Executive Producer Mark Darrah has a new post on the Bioware forums that shares more information on the 40 possible endings from the OXM preview.
More information.
Dragon Age: Inquisition - 40 Endings Explanation
- Thread starter Couchpotato
- Start date
ChienAboyeur
SasqWatch
- Joined
- March 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,265
Why change the bait when it works so well?
Another exhibition of Bioware command over hyping.
They started with a huge announcement: 40 endings (they heard the fans!) and they come back with even more: hundreds minor endings and a few unique endings.
Another exhibition of Bioware command over hyping.
They started with a huge announcement: 40 endings (they heard the fans!) and they come back with even more: hundreds minor endings and a few unique endings.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,265
I know I'm in the minority but the expanded endings in ME3 weren't bad. I didn't even think the original ending was bad. Granted it wasn't really as advertised, and maybe I just liked the game enough to be more open-minded towards it. What I would like to know if since they are spending 8 bazillion dollars on graphics if they'll spend more than 3 dollars on an actual inventory GUI or if there'll be savage-monkey lists. Lists really bother the shit out of me (and I seem to be in the minority regarding this as well).
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2014
- Messages
- 119
zahratustra
SasqWatch
- Joined
- January 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Problem wasn't that ME3 had multiple endings but that all those endings were (more or less) crap.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
mercy
SasqWatch
- Joined
- March 21, 2013
- Messages
- 3,456
The game delivered multiple times a normal games content. Endings were ridiculous, but at least they tried to package them somehow, devs deserve points for best effort.
Probably the designers and brains responsible for finding out how the hell the game should end were tired and exhausted so they were unable to come up with a satisfying finale tying up all lose ends.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2013
- Messages
- 3,456
Its not really the ending that matters.
If the game is 95% the same experience, with a few different choices and it gives me another Ending. I dont find that rewarding at all
Its about branching it, and making you feel like its a whole new story.
This sounds more like a soap opera.. call 555 if you want X to shoot Y, 666 for No. regular charges are applied
If the game is 95% the same experience, with a few different choices and it gives me another Ending. I dont find that rewarding at all
Its about branching it, and making you feel like its a whole new story.
This sounds more like a soap opera.. call 555 if you want X to shoot Y, 666 for No. regular charges are applied
Hmm, sounds like they are copying the 
It was worse than that; what you did during the game made no difference. The ending was determined in the last few minutes of play AND the 'best' ending could only be obtained if you played the multi-player portion of the game. The whole thing was stupid. I admit the game was rather enjoyable until the last 15 minutes or so but I also felt the ending and the method of determing which ending was utter crap.
ChienAboyeur
SasqWatch
- Joined
- March 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,265
That was the problem players resented. Sheppard was introduced as the last hope for humanity, later to grow into the last hope for universe. In the doing, the PC would turn into the greatesit warrior ever (the best killer in the entire universe), an outstanding diplomat, an iconic people's champion, a patron for arts and science and much more.
The player was given so much influence in so many dimensions.
Then when the grand finale came, when it was about to decide about the fate of the entire universe, when it was about the big decision, Bioware took away the cocaine lines and the player felt robbed of what should have been the climaxing achievement of all.
This said, Bioware are intelligent people who learnt their lessons.
Since DA2, they broke down the continuity of characters, each time the PC is different so it decreases the exceptionality of each PC.
Consequences are minored as they appear as side effects from a previous avatar.
Bioware also waters down the big decision thing with their hundreds of endings.
Very likely, the game is going to suffer the same problem: a lot of decisions but no deep incidence of them, simply ripple effects.
But they will be so many of them it will help concealing the player has no deep influence on what is happening.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,265
- Joined
- April 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
This is not true.
You don't have to play MP part at all to get the best possible outcome (where everyone lives except maybe EDI, but since machines get "fixed" eventually probably she does survive as well).
To get the "best ending" without multiplayer part is possible, but only if you've used your own ME1/ME2 paragon savegames and bought every possible DLC with cutout story/NPCs. Paragon yes. If you do just two things as renegade, say goodbye to the "best ending" (Sheppard still might survive, but Anderson will still die).
The original ending is not an utter crap really, I've mentioned already it's Evangelion (certain old anime experiment with still ongoing debate if it is an unique masterpiece or worthless junk) rip off.
The problem is that the rest of the trilogy is not in Evangelion style and such ending is not "compatible" here. I've got so called enhanced ending a week ago in my replay and it doesn't completely feel like being kicked into a world completely different from the trilogy, still the whole thing wasn't really fixed. The AI with "illogical logic" star child and useless stargazer crap are still in there.
And it's not the moment you're about to enter the Citadel where things go down in ME3.
The moment where the game loses it's course and appeal is when Citadel becomes a spaceship and gets moved billions lightyears away above London for no real reason and without real explanation why since war is ongoing on Earth. What could Reapers possibly gain with Citadel there, if they needed to keep it safe, why not hiding it above already "done with" world?
And how was moving the Citadel even possible is something I won't bother googling or asking for an explanation.
All in all the ME trilogy ending was a fail whatever angle you take. If they wanted an earthcentric galaxy, they could have started with it, not ending with it. And should have put the game title as Earth Effect. Or London Effect. Or something.
Hopefully Dragon Age ending(s) won't be designed as disappointing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
ChaosTheory
Virtual Reality Hero
The whole citadel story line shit the bed in ME3. It was an amazing place that I was certain would be the link between any future ME games— more and more of its mysteries would be learned. All roads lead to Rome, as it were.
