163 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

ME3 should not be Virmire x 10. If squadmates die, it should be the result of choices throughout the game and the series. If you keep the genophage cure, you can trade it for Krogan support in a battle. Otherwise the battle is harder and a squadmate dies. Would you trade a life for galactic stability? Those kind of choices.



But ultimately, most players want a triumphant happy ending. They don't want the dark, grave filled ending. Bioware would be foolish to force a bittersweet or dark conclusion.

[AlexMBrennan]

I think the henchman's death on Virmire is too difficult to avoid whilst it is too easy to do the suicide mission with no casualties* - it takes no skill to pick the right guy for the task and to do the loyalty missions. (* as long as you know that loyal!Mordin will survive the escort mission/final boss fight that can kill Grunt)

I'd suggest adding a significantly harder bonus objective to these mission like beating Saren without backup to allow your squad to save the other henchman.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

But ultimately, most players want a triumphant happy ending. They don't want the dark, grave filled ending. Bioware would be foolish to force a bittersweet or dark conclusion.

I actually think the Paragon ending (in ME3) will be an all round happy ending, as opposed to the Renegade one. Both moralities will probably lead to the same basic ending as we saw in ME1 and 2, except things will play out differently.

I have a feeling that the Paragon ending might just come to that -- happily ever after like a fairytale.

[Major Truth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Funnily enough, I like having the ability to save everyone. It made my Shepard feel extremely badass.
.

I like my Shepard to be badass too, but he's a human being not a superhero. He can't save all the people all the time. I'm not going to use the word "realistic" here because we're flying around in space with numerous different types of aliens, but Shepard is just one man and their is only so much he can do credibly.

This is a war against the reapers, as high as the stakes can get, and in wars and suicide missions their is always collatoral damage. If their isn't its not really a suicide mission

Optimystic_X wrote...

For those of you who want those dramatic deaths, there's a wonderful guide on these forums that lets you choose exactly who lives and who dies during the SM.

I don't want to kill people purposely. I want the real world reality of loss and casualties to be built into the story

[lolwot]

 I posted this in another thread, but it's also relevant here. I was responding to someone who suggested to intentionally get a bad ending.
"Why would you choose not to get a "good ending"? There isn't any incentive for choosing an outcome that will be seemingly detrimental to the success of your character's mission. Decisions like that of Virmire in the first game, which forced you to choose between two equally undesirable options, are preferable to the decisions made in the "suicide mission" of Mass Effect 2. Choosing between Kaidan and Ashley doesn't allow as much technical variation as a series of decisions that can potentially result in the deaths of every squadmate, but it should theoretically allow for each story branch to be more substantial and it also would prevent the player from avoiding any dramatic events in the main plot."

Basically, I think that fewer, but more scripted and mandatory deaths or consequences would make for a better story than a ton of potential deaths or consequences which are too brief, even when they aren't avoided altogether. I would estimate that players spend at least an hour learning about each of the squadmates, then these characters die in a few seconds and are immediately forgotten. The way these deaths are tied into the plot makes them feel totally insignificant.

[Major Truth]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME3 should not be Virmire x 10..

Nobody is suggesting it should, it was just brought up as an example. My general point was that in my opinion their should be collatoral damage

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
But ultimately, most players want a triumphant happy ending. They don't want the dark, grave filled ending. Bioware would be foolish to force a bittersweet or dark conclusion.

I agree nobody wants a grave filled ending but I'm not suggesting thats how the game ends, I'm suggesting that ovwe the course of the game these situations should develop.

Bioware have already confirmed that ME3 will be darker then the previous two games

[Major Truth]

lolwot wrote...

Basically, I think that fewer, but more scripted and mandatory deaths or consequences would make for a better story than a ton of potential deaths or consequences which are too brief, even when they aren't avoided altogether. I would estimate that players spend at least an hour learning about each of the squadmates, then these characters die in a few seconds and are immediately forgotten. The way these deaths are tied into the plot makes them feel totally insignificant.

Yes I agree. In my first playthrough Mordin and Thane died, I knew obviously because I had done something wrong but their is no feeling of loss or regret etc. I just made sure to do things right the next time around ahd hey presto they survived.

Modifié par Major Truth, 18 septembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Shandepared wrote...
The IFF being booby-trapped wasn't something anybody could have predicted

The Reapers are masters at playing the long game. It would seem sensible that their IFF would be rigged to raise an alert unless the right authorization code is given.
Currently, credit cards (well, smart cards) can self-destruct when the wrong pin is entered. It wouldn't be that difficult to also call the police. Now, fast forward 30 million years

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 18 septembre 2010 - 04:32 .

