1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Farangbaa]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It starts with Solas (and maybe Flemeth, we don't know), it is his orb afterall, and it ends with Solas and Flemeth.

This goes for both DA:I's story as, quite possibly, the history of Thedas that matters for the entire Dragon Age series. Think about that for a second.
 

And the Reapers having a greater motivation was not a twist at all. It was obvious from the very beginning that they had some motive beyond killing everyone for no reason every 50,000 years.

It's not 'a motivation', lol. Of course they had 'a motivation'. But that their motivation was in some way noble and that you, by destroying them, might be doing the wrong thing, was a twist. One people love to dismiss with those holy BSN words: bad writing.

[Steelcan]

It wasn't a well put together twist, the ME3 ending deserves to go down as one of the worst thought out and poorly planned conclusions to an otherwise pretty decent story

[Addai]

The problem with the ending, and the main story at large is it lacks the usual dramatic narrative. Building to the finale, things usually get worse and worse for the protagonist leading up to the climatic ending, which usually causes the protagonist, in the face of overwhelming odds, to pull victory from the jaws of certain defeat, but that doesn't happen in DAI.

This is the usual Hollywood progression. That doesn't make it the universal and only valid one.
 

BW lets the Inquisitor off the hook. Haven is Cory's triumphant moment, and it happens much to soon in the story. After that he is turned basically into an angry clown whose only purpose in the story is to put up weak road blocks that are easily defeated or countered.

Adamant is pretty dire? You survive it only because you do something that no one has done since Corypheus and his compatriots did it, then because there is a spirit who aids you, one which ties back to the beginning of the story.

That's the peak point, for me, and yes, the story winds down after that and begins setting up for a continuation- the eluvians, Flemeth, Morrigan and finally Solas. Though at the Well, Corypheus did nearly defeat you and it took an assist from an elven god to stop him. I can see if people find the pace to be off especially if you go do a lot of fetching before moving on to the finale, but again, there is not one universal, god-appointed path to telling a story.

[M-Taylor]

The thing that I think DAI lacked, and the Dragon Age series as a whole, is a sense of impending danger. Real danger that has consequences, and I genuinely think that Mass Effect as a series did that quite well.

 

What the Mass Effect team did was demonstrate that your choices will have consequences and will have deaths. Obviously Virmire in Mass Effect 1, but arguably their defining achievement was the suicide run in Mass Effect 2. I went into that thing blind and was such a noob about it. I selected all the wrong people for the jobs and I ended up having a lot of deaths. This hit me in such a way; it made the Reaper threat far more real. And this theme continued in Mass Effect 3; for all it's failings at the end, I felt like the journey towards the catastraphe was a genuine amazing art display. Each returning companion could die if you made the wrong choices again, which only highlighted the sense of war in a mature way. But the most brilliant thing about all this was that it was entirely preventable; it appealed to you to try and be a clever commander. You could save all your team if you made the right choices, but making the wrong ones had consequences. It added roleplay and replayability. I was so much more engaged in each section of the game where one of the companions I loved could die, and yet the people that wanted to save everyone and have a happy ending was allowed that option too (excluding Thane >.>).

 

Dragon Age lacks that a lot. All three games have been based around wars and yet there's no real, impending consequences of your actions. Dragon Age: Origins arguably handled it best with the Ultimate Sacrifice, so I won't comment on that game. Dragon Age 2 handled it well in Act 1 with the Hawke sibling maybe-dying in the Deep Roads but then was railroaded into forced drama that didn't feel organic to the story. But Dragon Age: Inquisition was the absolute worst; at no point did Corypheus feel threatning to me because no companions were ever at risk of dying. So not only was he laughable as an actual gameplay level, but his story impact was minimal.

 

Dragon Age is an age of conflict and violence. I want to experience that violence. The tone of the franchise changed for me because the entire game feels like very safe exploration mission, rather than being stuck in a world on the brink of collapsing (which was advertised and a focual selling point). I wish something like the suicide mission would happen again; it was brilliantly done. Make the wrong choices and be unprepared and people die. Make the right choices and be prepared and people live. It's organic to the situation at hand, and it pleases every player while also creating tension. I kinda wish the last boss had similar choices; have a stealth and weaken mission, and picking the wrong person would result in Corypheus detecting and killing them. Have a second team leader, and the wrong leader would result in the second team being wiped out. These encourage tactiful thinking while also being relatable to the story. When I saw the scene of the Shades attacking my other party members, I really wanted to feel a sense of fear and anxiety over their fate. I simply couldn't because I knew they were in absolutely no harm, and I just think that's a waste for the setting that Dragon Age tries to employ.

