839 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

I've argued for happy endings ever since DA2, so I'll keep it short but yes, I'd like the option to have a happy/happyish ending.

 

Tired of everyone thinking, "Gotta make my ending dark because cool and different and memorable"

[Felya87]

for me "happy" is having my character and relative LI and most of his friends alive. the world can be destroyed, I don't care. I'm quite selfish in videogames, I care only for those few characters. those are faces and people (even if virtual) that I know and relate to.

the moltitude of immaginary people all around the world don't feel as real. so is just natural for me not care about them in a video game. even more since are even more virtual than the companions, since they are totally faceless. they are just words, not even a bunch of pixel.

[Allan Schumacher]

But is it not better for the game to make you think before the ending so that you might be able to find the best one? Of course, anyone could just read how to do it online and not think at all, but that's on them. I still find it somewhat difficult to understand this notion of disliking a happy ending that you have to work for.

 

It entirely depends on what it means to "work for" the happy ending.  If it's simply a "happy ending" because I happened to play the game thoroughly, I don't find that as interesting.  If working for the happy ending means overcoming difficult challenges (and maybe having less than happy events) throughout the game, it comes across as more interesting to me.

 

So, for example, if someone wants the entire party to survive, maybe it means not helping someone earlier in the game because the circumstances of that event results in the death of a companion.  I find it interesting, though, because I consider it a "happier" (as in more enjoyable) ending to honor the sacrifice of a fallen comrade that helped the greater good than choosing to let bad things happen to good people.  And maybe suffer the consequences as a result.

 

It can become particularly interesting, because lets say that (if we frame this within Inquisition - note this is hypothetical still) by choosing to not help those people, it comes at the consequence of your Inquisition losing power and influence.  Perhaps that loss of power and influence impacts other things that influences the ending as well?  That sort of stuff is interesting to me.

[Maria Caliban]

I prefer it if the possible consequences of my actions make sense.

Upgrading the Normandy so it holds together for the Collector Base? That makes sense.

Dealing with crew loyalty so they're more focused and competent? The specific reactions didn't 'make sense' but it was obvious that gaining loyalty would have narrative benefits.

Sera dies because two hours into the game, I delivered supplies for a quest-giver? Eh, that sounds too random. It would be fine if it were a minor NPC - the Witcher does something similar - but we're talking about a major character death being tied to something you probably won't even remember.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

If I knew "helping" someone would kill off one of my favorite companions, that someone would be as screwed as Ashley in every run of Mass Effect that I'll ever do, I'll be honest. I prioritize certain companions above basically everything else. 

[Allan Schumacher]

I respect your answer but I personally have to disagree on this point, of course there can be moments in which you can only have one way or the other but IMO the suicide mission in ME2 was one of the best moments i've ever experienced in a videogame ever for the very reason that i can choose how it can end up, sometimes my shepard would be a hero and be able to save everyone, sometimes i'd roll a shepard who was more reckless and in so doing cost the lives of a few squadmates.

 

And this is the conundrum with the term "choice."  You like it because you can "choose how it all plays out."  I dislike it because I feel there isn't any really meaningful choice, for me.

 

Choosing "I'm going to make this choice even though I know it's going to be bad for this character" isn't really interesting to me.  That's not to say ME2 didn't have positive parts.  I mean, I lost Thane because I sent him in the tunnels, and that was cool.  That was something where, if I looked more closely, I could have avoided and I'm okay with that.  But everyone survived simply because I played through their stories and, in effect, earned their loyalty mission?  It's not as interesting to me and emotionally falls flat.

 

 

Choice from the standpoint of "I want the narrative to play out this particular way" isn't as interesting as choice between "I'm presented with a choice and it isn't clear which one is the best thing for myself, my friends, or my goals."  And I enjoy the consequences of knowing that sometimes, with the imperfect information that I have, what I think is ideal at the time ultimately doesn't turn out that way.  An example is Bhelen vs. Harrowmont.  I sided with Harrowmont, and as such probably made the bad choice overall even though, in character, it seemed like the best way to go.

 

 

 

 

I appreciate endings that make me think. Deus Ex (1) was very good in that, as was PST and Fallout1. The thing is, however, none of those games left you without hope for your character if you chose to play them that way.

 

You and I have very different interpretations of the PST ending.

