1194 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

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?

You do understand that stories are not guided by templates and the story was not made so the pc is not out gunned. And by the end of the game the inquisitor at least beat one dragon. Sorry but the story is about the quis gaining power till the point they surpass the villain. It does not need to be about a ragtag hero to be good.

[leaguer of one]

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.

But we did have struggle. the entire game was that struggle and conflict. It was not just given to up. The the resolution started from the amber wilds.

[MrMrPendragon]

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. 

 

There should really only be one ending. That's the backbone of the sequels. That's where the writers exert their control.

 

I do agree however about the guy saying incorporating more loss and tragedy into Inquisition would've helped. It would've at least made Corypheus a serious threat.

[BabyPuncher]

I wouldn't say more loss and tragedy, exactly.

 

But certainly more fear, despair, struggle, and weakness. Which, you'll notice, the characters have very few moments of, which is the reason why I find them mostly to be boring and shallow compared to Mass Effect's characters. That's always been a serious issue for Dragon Age, honestly.

[Nefla]

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. 

Epilogue slides are not satisfactory enough for me personally just as I don't consider notes found on the ground to be plot, I don't consider epilogue text to be endings and we have yet to know if there will be any consequences for any of our choices anyway. They will likely end up either briefly mentioned in passing, not mentioned at all, or being discarded as rumors like the DA:O slides. I think DA:I as a whole needed to learn the basic rule of "show, don't tell."

[In Exile]

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.

 

The thing is I disagree with you on ME3 prior to the ending. Shepard basically wins at every turn, especially with a proper import from ME1-2. I mean, sure, the renegade playthrough has more of a crapsack world, but that was always true. A 100% paragon playthrough has some poignant moments but overall it is a very uplifting story of victory against overwhelming odds versus a species of space Chtulu, until the end that trolls the players.

 

DA:I is the same as DA:O - victory at every turn. The only difference is that DA:O tells you that you're losing off-screen. The blight advances independent of your endless string of nearly flawless and overwhelming victory (unless you chose to have a flawed victory) but even so you get auto-locked into bad news. Then you have a miracle ending that's almost anti-dark, in that killing the AD is the equivalent of destroying the one ring. The entire darkspawn army - which up to that point was winning overwhelmingly - just gives up, packs its bags, and goes home. 

[Nefla]

The thing is I disagree with you on ME3 prior to the ending. Shepard basically wins at every turn, especially with a proper import from ME1-2. I mean, sure, the renegade playthrough has more of a crapsack world, but that was always true. A 100% paragon playthrough has some poignant moments but overall it is a very uplifting story of victory against overwhelming odds versus a species of space Chtulu, until the end that trolls the players.

 

DA:I is the same as DA:O - victory at every turn. The only difference is that DA:O tells you that you're losing off-screen. The blight advances independent of your endless string of nearly flawless and overwhelming victory (unless you chose to have a flawed victory) but even so you get auto-locked into bad news. Then you have a miracle ending that's almost anti-dark, in that killing the AD is the equivalent of destroying the one ring. The entire darkspawn army - which up to that point was winning overwhelmingly - just gives up, packs its bags, and goes home. 

We will have to agree to disagree then.

[ShadowLordXII]

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.

 

You clearly misunderstood my point.

 

The ending to a story is meant to close all of the important loose ends and to show the resolution of a conflict.

 

There is a difference between "removing difficulties" and retconning/rewriting your main conflict at the tail-end of a three-part story.

 

In Inquisition, the ending shows the Inquisitor defeat the main villain and end his threat to Thedas. I would have personally liked to see an "Inquisitor dies" ending myself, but what we got is good despite some problems and limitations such as the pacing and the abrupt nature of the final battle.

