210 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

25% mandatory casualty rate would only reinforce "their claim", but would still leave plenty of room to "prove them wrong".

Let's try this again. Who is 'they?' It isn't Bioware. If it was Bioware, the box would have said 'We don't expect you to survive...... We call it a suicide mission.'

I repeat my earlier question. If I told you that crossing the street was a suicide mission, would you be disappointed if you were not killed crossing the street? Or barring that, would you be upset if your friend walking with you didn't get killed?'

Why does 'calling' something a suicide mission make it a suicide mission?

Heck, the Council called going into the Terminus systems at all a 'suicide mission.' They were absolutely convinced in ME1 that going in to that region would spark a war. Are you disappointed that the Council was wrong?

[curly haired boy]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

curly haired boy wrote...

hell, bring zaeed along on garrus's recruitment and he'll say it's 'goddamn suicide'.

throngs of dead freelancers proved him right.

curly haired boy wrote...
doesn't mean it's true. shep's been doing things they said "can't be done" for the entire series. mass effect is about the player character doing the impossible, facing the impossible, and winning.

That's why BioWare denies "dead Shepard" imports. This rule does not apply to Shepard's squadmates.

i'd argue that the rule does apply to shep's squadmates. rules like "doing the impossible" adapt to meet the situation.
they said he couldn't save everyone - BOOM he saves everyone. they said he couldn't release a top-selling rap album - BOOM he tops the charts.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

If I told you that crossing the street was a suicide mission, would you be disappointed if you were not killed crossing the street? Or barring that, would you be upset if your friend walking with you didn't get killed?'

If it was a street in Fallujah '2004 or some such, and you, me and my friend were US soldiers there, I'd be very dissapointed if I wasn't at least being shot at while crossing the street. Because I would've crossed it real fast and real scared. Then I would tell everyone that Moiaussi has a bad habit of making silly jokes.

[Jagri]

"They don't expect you to survive!" Hmm... Isn't Cerberus the only one completely aware of Shepards mission and be the one to make that assessment?

Modifié par Jagri, 05 novembre 2010 - 10:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Then it wasn't really a suicide mission at all, and most of the dramatic effect was bull ****.

Now, bull **** is a lot like Haggis. Some people like it. Steamy, hot, chunky pieces of haggis to go down, covering the mouth, brown dribbling down.

But some of us are ready for a tough steak to actually have to chew on.

NO IT WASN"T A FREAKING SUICIDE MISSION! Ilos was called a suicide mission too, but NEITHER WAS ILOS!

If I told you that crossing the street was a suicide mission, would you be upset because you didn't die crossing the street? The only one in game who goes on about it being a suicide mission is Shepard. I think Garrus might joke about it once when you recruit him. Other than that, WHY DO YOU KEEP CALLING IT A SUICIDE MISSION?

Sorry for the caps, but I keep waiting for an answer on that.

Which question?

Finding ArchAngel was a suicide mission for the Freelancers. Most of them died. Ilos certainly had far more dramatic suspense than the ME2 mission, for whom the suicide mission was the pre-game advertising tag line. Certainly we had actual party deaths in ME1.

The advertising was about how we could lose people. Pre-game. That's what they were bragging about: it was a suicide mission, and death was real.

Now? It's a joke. We put more threads about how to actually get people killed than 'oh gosh, how do I pass the suicide mission without losing anyone?'

If someone in a game promised that crossing the road should be a suicide mission, and that was a large part of the advertising, yes. I would be disappointed if it wasn't appropriately treated.

As I am now.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:22 .

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

If it was a street in Fallujah '2004 or some such, and you, me and my friend were US soldiers there, I'd be very dissapointed if I wasn't at least being shot at while crossing the street. Because I would've crossed it real fast and real scared. Then I would tell everyone that Moiaussi has a bad habit of making silly jokes.

And if everyone made it across because you had the squad you were with were using proper suppression fire and/or had proper firesupport, you would complain and cross again until you had casualties?

You are aware that the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are really very low, aren't you? Even the high casualty operations of WWII were not generally called suicide missions.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

If it was a street in Fallujah '2004 or some such, and you, me and my friend were US soldiers there, I'd be very dissapointed if I wasn't at least being shot at while crossing the street. Because I would've crossed it real fast and real scared. Then I would tell everyone that Moiaussi has a bad habit of making silly jokes.

And if everyone made it across because you had the squad you were with were using proper suppression fire and/or had proper firesupport, you would complain and cross again until you had casualties?

I'd certainly knock you for repeatedly calling it a suicide run. Hard.


For literature, I also expect and want things I don't want inreal life. I like literary drama, tragedy, horror, and excitement I most certainly don't want to occur inreality. I also don't want status reports, maintanence time,and to be forced to regularly ****/shower/shave ina game,but I'd die/get others killed without it in real life.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Which question?

