79 réponses à ce sujet

[RagingCalgarian]

Or at least one, in which the protagonist can die. I was really annoyed by how DAI lacked such an ending. Even though the very first trailer we got for DAI ended with the words "Darkness comes. Will you stand against it? Or lead this world to its utter end?". There was no way to lead the world to its utter end. Hell, there's not even an ending where the inquisitor can die. I hope they don't repeat that with MEA. No, I'm not asking for a situation like ME3 where Shep dies in almost every ending. Something in between is totally possible. Hell, DAO got it down perfectly. It would really make the colonization effort feel more tense and interesting, knowing that there's a chance it might not work out. 

[Jedi Comedian]

I wish all endings are like ME2 Shep death.

[ZipZap2000]

I don't like how they shy 'd away from darker elements in DAI.

The evil inquisitor should never have been removed from the game.

It would have been fun.

[RagingCalgarian]

I don't like how they shy 'd away from darker elements in DAI.

The evil inquisitor should never have been removed from the game.

It would have been fun.

 

Agreed. Inquisition was the perfect time to play an evil tyrant, considering how much political and military power the inquisitor had by the middle of the game. I was very disappointed they didn't let us go down this route. Would've added alot to the replay value to the game. 

[Jedi Comedian]

I don't like how they shy 'd away from darker elements in DAI.

The evil inquisitor should never have been removed from the game.

It would have been fun.

An RPG that doesn't allow you to be evil is no RPG.

[sentinel_87]

Even though you have to almost work at it in ME2 I always appreciated the fact that Bioware made it possible for Shepard to die.  It gives some weight to surviving.  It's not much of a suicide mission if Shepard will always come away from it.

 

So yes, I'd like this.  But definitely stay away from ME3 if they go this route.

[Pasquale1234]

An RPG that doesn't allow you to be evil is no RPG.

It's one of the many downsides of a game designed around cinematic storytelling, that features a PC the player doesn't own / define.

[Jedi Comedian]

It's one of the many downsides of a game designed around cinematic storytelling, that features a PC the player doesn't own / define.

One of the things I apreciate the most about RPGs (no, it's the thing I apreciate the most) is choosing my moral alignment. At least in ME you can be ruthless.

[Sartoz]

Or at least one, in which the protagonist can die. I was really annoyed by how DAI lacked such an ending. Even though the very first trailer we got for DAI ended with the words "Darkness comes. Will you stand against it? Or lead this world to its utter end?". There was no way to lead the world to its utter end. Hell, there's not even an ending where the inquisitor can die. I hope they don't repeat that with MEA. No, I'm not asking for a situation like ME3 where Shep dies in almost every ending. Something in between is totally possible. Hell, DAO got it down perfectly. It would really make the colonization effort feel more tense and interesting, knowing that there's a chance it might not work out. 

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Now you know why I dislike Bio marketing crap. I'll wait until after the game launch + user reviews before I make a buy decision.

[O'Voutie O'Rooney]

I was totally expecting the first comment to be, with snark, "Every ending in ME3 was a failure". I am presently surprised that such a comment hasn't appeared yet.

 

But, yes, I agree with the OP. There should be a "failure" ending.

[ZipZap2000]

<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

Now you know why I dislike Bio marketing crap.

On that I agree, they did the same thing ME3.

I consider it outright lying when its claimed you can do something like:

The battle for earth has begun; Decide how it ends.

Take earth back.

Lead this world to its utter end.

Insert ME1 trailer implying you may have to sacrifice entire planets.



It really doesn't look good on the company because clearly you cant trust a thing they tell you.

[Khrystyn]

I'm fine with the potential to fail, but SP play must also allow for plenty of opportunities to earn the points sufficient for reaching the penultimate ending too. I realize this isn't a thread about SP vs. MP

[UpUpAway]

Agree.

[RoboticWater]

It's one of the many downsides of a game designed around cinematic storytelling, that features a PC the player doesn't own / define.

I actually don't think "cinematic" has much to do with it. Even the games that let you make the evil choices don't usually change most gameplay in a significant way. Most decisions in these quests are made in contained segments that mainly affect the parties that are immediately involved and maybe your general reputation. In Mass Effect's case, I doubt adding in some cruel choices and cutscenes would really be that expensive in the grand scheme of the game.

