75 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

If you've been around awhile, you've probably heard the argument for how the Suicide Mission could have been improved by making it impossible to have a perfect run-through, versus that not adding anything/being too hard to do/being a punishment.


Now step sideways three steps, assume that the decision for mandetory deaths has already been made, and come up with how you would make it work. You can fully re-work the Collector Base mission. You can even rework parts of the character missions, if that would help. Barring a total-reversal of the story, free-game.

How would you make it work?



As an example I hope to expound upon later, I'd add a voluntary specialist role called 'Kill the General'. Say that during the second phase, one team mate can be sent on a mission to find and kill the Collector General, to weaken the Collectors/prevent Harbinger from interfering. The setup is that there's sneaking, impossible odds and a long ways to go before reaching the General himself, and then an actual fight.

It's also, rather bluntly, explained as no chance of getting back once done, even if successful.

Naturally, Thane is the clear contender of this. Might even step forward: he doesn't have much time left. Garrus passes on the basis of his experience in Omega: he can fight through the firepower. Zaeed also has the habbit of impossible achievements.

(If you noticed, they also all three have sniper rifles. They get a quick kick-ass scene or two as you go through, ending with an awesome headshot before going down.)

These are the A team, assuming loyalty of course. They actually kill the General: not only does Harbinger not show up in the next phase, he doesn't show up again in the final boss. Anyone else/if they are unloyal, Harbinger is distracted for the next phase, but the General lives and Harbinger comes back for the final fight.

Regardless, the person sent, if you sent anyone, dies.

And if you didn't... well, during the second phase and the hold the line phase, you get to hear radio chatter about how Harbinger is pressing too close, too hard. At least one person dies period from Harbinger still coming around, as well as Shepard having more trouble. I'd really say one person dies per phase: if you don't lose a person early, more people die and you have a harder time of it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 novembre 2010 - 11:08 .

[Giggles_Manically]

I think instead of mandatory, or guaranteed checks for living/dying they should have put it up to chance.

Got someones loyaty? Push it to say 60/40

Got upgrades for their weapons? Add some points to each.



Instead of for sure things there should have been random checks with a chance for failure that start to claim people's live in the end.

[AdmiralCheez]

Maybe if it was just a touch more challenging to get everyone out alive, I'd go for it. However, I'd feel bad losing ANYONE on my team, so I'd say a "No One Left Behind" should still be possible. Chance? Chance seems like a cheap shot. Too rage quit-inducing.

God, you should've seen me on Virmire. I'm a complete sissy when it comes to this stuff.

Either way, minimal deaths = more possibilities in ME3. They can all die in ME3 for all I care, since it's the last part of the trilogy, but I would be one sad, sad panda.

[kraidy1117]

I still find it sad that Virmire was a better suicide mission then the attack on the Collector base. O_o

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

kraidy1117 wrote...

I still find it sad that Virmire was a better suicide mission then the attack on the Collector base. O_o

This is so true. It's kind of a shame to be honest.

[Big stupid jellyfish]

If I could re-make the suicide mission I guess I would've played with loyalities more. At least that's the first thing that comes to my mind.



Like:



loyal Grunt - follows Shep's orders and is alive (that's assuming Shep won't get him into trouble)

unloyal Grunt - ignores Shep's order to stay at his/her side, follows his bloodlust, charges into a group of husks, is overwhelmed and killed



loyal Jack - follows Shep

unloyal Jack - tells Shep to **** off and refuses to hold the biotic barrier if asked



loyal Tali - in some critical situation believes in Shepard, feels secure with Shep at her side, stays calm and survives

unloyal Tali - in some critical situation becomes panic-stricken, makes a mistake and is killed



loyal Miranda - tells TIM she resigned and will support the destruction of the base

unloyal Miranda - tries to shoot Shep in the back to keep the base so you have to deal with her



etc.

[AdmiralCheez]

Well, kraidy, maybe they didn't expect everyone to read strategy guides...

I dunno, maybe if the choices were more ambiguous, or if there was a time limit on certain things. Hell, maybe if you were guaranteed to lose a squad member on each leg of the mission it would have been more intense. That's where I'd throw the chance factor in, I think.

