1194 réponses à ce sujet

[turuzzusapatuttu]

DA:I was too rushed. But there are more important issues that affect the game, ending is the least of them.

I liked ME3 ending, but just  after EC and after installing a couple of mods (JohnP's Alternate MEHEM and Extended Final Anderson Conversation).

[Deebo305]

Someone doesn't like a Bioware ending!

*Takes a drink*

[leaguer of one]

DA:I was too rushed. But there are more important issues that affect the game, ending is the least of them.

I liked ME3 ending, but just  after EC and after installing a couple of mods (JohnP's Alternate MEHEM and Extended Final Anderson Conversation).

Rushed? This was a 200 hour long game for me...Nothing about it was rushed.

[BabyPuncher]

No.
Just... No.

I actually get kind of mad reading threads like these because it makes me worried that people are actually pushing for worse games. Yes, DAI had issues. No one's going to argue that, but saying that it's worse than things like ME3's ending or most of DA2's plot, which are structurally broken in terms of storytelling, is quite a stretch. Yes, DAI's ending may have been a bit generic, but at least it gave some functional resolution, unlike both DA2 and ME3.

 

The ending of Inquisition is structurally broken. It does not get a pass or provide 'functional resolution' just because everybody lives and there's a scene with the players love interest at the end.

 

If you're concerned about people "actually pushing for worse games," perhaps you should look to the people effectively saying "I don't care how bad the plot is as long as everyone lives and the protagonist gets to marry the LI and have lots of babies."

 

I really can't see any other line of reasoning that would lead players to accept the resolution of the central conflict in the most thematically bankrupt fashion as any kind of acceptable writing for a story aspiring to be great or even good.

[90s Kai]

I didn't think the ending was bad. It seemed, in my opinion, Coryphenus was just a decoy to something greater (or badder if you so choose). And if I read one of your posts right OP, you said one of the reasons you didn't like the last battle was, correct me if I am wrong, because he was to easy to face beat. Well that I can agree with. In my playthrough, beating 10 dragons, finishing 90% of the side quests, and crafting the best weapons and armor I could did make me a bit overpowered. I mean, come on, I ripped through Corypus and his dragon like wet tissue paper. But unlike ME3 where it was just an open ending to be interpreted by the palyer, DAI ended the game with closure, bad guy dead, and kissy faces with your romance option. And we BSNers LOVE kissy faces with our LI's (or is that just me?) 

 

But as I said above Corpeeus, is a prelude to something else. What it is we just have to wait and see. And I can't FREAKING wait!   

[In Exile]

It doesn't make any difference. It's Corypheus who opened the breach, not Solus. Corypheus' plan. Not Solus. Corypheus who the Inquisitor faces. Not Solus. Where he got his power from doesn't really make any difference in the conflict of Inquisition.

In the next game? Maybe. In Inquisition? Absolutely not.

Every villain gets his power from somewhere. Does that make the Leviathans the 'real' villains of Mass Effect? No. It's still the Reapers. Does mean every time a villain has been mentored by a good character but turns evil, the mentor is the 'real' villain? No. The antagonist is still the antagonist.

And this antagonist failed. If you don't feel a sense of achievement there isn't much to say other than the ending didn't work for you. DAO's ending didn't work for me.

But the comparison to ME3 is unjustified. DAI's ending isn't a thematic betrayal. It's the opposite. The game goes to some length to make sure of it.

I'm not sure what you were expecting other than I suppose to feel more threatened by Corypheus. I thought Hushed Whispers and In Your Heart Shall Burn did a decent enough job of showing why Corypheus winning was a disaster - that he lost is just a testament to how awesome the PC is as a person. Which is just the anti-ME3 approach.

[Addai]

The ending of Inquisition is structurally broken. It does not get a pass or provide 'functional resolution' just because everybody lives and there's a scene with the players love interest at the end.
 
If you're concerned about people "actually pushing for worse games," perhaps you should look to the people effectively saying "I don't care how bad the plot is as long as everyone lives and the protagonist gets to marry the LI and have lots of babies."
 
I really can't see any other line of reasoning that would lead players to accept the resolution of the central conflict in the most thematically bankrupt fashion as any kind of acceptable writing for a story aspiring to be great or even good.

I keep reading your posts, waiting for an actual cogent argument to emerge. I'm still waiting. You're just ranting.

