1194 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Dragon Age Inquisition's ending isn't brilliant.

Part of the problem is the lack of scaling - so a completion its goes into the final battle over powered so the challenge is reduced.

There are issues with the story and it sags a bit after Halamshiral. A lot of the areas that you enter don't really link into the wider story and become a bit of a grind.

The lead character feels a bit bland too (and they don't really make much of their origins and starts to blur into sameness).

The ending isn't bad. It's not complicated but it's not a complicated story. That's not necessary a bad thing.

It's no where near as bad as ME3's ending. ME3's ending is just terrible. And it's most basic level it's not the ending of the ME series as it doesn't fit in with the narrative of the rest of the series (and drives a bus through the series lore and it's narrative). The worse thing is that it ruins the reapers who were until the last 5 mins a great bad guy!

DAI's ending fits with the narrative, doesn't ruin the bad guy and has completion. The twist at the end works as well (it's not massive and is telegraphed appropriately through out).

1. Your facing a guy with no army and the story is about you rising to power to be the bad guys equal. This is not a story about the little guy taking out a giant, this is about the little guy becoming a giant.

 

2.Every area you go to have links to the operation Cory has about empowering himself. Your goal is disabling and weakening his army. Near every area is about this. You go to an area, you see people who work for cory directly or indirectly and you go stop what ever they are going and it weakens cory's army.

 

3.As for the lead character...It's an rpg. Your the one that makes them exciting or boring. That's your issue.

[Hazegurl]

He obviously didn't expect people to kill his Dragon, along with bringing a Dragon of their own lol

Then someone should have given him the memo that the IQ was running around killing ten dragons for sport.

[In Exile]

Hence it being ridiculous.

He knows enough to not handicap himself.

He's completely nuts. It isn't surprising at all he'd to something self-defeating for crazy reasons.

[Mihura]

I think the game needed at least one more year, there were things like the keeps sieges that did not even appeared. I think at one point they had no more time to implement a bigger game, so it got cut a lot and that shows.

And yes the end is terrible I was expecting one more final act or something, it was like 20 minutes of meh. There is also a lack of armors for Qunari and Dwarves, companion personal quest a la DA 2, more movement and cool quest on the maps, etc...

[ComedicSociopathy]

I think the game needed at least one more year, there were things like the keeps sieges that did not even appeared. I think at one point they had no more time to implement a bigger game, so it got cut a lot and that shows.

And yes the end is terrible I was expecting one more final act or something, it was like 20 minutes of meh. There is also a lack of armors for Qunari and Dwarves, companion personal quest a la DA 2, more movement and cool quest on the maps, etc...

 

Even if they wanted to work on it for another year having to work on ME 4 would have prevented them from doing so. 

[Mihura]

Even if they wanted to work on it for another year having to work on ME 4 would have prevented them from doing so. 

 

I think they have different teams for that, at least the writers are mostly not the same. I still believe the game needed more time.

[AresKeith]

I think they have different teams for that, at least the writers are mostly not the same. I still believe the game needed more time.

 

At the same time I'm surprised EA even gave them an extra year, I doubt they would've gave them more than that 

[TheRaccoon]

They're on the ground, and you're on the pieces of the temple that Corypheus has lifted into the air.

 

I understand. But you can only assume so as you only see Harding falls to the ground when the temple ruin rises. The companions are nowhere to be found till the 'Inquisitor, are you alive?' moment. I guess I would like some build-ups or rallying talks before fighting Cory. I know the war thing is supposed to happen in the Arbor Wilds but still..

[Eliastion]

(...)

 

Take away the darkspawn mobs and the archdemon fight plays out the same way, heck even the ending party is basicially the same

That's really ridiculous. "Take away both armies and the battle plays out the same as commanders' duel". Sure. But it doesn't mean that the two encounters are anything alike because there is a battle in one ending and there is none in the second one.

 

As for Arbor Wilds, the thing is that pacing of the game breaks those two encounters apart. There are Arbor Wilds, then there is a visit home procuring of the dragon, and only then you go to fight Cory... it's not a natural follow-up to that battle, even if you make no stops and swiftly proceed to each part, those are two completely separate encounters.

Also, the battle in Arbor Wilds is a decoration. The player is not invested in it, he pretty much passes the battle on his way to the temple and that's about it. Compare DA:O where you actually had a couple mini-battles to win, you had your soldiers that you ordered on the field and if you were losing people, it was at the very least acknowledged by some number going down. Oh, and you knew exactly where each army you commanded came from while in DA:I there was no such thing. Just a generic friendly army and no obvious development of the battle - there was at least a hint of that in Adamant, but in Arbor Wilds not a trace. They even made sure you don't try and get invested - there was a T3 metal nodes EVERYWHERE. It's hard to give player a clearer signal that there's no rush and he might as well go play miner along the way, the enemies will wait.

