141 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyberfrog81]

I played it blind and didn't lose anyone. Though admittedly, I came pretty close to losing Mordin since I sent Zaeed back with the crew.

The suicide mission was plenty exciting, since I feared losing people on every stage along the way. When it didn't happen, that was not a problem - it was pat on the back. Everyone lives, and then comes telling TIM where to shove it. All in all, not a bad ending.

I've done the deliberately killing people thing. It is pretty fun, but doesn't improve the story for me. Because I didn't do it for story reasons, at least not in the short term.

[Vaenier]

masterkajo wrote...

People dieing would improve the story. Being able to save them makes the story worse.

The
deaths have to mean something though. Killing them so they die is
pretty lame. They should die to accomplish a great feat, like blowing
up a Reaper by themselves or buying time for the squad to get away.

I think the option of people to die is good. ME is all about choice and if someone dies but you can look back on it and realise you had the chance to save him/her makes IMO a lot more of an impact than a death you cannot prevent (can b edone well too of course).
This was the situation with my crew. I got there and Kelly died in front of my eyes. I was really shocked and devasted but moved on and finished the game (at that time I thought it was the way the story goes). But then I found out talking to my friend that I could have saved her and this makes her death totally my fault and that much more meaningful to me.

The problem is you have magic time traveling powers. You can go back in time and use your knowledge of the future to alter history and save them. You failed only on the first run out of ignorance, and after that the death never meant anything again, because you knew you could always prevent it.

[Fiery Phoenix]

TeenZombie wrote...

I don't understand how you can both feel that Virmire was awesome because you HAVE to lose Kaidan or Ashley in another thread, and then say that someone is "failing" the game if they choose to let teammates die in the suicide mission of ME2, here.  If it were up to me, I would not have *any* forced deaths, but I understand why someone would roleplay a Shepard who doesn't get a certain squadmate's loyalty, or who rushes through the relay without upgrading the shields when the crew has been taken, or who takes Miranda's word that any biotic can hold the shield.  Shepard doesn't necessarily have to be an idiot in order to make these decisions -- they're being human, and fallible, and it might make someone's personal story more poignant to play it that way.

I hate the whole gimmick of letting people kill their party members, but I understand why people would take that option.

Virmire was awesome because it was, well, awesome. As far as I'm concerned, it's not the mandatory deaths that made Virmire so great, but the whole execution of the mission in general. The sacrifice merely added to the feel as it was properly placed and rather spot-on.

I also do understand why people would kill off teammates from a roleplaying perspective, but I fear that's not that how it is for me because the suicide mission itself is simple in the first place; therefore, killing off my teammates seem like a waste to me.

So yes, I'm speaking for myself here. I don't roleplay to kill off my team, but I have the decency to see and understand why some people like it that way.

EDIT:  For further clarification, I do welcome a mandatory sacrifice as long as it is executed well, as was the case with Virmire. The suicide mission obviously had no mandatory deaths, but that doesn't make me deliberately kill off my squadmates to make it feel more emotional and meaningful because the mission itself is fundamentally different from Virmire.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:53 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Having everyone make it through the suicide mission in one piece makes the whole build-up of the mission itself slightly anti-climatic, and in turn, reduce the Collectors (and the Reapers) into something of a joke.

But on the other hand. Losing too many squadmates (4 or more) turns the whole thing into a comedy, since it contradicts the "Shepard is an awesome leader.

[Tony Gunslinger]

In my first playthrough, I had no idea what I was doing so I wasn't deliberately killing people. But I did not dismiss it as a 'failure', I consider that 1st playthrough as my real playthrough, it's saved, and it's in my memory, and all the subsequent plays I've done are metagames. And having played it renegade and paragon, I reviewed all of them and concluded that the 1st playthrough was the best, because I made decisions that were morally grey and their consequences mattered.

I feel that having everyone alive weakens the story, and yet that is the urge of a completionist metagamer to do so. But then again, if you are metagaming, you let everyone survive, and then you complain that the story is weak, that the character development was boring because you felt you were wasting time trying to please them, well, it think it's a consequence of being a metagamer, not the fault of the story outcome. If you don't like a character, don't talk to them, be mean to them, let them die. Don't make an effort to save them because of an abstract achievement. It messes up your perception and your priorities.

[masterkajo]

Vaenier wrote...

masterkajo wrote...

