163 réponses à ce sujet

[Nimander]

I said -no one strongly linked to the main characters-. Do you even -read-, Shandepared? And that's a multi-faceted question, as it's pretty easy to list things both in genre fiction and non-genre fiction.



For genre fiction, I'll focus on those fairly universally agreed to be pretty darn good. Many Vorkosigan novels are quite dramatic and often don't have anyone major die (emphasis on 'often', btw, for those who ... well. I don't want to spoil). Take _Memory_, which is considered by many to be one of her best novels. Not one of the main characters dies in that book. Not one. Or maybe Agatha Christie, who tried to avoid this sort of thing (though she did it once in a while, like Bujold), and many of her books are considered classics in spite of not having omg-people-close-to-me-died as a source of drama.



For non-genre, how about Twain's Huckleberry Finn? That has no 'major character deaths' really. Or perhaps for another classic non-genre piece, how about Rebecca, where the only main death happens -before the novel begins-?



I could list more. Death is, a lot of times, a crutch.

[Zan51]

Hmmm,
Dragonflight by Ann McCaffrey which is SF (breeding of fire lizards to dragon riding size, Agenothree (read HNO3) to kill the thread-like rhyzomes from the red planet) No good guys die.
Miles Vorkosigan series by Lois McMasters Bujold - no one good dies in those I remember, yet full of drama and suspense.
Hani Series by CJ Cherryh - otherwise known as Pride of Chanur, Chanur's Ventur, Kif Strike Back etc.
Just a few.

Darn beat me to it by minutes.

Non SF - To Kill A Mockingbird. Fabulous book and movie. And no one major dies.

Modifié par Zan51, 19 septembre 2010 - 10:23 .

[FouCapitan]

Nobody dies in my canon Shepard run of ME2. Because Shepard is just that good.

[Fiery Phoenix]

FouCapitan wrote...

Nobody dies in my canon Shepard run of ME2. Because Shepard is just that good.

Same here. In fact, that's the case in all of my 5 completed playthrough's, and I'm proud of it.

I just can't justify CHOOSING to kill off any one of my team/crew, no matter how bland, boring, stupid a character they are. Unless the plot actually demands it, I ain't doing it, because it's more or less screwing myself out of potential content, similar to not recruiting them.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 19 septembre 2010 - 10:57 .

[Nimander]

Shandepared wrote...We're dealing with an action story here with a lot of sci-fi themes. We're following commandos who are undertaking highly dangerous missions. Nobody ever getting killed hurts my ability to take it seriously.

And that's cool.  Others disagree though, and for fairly valid reasons.  As a note, Vorkosigan novels are the exact same sort of Space Pulp as ME, though with no galaxy-destroying threat.  Lots of combat.  Mayhem.  Not so much constant death of main chars.  There are a total of ... *counts*  five main deaths close to the characters in /sixteen/ stories.  And three of those were 'death due to old age' and not 'shot in the head' type stuff.   And yet the stories are quite engaging.

I just think both viewpoints are valid.  How much is necessary is really a personal, subjective thing, and I hate it when folks act like anyone wanting things to be like the pulp roots are juvenile or don't understand true drama.

[lolwot]

Nimander wrote...

The issue is not everyone thinks that drama is mandated by character deaths, and are not trying to change what Mass Effect is predicated upon.

Death is not necessary to make something dramatic.  There's a variety of stories that have sufficient drama without main character/protagonist-linked death.  And heck, there are other bad consequences other than death.  What if re-integrating the geth cause complications and cause the Geth to go haywire?  As Shephard says, that sort of thing could have ramifications for a human.

A lot of these reads to me like people believe tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsAngsty

This is not realistic science fiction.  It has a veneer of that, but it has, from the beginning, been stated to be a reconstruction of classical pulp science fiction.  Not down to earth, uber-realistic science fiction.  If you want it to be the latter?  This is -not- the game for you.  Please don't try to make it that.

I think there's room for both, basically.  If you want folks to die, there's ways to do it.  If folks want to cleave towards the more classical pulp roots?  They can do that too.

Frankly, I just don't think a "dark second act" should allow the main cast of characters to get out of a "suicide mission" totally unscathed, regardless of ship upgrades and specialist choices. What does that say about the antagonists? Even in Empire Strikes Back, the first sequel in an ostensibly more kid-friendly sci-fi series... *spoilers*

Han Solo is frozen and abducted, the main character learns that the villain is his father shortly after his hand is severed, and the rebellion is left in shambles. There is a sense that the you have learned more about the enemy, and that the heroes only narrowly avoided total defeat. By the end of Mass Effect 2, the main cast of characters could be absolutely victorious, totally vanquishing the main threat of the plot, without any real caveats. Also, the story just sort of stagnates as the player deals with issues unrelated to the conflict for the majority of the game.