 

So in DA:I the battle was done very poorly AND it was NOT a part of somewhat anti-climatic fight with Cory - they put like half an hour of additional content between that battle and the bossfight.

 

And to answer some additional accusations - no, I don't think DA:I should amount to re-make of DA:O. But if the player's response to ending is "ok, went there, killed something, is that it?" that means that the ending was done poorly and explanations that "he couldn't have had any army at that point" are just excuses. If it was impossible to create a good ending without an army, they shouldn't have let Inquisition destroy it.

 

And I don't say the Origin's ending was perfect - for optimally built party the mooks nor the Archdemon were a challange, but there was some build-up, there was something new in the battle (the reinforcements you can bring in, depending on your previous choices, proving that it was those choices that actually led to this point. And there was the splitting of the party (something that didn't take place before) and possibly there was the sacrifice... And all that in Denerim, the city you already knew and now see burning. The final battle was designed so that the player could get emotionally invested in it, but there was nothing like that in ending of DA:I. In fact, every single arc ending was more engaging: feeling of doing something important, making decisions... with Cory... I don't know. There was the formality of killing him. About as exciting as signing some paperwork. "Ok, so you pretty much finished Inquisition, just sign here, here and here and you'll get your diplomma"

[leaguer of one]

Then someone should have given him the memo that the IQ was running around killing ten dragons for sport.

10 grounded dragons. Remember, it only was ground because of the dragon we brought. 

[leaguer of one]

That's really ridiculous. "Take away both armies and the battle plays out the same as commanders' duel". Sure. But it doesn't mean that the two encounters are anything alike because there is a battle in one ending and there is none in the second one.

 

As for Arbor Wilds, the thing is that pacing of the game breaks those two encounters apart. There are Arbor Wilds, then there is a visit home procuring of the dragon, and only then you go to fight Cory... it's not a natural follow-up to that battle, even if you make no stops and swiftly proceed to each part, those are two completely separate encounters.

Also, the battle in Arbor Wilds is a decoration. The player is not invested in it, he pretty much passes the battle on his way to the temple and that's about it. Compare DA:O where you actually had a couple mini-battles to win, you had your soldiers that you ordered on the field and if you were losing people, it was at the very least acknowledged by some number going down. Oh, and you knew exactly where each army you commanded came from while in DA:I there was no such thing. Just a generic friendly army and no obvious development of the battle - there was at least a hint of that in Adamant, but in Arbor Wilds not a trace. They even made sure you don't try and get invested - there was a T3 metal nodes EVERYWHERE. It's hard to give player a clearer signal that there's no rush and he might as well go play miner along the way, the enemies will wait.

 

So in DA:I the battle was done very poorly AND it was NOT a part of somewhat anti-climatic fight with Cory - they put like half an hour of additional content between that battle and the bossfight.

 

And to answer some additional accusations - no, I don't think DA:I should amount to re-make of DA:O. But if the player's response to ending is "ok, went there, killed something, is that it?" that means that the ending was done poorly and explanations that "he couldn't have had any army at that point" are just excuses. If it was impossible to create a good ending without an army, they shouldn't have let Inquisition destroy it.

 

And I don't say the Origin's ending was perfect - for optimally built party the mooks nor the Archdemon were a challange, but there was some build-up, there was something new in the battle (the reinforcements you can bring in, depending on your previous choices, proving that it was those choices that actually led to this point. And there was the splitting of the party (something that didn't take place before) and possibly there was the sacrifice... And all that in Denerim, the city you already knew and now see burning. The final battle was designed so that the player could get emotionally invested in it, but there was nothing like that in ending of DA:I. In fact, every single arc ending was more engaging: feeling of doing something important, making decisions... with Cory... I don't know. There was the formality of killing him. About as exciting as signing some paperwork. "Ok, so you pretty much finished Inquisition, just sign here, here and here and you'll get your diplomma"

Then you not getting that the arbor wild is the climax. Remeber every bw games climax is a choice a character must make that effect the conclusion of the game. Any fight that happens are just there to close thing out. DAI and DAO goal are just different.

[Dubya75]

That's really ridiculous. "Take away both armies and the battle plays out the same as commanders' duel". Sure. But it doesn't mean that the two encounters are anything alike because there is a battle in one ending and there is none in the second one.

 

As for Arbor Wilds, the thing is that pacing of the game breaks those two encounters apart. There are Arbor Wilds, then there is a visit home procuring of the dragon, and only then you go to fight Cory... it's not a natural follow-up to that battle, even if you make no stops and swiftly proceed to each part, those are two completely separate encounters.