[Moiaussi]

If you follow common sense and treat this as a situation where the universe really is at stake and everyone should be loyal because if they fail, all their relatives and anything else they care about will be gone anyway, then you get your dramatic deaths.



If you run around doing personal errands making everyone happy instead, everyone lives.



If you are the kind of person where everyone being happy is your priority, you are more likely to be the kind of person who doesn't find everyone living to be objectionable.



Frankly, rather than insisting that people must die on something called a suicide mission, I would have preferred that Shepard chastized the crew for calling it a suicide mission, pointing out that everyone of the crew who went to Ilos returned.



Not sure how many real commanders would let their squads go about calling their mission a suicide mission rather than telling them to get their heads back in the game and get it done.



Also, the writers already pointed out via the start of ME2 that they can add arbitrary deaths any time they want. 20 dog tags at the crash site.



If you don't care about them, or the lost on Horizon, or any other fallen in the game, why would you care that much more about any one more death that was beyond your control?



Where are all the threads mourning the Vermire fallen? And I mean mourning, not complaining about the death not being within your control?



And if the death was within your control, i.e. avoidable, then wouldn't it be just like ME2, with complaints that it didn't count because the death was avoidable?

[Dibnah]

Moiaussi wrote..
Also, the writers already pointed out via the start of ME2 that they can add arbitrary deaths any time they want. 20 dog tags at the crash site.

If you don't care about them, or the lost on Horizon, or any other fallen in the game, why would you care that much more about any one more death that was beyond your control?

There's  a big difference between one of you squaddies who you have spent time getting to know dying (possibly due to a decision you have made!), and some faceless colonists dying.

[Zulmoka531]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME3 should not be Virmire x 10. If squadmates die, it should be the result of choices throughout the game and the series. If you keep the genophage cure, you can trade it for Krogan support in a battle. Otherwise the battle is harder and a squadmate dies. Would you trade a life for galactic stability? Those kind of choices.

But ultimately, most players want a triumphant happy ending. They don't want the dark, grave filled ending. Bioware would be foolish to force a bittersweet or dark conclusion.

I agree with you tenfold.

[Moiaussi]

Dibnah wrote...

Moiaussi wrote..
Also, the writers already pointed out via the start of ME2 that they can add arbitrary deaths any time they want. 20 dog tags at the crash site.

If you don't care about them, or the lost on Horizon, or any other fallen in the game, why would you care that much more about any one more death that was beyond your control?

There's  a big difference between one of you squaddies who you have spent time getting to know dying (possibly due to a decision you have made!), and some faceless colonists dying.

Really? How many mourned for Kaiden or Ashley vs how many posted in the thread where people discussed how they deliberately arranged things in ME2 to get rid of specific characters they didn't like, even though doing so meant stepping completely out of character.

At least one of the 20 on the Normandy wasn't faceless, but regardless, I take it you are completely unmoved by any world tragedy? Or feel that people who mourned the dead of 911, or Pearl or any given battle are strange or overly emotional? Has Texas forgotten the Alamo? You didn't know them personally so you can't find it tragic?

Modifié par Moiaussi, 18 septembre 2010 - 08:20 .

[Major Truth]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dibnah wrote...

Moiaussi wrote..
Also, the writers already pointed out via the start of ME2 that they can add arbitrary deaths any time they want. 20 dog tags at the crash site.

If you don't care about them, or the lost on Horizon, or any other fallen in the game, why would you care that much more about any one more death that was beyond your control?

There's  a big difference between one of you squaddies who you have spent time getting to know dying (possibly due to a decision you have made!), and some faceless colonists dying.

Really? How many mourned for Kaiden or Ashley vs how many posted in the thread where people discussed how they deliberately arranged things in ME2 to get rid of specific characters they didn't like, even though doing so meant stepping completely out of character.

At least one of the 20 on the Normandy wasn't faceless, but regardless, I take it you are completely unmoved by any world tragedy? Or feel that people who mourned the dead of 911, or Pearl or any given battle are strange or overly emotional? Has Texas forgotten the Alamo? You didn't know them personally so you can't find it tragic?

Genuinely I'm not being smart here, but I'm struggling to see what your point is ?

[Moiaussi]

Major Truth wrote...

Genuinely I'm not being smart here, but I'm struggling to see what your point is ?

You might be making my point in not seeing it... I was questioning why a death has to be close to the protagonist to be considered 'significantly' or 'sufficiently' tragic to appease those calling for that in the plot.

There seems to be a school of thought that a protagonist isn't really 'heroic' unless they are stuck in a bad country song, that it isn't 'real' unless everyone is miserable and angst ridden.

[Rip The Reaper]

My question is: did bioware already have a basic idea of where they wanted to go w/ the plot in me2 while making me1. and the same for while they were makeing me2. did they already have some basic idea of what the plot would be for the next game.



