|
KittyEmpress posted:I think the best endings would be, since they plan to let us explore past the end of the story, letting us go back to previous areas where we helped/hurt, and have them in different states depending on our choices through the game. Maybe I built up a trade empire using the inquisition, so a town springs up around the HQ after the end of the game, or maybe I killed everyone in a town out of fear that demons had already infested all of them, so its run down, empty, and ugly. Maybe they can do both. You'll see the general history ending after the final boss and hear the church reports you sent back to whatever is left, in your control or otherwise. Then after the screen goes back to your Grand Inquisitor, you can return to areas and see all the possible lasting effects of the Fade you left behind after sealing the tears, either for more power or because it's providing some sort of theoretical greater good in the constant poo poo-show that is the Dragon Age world at large.
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Furism posted:Definitely not. You have about 1 hour of gameplay which is actually nice. Then another hour of setting up a party and having it. It's supposed to be "fanservice" because it allows you to "say goodbye" and have "all the NPCs of the ME series around" in one last farewell (that happens right in the middle of the main plot, so it makes no sense). You also have some arena that is a nice challenge, I guess, but I'm not into that so YMMV. Those people care way too much about video games. That being said Citadel is good, not because of any sense of closure it gives, but because it is so stupid and goofy that it is like playing a parody of Mass Effect. Mass Effect is supposed to be pulpy silly scifi. But ME3 was far too grim and serious, so Citadel is great because it lightens the mood. Actually, Dragon age could use something like it. A game where Varric and Alistair are making fun of everything, Morrigan is pouty about everything, and Aveline is just rolling her eyes, and there aren't any real stakes to anything. Not that I think the writers of Dragon Age are up to doing something like that.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Maybe they can do both. You'll see the general history ending after the final boss and hear the church reports you sent back to whatever is left, in your control or otherwise. Then after the screen goes back to your Grand Inquisitor, you can return to areas and see all the possible lasting effects of the Fade you left behind after sealing the tears, either for more power or because it's providing some sort of theoretical greater good in the constant poo poo-show that is the Dragon Age world at large. Though having big changes to the world post-game is a lot of hard work that comparatively few people are going to see, especially if there are multiple endings. It will only be a tiny fraction who pick any particular ending and actually play past the end of the story. Like with Fallout 3 Broken Steel, it will probably be pretty half hearted, you get faction A soldiers roaming about the world rather than faction B soldiers, something like that. Slideshows are probably the way to go.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Maybe if you plant a tree at the beginning of the game, a town will spring up around it for post game content, as it has grown into a mighty oak! Man, I can't believe how old that joke is now.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
What's that a reference to?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Lotish posted:What's that a reference to? Fable I assume.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Fable. Either one or two I think. The big stupid claim Peter whats his face made was that you can plant a tree and come back years later to find its grown into a huge oak, and that a small village popped up around it. I remember being young and totally believing the idea that it'd be a world where what you did would make it grow! That every action would change things! I also remember being older and believing the idea that every choice I made would shape the ending! That the ending of the trilogy would be a culmination of all my choices! That it wouldn't be just A, B, or C endings. All I've learned today is that I'm just naive now as I was when Fable was being hyped.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
PantsBandit posted:Fable I assume. Peter Molyxneaux is the loving king of promising too much.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Maybe they can do both. You'll see the general history ending after the final boss and hear the church reports you sent back to whatever is left, in your control or otherwise. Then after the screen goes back to your Grand Inquisitor, you can return to areas and see all the possible lasting effects of the Fade you left behind after sealing the tears, either for more power or because it's providing some sort of theoretical greater good in the constant poo poo-show that is the Dragon Age world at large. I don't see why they just can't do what they did in DA:O with the ton of "This is what happened" text screens, only hire a good narrator to do VA work for them.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Man, I had forgotten all about that. I remember when Fable was called "Project Ego," but Pete made so many promises I just stopped remembering any of them.