Also, the battle in Arbor Wilds is a decoration. The player is not invested in it, he pretty much passes the battle on his way to the temple and that's about it. Compare DA:O where you actually had a couple mini-battles to win, you had your soldiers that you ordered on the field and if you were losing people, it was at the very least acknowledged by some number going down. Oh, and you knew exactly where each army you commanded came from while in DA:I there was no such thing. Just a generic friendly army and no obvious development of the battle - there was at least a hint of that in Adamant, but in Arbor Wilds not a trace. They even made sure you don't try and get invested - there was a T3 metal nodes EVERYWHERE. It's hard to give player a clearer signal that there's no rush and he might as well go play miner along the way, the enemies will wait.

 

So in DA:I the battle was done very poorly AND it was NOT a part of somewhat anti-climatic fight with Cory - they put like half an hour of additional content between that battle and the bossfight.

 

And to answer some additional accusations - no, I don't think DA:I should amount to re-make of DA:O. But if the player's response to ending is "ok, went there, killed something, is that it?" that means that the ending was done poorly and explanations that "he couldn't have had any army at that point" are just excuses. If it was impossible to create a good ending without an army, they shouldn't have let Inquisition destroy it.

 

And I don't say the Origin's ending was perfect - for optimally built party the mooks nor the Archdemon were a challange, but there was some build-up, there was something new in the battle (the reinforcements you can bring in, depending on your previous choices, proving that it was those choices that actually led to this point. And there was the splitting of the party (something that didn't take place before) and possibly there was the sacrifice... And all that in Denerim, the city you already knew and now see burning. The final battle was designed so that the player could get emotionally invested in it, but there was nothing like that in ending of DA:I. In fact, every single arc ending was more engaging: feeling of doing something important, making decisions... with Cory... I don't know. There was the formality of killing him. About as exciting as signing some paperwork. "Ok, so you pretty much finished Inquisition, just sign here, here and here and you'll get your diplomma"

 

Great explanation!

[Eliastion]

Then you not getting that the arbor wild is the climax. Remeber every bw games climax is a choice a character must make that effect the conclusion of the game. Any fight that happens are just there to close thing out. DAI and DAO goal are just different.

As much as I don't get the attempts at reaffirming this anding as the worst ending ever (seriously, go play Civ. Beyound Earh if you want to know what a terrible ending is), defending DA:I ending and making excuses for it is just as funny. It was bad, it had no climax and even if the last half an hour or more after Arbor Wilds were intended as some sort of extended formality (which is bad in and of itself), the Arbor Wilds conclusion wasn't too satisfying either, after a quest that didn't really feel epic, with the choice at the Well feeling somewhat unsubstantial, any consequences made real only after that... but immediately pretty much invalidated, I was left with a strong feeling that there are no real consequences in the end. The feeling got stronger after I've watched alternative Flemeth's cutscenes (wanted to see how it plays out without Kieran). In one version Flemeth explicitly declares that she releases you.

Oh, and then she seemingly dies in closing cutscene, just to drive point home. No consequences whatsoever unless they create some again in next installment.

To sum it up... Far from "absolute worst endings I've played". But a sloppy, badly-planned ending it was.

[leaguer of one]

As much as I don't get the attempts at reaffirming this anding as the worst ending ever (seriously, go play Civ. Beyound Earh if you want to know what a terrible ending is), defending DA:I ending and making excuses for it is just as funny. It was bad, it had no climax and even if the last half an hour or more after Arbor Wilds were intended as some sort of extended formality (which is bad in and of itself), the Arbor Wilds conclusion wasn't too satisfying either, after a quest that didn't really feel epic, with the choice at the Well feeling somewhat unsubstantial, any consequences made real only after that... but immediately pretty much invalidated, I was left with a strong feeling that there are no real consequences in the end. The feeling got stronger after I've watched alternative Flemeth's cutscenes (wanted to see how it plays out without Kieran). In one version Flemeth explicitly declares that she releases you.

Oh, and then she seemingly dies in closing cutscene, just to drive point home. No consequences whatsoever unless they create some again in next installment.

To sum it up... Far from "absolute worst endings I've played". But a sloppy, badly-planned ending it was.

First of all I had a climax . All stories that are finished do. And how was the arbor conclusion unsatisfying when it lead to one of the biggest twist and reveal in the game. Sorry but I'm not buying that. How can you say there is no consequence when your character could be enslaved to an elven god. And no she never declares she is releasing you from the geas. She just says she will stop using it for the rest of the conversation. It like a  dog being given more line on it's leash. Sorry but you can't say the results of the Arbor wild have no impact.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

I don't really see anything wrong with DA:I's ending, then again i also didn't react with outrage about ME3's ending so it might just be me

[Ieldra]

IMO, the Arbor Wilds mission and the events in the temple of Mythal were great, as is most of the follow-up not directly related to Corypheus. 

