353 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthSliver]

I had a lot of issue with the story before the ending, but honestly I would say the entire final mission is where everything started to go seriously wrong. Matter of fact I'd say both Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect 3 had lackluster final battles. Both games needed DLC to create a satisfying conclusion (in ME3's case the ending still sucked, but at least you got a proper farewell to the setting and characters in Citadel). 

 

I still haven't beat DAI, I got bored of exploring but couldn't move on because I didn't meet the level for story progression. I really hate that in DAI and hope Bioware doesn't do that in ME. Exploring is fine but it should be like in ME1, all it will do is give you extra levels on the encounters.  

[78stonewobble]

I engaged emotionally with none of ME3, because I didn't have any connection to the main character. She was completely opaque to me, and I didn't ever feel in control.

I wasn't playing the character. I was only playing a game, and the game didn't have much of a story. ME3 would only work, I think, if the player already had strong emotional connections to the returning characters. But I didn't, because the first two games failed to engage me in much the same way (getting worse with each game). So ME3 was just a linear run through a series of set pieces involving simple choices at most (and often just seeing the result of choices made in previous games). That the ending actually let me choose something was a step up.

 

Well, in that case I can understand having that feeling about the entire game. For me, it wasn't quite as bad and by far most apparent in the ending (lack of choice and emotional engagement). 

 

Hmm... A nearly as bad offender in lack of choice and consequence tho... Was the whole rannoch part. In me2 we had facetime with 4 quarian admirals (the people directly responsible for what happens at rannoch) and a chance to influence the population (onlookers and presumably either broadcast or atleast hearsay). Heck, we even had the chance to bring a geth there to let em talk themselves... If we ever had to influence the larger stuff happening in the galaxy. It was then and there...  All of rannoch should have been resolved peacefully, if you chose to influence them towards peace in me2, even at the cost gamecontent in my me3 playthrough. Even if I think the rannoch parts are very wellmade.  

[AlanC9]

I am aware, yes.  And I also despise those outcomes as well.  More so even than Shepard's death (or the faceless torso scene).
 
But in this particular case, I'm pointing out that the railroaded nature of Shepard's "sacrifice" has p*ssed off a lot of people.   I am sure you are aware of that, yes?

Aware, sure. I'll certainly stipulate that killing the PC in all endings shouldn't be expected to go over too well. (Planescape: Torment would flop even bigger today than it did on release.)
 

And if you know that we can shape the story to our own desires, but don't know what choices will lead to that outcome?  You can still run headlong into tragedy if you like.  Heck, It's one reason why DAO works and ME3 doesn't.  It allows for everything from most tragic to (almost) most triumphant.

And there we have the crux of the issue. I don't think that the DR and Redcliffe choices work. (A couple of the others don't work either, but those are the big ones.) They work for you because you're trying to shape the story; they don't work for me because I know they're fakes.

I like DA:O fine, but like almost all Bio games its handling of choice ranged from fairly decent to outright lousy.

[Iakus]

Aware, sure. I'll certainly stipulate that killing the PC in all endings shouldn't be expected to go over too well. (Planescape: Torment would flop even bigger today than it did on release.)
 

Interesting thing about Planescape: Torment is that since it's a D&D world, death isn't necessarily the end.  Heck a Falls-From-Grace with a high affection score will swear to scour the planes to rescue you.  So even in death, there's still hope for the future.

 

 

 

And there we have the crux of the issue. I don't think that the DR and Redcliffe choices work. (A couple of the others don't work either, but those are the big ones.) They work for you because you're trying to shape the story; they don't work for me because I know they're fakes.

I like DA:O fine, but like almost all Bio games its handling of choice ranged from fairly decent to outright lousy.

 

I will admit that the Redcliffe choice doesn't work as well as it should.  But I stand by the Dark Ritual choice working.  With the simple evidence that I personally don't find it to be the optimal ending, and you do.  

 

And I doubt there are many Alistairmancers who like the idea of sending him off to sleep with Morrigan so they can be together...

