417 réponses à ce sujet

[Eelectrica]

So, basically we die unless we kill Naraku first? Challenge accepted.

I don't know what a Naraku is, just presenting one possibility is all.
But good luck killing your Naraku though.

[Eelectrica]

No, the Inquisitor says "We close the Breach twice(I love how the Inquisitor puts emphasis on that), and my own hand wants to kill me!" They never say it is, just that it apparently wants to.

And the mark may end up doing just that. Guess we'll find out soon enough. Their has to be some consequences afterall.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I don't know what a Naraku is, just presenting one possibility is all.
But good luck killing your Naraku though.

In the anime Inuyasha, Naraku is the main antagonist. He cursed one of the protagonist's family with the Wind Tunnel, which is essentially a black hole that forms in their hand and will slowly swallow them. This is passed down from father to son until the protagonist I mentioned, who joins the other protagonists to kill Naraku before the Wind Tunnel swallows him too since Naraku's death ends the curse.

[HomerIsLegend]

Hopefully it's just an option and not the only outcome.

[Kakistos_]

Right at the start of the game the Inquisitor says the Mark is Killing him/her. So if that's what happens it's been setup already. The mark could be a bit like a cancer perhaps.
So not really railroading just fated to happen.

Solas stopped it from killing the Inquisitor before, he could do it again. It's also possible that an Inquisitor that drank from the Well of Sorrows knows how to stop it.

[Eelectrica]

Solas stopped it from killing the Inquisitor before, he could do it again. It's also possible that an Inquisitor that drank from the Well of Sorrows knows how to stop it.

If the choices we make along the way had an impact on the final ending, that would be very cool.

[Kakistos_]

If the choices we make along the way had an impact on the final ending, that would be very cool.

YES! Wouldn't it be hilarious if Solas just stood there and watched an Inquisitor who punched him die?!?! Mwahaha!!

[Eelectrica]

YES! Wouldn't it be hilarious if Solas just stood there and watched an Inquisitor who punched him die?!?! Mwahaha!!

None of my Inquisitors punched Solas, but I suppose Solas might find that amusing.

 

Another possibility after our little chat with Solas:  "Oh yeah inquisitor, I'm gonna need the power of that mark, so I'll be taking that now. This might hurt a bit"

*With lightning quick speed Solas grabs the inquisitors hand, and absorbs the power of the mark, leaving the inquisitor as a dry, dead husk, then magics himself off into parts unknown...*

[Korva]

It equates to an inconsistent ending for some characters.  Not all characters would do that.

 

That's why the character-leaves-to-go-do-something-else epilogue works better - because it's far easier to headcanon around.

 

I wouldn't say it's necessarily better, because any singular forced ending does not take the individual Inquisitor into consideration, nor the motivations of the players. For example, I very much do not want my Inquisitor to survive if that means being damned to exile, irrelevance and losing the Anchor and all her friends (again, but permanently this time as per Bioware's standard disregard for platonic bonds). Just as I don't want the "rocks fall on your head, you die" ending.

 

My wishes for the outcomes of Trespassers are:

 

1) Respect for the character. Treat her as a positive part of the setting, not as a problematic dead weight that must not get in the way anymore and thus needs to be disappeared and minimized.

2) Respect for her legacy. Show us the "changed world" and don't roll it back to square one. Let her have a lasting, meaningful, positive impact.

3) Respect for her friendships. Don't spell out the fate of each companion. Don't plan to reuse them all in future games and tie-ins. I want at least room for headcanon that those I care about the most stay with my character, if she lives. (This is the one I'm most worried about, actually.)

[Gileadan]

If we absolutely need yet another "pick who gets to die" moment of forced drama in DAI, and this time concerning the protagonist no less, then it needs to be executed much better than those in Here lies the Abyss and Demands of the Qun. I don't want the last memorable moment of this game to be another exercise in frustration of the "why are we standing here and talking instead of acting" type.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The only other two Hawkes are with the main Hawke, so I would find that unlikely to say the least.

If Carver disappeared for a couple of weeks between Acts, would we necessarily know?

As for the second line, can we please not invent Shrödinger's lore? The lore is the same regardless of if you know it. Let's not get into alternate universe stuff just to allow someone to canonically ignore a DLC.

While I am generally a fan of Schrödinger's Lore, we don't need that here. What I'm suggesting is mechanically identical to any quest with multiple possible outcomes.

[CoM Solaufein]

As previously stated, my character isn't going any where, I'm a god in my world.