 

The confrontation with Corypheus was lacklustre and stereotypical in the worst possible way, but you know what: people wanted it that way. They wanted a big bad boss battle against an irredeemably evil antagonist, and that's what they got. I hate it, but at the same time it wasn't all that important since the choice we should've had wasn't there. The ending works well if you see the confrontation with Corypheus as sweeping up the rubbish after the important things are already done. The scene at the well, and the scene with Flemeth/Mathal, IMO those are the true culmination of the story. That's what you carry with you into the next chapter.

 

As for the comparison with ME3 - I have no words. Finishing ME3 - the original - left me sick and depressed. Finishing DAI left me satisfied.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Lackluster sure but nowhere close to that ME3 train wreck.

[Iakus]

I'm left to wonder what some of those who hated the end of DAI think of the Jon Irenicus battle in BG2.

[TheJediSaint]

I'm left to wonder what some of those who hated the end of DAI think of the Jon Irenicus battle in BG2.

Dude, trigger warning!

[Addai]

I understand. But you can only assume so as you only see Harding falls to the ground when the temple ruin rises. The companions are nowhere to be found till the 'Inquisitor, are you alive?' moment. I guess I would like some build-ups or rallying talks before fighting Cory. I know the war thing is supposed to happen in the Arbor Wilds but still..

Well, I mean- it's a safe assumption? I don't have to see everything to fill in logical details.

 

I really don't have an issue with people not liking the ending of the game, more with the hyperbolic "it's the worst EVER" without an explanation as to what was lacking for people.

[leaguer of one]

I'm left to wonder what some of those who hated the end of DAI think of the Jon Irenicus battle in BG2.

I say the samething but with the open world of DAI. People complain about clearly never played BG1 or 2.

[macready1988]

I dont know maybe im not hipster enough but i dont mind an ending that doesnt try to be flashy. I respect an ending that says "actually well have our heroes defeat the threat and live happily with their new friends and family". I didnt love DAIs ending but i didnt hate it either. The best i can say about it is plenty still appears left to be resolved later.

ME3s entire problem was it *tried*. They turned their noses up at a happy ending and wrote some godawful pretentious garbage.

Well i for one have nothing against a "dancing with ewoks" ending. It might not blow my mind or my socks off sure, but that just means i can savour the memories and feelings with a clear mind and my feet stay warm and snug.

People these days overrate a shock ending with bags of complexity. At least until they actually get it, where 90% of the time it fails to meet expectations.

No i say leave the big complex stuff for the middle of the story, make the ending simple and nice - although only if it works with the story itself mind you. I love different endings when they are called for too not just happy ones all the time. One of my favourite films is John Carpenters The Thing and its hard to find a more bleak and desolate ending than that, but i felt it fit perfectly.

I enjoyed DAIs dinner party ending, and i enjoyed DAOs ceremony ending. Okay the final battles in both were underwhelming to an extent but both left huge ties still open so on the whole i think they worked.

[BabyPuncher]

People these days overrate a shock ending with bags of complexity. At least until they actually get it, where 90% of the time it fails to meet expectations.

No i say leave the big complex stuff for the middle of the story, make the ending simple and nice - although only if it works with the story itself mind you.

 

Complexity has nothing to do with this issue. Every good ending I can think goes quite in the opposite direction: They're beautiful and elegant in their simplicity.

 

And a shock ending can just as easily go along with what I'm criticizing as predictable endings.

[leaguer of one]

Complexity has nothing to do with this issue. Every good ending I can think goes quite in the opposite direction: They're beautiful and elegant in their simplicity.

 

And a shock ending can just as easily go along with what I'm criticizing as predictable endings.

Except for the fact your just looking at the last fight and not the other part of the ending with is the arbor wild and the only time a shock ending is bad is when it make no sense, this twist make all the sense in the world and has hints to it.

[BabyPuncher]

The confrontation with Corypheus was lacklustre and stereotypical in the worst possible way, but you know what: people wanted it that way. They wanted a big bad boss battle against an irredeemably evil antagonist, and that's what they got.

 

I think you're missing the point by quite a bit.

 

In fact, the point is almost the opposite of what you said. The problem is not that the ending is a 'big boss battle.' The problem is that, for all intents and purposes, it isn't a 'big boss battle.' Or anything else.

 

A 'big boss battle,' in the sense of a narratively climatic struggle, is precisely what's missing. The problem with the ending is that it isn't a 'big battle' in any narrative sense at all. It's a chore. It never portrays any kind of real conflict and thus never enunciates any themes or qualities.