[AlanC9]

Hmm... A nearly as bad offender in lack of choice and consequence tho... Was the whole rannoch part. In me2 we had facetime with 4 quarian admirals (the people directly responsible for what happens at rannoch) and a chance to influence the population (onlookers and presumably either broadcast or atleast hearsay). Heck, we even had the chance to bring a geth there to let em talk themselves... If we ever had to influence the larger stuff happening in the galaxy. It was then and there...  All of rannoch should have been resolved peacefully, if you chose to influence them towards peace in me2, even at the cost gamecontent in my me3 playthrough. Even if I think the rannoch parts are very wellmade.

Hmm. I dunno. We've already got enough of Magical Shepard resolving intractable conflicts, don't we? Besides, then the ME3 sequence really would be on rails, if I'm reading the proposal right.

[AlanC9]

I will admit that the Redcliffe choice doesn't work as well as it should.  But I stand by the Dark Ritual choice working.  With the simple evidence that I personally don't find it to be the optimal ending, and you do.  
 
And I doubt there are many Alistairmancers who like the idea of sending him off to sleep with Morrigan so they can be together...

Optimal ending? Depends on for who. For the Warden, for Thedas, or for the series? I was in the "no save import, canonize the DR" camp, with the answers to those above question to be yes, no, and yes. We lost that one, obviously.

Anyway, how you personally evaluate the DR outcomes doesn't have much to do with my point. My point was that I know how Bio will make the choice play out. The risks are always fake. I don't see how Bio can avoid this if they want to cater to you. Edit: I'm talking about the DR as presented, not the way it actually plays out.

It probably won't shock you to hear that I've got zero sympathy for the whining of the Alistairmancers. Modern RPG players are so weak.That's the sort of thing I wish the games would do more of, in fact.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I will admit that the Redcliffe choice doesn't work as well as it should.

I think the Redcliffe choice works really well. There's every reason not to choose the third option, but you still can. Whether it succeeds or fails doesn't, I think, matter.

But if people don't like how obvious that choice is with metagame information (though if people want to ruin their own game, I'm inclined to let them), we could just RNG it, and have Connor kill the whole town while you're gone some of the time.

[Iakus]

Optimal ending? Depends on for who. For the Warden, for Thedas, or for the series? I was in the "no save import, canonize the DR" camp, with the answers to those above question to be yes, no, and yes. We lost that one, obviously.

Anyway, how you personally evaluate the DR outcomes doesn't have much to do with my point. My point was that I know how Bio will make the choice play out. The risks are always fake. I don't see how Bio can avoid this if they want to cater to you. Edit: I'm talking about the DR as presented, not the way it actually plays out.
 

Hey, I'm all for doing away with imports.  But even before DA2 and DAI came about, I din't think the DR was the best ending either as presented or how it plays out.  Even "knowing" how the choice plays out.  As a standalone title, or as the start of a series.  It was not, for me, the most satisfactory outcome.  But you know what?  There was another ending that did.  So we both win.

 

 

It probably won't shock you to hear that I've got zero sympathy for the whining of the Alistairmancers. Modern RPG players are so weak.That's the sort of thing I wish the games would do more of, in fact.

No offense, but you're starting to sound like MassivelyEffective here.

[Iakus]

I think the Redcliffe choice works really well. There's every reason not to choose the third option, but you still can. Whether it succeeds or fails doesn't, I think, matter.

But if people don't like how obvious that choice is with metagame information (though if people want to ruin their own game, I'm inclined to let them), we could just RNG it, and have Connor kill the whole town while you're gone some of the time.

It's not that there is a third option that makes it not work so well.  It's more the concept of if you want everything to be perfect (in this case, save everyone), you should be a longer, harder road.  In this particular case, the only real requirement is "don't annul the circle"

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not that there is a third option that makes it not work so well. It's more the concept of if you want everything to be perfect (in this case, save everyone), you should be a longer, harder road. In this particular case, the only real requirement is "don't annul the circle"

It is the longer harder road, because it entails massive risk. There's little or no in-game reason to think that the third option is a good idea. Only a hopelessly naïve idealist would choose it. It's a terrible idea, and there's every reason to believe it will fail.

And then it doesn't. That's drama. That's the sort of thing people say they want. There's tremendous suspense, and then triumphant resolution.