Examples:

Oculus nails one squadmate during the fight in the cargo hold if you take too long to defeat it, both if you REALLY take your time.

On your fire teams, one person who is not the leader is guaranteed to die. Casualties would be higher based on who's leading, whether or not they're loyal, and what upgrades you have.

The larger number of surviving crew members, the higher chance of the escort dying, since an entire crew is harder to protect than half of one or just Chakwas.

During the "long walk," you have no choice but to watch a squad member get carried off by bees.

During the Baby Terminator Reaper Larva fight, there is a chance you won't catch the person who falls, OR you have to choose who to catch.

[cachx]

I insist that "pulling a Virmire" would have been baaaad. As bad as the original (wich only sorta worked because of the surprise factor, repeating the joke here wouldn't have been funny).

I would rather have the outcome based on player performance. Say, same setup. Choose a char to conduct the assesination you take control of him and play his mission.
If you take more than X minutes, the character dies at the end. And/or, at some point you can make a decision, like "Kill the general and run to reunite with the team" or "stay to close a blast door to spare the main team from an ambush".

There. not only do you gain the sweet chance to directly control a squadmate, but you can have a meaningful death if you so choose AND have a gameplay impact in the next part of the mission.

(I realize this wouldn't work in the game right now as I don't think it was conceived for you to control anybody else but Shep. But hey, it's my dream scenario).

[Onyx Jaguar]

See to be perfectly honest the Suicide Mission is there for well planning. Virmire springs it on you. The Suicide Mission requires some effort in layout. Sure maybe getting a perfect runthrough harder would be better, but not forcing an imperfect. The player should be rewarded for thinking and planning and if they stick to a proper plan they should be rewarded. Just like in real life. Here a whole lot of people can end up dead but if you do it right you are rewarded this is how it should be.

The only way a mandatory death scene would work if it was a BTDS sceneario like stated in OP however if it was optional and not apart of the plan.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:16 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

I still find it sad that Virmire was a better suicide mission then the attack on the Collector base. O_o

This is so true. It's kind of a shame to be honest.

Yeah I know, last time I played it I lost my whole crew and Shepard was blown up by an nuke

[kraidy1117]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Well, kraidy, maybe they didn't expect everyone to read strategy guides...
I dunno, maybe if the choices were more ambiguous, or if there was a time limit on certain things. Hell, maybe if you were guaranteed to lose a squad member on each leg of the mission it would have been more intense. That's where I'd throw the chance factor in, I think.
Examples:
Oculus nails one squadmate during the fight in the cargo hold if you take too long to defeat it, both if you REALLY take your time.
On your fire teams, one person who is not the leader is guaranteed to die. Casualties would be higher based on who's leading, whether or not they're loyal, and what upgrades you have.
The larger number of surviving crew members, the higher chance of the escort dying, since an entire crew is harder to protect than half of one or just Chakwas.
During the "long walk," you have no choice but to watch a squad member get carried off by bees.
During the Baby Terminator Reaper Larva fight, there is a chance you won't catch the person who falls, OR you have to choose who to catch.

I didn't use a guide at all and I had no problems with everyone survivng. It was easy and it was one of Bioware's biggest cop outs ever.<_<

[SDCrush]

I had two (rather obvious, I thought) main thoughts on the general subject while playing.

First, regarding the kidnapping of the crew.  I'm not going to get into the pros/cons of it, I know a lot of people hate it, whatever.  What I do want to bring up is how easy it was to circumvent the entire issue.  Anyone on a second playthrough of the game will do every possible sidequest before retrieving the Reaper IFF (and Legion).  That way you have a complete game, save the crew, and protect all your squadmates.  Suicide missions should not let you have your cake and eat it, too.  Why is the Reaper IFF mission not self-instigating, like Horizon?  Instant consequences!  First playthrough has big decisions!  Second playthrough forces a plan, with necessary sacrifice!
(Edit: By the way, in my mind at least, this seriously improves replayability.  You end up choosing between your crew and your squadmates, you choose which squadmates and which sidemissions; more choices is more combinations is more possibilities is more reasons to replay.)