 

An ending with no hope for the protagonist I will never like, but in a book I can accept it, because there can only be one ending and I'm not forced into complicity in bringing in about. The same situation in an RPG makes me rather rebellious against the writers, because I feel I should have at least agency enough to avoid the feeling that I'm forced into complicity in bringing about my own doom. Unless it's a noir story, but then you usually know that from the start, which makes all the difference.

 

This strikes me as purely meta, however.  I don't see a conflict of player agency if the player's actions result in the player's death at the end of the narrative.  Player agency, to me, doesn't mean "I am in control of what does or does not happen to my character" but rather that the game allows me appropriate responses to what happens in the game.  The idea that the player can be placed into a spot, for instance, where performing an action results in their death is fine.  But if we metagame and decide to NOT perform that action (presumably a type of inaction, if we're at the end of the game) I don't feel it takes away from player agency if it still results in the player's death.

 

Imagine a situation where DAO's narrative is different, and you're the only Grey Warden left alive (even more special snowflake!) and no dark ritual.  I'd be a-ok with allowing the player to have the agency to say "eff this, I'm out" and allowing the player to choose to not kill the archdemon.  I don't think it's a removal of player agency if the player still ends up dead as a result of this action.  But I think it's safe to say that we probably have different interpretations of player agency and certainly different acceptance over what should and should not be possible within the context of a game in how it allows player agency.

[Allan Schumacher]

I prefer it if the possible consequences of my actions make sense.

Upgrading the Normandy so it holds together for the Collector Base? That makes sense.

Dealing with crew loyalty so they're more focused and competent? The specific reactions didn't 'make sense' but it was obvious that gaining loyalty would have narrative benefits.

Sera dies because two hours into the game, I delivered supplies for a quest-giver? Eh, that sounds too random. It would be fine if it were a minor NPC - the Witcher does something similar - but we're talking about a major character death being tied to something you probably won't even remember.

 

Agreed.  My hypothetical would entail that, during the course of the "helping someone" that the actions directly involved with helping that person led to the companion's death.  My imagination was thinking of something simple, like running into a burning building to save some innocent people (I was likely thinking of TW2 on some level, now that you mention it).  A situation where you can't go it alone to help the people, but if you bring companions one of them ends up a casualty.  You did the greater good... and your sacrifice may show just how far the Inquisition is willing to go for the people and you achieve a lot of influence as a result... but your friend is dead.  For me, it's interesting.

 

Exceptions would be ostensibly helping someone that is pretty clearly not a good person, and having that have negative consequences down the road for you.  But I also find that interesting and perhaps because I still have too many memories of RPGs basically being "if you're a good guy who is uncharacteristically helpful and a bastion of good, everything turns out awesome always."  Easy examples of this are "I am helpful, and I still get all the rewards/benefits that I would have gotten even if I had chosen to be a jerk... I just get the warm fuzzy feelings associated with it."  And the requisite Lightside/darkside points....

[Zjarcal]

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.

 

Umm, you don't find out someone has to die until the 11th hour as well, you do not go through the whole game with that knowledge. 

[Altima Darkspells]

I think my favorite ending in video games happened over the course of two games, Shadow Hearts 1 and 2.

Now, being JRPGs, they're not exactly the most amazing, choice-driven video games, ever, but...

Shadow Hearts 1 has two endings, a good ending and a bad ending (it should be known that the fan base decides which is which). One ending is the normal, standard ending where, after saving the world, the heroine's soul gets eaten and she dies, leaving the hero set-up for SH2.

BUT, in one ending of SH2 (the good ending), the hero is actually able to go back in time. Which is set up for the first game's GOOD ending.

In short, SH1 bad ending > SH2 good ending > SH1 good ending.

I think DAO did endings in a really satisfying sort of way. Everything BioWare has done since, not so much. I hope DAI puts some thought into the endings, because I did not enjoy the way that the endings just sort of happen anyway as they did in DA2 or ME3.

[Urazz]

Agreed.  My hypothetical would entail that, during the course of the "helping someone" that the actions directly involved with helping that person led to the companion's death.  My imagination was thinking of something simple, like running into a burning building to save some innocent people (I was likely thinking of TW2 on some level, now that you mention it).  A situation where you can't go it alone to help the people, but if you bring companions one of them ends up a casualty.  You did the greater good... and your sacrifice may show just how far the Inquisition is willing to go for the people and you achieve a lot of influence as a result... but your friend is dead.  For me, it's interesting.