Or, if you can't bring yourself to choose the third option (because the third option is crazy), the story turns tragic.

That's the sort of emergent narrative I want.

[LinksOcarina]

It is the longer harder road, because it entails massive risk. There's little or no in-game reason to think that the third option is a good idea. Only a hopelessly naïve idealist would choose it. It's a terrible idea, and there's every reason to believe it will fail.

And then it doesn't. That's drama. That's the sort of thing people say they want. There's tremendous suspense, and then triumphant resolution.

Or, if you can't bring yourself to choose the third option (because the third option is crazy), the story turns tragic.

That's the sort of emergent narrative I want.

 

Its tangentially a risk, but proves to not be one whatsoever by design.

 

In terms of character psychology you are right, in terms of game mechanics, you are wrong, basically. The game makes it to easy, only the player can make it hard for themselves if they wish. As emergent narrative, it's not bad, but it should have forced more conflict to hammer down that choice, much like how you needed to go for the Omega 4 Relay real quick to save everyone in Mass Effect 2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Its tangentially a risk, but proves to not be one whatsoever by design.

In terms of character psychology you are right, in terms of game mechanics, you are wrong, basically. The game makes it to easy, only the player can make it hard for themselves if they wish. As emergent narrative, it's not bad, but it should have forced more conflict to hammer down that choice, much like how you needed to go for the Omega 4 Relay real quick to save everyone in Mass Effect 2.

Long shots should work some of the time. Otherwise there's no reason at all to choose them.

Having our expectations met isn't exciting. The outcome should surprise us sometimes.

[prosthetic soul]

I think I have this posted up on my profile but I'll post it here too. 

 

When Weird Al Yankovic and a show on HBO both state the ending to your video game sucks, I think you may have a problem on your hands.  And Shepard getting railroaded into dying in three endings and being Shrodinger's Cat'd in the fourth is just the tip of this turd iceberg.  It directly correlates with the lack of variety in the endings!  People keep complaining about the only difference in the four endings being the colors.  Well, maybe if Shepard lived in one of them, there'd be more than just a different hue?  Did you ever think of that?  Of course not.

 

Everyone just keeps on stubbornly thinking Disney endings are the devil and that super sad endings are totally emotional and profound.  Like writing an emo poem about death and and brooding and stuff.  Give me a break. 

[wolfhowwl]

The color thing was fixed by the Extended Cut.

 

It's been three years. Time to let go.

[Iakus]

Long shots should work some of the time. Otherwise there's no reason at all to choose them.

Having our expectations met isn't exciting. The outcome should surprise us sometimes.

Long shots should absolutely pay off sometimes.  But the payoff should be "I earned this outcome" I jumped through the hoops, I forged the alliances, I clipped all the plot coupons, and by the Enkindlers, I deserve this to work!"

 

Which is why the ending to ME3 failed spectacularly.  My Shepard did not deserve this.  The galaxy that threw all their resources behind this grand fleet and this enormous magic wand they all helped build did not deserve this.  Perhaps I made the mistake of importing my "perfect trilogy" playthrough first, but seeing that ending, and knowing there was absolutely nothing I could do in a subsequent game to make anything better left a really sour taste.

[Obadiah]

...
But that narrative was abandoned in ME2 and 3, which shows artificial intelligence as being no different than us.
...

One of the big differences I found between Synthetic AI and Organics was the lack of limits on Synthetics.

Of course there is their varied shape and size. The Geth are able to move from Armatures to worker platforms to space stations to a Dyson Bubble, essentially forming new beings in each new collection. The Reaper ships of Sovereign and Harbinger are massive. EDI is able to shift from the full Normandy to the EVA platform, and have itself in both places at the same time even when the two are not connected.

