I played a game called Hunted: The Demon's Forge. Half way through I got into a fight that I was having trouble with and drank this silver stuff that gave the character a power boost. I shouldn't have one that because one character that drank the stuff stabbed the other character in the back to finish the story. I probably should have realized that it would do something bad before I drank it. I want to play it again to see if not drinking it gives me a different ending but I'm still too bummed out over it to try.
@lmoaboat Not sure I agree on the "everything is low fantasy" angle. Game of Thrones is some of the most visible fantasy around at the moment and it's unashamedly all about kings, lords and knightly heroes with a looming dark threat in the north, and dragons. Dragon age (1 at least) is also a story revolving around getting the help of kings and lords to defeat an external supernatural menace, with dragons. Skyrim too has a civil war plotline that has you helping and dethroning jarls, and takes place in a world full of magic and (you guessed it) dragons.
Huh, I thought I deleted that part because I didn't feel like I was using the terms right. This forum annoyingly saves text without asking. What I was trying to say was that I don't think that fantasy doesn't really have the sense of adventure it used to.
I played a game called Hunted: The Demon's Forge. Half way through I got into a fight that I was having trouble with and drank this silver stuff that gave the character a power boost. I shouldn't have one that because one character that drank the stuff stabbed the other character in the back to finish the story. I probably should have realized that it would do something bad before I drank it. I want to play it again to see if not drinking it gives me a different ending but I'm still too bummed out over it to try.
Yea, I didn't drink the stuff during the game and when I got to the end both heroes resisted the big bad and lived.
Another good series to play is the old school "Exile" games (remade as the Avernum series by its creator, Jeff Vogel). The story is that there is an Empire on the surface of the world that is so big and old that it no longer has a name. People just call it "The Empire". The Empire is a place where you must conform. If you don't fit in, or if you are a criminal, you are thrown into a gate that leads to a place many miles underground called Exile/Avernum. Everyone knows that getting sent there is a death sentence, and so you believe when you are sent there for your crime of not fitting in.
However, the people of Avernum may not have fit into the Empire, but they are resourceful, and they have built their own kingdom down there in the sunless lands. It is a Kingdom beseiged by monsters, especially the powerful, reptilian Sliths, and the Cat-like Nephilim (a word taken from the Bible for the offspring of humans and Angels). The Kingdom is in danger, and you can help defeat the monsters and help it survive. During the course of the first Avernum Adventure, there are three tasks- defeat the Demon Grah-Hoth, find the tokens that can be used to teleport back to the surface, and kill the Emperor, Hawthorne, who sentenced you and the others to Avernum.
The Second Game takes place five years later. The Empire has awoken to the danger beneath their feet, and sent hundreds of soldiers and mages to Avernum to destroy it. But strange magical barriers have appeared, splitting Avernum up, and making it easier for the soldiers to conquer. Also, magical monsters have appeared in three Avernite cities, laying them to waste. It turns out that the barriers and the monsters have one thing in common: they have been created by a new, unknown race called the Vahnatai, and they believe the Avernites have stolen "Crystal Souls" that are the preserved elders of their people. But it wasn't the Avernites, but the people of the Empire who have stolen them, and your new characters must retrieve the Souls and negotiate with the Vahnatai to help defeat the Empire invasion.
In the third game, Avernum is ready to return to the surface, and your new party is selected to go there after the first parties sent disappear. But the Empire is in trouble now, from plagues of monsters that have appeared, seemingly out of nowhere. The Avernite Powers that be ask you to destroy the plagues and save the Empire in the interest of gaining the Empire's agreement to return to the surface. But who is behind these monstrous plagues? That is for you to discover.
And then there are three more games, and a stand-alone called "Blades of Exile/Avernum" that allows you to play and make adventures on your own. All very good for being Indie Shareware games. You can play for hours before hitting one of the places where you must pay to experience the rest of the game. The graphics are not exceptionally great, but the stories are phenomenal. Look out for the GIFTS (Giant Intelligent Friendly Talking Spiders) that are in every one of Jeff Vogel's games so far (pretty much). He also named a city in Exile/Avernum after his wife, Kriszan (from Mariann Kriszan, her name before he married her).
Personally, I love the "Good will always triumph over evil" games. I want things that are black and white. It's when we delve into shades of gray that I tread carefully and contemplate whether or not I want to play, as I am not a fan of serving evil. (Unless I plan to play evil from the start.)