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I understand this criticism but it completely ignores the reality of game development and the cost of creating assets. The game you are talking about would be awesome but it would have essentially required making 3-4 different games' worth of work to create the necessary content. I mean I found it a bit disappointing when things didn't change dramatically in ME3 based on ME1 decisions, but I also didn't expect that to be the case any moreso than I expected to see Heath Ledger in Dark Knight Rises. As-is, they did an admirable job making the decisions from ME1 and ME2 feel like they made a real impact on the experience of ME3 if not the outcome. 3-4 games? Nearly every decision that I was expecting to matter was binary, so even assuming that each of them would lead to unique scenarios, that's a ceiling of two games' worth of contest (which is basically what Bioware had promised, with how much they played up your decisions). And I guess I don't think they did a good job making decisions influence my experience when there's so many small things they could have done. Maybe give the new Council an appreciably different personality from the old one. The new Salarian Councilor could pledge to help you from the beginning and then the Dalatraas would threaten to pull their support during the Tuchanka mission, while the old Councilor doesn't offer any and you get the offer during the Tuchanka mission instead. Same end result, different experience. Maybe Kaidan or Ashley could have a reaction at all to your decision to blow up the Collector base. Maybe Wreav's aggressiveness on Sur'kesh leads to tightened security and you end up having an easier time fighting Cerberus on that mission, but then he crashes his car on Tuchanka and you have to fight off some reaper troops to save his rear end there instead. Maybe if Zaeed died you can't get the info on the Cerberus attack and have to eat the loss of 10 warscore. Maybe the Ravager enemy is not literally exactly the same when it's made from the knockoff breeder's Rachni versus the real deal, or you could at least fight fewer ones. Each of those would be a few new lines of dialogue and maybe even some animation. They did some of it right, like Tuchanka, and Admiral Raan joining you on Rannoch if Tali died, but I didn't feel like a lot of my decisions ended up mattering at all.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
I honestly feel epilogues in works of fiction are an abomination, the easiest way to end a story on a whimper. Do something creative and unexpected with it. Take DA:O for instance, it had the after-party and slideshow and that was fine for closure but there was nothing remotely thought-provoking. Instead, imagine that when you deal the final blow to the archdemon, you are suddenly transported to a playable flashback to hundreds of years ago, at the final battle of the Fourth Blight. History records that it ended when the Grey Warden Garahel defeated the archdemon Andoral, their souls annihilating each other -- or so everyone assumed since they died and the Blight ended. But is that really what happens when a warden kills an archdemon? Find out as you control Garahel and discover the truth of that confrontation. I think I would have enjoyed that a lot more.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Promethium posted:Instead, imagine that when you deal the final blow to the archdemon, you are suddenly transported to a playable flashback to hundreds of years ago, at the final battle of the Fourth Blight. History records that it ended when the Grey Warden Garahel defeated the archdemon Andoral, their souls annihilating each other -- or so everyone assumed since they died and the Blight ended. But is that really what happens when a warden kills an archdemon? Find out as you control Garahel and discover the truth of that confrontation. This would've been weird as hell and awful. No, slideshows are pretty great, and one of the worst things about DA2 and the Mass Effects is that they didn't have them.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
The Garahel thing might have worked if the story was much more concerned with his legacy and he came up over and over in more than just a codex dump. The game as it is would not have benefited from it. People have suggested several times that the "proper" epilogue to ASoIaF is to have the last chapter being the perspective of Rheagar, the Prince that was Promised, riding off to die on the Trident and consequently doom the world because he wasn't there to save the day. Lots of people also say that that would be awful.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Mymla posted:This would've been weird as hell and awful. No, slideshows are pretty great, and one of the worst things about DA2 and the Mass Effects is that they didn't have them. Gonna have to agree with this. Personally, I liked DA:O's ending just fine. There was nothing wrong with it. Other than later games retcons, which I blame the later games on.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Lotish posted:The Garahel thing might have worked if the story was much more concerned with his legacy and he came up over and over in more than just a codex dump. The game as it is would not have benefited from it. "Burn them all," said the Mad Queen. FIN
