210 réponses à ce sujet

[Chaota Vos]

Shandepared wrote...
Your point is a moot one because you don't understand your oppositions' feelings on the subject.

So basically "you don't understand me!" is all you have to say?  Instead of that, care to explain what exactly I'm missing?  Because I do want to know.

Basically what I'm seeing at the moment is that you want a mandatory Garrus death because you feel such a death would conclude your take on his story arc in a satisfactory way.  Which is exactly what currently exists: the ability to craft your companion's fate the way you wish.  Minus the "mandatory" part.

I agree that from the point of view you put forth,  Garrus' death is a satisfying conclusion for his story arc.  I disagree that it should be mandatory, however, because a different story may find this extremely unsatisfactory.  FemShep/Garrus romances, for example.


RESPONSE TO BELOW: 
Right,you've gone from "You don't understand!" to "Well if you don't know what the problem is, then I'm not going to tell you!".  Sorry, but that's just being unreasonable.  I'm going to have to assume you don't really know what you're trying to argue, since you've blatently ignore 3 posts' worth of points I've raised and declined each time to so much as point me in the right direction (seriously man, not even a one-sentence explaination or something?).  

I bid you good day sir, and I'm happy to continue the discussion should you decide to help me to understand..

Modifié par Chaota Vos, 03 novembre 2010 - 01:17 .

[Xilizhra]

Shan, your arrogance does you little credit. Just explain the thing.

[Xilizhra]

Good, as if I make you fall asleep, it means that you're around less.

[Xilizhra]

Actually, I have no problems at all with the way that ME1 is written, and see no need to change anything.



In ME2, however, I would change things; for starters, you'd be working for the Shadow Broker and not Cerberus (some rewriting would be done on both organizations, of course), but conflict would still be present.

[curly haired boy]

mandatory deaths would make ME2 less of a game in a very literal sense.



what separates a game from a movie is the control we have over events and actions. most shooters don't allow any control over the story, just the nitty gritty killing bits. shoot mans until you get HERE, cutscene THERE, shoot more mans.



mass effect gives you control over how the story plays out. mandatory deaths are just yanking the offered narrative control back for a "naw, you don't get to change this, you just have to sit and watch" moment. THAT is immersion-breaking. if i want to WATCH something, i'll rent a movie. if i want to PLAY something, i'll boot up mass effect.

[Zulu_DFA]

Game or not, it shouldn't give you control over stray bullets.

[ScooterPie88]

Zulu you're absolutely right in all your posts. They should destroy all copies of the current ME2 because it was so bad and remake it while personally consulting you on even the most minute details.



/sarcasm

[Zulu_DFA]

That's on my agenda, right up next to conquering the world.

[Dean_the_Young]

curly haired boy wrote...

mandatory deaths would make ME2 less of a game in a very literal sense.

what separates a game from a movie is the control we have over events and actions. most shooters don't allow any control over the story, just the nitty gritty killing bits. shoot mans until you get HERE, cutscene THERE, shoot more mans.

mass effect gives you control over how the story plays out. mandatory deaths are just yanking the offered narrative control back for a "naw, you don't get to change this, you just have to sit and watch" moment. THAT is immersion-breaking. if i want to WATCH something, i'll rent a movie. if i want to PLAY something, i'll boot up mass effect.

ME1 had mandatory deaths, and it was no less of a story for it.

'Mandetory deaths' doesn't mean that the loyalty doesn't matter. It just changes in what regards. Take one of Shand's old changes: the second fire team leader dies. That's regardless. But if you lack loyalty of the specialist, someone else can die as well.

Likewise, an 'assassinate the general' mission, to remove Harbinger as an opponent for Shepard: whoever you send may die in the impossible odds, but a success means Shepard has an easier time and someone on the other team/holding the line isn't overwhelmed by Harbinger.


'Loyalty = survival' is just as arbitrary a writing design as 'someone will die regardless.' It's still a game, you still watch cutscenes.

[ScooterPie88]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That's on my agenda, right up next to conquering the world.

I'm sure your extensive experience and "great" ideas will be an invaluable asset to them.

[Zulu_DFA]

No doubt.

[curly haired boy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

curly haired boy wrote...

mandatory deaths would make ME2 less of a game in a very literal sense.

what separates a game from a movie is the control we have over events and actions. most shooters don't allow any control over the story, just the nitty gritty killing bits. shoot mans until you get HERE, cutscene THERE, shoot more mans.

mass effect gives you control over how the story plays out. mandatory deaths are just yanking the offered narrative control back for a "naw, you don't get to change this, you just have to sit and watch" moment. THAT is immersion-breaking. if i want to WATCH something, i'll rent a movie. if i want to PLAY something, i'll boot up mass effect.

ME1 had mandatory deaths, and it was no less of a story for it.

'Mandetory deaths' doesn't mean that the loyalty doesn't matter. It just changes in what regards. Take one of Shand's old changes: the second fire team leader dies. That's regardless. But if you lack loyalty of the specialist, someone else can die as well.