I'm OK with the hero(heroes) not succeeding at everything. As was mentioned, your character watches in horror as Gorion is struck down, and that's not the only time that innocents die when you are around. But if you are asking me to play a story where my character fails, I have to wonder why I'd ever install the game, let alone purchase it. Invest X hours of my life, knowing that it's all for naught? That's not my idea of fun. It is fortunate that I have friends that love giving spoilers, as they've saved me several hundred hours of my life by telling me of other games.
I like happy endings. It doesn't ALL have to be sunshine and rainbows, but I don't like to be depressed by something that's supposed to be fun. I've never played it, but there's one called Shadow of the Collossus that's supposed to be pretty grim.
Even though I have great appreciation for grim settings, I also have no tolerance for the failure of heroes. Why would I willingly play a game or read a story where I know that every single thing I read is in vain, thus essentially stripping my life of time. What is the point of playing a game as a band of heroes, knowing in advance that despite your greatest efforts, the only screen you will ever see is "Game over. YOU FAILED. THE WORLD HAS ENDED. ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY ARE DEAD. YOUR KINGDOM IS IN RUIN. INSERT NO MORE COINS."
planescape had this "grey" approach from the start and treated player as mature being capable of grasping complex ideas. there was still good/bad and trivial stuff but one would have to be blind and deaf if one expected at the end a chorus of singing archons would carry TNO to arcadia to live in eternal bliss. but the ending was more than suitable and good, because story and setting were grim.
baldurs gate is more simplified in terms of moral realism (as is much of the d&d setting), although the setting allows for creation of more complex adventures if you wish it. point is, bg is an epic story that leans toward fairy tale (as someone pointed out), which will presume success (no matter if evil, neutral or good), which is good also.
mass effect series are much more tied to reality as we know it. earth exists and characters are "flawed" and act like real people (at least they try to). so it is to be expected that story would try to be realistic also. and since you somehow manage to go through and survive so much inhuman struggle, for me it is only logical that the end cannot involve "blue babies". it seems to me that the death/sacrifice is the only way to end such struggle and retain any dignity/realism to the story.
i guess i'm trying to point out formulas here. if you want a specific experience i'm quite sure you can judge from game's approach to player what will transpire in it. DAO can call itself "dark fantasy" all night long for all i care, but it is not. it is yer olde standard fantasy, without moral meter and someone occasionally saying "shit".
The problem isn't the end itself but the journey (as the oriental proverb says). A grim end with a meaning journey can be great. You can die but what you acomplish will perdure, you have marked the world with your sign.
Mass Effect 3 was an example of stupid grim end, they literally destroyed everything sheppard does (doesn't truly matter in the end if you had sucess in getting allies or no).
Final Fantasy series by otherside always make good grim ends, or at least have traumati experiences, for any old school gamer that didn't played Final Fantasy III on SNES (equivalent to Final Fantasy VI in playstation) i strongly recommend the game.
The reason D&D stories always end with the characters winning is because of the source material. If you were playing a Pen & Paper campaign with friends and your DM made it so you all failed at the end of the campaign, you'd be pretty upset.
@kamuizin i understand the the initial problem of the ME ending. extended cut seems to put more closure for the player and clears up some inconsistencies.
why do you think it destroys it? gaining allies and all that stuff affects the events after his choice so... are you bothered by shepherd death or general options at the end?
i don't know, but to me the point is: through immense struggle he managed to achieve the point of final choice, and he has every right to choose it. the story is all about sacrifice and duty (a soldier on a constant mission, always ready to die). so, what happens if he survives? i imagine he would be a severely damaged ptsp case. peace discards war heroes. i think few things are as great as letting go of yourself, sacrificing all you are, to fuel something bigger than yourself.
i played the game in a bit of weird period of my life so perhaps i had put more meaning into it then i should.
@Trinit, i didn't played the extended cut, i tried to play again ME3 to see the extended cut, but i'm too perfectionist, so i made a entire single game campaign again, starting from ME to ME3, when i get on the middle of ME3 i get bored and stopped the play.
By another side, if you mean the old end is good i entirely disagree. To me the main problem isn't the death or life of sheppard, but the fact that one way or another the galaxy meet it's doom no matter what sheppard does.
The best ends destroy or control the Reapers or fuse the synthetic lifes with the organic lifes, but trap the army of the entire galaxy into a single system after the destruction of the mass relays, what obvious will lead to conflicts as no one can fast travel anymore and billions of persons are trapped into a system with limited resources.