Finding ArchAngel was a suicide mission for the Freelancers. Most of them died.

And yet, the freelancers weren't actually told it was a suicide mission, whereas Shepard seems to love telling his squad they are on one.

Ilos certainly had far more dramatic suspense than the ME2 mission, for whom the suicide mission was the pre-game advertising tag line.

Would it have been a better game if the mission was more difficult? Yes. If nothing else, you shouldn't be allowed to write off characters by deliberately sending the wrong person on the tech mission or not supporting them by deliberately refusing to hit the switches to let them progress. Failure to do that should cause mission failure. Choosing the wrong people for any of the specific assignments should cause mission failure.

None of that means deaths need to happen to make it 'dramatic.' None of the squad dies at Ilos, yet you admit it had dramatic suspense.
 

Certainly we had actual party deaths in ME1.

We did. At Vermire, which was NOT billed as a suicide mission. THAT was closer to the example of crossing the street in Fallujah, but in 2010 rather than 2004.

The advertising was about how we could lose people. Pre-game. That's what they were bragging about: it was a suicide mission, and death was real.

Now? It's a joke. We put more threads about how to actually get people killed than 'oh gosh, how do I pass the suicide mission without losing anyone?'

I don't remember that regarding squaddies. I do remember that regarding Shepard. Which is actually questionable since he is actually ressurrected at the start. Most of the death being permanent discussion happened because they released the image of the normandy wreckage right off the bat, then waffled over what it meant. Personally I think they had a bad idea then backed themselves into a corner and became stuck with it.

If someone in a game promised that crossing the road should be a suicide mission, and that was a large part of the advertising, yes. I would be disappointed if it wasn't appropriately treated.

As I am now.

So you wanted to spend 99% of the game recruiting squaddies and making them happy only to have them all die tragicly in the final run? Actually if they all got taken out one at a time as the mission progressed, it actually might have been dramatic, but the usual suggestion of 'omg, no casualties!' seems too contrived. Can you think of any movies which fit the casualty rate you are suggesting?

One of the problems is that finding ways to get people killed that don't seem contrived is easier said than done (see Garrus take cover and fight intelligently until the Gunship attacks and he suddenly runs into the middle of the room and waits to get shot, and still doesn't take cover even after taking the initial hits).

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I'd certainly knock you for repeatedly calling it a suicide run. Hard.

For literature, I also expect and want things I don't want inreal life. I like literary drama, tragedy, horror, and excitement I most certainly don't want to occur inreality. I also don't want status reports, maintanence time,and to be forced to regularly ****/shower/shave ina game,but I'd die/get others killed without it in real life.

And I knock the writers for having Shep call it a suicide run. He should know better. Besides zero casualties on Ilos as precident, he has no idea what they would be facing and has no reason to introduce doubt.

No good commander goes on about suicide missions. A good commander convinces the men otherwise. They may well warn about casualties, and may ask for volunteers, but they don't keep reminding them of low odds.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

If it was a street in Fallujah '2004 or some such, and you, me and my friend were US soldiers there, I'd be very dissapointed if I wasn't at least being shot at while crossing the street. Because I would've crossed it real fast and real scared. Then I would tell everyone that Moiaussi has a bad habit of making silly jokes.

And if everyone made it across because you had the squad you were with were using proper suppression fire and/or had proper firesupport, you would complain and cross again until you had casualties?

You are aware that the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan are really very low, aren't you? Even the high casualty operations of WWII were not generally called suicide missions.

That's why I said that just being shot at would be enough to justify your words.

But Shepard's situation is much graver than that of US troops in Fallujah. Actually, Shepard's situation is somewhat akin to the Iraqis' situation -- numerical and technological inferiority. Yet you keep telling us that a "no casualties" scenario is plausible.

[Xilizhra]

Do recall the fact that the Collector base had terrible defenses; a few drones on the outside and poorly distributed troops on the inside. They overestimated the strength of the relay's defenses.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Which question?

Finding ArchAngel was a suicide mission for the Freelancers. Most of them died.

And yet, the freelancers weren't actually told it was a suicide mission, whereas Shepard seems to love telling his squad they are on one.

The smarter ones knew. Your own crewmates recognize the task for what it is... and they're right.

Would it have been a better game if the mission was more difficult? Yes. If nothing else, you shouldn't be allowed to write off characters by deliberately sending the wrong person on the tech mission or not supporting them by deliberately refusing to hit the switches to let them progress. Failure to do that should cause mission failure. Choosing the wrong people for any of the specific assignments should cause mission failure.

I disagree. It doesn't need to be a perfect or miss, and a critical mission failure is effectively a non-story.

None of that means deaths need to happen to make it 'dramatic.' None of the squad dies at Ilos, yet you admit it had dramatic suspense.

