141 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Sorry but in order for people to die in ME2, my Shepard has to make stupid choices and that's OOC for them. Bioware should have done some unavoidable deaths so the suicide mission felt like a suicide mission, I do not have that feeling at all.

[Count Viceroy]

Mr.House wrote...

Sorry but in order for people to die in ME2, my Shepard has to make stupid choices and that's OOC for them. Bioware should have done some unavoidable deaths so the suicide mission felt like a suicide mission, I do not have that feeling at all.

Indeed, I don't mind sending people to their deaths if its the only viable choice, but purpousfully pushing the square block through the circular hole just to kill people off is retarded.

Herp derp, I'm going to send the awesome idiot into the vents instead of a tech expert so my team will take some casualties. Reapers and collectors are such a pushover shepard has to make deliberate wrong choices to even the playing field a bit.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 04 janvier 2011 - 02:01 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

I will echo along with others that a Suicide Mission in the middle of a trilogy was horrendously shortsighted and ill-advised. The mission itself was thoroughly entertaining but I never once felt any degree of tension because everything was scripted and therefore predictable. I am not usually one for timers however it would have done a service here to usher in a sense of urgency. There was an insistence where we had a timer of sorts. The character going through the vents. Ironically, this was the only portion of the game where if they died, you received a Game Over.

It would have been entirely more exhilarating an experience if our choices were cut, the dialogue length to highlight the struggling and death was time based. Harbinger has you pinned in one location and Garrus' crew is being overrun. Should you be incapable of making it quickly enough whomever is not with you, has a chance of dying. The onus is now completely upon the player to make it there in time and there is no "I hate Jack, so she dies!" You could lose anyone.

The conclusion would have felt wonderfully superior had there been a last stand. The Collectors overrun you, there are injuries (drama!) and the base is moments from destruction. In the final minutes, a squad mate (say Jacob, Garrus or Zaeed) force Shepard to fall back while they draw the brunt of the onslaught. One of the final scenes would be this character engaging in a bloodbath; figuratively speaking. They are shot, but keep fighting, riddled with bullets as the wave of Collectors seem endless, only for them to glance as the Normandy jettisons off. They are left with an exhausted smile as the base erupts in an explosion.

The whole "pick a Tech Expert" angle forced Shepard to be incompetent. What reason would you ICly have to choose Thane in lieu of Tali? Furthermore, why would the door abruptly jam because Zaeed was chosen as the Fire Squad Leader? The Biotic Ball at least held some degree of sense in concept but poor execution. There was again, no reason not to choose Samara or Jack. These are your biotic super goddesses. You recruited these people because of their immense biotic capabilities. Why would Miranda or Jacob be thought superior? And why Samara is inept leader is beyond me.

Regardless, your choices were obvious and therefore the Suicide Mission was devoid of the impact Bioware thought to achieve.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 04 janvier 2011 - 02:09 .

[Rykoth]

It could very well be a boon in disguise.

Assume you have everyone survive. In ME3 obviously you'll need a team, and if Bioware is smart (and they usually are!)  they'll bring the crew back from ME2... and ME1.

Which means, you'll have a mega crew to pick from. (Including DLC)

- 2 Krogans
- 2 Asari
- 6 Humans
- 1 Turian
- 1 Quarian
- 1 Salarian
- 1 Geth

I think its safe to assume that they'll try to include as many of both squads as possible. Add on to the fact some faces we met in ME1 or ME2 COULD be squad members in 3. (Kal'Reagor of the Migrant Marines FTW)

So, if they are making this as epic as it should be, it won't hurt anyone too much if most folks are dead.

I've played ME2 all the way once, half way through about twice. I'm working on ME1 to port into ME2 for my "interpretation" of "John Shepard" and I fully intend to exit ME2 with casualties. Not because I want them to die (hell, even the ones I didn't like at the beginning I'm fond of now) but because it almost makes sense. So for me, I'll likely have Mordin die, holding the line. Zaeed will die because he is what a Paragon Shepard COULD HAVE BEEN had he been both a Renegade and overall dick. Maybe even Samara will die, or Jack, casualties that didn't deserve it, but knew the risks going in.

