163 réponses à ce sujet

[Major Truth]

Zulmoka531 wrote...

With all due respect,............

Not trying to be hostile or anything,.........................
.

First of all none taken, I love a good debate and I'm not sayng I'm right, I'm more then happy for my opinion to be changed,

Zulmoka531 wrote...
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.

I'm not saying loss is preferable, I'm saying its probable. I just don't see Shepard being that good that he can keep everyone alive, their has to be casualtes for the story to be credible. Shepard is human not a super hero. I suppode I'm saying Shepard can't be perfect

[Zulmoka531]

When you put it that way, I can see where you are coming from. I like your view point better than many of the others I've seen in varying threads where they want death just because it supposedly "dark".

[stewie1974]

Theres an easy way to get people to die on the suicide mission "randomly"

Don't do loyality missions at all... However I had Kasumi and Zaeeds and even Jacks loyality, yet all three still managed to die....

I have my "perfect playthrough" ...everyone including crew lives. Every mission completed. Every assignment completed...etc.

And I have my "lets just try to get to the collector base the fastest route possible" Which left me with Grunt and Samara as the only survivors...... and I didnt even bother to raise their points ((this was on hardcore setting)). as I expect the computer to kill the hold the line people with lowest health.... baffling... My favourites were all killed.... grunt pulled me back on board the normandy, which was a surprise, as I was going for total suicide run.....and I felt kinda guilty for leaving grunt in the tank only to release him for the suicide mission too.... fresh out the can and he's kicking ass!.... Sold legion however...not that those 50k credits were any use at that point in the game.


So it seems my shepard this run lived up to the flaws others said he should have..... the case being...... .it's your shepard, your decisions..... if you think he shouldn't do certian loyality missions, don't make him compulsary do that mission acting on meta info..... after all you don't know ICLY that peoples loyality makes them more survivable...

Also... how many people "lost" crewmembers on their very, very, very first playthrough before they "knew" via meta knowledge of how the game mechanics work, how to beat the game?

On my first play through I lost miranda... due to the argument with Jack...yes I sided with Jack as I didn't have the paragon or renegade to make both hear sense......  I also lost legion...because I assumed that a "MACHINE" would be a better hacker Engineer than a quarrian...

You should treat your very first complete playthrough as your cannon playthrough... all the mistakes made are genuine mistakes.

If everybody lived, and the crew didn't get liquidated on your first playthrough.... well done;)

Modifié par stewie1974, 18 septembre 2010 - 11:28 .

[Moiaussi]

Major Truth wrote...

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

Yes, all the characters are fictional, including those who died on Horizon, on the Normandy, on Freedom's Progress, the vermire fallen, any casualty from the suicide mission, or any other dead in ME1 or 2.

It is true that you didn't know many of those characters personally.

How close should we be getting to any given character before their fall is considered 'tragic?" How much of the plot should be devoted to that? How many really want to be set up for loss? How many really mourned Ashley or Kaiden's fall as opposed to simply considering it 'battlefield losses?'

As for fiction vs reality, did you know any of those at the Alamo personally? Or any of the other historic event? Do the heroics of any such event, or tragedy thereof have no meaning to you simply because you don't? Sure they were real people, but the events were how long ago? Before any of our births, and yet.....

Also, this is a world where death is relatively difficult. Medi-gel seems to regenerate almost everything (except when a Turian gets shot by a cut scene and inexplicably gets grafted to his damaged armor). With Shepard's ressurrection, even death is not neccessarily the end.

[Major Truth]

Zulmoka531 wrote...

When you put it that way, I can see where you are coming from. I like your view point better than many of the others I've seen in varying threads where they want death just because it supposedly "dark".

Definitely don't want that, I just want a story thats credible, and also something that puts Shepards personality and thinking under the microscope

How will he cope with not being able to save everyone ?

[Major Truth]

stewie1974 wrote...

Theres an easy way to get people to die on the suicide mission "randomly"

Don't do loyality missions at all... However I had Kasumi and Zaeeds and even Jacks loyality, yet all three still managed to die....

I have my "perfect playthrough" ...everyone including crew lives. Every mission completed. Every assignment completed...etc.

And I have my "lets just try to get to the collector base the fastest route possible" Which left me with Grunt and Samara as the only survivors...... and I didnt even bother to raise their points ((this was on hardcore setting)). as I expect the computer to kill the hold the line people with lowest health.... baffling... My favourites were all killed.... grunt pulled me back on board the normandy, which was a surprise, as I was going for total suicide run.....and I felt kinda guilty for leaving grunt in the tank only to release him for the suicide mission too.... fresh out the can and he's kicking ass!.... Sold legion however...not that those 50k credits were any use at that point in the game.


