1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Torgette]

One weird thing about the ending is how it's introduced, in my playthrough I obviously knew this would be the final mission but wasn't aware you could keep playing afterwards so I stopped and trekked around the world gathering schematics, making custom armor and weapons, killing dragons, etc.

 

It was days, maybe even a week before I got back to the final mission, so when I went to start it and *boom* Corypheus is right outside my front door I was like "wait, no big setup? no fight on top of a mountain? no pursuit?". So I went outside, kicked his butt, then went back inside and had dinner.

 

Sort of anti-climactic by itself, even weirder if you stop for awhile before doing it.

[BabyPuncher]

And the ending is nowhere close as bad as ME3's original ending, or Fable 2's. 

 

Fable 2 is one goddamn stupid ending. No doubt about that.

 

But no, I really think Inquisition is worse.

[dragonflight288]

Fable 2 is one goddamn stupid ending. No doubt about that.

 

But no, I really think Inquisition is worse.

 

And I have no idea why you feel that way, as you've yet to offer anything that is not a broad and subjective opinion. 

 

But that's the nature of opinions. Everyone has them, and everyone is different. *shrug*

[Zikade]

I admit that it felt... underwhelming. I'll just copy what I wrote in here: http://forum.bioware...dai/?p=18825163

 

End-game doesn't meet the expectations. While I wouldn't call it terrible, it still failed to deliver. After the amazing showdown and buildup in and after Haven, I thought it was a promise of even bigger and better things to come ("Hoo boy! The baddie has shown his face and wrecked our base, now the REAL game begins!"). However, it turns out that the destruction of Haven and the introduction of Skyhold ended up being the highlights of the game from a narrative perspective. After that there was no real sense of threat or urgency. Furthermore, nothing I did seemed to have any effect on the final battle. The whole premise was to build and strengthen the Inquisition in order to defeat Corypheus so I'd expect preparation to be the key. As it turns out, we can pretty much ignore all optional missions and do whatever choices and still suffer no losses. In the end it felt like my Inquisitor beat Copyheus with one arm behind his back. 

 

There was no proper setup either. The Inquisitor just leisurely walks over to Cory like "Hi! I have arrived to our appointment like agreed so let's fight." I remember my reaction being a bit flabbergasted. I was looking forward for the kind of last mission we had in previous DA games and in ME. As much as one might hate ME3 ending, at least the game still had a lengthy, heavy tension last mission (including character interaction) building up to the initial showdown which then... yeah...  

 

Back to DAI. Then, after the short and easy final battle I waltz right back to Skyhold and wasn't even allowed to have cinematic conversations with my allies. It felt... detached. I have little love for the 3rd person conversation camera view in general but I can sort of understand it in side mission. Here I definitely expected more. At least they allowed us to share a more intimate moment with our LI but that (or the post-credits scene) won't suddenly fix the whole ending and its' lack of tension and emotional investment.  Not in my case at least. I still don't say it's a terrible ending but it certainly left a lot of things to desire for. 

[midnight tea]

And I have no idea why you feel that way, as you've yet to offer anything that is not a broad and subjective opinion. 

 

But that's the nature of opinions. Everyone has them, and everyone is different. *shrug*

 

Eh, at this point he's just trolling....

[Shadow Fox]

Corypheus does exactly what Solas says he would do. In a childish fit of rage, he'll destroy the game board rather than admit he lost. 

 

And the ending is nowhere close as bad as ME3's original ending, or Fable 2's. 

What was wrong with Fable 2's ending?

[BabyPuncher]

It's been years, but if I remember correctly, the 'hero' survives getting shot at point blank range and incapacitates the bad guy because of 'the power of heroism in his blood' or something.

[Shadow Fox]

It's been years, but if I remember correctly, the 'hero' survives getting shot at point blank range and incapacitates the bad guy because of 'the power of heroism in his blood' or something.

Oh yeah.

[dragonflight288]

What was wrong with Fable 2's ending?

 

You are denied a boss battle at the end, you get shot point-blank range and then for reasons unknown, the heroic blood in your veins lets you find the music box that you bought as a kid that disappeared entirely after trying to use it, suddenly to wake up in the spire where you'll hear the big bad guy ramble on and on, and if you choose not to kill him, Reaver will kill him, and then you have to make a choice to either get your family (and dog) back, become insanely rich, or help the world by bringing back everyone killed by Lucius (except your family.)

 

And then you get kicked out of the spire to never return and without any explanation whatsoever by Theresa. I was left without any explanation on what happened, how it happened and a case of severe disappointment. I couldn't be bothered to play another playthrough or do any sidequests after the fact because of the total failure to deliver an ending that made sense, was satisfying, and left too much to "Just go with it, there's a magic music box that is never explained but it solves all the problems, even your own death."

