BioWare's New Game

[Purkake]

Okay, let's try common/predictable/overused/boring then?

 

Plus, weren't you all swooning over non-standard endings ala Torment and MotB some time ago?

Edited December 12, 2010 by Purkake

[Fighter]

But "happy" is still too broad. Even Torment could be defined as "happy" in its best ending.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Fighter

[Purkake]

Happy = everyone lives happily ever after.

 

The scale goes roughly from happy to bittersweet to sad with open-ended(ie. cop-out) being somewhere on the side.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Purkake

[Fighter]

And which one of those is not clich

[Purkake]

As I said before, some clich

Edited December 12, 2010 by Purkake

[Orogun01]

As I said before, some clich

[Raithe]

To take a slight diversion, I remember reading a critics review of the Lensman series when E.E. "Doc" Smiths books were re-released a few years ago.. and the critic was raining down on how cliched and overused it all was.

 

Of course, when the books were first written he invented most of those points and ideas. But after around 60 years of other sci-fi writers copying them and using them for their stories.. they have become cliche. The struggle of original and exciting becoming commonplace and overused.

 

Grand stories are always going to suffer under that, regardless of whether it's in a book, a computer game, or film.

 

What are you going to do? Stop enjoying everything?

[Purkake]

So yeah, moving back to the comment I was referencing. Why do you want a happy ending after you've put 100h into a game, Hurly? (as opposed to any other kind)

[Fighter]

I think first and foremost things should be smart, nuanced, deep, well executed, etc. Get those right and you wont even notice that on the surface it's been done before, more than once. Planescape Torment plot hinges on amnesia, which is pretty clich

Edited December 13, 2010 by Fighter

[Purkake]

Torment wasn't good because of the amnesia, it was good despite it. It was a necessary crutch for the writers. Seeing as they were trying to deconstruct as many fantasy RPG tropes as they could, I was surprised that they didn't do anything more with the opening.

 

You get interesting stories by playing with expectations and clich

Edited December 13, 2010 by Purkake

[Slowtrain]

The only thing that matters is execution. Broadly defined, everything is clich

[Hurlshort]

So for those who don't want a cliche or happy ending, would you consider the endings to ME1 and ME2 those things? I thought they were pretty open, ME1 allowing you to get rid of the council and ME2 having the chance for multiple deaths among your companions. Granted there was a way to steer through those to a 'happy' ending, but there were options there.

[Purkake]

It's different for the last one, because the trilogy needs some kind of an actual ending instead of a "dun dun dun to be continued...".

 

I mean Shepherd could go either way, but the Reaper storyline hast to end somehow and you'll need a canon ending if they want the franchise to continue(which they probably do...).

[Orogun01]

It's different for the last one, because the trilogy needs some kind of an actual ending instead of a "dun dun dun to be continued...".

 

I mean Shepherd could go either way, but the Reaper storyline hast to end somehow and you'll need a canon ending if they want the franchise to continue(which they probably do...).

I don't see why they need the Reapers considering that all the tomfoolery and all the fan's criticism surrounds the Reaper's storyline. Just like DA could do without the GW ME can do better without the Reapers and just with a galaxy full of political tensions; not a plotline out of a flash gordon episode.

[Purkake]

They need to tie up the Reaper storyline because they put it in the game. Whether it is necessary or not is irrelevant at this point.

 

EDIT: If you mean why they need the Reapers for future ME products, then I wasn't implying that. They just need to end that storyline in a somewhat final manner to give some closure to the trilogy.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Purkake

[~Di]

I'm actually excited to hear about Mass Effect 3. I came here because I thought other people would be excited about it too... what was I thinking??

 

You were being optimistic?

 

I know. This is hardly the forum where one can be optimistic without being instantly denounced as a fanboi or loser! Sometimes I get excited and forget...

[~Di]

What is the chance that ME3 will be perhaps the first game ever where the player doesn't win, but the Reapers will ultimately blow up Earth and wipe out the rest of the galaxy?