Besides the consequence of the end many uncoherences were made in the end, but those could have been fixed in the extended end and i don't know maybe.
The long run result would be the same in the old end no matter the allies sheppard get.
A truly nice game if anyone care to try, is "Legend of Dragoon", has a lot of critical conflicts and besides being an old game (playstation game) is an awersome title worth a try. The shock that the player feel when the important truths in this game are revealed are awersome.
Edit:
The only thing that made sense to me in ME3 was this fan work:
@lakrids dafuq is this shit dude? It's more to a domination porn (BDSM??!!) than an RPG adventure (if it's even an RPG adventure). Is this a mod for BG?
@kamuizin Sadly is't not a mod but a fanfic, written in the styte of Diana Wynne Jones "Tough Guide to Fantasyland". It's a satire over the cliches, that you often find in "realistic" fantasy as for example in " Game of Thrones".
@kamuizin yes, i mostly agree about the old ending. too many loose ends. the extended cut is much better in my opinion, and galaxy is not doomed. it still has some inconsistencies perhaps, but i think it rounds up to a satisfactory experience, so i would recommend you to try it anyway if you have the patience (i understand how it is being a perfectionist in a videogame).
i also didn't have a patience to play through again to see leviathan, so i watched it on youtube :guilty:
indoctrination theory was excellent, but not true, unfortunately. i will look into the game you recommended, thanks
I don't think an ending where the main character would fail is really interesting. I mean a real failure. What if BG would end with Gorions death? That just isn't a good end for a story. It's good to be at the beginning though.
What I would like to see more, are games where the main objective isn't to save the world. It does get a bit shallow saving the world after a while. That's where the story of BG really shines, it's not about saving the world. Even in ToB, where the actions of charname have the most powerful impact on his surroundings, the main objective is never to save whole Faerun from something.
@Kukaracha... so... that point... based on that...? They're surely super-heroes no disagree here but yet both are broken persons. They already failed on the most important issues as the lost of their families for example.
Another extremly nice exaple is shadow man, an Nintendo 64 anti-hero (used later in other plataforms). A very nice game by the way .
Comments
However, the people of Avernum may not have fit into the Empire, but they are resourceful, and they have built their own kingdom down there in the sunless lands. It is a Kingdom beseiged by monsters, especially the powerful, reptilian Sliths, and the Cat-like Nephilim (a word taken from the Bible for the offspring of humans and Angels). The Kingdom is in danger, and you can help defeat the monsters and help it survive. During the course of the first Avernum Adventure, there are three tasks- defeat the Demon Grah-Hoth, find the tokens that can be used to teleport back to the surface, and kill the Emperor, Hawthorne, who sentenced you and the others to Avernum.
The Second Game takes place five years later. The Empire has awoken to the danger beneath their feet, and sent hundreds of soldiers and mages to Avernum to destroy it. But strange magical barriers have appeared, splitting Avernum up, and making it easier for the soldiers to conquer. Also, magical monsters have appeared in three Avernite cities, laying them to waste. It turns out that the barriers and the monsters have one thing in common: they have been created by a new, unknown race called the Vahnatai, and they believe the Avernites have stolen "Crystal Souls" that are the preserved elders of their people. But it wasn't the Avernites, but the people of the Empire who have stolen them, and your new characters must retrieve the Souls and negotiate with the Vahnatai to help defeat the Empire invasion.
In the third game, Avernum is ready to return to the surface, and your new party is selected to go there after the first parties sent disappear. But the Empire is in trouble now, from plagues of monsters that have appeared, seemingly out of nowhere. The Avernite Powers that be ask you to destroy the plagues and save the Empire in the interest of gaining the Empire's agreement to return to the surface. But who is behind these monstrous plagues? That is for you to discover.
And then there are three more games, and a stand-alone called "Blades of Exile/Avernum" that allows you to play and make adventures on your own. All very good for being Indie Shareware games. You can play for hours before hitting one of the places where you must pay to experience the rest of the game. The graphics are not exceptionally great, but the stories are phenomenal. Look out for the GIFTS (Giant Intelligent Friendly Talking Spiders) that are in every one of Jeff Vogel's games so far (pretty much). He also named a city in Exile/Avernum after his wife, Kriszan (from Mariann Kriszan, her name before he married her).