People dieing would improve the story. Being able to save them makes the story worse.

The
deaths have to mean something though. Killing them so they die is
pretty lame. They should die to accomplish a great feat, like blowing
up a Reaper by themselves or buying time for the squad to get away.

I think the option of people to die is good. ME is all about choice and if someone dies but you can look back on it and realise you had the chance to save him/her makes IMO a lot more of an impact than a death you cannot prevent (can b edone well too of course).
This was the situation with my crew. I got there and Kelly died in front of my eyes. I was really shocked and devasted but moved on and finished the game (at that time I thought it was the way the story goes). But then I found out talking to my friend that I could have saved her and this makes her death totally my fault and that much more meaningful to me.

The problem is you have magic time traveling powers. You can go back in time and use your knowledge of the future to alter history and save them. You failed only on the first run out of ignorance, and after that the death never meant anything again, because you knew you could always prevent it.

That is true indeed. But to be honest, I only played through the game twice (the second time making all opposite choices as well as killing squadmates that my friends didn't lose to see what happens at ME3). I watched 4 of my friends playing through but never told them anything. I mostly play games because of their story and with ME I really like that I can create my own. And then it is fun to watch my friends play (one after the other) to see what could have happend differently (did the same with Heavy Rain).

A scripted death doesn't add much to replayabilty. An optional death on the other hand at least gives you something to improve next time as well as really allowing you to create your own story. Granted there are some people (even one of my friends wanted to do it) that just reload their last save and make a different choice. But that is their own fault. I like making choices and live with the consequences - even if they are not always what I have hoped for. That makes it interesting, IMO.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

In my first playthrough, I had no idea what I was doing so I wasn't
deliberately killing people. But I did not dismiss it as a 'failure', I
consider that 1st playthrough as my real playthrough, it's saved, and
it's in my memory, and all the subsequent plays I've done are
metagames. And having played it renegade and paragon, I reviewed all of
them and concluded that the 1st playthrough was the best, because I
made decisions that were morally grey and their consequences mattered.

I
feel that having everyone alive weakens the story, and yet that is the
urge of a completionist metagamer to do so. But then again, if you are
metagaming, you let everyone survive, and then you complain that the
story is weak, that the character development was boring because you
felt you were wasting time trying to please them, well, it think it's a
consequence of being a metagamer, not the fault of the story outcome.
If you don't like a character, don't talk to them, be mean to them, let
them die. Don't make an effort to save them because of an abstract
achievement. It messes up your perception and your priorities.

In my frist playthough I managed to get everyone through and that is (of all the playhthroughs I have seen) the best, because it is mine. If someone would have died I would have also accepted it. But since I managed to get everyone through (with the possibilty of everyone dying) that really means something to me - much more so than if some always die and some could never.

Modifié par masterkajo, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:45 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Lizardviking wrote...
Having everyone make it through the suicide mission in one piece makes the whole build-up of the mission itself slightly anti-climatic, and in turn, reduce the Collectors (and the Reapers) into something of a joke.

But on the other hand. Losing too many squadmates (4 or more) turns the whole thing into a comedy, since it contradicts the "Shepard is an awesome leader.

I agree with this, deaths in the squad made the Collectors much more threatening, I viewed them as real legit enemies. In my first playthrough, I was thinking "these SOBs just killed Kasumi, they're going to pay."

masterkajo wrote...
In my frist playthough I managed to get everyone through and that is (of all the playhthroughs I have seen) the best, because it is mine. If someone would have died I would have also accepted it. But since I managed to get everyone through (with the possibilty of everyone dying) that really means something to me - much more so than if some always die and some could never.

Right, it doesn't matter if everyone lives or not, as long you can live with the consequences to the end then it's much more rewarding. In a lot of RPGs, my first character is always awful: skill points scattered everywhere, missed missions and missed getting that uber weapon, etc. But it is my playthrough. I did not have a checklist of upgrades next to me while playing. I played it the way it was meant to be played, and I enjoyed and critiqued the game that way.

But since we're on the forums talking about the game, we're all metagamers here. I think it's important to know when you're doing it and when you're not, otherwise you can pick and choose any excuse to justify anything that doesn't meet up your expectations ie: "The story sucks because I feel like there's no real enemy because I can pwn the Collectors, and it's such a chore to get my team loyal since I already know they're going to live, what's the point" etc.