I'm sure they wouldn't just wait and get to it when me2 is said and done. whitch makes me a little less worried that old squade mates won't have a bigger role in me3

[Moiaussi]

Rip The Reaper wrote...

My question is: did bioware already have a basic idea of where they wanted to go w/ the plot in me2 while making me1. and the same for while they were makeing me2. did they already have some basic idea of what the plot would be for the next game.

I'm sure they wouldn't just wait and get to it when me2 is said and done. whitch makes me a little less worried that old squade mates won't have a bigger role in me3

I wouldn't be surprised if Garrus and the Vermire survivor were the only ME1 squaddies to return. Other than that I wouldn't be surprised at all ME2 survivors returning. Not sure about Kasumi since I haven't played that out, but Zaheed could simply stay on payroll.

Tali is being set up for the Admiralty, and Liara is almost certainly more useful as the SB. It is not as if they wouldn't be there to visit (and/or romance) any time Shep wanted to.

[Count Viceroy]

I want earth to be bombed/taken out by the reapers. Huge casualties, its not like the human race would die out by having their home planet bombed but I'd still like to see some proper damage being done.

[hawat333]

Major Truth wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Frankly, I think the suicide mission should have had some mandatory collateral damage.

Yes I agree. Do you think that it should have been random or do you think squadmates should have been sacrificed based on your decisions?

Decisions. But some factor of randomness wouldn't have hurt (if that's the right structure, sorry, my English is a bit rusty), so even on the eleventh playthrough, it would be a pressure and tool of excitement.

As for ME3, my fav vote to collateral damage is Earth itself. Not the colonies, not a random battleship, but quite the opposite: those should remain all we have.

[Moiaussi]

Why stop there? Why not, no matter what you do you have a completely random outcome? Part way in, you are doing great, then some sniper you didn't see pops out of some corner and one-shots one of your squadmates in 'its-a-cut-scene-so-medigel/unity-can't-fix-this-one' manner, or perhaps even shoots and kills you!



Wouldn't that be the best game ever?

[Kavadas]

Shandepared wrote...
I might add another tactical choice, just to give Thane some use (say a point where Shepard needs to choose someone to take up a sniper's position, where the sniper also needs evasion and stealth skills to safely extract themselves at the end, else they die heroically).

Even better, you need a sniper for something or other and you have your choice between Thane, Legion, and Garrus.

I'd argue Garrus is the most skilled so if he's chosen only he would die.  If Thane is chosen someone else dies but Thane's stealth skills keep him alive.  If Legion is chosen...  dunno.

I guess Zaeed can snipe too, technically.  If he's chosen everyone dies, Zaeed completes the mission and escapes

[Moiaussi]

Kavadas wrote...

Shandepared wrote...
I might add another tactical choice, just to give Thane some use (say a point where Shepard needs to choose someone to take up a sniper's position, where the sniper also needs evasion and stealth skills to safely extract themselves at the end, else they die heroically).

Even better, you need a sniper for something or other and you have your choice between Thane, Legion, and Garrus.

I'd argue Garrus is the most skilled so if he's chosen only he would die.  If Thane is chosen someone else dies but Thane's stealth skills keep him alive.  If Legion is chosen...  dunno.

I guess Zaeed can snipe too, technically.  If he's chosen everyone dies, Zaeed completes the mission and escapes

A sniper mission like that would be a great idea. Garrus' recruitment mission was a little like that, but one where the sniper was helping more actively would be good.

[Major Truth]

Moiaussi wrote...

Major Truth wrote...

Genuinely I'm not being smart here, but I'm struggling to see what your point is ?

You might be making my point in not seeing it... I was questioning why a death has to be close to the protagonist to be considered 'significantly' or 'sufficiently' tragic to appease those calling for that in the plot.

There seems to be a school of thought that a protagonist isn't really 'heroic' unless they are stuck in a bad country song, that it isn't 'real' unless everyone is miserable and angst ridden.

These aren't real deaths we're talking about, they're ficticous characters where a bond is possible through familiarity and progression through the game. What I'm talking about is drama and what makes for a good story

[Zulmoka531]

With all due respect, why is death of someone close, in Mass Effect at the very least, good for the story?

I'll assume if Earth is destroyed in ME3, there would still be threads like this.



Not trying to be hostile or anything, but death isn't as powerful a story telling tool as people believe it to be. It is used so much, we begin to expect it and use it for emotional value.



Good endings, with no loss can have the same impact, endings that we have control of, through massive amounts of choices spanning three games can have that impact. It may be Shepards' story, but we are quite literally the narrators pointing him or her in certain directions.