In large part because Virmire before it already established that the good guys could die. A lot of the post-Virmire suspense and drama was in light of the loss of the Virmire loss.
 

I don't remember that regarding squaddies. I do remember that regarding Shepard. Which is actually questionable since he is actually ressurrected at the start. Most of the death being permanent discussion happened because they released the image of the normandy wreckage right off the bat, then waffled over what it meant. Personally I think they had a bad idea then backed themselves into a corner and became stuck with it.

It was there back then.

So you wanted to spend 99% of the game recruiting squaddies and making them happy only to have them all die tragicly in the final run?

Of course not, and stop exagerating what I've repeatedly said to lengths I am not arguing.

Actually if they all got taken out one at a time as the mission progressed, it actually might have been dramatic, but the usual suggestion of 'omg, no casualties!' seems too contrived. Can you think of any movies which fit the casualty rate you are suggesting?

One (or two, if you have a disloyal/non-specialist) at a time as the mission goes is exactly what is being suggested.

Saving Private Ryan was a brilliant movie where the well-trained squad slowly died, and we don't even need that scale of casualties. Evangelion as a series did this well at the end, where character began to fall. I can name other series and shows in which cast, even more than one cast, died, and it made an impact.

One of the problems is that finding ways to get people killed that don't seem contrived is easier said than done (see Garrus take cover and fight intelligently until the Gunship attacks and he suddenly runs into the middle of the room and waits to get shot, and still doesn't take cover even after taking the initial hits).

Garrus was already in the open when the ship appeared and opened fire. It's not like a couch would have (should have) protected him.

All game plots are dependent on them being executed well. That's an inherency statement.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I'd certainly knock you for repeatedly calling it a suicide run. Hard.

For literature, I also expect and want things I don't want inreal life. I like literary drama, tragedy, horror, and excitement I most certainly don't want to occur inreality. I also don't want status reports, maintanence time,and to be forced to regularly ****/shower/shave ina game,but I'd die/get others killed without it in real life.

And I knock the writers for having Shep call it a suicide run. He should know better. Besides zero casualties on Ilos as precident, he has no idea what they would be facing and has no reason to introduce doubt.

No good commander goes on about suicide missions. A good commander convinces the men otherwise. They may well warn about casualties, and may ask for volunteers, but they don't keep reminding them of low odds.

Commanders who actually go on suicide runs don't go by normal standards.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Do recall the fact that the Collector base had terrible defenses; a few drones on the outside and poorly distributed troops on the inside. They overestimated the strength of the relay's defenses.

Yes we know. Collectors were wussies. No wonder they couldn't shoot up a single intruder on their station!

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

No good commander goes on about suicide missions. A good commander convinces the men otherwise. They may well warn about casualties, and may ask for volunteers, but they don't keep reminding them of low odds.

It depends on the situation, on the objective and on the morale of the troops. If the troops have high morale and are ready to "die for the cause", a prospect of the mission being "suicide" only heigtens the morale.

In ME2 it's clearly so in the case of Thane, Mordin, Samara, Jacob, Zaeed (if loyal).

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That's why I said that just being shot at would be enough to justify your words.

But Shepard's situation is much graver than that of US troops in Fallujah. Actually, Shepard's situation is somewhat akin to the Iraqis' situation -- numerical and technological inferiority. Yet you keep telling us that a "no casualties" scenario is plausible.

They weren't shot at in the collectors base?

Technically you are right about the level of opposition. Note that one of my other complaints is that the Occulus can breach the Normandy's sheilds and hull but suddenly politely turn their weapons down to anti personnel levels once inside. Their hull piercing weapon suddenly can't even break interior walls.

Inside, the group is hit only by conveniently managable numbers. No snipers, no heavy weapons nests (other than one undersupported heavy weapons platform), relatively minor resistance. Specialist missions are presented as manditory, but are mostly optional.

The problem is that if they went up against any 'real' defense, it would have been a suicide mission (edit: to clairify, they all would have died and the mission failed). Somehow they even know enough about Collector technology to be able to hack it, and like everything else, it is hackable.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

The problem is that if they went up against any 'real' defense, it would have been a suicide mission (edit: to clairify, they all would have died and the mission failed). Somehow they even know enough about Collector technology to be able to hack it, and like everything else, it is hackable.

So why are you agaisnt the "suicide mission" getting a little more "real"? That is, some squadmates dying no matter what, the "magical" hacking done by EDI (as always) rather than a squadmate, better TIM's part who would make it clear why Shepard's team needed to push ahead after every part, instead of blasting the C-Base with antimatter bombs...

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:50 .

[cachx]

I think we're arguing about semantics here.

Excuse my bad memory, but the only dialogue I recall that refers to the Suicide Mission in such a manner is the bit of dialogue on Thane's mission "They tell me it's a Suicide Mission, I intend to prove them wrong" (who's 'they'?), and Jacob only refers to the vent as "suicide".