[Moiaussi]

Shandepared wrote...

Zan Mura wrote...

No point in making it random. People would just feel cheated and bullied, and be forced to spam load games until the teammates they wanted to survive, did.

You do make a valid point. Maybe the suicide mission should have had some Virmire like choices instead?

Why not simply have Shepard object to it being called a suicide mission? With large unit tactics, company level or so, it is not uncommon for there to be relatively high casualty rates, however with small unit tactics I am not sure that is really the case. Swat teams and the like go up against high firepower all the time, but the turnover isn't usually all that high. It is low enough that individual deaths are still news.

Likewise police deaths generally.

Shepard is in theory up against armies, but never against an entire army at once. There were some enemy snipers in ME1, but snipers in ME1 were a lot less effective. It was a lot less 'one hit, one kill, especially against harder targets (and Shepard's unit counts, since they all had top of the line gear).

ME2, if they went against properly coordinated resistance, it is arguable that it should not just have been a suicide mission but also a pointless one. They encountered a single enemy ship that the Normandy was more than a match for. They encountered space tactical drones that were powerful enough to cut into the Normandy, but never went for the engines and never did any internal damage once within the hull.

The station itself seemed unarmed. Not just were there no external guns, there were no internal guns. Oh, and all internal guns found in ME2 were easily hacked, and when the hack ended would always self destruct.

This is why any deaths would be gratuitous, and why Garrus getting hit seemed gratuitous. The odds have to be stacked in favour of Shepard or it isn't a game, just a cut scene of the squad's death.

[Moiaussi]

lolwot wrote...

Frankly, I just don't think a "dark second act" should allow the main cast of characters to get out of a "suicide mission" totally unscathed, regardless of ship upgrades and specialist choices. What does that say about the antagonists? Even in Empire Strikes Back, the first sequel in an ostensibly more kid-friendly sci-fi series... *spoilers*

Han Solo is frozen and abducted, the main character learns that the villain is his father shortly after his hand is severed, and the rebellion is left in shambles. There is a sense that the you have learned more about the enemy, and that the heroes only narrowly avoided total defeat. By the end of Mass Effect 2, the main cast of characters could be absolutely victorious, totally vanquishing the main threat of the plot, without any real caveats. Also, the story just sort of stagnates as the player deals with issues unrelated to the conflict for the majority of the game.

And yet, Luke does get a new hand and Han does get rescued. Would it have been better if the crew in ME2 were not recovered until ME3? In Star Wars, not even Londo or the droids are killed. Obi Wan is sort of killed but sticks around as a disembodied spirit. Not sure that is quite the example you are looking for.

Why does everyone keep buying into these missions being called suicide missions anyway? There is never enough intel going in to make that assessment, and Shepard lives both times. For it to be a true suicide mission, Shepard would have to die but that would mess up the trilogy

[stewie1974]

If you feel the unrelated missions stagnate the game... don't play them.

The recruitment missions are kinda impossible to avoid ..... though you can skip at least two of them...

Missions are.... not including the prolouge...

Wake up   ((recieve squad mates 1& 2))
Investigate colony
Recruit subject 3,4,5,6
Horizion.
Recruit subject 7,8,9
Collector ship...
Reaper IFF... ((aquire squadmate 10))
Omega 4 relay...

You can sell legion and keep grunt on freeze if you wish...

If you feel the loyality missions are ..... unrelated...then so should YOUR shepard. If you are only doing them out of meta reasons , then you are doing it wrong...

Modifié par stewie1974, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:14 .

[lolwot]

Moiaussi wrote...

And yet, Luke does get a new hand and Han does get rescued. Would it have been better if the crew in ME2 were not recovered until ME3? In Star Wars, not even Londo or the droids are killed. Obi Wan is sort of killed but sticks around as a disembodied spirit. Not sure that is quite the example you are looking for.