 

I think it has more to do with reactivity, continuity, and plot structure. Shepard can't act like a total psychopath all the time because he has people he needs to please. Unless BioWare made practically divergent storylines with different friend circles depending on how you acted (not something you see in most RPG), we'd need to have a cast of characters that were effectively apathetic to our actions. Of course, that wouldn't matter as much if Mass Effect were just a single game with a self-contained story. You could light everything on fire, get the appropriate epilogue card, and be on your merry way, but Mass Effect is a trilogy. As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to build a story around actions that could be completely opposite. DA:I couldn't have been the story of a conquering tyrant that threw the realm into chaos because the next game needs to pick up at a single point. I don't even think a classic CRPG with neither VO nor cutscenes could handle a trilogy's worth of those kinds of choices.

 

More to the topic at hand though; I don't think now is the time to be worrying about endings. I suspect that Andromeda will be the beginning of a new trilogy, and if it isn't, then it's likely the start of an extended continuity like DA is now. As I said, continuity doesn't lend itself well to diverse endings. I would like there to be multiple endings, especially ones where we don't necessarily win; however, I don't expect actual defeat or joining the bad guy to be realistic outcomes. If we get a new protagonist each game, then maybe we could get an ending where our current one dies or becomes disgraced, but external differences will still need to be kept to a minimum.

[Felya87]

As Long as I have my happysh ending with my protagonist surviving with her LI.
I hated the monothematic endings in ME3 were the only way to get a decent non-tragic ending was via mod or fanfic.

[Remix-General Aetius]

I would agree if said death would result in the failure of the entire playthrough, forcing you to start from the very beginning. If it's "mission failed" and "load most recent checkpoint".......then what's the point?

[sentinel_87]

While I enjoy the DA series I do hope that ME does not follow it in how they change characters every game. 

 

The upside to this is it allows Bioware to explore more of the world and to have different points of view in each playable character.  The downside I think is how every choice in the DA games is ultimately decoration.  Not that this is a bad thing, at least its decoration that I get to pick, and its now the DA series formula.  I've only played through DAI with one world import, but I do not believe any possible outcome is blocked off because of my decisions in the other games.  Every game is self contained in that respect.

 

In ME most of your choices are decoration (different councilors in ME3 who do the exact same thing as the ones they replace, outcome of most side missions).  Some are not though.  The outcome of the Tuchanka and Rannoch story arcs can be completely different depending on actions in earlier games.  Given that is the ME formula, and one I prefer, I hope it's the start of a trilogy or at least a direct successor title.

 

 

The death/failure of the character wouldn't have to force a restart of the game.  It could end that particular characters story, like in ME2.  I can take a Shepard through ME1 and ME2 only to have that one die in ME2.  In that case that Shepard's story ends there and it can not be imported into ME3.  That Shepard still had a story and impact on the galaxy even though they are dead before the Reaper invasion. 

 

For Andromeda death/failure could mean that humanity does not succeed in establishing a new home and ultimately dies off in the Andromeda galaxy.  Therefore you can't continue that world state into other games.  It's still a possible outcome, just one that does not go forward in the series.

[UpUpAway]

I actually don't think "cinematic" has much to do with it. Even the games that let you make the evil choices don't usually change most gameplay in a significant way. Most decisions in these quests are made in contained segments that mainly affect the parties that are immediately involved and maybe your general reputation. In Mass Effect's case, I doubt adding in some cruel choices and cutscenes would really be that expensive in the grand scheme of the game.

 

I think it has more to do with reactivity, continuity, and plot structure. Shepard can't act like a total psychopath all the time because he has people he needs to please. Unless BioWare made practically divergent storylines with different friend circles depending on how you acted (not something you see in most RPG), we'd need to have a cast of characters that were effectively apathetic to our actions. Of course, that wouldn't matter as much if Mass Effect were just a single game with a self-contained story. You could light everything on fire, get the appropriate epilogue card, and be on your merry way, but Mass Effect is a trilogy. As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to build a story around actions that could be completely opposite. DA:I couldn't have been the story of a conquering tyrant that threw the realm into chaos because the next game needs to pick up at a single point. I don't even think a classic CRPG with neither VO nor cutscenes could handle a trilogy's worth of those kinds of choices.