[DaVanguard]

problem is ME3 possibly takes place at least one year after ME2 here is who I see returning:



the VS(possibly as of now)

Legion(made for working with shep)

garrus(no where else to go)

Mirianda(same as above)

Jacob(same as above)

Jack(If loyal)

Tali(might return to fleet if loyal)





who might not return

Mordin(old might retire to stay as ship scintist)

Thane(near death less than one year)

Liara(shadow Brocker)

Wrex(dead or leading Krogan)

Grunt( ingame email shows hes might return to clan)

Samara(joined for the mission)

Zaeed(see above)

Kasumi(see above)

[Interactive Civilian]

Hmmm... My first (and only, so far, as I just got the game in the recent Steam sale) Suicide Mission also resulted in zero casualties. I went in blind, but I guess I went in prepared. I had done everyone's story missions, because I was interested in them, so I had all loyalties (except for Zaeed and Kasumi, whose DLCs I hadn't downloaded yet... I did it only with base characters). I like exploring the galaxy and needed to do something with all of the resources I'd picked up, so when I noticed and understood the upgrades options, I just applied them.

All that said, since I did it blind, the Suicide Mission was a bit of a let-down. Every time they gave a choice of who to do what, I expected that person to die (or else I'd have to choose between that person and someone else). Only 2 characters really mattered to me (Tali and Garrus, as they were the only ones with me from the very beginning) and they stayed on my squad the entire time. I half-expected this to bite me in the arse, but luckily Bioware didn't decide to throw that kind of surprise into the game (imagine if you'd had to choose to save only one of your two squadmates!). Otherwise, I picked characters who I didn't care too much about to do things based on their abilities. Legion for tech., Samara for biotics, Jacob for fireteam, and I sent Mordin back with the survivors (and was actually very glad he made it). I don't mean I didn't like them, just that I was more willing to lose them and they seemed best suited for each task.

Anyway, I spent a lot of that mission a bit on edge, waiting for the consequences of my choices to slap me in the face (like the choice in ME1), but they never did, and in the end everyone made it out. Understandable, but not very much of an emotional impact on that account.

[RiouHotaru]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

I will echo along with others that a Suicide Mission in the middle of a trilogy was horrendously shortsighted and ill-advised. The mission itself was thoroughly entertaining but I never once felt any degree of tension because everything was scripted and therefore predictable. I am not usually one for timers however it would have done a service here to usher in a sense of urgency. There was an insistence where we had a timer of sorts. The character going through the vents. Ironically, this was the only portion of the game where if they died, you received a Game Over.

It would have been entirely more exhilarating an experience if our choices were cut, the dialogue length to highlight the struggling and death was time based. Harbinger has you pinned in one location and Garrus' crew is being overrun. Should you be incapable of making it quickly enough whomever is not with you, has a chance of dying. The onus is now completely upon the player to make it there in time and there is no "I hate Jack, so she dies!" You could lose anyone.

The conclusion would have felt wonderfully superior had there been a last stand. The Collectors overrun you, there are injuries (drama!) and the base is moments from destruction. In the final minutes, a squad mate (say Jacob, Garrus or Zaeed) force Shepard to fall back while they draw the brunt of the onslaught. One of the final scenes would be this character engaging in a bloodbath; figuratively speaking. They are shot, but keep fighting, riddled with bullets as the wave of Collectors seem endless, only for them to glance as the Normandy jettisons off. They are left with an exhausted smile as the base erupts in an explosion.

The whole "pick a Tech Expert" angle forced Shepard to be incompetent. What reason would you ICly have to choose Thane in lieu of Tali? Furthermore, why would the door abruptly jam because Zaeed was chosen as the Fire Squad Leader? The Biotic Ball at least held some degree of sense in concept but poor execution. There was again, no reason not to choose Samara or Jack. These are your biotic super goddesses. You recruited these people because of their immense biotic capabilities. Why would Miranda or Jacob be thought superior? And why Samara is inept leader is beyond me.

Regardless, your choices were obvious and therefore the Suicide Mission was devoid of the impact Bioware thought to achieve.

Well, the other reason the suicide mission "failed" with the exception of everyone missing the 'hold-the-line' sequence is because RPG players are NOTORIOUS for being very, very thurough.  A lot of us are completionists, and I knew that the IFF mission was an important mission, so I got ALL my other sidequests out of the way first, that way I could do Legion's Loyalty and then blaze through to the SM.  I'm sure new players or people unfamilar with RPGs likely got more people killed because they weren't aware of these mechanics.

