119 réponses à ce sujet

[Bocks]

Let me say this right now: It's stupid.

No matter how much you hate a character, no matter how much you want to see them dead- we're on a mission to save the galaxy here. You're going to want to have as many allies as possible. Everyone can contribute somehow, so why do so many of you kill of a character you aren't forced to kill off (like during the Virmire decision -when you're forced to choose)?

Surviving the suicide mission is easy. Anyone who thinks about the roles of their characters and tries to do their best to match their abilities to the task required is capable of getting everyone out alive (assuming they've upgraded and have everyone or mostly everyone loyal).

Contrary to popular belief, killing off someone in the suicide mission DOESN'T necessarily make the story more interesting or exciting or sad. Just look at Harry Potter for a minute. Did all the characters that died in the final book HAVE to die? How could the story have been affected if one of the characters didn't die? Did we really care for their deaths by the end?

A death is truly dramatic and exciting when it is given to someone who holds a very firm grip on the way the story can continue or end. At this point in the ME trilogy, we aren't really sure if any of the ME2 characters will affect the story in different ways if they're dead or alive (though we can make assumptions), but it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

Nothing good comes from death.

EDIT: Because of continued accusation towards me, let me clarify one thing:

I am NOT telling anyone how they have to play their game, I'm simply trying to make them think about their choices and the negative impact they could have. I respect anyone's choices and opinions, though I may not agree with them.

Also, keep in mind that killing off characters for experimentation is not what I'm arguing against here. Killing someone off to see "what could have been" is perfectly fine. In fact, I have several playthroughs with just that happening (one of which has just me, Garrus and Tali surviving). I'm trying to make the people who kill off characters because they don't like them to consider how this might come back to bite them in the-

Well, you know where I'm going with this.

Modifié par Bocks, 18 décembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Ballsy thread, bro. Brace for flaming.



Just so you know, I agree with you, but I don't think the people who disagree are stupid. They want to headshot Tali, let them. She's still my brosephine in all my saves.

[Bocks]

I'm not accusing them of being stupid or anything. I respect other people's opinions and choices, though I may disagree with them. It's their saves to do as they wish with them. I'm just trying to make them see my side of the argument.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Well the thing is even after the suicide mission you can't tell people you don't like or trust to get off your ship. So the next logical solution is to kill them. I mean doesn't everybody think that way?

[AdmiralCheez]

@Bocks: Okeydokes.

@ReconTeam: My Shepard's badass enough that she doesn't have to kill anyone out of fear they might betray her, since she can just kick their ass when they try.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 18 décembre 2010 - 02:09 .

[Bamboozalist]

Bocks wrote...

Let me say this right now: It's stupid.

No matter how much you hate a character, no matter how much you want to see them dead- we're on a mission to save the galaxy here. You're going to want to have as many allies as possible. Everyone can contribute somehow, so why do so many of you kill of a character you aren't forced to kill off (like during the Virmire decision -when you're forced to choose)?

Surviving the suicide mission is easy. Anyone who thinks about the roles of their characters and tries to do their best to match their abilities to the task required is capable of getting everyone out alive (assuming they've upgraded and have everyone or mostly everyone loyal).

Contrary to popular belief, killing off someone in the suicide mission DOESN'T necessarily make the story more interesting or exciting or sad. Just look at Harry Potter for a minute. Did all the characters that died in the final book HAVE to die? How could the story have been affected if one of the characters didn't die? Did we really care for their deaths by the end?

A death is truly dramatic and exciting when it is given to someone who holds a very firm grip on the way the story can continue or end. At this point in the ME trilogy, we aren't really sure if any of the ME2 characters will affect the story in different ways if they're dead or alive (though we can make assumptions), but it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

Nothing good comes from death.

I have 9 different playthroughs. 2 of them, 1 male and 1 female have everyone alive, the other 7 don't. You know why? Because I want to have different gameplay out comes. Same reason I don't save the same VS or Council or Wrex on every ME1 playthrough.

Also people die, it's life deal with it.

[Bocks]

ReconTeam wrote...

Well the thing is even after the suicide mission you can't tell people you don't like or trust to get off your ship. So the next logical solution is to kill them. I mean doesn't everybody think that way?

Genius. Let's kill the people who have worked on the team and fought next to you for so long and trust you after solving their daddy issues.

...The "I don't trust them!" argument falls very short. Especially with Garrus and Tali (possibly Samara, too).