 

So yeah, I could forgive the crappy boss fight if they compensated with realistic consequences for your actions. Pissed off an unloyal Blackwall and gave him leadership over the second team? Bye bye second team. Asked a more human and less stealthie Cole to weaken Corypheus from the shadows? Back to the fade wiv u. etc etc

[Linkenski]

Don't you dare say it's worse than ME3's. ME3 has the sense of finale and climax and tonally I think it's good, but it just doesn't make enough sense, it subverts the antagonist at the 11th hour in the cheapest, dumbest way I have ever seen and then derails the entire narrative by pulling up an entirely new theme (will our creations ever rival our intelligence and eradicate all organic life?) and resolves it... in the final 10 minutes of a 90 hour story that was never clearly about said theme.

 

DA:I has a logical followup.

 

Premise: The death of the divine causes chaos and uproar and it created the Breach. We must close it, find those responsible and bring them to justice.

Ending: The Breach is closed and its mastermind is killed and the peace is restored, for now. A new Divine was elected. All's well that ends well.

 

Mass Effect 3 has... ugh, I just have no words:

 

Premise: The Reapers, large killer-machines who harvest all advanced life every 50k years have invaded the galaxy (EARTH!), we must stop them in order to survive (we retake earth to... to... to WIN THE WAR, YEEEAH! (psst! Retaking Earth is just delaying the inevitable when Reapers are everywhere else, but nevermind that! Marketing and CoD appeal!) 

Ending: "Synthetics and organics will never get along" (except for EDI & Joker, GETH AND QUARIAN!!!) so the protagonist solves the issue by making 1 of 3 choices - all very vague in function because Bioware hates detail - that will solve the problem through implausible methods of magic or he will sustain the issue by just killing the Reapers and reaper-coded synthetics like the "True" Geth and EDI or let the issue hang up in the air by ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL of the Reapers... oh and this also ends the Reaper threat... just a minor detail, because... well, you know: "Synthetics will ALWAYS destroy ALL organics!"   

 

DA:I's ending was meh, which according to Bioware 2013 is actually the worst kind of feedback they could've gotten, unfortunately.

 

ME3 on the other hand... oh, hohoho, was just beyond terrible and Bioware said they're happy that it wasn't "meh" to even those who disliked it.

 

So I guess ME3 wins?

[BabyPuncher]

So I guess ME3 wins?

 

The attitude that led to ME 3 wins.

 

The attitude of "It's not good enough to just have the protagonist press the magic problem solving button and have every difficulty go away, even though it would be comically easy to write. Even if many players don't care how awful the plot is as long as they get their friendship and romance scenes."

 

The attitude of recognizing that conflicts and plots are actually pretty important parts of the story and not just filler to get from one friendship moment to the next wins.

[Ash Wind]

This is the usual Hollywood progression. That doesn't make it the universal and only valid one.

 

 

Hollywood progression????? lol There have been naratives that have followed this structure centuries before there was a hollywood.

 

With respect to any story being 'valid,' I would simply say anyone who puts story to pen has the aboslute right to end it any way they want to, which is, absolutely VALID, if not interesting.

 

There are people who found the plot to 'Weekend at Bernies' valid.

 

A clowned villian reduced to being a 2015 version of Wile E. Coyote is VALID... doesn't make it interesting, doesn't increase the drama as the story progresses, doesn't decrease the protagonists chances of success as things should be deteriorating. Instead its don't worry, you've already won... its just a matter of going through the motions, sweet!

 

A weak uninteresting villain who continues to get weaker and weaker as the story progresses is an odd choice.... VALID.... but not all that interesting.

 

There is a reason the three act narative has survived for centuries.

[Addai]

Hollywood progression????? lol There have been naratives that have followed this structure centuries before there was a hollywood.

 

With respect to any story being 'valid,' I would simply say anyone who puts story to pen has the aboslute right to end it any way they want to, which is, absolutely VALID, if not interesting.

 

There are people who found the plot to 'Weekend at Bernies' valid.

 

A clowned villian reduced to being a 2015 version of Wile E. Coyote is VALID... doesn't make it interesting, doesn't increase the drama as the story progresses, doesn't decrease the protagonists chances of success as things should be deteriorating. Instead its don't worry, you've already won... its just a matter of going through the motions, sweet!