[BabyPuncher]

Right, I forgot, it's the magic music box that solves all your problems.

 

Still, at least that ending had a choice and unexpected content.

[dragonflight288]

Right, I forgot, it's the magic music box that solves all your problems.

 

Still, at least that ending had a choice and unexpected content.

 

Umm....not really.

 

Choice, bring back everyone Lucius killed except your family, bring back your family and your dog, or make a lot of money. 

 

A, B, or C ending, none of them addressed in Fable 3. And the unexpected content, the music box, does nothing to answer any questions, explains how we got to the spire and past all the guards, came back to life, and then we are completely kicked out of the spire after making a wish. 

 

The epilogue slides of Inquisition are wide and varied, based entirely on several of our choices, and a boss fight. It may not match individual players expectations, and the ending most certainly could be stronger. But it made sense, it was satisfying to, to my knowledge, the majority of players, and the ending slides offer enough variety, and the multiple romances, that it encourages multiple playthroughs. 

 

Inquistion is much better than Fable 2. 

[9TailsFox]

I am not reading 40 pages so I am sorry if I am repeating someone. It wasn't worse then ME3 not even close. But it was anticlimactic, and meh "what?, That's it he just come her to die?"

[Aquarius121]

 

Then, after the short and easy final battle I waltz right back to Skyhold and wasn't even allowed to have cinematic conversations with my allies. It felt... detached. I have little love for the 3rd person conversation camera view in general but I can sort of understand it in side mission. Here I definitely expected more.

 

This was a huge part of my issue with the ending. I really expected more meaningful scenes between these characters I had spent upwards of 100 hours with. While I despise the use of the 3rd-person camera with even side-quest NPCs, having it used for the *last conversation you can have with your companions* was unexplainable. It was a real let down especially when I already wasn't fond of the last battle. I kept thinking, "oh now I'll feel something" but I never did :/

 

Ugh. I like the characters and Corypheus as the Big Bad, on paper. And their cinematic scenes are usually wonderful. There's just too little of them in between all the open-world traveling and fetching and grinding. The ending (both the battle and the "party" afterwards) didn't feel like it was built up to what it could have been, but instead just happened because I clicked a button when I felt like it.

[BabyPuncher]

Umm....not really.

 

Choice, bring back everyone Lucius killed except your family, bring back your family and your dog, or make a lot of money. 

 

A, B, or C ending, none of them addressed in Fable 3. And the unexpected content, the music box, does nothing to answer any questions, explains how we got to the spire and past all the guards, came back to life, and then we are completely kicked out of the spire after making a wish. 

 

The epilogue slides of Inquisition are wide and varied, based entirely on several of our choices, and a boss fight. It may not match individual players expectations, and the ending most certainly could be stronger. But it made sense, it was satisfying to, to my knowledge, the majority of players, and the ending slides offer enough variety, and the multiple romances, that it encourages multiple playthroughs. 

 

Inquistion is much better than Fable 2. 

 

Yes. Really.

 

You're right, Fable's ending made utterly no sense at all, but ultimately, making sense is not at the top of the priority list. As I've said in this thread multiple times, any idiot can write an ending that makes perfect sense. It's irrelevant. A powerful ending that doesn't stand up to scrutiny (and for the record, very, very few plots really do stand up to strict scrutiny) is better than a vapid ending that 'makes sense' any day of the week.

 

Not to say Fable was powerful. it wasn't.
 

[ShadowLordXII]

Yes. Really.

 

You're right, Fable's ending made utterly no sense at all, but ultimately, making sense is not at the top of the priority list. As I've said in this thread multiple times, any idiot can write an ending that makes perfect sense. It's irrelevant. A powerful ending that doesn't stand up to scrutiny (and for the record, very, very few plots really do stand up to strict scrutiny) is better than a vapid ending that 'makes sense' any day of the week.

 

Not to say Fable was powerful. it wasn't. It sucked. But that just goes to show the vapidity of Inquisition.
 

 

How can a "powerful" ending be powerful if it can't even stand on it's own two feet?

 

"Making sense" is a sign of internal coherence which every story needs. If that coherence is chucked out the window or utterly lost, then it doesn't matter how "profound or powerful" that the ending is supposed to be because the suspension of disbelief has already been broken and along with it immersion within the secondary fictional world.

 

A vapid ending may not be as interesting, but it's better than a broken or inherently terrible ending that invalidates/collapses the whole story.

[BabyPuncher]

Does the scene in the Shawshank Redemption where he holds his hands up in the rain after crawling through the pipe 'not matter' because the circumstances behind it (of nobody bothering to put a grate on a pipe big enough for a man to crawl through that leads into a prison) make little sense under scrutiny? Is that no longer a powerful scene?