Second, Hold the Line.  Honestly, I didn't really have a problem with this, but I considered for a while on other ways to implement it.  What if there was a serious chokepoint, and instead of leaving all surviving squadmates behind, you chose a small group?  The game GIVES YOU those invisible "Hold the Line scores" on each character, you are forced to add up to a certain total, and everyone you leave to hold it dies.  You know this while making the decision.  You are choosing who will give his/her life to cover your assault on the core.  This way you choose: do I want to kill my loyal best friend Garrus, or leave all of Jack, Mordin, Legion, and Kasumi?  Shades of Virmire, except with the possibility (or necessity?) of losing more than one man, and giving you wider choice/guilt.  Again: consequences! sacrifice!

There's obviously a whole lot of tweaks/ideas for things that could have been done differently, but I came up with these pretty quickly and liked them, so ... there you go.  Go ahead and talk them down if they suck.

Modifié par SDCrush, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:53 .

[SDCrush]

Double post, but ...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yeah I know, last time I played it I lost my whole crew and Shepard was blown up by an nuke

<3
*thumbup*

Modifié par SDCrush, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:46 .

[MrFob]

I don't see the problem, really. It's not that hard to get everyone out alive (although I lost someone in my first runthrough, which I didn't expect) but it's also not that hard to lose people f you play without strategy guides. For everyone in these forums the point is actually mute because they figured out long ago to achieve exactly the result that they like.
Besides, imagine the amount of complaints if there had been mandatory deaths or if, god forbid, it had been up to chance. I think BW chose the best option in making it possible but not completely trivial to have everyone survive.The choice on Virmire was a whole different scenario and cannot be compared IMO.

EDIT: Uh yea, sorry, almost forgot, on topic: If anything could be changed to make the "No one left behind" situation a bit harder, one way to do it would be that if someone in Sheps squad gets disabled during a fight on the collector mission, that person would stay dead and you would not be able to resurrect them with medigel anymore (there could be any number of reasons for that). That might have made players own fights more intense in the final hour(s) of the game as well.

Modifié par MrFob, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:58 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

MrFob wrote...

I don't see the problem, really. It's not that hard to get everyone out alive (although I lost someone in my first runthrough, which I didn't expect) but it's also not that hard to lose people f you play without strategy guides. For everyone in these forums the point is actually mute because they figured out long ago to achieve exactly the result that they like.
Besides, imagine the amount of complaints if there had been mandatory deaths or if, god forbid, it had been up to chance. I think BW chose the best option in making it possible but not completely trivial to have everyone survive.The choice on Virmire was a whole different scenario and cannot be compared IMO.

I agree with this post

There are some modifications for the SS but I would not put in force deaths as the scenario is better with an ultimate win if you will as it gives the player a sense of accomplishment.

The Virmire scene happens no matter what and has no bearing on player input.  Its an event in the story, not a real scenario.

The threat of danger is all you need for the player as that can be more harrowing that knowing someone would die as you would deal with it early on.  But the threat and unknowning of what would happen that hits you proper psychologically.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:57 .

[SDCrush]

cachx wrote...

I insist that "pulling a Virmire" would have been baaaad. As bad as the original (wich only sorta worked because of the surprise factor, repeating the joke here wouldn't have been funny).

I completely disagree.  This is EXACTLY the place to "pull a Virmire."  ME2 is the second installment in a trilogy; generally accepted as the point of "darkest just before the light."  Empire Strikes Back, Two Towers, etc. etc., the second book/movie/game is where the bad **** goes down.

[Moiaussi]

I just hope in ME3 they don't call anything a 'suicide mission.' People get so hung up over those two words, despite noone have anywhere near the intel to make that kind of assessment.



Per the back of the box, you are supposed to prove those calling it a suicide mission wrong, which implies you *are* expected to have zero casualties.

[Moiaussi]

SDCrush wrote...

I completely disagree.  This is EXACTLY the place to "pull a Virmire."  ME2 is the second installment in a trilogy; generally accepted as the point of "darkest just before the light."  Empire Strikes Back, Two Towers, etc. etc., the second book/movie/game is where the bad **** goes down.

Obi wan died in Star Wars.. who EXACTLY died in Empire Strikes Back?

Gandalf seemed to die to the Balrog in Fellowship of the Ring.  Boromir dies at the start of The Two Towers, but
Gandalf returns, not dead after all. And Boromir's betrayal had happened in Fellowship rather than Two Towers as well.