Why does everyone keep buying into these missions being called suicide missions anyway? There is never enough intel going in to make that assessment, and Shepard lives both times. For it to be a true suicide mission, Shepard would have to die but that would mess up the trilogy

To be more clear, I'm not specifically clamoring for mandatory squadmate deaths alone, although that would be appropriate in a suicide mission. 
Also, I buy into the idea that it's a suicide mission because it's framed that way by the narrative. Practically every line about going through the Omega 4 relay blatantly tells the player that this is a suicide mission and it's unlikely for anyone to survive. That's just about all the information you have about this unknown voyage until the end of the game, when you find out that a single ship and its crew has enough firepower to annihilate all of the Collectors without any repercussions.

Modifié par lolwot, 19 septembre 2010 - 04:42 .

[Xilizhra]

Well, the Collectors' main defense was the Omega-4 relay itself. The base was badly underdefended because no one expected outsiders to make it that far.

[Whatever42]

As has been well-mentioned, deaths need to serve the story. They can use it to create dramatic tension but honestly, I think the series has enough of that. It can be used to shape or reveal other characters - how they react to the death.

If there are deaths then, they have to have some depth, to reveal the final Shepard perhaps. Would he sacrifice a crewmate to gain the supergun for humanity? Would he sacrifice a crewmate to preserve galactic peace? Or would he place his crew above everything? However, wiping out half his squad just to show Shepard is a super badass who would let nothing stop him probably isn't useful. He's pretty much shown that now.

Random or unavoidable deaths or simple Virmire decisions at this point to create dramatic tension would serve little purpose. And honestly, they can't seriously overuse the character death thing either to reveal Shepard or it loses dramatic punch and gets stupid. There are other meaningful dramatic consequences apart from body counts.

I also find it interesting that all these (omg lots of people have to die) came along right after Halo Reach. I understand that is a great game but ME3 is not and should not be Halo Reach.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:06 .

[lolwot]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

As has been well-mentioned, deaths need to serve the story. They can use it to create dramatic tension but honestly, I think the series has enough of that. It can be used to shape or reveal other characters - how they react to the death.

If there are deaths then, they have to have some depth, to reveal the final Shepard perhaps. Would he sacrifice a crewmate to gain the supergun for humanity? Would he sacrifice a crewmate to preserve galactic peace? Or would he place his crew above everything?

I agree to an extent, but the optional squadmate deaths in Mass Effect 2 are the epitome of superficial deaths. If you don't choose the correct specialists, earn the "loyalty" of the squad, and upgrade your ship, then characters will die arbitrarily and be forgotten as abruptly as they were killed. This is precisely the sort of contrived dramatic tension that you're describing.
Also, I personally have no interest whatsoever in Halo: Reach.

Modifié par lolwot, 19 septembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Whatever42]

lolwot wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

As has been well-mentioned, deaths need to serve the story. They can use it to create dramatic tension but honestly, I think the series has enough of that. It can be used to shape or reveal other characters - how they react to the death.

If there are deaths then, they have to have some depth, to reveal the final Shepard perhaps. Would he sacrifice a crewmate to gain the supergun for humanity? Would he sacrifice a crewmate to preserve galactic peace? Or would he place his crew above everything?

I agree to an extent, but the optional squadmate deaths in Mass Effect 2 are the epitome of superficial deaths. If you don't choose the correct specialists, earn the "loyalty" of the squad, and upgrade your ship, then characters will die arbitrarily and be forgotten as abruptly as they were killed. This is precisely the sort of contrived dramatic tension that you're describing.
Also, I personally have no interest whatsoever in Halo: Reach.

That was part of the game - the motivation - and yes, it was used to create dramatic tension. Make the wrong choices and people close to you die. However, they didn't die arbitrarily. They died because you made bad choices. I lost Mordin on my first play-through and was actually pretty sad about it. 

However, for ME3 (as with ME1) we will have more than enough dramatic tension. ME2 had a different pacing and was centered around the characters. There had to be something to motivate you to play through the missions and it was the thought that your crew needed to be focused on the mission. 

In ME3, what would be the purpose of numerous squad deaths? Likely a Reaper presence in our galaxy will be tearing things up. There will be a huge sense of urgency and tension, as with ME1. So it won't be needed for that. Oh, we could add even more tension but then the game risks becoming overly bleak. 

So deaths would need to serve some other purpose towards the story, imo. As I said, I think any character deaths should be used to add weight to moral decisions in the game. You can elect to save a crewmember but there is a cost. Imagine if saving Zaeed meant having to let the people burn to death?  Ok, imagine Zaeed was a more popular character, even a paragon character. Then would that character forgive you for what you did to save them? That would develop the characters and the story in a deep, meaningful way. That would be the kind of choices I would like to see. Not simply, do you choose to throw Tali to the wolves or Miranda. 