 

A weak uninteresting villain who continues to get weaker and weaker as the story progresses is an odd choice.... VALID.... but not all that interesting.

 

There is a reason the three act narative has survived for centuries.

You didn't say you wanted a three act structure, though. Or rather, you said you wanted an upward progression to a climactic finale with a steep dropoff at the end. This game peaks at Adamant, IMO, which still makes it three acts, but it's more of a true pyramid.

[FFZero]

I'll agree that the ending was anti-climatic but it was nowhere near as bad as ME3's. Plus I can't help but feel that while some stuff may have been cut from the ending that may have made it better or more exciting, it was also designed in this way because of the twist with you know who and the fact that inquisitors story isn't done yet. I kind of got the impression that the inquisitions story is really only just beggining with that ending. Multiple characters during the epilogue talk about the future and what the inquisition can do and Morrigan herself says that the inquisition will continue to grow in power. 

[Cratto]

Mass Effect 3's ending was bad because it was badly written - from a very basic level (it doesn't match with what come before and adds new things which contradict the story and the world it exists in (and resolves them in 5 minutes!)).

 

Inquisition's ending follows on neatly from the story and presents a conclusion: bad guy defeated, breach closed and world saved. So its better than ME3's - it doesn't mean its a good ending or its well written - but it works as an ending.

 

It is a bit anti-climatic. It should've been the a big show down: you confronting him as he tried one last desperate act after you'd ended every avenue open to him. Corypheus felt a better final battle in Legacy (he does appear less powerful than his first appearance - where he could rain down all sorts of magical badness on you).

 

I do suspect, like FFZero, that bits are purposefully missing from the game which will be explored through DLC / Expansion. 

[ShadowLordXII]

 

No.

 

Inquisition's ending does what its meant to do. You beat the bad guy, save the world, celebrate your victory, get to see the results of your major decisions throughout the game, resolve the game's main story and get teased about the future.

 

Perhaps Cory went quietly into the night? Fair complaint. Lack of build-up or stake? Fair point.

 

ME3's Ending...the trilogy's entire plot collapses in on itself as soon as Star-Child appears and everything that follows deepened the ditch.

 

If you don't like Inquisition's Ending, fine. But don't spread idiotic lies by trying to make-out to be worst than Mass Effect 3's ending. That's a war waiting to be lost on all fronts: subjective, objective or otherwise.

[ComedicSociopathy]

You know why this thread fails so hard?

 

These words right in the title: Worse then ME 3.

 

If weren't for that then I think discussion could have been a thoughtful examining of Inquisition's weaknesses as a story, but since it does...

 

Nothing but fail. ME 3 ending simply can't be beaten. 

[ComedicSociopathy]

 

So yeah, I could forgive the crappy boss fight if they compensated with realistic consequences for your actions. Pissed off an unloyal Blackwall and gave him leadership over the second team? Bye bye second team. Asked a more human and less stealthie Cole to weaken Corypheus from the shadows? Back to the fade wiv u. etc etc

 

Yeah, but everyone would just complain about how its ripping off Mass Effect 2 and accuse Bioware of just repeating itself. 

[SgtSteel91]

Flemeth and Solas both existed as characters prior to the last five minutes. This also isn't the last game in a trilogy, and DA:I has post-campaign dlc only. It's not comparable in the slightest, even if you take general things both share like having reveals. 

 

When was this stated?

 

On topic, after ME3 I was happy to have a story where the protagonist starts off small and systematically beats down the seemingly unstoppable god. As opposed to ME3 where, no matter what victory was achieved you were still losing every step of the way and won at the end by the skin of your teeth (But people can argue that you won because the enemy let you win). I didn't really like that.

[Savber100]

You lost me at Mass Effect 3. 

[LOLandStuff]

Keeps me awake at night.

 

Actually, I can't sleep since finishing ME3.

[BabyPuncher]

No.

 

Inquisition's ending does what its meant to do. You beat the bad guy, save the world, celebrate your victory, get to see the results of your major decisions throughout the game, resolve the game's main story and get teased about the future.

 

You have an incredibly poor understanding of what endings and conflicts are 'meant to do,' pal. Endings are not 'meant' to get rid of any difficulties for the protagonist in the most meaningless fashion possible.

[Ashagar]

Inquisition's ending fits the tone of the story and is a logical conclusion the games story. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a bad ending.