 

Exceptions would be ostensibly helping someone that is pretty clearly not a good person, and having that have negative consequences down the road for you.  But I also find that interesting and perhaps because I still have too many memories of RPGs basically being "if you're a good guy who is uncharacteristically helpful and a bastion of good, everything turns out awesome always."  Easy examples of this are "I am helpful, and I still get all the rewards/benefits that I would have gotten even if I had chosen to be a jerk... I just get the warm fuzzy feelings associated with it."  And the requisite Lightside/darkside points....

I'm fine with doing something like that.  A good example for me of saving a character with a bad result is in ME3 where you can stop Mordin from sacrificing himself to save the krogan but it requires pretty much setting things up all throughout the series so that it looks like the krogan will remain bad guys if the cure is administered (killing Wrex in ME1, destroying Maelon's cure data in ME2).

[Mr.House]

I must be a freak, because I enjoyed scanning planets. I even enjoy it on new playthroughs.

 

But we have nothing to judge Urthemiel's evil on without the taint. Being made into a ghoul inherently makes one destructive.

No, just means your taste in gameplay is questionable.

 

An Archdemon, like darkspawn and ghouls corrupt anything it's near, it's an abomination that deserves to be killed. Also consdering the fact Dumat and the other old gods tricked Cory and co to go to the golden city and turned them into monsters...

[Mr.House]

I also find it funny the OP is complaining about hero dies to save the day cliche, yet supports the happy ending cliche.

 

I will just say this and think carefully people. The Inquisitor can close breaches and such, we see that the Inquisitor absorbs it, where do you think all this energy is going and do oyu really think if we do close the main breach that the Inquisitor will survive so much energy being absorbed? The writing is already on the wall.

[Urazz]

I also find it funny the OP is complaining about hero dies to save the day cliche, yet supports the happy ending cliche.

 

I will just say this and think carefully people. The Inquisitor can close breaches and such, we see that the Inquisitor absorbs it, where do you think all this energy is going and do oyu really think if we do close the main breach that the Inquisitor will survive so much energy being absorbed? The writing is already on the wall.

I think it's going to depend on what the Inquisitor can do about that energy.  Maybe the ending is dependent on how we handle that energy build up.  For example, maybe the inquisitor can use the energy to become more like a god, do a heroic sacrifice so that the energy is disperses with no side effects on the world, or we can release the energy and it causes side effects in the world where they would be more mages and the breach would open up again eventually.

[Chron0id]

I also find it funny the OP is complaining about hero dies to save the day cliche, yet supports the happy ending cliche.

 

I will just say this and think carefully people. The Inquisitor can close breaches and such, we see that the Inquisitor absorbs it, where do you think all this energy is going and do oyu really think if we do close the main breach that the Inquisitor will survive so much energy being absorbed? The writing is already on the wall.

I don't think I appreciate that kind of tone.  My original post was talking about having options,not just blindly wanting one kind of ending across the board.  I do support happy endings, but I also support other kinds too, as long as they are earned, make sense, and are satisfying.  What Mass Effect 3 tried to do was pull a Sopranos without actually earning what Sopranos earned.  That, and it was thematically revolting but that's a whole other story entirely. 

 

I believe in an RPG like this, there should be both good and bad endings.  I believe an ex-BioWare employee said it best-

 

"When a player is done with a game of this magnitude (ME 3 or Dragon Age Origins) they want to feel like a hero, like they've achieved something."

[TheKomandorShepard]

Sacrificing my companions for my go... i mean greater good?

Sounds like fun im ready to sacrifice anyone (except me ) for profit as long it exceeds worth of that person or peoples.

[Mr.House]

You clearly didn't read my post did you?

You complained about a cliche, yet support another cliche. Nothing you say can really fix that silliness. You don't like sacrifice endings? Ok cool but if you're going to use the cliche argument(a very poor one) expect people to point it out.

[Iakus]

And this is the conundrum with the term "choice."  You like it because you can "choose how it all plays out."  I dislike it because I feel there isn't any really meaningful choice, for me.

 

Choosing "I'm going to make this choice even though I know it's going to be bad for this character" isn't really interesting to me.  That's not to say ME2 didn't have positive parts.  I mean, I lost Thane because I sent him in the tunnels, and that was cool.  That was something where, if I looked more closely, I could have avoided and I'm okay with that.  But everyone survived simply because I played through their stories and, in effect, earned their loyalty mission?  It's not as interesting to me and emotionally falls flat.