Likewise, an 'assassinate the general' mission, to remove Harbinger as an opponent for Shepard: whoever you send may die in the impossible odds, but a success means Shepard has an easier time and someone on the other team/holding the line isn't overwhelmed by Harbinger.


'Loyalty = survival' is just as arbitrary a writing design as 'someone will die regardless.' It's still a game, you still watch cutscenes.

but in ME2 you have control over loyalty, and therefore deaths, regardless of how those deaths happen. it's not a matter of reaching a point in the mission and knowing whoever you send ain't coming back - like in ME1. i for one cared about kaiden and ashley a hell of a lot less knowing one of them would be cannon fodder on virmire.  why care? they're just going to die arbitrarily. now if they died due to my poor performance or decisions, then maybe i could give a damn, because maybe i could change events. as it is, they're just death-cursed teammates from the get-go.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's a false comparison, as if the suicide mission did have a mandeaory death from the start, it would be exactly a point at which you know whoever you send ain't coming back.



Because it's a suicide mission.



You're 'but it's not mandatory!' defense doesn't apply to if it was mandatory, because then it never would have been not-mandatory in the first place. It's an ex post facto argument.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a false comparison, as if the suicide mission did have a mandeaory death from the start, it would be exactly a point at which you know whoever you send ain't coming back.

Because it's a suicide mission.

You're 'but it's not mandatory!' defense doesn't apply to if it was mandatory, because then it never would have been not-mandatory in the first place. It's an ex post facto argument.

This is really starting to tick me off. Note this is not aimed at you specficly, but at all those who complain about noone dieing on the 'suicide mission.'

1) You are not asking for a SUICIDE mission. You are asking for a HOMICIDE mission. If it was a suicide mission, SHEPARD WOULD DIE. It is HIS or HER mission. That would make a mess of the trilogy.

2) Why do you buy into it being a suicide mission in the first place? Yes there was a death at Vermire (possibly more than one if you let the STG team die), but noone called it a suicide mission. Kirahee didn't give a 'this is a suicide mission, none of us are coming back' speech, he gave a 'hold the line' speech. What were the team casualties on the actual ME1 'suicide mission', Ilos? ZERO. NO TEAM MEMBERS DIE AT ILOS.

So why is it that think Shepard calling the attack on the Collector base a 'suicide mission' when he had no way to have any clue what the opposition would really be like means that noone should come back? Why do you people think Shepard should have some sort of omniscience that makes him correct about these things? The consort even sends him a precog message essentially saying 'if people are loyal, you will be fine.' The mission is ruddy pre-ordained, and he still calls it a suicide mission.

Get over it already.

In fact, if it is too easy a mission it is not because noone dies, but because deaths are pointless. If any given person on a special mission fails, the mission still succeeds anyway.

[ScooterPie88]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a false comparison, as if the suicide mission did have a mandeaory death from the start, it would be exactly a point at which you know whoever you send ain't coming back.

Because it's a suicide mission.

You're 'but it's not mandatory!' defense doesn't apply to if it was mandatory, because then it never would have been not-mandatory in the first place. It's an ex post facto argument.

This is really starting to tick me off. Note this is not aimed at you specficly, but at all those who complain about noone dieing on the 'suicide mission.'

1) You are not asking for a SUICIDE mission. You are asking for a HOMICIDE mission. If it was a suicide mission, SHEPARD WOULD DIE. It is HIS or HER mission. That would make a mess of the trilogy.

2) Why do you buy into it being a suicide mission in the first place? Yes there was a death at Vermire (possibly more than one if you let the STG team die), but noone called it a suicide mission. Kirahee didn't give a 'this is a suicide mission, none of us are coming back' speech, he gave a 'hold the line' speech. What were the team casualties on the actual ME1 'suicide mission', Ilos? ZERO. NO TEAM MEMBERS DIE AT ILOS.

So why is it that think Shepard calling the attack on the Collector base a 'suicide mission' when he had no way to have any clue what the opposition would really be like means that noone should come back? Why do you people think Shepard should have some sort of omniscience that makes him correct about these things? The consort even sends him a precog message essentially saying 'if people are loyal, you will be fine.' The mission is ruddy pre-ordained, and he still calls it a suicide mission.

Get over it already.

In fact, if it is too easy a mission it is not because noone dies, but because deaths are pointless. If any given person on a special mission fails, the mission still succeeds anyway.

Exactly.   You should get a medal.  It is a homicide mission because if you have even the slightest clue what you're doing no one will die.  To get people killed you're either clueless (negligent homicide) or you killed them off on purpose and you're a murderer.  And if you really want to go the extra distance of playing the game for as little as ten hours and getting Shepard killed then you made it a suicide mission alright and just wasted ten hours on something you can't import.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Game or not, it shouldn't give you control over stray bullets.

This.

[Moiaussi]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Game or not, it shouldn't give you control over stray bullets.

This.

Given everyone has regenerating shields and can take not just rather a few 'stray bullets' but rather a new stray missiles, it really is more a matter of people pulling a 'Garrus' and suddenly inexplicably standing in the open in the middle of a firefight for no good reason other than morale.