 

Is the Matrix a stupid, pointless film because the whole concept of the machines using humans as power plants makes little sense? Does that 'collapse' the setting? Because the whole plot is based on a concept that has no 'coherence'?

 

Pretty much all stories of significant length ever written fudge 'realism,' fudge 'coherence to tell the story they want to tell. it's not and should not be the ultimate pedestal of intelligent writing.

 

How many endings do you think you can name that 'stand on their own two feet,' hmm? Not very many, I can tell you that. Particularly in modern or futuristic settings where you can't just justify things with magic and which have to be 'coherent' with the laws of the real world in addition to the fictional ones they create.

 

Nobody likes fiction getting things wrong, but making accusations that everything is tossed out the window because it's not always coherent is just completely silly.

 

So you're entirely wrong. It does matter.

[ShadowLordXII]

Does the scene in the Shawshank Redemption where he holds his hands up in the rain after crawling through the pipe 'not matter' because the circumstances behind it (of nobody bothering to put a grate on a pipe big enough for a man to crawl through that leads into a prison) make little sense under scrutiny? Is that no longer a powerful scene?

 

Is the Matrix a stupid, pointless film because the whole concept of the machines using humans as power plants makes little sense? Does that 'collapse' the setting? Because the whole plot is based on a concept that has no 'coherence'?

 

Pretty much all stories of significant length ever written fudge 'realism,' fudge 'coherence to tell the story they want to tell. it's not and should not be the ultimate pedestal of intelligent writing.

 

How many endings do you think you can name that 'stand on their own two feet,' hmm? Not very many, I can tell you that. Particularly in modern or futuristic settings where you can't just justify things with magic and which have to be 'coherent' with the laws of the real world in addition to the fictional ones they create.

 

Nobody likes fiction getting things wrong, but making accusations that everything is tossed out the window because it's not always coherent is just completely silly.

 

So you're entirely wrong. It does matter.

 

Generalizations all around. Also, internal coherence is a VERY important aspect of writing, especially when dealing with fiction where people shoot lightning from their fingertips or where dragons and elves are present as real things in that particular world.

 

When I say internal coherence, I really mean how that story sticks to the very rules that it lays out for itself and for the genre. Things that make up the setting, tone, mood, themes, plot development, characterization and etc. A cool dramatic idea or pay-off can call for bending/breaking the rules if the writer can properly explain how that occurrence was the exception rather than the norm. Therefore, your audience will go with it and enjoy the pay-off. But this is something that shouldn't be done too often or the story's internal coherence and the willing participation of your audience (suspension of disbelief) will weaken and if you outright break the rules really badly, then the internal validity of your story is lost along any emotional or thematic pay-off that was supposed to be present.

 

Thematic and Symbolic depth should be a result of narrative consistency, not substitutes for them. In the case of Shawshank, your example is really a nitpick especially since that movie established just how arrogant that the warden was and that Andy's plan was one that had never been attempted before. Until then, why would anyone bother with a grate at all? The ending is now stronger because questioning it allows you to see how it holds up even more and enforces the powerful theme that the theme and scene were meant to portray.

 

My point is that internal coherence is just as important as making an emotional connection or getting across a profound theme. Without it, then the emotion of the moment is lessened and cheapened. That's because coherence is the glue that keeps a story together as the vehicle for those themes and for the emotions and if that vehicle is broken then how does the cargo get where its supposed to go?

[dragonflight288]

Coherence and thematic unity fill in the holes of a plot that may otherwise exist. 

 

One or two can be overlooked if a moment is powerful enough, but add too many and it doesn't matter how powerful a moment is, suspension of disbelief will kill the mood and the audience won't feel it. 

 

Too many plot holes will sink a story faster than a boat without a deck.

[In Exile]

Does the scene in the Shawshank Redemption where he holds his hands up in the rain after crawling through the pipe 'not matter' because the circumstances behind it (of nobody bothering to put a grate on a pipe big enough for a man to crawl through that leads into a prison) make little sense under scrutiny? Is that no longer a powerful scene?

 

Isolated from the context of the movie, it's a ridiculous looking scene. In fact, that's how it always gets parodied: the context gets removed. 

 

Endings in general don't make sense absent all of the plot, because (with rare exceptions) it would be nonsensical for the ending to recount it. 

[BabyPuncher]

Generalizations all around. Also, internal coherence is a VERY important aspect of writing, especially when dealing with fiction where people shoot lightning from their fingertips or where dragons and elves are present as real things in that particular world.

 

And you missed the point entirely. The point is coherence is overwhelmingly easier in such settings, because explanations that boil down 'it works because magic' are completely valid. Whereas modern and futuristic stories have to find a way to try and make things work with the rules we have. They usually struggle.

