire and lamp, and meat and bread,
And to bed! And then to bed!
Bolded lines were removed. And look at how the song changes from a sad to hopeful. I want to be able to choose which lines go into the song for me!
Bolded lines were removed. And look at how the song changes from a sad to hopeful. I want to be able to choose which lines go into the song for me!
You. I like you.
I don't think the US stupid. I actually have to metagame not to take it. (Playing DAA after gives me a headache). Alistair/Loghain's life is more important than mine.
Which is the beauty of DAO. You think US is a no-brainer. I think Redeemer is the best. Others say Dark Ritual is the "I Win" button.
No one is wrong.
Which is the beauty of DAO. You think US is a no-brainer. I think Redeemer is the best. Others say Dark Ritual is the "I Win" button.
No one is wrong.
Well as long as my brain doesn't break when trying to justify playing postgame stuff...
My issue is with a relatively happy ending if you work really hard. Because any other choice is usually clearly inferior, which means I as a player usually have fewer choices.
I don't think the US stupid. I actually have to metagame not to take it. (Playing DAA after gives me a headache). Alistair/Loghain's life is more important than mine.
Really? The only scenario where giving my life for Alistair comes naturally to me is if I'm in a romance with him, and in that case I don't get to make the decision. In every other case, Alistair is the senior Warden who would do the kill according to Warden traditions, so why would I jump the queue? And Loghain? The man who plunged Ferelden into chaos during a blight and who is basically given the opportunity for redemption here? I guess you could say Alistair is more important because he's king. That works, but as I said - it's not stupid as such, but it's finicky to orchestrate and to rationalize in a way that doesn't make me feel stupid.
Really? The only scenario where giving my life for Alistair comes naturally to me is if I'm in a romance with him, and in that case I don't get to make the decision. In every other case, Alistair is the senior Warden who would do the kill according to Warden traditions, so why would I jump the queue? And Loghain? The man who plunged Ferelden into chaos during a blight and who is basically given the opportunity for redemption here? I guess you could say Alistair is more important because he's king. That works, but as I said - it's not stupid as such, but it's finicky to orchestrate and to rationalize in a way that doesn't make me feel stupid.
I suspect our differing upbringings are showing. I was raised to believe giving your life to save another is the second-noblest death one can hope for. I never actually choose the US, but I'd choose it almost every time if I could rationalize DAA/GoA/WH
Which is the beauty of DAO. You think US is a no-brainer. I think Redeemer is the best. Others say Dark Ritual is the "I Win" button.
No one is wrong.
I think what DAO did really well is give us different outcomes for the protagonist where nobody feels bad about their choice. The US is an option for those who feel it's worth your life either to avoid the DR or save the life of a friend, king or fellow Warden. The ending where Loghain makes the kill results in a really good story and is a kind of "(almost) everyone wins" scenario, and perfect if you want Anora to rule alone. The DR is for those who would explore unknown magics, or those who care less about side effects as long as they survive.
If DAI manages to do the same thing, I would not complain.
The thing about the US in DA:O is that you know almost from the outset that someone is going to have to die to kill the AD, and you know why. Because of this, you know from the start that someone, a Grey Warden, is NOT coming back from that fight, and you play the whole game with that in the back of your mind. The Dark Bargain isn't sprung on you as an option until the 11th hour. And at that point, it's up to you to take the out or not if it's worth it to you in consideration of everything else, including your knowledge that someone has been heading toward doom for the entire game. It's not like the idea of your PC's possible death, or Alistair's, is sprung on you at the last minute.
In ME3, you have played the entire series without knowing that you have actually been marching to your character's doom. In fact, you've pulled off so much against the odds that even though logic may dictate that your death should be a very real possibility ... it seems unlikely given what you've been allowed to do. And then, at the 11th hour, they spring 3 choices on you, two of which necessitate your death, and the third which still has every chance of killing you, all of which come with pretty hideous, morally dubious consequences for everyone else in the universe. It's almost a complete reversal of how they set you up in DA:O.
So of course, it's much easier to go the character sacrifice route in DA:O. You were told all along this is where it would end up for someone, and the only way out is presented at the very end.
Yeah I find the US a lot easier to justify than the DR.
That said Redeemer is the ending for me. (I just wish recruiting Loghain wasn't so stupid).
Well as long as my brain doesn't break when trying to justify playing postgame stuff...
My issue is with a relatively happy ending if you work really hard. Because any other choice is usually clearly inferior, which means I as a player usually have fewer choices.
So... should it come better if it doesn't involve working really hard?
Also, I always go for the DR. I want to keep both myself and Alistair alive, and I don't really believe that Loghain should be remembered as a glorious hero (not that I outright want him dead, although that happens more often than not). Additionally, I value the dark ritual for its own sake.
Retour en haut