Also, yes, choosing people for the different jobs is easy, not only because of common sense, but because the game drops subtle hints EVERYWHERE.

Samara and Jack are the best biotics ever, therefore choosing them for the bubble made perfect sense.  Legion/Tali/Kasumi, being technical geniuses in every sense, makes them perfect for the vents, because again, the reasons are obvious.  Sending Mordin with the survivors makes sense if you recalled the extremely vague Chekov's Gun he mentions when he talks about Kirrahe and how Mordin would rather "get things done and go home", not to mention his age.  The only one that isn't blatantly obvious is Jacob as the fire-team leader.  Admittedly that comes out of nowhere, but it makes sense since he's had numerous years of Alliance service, it just isn't plainly apparent.

As for who doesn't make sense?  Thane makes no sense for the vents because traversing the vents doesn't require anything beyond Shepard hitting the button.  The point of the tech expert is to UNLOCK THE DOORS AT THE END.  As for why the door jams regardless of which bad decision? (Fire Team or Tech)  Chalk it up to saving time with cutscenes.  No point in making a different cutscene for every type of failure.

Now, Samara doesn't make a good leader because she's a lone wolf.  She's NOT a people person.  Zaeed was supposed to be a Fire-Team leader, but they probably cut it out because they already had 3 leaders.  Also, his back-story doesn't necessarily support it.  The only thing that stands out as particularly egregious is Miranda's plot invincibility.  Unless you take her with you un-loyal for the final boss fight she CANNOT be killed.


All game mechanics aside, I get what you're saying.  However, making it timed and what-not might prove unfair for people playing on harder difficulties.  After all, is it really fair if the Insanity player cannot complete a timed objective because all the enemies are crazy powerful and have protection, but the Veteran player can?  The vents is the only instance, and that's because the enemies are numerous and/or can be skipped.

Again.  I like the fact the decision WAS the player's.  Making deaths mandatory in ANY way at this late stage of the game (essentially an hour or so from the ending?), would've been the worst marketing decision ever.  Virmire only worked because it was one person, and because it's occurance was in the last half of the game, but nowhere near the grand finale.  And even then, Virmire wasn't terribly effective anyway, in all regards.  Most people just killed someone they weren't romancing, or flipped a coin, as far as I can tell.

[Cyberfrog81]

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?

I wasn't doing well. Or poorly. It was just a choice I was forced to make. It gave me pause, I'll admit. But there's nothing so awesome about it that the notion "ME2 must do it this way too!" becomes self-evident.

Soldiers die, true. It might have been a greater story if your team dropped like flies, true. But I find it somewhat absurd: Fans who found themselves too clever to get people killed and need deaths forced on them, otherwise "WHERE IS MY DRAMA?! :pinched:"

BioWare seriously can't win. If the suicide mission contained unavoidable deaths, people would still complain.

[RiouHotaru]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

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?

I wasn't doing well. Or poorly. It was just a choice I was forced to make. It gave me pause, I'll admit. But there's nothing so awesome about it that the notion "ME2 must do it this way too!" becomes self-evident.

Soldiers die, true. It might have been a greater story if your team dropped like flies, true. But I find it somewhat absurd: Fans who found themselves too clever to get people killed and need deaths forced on them, otherwise "WHERE IS MY DRAMA?! :pinched:"

BioWare seriously can't win. If the suicide mission contained unavoidable deaths, people would still complain.

This.  If the deaths were scripted, or randomly determined, people would just "re-roll" the SM until the person they wanted to get killed...well, died!  And if it's the SAME person everytime, people might just flat-up refuse to finish or hack a save where someone else gets killed instead.

Virmire worked because it was a one-shot plot device that, as you put it, "gave people reason to pause."

But that only works once.  Also, Virmire's sacrifice fits perfectly into the story.  Forced deaths in the SM do NOT.  Aside from extenuating circumstances, do NOT take the choice away from the player.

[Count Viceroy]

RiouHotaru wrote...

  As for why the door jams regardless of which bad decision? (Fire Team or Tech)  Chalk it up to saving time with cutscenes.  No point in making a different cutscene for every type of failure.

The only thing that stands out as particularly egregious is Miranda's plot invincibility.  Unless you take her with you un-loyal for the final boss fight she CANNOT be killed.