[levi0000]

It's always nice to have some diversity in the story. Even if that means killing off a few squad members to see how their deaths play out in the next game. That's how I look at it. I've got a few different Shepards with varying degrees of dead squaddies. I'm interested in seeing how different they all are. My main Shepard has them all alive, and I'm doing that first. After I save the galaxy, why not go ahead and see how I do with a few of my crew missing. Maybe some people like the added emotional impact of characters dying. Hell, maybe even some people want Shepard to fail at stopping the Reapers. As long as they get the most fun out of their Mass Effect experience, why should you care about how they choose to play out their stories?

[aeetos21]

Yeah, have at least two where everybody lives. The others don't matter as much. Of course you can take a step further like I did in ME1 and literally had my Shepard keep as many people alive as possible - including NPCs like Fist who really have it coming. Even that one warlord Davius or whatever - the one the Alliance wanted you to kill? It wasn't that my Shepard wasn't badass - I just wanted as much content as possible in the following games.



That's all there is to it.

[Inquisitor Recon]

I'd be more worried with anybody messing with the multi-billion credit starship than trying to take down Shepard.



Personally I think the suicide mission feels more suicide-ish if you take some losses. That's why I have one character/save where everybody survived and others where certain people died.

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ballsy thread, bro. Brace for flaming.

Yeah, bro brace for flaming!

So here it comes.

This thread is not ballsy. It's stupid. Or maybe it's paragon.

Aristotle: "Tragedy > Comedy".

Hence: "Everyone dies" ending > "everyone survives" ending. Always. In any form of fiction.

The real question is why did BioWare allow for everyone to survive? Aiming for comedy perhaps...

[Has a sudden recall]

Oh yeah! How could I forget? Mass Effect 2 is a parody game. So, sure, everyone must survive in a "suicide mission"!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 18 décembre 2010 - 02:19 .

[Bocks]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Bocks wrote...

Let me say this right now: It's stupid.

No matter how much you hate a character, no matter how much you want to see them dead- we're on a mission to save the galaxy here. You're going to want to have as many allies as possible. Everyone can contribute somehow, so why do so many of you kill of a character you aren't forced to kill off (like during the Virmire decision -when you're forced to choose)?

Surviving the suicide mission is easy. Anyone who thinks about the roles of their characters and tries to do their best to match their abilities to the task required is capable of getting everyone out alive (assuming they've upgraded and have everyone or mostly everyone loyal).

Contrary to popular belief, killing off someone in the suicide mission DOESN'T necessarily make the story more interesting or exciting or sad. Just look at Harry Potter for a minute. Did all the characters that died in the final book HAVE to die? How could the story have been affected if one of the characters didn't die? Did we really care for their deaths by the end?

A death is truly dramatic and exciting when it is given to someone who holds a very firm grip on the way the story can continue or end. At this point in the ME trilogy, we aren't really sure if any of the ME2 characters will affect the story in different ways if they're dead or alive (though we can make assumptions), but it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

Nothing good comes from death.

I have 9 different playthroughs. 2 of them, 1 male and 1 female have everyone alive, the other 7 don't. You know why? Because I want to have different gameplay out comes. Same reason I don't save the same VS or Council or Wrex on every ME1 playthrough.

Also people die, it's life deal with it.

Sure, if it's to see how the game plays out or just to be experimental, it's fine. But I'm not referring to that. I'm trying to talk to the people who hate a character so much they try to kill them off out of spite- without caring for possible negative consequences in ME3 (which I hope they will get). Also, this character-hate is bad because it incites people to go and kill characters, which in turn gives them a higher death count on Bioware's Death-o-meter which then results in a character getting little dialogue IF he or she comes back as a squadmate/a small cameo.

Don't be selfish with this guys. We all like different characters, it's only fair to respect the choices and opinions of others. Personally, I do not hate anyone, though my least favourite would be Miranda. Regardless, I don't kill her off in my playthroughs because I would love to see her again in ME3.

[levi0000]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ballsy thread, bro. Brace for flaming.

Aristotle: "Tragedy > Comedy".

Hence: "Everyone dies" ending > "everyone survives" ending. Always. In any form of fiction.

Since when has people not dying been a comedy?

[Zulu_DFA]

levi0000 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ballsy thread, bro. Brace for flaming.

Aristotle: "Tragedy > Comedy".

Hence: "Everyone dies" ending > "everyone survives" ending. Always. In any form of fiction.

Since when has people not dying been a comedy?

Since Aristotle?

[Bamboozalist]

Bocks wrote...
 Bioware's Death-o-meter

I'd like to see that.

[Bocks]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ballsy thread, bro. Brace for flaming.

Yeah, bro brace for flaming!

So here it comes.

This thread is not ballsy. It's stupid. Or maybe it's paragon.

Aristotle: "Tragedy > Comedy".