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Lotish posted:People have suggested several times that the "proper" epilogue to ASoIaF is to have the last chapter being the perspective of Rheagar, the Prince that was Promised, riding off to die on the Trident and consequently doom the world because he wasn't there to save the day. Lots of people also say that that would be awful. Well, it would be awful for a lot of reasons: - Unnecessarily nihilistic in a series that isn't really nihilistic in its themes - Confirms certain prophesies as being true in their most obvious form instead of putting an interesting twist on them - Presupposes the Others are a faceless evil determined to wipe out humanity But even so it'd still be more likely than a single paragraph for every minor character detailing what happened in their lives afterwards. Can't argue about personal preferences though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Yeah, you'd have to re-write a lot of the game for that scenario to make any kind of sense. I think Origins actually ended really well, especially compared to what Bioware has put out since then.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
The proper ending to ASOIAF is Henry Tudor takes over 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Walrus Pete posted:Yeah, you'd have to re-write a lot of the game for that scenario to make any kind of sense. I think Origins actually ended really well, especially compared to what Bioware has put out since then. Especially Ultimate Sacrifice, with the Alistair waxing lyrical at the funeral, the cutting to the epilogue cards. That was a good ending.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:And I guess I don't think they did a good job making decisions influence my experience when there's so many small things they could have done. Maybe give the new Council an appreciably different personality from the old one. The new Salarian Councilor could pledge to help you from the beginning and then the Dalatraas would threaten to pull their support during the Tuchanka mission, while the old Councilor doesn't offer any and you get the offer during the Tuchanka mission instead. Same end result, different experience. Maybe Kaidan or Ashley could have a reaction at all to your decision to blow up the Collector base. Maybe Wreav's aggressiveness on Sur'kesh leads to tightened security and you end up having an easier time fighting Cerberus on that mission, but then he crashes his car on Tuchanka and you have to fight off some reaper troops to save his rear end there instead. Maybe if Zaeed died you can't get the info on the Cerberus attack and have to eat the loss of 10 warscore. Maybe the Ravager enemy is not literally exactly the same when it's made from the knockoff breeder's Rachni versus the real deal, or you could at least fight fewer ones. Each of those would be a few new lines of dialogue and maybe even some animation. Some of these Bioware already did. With a new council, the turian is friendly and the asari is a hardass; if Zaeed is dead, you can't save the turian colony and get the bombing fleet. Others would have unintentional effects. I like a challenge in games, so having an easier mission or easier enemies because I made a narrative choice two games ago would be annoying. Also you're vastly underestimating how much overhead there is in content creation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:Do most people still seriously think the ending was the main problem with Mass Effect 3's writing? Do people still want to moan about a disappointing video game years later instead of shutting the gently caress up about it, moving on with their lives and finding something worthwhile (or even just different) to talk about instead? Hmmm, clearly not. Keep picking those scabs, then.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Do people still want to moan about a disappointing video game years later instead of shutting the gently caress up about it, moving on with their lives and finding something worthwhile (or even just different) to talk about instead? We're in a Bioware related thread waiting for a new update, so it's hardly surprising. At least it's semi-relevant and this thread is keeping things relatively calm compared to the usual vitriol.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The proper ending to ASOIAF is Henry Tudor takes over I love seeing this comparison. The two big, bad established families brutalize each other in country wide warfare, get weakened to the point where the guy off to the side hedging his bets rolls over both of them and takes the throne.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I get that you hate DLC but Citadel owned I've got a shitload of Crusader Kings 2 DLC that says you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:I've got a shitload of Crusader Kings 2 DLC that says you're wrong. Crusader Kings 2 DLC? Ha Ha Ha
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
I really want to be able to understand and rationalize the actions that Bioware's writers took when creating Dragon Age 2, and then I realize there is an entire writing staff with multiple divisions of management that should have picked up on the poorly written dialogue and plot direction; actual salaried people with college educations, prior writing experience and tenure. It really baffles me how awful that story was and how much unfocused, unconcerted effort Bioware took to prevent that poo poo from happening.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Some people probably did pick up on it, but either didn't speak up, or had their input disregarded. Bioware always seemed like a workplace full of 'cliques' to me, like, they've got a lot of writers, but only a few whose 'vision' really matters. Penakoto fucked around with this message at 06:44 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:I've got a shitload of Crusader Kings 2 DLC that says you're wrong. It's difficult to compare them. Only The Old Gods and The Republic come close to provide a new playing experience like Citadel does, while the rest are "only" improvements of the base game in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Crusader Kings 2 DLC? Ha Ha Ha What's funny about that? 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:What's funny about that? Maybe they're just shocked that someone would ever compare the great DLC for CK2 to the DLC that Bioware does?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