Just to chime in, these two are done for the same reasons. Miranda is the only character with recorded dialog for the whole collector base, thus she can not be killed until at the very end when all her lines are spent.

[Mr.House]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...
I wasn't doing well. Or poorly. It was just a choice I was forced to make. It gave me pause, I'll admit. But there's nothing so awesome about it that the notion "ME2 must do it this way too!" becomes self-evident.

Soldiers die, true. It might have been a greater story if your team dropped like flies, true. But I find it somewhat absurd: Fans who found themselves too clever to get people killed and need deaths forced on them, otherwise "WHERE IS MY DRAMA?! :pinched:"

BioWare seriously can't win. If the suicide mission contained unavoidable deaths, people would still complain.

In the end more people complained and the suicide mission became a huge cop out. If the main thing you are marketing is the suicide mission, then it should be amazing, it should be very tense, it should have emotion, some people should die. This is not the case and the suicide mission was a huge let down.

Modifié par Mr.House, 04 janvier 2011 - 04:35 .

[RiouHotaru]

Mr.House wrote...

Cyberfrog81 wrote...
I wasn't doing well. Or poorly. It was just a choice I was forced to make. It gave me pause, I'll admit. But there's nothing so awesome about it that the notion "ME2 must do it this way too!" becomes self-evident.

Soldiers die, true. It might have been a greater story if your team dropped like flies, true. But I find it somewhat absurd: Fans who found themselves too clever to get people killed and need deaths forced on them, otherwise "WHERE IS MY DRAMA?! :pinched:"

BioWare seriously can't win. If the suicide mission contained unavoidable deaths, people would still complain.

In the end more people complained and the suicide mission became a huge cop out. If the main thing you are marketing is the suicide mission, then it should be amazing, it should be very tense, it should have emotion, some people should die. This is not the case and the suicide mission was a huge let down.

Note that the marketing claimed: "They said it was a Suicide Mission.  Prove them wrong.

So...why are people complaining that you CAN do just that?!  Because it's "too easy".  No, people are just too Genre Savvy these days.

[Count Viceroy]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Note that the marketing claimed: "They said it was a Suicide Mission.  Prove them wrong.

So...why are people complaining that you CAN do just that?!  Because it's "too easy".  No, people are just too Genre Savvy these days.

Hell, that's even on the back of the box.

Go figure.

[-Skorpious-]

Mr.House wrote...

Sorry but in order for people to die in ME2, my Shepard has to make stupid choices and that's OOC for them. Bioware should have done some unavoidable deaths so the suicide mission felt like a suicide mission, I do not have that feeling at all.

Well, having two non-loyal squadmates die in the falling debris is neither stupid nor OOC for any Shepard. Sure, you could say that a Shepard who went into the suicide mission without full squad loyalty is stupid, but two perfectly viable options exist that allow for a minimum of three squadmate deaths without making Shepard look like a complete idiot -

Option A) Zaeed is furious with Shepard. Assuming that you deem saving the workers more important than taking down Vido (arguing for or against this decision is not the point of this post), the end result is that Vido gets away - if your paragon points are too low, you cannot earn the loyalty of Zaeed if you follow this path.

Option Skip loyalty missions. Skip loyalty missions?! Shepard must be an idiot if he skips loyalty missions! Not necessarily. Imagine the following conversation(s) -

Garrus: "I need to redeem the deaths of my squad Shepard."
Shepard: "Sorry Garrus, but we have our hands full with the Collectors. Sorry."

Jack: "**** Cerberus and **** the Illusive Man. Let's blow up the facility on Pragia."
Shepard: "Stopping the Collectors is more important than blowing up a relic. Your revenge will have to wait Jack."

The same can be said for Mordin's, Jacob's, Miranda's, Samara's, and Thane's LM missions as well. The only LM's that have to completed as soon as possible for both plot reasons and the success of the overall mission are Grunt's (without a sense of belonging he can no longer "control" his blood rage, thus, he becomes a liability in combat), Tali's (Tali claims that she will leave with or without you to return to the Flotilla. Might as well join her to prevent the loss of one of the Normandy's best engineers), Legion's (the far-reaching consequences of an outbreak of heretic Geth make this an obvious decision), and Zaeed's (part of his payment was your assistance in helping him deal with Vido). The rest of the LM's are completely optional sub-plots that any intelligent Shepard could skip with perfectly valid reasons to do so.