 

 

Choice from the standpoint of "I want the narrative to play out this particular way" isn't as interesting as choice between "I'm presented with a choice and it isn't clear which one is the best thing for myself, my friends, or my goals."  And I enjoy the consequences of knowing that sometimes, with the imperfect information that I have, what I think is ideal at the time ultimately doesn't turn out that way.  An example is Bhelen vs. Harrowmont.  I sided with Harrowmont, and as such probably made the bad choice overall even though, in character, it seemed like the best way to go.

 

 

 Clearly an obvious "this is bad for my character" is of course, bad.  But really, an "interesting choice" shouldn't have such an obvious good or bad outcome.  At least, not in the short term.  

 

Unless such a choice is put in strictly for 'warm fuzzies" of course

 

But to me, it is choices with different outcomes that add greatly to the reputability of a game.  Open one door, and see what's behind it.  Open another door and see what's behind that one.  And so on.  But if there is only a tiger behind every door, Why bother?  Same outcome with slight variations isn't really desirable whether it's a happy or sad ending.  If the main character ends up a charcoal briquette no matter what choice I make, what's the point?  No different from the character riding off into the sunset no matter what choices I made.  In the end, such choices are meaningless.  This isn't my character, this is your character and I'm just a passenger.

 

If my character has to make a "heroic sacrifice" it should be as a result of the choices made in the game.  And if my character gets to ride off into the sunset, it should be because that's the ending I earned.

[Chron0id]

"But if there is only a tiger behind every door, Why bother?"

 

Brilliant.  I'm saving this for later use.  You are a genius. 

[Mr.House]

 Clearly an obvious "this is bad for my character" is of course, bad.  But really, an "interesting choice" shouldn't have such an obvious good or bad outcome.  At least, not in the short term.  

 

Unless such a choice is put in strictly for 'warm fuzzies" of course

 

But to me, it is choices with different outcomes that add greatly to the reputability of a game.  Open one door, and see what's behind it.  Open another door and see what's behind that one.  And so on.  But if there is only a tiger behind every door, Why bother?  Same outcome with slight variations isn't really desirable whether it's a happy or sad ending.  If the main character ends up a charcoal briquette no matter what choice I make, what's the point?  No different from the character riding off into the sunset no matter what choices I made.  In the end, such choices are meaningless.  This isn't my character, this is your character and I'm just a passenger.

 

If my character has to make a "heroic sacrifice" it should be as a result of the choices made in the game.  And if my character gets to ride off into the sunset, it should be because that's the ending I earned.

This implies the character is yours, which rarely this is ever true.

[Chron0id]

This implies the character is yours, which rarely this is ever true.

In an RPG, it damn well better be. 

[PsychoBlonde]

Anyone else really, really, really hoping this game doesn't pigeon-hole us into an ending or various endings that all end in what has been the most over-used cliche in this generation of gaming?  I am of course talking about the

 

Hero sacrifices himself to save the world cliche. 

 

 

I would laugh myself sick if a game ever did a good trope subversion of this where the "sacrifice yourself to save the world" ending is actually a "game over you failed" state, with the villain going "I can't believe you fell for that".

 

Or, better, "You mean I have to voluntarily die to save the world?  Screw that, you're all going down with me.  Oh, you've thought of another option now?  Good going."

[TheKomandorShepard]

I would laugh myself sick if a game ever did a good trope subversion of this where the "sacrifice yourself to save the world" ending is actually a "game over you failed" state, with the villain going "I can't believe you fell for that".

 

Or, better, "You mean I have to voluntarily die to save the world?  Screw that, you're all going down with me.  Oh, you've thought of another option now?  Good going."

To be honest it is something i would want it is not that Thedas is worth saving or something so if my character is going down i take it down with me. Pretty much if not dark ritual i would want such alternative in dao where my character leaves instead it would be intresting to see how Li react or other companions in such situation.

[TheLastSuperSaiyan87]

Since the game is supposed to have how many different endings again? 40? I think its safe to say you can have a happy ending, a neutral ending and a bad ending and everything in between 

[Chron0id]

Since the game is supposed to have how many different endings again? 40? I think its safe to say you can have a happy ending, a neutral ending and a bad ending and everything in between 

That was, unfortunately, debunked quite a while ago.   Although I'm not sure the exact number of what it's actually supposed to be.  Definitely nowhere near 40 though.