However, there are other consequences besides deaths. Lets say that your renegade Shepard really wants this super weapon for Cerberus but the only way to steal the plans is to seduce and sleep with an Asari. However, your love interest dumps you if you do. Dramatic consequences that reveal the character of our Shepard and has an outcome on the game, that doesn't involve dead people. 

[stewie1974]

In retrospect....... I see what people are asking for here .... in M.E it was chose one or the other ... Not have your cake and eat it.

Though the characters of Ash and Kaiden were not that compelling to me in the first place ...((why people love the cross eyed ashley is beyond me.... seriously always cross eyed ever time i see her )) .I see where people are coming from. Someone had to die and it made for tough decision making.

Personally I love saving my crew of heroes and saving the day..... but....

One little thing they could have added was an "Anti dawdling around" trigger....

RUSH to the rescue of the colonists to prevent an embryo reaper becoming a full reaper might have been more compelling.... So you dawdle around doing all your loyality quests... guess what... when you go through the relay theres a full reaper there and its heading off into dark space ..... there will be evidence left behind of what transpired..... you can continue your mission to destroy the collector base.... but really its a small prize...

However if you DON'T spend the entire game on loyality missions..... your crew mates may well die...BUT, you only have to deal with an embro human reaper and as a bonus you rescue all those lost colonists....

There was no "either/ or " choice at the end of the day.... You could have your cake and eat it...

You could even complete legions loyality mission before your crew was kidnapped...there was no consequnce to taking your sweet time doing loyality missions and no bonus for rushing to the rescue.

Every action has a consequence ..... ME2 was rather one sided...  "loyality means your crew survies" ... so there is no incentive "NOT" to do the loyality quests.

The tough decision should have been....

"Make your crew survive , but bad guy boss grows powerful and gets away"
"Stop the bad guy in it's embryo form , but you may lose a lot of your crew "

"My team survived the suicide mission" would no longer mean "victory" , as they were already alive before they embarked on the mission... it just means they maintained their status quo...... at the expense of allowing another monster to be added to the ranks of the enemy.

I stopped the monster from being created and saved the lost colonists and paid a heavy price for it.... would have more meaning.

Modifié par stewie1974, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:54 .

[lolwot]

That was part of the game - the motivation - and yes, it was used to create dramatic tension. Make the wrong choices and people close to you die. However, they didn't die arbitrarily. They died because you made bad choices. I lost Mordin on my first play-through and was actually pretty sad about it. 

However, for ME3 (as with ME1) we will have more than enough dramatic tension. ME2 had a different pacing and was centered around the characters. There had to be something to motivate you to play through the missions and it was the thought that your crew needed to be focused on the mission. 

In ME3, what would be the purpose of numerous squad deaths? Likely a Reaper presence in our galaxy will be tearing things up. There will be a huge sense of urgency and tension, as with ME1. So it won't be needed for that. Oh, we could add even more tension but then the game risks becoming overly bleak. 

So deaths would need to serve some other purpose towards the story, imo. As I said, I think any character deaths should be used to add weight to moral decisions in the game. You can elect to save a crewmember but there is a cost. Imagine if saving Zaeed meant having to let the people burn to death?  Ok, imagine Zaeed was a more popular character, even a paragon character. Then would that character forgive you for what you did to save them? That would develop the characters and the story in a deep, meaningful way. That would be the kind of choices I would like to see. Not simply, do you choose to throw Tali to the wolves or Miranda. 

However, there are other consequences besides deaths. Lets say that your renegade Shepard really wants this super weapon for Cerberus but the only way to steal the plans is to seduce and sleep with an Asari. However, your love interest dumps you if you do. Dramatic consequences that reveal the character of our Shepard and has an outcome on the game, that doesn't involve dead people. 

I would say that they died rather arbitrarily. If you assigned the wrong biotic bubble specialist, for example, one of your squad mates would be surrounded by seeker swarms and die within moments. There's no buildup to the death, no final words or character development. It's just arbitrary death for the sake of building dramatic tension. Possibly as a consequence of the amount of variables in the suicide mission, none of the deaths feel important. Needless to say, they didn't script 12 unique and extensive scenarios for each character.

[snfonseka]

Major Truth wrote...

Obviously with the exception of the Ash/Kaidan situation on Virmire, your Shepard has had the power to keep his squad alive in his own hands. Personally so far, thats been the way I wanted it as I want to see the characters develop right up to ME3.