 

More to the topic at hand though; I don't think now is the time to be worrying about endings. I suspect that Andromeda will be the beginning of a new trilogy, and if it isn't, then it's likely the start of an extended continuity like DA is now. As I said, continuity doesn't lend itself well to diverse endings. I would like there to be multiple endings, especially ones where we don't necessarily win; however, I don't expect actual defeat or joining the bad guy to be realistic outcomes. If we get a new protagonist each game, then maybe we could get an ending where our current one dies or becomes disgraced, but external differences will still need to be kept to a minimum.

 

All very true... That's why I feel that any "failure" ending should result in that file save not being importable into the next stage of the series or like how ME3 handled it if Shep died in ME2.  I would actually like to see three different failure endings... one complete and total failure (missions fails and PC dies), another like in ME2 (where mission succeeds but essentially everyone had to die before Shep did) and another not so predictable failure ending where the PC dies even though the mission succeeds and everyone else survives... none of which result in an importable file.  I suspect, though, that it would anger a lot of players if they essentially had to start the game over again to create an importable file; but I personally think that,  in principle, a game isn't a really a game when it can't be lost.  Still, I'd be surprised if BioWare actually did more than one failure ending.  Most likely, it would be similar to ME2, where one pretty much has to intentionally mess up everything in order to get it.

[UpUpAway]

I'm fine with the potential to fail, but SP play must also allow for plenty of opportunities to earn the points sufficient for reaching the penultimate ending too. I realize this isn't a thread about SP vs. MP

 

Totally agree - all endings should be at least obtainable using only a basic (no DLC) SP game.

[DuskWanderer]

I've never understood why people are so giddy about being dickbags. You can play Postal for that.

[RoboticWater]

All very true... That's why I feel that any "failure" ending should result in that file save not being importable into the next stage of the series or like how ME3 handled it if Shep died in ME2.  I would actually like to see three different failure endings... one complete and total failure (missions fails and PC dies), another like in ME2 (where mission succeeds but essentially everyone had to die before Shep did) and another not so predictable failure ending where the PC dies even though the mission succeeds and everyone else survives... none of which result in an importable file.  I suspect, though, that it would anger a lot of players if they essentially had to start the game over again to create an importable file; but I personally think that,  in principle, a game isn't a really a game when it can't be lost.  Still, I'd be surprised if BioWare actually did more than one failure ending.  Most likely, it would be similar to ME2, where one pretty much has to intentionally mess up everything in order to get it.

I agree in principle, but turning failure endings into non-importable save files only shifts the burden slightly to the game's next to worst case scenario. How many of the PC's choices can be different without leading to a failure state?

 

ME2's next to worst case scenario is entirely contingent on squad loyalty (and Normandy upgrades to some degree), thus the range of its ending states are actually quite small. The only major differences ME2 provides ME3 are whether certain characters are present and how those characters feel about you. All your relationships with the Alliance, the Council, and other Terminus system planets are almost completely unchanged. We'd start having problems if you had the option to kill Anderson, blow up some ambassador buildings, and usurp Aria. Unless all of those actions individually lead to a failure state (which would be incredibly cheap), then the next game would need to deal with the fallout.

[UpUpAway]

I agree in principle, but turning failure endings into non-importable save files only shifts the burden slightly to the game's next to worst case scenario. How many of the PC's choices can be different without leading to a failure state?

 

ME2's next to worst case scenario is entirely contingent on squad loyalty (and Normandy upgrades to some degree), thus the range of its ending states are actually quite small. The only major differences ME2 provides ME3 are whether certain characters are present and how those characters feel about you. All your relationships with the Alliance, the Council, and other Terminus system planets are almost completely unchanged. We'd start having problems if you had the option to kill Anderson, blow up some ambassador buildings, and usurp Aria. Unless all of those actions individually lead to a failure state (which would be incredibly cheap), then the next game would need to deal with the fallout.