Well, if you think it's such a chore to choose dialog options that you don't like, then don't do it. Are you playing for the role-play or are you playing for the perfectionist achievement?

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 02 janvier 2011 - 08:43 .

[Isaidlunch]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I have always made it through with no casualties, because i am not an idiot.
I will never have casualties, because i intend to continue not being an idiot.

To be fair, I don't think people who choose Zaeed as a fire team leader deserve to be called idiots. But that's the only squadmate death scenario I can really excuse.

[didymos1120]

eliteraptor wrote...
For my Shepard, who is a sole survivor, getting everyone out of the collector base alive was a sort of redemption after his failure on Akuze. Therefore, my canon will have everyone alive.

Which suggests that a Ruthless Shep's ideal endgame is to get the team and abducted crew all killed and then die as a result. I.e., karmic justice. Or, more seriously, you could play a Ruthless Shep as regretful of those massive casualties and having sworn that this time, things will be different.  Works rather well with the Collectors having a lot in common with batarian slaver-pirates, the enemy a Ruthless Shep fought on Torfan.

[Sparda Stonerule]

didymos1120 wrote...

eliteraptor wrote...
For my Shepard, who is a sole survivor, getting everyone out of the collector base alive was a sort of redemption after his failure on Akuze. Therefore, my canon will have everyone alive.

Which suggests that a Ruthless Shep's ideal endgame is to get the team and abducted crew all killed and then die as a result. I.e., karmic justice. Or, more seriously, you could play a Ruthless Shep as regretful of those massive casualties and having sworn that this time, things will be different.  Works rather well with the Collectors having a lot in common with batarian slaver-pirates, the enemy a Ruthless Shep fought on Torfan.

That's how my ruthless character goes. I was more interested in a Paragon Ruthless character than a Paragon War Hero. He mentions once in ME 1 that he promised himself nothing like that would ever happen again. That was in a conversation with Ashley. In ME 2 it feels like a small arc in Shepard's personality. Normally I don't feel you get that.

[PsychoWARD23]

My biggest problem was the deaths weren't really mentioned. Mordin died on my first playthrough, I loved Mordin and if he had a better death than just lying on the ground then I would have been more emotionally attached to his death. That said my "canon" playthrough has no one dying.

[PsychoWARD23]

I mean now that I think about it, a "suicide mission" would have a little more consequence. I went in completely blind and only 1 character died? Not only that but each character's death was "weak". When I heard about the suicide mission idea I thought almost every section there would be someone dying with an amazing, unique cutscene to go along with their character. I was rather disappointed, again, that being said though I loved the SM, made me really feel in control.

[Tony Gunslinger]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

I mean now that I think about it, a "suicide mission" would have a little more consequence. I went in completely blind and only 1 character died? Not only that but each character's death was "weak". When I heard about the suicide mission idea I thought almost every section there would be someone dying with an amazing, unique cutscene to go along with their character. I was rather disappointed, again, that being said though I loved the SM, made me really feel in control.

I think if there were mandatory deaths, then players would already have made their minds about who will die, it's too much control for the player. "Hi Jacob, you suck so I'm not going to spend any time talking to you. Off you go." The way it is right now, if you want to deliberately kill off specific people, you'll have to spend a lot of effort reading faqs and charts to control that, which is too much for the average player to consider. The uncertainty of who dies makes it more compelling. But I agree, even though there are a lot variables to determine who dies, the death scenes could have been a bit better and unique.

[hawat333]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I have never lost anyone, because i have a functioning brain.

(Except for two experimental cases,) I've always lost two, three or four peoples, because I have a dramatic sense.

[Lee337]

I'd never read about either of the games at all before I played them, brought the games because I played Dragon Age.

Because I lost Wrex in ME1 by actually trying to stop Saren as quickly as I could and not levelling up enough, I was a lot more careful in ME2 and avoided doing the Reaper IFF mission until I had everything I could up to that point and everyone survived the Omega Relay.

My second playthrough I purposely tried killing some and lost half the crew.

I thought that the end scene with Liara in LotSB played out a little better with the crew lost when Shep is dealing with the loss of his crew.

[Aedan_Cousland]

The problem I had with ME2's suicide mission was that the only way to lose squadmates is for Shepard to either not gain a squadmate's loyalty or to make bad tactical decisions. So while losing squadmates may give the story more emotional impact, it comes at the price of nerfing Shepard as a combat leader.