A depressing end game from Bioware? Never.

 

If I put 100 hours into a game series, I expect a happy ending. I'd really be ticked off by anything else.

 

Me, too. If my character loses blood and sweat trying to create miracles to save something or someone, and has been doing so for many years (since ME 1), the ending of the trilogy had better not be that everything she worked so hard to save was destroyed. That means her efforts and existance were all for nothing, and that is definitely not what the average RPG gamer wants when starting on a big adventure.

[Purkake]

So are video game endings different from endings in other media(other than there being multiple possible endings)? Does actually playing the character make a difference or is that just a personal bias?

 

Bear in mind that I don't mean a "you fail, everyone dies" sad ending, that's just bad storytelling(or trying really hard to drive a point home). I mean having to make compromises, questionable decisions and losing yourself and/or people you care about along the way.

 

I think there's a difference between a happy and a satisfying ending.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Purkake

[pmp10]

If my character loses blood and sweat trying to create miracles to save something or someone, and has been doing so for many years (since ME 1), the ending of the trilogy had better not be that everything she worked so hard to save was destroyed. That means her efforts and existance were all for nothing, and that is definitely not what the average RPG gamer wants when starting on a big adventure.

What average gamers thinks he wants and what he would be far better with are usually two separate things.

So are video game endings different from endings in other media(other than there being multiple possible endings)?

Apparently in video games people treat endings as a reward for hard work.

It's a rather unfortunate tendency as games should be entertainment in themselves partially due to storytelling.

The end result of such approach is that when target audience fells entitled to certain outcomes the overall storyline becomes predictable.

[Hell Kitty]

Is the ending of a story you interact with different than one you just passively view? What kind of question is that?

 

I think there's a difference between a happy and a satisfying ending.

 

You can have both. A happy ending that comes out of nowhere isn't satisfying, but a happy ending that comes from making the right decisions and having your plan work is satisfying.

[Purkake]

Is the ending of a story you interact with different than one you just passively view? What kind of question is that?

The kind I asked and you didn't answer.

 

I think there's a difference between a happy and a satisfying ending.

You can have both. A happy ending that comes out of nowhere isn't satisfying, but a happy ending that comes from making the right decisions and having your plan work is satisfying.

Which was my point. I want a satisfying ending, whether it's happy or not. Just demanding a happy ending for all your hard work might get a tad bit boring after a while...

[~Di]

Folks around here always disagree with what is "happy" and what is "satisfying", because those terms mean different things to different people. ME1 did not have a "happy" ending for me. I'd left a dear friend to be vaporized, much of the Citidel is in ruins, thousands of people are dead and the damned reapers are still out there. Is that happy? Hell, no. Is it satisfying, oh yes, for me it was.

 

Now if every one of my people had been programmed to die as I watched, the Citidal had been blown to ruins while the reaper chittered with glee, and the final scene showed a dead Shepard floating in zero gravity space, I would have broken the disk with a hammer and never bought another ME game again.

 

For me, that is the difference between "happy", "satisfying" and "unacceptable". For others it will be different. Some would love an ending where everyone dies, and the hero fails to accomplish the mission. That's just not me.

Edited December 13, 2010 by ~Di

[Purkake]

I would have been fine with the everybody dies ending if it had had a point and wasn't like that for its own sake.

 

Might make it problematic for the sequels though.

Post-apocalyptic Mass Effect?

 

[Malcador]

What is the chance that ME3 will be perhaps the first game ever where the player doesn't win, but the Reapers will ultimately blow up Earth and wipe out the rest of the galaxy?

A depressing end game from Bioware? Never.

 

If I put 100 hours into a game series, I expect a happy ending. I'd really be ticked off by anything else.

 

 

I'd like an ending like that, you don't always win. Outside of the game, I'd also like the endless complaining by people depressed by the ending.

[~Di]

*sigh*

 

I give up.