It doesn't, but it does from a Grand Tale standpoint. I guess I forgot to mention that.

Aren't all games designed in a way that dev expects player to play?.. Besides that, how are you going to know that you're gonna get a "deaded" ending? Or do you youtube your games before playing them? Unless you do that, you can't be convinced to play either way and you have no right to complain. I want the Story to convince me to play what I think is best at the current moment in game. I want non-obvious good/bad choices. ME did that pretty good. They just massively failed to resolve those choices properly. I want closure in the end. Be it bleak, full of bitter and disappointing emotions or regular happy end with party and fireworks.

Games with ambiguous endings for the most part are just lazy writing/poor creativeness that's often being disguised under "artistic integrity". Artistic integrity in commercial product... Ok... I just really, really don't want SC to have ME type of ending(s).

There was an alignment system in SC2. The aliens remember if you piss them off. We aren't adding anything new. We are just expanding it to offer multiple win scenarios.

An example would have been to allow humans to join the hierarchy of thrall.

The point of having multiple non canon endings is that the player does not know which is canon or not until the sequel comes out a few years later.

That's not alignment that is a Reputation based system and is separate from your alignment albeit with some overlap.

Reputation is usually localized while Alignment is world based.

Your reputation (good or bad) with the Pkunks would not affect your reputation with the Ilwrath that greatly.

You can be bad with one race and good with another. 

Annihilating one alien race would not turn your allies into enemies (unless the alien race you annihilated was actually an allied race).

Alignment is more like what you would see in Star Wars based games with KOTOR.

So you could be the universe's most evil character but if no one knows you (reputation), no one could care less for you.....

(Be careful with ME. I have not played the series yet.)

Ambiguous endings are not okay, but grand story endings that tell everything that happens to you after you win are not okay either. Give us some structure, but let us decide how we think the world ended.

Again, I don't disagree with your overall outlook. I just disagree with having failure endings.

No need to split hairs on this. I'm defining alignment as reputation. Not good vs. evil, but selfish vs. altruistic or xenophobic vs. diplomatic. Jihadists think they are doing God's work, after all.

^ I feel ya, but for me, personally, I'd like a good drama at the end if I was being naughty.

I called it "fail" ending 'cause it is the opposite of original intent of the Story and I think it's great to have an option to fail in a game that you're not meant to fail in. I think SC is one of those supposedly happy ended games, but freedom of choice is a sweet sweet thing. I absolutely adore Tali's suicide scene in ME, even though I've never gotten it in my playthrough.

Ok, but why can't you have that drama too if you were being good?

^ sure, you can. I was never against it. I'm just for more options, keeping all of them as much different as possible. That would benefit alot of folks cause of replay value.

I actually have a great deal if experience with alignement systems, that was a major part of how my MMO top down space combat game worked.  That's why I said "to do it well" as an adventure game you would basically need 3 different stories.  Just following the same storyline with different conversation reactions that have no actual impact on the progress of the story is not "doing it well".  For an adventure game, which is all about the story, that's not good enough.  I am not against "alignment type" of responses to questions like you have mentioned, but that is not really allowing the player to be good or evil and forge a different outcome because of that, they are just "self contained" responses in a single conversation that are ultimately unrelated to the full story.

To truly achieve your "glorious vision" (that's a game design term I use, not an insult of any kind) there would really need to be another version of the story written for each possible alignment.

I'm into consequence game play. Multi path endings are cool but in the end state there is a desired outcome that the designers want for the game players. I just hope that I can play the way I want and still be able to finish the game.

That's the sliiipperyyy slope the last games of ME went through.... 

I have faith in Stardock to do the right thing by their gamers. The fact we have input as founders says a lot toward their commitment.

That's just being a poor sport, man. It's okay to lose.

Sure, it's okay to lose a strategy game. This isn't a strategy game. This is an adventure / role-playing game. This is a story. Endings color our enjoyment of the story.

Consider the movie "No Country for Old Men". It was a great movie ruined by a horrible ending. When I think of the movie, I always remember how disappointed I was when the credits rolled. If I were to rate the movie, I'd give it low marks because of the ending.

I can hear you now... "But, IBN! Movies are movies! You don't play a movie! You aren't in control of what happens on-screen!"