So it seems my shepard this run lived up to the flaws others said he should have..... the case being...... .it's your shepard, your decisions..... if you think he shouldn't do certian loyality missions, don't make him compulsary do that mission acting on meta info..... after all you don't know ICLY that peoples loyality makes them more survivable...

Also... how many people "lost" crewmembers on their very, very, very first playthrough before they "knew" via meta knowledge of how the game mechanics work, how to beat the game?

On my first play through I lost miranda... due to the argument with Jack...yes I sided with Jack as I didn't have the paragon or renegade to make both hear sense......  I also lost legion...because I assumed that a "MACHINE" would be a better hacker Engineer than a quarrian...

You should treat your very first complete playthrough as your cannon playthrough... all the mistakes made are genuine mistakes.

If everybody lived, and the crew didn't get liquidated on your first playthrough.... well done;)

Absolutely - I have similar play throughs. My question is, come the end of ME3, is everyone survving credible ?

[Moiaussi]

Major Truth wrote...

I'm not saying loss is preferable, I'm saying its probable. I just don't see Shepard being that good that he can keep everyone alive, their has to be casualtes for the story to be credible. Shepard is human not a super hero. I suppode I'm saying Shepard can't be perfect

The problem is that the writers are caught between Medi-Gel/Unity and AI limitations. Between those factors, any in-squad deaths end up coming across as contrived and arbitrary, like Garrus inexplicably standing in the middle of the room to be shot instead of his normal behavior which would include using cover, or Saren conveniently going to whichever spot Shepard provide escort for.

[Major Truth]

Moiaussi wrote...

Major Truth wrote...

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

Yes, all the characters are fictional, including those who died on Horizon, on the Normandy, on Freedom's Progress, the vermire fallen, any casualty from the suicide mission, or any other dead in ME1 or 2.

It is true that you didn't know many of those characters personally.

How close should we be getting to any given character before their fall is considered 'tragic?" How much of the plot should be devoted to that? How many really want to be set up for loss? How many really mourned Ashley or Kaiden's fall as opposed to simply considering it 'battlefield losses?'

As for fiction vs reality, did you know any of those at the Alamo personally? Or any of the other historic event? Do the heroics of any such event, or tragedy thereof have no meaning to you simply because you don't? Sure they were real people, but the events were how long ago? Before any of our births, and yet.....

Also, this is a world where death is relatively difficult. Medi-gel seems to regenerate almost everything (except when a Turian gets shot by a cut scene and inexplicably gets grafted to his damaged armor). With Shepard's ressurrection, even death is not neccessarily the end.

I do see your point and its a valid one, but say my connection to Garrus or Tali is always going to mean more to me in a gaming sense then say Navigator Pressley or Kelly. I'm connected to them in terms of the game and its experience,they've been a major part of the story as opposed to being part of the supporting cast

Modifié par Major Truth, 18 septembre 2010 - 11:47 .

[Moiaussi]

Major Truth wrote...

Absolutely - I have similar play throughs. My question is, come the end of ME3, is everyone survving credible ?

Depends on the rest of the plot. Again, death is presented as relatively difficult (medi-gel), and when it isn't that difficult , it is sufficiently easy to beg the question of why there were any survivors.
 
Snipers? If they can one-shot, Shepard first, then the others, or at least each one could likely get off a couple kills before being taken down.

Heavy weapons? Most of those don't seem to one shot. Those that do should be able to kill the squad easily. The Occulus could punch through the shields and hull of the Normandy, both upgraded, but on the interior they don't simply incinerate anyone they hit instantly? What, they are worried about? They just there to pick up a package from the cargo bay and don't want to damage it? Not to mention they always enter the cargo bay....

Normandy gets taken out by a Collector cruiser that conveniently ignores the escape pods?

Modifié par Moiaussi, 19 septembre 2010 - 12:03 .

[Moiaussi]

Major Truth wrote...

I do see your point and its a valid one, but say my connection to Garrus or Tali is always going to mean more to me in a gaming sense then say Navigator Pressley or Kelly. I'm connected to them in terms of the game and its experience,they've been a major part of the story as opposed to being part of the supporting cast

Fair point, but my question remains... how tragic does the story need to be and how far should mechanics (and I mean in character mechanics) be bent to have such deaths in a believable fashion?