You can find the games here: http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/
I'm OK with the hero(heroes) not succeeding at everything. As was mentioned, your character watches in horror as Gorion is struck down, and that's not the only time that innocents die when you are around. But if you are asking me to play a story where my character fails, I have to wonder why I'd ever install the game, let alone purchase it. Invest X hours of my life, knowing that it's all for naught? That's not my idea of fun. It is fortunate that I have friends that love giving spoilers, as they've saved me several hundred hours of my life by telling me of other games.
baldurs gate is more simplified in terms of moral realism (as is much of the d&d setting), although the setting allows for creation of more complex adventures if you wish it.
point is, bg is an epic story that leans toward fairy tale (as someone pointed out), which will presume success (no matter if evil, neutral or good), which is good also.
mass effect series are much more tied to reality as we know it. earth exists and characters are "flawed" and act like real people (at least they try to). so it is to be expected that story would try to be realistic also. and since you somehow manage to go through and survive so much inhuman struggle, for me it is only logical that the end cannot involve "blue babies". it seems to me that the death/sacrifice is the only way to end such struggle and retain any dignity/realism to the story.
i guess i'm trying to point out formulas here. if you want a specific experience i'm quite sure you can judge from game's approach to player what will transpire in it. DAO can call itself "dark fantasy" all night long for all i care, but it is not. it is yer olde standard fantasy, without moral meter and someone occasionally saying "shit".
Mass Effect 3 was an example of stupid grim end, they literally destroyed everything sheppard does (doesn't truly matter in the end if you had sucess in getting allies or no).
Final Fantasy series by otherside always make good grim ends, or at least have traumati experiences, for any old school gamer that didn't played Final Fantasy III on SNES (equivalent to Final Fantasy VI in playstation) i strongly recommend the game.
The reason D&D stories always end with the characters winning is because of the source material. If you were playing a Pen & Paper campaign with friends and your DM made it so you all failed at the end of the campaign, you'd be pretty upset.
why do you think it destroys it? gaining allies and all that stuff affects the events after his choice so... are you bothered by shepherd death or general options at the end?
i don't know, but to me the point is: through immense struggle he managed to achieve the point of final choice, and he has every right to choose it. the story is all about sacrifice and duty (a soldier on a constant mission, always ready to die).
so, what happens if he survives? i imagine he would be a severely damaged ptsp case. peace discards war heroes. i think few things are as great as letting go of yourself, sacrificing all you are, to fuel something bigger than yourself.
i played the game in a bit of weird period of my life so perhaps i had put more meaning into it then i should.
By another side, if you mean the old end is good i entirely disagree. To me the main problem isn't the death or life of sheppard, but the fact that one way or another the galaxy meet it's doom no matter what sheppard does.
The best ends destroy or control the Reapers or fuse the synthetic lifes with the organic lifes, but trap the army of the entire galaxy into a single system after the destruction of the mass relays, what obvious will lead to conflicts as no one can fast travel anymore and billions of persons are trapped into a system with limited resources.
Besides the consequence of the end many uncoherences were made in the end, but those could have been fixed in the extended end and i don't know maybe.
The long run result would be the same in the old end no matter the allies sheppard get.
A truly nice game if anyone care to try, is "Legend of Dragoon", has a lot of critical conflicts and besides being an old game (playstation game) is an awersome title worth a try. The shock that the player feel when the important truths in this game are revealed are awersome.
Edit:
The only thing that made sense to me in ME3 was this fan work:
Shepard's Indoctrination Theory
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: Tough Guide to Fantasyland - Diana Wynne Jones
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warning: Author Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Summary:
It's the adventure you've been waiting for!
i also didn't have a patience to play through again to see leviathan, so i watched it on youtube :guilty:
indoctrination theory was excellent, but not true, unfortunately. i will look into the game you recommended, thanks
@lakrids i migh give this a try. i love satire!
What I would like to see more, are games where the main objective isn't to save the world. It does get a bit shallow saving the world after a while. That's where the story of BG really shines, it's not about saving the world. Even in ToB, where the actions of charname have the most powerful impact on his surroundings, the main objective is never to save whole Faerun from something.
DA2, amongst it's many flaws, had a protgonist who not only failed, but whose actions helped to turn his world into a bloody mess.
Heroes who fail is a component of tragedy, which is a very small niche in the gaming world.
Another extremly nice exaple is shadow man, an Nintendo 64 anti-hero (used later in other plataforms). A very nice game by the way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Man_(video_game)