I think you need to find better examples

[Sursion]

Big stupid jellyfish wrote...

If I could re-make the suicide mission I guess I would've played with loyalities more. At least that's the first thing that comes to my mind.

Like:

loyal Grunt - follows Shep's orders and is alive (that's assuming Shep won't get him into trouble)
unloyal Grunt - ignores Shep's order to stay at his/her side, follows his bloodlust, charges into a group of husks, is overwhelmed and killed

loyal Jack - follows Shep
unloyal Jack - tells Shep to **** off and refuses to hold the biotic barrier if asked

loyal Tali - in some critical situation believes in Shepard, feels secure with Shep at her side, stays calm and survives
unloyal Tali - in some critical situation becomes panic-stricken, makes a mistake and is killed

loyal Miranda - tells TIM she resigned and will support the destruction of the base
unloyal Miranda - tries to shoot Shep in the back to keep the base so you have to deal with her

etc.

Completely agree. When I first played, I thought loyalty actually meant loyalty, not how much focus they had.

[Ragnarok521]

Big stupid jellyfish wrote...

If I could re-make the suicide mission I guess I would've played with loyalities more. At least that's the first thing that comes to my mind.

Like:

loyal Grunt - follows Shep's orders and is alive (that's assuming Shep won't get him into trouble)
unloyal Grunt - ignores Shep's order to stay at his/her side, follows his bloodlust, charges into a group of husks, is overwhelmed and killed

loyal Jack - follows Shep
unloyal Jack - tells Shep to **** off and refuses to hold the biotic barrier if asked

loyal Tali - in some critical situation believes in Shepard, feels secure with Shep at her side, stays calm and survives
unloyal Tali - in some critical situation becomes panic-stricken, makes a mistake and is killed

loyal Miranda - tells TIM she resigned and will support the destruction of the base
unloyal Miranda - tries to shoot Shep in the back to keep the base so you have to deal with her

etc.

A very good idea. Make loyalty mean something instead of just the on/off switch for who lives and dies.

[Infinite Legend_]

I don't think a mandatory death would have been needed to make the suicide mission better but the choices should have been harder and loyalty shouldn't have been plot armor along with making the character upgrades actually matter (ex:the seeker swarm walk)

[Kaiser Shepard]

Okay, imagine this:

At the point where Shepard and co normally step onto the final platform, Miranda suddenly goes all "Why are ships flying into the base?"

EDI informs the group, telling them that "A bomb has been planted at the Normandy."

Shepard replies: "Geez, can anyone take care of it?"

*Cue epic music as turian-esque ships fly in*

Saren, apparently in one of the ships, goes "Can't let you do that, Shepard!"

As the ships fly towards the camera, Benezia, from the second ship says that "Harbinger has ordered us to take you down."

The third vessel, piloted by Wilson, broadcasts a message by Wilson: "Jacob, long time no see!"

Finally, the last ship, revealed to be a reconfigured Sovereign tells the team that "Harbinger's enemy is my enemy."

*Epic battle with the entire team against the four ships. After destroying the final one, it crashes down on and splattersprees five to seven randomly decided squaddies. Cue Shepard's getting on the platform and giving his final speech*

[Midnight_Thirty]

Why not make it much more difficult to obtain their loyalty?



Give us very difficult choices during their loyalty mission that can effect loyalty, and more Miranda vs. Jack type situations. You could even bring in multiple decisions during each mission that would kind of create a "tiered loyalty" system. The more loyal the person, the more likely they would survive the "checks" in the suicide mission.



Honestly though, the first two times I played through the suicide mission I lost a person. I also lost the entire crew because I was off doing other missions just to make sure I completed everything before the end. I really think they did a good job of making it difficult to come out clean the first playthrough.



The suicide mission is much easier with hindsight, so I suggest everyone think back to their first playthrough before saying that "Virmire was much more of a suicide mission than the actual SM"

[Collider]

Part of the game's theme is overcoming impossible odds. Making mandatory deaths goes counter against that. I wouldn't mind making the all of the squad surviving be a harder endeavor, but I'm totally against mandatory deaths unless it's done like the Ashley/Kaidan thing.