 

Inquisition's ending didn't decide to introduce a new central antagonist/villain to the proceedings in the last 15 minutes who then rewrites the entire central conflict of the series into something that it clearly wasn't. Did I mention that this character's very existence invalidates the whole trilogy especially considering the plot of the first ME game? Nor did it feel the need to slap the player with four nonsensical and ethically damning options with 3 basically letting the bad guy win because..."drama and artistic integrity". Do I even need to talk about the more than 50 plot holes that the last mission and last 15 minutes introduce? Did I mention that BW's attempt to "fix" then ending failed on arrival because they didn't want to admit that they'd written an inherently bad ending which only dug the ditch deeper?

 

The above paragraph is why any attempt to say that Inquisition had the worst ending than ME3 is dead on arrival.

 

A non-flawless ending to one game does not equal being worst than the worst ending to 3-part game trilogy.

[LaughingBanana]

Alrighty then.

It did have to do with this game. Solas was a companion and one of the first you met. But I'm not going to debate with someone who's just here to rant. I do always wonder that people think their opinion deserves its own thread.

 

 

*yawn*

 

Come on people... at least the OP has articulated about why he felt the ending was lacking. Don't dismiss it by saying he was "ranting" or posting stuff like *yawning*

 

And to the bolded above: this is a discussion board, isn't it? Meant to discuss stuff? If you have a problem with people posting their opinions as a possible starting point of discussion, then maybe you shouldn't be here in the first place?

 

As to the OP, yes, I generally felt the same way as you. The ending was severely lacking and devoid of significant, if any, impact.

[Eterna]

Eh, I thought the ending was alright.

 

Of course you did, because it's sunshine and rainbows. Who cares that there is no drama, who cares that their is no struggle. You got your waifu.

 

Bioware will never innovate their plot again, because this fanabase only wants a sunset and a booty call. 

 

You all disgust me!

[leaguer of one]

Of course you did, because it's sunshine and rainbows. Who cares that there is no drama, who cares that their is no struggle. You got your waifu.

 

Bioware will never innovate their plot again, because this fanabase only wants a sunset and a booty call. 

 

You all disgust me!

The entire game was drama and struggle. And the ending started from the well of sorrows.

[LaughingBanana]

Why can't people who dislike BioWare's writing style just stop buying the games so the rest of us doesn't have to put up with all the mediocre stuff BW will introduce in the following games just to to please the ranters?

 

This is such a childish way to think.

 

One can say that it is precisely because we love Bioware that we criticize and we hope for them to do better next time, because improvement would rarely ever come without criticism.

 

Geez some of you are acting like the OP is insulting your mother or something just because he criticized a part of the game and you disagree with him/her.

[Chuvvy]

Pump the breaks there mate.

[ShadowLordXII]

This is such a childish way to think.

 

One can say that it is precisely because we love Bioware that we criticize and we hope for them to do better next time, because improvement would rarely ever come without criticism.

 

Geez some of you are acting like the OP is insulting your mother or something just because he criticized a part of the game and you disagree with him/her.

 

For my part, he's free to think what he wants and criticism is always helpful even for good games. The right kind of criticism can lead to better implementation of good ideas in the future and even other new stuff that just makes things better.

 

The OP has a point on a few things, but he drops the ball by trying to say that it's a worst ending than ME3. Because that's simply not true on an objective and fundamental level for multiple reasons that I've already stated.

 

Just because people are free to have and speak their opinion, that doesn't mean that they can't be wrong.

[LaughingBanana]

For my part, he's free to think what he wants and criticism is always helpful even for good games. The right kind of criticism can lead to better implementation of good ideas in the future and even other new stuff that just makes things better.

 

The OP has a point on a few things, but he drops the ball by trying to say that it's a worst ending than ME3. Because that's simply not true on an objective and fundamental level for multiple reasons that I've already stated.

 

Just because people are free to have and speak their opinion, that doesn't mean that they can't be wrong.

 

I never said otherwise, but that is exactly what the discussion forum is all about, right?

 

To immediately post stuff like "Yawn" or "Troll" even after the OP took time to line his reasonings--now, the correctness of his reasonings in your/anyone's view is irrelevant--is not a very admirable thing to do, isn't it?

 

And besides, even if I too disagree with his opinion that ME3 is a better ending, some of his thoughts I think still worth discussing/debating. No need to disqualify the entirety of his opinion just because you disagree with a single element of it.