[cj3style]

ME3 needs back-stabbing teamates if they're not loyal! it'd be so cool



P.S thanks Moiaussi

[Major Truth]

Moiaussi wrote...

Major Truth wrote...

I do see your point and its a valid one, but say my connection to Garrus or Tali is always going to mean more to me in a gaming sense then say Navigator Pressley or Kelly. I'm connected to them in terms of the game and its experience,they've been a major part of the story as opposed to being part of the supporting cast

Fair point, but my question remains... how tragic does the story need to be and how far should mechanics (and I mean in character mechanics) be bent to have such deaths in a believable fashion?

Its a fair point and to be honest one I'm struggling to argue with. Definitely for myself food for thought

Moiaussi wrote...

Major Truth wrote...

Absolutely - I have similar play throughs. My question is, come the end of ME3, is everyone survving credible ?

Depends on the rest of the plot. Again, death is presented as relatively difficult (medi-gel), and when it isn't that difficult , it is sufficiently easy to beg the question of why there were any survivors.
 
Snipers? If they can one-shot, Shepard first, then the others, or at least each one could likely get off a couple kills before being taken down.

Heavy weapons? Most of those don't seem to one shot. Those that do should be able to kill the squad easily. The Occulus could punch through the shields and hull of the Normandy, both upgraded, but on the interior they don't simply incinerate anyone they hit instantly? What, they are worried about? They just there to pick up a package from the cargo bay and don't want to damage it? Not to mention they always enter the cargo bay....

Normandy gets taken out by a Collector cruiser that conveniently ignores the escape pods?

Again a good point - I need to look at this more closely before I respond

[AdamNW]

Xilizhra wrote...

I didn't have much emotional attachment to either Ashley or Kaidan; I just save whomever is at the AA tower so I can pick up the salarian team too. Now, if it had been a choice between Garrus and Tali... that would have carried impact (one of them with Liara would have had an impact as well, but it'd be a non-choice in reality).

Legion's arc, though, is definitely not complete, and nor is Tali's. Not when you consider the looming quarian/geth issue. In fact, the only people I can see dying in the base as part of their arc are Miranda, Jack, Samara and Thane.

I don't think Miranda's story is over.  We still have the backlash from her leaving Cerberus (regarding Oriana)

[InHarmsWay]

stewie1974 wrote...

Theres an easy way to get people to die on the suicide mission "randomly"

Don't do loyality missions at all... However I had Kasumi and Zaeeds and even Jacks loyality, yet all three still managed to die....

I have my "perfect playthrough" ...everyone including crew lives. Every mission completed. Every assignment completed...etc.

And I have my "lets just try to get to the collector base the fastest route possible" Which left me with Grunt and Samara as the only survivors...... and I didnt even bother to raise their points ((this was on hardcore setting)). as I expect the computer to kill the hold the line people with lowest health.... baffling... My favourites were all killed.... grunt pulled me back on board the normandy, which was a surprise, as I was going for total suicide run.....and I felt kinda guilty for leaving grunt in the tank only to release him for the suicide mission too.... fresh out the can and he's kicking ass!.... Sold legion however...not that those 50k credits were any use at that point in the game.


So it seems my shepard this run lived up to the flaws others said he should have..... the case being...... .it's your shepard, your decisions..... if you think he shouldn't do certian loyality missions, don't make him compulsary do that mission acting on meta info..... after all you don't know ICLY that peoples loyality makes them more survivable...

Also... how many people "lost" crewmembers on their very, very, very first playthrough before they "knew" via meta knowledge of how the game mechanics work, how to beat the game?

On my first play through I lost miranda... due to the argument with Jack...yes I sided with Jack as I didn't have the paragon or renegade to make both hear sense......  I also lost legion...because I assumed that a "MACHINE" would be a better hacker Engineer than a quarrian...

You should treat your very first complete playthrough as your cannon playthrough... all the mistakes made are genuine mistakes.

If everybody lived, and the crew didn't get liquidated on your first playthrough.... well done;)

This.

The whole point of ME2 was to prepare yourself and your team for the suicide mission. If you weren't properly prepared for the final mission, or if you made the wrong decisions, it did result in random or mandatory deaths. Pick anyone who isn't loyal or a tech expert, or if you picked an unloyaly or insufficient team leader, had the mandatory death of your tech specialist.