[GoldenGail3]

My Inquisitor is gonna stay alive! No, if Cullen isn't happy, then I'll be sad, so no, she is ain't dying no more!

[Andreas Amell]

My Shepard isn't going to sacrifice herself when there is no need to, that's just stupid.

That's your decision. Some people can't think of the greater good. 

[Andreas Amell]

Question, why is it that people are so sour over their protagonist dying in a videogame. I do not mean just DAI, but in any game? I mean, the chances of us playing as the IQ again in DA4 are very slim and most likely Bioware will resort to the "The IQ left and began some expedition alone and has not been seen since". You know, the same type of explanation they did with the Warden. 

 

Personally, I always found it to be more heroic for the main character to die in the end which is why I like the Sacrifice ending in DAO, it adds a bit of tragedy to it.

 

Why does a main character dying equate to a bad ending? Was it a bad ending when the Warden died by killing the archdemon in DAO? Why does everything have to be a generic kindergarden story of the hero saving the day and living happily ever after? I mean come on, we are all adults here, we can handle some complexity to how our heros story "end". 

They just don't have the right stuff. This is still just a game. 

[Nixou]

Because Bioware games are "choose your adventure" books in video game format and many don't want to be railroaded at the end with their protagonist.

 

 

As if game books didn't railroad their audience, especially those part of a continuing story.

[Flurdt Vash]

Not EVERYONE likes "Bitter Sweet Endings"  , just saying.  Personally, I have always despised investing hours in a game only to die at the end, figured if that is the ultimate outcome to the stories ending then I could have beaten it at the first enemy, just put the controller/keyboard down and go make a sandwich, come back, sit then eat slowly as health bar ticks away. Success    . Just my humble opinion, no hate at all for any of you who enjoy the complexity or what have you of the Heroic Hero Death, I guess Im just a sucker for a semi happy-ish ending      

[Shechinah]

Question, why is it that people are so sour over their protagonist dying in a videogame. I do not mean just DAI, but in any game? I mean, the chances of us playing as the IQ again in DA4 are very slim and most likely Bioware will resort to the "The IQ left and began some expedition alone and has not been seen since". You know, the same type of explanation they did with the Warden. 

 

Personally, I always found it to be more heroic for the main character to die in the end which is why I like the Sacrifice ending in DAO, it adds a bit of tragedy to it.

 

Why does a main character dying equate to a bad ending? Was it a bad ending when the Warden died by killing the archdemon in DAO? Why does everything have to be a generic kindergarden story of the hero saving the day and living happily ever after? I mean come on, we are all adults here, we can handle some complexity to how our heros story "end". 

 

Oh, it differs to me from game to game. Telltale's game series has examples of it done where I have not minded it and in fact liked it. The thing about it, however, is that although you are told your choices tailor the game, your influence on the story is in the details and not in the overall story. The game series are more about reacting to events and coping with them with a heavy shade of illusion of choice to try and not make it bothersome to the player that they are going along the railroad's tracks. Because of this, I expect to only be able to deal with deaths rather than prevent them; my own included.

 

The deaths and the cause of them generally fits with the overall tone of the games; In "Walking Dead", the deaths are sudden things because of how quickly things can turn from bad to better and better to worse. In "Game of Thrones", it is used to invoke a sense of paranoia in the player and shake them free of the mindset that they are safe because they hold the role of protagonist. In a perhaps poor metaphor that I am like to replace; The player may color the picture that Telltale's draws but the motif will ultimately still be the same and the player is not allowed not to paint outside the lines.

 

The Fallout franchise and the Dragon Age franchise may use the illusion of choice but still wants to provide the player with genuine choices to create a sense of impact hence the different endings not only for the respective worlds, the respective companions but also the respective protagonists. This is why that when a death is unnecessary but forced upon the player in games like these, some players tend react negatively to this especially if the forced sacrifice contradict important characterization they've built through dialogue and in-game decisions.

 

The sacrifice ending in Dragon Age: Origin was a genuine sacrifice on not only the Warden's part but also the player's because the both were provided with a way out but choose to sacrifice themselves, thus making it a genuine case of someone sacrificing themselves rather than someone being sacrificed. It was a choice.  

 

As a personal note, I have no trouble with any of my protagonists, current or previous, never making an appearance or having a mention in any installment outside of their own but I consider railroading them into dying solely for the sake of removing them from the world altogether to be wholly unnecessary. I was fine with imagining my Warden ditching the Grey Wardens and retiring to Antiva, I was fine with imaging my Hawke settling down somewhere quiet with Fenris to live as normal a life as they could and I am fine with imagining my Inquisitor disappearing into the woods.   
 