Hence: "Everyone dies" ending > "everyone survives" ending. Always. In any form of fiction.

The real question is why did BioWare allow for everyone to survive? Aiming for comedy perhaps...

[Has a sudden recall]

Oh yeah! How could I forget? Mass Effect 2 is a parody game. So, sure, everyone must survive in a "suicide mission"!

"Hence: "Everyone dies" ending > "everyone survives" ending. Always.
In any form of fiction."

Wrong wrong WRONG!

In tragedies the deaths have actual meaning as they reflect upon several human elements of existance and importance. They are foreshadowed in different ways while connected to several other concepts of human society and a cycle of ultimate destiny which is inevitable. Mass Effect does NOT have this. Well, maybe a bit- but only the foreshadowing part, and there really isn't enough of it for deaths to happen and have actual meaning. The context is also awkward.

[aeetos21]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Aristotle: "Tragedy > Comedy".

Hence: "Everyone dies" ending > "everyone survives" ending. Always. In any form of fiction.

I'm okay with my ending first time around, lost Mordin and lost Thane. Also, like most ME2 virgins, most my crew died so if anything is unrealistic its Shepard sitting on getting the IFF for three quarters of the game and saving recruiting Legion for last so you can head straight to the Omega 4 with a full squad. As for tragedy always better than comedy? That's just one guys opinion, even if he is the father of logic and science and about a half dozen other things.

Everything else: making sure the Normandy is fully upgraded, as many squadmates as possible and that they're loyal, and assigning the right people to the right roles:

Miranda, Jacob, and Garrus make the best leaders (duh).
Tali and Legion are your tech experts (I lost Thane here because I thought his duct crawling would help)
Samara and Jack are your number one biotics for the bubble.
Save your soldiers to hold the door (I sent Zaeed back with the remainder of the crew and took Grunt with me to face the baby reaper and thus lost Mordin as he died holding the door).

So yeah, made some mistakes but after I gave it some real thought getting everybody through alive isn't that unrealistic and I look forward to redeeming myself in ME3.

Edit: As for people not dying in comedies, am I the only one whose read Shakespeare?

Modifié par aeetos21, 18 décembre 2010 - 02:29 .

[syllogi]

Bocks wrote...

Let me say this right now: It's stupid.

No matter how much you hate a character, no matter how much you want to see them dead- we're on a mission to save the galaxy here. You're going to want to have as many allies as possible. Everyone can contribute somehow, so why do so many of you kill of a character you aren't forced to kill off (like during the Virmire decision -when you're forced to choose)?

Surviving the suicide mission is easy. Anyone who thinks about the roles of their characters and tries to do their best to match their abilities to the task required is capable of getting everyone out alive (assuming they've upgraded and have everyone or mostly everyone loyal).

Contrary to popular belief, killing off someone in the suicide mission DOESN'T necessarily make the story more interesting or exciting or sad. Just look at Harry Potter for a minute. Did all the characters that died in the final book HAVE to die? How could the story have been affected if one of the characters didn't die? Did we really care for their deaths by the end?

A death is truly dramatic and exciting when it is given to someone who holds a very firm grip on the way the story can continue or end. At this point in the ME trilogy, we aren't really sure if any of the ME2 characters will affect the story in different ways if they're dead or alive (though we can make assumptions), but it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

Nothing good comes from death.

Bioware disagrees with your premise.  Otherwise they wouldn't have made you choose on Virmire, or given you the option to kill enough members of your squad to get the "Shepard dies" ending.  Somebody over there thinks that it is "emotionally engaging" and dramatic.  And since a percentage of people take the option of letting people die, they must agree.

I think it blows, because it limits their options for bringing back characters from game to game, when they have to factor in that they might be dead, as seen with Ashley, Kaidan, and Wrex.  If I had a vote, I would have said I would prefer to have those characters back in ME2 instead of the optional death scenes in ME1.  But nobody asked me.

Basically, it's a gimmick that the devs are happy with, and we'll probably see it again in ME3, despite the fact that it inhibits good writing for the characters caught up in it.

[jbblue05]

I agree with Zulu everyone survivng is too fairy-tale like.



Casualties make for a more compelling story.

Look at the ME3 trailer with the British guy talking about the millions of deaths it brings a sense of urgency to the plot

[Googlesaurus]

 Metagaming. Let the people have their fun.

[Zulu_DFA]

aeetos21 wrote...

That's just one guys opinion, even if he is the father of logic and science and about a half dozen other things.

Aristotle wasn't just one guy. In fact, he lacked his own opinion on most on the things. But he was the first encyclopedist in history, who systematized all the Ancient Greek philosophy.

[Bamboozalist]

TeenZombie wrote...