I've explained enough, lets get to the point. With a combination of an unloyal Zaeed and two non-loyals of your choice, 3 squadmate deaths can be achieved without making your Shepard out to be a dunce - one dies escorting the crew; the other two die from the falling debris.

However, I will agree that the suicide mission was a badly implemented idea.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 04 janvier 2011 - 05:33 .

[Count Viceroy]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Now, getting to the point. With a combination of an unloyal Zaeed and two non-loyals of your choice, 3 squadmate deaths can be achieved without making your Shepard out to be a dunce - one dies escorting the crew; the other two die from the falling debris.

Requires extra effort and  metagaming to pull of though, which is just the same as sending jacob through the vents. Sure you can stumble upon that accidentally, but the odds of that are incredibly low.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 04 janvier 2011 - 05:31 .

[Lunatic LK47]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Well, the other reason the suicide mission "failed" with the exception of everyone missing the 'hold-the-line' sequence is because RPG players are NOTORIOUS for being very, very thurough.  A lot of us are completionists, and I knew that the IFF mission was an important mission, so I got ALL my other sidequests out of the way first, that way I could do Legion's Loyalty and then blaze through to the SM.  I'm sure new players or people unfamilar with RPGs likely got more people killed because they weren't aware of these mechanics.

Also, yes, choosing people for the different jobs is easy, not only because of common sense, but because the game drops subtle hints EVERYWHERE.

Samara and Jack are the best biotics ever, therefore choosing them for the bubble made perfect sense.  Legion/Tali/Kasumi, being technical geniuses in every sense, makes them perfect for the vents, because again, the reasons are obvious.  Sending Mordin with the survivors makes sense if you recalled the extremely vague Chekov's Gun he mentions when he talks about Kirrahe and how Mordin would rather "get things done and go home", not to mention his age.  The only one that isn't blatantly obvious is Jacob as the fire-team leader.  Admittedly that comes out of nowhere, but it makes sense since he's had numerous years of Alliance service, it just isn't plainly apparent.

As for who doesn't make sense?  Thane makes no sense for the vents because traversing the vents doesn't require anything beyond Shepard hitting the button.  The point of the tech expert is to UNLOCK THE DOORS AT THE END.  As for why the door jams regardless of which bad decision? (Fire Team or Tech)  Chalk it up to saving time with cutscenes.  No point in making a different cutscene for every type of failure.

Now, Samara doesn't make a good leader because she's a lone wolf.  She's NOT a people person.  Zaeed was supposed to be a Fire-Team leader, but they probably cut it out because they already had 3 leaders.  Also, his back-story doesn't necessarily support it.  The only thing that stands out as particularly egregious is Miranda's plot invincibility.  Unless you take her with you un-loyal for the final boss fight she CANNOT be killed.


All game mechanics aside, I get what you're saying.  However, making it timed and what-not might prove unfair for people playing on harder difficulties.  After all, is it really fair if the Insanity player cannot complete a timed objective because all the enemies are crazy powerful and have protection, but the Veteran player can?  The vents is the only instance, and that's because the enemies are numerous and/or can be skipped.

Again.  I like the fact the decision WAS the player's.  Making deaths mandatory in ANY way at this late stage of the game (essentially an hour or so from the ending?), would've been the worst marketing decision ever.  Virmire only worked because it was one person, and because it's occurance was in the last half of the game, but nowhere near the grand finale.  And even then, Virmire wasn't terribly effective anyway, in all regards.  Most people just killed someone they weren't romancing, or flipped a coin, as far as I can tell.

If I know you in real life, I'll be buying you drinks for a month.

[-Skorpious-]

Count Viceroy wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Now, getting to the point. With a combination of an unloyal Zaeed and two non-loyals of your choice, 3 squadmate deaths can be achieved without making your Shepard out to be a dunce - one dies escorting the crew; the other two die from the falling debris.

Requires extra effort and  metagaming to pull of though, which is just the same as sending jacob through the vents. Sure you can stumble upon that accidentally, but the odds of that are incredibly low.

Sure, some meta-gaming may be involved in the process. I was simply providing a scenario that proves that deaths on the suicide mission can be achieved without forcing Shepard to make foolish and character breaking decisions.