[Major Truth]

InHarmsWay wrote...

This.

The whole point of ME2 was to prepare yourself and your team for the suicide mission. If you weren't properly prepared for the final mission, or if you made the wrong decisions, it did result in random or mandatory deaths. Pick anyone who isn't loyal or a tech expert, or if you picked an unloyaly or insufficient team leader, had the mandatory death of your tech specialist.

Yes but my point was that a plan conceived on the fly and executed right, took down all collecters with no casualties. Credible ?

[Major Truth]

AdamNW wrote...

I don't think Miranda's story is over.  We still have the backlash from her leaving Cerberus (regarding Oriana)

Agreed I think/hope their is more to come in terms of Miranda

[Zan51]

This is a dilemma all writers face come the end of a series of books dealing with the same characters, and one I am facing as I write the last book in my series.
Who do we kill? Some readers/gamers in this case, like everyone on the main Team. Do you roll a dice? Choose arbitraily? Look at who hasn't had the sh$% thrown at them in a long while and choose them to die?
There is no right answer. What I'm going to do is earmark a couple of folk who will either die or be hurt extremely badly, only the story as it progresses will tell me who and when exactly.

When I played ME2 the first time, I lost all the crew as I hadn't read up anything on the game, I was playing it pristine. I also saved everyone on the Suicide Mission by choosing the right folk for the job, by good luck and paying attention to their people skills. I was delighted to save everyone. Yes, it was still a suicide mission, but if you are a good leader, know your team, choose the right person for the right job, there is no reason why you cannot bring them all through alive. Then the only casualties were the whole of the crew apart from Joker. Believe me, I felt that was a high price my Fem Shepard paid for success! (then my stupid PC got a virus and I forgot to save the saved games before reformatting the HD as the only way to thoroughly clean my system. Argh! More collateral damage! )

Pointless deaths are just that, pointless. The aim of the game is to try and have as many survive as possible, isn't it? Therefore I have no problems when my folk do survive. I am talking about the first playthrough, not all the others where folk try to get folk killed off. That is up to them, probably another form of "beating the game" in their own way.

So I am against deaths just for the sake of them. I like my team and if I mae the right decisions, knowing them, I expect to bring as many through alive as I possibly can.

As for ME3, Bioware has said that though it will be darker, there will be a lot more fun and giggles in it too.

Taken from here http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=19778 Casey Hudson talking to Xbox magazine June 2010

So should we be expecting something even more mature for Mass Effect 3?

[Laughs] Well, we're not talking too much about Mass Effect 3 right
now, but the second story in a trilogy is where you traditionally end up
in a fairly dark place. The third story is where you try and bring some
fun and lightness back into it. One thing we tried to do with Mass
Effect 2 was as well as bringing in the more mature stuff, we also tried
to bring in a lot more humour so that we can go to these places without
making it an overbearing experience. I think we have a lot more fun
this time through characters like Joker and EDI. Mass Effect 3 is going
to be the epic conclusion... so, a lot more darkness but also a lot more
humour.

[Lucifer_Cheney]

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.

As cogent a point as i've read in this thread! Although there should be an option for a darker ending depending upon the choices you've made.

[rememberence]

I have to disagree. I don't want mandatory collateral damage of squadmates. Blowing up Earth, taking out some capitals I'm fine with but I don't want to be forced to have to let a squad mate die.



I like how they did it with the SM. If you do it right, if you know your squad, if you're prepped for it (like everyone tells you you should) then you do the impossible.



If you don't - or if you want some people to die - then you get that option.



People are going into ME3 with saves that have all but two of their squad dead. ...all but two. Why is that not enough? Why can you not keep that save and me with my save and just be happy with it? Why do I /have/ to let Tali die. Or Garrus die. Or Liara die. Or...etc etc.



*Faint shrug.* I'll still play ME3 if it happens like that but I don't want to be forced to let people die. If I'm fast enough, if I'm skilled enough I want to be able to save everyone.

[Xilizhra]

That's why you should be forced to let a squadmate die.

Well... it is a game, the primary purpose of which is to have fun.

[PWENER]

Xilizhra wrote...

That's why you should be forced to let a squadmate die.

Well... it is a game, the primary purpose of which is to have fun.

Actually, in ME3, squadmates will die without you effecting anything. The devs already said so. All variables will be exploited and let loose. People will die and things will happen depending on the choices of the two previous games.

[Xilizhra]

Some peoples' mileage may vary.