 

When I say internal coherence, I really mean how that story sticks to the very rules that it lays out for itself and for the genre. Things that make up the setting, tone, mood, themes, plot development, characterization and etc. A cool dramatic idea or pay-off can call for bending/breaking the rules if the writer can properly explain how that occurrence was the exception rather than the norm. Therefore, your audience will go with it and enjoy the pay-off. But this is something that shouldn't be done too often or the story's internal coherence and the willing participation of your audience (suspension of disbelief) will weaken and if you outright break the rules really badly, then the internal validity of your story is lost along any emotional or thematic pay-off that was supposed to be present.

My point is that internal coherence is just as important as making an emotional connection or getting across a profound theme. Without it, then the emotion of the moment is lessened and cheapened. That's because coherence is the glue that keeps a story together as the vehicle for those themes and for the emotions and if that vehicle is broken then how does the cargo get where its supposed to go?

 

Why are you claiming all this as if it's some sort of profound revelation? I literally said in my last post that nobody likes when stories get things wrong. Do you think you're enlightening me somehow, as if I didn't know that powerful moments are cheapened when they're nonsensical? 

 

Here's the plain and simple reality: Every popular story of significant length out there has plot holes. Has things that are difficult to justify outside of "Because the plot says so." Has technical content that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Has contradictions of it's own rules it's laid out. The absolute overwhelmingly majority of them have many, many, many, many, many of these things.

 

Surely you're not in denial about this, yes? Not convinced that your personal favorite show or writer is a never ending fountain of internal consistency and logic?

 

But lo and behold, People still care about stories. Emotional moments still have impact. The 'cargo' still does not sink. 'Broken vehicle' and all. And just so you don't feel compelled to repeat yourself, I actually do grasp that these stories would be much stronger if these problems were fixed. I vehemently dislike these problems. But the idiotic pointlessness of content like the Crucible or the vapidity of Inquisition are far worse. 

[BabyPuncher]

what are your specific complaints on that?  Certainly several characters aren't very traditionally heroic, but then there's people like Dorian, Cassandra, even Blackwall to a certain degree

 

Why?

 

Because they say nice things during banter?

 

That just isn't good enough.

 

It's not that nobody is 'traditionally heroic,' it's that nobody is anything, period. The amount of times total that characters took actions showing any kind of character, good, bad, or anything in between I can count on one hand.

 

[TheJediSaint]

Coherence and thematic unity fill in the holes of a plot that may otherwise exist. 

 

One or two can be overlooked if a moment is powerful enough, but add too many and it doesn't matter how powerful a moment is, suspension of disbelief will kill the mood and the audience won't feel it. 

 

Too many plot holes will sink a story faster than a boat without a deck.

Boats without decks float just fine.

 

Boats without keels on the other hand...

[Dabal Hayat]

With no ill intentions to add fuel on the fire, I've a little question about the end of DAI.

 

As far I've understood the game (I do not posses DAI, I'm interested in it because it's a Bioware game), the main wish of Cory was to walk in the Fade, or at least, to crack open the wall between reality and the Fade and the let the power flow through him. From the Citadel of the Maker (or the Black Citadel if you prefer) to him, more o less.

Let's not forget, Cory was even the commander in chief of the ancient magisters who first dreamed to reach the Black City and dethrone the Maker...

 

We all know the results: Darkspawn, Blight, Archdemons and son on...

 

The problem I've in the ending of DAI, lies in the fact that, as we learn through the game (or at least as I've understood), the Anchor was the mystical MacGuffin Cory needed to achieve this... fadewalking in the flesh. Then come the Inquisitor and Cory plan get skewed. The rest of the game is 2 superpowers, Inquisition Vs Cory followers, trying to gain the upper hand over each other...

If all of this is correct, why should be considered a good idea, a fitting ending, to banish Cory back to the Fade, letting him basically achieve his purpose? Granted, he will be weakened and more o less killed (spirit form? Something like that?), but... he will be in the Fade.

And Cory is one the magister who once already reached the Black Citadel... I mean... WTF?

How much times will Cory need to consort with demons, subjugate Fade energy and try to reach again the Citadel? Or reach the Inquisitor from this side of the Fade? Or simply create a kingdom of demons and come back again, stronger than ever for revenge and evulz? Cory is not omnipotent, and he's arrogant... but doesn't strike me as stupid or incompetent...

So exactly, why banishing Cory in the Fade at the end should be a good idea?

[Shechinah]

(to Dabal Hayat) My impression were that the Inquisitor used their Fade-related powers to essentially open a rift within Corypheus which tore him apart from the inside, effectively killing him rather than banish him into the fade. Whether or not that send his spirit into the Fade is a thing I am uncertain about but considering how thoroughly beaten the veil had to have been where he was fought, the result might have been the same regardless.   

[dragonflight288]

Boats without decks float just fine.

Boats without keels on the other hand...