[In Exile]

Yeah, the whole Corypheus plot fizzled out by the end. The problem with the story is made apparent when you compare it with DA:O's story, specifically its primary antagonists (the darkspawn):

In DA:O the darkspawn begin as a growing threat that is still containable. After Ostagar, the odds are thrown against the Warden, and though s/he succeeds in gradually putting together an army, the darkspawn also grow stronger and stronger with the Blight gradually consuming more and more of the world map as the story continues. By the end of the game, the darkspawn are at their most powerful, as is the Warden, which makes the final battle an epic, nail biting contest between the Warden's armies and the Archdemon's armies: a final battle that is colossal in scale.

DA:I progresses very differently. The 'Elder One' has everything at the beginning of the game: the mages and templars are at war, the Chantry divided and the kingdoms of southern Thedas are in turmoil while the Wardens, Venatori and Red Templars pledge their service to him. Furthermore, nobody understands who or what his goals are, so he retains the element of secrecy. While the crescendo of your struggle is at the end of the game in DA:O, for me the crescendo in DA:I was fought early in the game during 'In Your Heart Shall Burn' when Corypheus at the height of his power. After that, Corypheus' strength is gradually sapped while the Inquisition rises to power. By 'What Pride Hath Wrought', I didn't feel that Corypheus was any threat - he had a few Red Templars and Wardens left while the Inquisition was commanding an enormous military force supported by the Orlesians, mages/templars and possibly the remaining Wardens.

So while in Origins, the antagonists were at the height of their power at the end of the game (making the ending more exciting and satisfying), in Inquisition, the antagonist had largely fizzled out by the time you confront him at the end: this is made particularly clear when he starts to resort to trolling/attempts to destroy the world in an infantile tantrum.

That being said, I did love the elven god thread in the main quest and its conclusion (particularly the awesome plot twist regarding Solas).

But that's kind of the point of the story I think. To be hopeful, optimistic, and heroic. It doesn't have DAO's almost literal "I win" button but honestly I don't find that kind of story any more satisfying either. It's just as much of a contrivance that the clearly superior enemy has a "press here to retreat" option all of which derives from how Sauron was beaten. At least DAI for all its failings has an actual explanation for how the Inquisition prevailed that goes beyond defeating the Load Bearing Boss.

[BabyPuncher]

I didn't think the ending was bad. It seemed, in my opinion, Coryphenus was just a decoy to something greater (or badder if you so choose). And if I read one of your posts right OP, you said one of the reasons you didn't like the last battle was, correct me if I am wrong, because he was to easy to face beat. 

 

Well, no. It's not gameplay. It's story. It's about the antagonist clearly shown to be a struggle. A challenge. A conflict. Not just a chore. It's not about gameplay. I'll go back to the Call of Duty example I've used several times now, where the games always end with the protagonist seriously injured and struggling to kill the antagonist. The GAMEPLAY is always very easy. A quicktime event or something of the sort. That's not what's important. What's important is what's happening in the NARRATIVE, which is the protagonist very clearly desperate and struggling and on the brink of death and defeat.

 

And that's the very serious problem in Inquisition. Regardless of how difficult the gameplay is for you, the Corypheus is never shown to be kind of serious challenge or struggle. The fight is never shown narratively to be any more than a chore.

 

Secondly, the conflict is the core and most important part of all dramatic stories. And whatever the epilogue may be hinting to, it's not a part of Dragon Age: Inquisition. It's a problem for the next game. A conflict for the next game. Not this one.

 

You can't just not write in a meaningful conflict and resolution with the excuse of "Here's something happening next time! Stay tuned!" Inquisition is a story of it's own, and it needs a meaningful conflict and resolution of its own. And it doesn't have one. 

[Addai]

You can't just not write in a meaningful conflict and resolution with the excuse of "Here's something happening next time! Stay tuned!" Inquisition is a story of it's own, and it needs a meaningful conflict and resolution of its own. And it doesn't have one.

It most certainly does. You don't like it, okay. But this assertion is just ridiculous.

[In Exile]

I think the ending works OK when you do everything from the Arbor Wilds in one run. But it's just weird if you take the opportunity to do other quests in between, and then just have this boss fight standing on it's own.

Also, the final boss fight is a bit lame. And it's a shame there's no role for any companions not with you.

On a technical design side I just do not get why basically every endgame isn't just the suicide mission on repeat. It was the best part of ME2. Not because the collectors even remotely felt like a threat but because of how it just made everything come together so well and made the party feel like a true unit/team.

[In Exile]

The ending of Inquisition is structurally broken. It does not get a pass or provide 'functional resolution' just because everybody lives and there's a scene with the players love interest at the end.