[ScooterPie88]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Game or not, it shouldn't give you control over stray bullets.

This.

You mean as opposed to ME1 with the weapon abilities (carnage, marksman, overkill, and assassination).

Modifié par ScooterPie88, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:15 .

[GodWood]

Chaota Vos wrote...

GodWood wrote...
What you suggest requires me to metagame and pick stupid decisions my Shepard wouldn't do.
Thus breaking character.

Or enter the Omega Relay without doing loyalty missions.  Possibly pick characters that "seem" suited for a specific task when they are in fact not (eg "Hey, Miranda, remember when you told me your biotics are awesome?  I've got some Seekers that need repulsing...").

Hell, Jacob literally offers to throw his life away.

You completely ignored what you just quoted.

[RiouHotaru]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

It annoys me most would prefer a fairy tale where the "good guys" win with no consequences.
I want companions I care for to die, people I love to betray me, choices I made to completely **** up and not simply because I picked all the stupidest possible options (ala suicide mission)

It annoys me most would prefer a nihilistic story where beloved characters die for no reason other than for the sake of shock value in the most contrived manner possible. I want moments where I felt like I achieved something when completing the game and not be branded a "loser" with bull**** consequences of "Path A and Path B will make you lose either way" just because I completed tasks in the game.

I have to agree with Lunatic.  I'm confused by people who demand that players are "punished" with unintended consequnces or needless penalties so as to make decisions feel more "meaningful".  Honestly, I'm all for the idea that the SM should've been more difficult, but then how many people went in knowing precisely what to do to ensure everyone's survival?  Sure the game drops hints here and there, but not all of it is obvious.

Cheap, mandatory deaths outside of the player's control is pointless and stupid, to be honest.  It's a needless punishment for the player.  After all, what was the entire point of going through the game, preparing your squad, your ship, to ensure the highest odds of survival...only to have someone die anyway for no reason.  Thank god this sort of thing wasn't implimented, or a lot of people would've been really pissed and Bioware would be out a ton of sales.

For those who earlier stated how Virmire was a "poor execution" of a forced character death.  No, it was executed just fine, and there aren't any loopholes.  Why no remote detonators?  Because the bomb is a jury-rigged drive core Not a proper bomb.  It's just a ship's engine modified to explode after set period of time after activation.  Also, doubtful the Normandy came with anything that could do that.  The whole reason someone on Virmire had to die was because the mission was being played entirely by ear, no preparation or forethought.

With the SM, you know you want everyone to be ready, you know you want your ship ready to go, your weapons fully upgraded, your armor's toughness maximized, etc, etc.  You have the ability to plan ahead.  To suddenly force twists like deaths upon a player who came in fully prepared, in the same breath as a player who takes NO time to plan at all is just stupidity, plain and simple.  Not to mention the utter chaos that plays on people who want to experience all of ME3's content.

[Dean_the_Young]

If you think any turn for the worse is a 'punishment', you aren't thinking of it in terms of its own merits, only in relation to the product we were given.

Was Shepard being killed in the prologue a 'punishment'? Was the Reaper IFF and crew abduction a 'punishment'? Of course not. These were story devices that shaped the story and our experience, but to listen to you if there were an alternative Mass Effect produced where they were avoidable, they would be a punishment. A suicide mission can be the same way.

What would be the point, you ask? Why prepare if not everyone is going to come out alive at the end regardless?

If you're asking this, you're already working from an assumption that by preparing everyone can come out alive regardless. Which is completely against the story intent of each loyalty mission allowing the characters to go to near-certain death with a free mind. Gameplay wise, loyalty was a survival mechanic. Storywise, it was nothing of the sort, and to treat it as if it was misses the point.

And even then, your question has an answer. Why prepare, why do as much as you can if someone will die regardless? Because if you don't, it would give you worse results. Just like if you don't have loyalty in this game, you'll get worse results. You can minimize the losses and increase your chances in the mission with a prepared team.

To assume that preparation means total survival for a suicide mission? What sort of cop out justification is that?




People who want to experience all of ME3's content are already going to have multiple files. Paragon and Renegade. Male Shep and Female Shep. Big decisions yes and no. Full survival versus some people dead. The Suicide Mission won't change that, nor is it any harder to reverse than the final decision at the end of ME1: simply load your save before the mission.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 novembre 2010 - 10:55 .

[RiouHotaru]

Again, a mandatory character death simply for the purpose of having a mandatory character is a silly justification. Shepard states quite a few times that they intend on coming back from the mission in one piece. Everyone ELSE has the "No one else has ever survived, the odds aren't exactly with us." Also, while the term used to describe the state of the characters is "loyal" which is a gameplay mechanic, the connotation behind it isn't a gameplay mechanic. That they used a word to simply the definition doesn't change that.



And the whole point of being fully prepared and ready IS under the assumption you'd come back alive. At least for my Shepards, that's their mindset. Sure, it's an impossible mission, but as Thane said: "You've made a reputation out of doing the impossible."