But as ME3 is the last in the trilogy surely that has to change. My own personal view is that their has to be some kind of collatoral damage. I'm all for happy endings but absolutely everyone surviving just dosen't hold true for the situation

My own hope is that we're faced with decisions like the one we had to make on Horizon. That was one of the highlights of the ME series so far,

I'm hoping that through decisions made, Shepard can influence who survives and who dosen't but I do feel their has to be some casualties.

Bioware have said ME3 will be the darkest of the series, could this mean allot of funerals for Shepard ?

Nope... BW have mentioned that ME2 will be the darkest and ME3 will not be dark as ME2. Casey Hudson even took the original SW trilogy as an example.

[theelementslayer]

snfonseka wrote...

Nope... BW have mentioned that ME2 will be the darkest and ME3 will not be dark as ME2. Casey Hudson even took the original SW trilogy as an example.

Nope, dont want to sound like an ass but wrong

"Mass Effect 3 is going to be the epic conclusion," Hudson tells OXM, "so, a lot more darkness but also a lot more humour."

source

Modifié par theelementslayer, 19 septembre 2010 - 06:54 .

[snfonseka]

theelementslayer wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Nope... BW have mentioned that ME2 will be the darkest and ME3 will not be dark as ME2. Casey Hudson even took the original SW trilogy as an example.

Nope, dont want to sound like an ass but wrong

"Mass Effect 3 is going to be the epic conclusion," Hudson tells OXM, "so, a lot more darkness but also a lot more humour."

source

"Mass Effect 2 has been described as the dark second chapter of the trilogy, the series' "Empire Strikes Back," if you will. "
www.gamesradar.com/pc/mass-effect-2/review/mass-effect-2/a-2010012518491517486573/g-20090220153298083

According to my understanding "Empire Strikes Back" is the darkest chapter of the trilogy. If I manage to find that video (interview with CH) I'll post a link here.

"try and bring some fun and lightness back into it,"

kotaku.com/5553849/mass-effect-3-should-be-all-giggles (The same source that you have refered into)

[Nageth]

The sad part is that they forgot Empire Strikes Back was also the funniest of the Star Wars. There wasn't as much banter in ME2 as ME1.

[Whatever42]

And yet...

Like a good little space opera, the Mass Effect series is following in the footsteps of the Star Wars trilogy. Greg Zeschuk of BioWare recently told IGN (via VG247) that Mass Effect 2 is set to have an Empire Strikes Back kind of vibe. Said to be darker and harder, the game will follow in the footsteps of the grittier and dreary George Lucas-less flick.

"Yeah we have definitely designed it in that fashion," Zeschuk said. “If you recall, Empire Strikes Back was the darker chapter and that is how we designed the ME2 story and experience: to try and make the player reflect on the challenges of the character. If you put ME2 next to the original it is definitely a darker, harder game." 

More darkness and more humour doesn't mean that it is darker and more humorous than ME2, merely that there is more darkness and more humor on the way. I mean, seriously, beyond having joker follow you around with a constant patter, how much more humour could they add?

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 19 septembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Nageth]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

More darkness and more humour doesn't mean that it is darker and more humorous than ME2, merely that there is more darkness and more humor on the way. I mean, seriously, beyond having joker follow you around with a constant patter, how much more humour could they add?

The only character that had funny lines during missions was Mordin. Everyone else was mostly angry except for the ME1 characters that would occasionally reference something from ME1. They even removed a lot of the Joker banter. LotSB brought back a lot of the ME1 humor so I have hope for ME3.

[robtheguru]

I suggested this on the ME3 suggestion thread many times. I found that with Project Overlord Bioware managed to actually make me feel a ton of emotion during the final scenes of it and I had a similar experience with LoTSB. So basically, i'm hoping to see some really emotional scenes in ME3. I don't want it to be a case of someone dies and doesn't say anything or says one word, like I seen on the Suicide Mission Mega Fail Youtube video. I want it to be something that makes the the gamer feel the emotion shared between two characters. For example Garrus is pretty much Shepards best friend, i'm sure alot of people would be quite emotional watching Shepard hold Garrus as he slowly dies.



So yeah, I want to see about half the squadmates die but not simply boomheadshot and thats the end of them, something a bit more substantial.



Also, it would be great that depending on your choices, you may have to choose between Shepard or your LI dying. Obviously i'd love to see a happy ending where Shepard and his LI ride off into the sunset, but would also be good that if you make some bad choices, you or your LI must die!