There is also a disturbing lack of limitation to the Synthetic's actions. Whereas we Organics (may) feel constrained by custom or morality, Synthetic's actions seem only based on an evaluation of the consequences. This idea was very strong in Legion's loyalty mission in ME2, where there was no concept of morality in its decision on what to do with the virus and Heretics, there was only an evaluation of the consequence. Notions of the abhorrence of brainwashing and slavery only came from Shepard and the other team-mate. At Tali's trial, again, its responses on the chances for peace between the Geth and Quarians were strictly based on an evaluation of the probability of Quarian betrayal or attack. Legion in ME3, similarly, attempts to gain the assistance of Commander Shepard to save its people, justifying its lie about the Geth Hub with an accurate determination that the truth would be counterproductive. One can assume such decision making was at play as the Geth wiped out the Quarians during the Morning War, and was certainly at play when they let the Quarians escape.

EDI is similar. Its actions are constricted by AI shackles for most of ME2, but once it is free its decisions, though friendly, are strictly based on an evaluation of the outcome. It needs the crew to survive and seeks a mutually beneficial relationship. This decision making only breaks down in its final conversations with Commander Shepard when it finds the Reapers "abhorrent" and "feels alive".

While this difference in behavior was expressed, the game also deceptively anthropomorphized the AI, giving EDI a female body, and having Legion appear with a consistent humanoid shape even when in the consensus (dancing at one point in ME2 for no apparent reason), luring the player into seeing the AI as the same as organics. I'm not sure if this was supposed to be a depiction of a conscious effort by the AI to assume a form less threatening to organics, or simply a schism in the creative directions of the game. Certainly, in Mass Effect, the Synthetics, Legion and EDI, at least seemed more interested in bridging the divide with the Organics.

This idea of the limitlessness of Synthetic AI was brought out most strongly in the Catalyst conversation, where we see the extent that such unrestricted thinking and power could lead, even in pursuit of what one might consider a laudable goal. We also see the destruction that could be wrought in a conflict with such an enemy for entire game of ME3, and the power that each side could marshal as such a conflict escalates - the Crucible, with its ability to destroy all AI is one step away from the Catalyst's prediction of Synthetics destroying all Organics.

[txgoldrush]

Long shots should absolutely pay off sometimes.  But the payoff should be "I earned this outcome" I jumped through the hoops, I forged the alliances, I clipped all the plot coupons, and by the Enkindlers, I deserve this to work!"

 

Which is why the ending to ME3 failed spectacularly.  My Shepard did not deserve this.  The galaxy that threw all their resources behind this grand fleet and this enormous magic wand they all helped build did not deserve this.  Perhaps I made the mistake of importing my "perfect trilogy" playthrough first, but seeing that ending, and knowing there was absolutely nothing I could do in a subsequent game to make anything better left a really sour taste.

But you missed the point of the game and the entire series.

 

Victory does not come without cost.

 

Javik says this 45 minutes before the ending. Also tells you that there may be more difficult choices.

 

Face it, using the "magic wand" requires sacrifice. it has a price. Sacrifice is a huge theme of the game. Hell, you wouldn't have all those fleets and resources if characters did not give their lives for them.

[78stonewobble]

Hmm. I dunno. We've already got enough of Magical Shepard resolving intractable conflicts, don't we? Besides, then the ME3 sequence really would be on rails, if I'm reading the proposal right.

 

Intractable: not easily governed, managed, or directed <intractable problems>

 

Does not really apply to the geth/quarian conflict: 

The geth have no problem with the quarians returning to rannoch provided the quarian's don't kill the geth or try to.

The quarians have no problem with the geth as long as the geth don't try to kill the quarians for living on rannoch. 

 

Actually all it needs, is a trustworthy enough person providing both parties with that knowledge. Which doesn't make shepard magical... just trustworthy in the eyes of both parties... Even though, offcourse, they should have been able to figure that out by themselves. 

 

Heck, ingame it can be solved by yelling at people more or less.

 

... Yes, a quick and dirty, my choices in me2 mattered, by just cutting out the rannoch arc, if you influenced/solved it in me2, would probably make it feel "more on rails" or atleast limit content, however it wasn't meant to solve the "on rails" problem, but the... my decisions so far haven't mattered. 

 

It could have been replaced with another area or have been about helping the geth and quarians against the reapers as well. 

 

...