[Count Viceroy]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Sure, some meta-gaming may be involved in the process. I was simply providing a scenario that proves that deaths on the suicide mission can be achieved without forcing Shepard to make foolish and character breaking decisions.

Yeah I get you.

Personally though I could never do that. Intentionally setting up those very specific circumstances in order to have people die 'cinematically' without making shepard look stupid breaks my immersion even more than sending people to die intentionally would. :happy:

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 04 janvier 2011 - 05:47 .

[-Skorpious-]

Count Viceroy wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Sure, some meta-gaming may be involved in the process. I was simply providing a scenario that proves that deaths on the suicide mission can be achieved without forcing Shepard to make foolish and character breaking decisions.

Yeah I get you.

Personally though I could never do that. Intentionally setting up those very specific circumstances in order to have people die 'cinematically' without making shepard look stupid breaks my immersion even more than sending people to die intentionally would. :happy:

Now that you mention it, only one of my Shepard's actually suffers from fatalities on the suicide mission...and thats because he is a xenophobe and racist against all non-humans.

[Count Viceroy]

-Skorpious- wrote...


Now that you mention it, only one of my Shepard's actually suffers from fatalities on the suicide mission...and thats because he is a xenophobe and racist against all non-humans.

haha

- We need a tech expert for the vents shepard! Who should we send?

Hmmm, you, the blue one, samara is it?. yes you, the one who can barely work the lock on your door. You would be perfect. yeeees.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 04 janvier 2011 - 06:01 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Now, Samara doesn't make a good leader because she's a lone wolf. She's NOT a people person. Zaeed was supposed to be a Fire-Team leader, but they probably cut it out because they already had 3 leaders. Also, his back-story doesn't necessarily support it. The only thing that stands out as particularly egregious is Miranda's plot invincibility. Unless you take her with you un-loyal for the final boss fight she CANNOT be killed.

Aye, yet she is a lone wolf with a millennia of experience, whom has more than likely learned the basics of leadership tactics. The position would not require a military or tactical genius, merely someone competent enough to effectively relay orders with proper efficiency. She may not be as capable as Miranda but I would imagine in her ample existence. She could coordinate a team.

Zaeed is a difficulty case because he is arguably comparable to Garrus, albeit with a temper. His emotions and sense of vengeance cloud his better judgment but one could theoretically argue Garrus' misplaced trust indicates his leadership skills are not stellar due to the eventual demise of his unit. What was irksome is Zaeed had a defining character development arc where his actions led to Shepard forcefully drives home the team concept. While it is completely plausible to argue against him even in this regard. I found it was wasted potential.

All game mechanics aside, I get what you're saying. However, making it timed and what-not might prove unfair for people playing on harder difficulties. After all, is it really fair if the Insanity player cannot complete a timed objective because all the enemies are crazy powerful and have protection, but the Veteran player can? The vents is the only instance, and that's because the enemies are numerous and/or can be skipped.

In a word, yes. The entire reason higher difficulties exist is to challenge the player. To force them to strategize, think outside the box. If properly balanced a player should be capable of completely the task with the best possible result yet with greater difficulty. How they accomplish this endeavor may be radically different. I point in the direction of the Vents as proof a time based objective is possible devoid of making it mind numbingly impossible. Frankly, I found this portion a complete cakewalk on Insanity. Most of the game was relatively easy though.

Now to increase that difficulty, a subsequent section could be overrun with Collectors yet the level design is wide spread with cover abound but a limited timer, although reasonable. Here is the hurdle. The objective is to rush to the door and make it through to provide assistance to second team. You are not required to at any point to defeat every enemy that appears and the game emphasises this relentlessly with character comments telling Shepard to "hurry" and perhaps even offering hints: "Shepard, forget them. We need help here, now!". How to accomplish the task would be to eliminate only those impeding your path and make it to the door.

Welcome to thinking outside the box. Where laying waste to a legion of Collectors will not result in the best outcome because it is not what the player should strive for in this scenario. This would allot for a sense of urgency, force the player to strategize and make the game a challenge without tossing more health bars on the enemies. If you are playing on Insanity, you want something challenging, something where your mistakes have ramifications. If all I desired is story, I would play on Veteran. Play Halo, Call of Duty, Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaidan or Gears of War (a game Bioware took ideas from, no less) . Their highest difficulty levels are next to impossible. They punish you, beat you mercilessly and kick you to the ground for having the audacity for even considering you are up to sniff to play on their highest level. I am not suggesting Mass Effect rival them but Insanity should make you earn your victory, your best result. Despite the horrendous challenge of those aforementioned games. You ask any one of the players who finished the game at that level and they scream with absolutely glee at their achievement.