I think the whole term "suicide mission" is simply because nobody that goes through O4 relay lives. But once you get safe passage, it turns from "suicide mission" to "slightly dangerous mission".

[Zulu_DFA]

But once you get safe passage, it turns from "suicide mission" to "slightly dangerous mission".

We knoooooow!!! Collectors were wussies!

[RiouHotaru]

We knoooooow!!! Collectors were completely misinformed!

Corrected.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

So why are you agaisnt the "suicide mission" getting a little more "real"? That is, some squadmates dying no matter what, the "magical" hacking done by EDI (as always) rather than a squadmate, better TIM's part who would make it clear why Shepard's team needed to push ahead after every part, instead of blasting the C-Base with antimatter bombs...

I object to anyone 'dieing no matter what' just to make something a 'suicide mission.' Suicide mission is just a euphamism. Noone using the term in game had anywhere near enough information to make any such assessment.

Bioware doesn't even call it a suicide mission. They have others (again, with insufficient knowledge) call it that.

TIM wanted them to push ahead rather than just blow the base because (a) it might not have been so easy to blow from the outside and ( he wanted the base for himself, as was rather obvious from the final discussion with him.

[Sursion]

I agree with Moiaussi. My very first playthrough everyone survived and I was slightly disappointed how easy it was. Now, I'm fine with it. But at the time I was expecting people to die and nobody did. I missed out on the emotional turmoil I undoubtably would of experianced.

Modifié par Sursion, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:14 .

[Zulu_DFA]

A thought sparked by the "ME2 -> ME3 squad" discussion.

The "suicide mission" could actually allow for a strong possibily for some squadmates to return full-time in ME3, if it was designed differently and incorporated mandatory deaths in Virmire-like situations.

Example:

There are 6 squadmates, who are bound to be recruited: Jacob, Miranda, Mordin, Garrus, Jack and Grunt (well, sort of, in the tank anyway).

Now, Bioware could have given them a plot armor against death in any other situation (C-Base approach, Final Boss fight, etc.), but made the player choose in three different situations: to save (to send to a certain death, to leave behind) either Jacob or Garrus, Miranda or Mordin, Jack or Grunt (with the additional thingy that if Grunt's not activated, than Jack died... or -- surprise! -- on the contrary magically lived even if she would be to die if the player had Grunt activated...)

This way we would've got 3 more VS-like characters, who could return in ME3 full-time.

(The remaining six squadmates' fate would be regulated by the "loyalty / score / order of death" mechanic as it is. No placeholders for them, so they still wouldn't qualify for the ME3 squad -- for the reasons discussed in the numerous ME3 squad composition threads, don't start it here!)

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 23 novembre 2010 - 12:23 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Then it wasn't really a suicide mission at all, and most of the dramatic effect was bull ****.

Now, bull **** is a lot like Haggis. Some people like it. Steamy, hot, chunky pieces of haggis to go down, covering the mouth, brown dribbling down.

But some of us are ready for a tough steak to actually have to chew on.

NO IT WASN"T A FREAKING SUICIDE MISSION! Ilos was called a suicide mission too, but NEITHER WAS ILOS!

If I told you that crossing the street was a suicide mission, would you be upset because you didn't die crossing the street? The only one in game who goes on about it being a suicide mission is Shepard. I think Garrus might joke about it once when you recruit him. Other than that, WHY DO YOU KEEP CALLING IT A SUICIDE MISSION?

Sorry for the caps, but I keep waiting for an answer on that.

Which question?

Finding ArchAngel was a suicide mission for the Freelancers. Most of them died. Ilos certainly had far more dramatic suspense than the ME2 mission, for whom the suicide mission was the pre-game advertising tag line. Certainly we had actual party deaths in ME1.

The advertising was about how we could lose people. Pre-game. That's what they were bragging about: it was a suicide mission, and death was real.

Now? It's a joke. We put more threads about how to actually get people killed than 'oh gosh, how do I pass the suicide mission without losing anyone?'

If someone in a game promised that crossing the road should be a suicide mission, and that was a large part of the advertising, yes. I would be disappointed if it wasn't appropriately treated.

As I am now.

Your first mistake is taking advertising seriously.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sursion wrote...

I agree with Moiaussi. My very first playthrough everyone survived and I was slightly disappointed how easy it was. Now, I'm fine with it. But at the time I was expecting people to die and nobody did. I missed out on the emotional turmoil I undoubtably would of experianced.

I don't play video games looking for intense emotional turmoil. 

It still bothers me that Vermine is hard-written the way it is.  I'm glad I knew going in that it was rigged -- I'd have been spitting nails if I'd found out afterwards.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 novembre 2010 - 02:44 .