 

I see your point as well... but then we would have to be stuck with a "failure" ending that really isn't a failure at all.  In that context, even ME2 really didn't have a failure ending... the mission succeeded every time regardless of who lived or died; and the ending decision (to keep or destroy the base) had no real significance in ME3... so we get back to all the feelings that player decisions don't matter.  I don't see a way where we can really expect to have it all ways... a series (e.g. trilogy) where the player's decisions matter in significant ways as well as decisions that cover a reasonably broad spectrum of choice.  I suppose they could opt to split the sequels into more than one game... and the players buy whichever sequel suits the sort of ending they chose in the prequel (Not likely to happen those, since producing 2 or more sequel games would be expensive and would probably just split the market for the most part rather than generate double the sales.

[Monk]

I'd like to see the PR department being held more accountable so we get the product they advertize. There is such a thing as false advertizing and we shouldn't allow it. And this isn't just because there are real legal issues which could be pursued but because we care enough for the company to not only play but display our pride in it throughout forums, in what we wear, etc.

 

This being said, more possible endings would be greatly appreciated, LI's involved or not.

[RoboticWater]

I see your point as well... but then we would have to be stuck with a "failure" ending that really isn't a failure at all.  In that context, even ME2 really didn't have a failure ending... the mission succeeded every time regardless of who lived or died; and the ending decision (to keep or destroy the base) had no real significance in ME3... so we get back to all the feelings that player decisions don't matter.  I don't see a way where we can really expect to have it all ways... a series (e.g. trilogy) where the player's decisions matter in significant ways as well as decisions that cover a reasonably broad spectrum of choice.  I suppose they could opt to split the sequels into more than one game... and the players buy whichever sequel suits the sort of ending they chose in the prequel (Not likely to happen those, since producing 2 or more sequel games would be expensive and would probably just split the market for the most part rather than generate double the sales.

I think the reality is that you simply can't have too many divergent choices that have effects on a scale larger than the PC's inner circle. It's just too much content to produce (at any level of production value) and it's too much of a strain on the story, especially one where character reactions are such an essential component.

 

I've tossed around the idea of Shepard dying around in my head. If Shepard wasn't a messianic figure that was absolutely necessary to the plot, I think it might have been possible to replace him in a sequel. You could pick up the game as some other captain, but you wouldn't have access to any nostalgic dialog. In fact, if ME3 were built such that each squad member had a disposition (friendly to distant) which gated dialog progression based on how members felt about your actions, then the game could just default each member to distant with the new PC. Given that you're in the military, most people could just call Shepard and the new guy "Captain," so there might not be a need to redo lines.

 

I think it's cool, but it's still a lot of hoops to jump through.

[Pasquale1234]

It's one of the many downsides of a game designed around cinematic storytelling, that features a PC the player doesn't own / define.

I actually don't think "cinematic" has much to do with it. Even the games that let you make the evil choices don't usually change most gameplay in a significant way. Most decisions in these quests are made in contained segments that mainly affect the parties that are immediately involved and maybe your general reputation. In Mass Effect's case, I doubt adding in some cruel choices and cutscenes would really be that expensive in the grand scheme of the game.

Given the number of cinematic cutscenes involved, that expense would be very high.
 

I think it has more to do with reactivity, continuity, and plot structure.

Cinematic storytelling, as I mentioned in the post to which you are replying.
 

Shepard can't act like a total psychopath all the time because he has people he needs to please.

Cinematic storytelling, that features a PC the player doesn't own / define, as I mentioned in the post to which you are replying.

Bioware designs their games around cinematic storytelling. They won't allow you to kill Jacob, Miranda, and TIM and run off with the SR-2, because they've programmed a different story they want to tell. They won't allow you to side with the mercs at Dantius Towers and kill Thane while protecting Nassana because it doesn't fit with the Shepard they've designed or the story they want to tell. You can't walk into Afterlife and open fire on its inhabitants, because that behavior would not suit the Shepard they've designed or the story they want to tell.

That these scenarios were part of a trilogy is not particularly relevant. Even within the confines of a single game, Bioware tends to make sure you solve the problems presented in way that they feel befits their character and story.