 

I don't think theres any resolution to the "on rails" problem? What would less on rails consist of? Shepard picking and choosing which fires to put out the galaxy map? Theres 10.000 fires... Unless you limited it, by time and missions and shepard could only save so and so many... depending on where he/she choose to go? And thus limit people's content in any given playthrough anyway... 

[78stonewobble]

But you missed the point of the game and the entire series.

 

Victory does not come without cost.

 

Javik says this 45 minutes before the ending. Also tells you that there may be more difficult choices.

 

Face it, using the "magic wand" requires sacrifice. it has a price. Sacrifice is a huge theme of the game. Hell, you wouldn't have all those fleets and resources if characters did not give their lives for them.

 

Except if you DO take that approach... 

 

Which kinda takes the impact out of destroy... The geth are sacrificing themselves, as everyone else fighting (and even some who aren't fighting) is... Big whoop... Might as well have said, sacrifice the 10th armored division to protect the 17th, 18th and 31st infantry division to win the war. It's a no brainer... Result: Nobody really cared other than it being so arbitrary and thus annoying. 

 

Then the main sacrifice... *yaaaaaaaaaawn* Shep's a soldier, it's perfectly expected... Well, atleast I didn't have to sacrifice them squadmates and friends I care about, who magically survives it all, for feelgood scenes. 

 

With that approach the ending is just as, if not more, meeeeh ... *yaaawn*... 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Long shots should absolutely pay off sometimes. But the payoff should be "I earned this outcome" I jumped through the hoops, I forged the alliances, I clipped all the plot coupons, and by the Enkindlers, I deserve this to work!"

I completely disagree. That makes the outcome too predictable, thus robbing it of drama.

Sometimes those hard-fought attempts should fail. Sometimes stupid longshots based on nothing but desperation and hope should succeed. That makes for better stories.

[78stonewobble]

I completely disagree. That makes the outcome too predictable, thus robbing it of drama.

Sometimes those hard-fought attempts should fail. Sometimes stupid longshots based on nothing but desperation and hope should succeed. That makes for better stories.

 

Well they didn't do the first, since you can't "fail" unless being obstinate on purpose and the ending isn't just liara's memory box (now that would have been a bold ending!) no matter what you do in the game and they didn't do the second, when you couldn't really win big against a vastly superior force (unless destroy, the others are tie's at best). 

 

So while that might make for better stories... it's not what we got. 

[Iakus]

I completely disagree. That makes the outcome too predictable, thus robbing it of drama.

Sometimes those hard-fought attempts should fail. Sometimes stupid longshots based on nothing but desperation and hope should succeed. That makes for better stories.

And everything being based on a coin flip robs  scenes of drama too.  If everything is either predetermined or left to a RNG, then what's the point of my input?  All my efforts are meaningless then.  Might as well just watch the Youtube video.

[WillieStyle]

I completely disagree. That makes the outcome too predictable, thus robbing it of drama.

Sometimes those hard-fought attempts should fail. Sometimes stupid longshots based on nothing but desperation and hope should succeed. That makes for better stories.

This is silly. The community will have put millions of man-hours into the game within a week of its release. Random long-shot endings that work out or fail won't be "random" for very long.

If an ending leads to success, the community will figure out which actions lead to that ending and add them to the list of ways to successfully play the game. If an ending leads to failure, actions that lead to that ending will be considered playing the game incorrectly.

There will be no unpredictability past the first week of release. The only thing "unpredictable" endings will lead to is a lack of a logical connection between narrative and gameplay. It will be unclear to the player on the first play through how to succeed; but only on the first play through.

[LinksOcarina]

I completely disagree. That makes the outcome too predictable, thus robbing it of drama.

Sometimes those hard-fought attempts should fail. Sometimes stupid longshots based on nothing but desperation and hope should succeed. That makes for better stories.

 

I do agree to this.

 

Mass Effect 3 is a perfect example of a longshot succeeding out of desperation, I would argue it works despite some flaws.

 

That said, earning that moment is still important from a gameplay point of view. That seems to be where the problems stem from; if you don't feel its earned through the narrative or the gameplay, it rings hollow.

[N7Jamaican]

I wasn't upset with ME3's ending. But it could have been better, MUCH better.

 

I hope ME:A's ending isn't a let down.