If you're concerned about people "actually pushing for worse games," perhaps you should look to the people effectively saying "I don't care how bad the plot is as long as everyone lives and the protagonist gets to marry the LI and have lots of babies."

I really can't see any other line of reasoning that would lead players to accept the resolution of the central conflict in the most thematically bankrupt fashion as any kind of acceptable writing for a story aspiring to be great or even good.

Just what is this theme that you do not think was followed up on in the ending? Because DAI is almost amazingly consistent in its theme.

[BabyPuncher]

And this antagonist failed. If you don't feel a sense of achievement there isn't much to say other than the ending didn't work for you. DAO's ending didn't work for me.

But the comparison to ME3 is unjustified. DAI's ending isn't a thematic betrayal. It's the opposite. The game goes to some length to make sure of it.

I'm not sure what you were expecting other than I suppose to feel more threatened by Corypheus. I thought Hushed Whispers and In Your Heart Shall Burn did a decent enough job of showing why Corypheus winning was a disaster - that he lost is just a testament to how awesome the PC is as a person. Which is just the anti-ME3 approach.

 

Not good enough. You're not thinking through the fundamental parts of a story. It's not good enough just for the antagonist to fail. He has to fail for a meaningful reason (assuming the central conflict is between the protagonist and antagonist.)

 

Here, watch me write the ending to pretty much any science fiction or fantasy story every written in 20 seconds. "The good guys find a technology/magic artifact that kills the antagonist/creates an army for the good guys/solves all our problems.

 

We find a technology that makes the Death Star go boom without having to fight it! We find a magic artifact that makes the evil demon shivel up and die! We find a magic artifact that summons up an army to kill all the evil orcs and goblins.

 

Are these good endings because the antagonist fails? Do these endings offer a 'sense of achievement' because the antagonist fails?

 

No. They're ridiculous. Because they fail to follow through on the basic principles of a story. Just like Inquisition does by having the bad guy be defeated by being being whacked with a sword for five minutes without any complications or struggle.

[Aimi]

But that's kind of the point of the story I think. To be hopeful, optimistic, and heroic. It doesn't have DAO's almost literal "I win" button but honestly I don't find that kind of story any more satisfying either. It's just as much of a contrivance that the clearly superior enemy has a "press here to retreat" option all of which derives from how Sauron was beaten. At least DAI for all its failings has an actual explanation for how the Inquisition prevailed that goes beyond defeating the Load Bearing Boss.

It also follows a semi-plausible pattern for a war! Spending the whole time losing and then roaring back to beat the enemy in One Big Battle that changes everything is a sports narrative, not a military one. Instead, Corypheus' plans for expansion are defeated, then his army is ground down and destroyed, then he finally goes out in a blaze of personal glory.

[Catche Jagger]

The ending of Inquisition is structurally broken. It does not get a pass or provide 'functional resolution' just because everybody lives and there's a scene with the players love interest at the end.

If you're concerned about people "actually pushing for worse games," perhaps you should look to the people effectively saying "I don't care how bad the plot is as long as everyone lives and the protagonist gets to marry the LI and have lots of babies."

I really can't see any other line of reasoning that would lead players to accept the resolution of the central conflict in the most thematically bankrupt fashion as any kind of acceptable writing for a story aspiring to be great or even good.

By "functional resolution" I mean that the main plot line of the game is wrapped up. Corypheus is defeated, general order is restored to southern Thedas, and the Inquisition is established as a major power in the south. That is an ending.

Let's look at DA2's ending next. Meredith and Orsino both end up dead, but that doesn't mean much because now the Templars and Mages are at each other's throats (they aren't even at war until the events of Asunder). Kirkwall is still at chaos. The companions all split off to do their own unspecified things. Hawke disappears. So... What was resolved? Cassandra learned that Hawke wasn't at fault for the Mage/Templar conflict, but her whole motive for doing any of this isn't really made clear until Inquisition. The ending lacks resolution.

Now for ME3 (here we're going to ignore the Extended Apology DLC). Shepard dies and then there are some colored beams. The colored beams stop the reapers. The mass effect relays blow up. Then the Normandy is randomly alone and gets hit by the colored beams and its engines explode for some reason. Then the crew crash land on some random planet. You think that is more functional that DAI's ending?

DAI was generic in how it ended, but it did provide some semblance of resolution and it was functional. It is a step up from the past two endings without a doubt.

[BabyPuncher]

By "functional resolution" I mean that the main plot line of the game is wrapped up. Corypheus is defeated, general order is restored to southern Thedas, and the Inquisition is established as a major power in the south. That is an ending.