Again. I like the fact the decision WAS the player's. Making deaths mandatory in ANY way at this late stage of the game (essentially an hour or so from the ending?), would've been the worst marketing decision ever. Virmire only worked because it was one person, and because it's occurance was in the last half of the game, but nowhere near the grand finale. And even then, Virmire wasn't terribly effective anyway, in all regards. Most people just killed someone they weren't romancing, or flipped a coin, as far as I can tell.

In actuality, the only scripted death in my example is the last stand. Originally that concept derived from my combing of Jacob and Zaeed's character and it being mandatory for him and him alone. It was not a choice, it was story. I made it interchangeable to adhere to the functionality of Mass Effect. It could easily be regulated to player choice, where one character is left behind based upon other choices you have made. That would be no different than Virmire. You have the choice of who dies, but someone dies.

Ask the Final Fantasy VII crowd about a character death. Most hated it because they liked the character but few would change the result and approve the writing. It was unexpected, shocking and hurt. You felt the loss of that character and mourned. This was never the case in ME2.

Coincidently, the Suicide Mission was even less effective because the choices were punishingly obvious. Bioware's own statistics provide evidence to that when only 13% of the players lost a single squad mate. I guarantee a large amount, if not the vast majority, lost the person they disliked because they disliked them.

Considering only one of my suggestions was a mandatory death. Your marketing remark has no merit as Virmire attempts a similar design. Regardless, even if numerous characters had a scripted death it would not necessarily be a bad decision and certainly nary "the worst marketing decision ever." If anything, it could have the opposite effect. If Garrus could not die in the Suicide Mission, he would be readily available for ME3. All a scripted death would amount to is citing that specific character as a one shot. Their story arc began and concluded with Mass Effect 2.

If you believe otherwise, then you must believe that Mass Effect 3 will flounder in sales if Bioware announces there will only be cameos again.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 04 janvier 2011 - 03:11 .

[FlintlockJazz]

marshalleck wrote...

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

Or be like me and fall for Ms Miranda's "I'm an awesome biotic, I is genetically enhanced..." bit while feeling that you should give her a chance to shine after ditching her for Garrus for team leader.  Lost Grunt on my first playthrough thanks to her.

Of course, I may have fell for that because I am pretty daft...

[Amyntas]

I only lost Kelly on my first playthrough (if that counts). The choices for the suicide mission aren't all obvious though. As mentioned above, Miranda claims to have substantial biotic abilities, but fails as a biotic in the SM. There are other examples, so the ignorant pride of some people in this thread is unfounded. You remind me of Miranda and her giant ego ;-)

Modifié par Amyntas, 04 janvier 2011 - 03:52 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Coincidently, the Suicide Mission was even less effective because the choices were punishingly obvious. Bioware's own statistics provide evidence to that when only 13% of the players lost a single squad mate. I guarantee a large amount, if not the vast majority, lost the person they disliked because they disliked them.

If it is so punishingly easy, why is there a sticky on top of this section called 'The Ultimate Guide for the Omega-4 Relay Mission'?

[Chucrute]

Lost 4 teammates. All the ship upgrades and loyalty, except Miranda, that fought with Jack and i couldn't restore her loyalty due to the lack of paragon points. The vent guy was Garrus, thought he was the perfect for the job, and could handle himself if faced with opposition, unlike Tali, didn't considered Legion for the job for some reason. The 1st fire team leader was Miranda, i actually blamed her for the turian death. Rescued the entire crew and sent Tali with them. Picked Legion for the 2nd Fire Team (should keep a cool head and lead satisfactorily, Miranda could do it, but i still blamed her unloyalty for Garrus death). Jacob was the Biotic, figured i would lose the specialist, so i picked one i don't like, ended up losing Krios, one of my favorite characters, and Legion, favorite too. Jack and Mordin came with me for the Reaper encounter, both survived, Miranda died at the holdout.

The outcome was far from great, and the deaths were really traumatic, but i guess i experienced an interesting ending, unlike many players apparently. Still considering a rerun preparing for the Third Chapter in the series.