Crusader Kings 2 doesn't need DLC and most of it is trash.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Crusader Kings 2 doesn't need DLC and most of it is trash. Are we talking like civ5 dlc expansions? Or is it piecemeal garbage that isn't really needed?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
There are expansions, but I don't know enough about Civ 5 to compare.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Old Gods is great. The others can be aren't as transformative, sure, but none of them are actively bad. I've not got round to getting Rajas yet, but that looks pretty good too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
DLC should specifically not be something a game needs. The game should be able to stand on its own, with the DLC just being fun, unnecessary extras. Most CK2 DLC is like that. If it weren't I'd be pissed at being nickel and dimed to death just to get a complete game.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
And they tend to put most of the improvements to the base game that aren't new features out as a free patch at the same time. Paradox do DLC right.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
FauxGateau posted:Are we talking like civ5 dlc expansions? Or is it piecemeal garbage that isn't really needed? CK2 has major DLC which is equivalent to Gods and Kings, or Brave New World in terms of scope/gameplay additions, plus a bunch of cosmetic/music DLC which has no impact on the game itself.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
FauxGateau posted:Are we talking like civ5 dlc expansions? Or is it piecemeal garbage that isn't really needed? CK2 DLC's are great, like the game itself. But it's difficult to compare them to other DLC's. In vanilla CK2, you can only play Christians (Catholic and Orthodox + heresies of those two). The start date is 1066, so that leaves out the half of the world which is ruled by Muslims. With Sword of Islam you can play Muslims, which generally play quite a bit different than Christians. With Legacy of Rome the Christian Orthodox faith get's fleshed out a lot more, there are unique mechanics for the Byzantine Empire and it introduces one game-changing mechanic for everybody, retinues. With The Old Gods you can play from a new start date (867) and can play pagans, who are much more common at the earlier start date. Playing a Norse pagan was a real change to playing a Christian ruler, it's great. It also let's you play the Mongols, which should excite anybody who just wants to pillage and rape through the Middle East and Europe. Even Zoroastrians are introduced, enabling you to marry your sister if you like something like that. The Republic enables you to play merchant republics, which have a different focus than playing a feudal lord, less land holding and more emphasis on trade posts and internal squabbles with other patrician families. Sons of Abraham enables you to play Jews and the pope game, because it introduces the College of Cardinals, to maneuver your bishops into the college and get one of them elected pope. It also unlocks holy orders for a few religions which lacked these. The newest expansion, Rajas of India, let's you play Buddhists, Hinduists and Jains. Oh and there was Sunset Invasion, a "fun" DLC which introduced Aztec hordes crossing the ocean after capturing viking explorers and reverse engineering their ships. This was to make the game more difficult for players in Western Europe, since they did not have to content with the Mongols (gently caress the Mongols). It's a bit controversial, read the text below Darkrenown's avatar to learn what some of the history purists thought about that. Yes, that poster on the Paradox forum really said the new DLC destroyed his ability to feel human... The great thing about the DLC's is that they are not ripping you off. You could edit a few files in vanilla CK2 to play Muslims or pagans, but they were not really different from Christians except for a few minor things. Sword of Islam and The Old Gods really changed the mechanics for them, regardless if you own the DLC or not. Viking raiders were introduced with the patch for The Old Gods, the only thing the DLC allows you is to play them. India wasn't even on the map before Rajas of India came out. And even though you cannot play Indians without the DLC, the map extension came for free with the patch, meaning you could conquer India as a Catholic and play there. There were no merchant republics in the game before The Republic. There were no Jews in the game before Sons of Abraham. They drastically overhauled the technology system with The Old Gods patch, and you get that for free even if you don't buy the DLC. Then there are the minor DLC's. There are song packs, unit packs and face packs. You can buy them for a few dollars or leave them, it doesn't really matter. I am a sucker for new portraits so I throw my money at Paradox, but nobody is forced to buy them. And Paradox are also great with regards to multiplayer. Only ONE person has to own the DLC's, then all of those without them can still play with the new features in that multiplayer game.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
I'm playing DA:Origins and i just came to this thread to say gently caress the dwarf city. That's all
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 12:20
|
|