 

No, that's not a narrative resolution at all. A narrative resolution is an answer to the fundamental conflict of the story, which, as I said earlier, is "How do we close the breach and stop whoever or whatever caused it."

 

Inquisition does not have a meaningful answer to that question. The only 'answer' is 'we whack it with a sword for five minutes.' What good is that? What's the point of even writing the breach and Corypheus in the first place if the solution is so pointless?

 

It's thematically bankrupt. There's no revelation of truth.

[X Equestris]

No, that's not a narrative resolution at all. A narrative resolution is an answer to the fundamental conflict of the story, which, as I said earlier, is "How do we close the breach and stop whoever or whatever caused it."
 
Inquisition does not have a meaningful answer to that question. The only 'answer' is 'we whack it with a sword for five minutes.' What good is that?
 
It's thematically bankrupt. There's no revelation of truth.

How is it anymore thematically bankrupt than, to use the Call of Duty analogies you have been using, shooting your way to Makarov and eventually hanging him with a cable?

[Aimi]

How is it anymore thematically bankrupt than, to use the Call of Duty analogies you have been using, shooting your way to Makarov and eventually hanging him with a cable?

I feel that Franklin Roosevelt's solution to the fundamental conflict of Nazism vs. the rest of the world was thematically bankrupt

[BabyPuncher]

How is it anymore thematically bankrupt than, to use the Call of Duty analogies you have been using, shooting your way to Makarov and eventually hanging him with a cable?

 

Because unlike the final battle in Inquisition, the combat is shown to be a genuine struggle. A genuine conflict. And it's only in conflict that qualities have real value.

 

Sacrifice is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked it Yuri hadn't come up and distracted Makarov and gotten himself killed. Courage is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked if Price hadn't jumped from the building to the chopper with no weapons or any other of the crazy stuff that happened. Determination is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked if Price hadn't dragged himself towards the gun inch by inch despite being seriously injured.

 

You compare that to Inquisition's ending and there's just...none of that. No moments where the Inquisitor is made to show any of those qualities. Never does the narrative show that the fight is ever particularly harder or more demanding than any of the other of the very many fights the Inquisitor has been through.

 

And of course, I'm hardly praising Call of Duty as the ultimate ending or anything close. Ideally BioWare should greatly surpass them, with content a hell of a lot deeper than what they offer.
 

[Lord Raijin]

BW: "And Shepard is dead no matter of your choices and resources!"

People: "OMG! You so $uck why did you killed main protagonist of story you dumba$$es!?"

 

BW: "And we let Inquisitor live despite all your $hity choices and low resources in play!"

People: "OMG! You $uck why don'y Inquisitor gets dead for change ugh!?"

 

You really can't make people happy with anything, can you

 

I actually wouldn't mind having my Inquisitor die at the end..., you know with the anchor, and how Corypheus gives his last  "If I'm going to die I'm taking you with me" speech before perishing.

[Catche Jagger]

No, that's not a narrative resolution at all. A narrative resolution is an answer to the fundamental conflict of the story, which, as I said earlier, is "How do we close the breach and stop whoever or whatever caused it."

Inquisition does not have a meaningful answer to that question. The only 'answer' is 'we whack it with a sword for five minutes.' What good is that? What's the point of even writing the breach and Corypheus in the first place if the solution is so pointless?

It's thematically bankrupt. There's no revelation of truth.

What? Are you arguing that the ending is bad because it's too regular?

That's what one would call an underwhelming ending, not a bad one.

Also, you just confirmed that Inquisition did have resolution, you just didn't find it meaningful. That doesn't change that it provides a resolution that is functional, in that it serves it's basic purpose.

[I present Chuck Bass]

Because unlike the final battle in Inquisition, the combat is shown to be a genuine struggle. A genuine conflict. And it's only in conflict that qualities have real value.
 
Sacrifice is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked it Yuri hadn't come up and distracted Makarov and gotten himself killed. Courage is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked if Price hadn't jumped from the building to the chopper with no weapons or any other of the crazy stuff that happened. Determination is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked if Price hadn't dragged himself towards the gun inch by inch despite being seriously injured.
 
You compare that to Inquisition's ending and there's just...none of that. No moments where the Inquisitor is made to show any of those qualities. Never does the narrative show that the fight is ever particularly harder or more demanding than any of the other of the very many fights the Inquisitor has been through.
 
And of course, I'm hardly praising Call of Duty as the ultimate ending or anything close. Ideally BioWare should greatly surpass them, with content a hell of a lot deeper than what they offer.