 

I say this though: the ending of the ME3 may be viewed as worse than DA:I, *but* at the very least all the fighting and events that happened prior to that dreadful appearance of that stupid star-child was done better than the final events of DA:I in its entirety; it genuinely felt like a real struggle, with the heroes trying their damnest to fight through all the monstrosities in the street of London. DA:I truly lacked that tension in the final battle against Corypheus

[ShadowLordXII]

I never said otherwise, but that is exactly what the discussion forum is all about, right?

 

To immediately post stuff like "Yawn" or "Troll" even after the OP took time to line his reasonings--now, the correctness of his reasonings in your/anyone's view is irrelevant--is not a very admirable thing to do, isn't it?

 

And besides, even if I too disagree with his opinion that ME3 is a better ending, some of his thoughts I think still worth discussing/debating. No need to disqualify the entirety of his opinion just because you disagree with a single element of it.

 

I say this though: the ending of the ME3 may be viewed as worse than DA:I, *but* at the very least all the fighting and events that happened prior to that dreadful appearance of that stupid star-child was done better than the final events of DA:I in its entirety; it genuinely felt like a real struggle, with the heroes trying their damnest to fight through all the monstrosities in the street of London. DA:I truly lacked that tension in the final battle against Corypheus

 

Like I said, I agree with him on some parts as well.

 

But that doesn't mean that I can't point out how the OP invalidates himself with the very title and by trying to argue something that's objectively wrong as a fact. It's part of his general opinion and that's tying an anchor around the legitimacy of his perspective. Which doesn't help the direction of discussion, the OP would've been better off by just saying that he didn't like the ending and explaining why rather then expressing himself with an untrue hyperbole.

[Ryriena]

I don't think it was worst than mass effect 3 which actually killed the lore of the game.

[Little Princess Peach]

we have an ending but it will be dlc

[BabyPuncher]

Yeah, you just lost me right there. I played MW 2 there was nothing amazing about Pew, pewing people than doing a quick time event.

 

Nobody said it was 'amazing' or anything close. Merely that it fulfilled the basic requirements of a conflict and resolution.

 

You do realize you're condemning Inquisition with this shallow understanding as well? Because if you're right and Call of Duty is nothing but 'pew, pew, bad guy dies' and therefore terrible, surely we can agree that 'whack, whack, bad guy dies' is equally as bad?

[AresKeith]

It's not good enough to have a bad guy and have the hero walk up to him and chop his head off or shoot him in the face. It's not good enough just to win a battle.

 

There's a reason why, in Call of Duty games, the final mission never has the protagonist fighting through the last level and then just killing the antagonist with a quick rifle shot to the chest like any other of the hundred or so mooks he's just carved through. If the Call of Duty writers and designers understand that, BioWare (and hopefully BioWare fans) sure as hell ought to.

 

lol

[BabyPuncher]

As I said to someone earlier, if you think that comparison is funny, how does Call of Duty consistently surpassing BioWare with the quality of writing in their endings make you feel?

 

Because guess what?

 

They are.

[AresKeith]

They really don't

[BabyPuncher]

Why? Because BioWare gives you a pretty sunset and a romance scene? That makes everything okay?

 

Conflict and resolution are absolute fundamentals of climaxes, endings, and stories in general. Not having any sort of conflict at the most important moment of the story is unacceptable for a good or even a mediocre story. So yes, I would absolutely say they are, if Inquisition is indicative of any sort of trend for BioWare.

[leaguer of one]

Why? Because BioWare gives you a pretty sunset and a romance scene? That makes everything okay?

 

Conflict and resolution are absolute fundamentals of climaxes, endings, and stories in general. Not having any sort of conflict is unacceptable for a good or even a mediocre story. So yes, I would absolutely say they are, if Inquisition is indicative of any sort of trend for BioWare.

Maybe if you understood that the arbor wilds is part of climax.....

And stop using plots good for block buster summer movies as a pedestal for good endings.