Bocks wrote...

Let me say this right now: It's stupid.

No matter how much you hate a character, no matter how much you want to see them dead- we're on a mission to save the galaxy here. You're going to want to have as many allies as possible. Everyone can contribute somehow, so why do so many of you kill of a character you aren't forced to kill off (like during the Virmire decision -when you're forced to choose)?

Surviving the suicide mission is easy. Anyone who thinks about the roles of their characters and tries to do their best to match their abilities to the task required is capable of getting everyone out alive (assuming they've upgraded and have everyone or mostly everyone loyal).

Contrary to popular belief, killing off someone in the suicide mission DOESN'T necessarily make the story more interesting or exciting or sad. Just look at Harry Potter for a minute. Did all the characters that died in the final book HAVE to die? How could the story have been affected if one of the characters didn't die? Did we really care for their deaths by the end?

A death is truly dramatic and exciting when it is given to someone who holds a very firm grip on the way the story can continue or end. At this point in the ME trilogy, we aren't really sure if any of the ME2 characters will affect the story in different ways if they're dead or alive (though we can make assumptions), but it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

Nothing good comes from death.

Bioware disagrees with your premise.  Otherwise they wouldn't have made you choose on Virmire, or given you the option to kill enough members of your squad to get the "Shepard dies" ending.  Somebody over there thinks that it is "emotionally engaging" and dramatic.  And since a percentage of people take the option of letting people die, they must agree.

I think it blows, because it limits their options for bringing back characters from game to game, when they have to factor in that they might be dead, as seen with Ashley, Kaidan, and Wrex.  If I had a vote, I would have said I would prefer to have those characters back in ME2 instead of the optional death scenes in ME1.  But nobody asked me.

Basically, it's a gimmick that the devs are happy with, and we'll probably see it again in ME3, despite the fact that it inhibits good writing for the characters caught up in it.

No they don't. Bioware has a massive budget for ME3 and ME2 had tons of unused crap just sitting in it. There is no reason Bioware can bring back ME2 people and just have them be dead for people who killed them. And for new people either do a comic like the PS3 or a random algorithm that random selects who lived so they get replay value out of each new game.

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Yeah, bro brace for flaming!

So here it comes.

This thread is not ballsy. It's stupid. Or maybe it's paragon.

It's ballsy because it's begging to be trolled/people will very vehemently disagree with it.  In other words, I saw you coming.

Aristotle: "Tragedy > Comedy".

"It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims." -- Aristotle.

Ironic that I'd quote a guy saying that mindlessly quoting a cultural authority makes you sound stupid, but hey!  Anyway, not everyone likes tragedies.  I, for one, watched Mrs. Doubtfire countless times, but could only stomach Schindler's List once.  Not that List wasn't great, but it's no fun.  I don't feel uplifted and happy at the end.  And I play videogames to make me happy.

Happy endings have a higher replay value.  Sure, downers have a bigger boom, but you don't watch them over and over.  Bioware wants you to come back for more.  You aren't going to do that if the story kicks your heart in the balls every damn time.

Hence: "Everyone dies" ending > "everyone survives" ending. Always. In any form of fiction.

Everyone dies = bullsh*t ending that pisses me off.  Everyone survives = completely appropriate for escapist entertainment.  You don't like it, kill people.

The real question is why did BioWare allow for everyone to survive? Aiming for comedy perhaps...

Giving players the ability to bring their team out alive lends them a feeling of empowerment.  Everyone I've talked to in person that has beaten ME2 has accompannied "I got everyone out alive" with a proud puff of their chest and a smile.  It feels good to be the hero.

[Has a sudden recall]

[braces for typical Zulu-isms]

Oh yeah! How could I forget? Mass Effect 2 is a parody game. So, sure, everyone must survive in a "suicide mission"!

You're as adorable as ever, Zulu.  I could just pinch your little cheek.

[aeetos21]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

That's just one guys opinion, even if he is the father of logic and science and about a half dozen other things.

Aristotle wasn't just one guy. In fact, he lacked his own opinion on most on the things. But he was the first encyclopedist in history, who systematized all the Ancient Greek philosophy.

Yeah there are a lot of those types in history, that doesn't mean they're wrong or that they're right. Take their advice and make up your own mind. The broad general statement that tragedies will always be better than comedies because they usually have an extra layer of depth to them given the gravity of the situation is relatively true but not in all cases.

Aristotle had his own opinions, mostly in dealing with science which is based more in logic and fact but if he wasn't as prominent, opinionated, and influential then there'd be little grounds to charge the man and try to place him on trial.

Modifié par aeetos21, 18 décembre 2010 - 02:47 .