[Flurdt Vash]

Oh, it differs to me from game to game. Telltale's game series has examples of it done where I have not minded it and in fact liked it. The thing about it, however, is that although you are told your choices tailor the game, your influence on the story is in the details and not in the overall story. The game series are more about reacting to events and coping with them with a heavy shade of illusion of choice to try and not make it bothersome to the player that they are going along the railroad's tracks. Because of this, I expect to only be able to deal with deaths rather than prevent them; my own included.

 

The deaths and the cause of them generally fits with the overall tone of the games; In "Walking Dead", the deaths are sudden things because of how quickly things can turn from bad to better and better to worse. In "Game of Thrones", it is used to invoke a sense of paranoia in the player and shake them free of the mindset that they are safe because they hold the role of protagonist. In a perhaps poor metaphor that I am like to replace; The player may color the picture that Telltale's draws but the motif will ultimately still be the same and the player is not allowed not to paint outside the lines.

 

The Fallout franchise and the Dragon Age franchise may use the illusion of choice but still wants to provide the player with genuine choices to create a sense of impact hence the different endings not only for the respective worlds, the respective companions but also the respective protagonists. This is why that when a death is unnecessary but forced upon the player in games of this, some players tend react negatively to this especially if the forced sacrifice contradict important characterization they've built through dialogue and in-game decisions.

 

The sacrifice ending in Dragon Age: Origin was a genuine sacrifice on not only the Warden's part but also the player's because the both were provided with a way out but choose to sacrifice themselves, thus making it a genuine case of someone sacrificing themselves rather than someone being sacrificed. It was a choice.  

 

As a personal note, I have no trouble with any of my protagonists, current or previous, never making an appearance or having a mention in any installment outside of their own but I consider railroading them into dying solely for the sake of removing them from the world altogether to be wholly unnecessary. I was fine with my imagining my Warden ditching the Grey Wardens and retiring to Antiva, I was fine with imaging my Hawke settling down somewhere quiet with Fenris to live as normal as life as they could and I am fine with imagining my Inquisitor disappearing into the woods.   
 

 

BEAUTIFULLY Said! Especially on that last paragraph, I would totally hug you right now.... or at least Air High Five so as not to invade personal space lol 

[Shevy]

Halo: Reach ending option for Inquisitor please!

[Ieldra]

As a personal note, I have no trouble with any of my protagonists, current or previous, never making an appearance or having a mention in any installment outside of their own but I consider railroading them into dying solely for the sake of removing them from the world altogether to be wholly unnecessary. I was fine with imagining my Warden ditching the Grey Wardens and retiring to Antiva, I was fine with imaging my Hawke settling down somewhere quiet with Fenris to live as normal a life as they could and I am fine with imagining my Inquisitor disappearing into the woods.

Dito. I would like my Inquisitor to continue in a position of power, but if that's not to be I can live with it, albeit grudgingly. Death, however, is completely inacceptable as a rule. I can imagine scenarios where I wouldn't mind, but they're highly specific to my personal thematic preferences, and I know Bioware and I have often been at odds there.

So, if my Inquisitor must leave, let her step through an eluvian into the unknown places and worlds beyond.

@Shevy:
How does Halo: Reach end?

[Nette]

How does Halo: Reach end?

You get to play your protags last moments. It's a sacrifice ending where he stays to let others get away and fights until he's finally overwhelmed and killed. You control him during that fight.

[10K]

I'm tired of a new protagonist every game. Inquisitor should stay alive as well as the inquisition. I actually thought this was the strongest cast of characters in the series, plus they were the only saving grace Inquisition had. Another game with more new characters would be awful. It's time for DA to find a focal point and because the inquisition have paved the way with an interesting backstory I think EAware should stick with them, besides I like to see more judgement gameplay. 

[Ieldra]

I'm tired of a new protagonist every game. Inquisitor should stay alive as well as the inquisition. I actually thought this was the strongest cast of characters in the series, plus they were the only saving grace Inquisition had. Another game with more new characters would be awful. It's time for DA to find a focal point and because the inquisition have paved the way with an interesting backstory I think EAware should stick with them, besides I like to see more judgement gameplay.

I'm very much ok with new protagonists every game. So I don't have to worry what Bioware will do to my protagonists in the next game. Whenever there were returning protagonists, in any Bioware game after BG2/TOB, including Hawke's reappearance in DAI and most notably Shepard, I didn't like the results. I do not want them to die, though. Walk out of their story, that's fine, but not death.