They way the suicide mission should have been handled, was for Shepard to lose squadmates even when he made the right tactical decisions, or maybe even because of it.

[Cyberfrog81]

Maybe you should elaborate, because that sounds like punishing the player for doing well. Which makes no sense.

[The Big Nothing]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...
I have never lost anyone, because i have a functioning brain.
I have no desire to play as a retarded Shepard, and so i never will lose anyone.

AntiChri5 wrote...

I have always made it through with no casualties, because i am not an idiot.
I will never have casualties, because i intend to continue not being an idiot.

These.

If it is possible to save my team and I know that I can do it, why the hell not? Unless the plot demands it (ala Virmire), I just refuse to have anyone die on me.

It's like deliberately answering a question wrong in a final exam.

Am I the only one who does that?

[Aedan_Cousland]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Maybe you should elaborate, because that sounds like punishing the player for doing well. Which makes no sense.

Were you 'punished' on Virmire when you lost Ashley or Kaiden?

Or was it just good storytelling?

Sometimes a combat leader has to put the mission before the welfare of the men, and casualties are often unavoidable. Mass Effect should reflect that reality, IMO.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:28 .

[The Big Nothing]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I have never lost anyone, because i have a functioning brain.

I have no desire to play as a retarded Shepard, and so i never will lose anyone.

Oh, no. I lost three people in my first suicide run.

I must be retarded. What will I do with myself? Maybe make friends in real life.

[thatguy212]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Maybe you should elaborate, because that sounds like punishing the player for doing well. Which makes no sense.

Were you 'punished' on Virmire when you lost Ashley or Kaiden?

Or was it just good storytelling?

i thought it was pretty bad storytelling, it was pretty obvious that they'd kill one of them off when you start that part, especially since ash basically says one of them isn't coming back

[XavierHollywood]

on my first playthrough i was blind. Didnt use any FAQs or guides, but I had everyone survive. I do have quite a bit of experience with games/RPGs and the way the game continually stressed to me that it was a suicide mission made me conscious of the fact I need to be as prepared as I possibly can be.

I loved talking to all my squad and crew so every time I recruited someone new, the first thing i did was head over to them in the ship and have a chat. When I saw each character offered upgrades for guns, shields, armor, etc of course it was a no brainer to beef up the ship. The opening cutscene of the game stressed that what we currently had against collector tech was damn near useless lol.

As for getting everyone's loyalty, well im Commander Shepard, and if im going to be in a situation where survival is slim and my life and the lives of my squad depend on each others trust and their confidence in me as a leader, of course i would want to ensure they were all loyal to me.

As for the choices during the suicide mission, I had 2 Mass Effect games that stressed to me Tali's affinity with tech, and well...Legion is pretty much WALKING tech, so that wasnt a hard decision to make

Samara's strength rivaled that of a matriarch in biotics and Jack was the strongest human biotic ever, so that choice wasnt too difficult to make.

And as for the fire team leaders, Miranda's two passive class skill names are Cerberus Leader and Cerberus Tactician, which kinda tipped me off to her being a pretty good leader

Second Fire team leader i chose Garrus. Zaheed I had considered briefly, but thinking back to his loyalty mission and his convos he just didnt feel right. Every time you talked to him he was always telling a story about how he was the ONLY survivor in a mission, and the way he completely lost composure in his loyalty mission, jeopardizing everyone's life, was all the evidence i needed to know he wouldnt be fit for the job.

That being said, I will admit I got lucky with the "hold the line" part. I could have very easily lost Mordin or Tali there had took my heavy hitters with me for the final battle. I ended up taking Legion and Jack with me though.

Im certainly not going to act all high and mighty and allude to other players being retarded if they lost some of their squad/crew, but after beating the game for the first time and checking out forums afterward, I was a bit shocked at the amount of people that lost a lot a large amount of their crew. All these possible outcomes is the beauty of the game though. How it will all affect ME3 I do not kno, but Bioware has always delivered in my eyes and I wont begin to question them now. I have plenty of faith that they will pull it all together in grandiose fashion for ME3.

Modifié par XavierHollywood, 04 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[marshalleck]

You have to be pretty daft to have anyone (with the exception of Mordin, perhaps) die in the suicide mission.

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 janvier 2011 - 01:48 .