It does not matter. An ending is an ending. I want that ending to meet my standards. I want that ending to be satisfying, regardless of what choices I make. Different paths can lead to different endings, but I want ALL endings to be equally satisfying.

(EDIT: I also know your feelings on replaying games when you lose. I don't have anything new to contribute to that line of argument. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm curious, though, if you ever played an RPG other than SC2, got a losing ending the first playthrough, and replayed it.)

I'll have more to post about this soon, as I am currently reading Mark Lawrence's Broken Empire series. The main character, Jorg, is a sociopath. That's how I would want to play SCR. I would hope that the ending I receive fits the character and that it does not make me feel that I "should have been a goodie-two-shoes".

Seven Pounds has soul crushing ending, but that just makes the movie sooooooo dam good. Actually, the ending alone makes that movie.

(I have not seen it, so please don't spoil it.)

Telltale's The Walking Dead Season 1 had a fantastic ending as well, and it was a tragedy.

But you see? That validates my point. These have a satisfying ending that fits with the narrative of the story.

I do not believe that Stardock can write a satisfying tragic ending without tailoring the entire narrative into an inescapable failure scenario. 

The narratives you wrote about Earth Supreme Emperor Nobody were not satisfying because I didn't think I earned dying under my table due to suicide. I would have needed something to push myself there, such as losing the alien that I loved. If I just off'ed myself because I lost control during a civil war, I (the player) would feel disappointed in the ending and in the game.

And if you disappoint me, why would I buy the sequels? I'm not a Bethesda fan, after all...

^ Well, I didn't mean suicide under "red fail". Note "poison" is quote marked. That was just an example anyway.

Why do you think the narrative needs to be tailored to any resolution at all?.... Absolutely not. The story should flow in a natural order of things (things that you affect, tailoring the story to your "unique" ending).

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not asking them to tailor the narrative. I'm saying that I don't think they can give us a satisfying tragedy *within the structure of the non-linear, branching narrative game (and still have non-tragic endings)*. Therefore I think they shouldn't do it!

In order for a tragic ending to be satisfying, the narrative has to build toward the tragedy. Otherwise, you get a "Kor'ah destroyed everything, better luck next time" ending that isn't very satisfying. "Oh.... I lost? WTF? What a stupid game! 0/10 on Metacritic! Thumbs Down on Steam! Ending SUXXXXXXXX!"

(*Edited to clarify.*)

Yup, several times, actually. I've replayed Fallout several times despite "losing". Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Day of the tentacle. Even the original X-Com could be loosely included, and even the "winning" ending was pretty bleak. I'd also highly recommend playing Undertale, because that game is like 90% losing, with 2 or 3 positive endings. Granted, Undertale is intended to be played multiple times because of how the world "remembers" your previous playthroughs. STALKER and Metro also come to mind.

Do you feel that the majority of gamers share your gaming habits?

Majority Fallacy: "That the largest market segment is the most lucrative is a mistaken belief leading to this type of strategic error. Due to intense rivalry among a large number of competitors it may be the least profitable one in reality."

Take majority out of the discussion.

But they are making a game.  Pretty much all high-budget games are made to appeal to the widest audience possible.  Many games fail financially, few go into it willing to make something they think will only appeal to a small segment of gamers.  The need to appeal to the casual gamer, mass market audience is an overriding factor in most game design decisions.  I would love a space exploration game that was like a submarine simulation in spaceships, but I probably won't ever get to play that game because so few people would like it that nobody will ever make it.

The majority is an important factor in making a game unless you are wealthy and funding your own dream game yourself.

That feels like an admission.  

No, seriously. It's a legitimate question. Do you feel that the majority of gamers share your gaming habits? I'm asking because I'd like to understand your perceptions better.

It's a trap! Run, Kavik! RRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNN!

I feel like the majority of PC gamers do, yes. And I mean people who actively spend significant amounts of money to play games on PCs, not people who happen to play games on a PC, that distinction is important.

So you feel that the majority of the PCMR choose to replay a beaten game to tease out a new ending instead of playing a stockpiled Steam game? (When they aren't playing an online game, that is.) And you also feel they would be okay with playing a 40+ hour RPG only to lose? Finally...What about the level of completion? Do you feel that the PCMR majority completes single player games?