[BabyPuncher]

I think I need to say this on the front page since I've seen it repeatedly. A 'logical ending' counts for utterly nothing. I can write a 'logical ending' for just about any story in existence in 60 seconds.

 

Consider the template of the hero fighting against the big bad villain, outgunned and outnumbered. A template we've all seen used again and again.

 

The hero gets shot/stabbed/blown up and dies. The bad guy finishes whatever plan he was working on and wins. The end.

 

Perfectly 'logical.'

Perfectly thematically bankrupt.

Perfectly stupid.

 

The Inquisitor getting gobbled up by the dragon would have been just as 'logical' as the current ending. But I don't think people would be defending such an ending on the basis of it being 'logical,' would they now?

[Ashagar]

Its only bad in your opinion which you are entitled to but being your opinion, it does not make it truth that it is indeed a bad ending.

[MrMrPendragon]

I thought the story was pretty weak, and the whole "sunset scene" with your LI didn't help.

 

But I'm not going to sit here and explain how everything was "illogical" or whatever reason it is people use to defend their dislike against the ending. I just don't like it. Period. I'm not qualified to say that it is illogical, or nitpick and say "X detail of the ending ruined it for me" because I'm not a very good writer. I don't know what was going through their heads when they wrote the story.

 

The LI scene didn't really help because I DO NOT care about my companions this game. This scene would've been perfect in ME3, because I actually spent at least 2 games with Shepard's LI, or in the previous Dragon Ages because I actually gave a sh*t about the well-being of my companions then. This time around I thought the voice acting was good, but I'm not a fan of their personalities. Even the whole Poker scene just felt awkward to me.

 

Together with uninteresting supporting characters  fairly weak story, and levelling that focuses on grinding good loot that doesn't really exist, is making it very very hard for me to give this a 3rd playthrough.

[Nefla]

ME3 was too grim and depressing and had Shepard losing at every turn, even in the end she can't do anything against the reapers except what they let her do. It was a huge departure from the Star Wars-esque tone of the first two games. DA:I was on the extreme opposite where the inquisitor wins at every turn and never encounters any setbacks or tragedy. She doesn't even have to try and that includes the final battle and the ending. DA:I was also the first BioWare game I have ever played that only had one ending. I wish they would incorporate dark elements, loss and tragedy but also uplifting, exciting, funny, or sweet moments too. Having a mix tells a much better story imo than having one extreme or the other.

[dragonflight288]

ME3 was too grim and depressing and had Shepard losing at every turn, even in the end she can't do anything against the reapers except what they let her do. It was a huge departure from the Star Wars-esque tone of the first two games. DA:I was on the extreme opposite where the inquisitor wins at every turn and never encounters any setbacks or tragedy. She doesn't even have to try and that includes the final battle and the ending. DA:I was also the first BioWare game I have ever played that only had one ending. I wish they would incorporate dark elements, loss and tragedy but also uplifting, exciting, funny, or sweet moments too. Having a mix tells a much better story imo than having one extreme or the other.

 

I guess when we cut it down to bare bones, every game has one ending.

 

In Origins, we WILL fight at Ostagar, we WILL fight the archdemon, we WILL gather allies with the treaties, and we WILL save Ferelden. 

 

In DA2, we WILL fight templars and mages, we WILL go into the deep roads and come back a noble, we WILL  become the Champion, and we WILL witness the Chantry get blown up and the Right of Annulment WILL happen. 

 

In Inquisition, we WILL lose at Haven, we WILL build the Inquisition, we WILL be seen as the next great prophet, and we WILL defeat Corypheus. 

 

But in each of these games, we have various long-term choices that we may make, and those choices affect the ending. 

 

Such as in Inquisition, did we exile the Wardens? Did we form an alliance with the Qunari? Who is the ruler of Orlais? Were the mages/templars recruited as allies or conscripted? And like Origins, there are many variations on the ending in the epilogues, narrated by Morrigan, as a result of those choices. 

[Ashagar]

Whither you view it as good or bad is very personal and inquisition had very dark moments and the setting it self was extremely dark at times but they didn't dominate it which was a good thing.

[BabyPuncher]

It's not really about having a mix.

 

If writers and players want a 'happier' ending, struggle and conflict are the proper ways to go about that.

 

Think about Lair of the Shadow Broker when romancing Liara. Unlike Inquisition, it has a very strong conflict and a strong and meaningful resolution to that conflict. But would anyone who romanced Liara call Lair of the Shadow Broker an unhappy ending or anything remotely close? Of course not.