Well I always got the impression that Cory wasn't extremely strong, just the threat he posed was incredible. By the last battle, you have destroyed his army, his resources, etc. I think the whole idea was to focus on building an inquisition to face the threat. Cory was already shown not to be that powerful in DA:2, when Hawke scraps him. It wasn't Cory who was supposed to be strong and a tough battle, it was taking down everything he had built to that point... The battle in the arbor wilds was supposed to be that big/triumphant battle where you destroy his army. When you get to Cory he has nothing but a dragon, and the power he is sacking from the orb,except you have the anchor which makes his power moot really. That's why at the end, when you find out about solas, you're supposed to be like shiiiiit, I was worrying about the wrong guy the whole time...

[Addai]

Because unlike the final battle in Inquisition, the combat is shown to be a genuine struggle. A genuine conflict. And it's only in conflict that qualities have real value.

So all of this is because the boss battle isn't hard enough? This is what gaming has come to.

[X Equestris]

Because unlike the final battle in Inquisition, the combat is shown to be a genuine struggle. A genuine conflict. And it's only in conflict that qualities have real value.
 
Sacrifice is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked it Yuri hadn't come up and distracted Makarov and gotten himself killed. Courage is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked if Price hadn't jumped from the building to the chopper with no weapons or any other of the crazy stuff that happened. Determination is a necessary quality. It wouldn't have worked if Price hadn't dragged himself towards the gun inch by inch despite being seriously injured.
 
You compare that to Inquisition's ending and there's just...none of that. No moments where the Inquisitor is made to show any of those qualities. Never does the narrative show that the fight is ever particularly harder or more demanding than any of the other of the very many fights the Inquisitor has been through.
 
And of course, I'm hardly praising Call of Duty as the ultimate ending or anything close. Ideally BioWare should greatly surpass them, with content a hell of a lot deeper than what they offer.

The Inquisitor's qualities are displayed throughout the story. They might not feature heavily within the final mission itself, but they don't really need to. They are still, however, there.

[In Exile]

Not good enough. You're not thinking through the fundamental parts of a story. It's not good enough just for the antagonist to fail. He has to fail for a meaningful reason (assuming the central conflict is between the protagonist and antagonist.)

Here, watch me write the ending to pretty much any science fiction or fantasy story every written in 20 seconds. "The good guys find a technology/magic artifact that kills the antagonist/creates an army for the good guys/solves all our problems.

We find a technology that makes the Death Star go boom without having to fight it! We find a magic artifact that makes the evil demon shivel up and die! We find a magic artifact that summons up an army to kill all the evil orcs and goblins.

Are these good endings because the antagonist fails? Do these endings offer a 'sense of achievement' because the antagonist fails?

No. They're ridiculous. Because they fail to follow through on the basic principles of a story. Just like Inquisition does by having the bad guy be defeated by being being whacked with a sword for five minutes without any complications or struggle.

He does fail for a meaningful reason: his hubris in attempting to claim godhood, which was the source of his downfall the first time, once again creates a world and hero who opposes and shatters every value he holds dear. Corypheus has three sources of power: the foci he stole from Solas, the army he acquired on his purported divinity, and his dragon. His plot is to assault the black city by claiming the anchor and shattering the chantry that supplanted his beloved Tevinter. Yet in his hubris, he creates the instrument of his downfall.

Rather than strike you down himself he orders his mooks to do it. He loses the orb, and you claim the anchor. Over the course of the game you claim its power. You shatter his purported illusion of divinity and restore the institution he sought to break. You create a counter part to every source of his power: you use the Well to obtain a counter-dragon, use the other side of the Red Templars/Venatori to found the Inquisition, and Master the Foci using the Anchor to heal the heavens he sought to break. The tide of power literally shifts from him to you by the endgame. Where at the start you were no one and alone, at the end Corypheus is nothing and alone. That's pure theme and it's what makes the fight dull. Gameplay is sacrificed for theme, not the other way around.

Corypheus sought to become a god to give purpose to a world he saw as broken. You rise from the literal ashes of a broken world to give it renewed hope and a symbol in the Inquisition.

Just look at the symmetry between the start of the story (told via flashback) and the end. The breach is created when Corypheus drops the orb without completing his ritual. The breach is closed when you use the anchor to *rip* the foci from his hands at the height of his physical power. You've reversed your roles entirely.

You restore the Chantry where he sought to break it. You eschewed godhood where he sought to claim it. You healed the heavens were he sought to assault them. You are in the most literal and thematic sense his antagonist.

I just cannot wrap my head around how you think DAI is thematically empty at the ending.