But then… I do find it hard to believe, however, that all these alien races invested trillions of space dollars building all this infrastructure there without having any idea what was driving the Keepers and why certain areas of the facility were inaccessible. Not once did someone say, "maybe it isn't a good idea to put our entire galactic embassy here until we figure this out…"
- Joined
- April 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
Cmon it's not. Shit the bed…
All you need is the first game.
Remember the first time your crew arrives on Citadel? They don't care for it's structure, possibility to open as a flower, mysteries surrounded - instead they're all excited about council (asari) flagship! It's not odd, your crew is a spaceship crew, not a spacestation crew.
Noone invested trillons of credits - thanks to keepers who built/fixed everything for free. And experimenting with keepers ment their instadeath, economically that means? Don't touch the keepers as it means lost money. Unless you're a mad scientist type and you do meet such one. Two in fact. Who scan keepers hoping to discover what's the deal with them.
Embassies on Citadel are easy, you need a neutral terrain and what's the best place for it? The biggest space station there is, of course. No involved party/species actually controlling that station came just as a bonus.
Anyway, that's all mostly offtopic, but we're getting third DA game and we hope Bioware learned something from the past. Thus we still have to see where the neutral terrain, if there will be one, in DA:I will be. And who'd run it?
It can't be in the space and if because their biggotry hidden under political correctness I'm 100% certain it won't be run by those lobotomized/robotized/soulless mages.
All you need is the first game.
Remember the first time your crew arrives on Citadel? They don't care for it's structure, possibility to open as a flower, mysteries surrounded - instead they're all excited about council (asari) flagship! It's not odd, your crew is a spaceship crew, not a spacestation crew.
Noone invested trillons of credits - thanks to keepers who built/fixed everything for free. And experimenting with keepers ment their instadeath, economically that means? Don't touch the keepers as it means lost money. Unless you're a mad scientist type and you do meet such one. Two in fact. Who scan keepers hoping to discover what's the deal with them.
Embassies on Citadel are easy, you need a neutral terrain and what's the best place for it? The biggest space station there is, of course. No involved party/species actually controlling that station came just as a bonus.
Anyway, that's all mostly offtopic, but we're getting third DA game and we hope Bioware learned something from the past. Thus we still have to see where the neutral terrain, if there will be one, in DA:I will be. And who'd run it?
It can't be in the space and if because their biggotry hidden under political correctness I'm 100% certain it won't be run by those lobotomized/robotized/soulless mages.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
khaight
Sentinel
The problem with ME3's ending is simple. Most of the Mass Effect trilogy is laid out as a power fantasy. The ending is a deconstruction of power fantasies. Shepard's whole character arc points towards victory but at the last moment you're told that no victory is possible. This is why ME1's ending is usually considered the best of the three -- it's the one where Shepard most clearly 'wins' in the power fantasy sense.
That deconstructive 'twist' at the end of ME3 was apparently part of the artistic vision the creators had for the series, which is why Bioware defended it by appealing to the artistic integrity of their story. But emotionally, to players who were invested in the power fantasy, it came across like deliberately getting spit on. Hence the blowback.
That deconstructive 'twist' at the end of ME3 was apparently part of the artistic vision the creators had for the series, which is why Bioware defended it by appealing to the artistic integrity of their story. But emotionally, to players who were invested in the power fantasy, it came across like deliberately getting spit on. Hence the blowback.
- Joined
- April 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
Actually I like ME2 ending more than ME1.
How can ME1 ending be a bigger satisfaction than saying "screw you" to X-files smoker and destroying Collectors' base and abomination instead of delivering those to him? If you choose to "tame" the techonology it opens so much later possibilities and if you're a kind of a player who loves such stuff, no better ending from joining forces with Cerberus can exist.
In ME1 you kill a sentient spaceship. Big deal.
In ME2? You end up either being a genocidal mass murderer or a powerthirsty controlfreak. This does sound you becoming a sort of a PTSD maniac, but hell it feels good. Whatever you choose to do, in the end the one(s) who stepped on your toe is dealt with and you've shown everyone what happens with those who mess with you. And there is nothing left that can ruin your day.
On the other hand… ME2 ending is the only good thing in that whole game. In DA2, even the ending sucked.
Hopefully Bioware won't ruin the franchise completely with DA:I, especially with endings. But we can't know that yet, maybe it ends as a Star Trek holodeck simulation where the big and evil dragon is (was) Voyager's captain who's trying to fix a software glitch.
How can ME1 ending be a bigger satisfaction than saying "screw you" to X-files smoker and destroying Collectors' base and abomination instead of delivering those to him? If you choose to "tame" the techonology it opens so much later possibilities and if you're a kind of a player who loves such stuff, no better ending from joining forces with Cerberus can exist.
In ME1 you kill a sentient spaceship. Big deal.
In ME2? You end up either being a genocidal mass murderer or a powerthirsty controlfreak. This does sound you becoming a sort of a PTSD maniac, but hell it feels good. Whatever you choose to do, in the end the one(s) who stepped on your toe is dealt with and you've shown everyone what happens with those who mess with you. And there is nothing left that can ruin your day.
On the other hand… ME2 ending is the only good thing in that whole game. In DA2, even the ending sucked.
Hopefully Bioware won't ruin the franchise completely with DA:I, especially with endings. But we can't know that yet, maybe it ends as a Star Trek holodeck simulation where the big and evil dragon is (was) Voyager's captain who's trying to fix a software glitch.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
khaight
Sentinel
Hopefully Bioware won't ruin the franchise completely with DA:I, especially with endings. But we can't know that yet, maybe it ends as a Star Trek holodeck simulation where the big and evil dragon is (was) Voyager's captain who's trying to fix a software glitch.
That sounds more like a prospective ending to the next Might & Magic RPG.