141 réponses à ce sujet

[Pedro Costa]

On my Shepard with a War Hero psychological profile, everyone survived, as it fit his, well, psychological profile.

On my Sole Survivor playthrough, she ended up dead and on another run, only the bare minimum squaddies were left alive.

On my Ruthless, only a handful got out alive.



Basically, my decision on how many should die depends solely on my Shepard's personality, which is what I think makes most sense.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

In my canon, whether the squad lives or not isn't completely up to me. I prefer having a little drama in the 2nd act... though I can also understand why some would like to always have the drama-free ending.

[xlavaina]

I don't understand why this adds some so-called theatrical amplification to the game. It has always puzzled me how people compare the SM to real world conflicts, and how it is totally unrealistic that you'll make it back without casualties. I've said this before but its worth restating.



You are Shepard. He/she is is the most skilled, experienced, effective and dangerous (wo)man in the universe, leading a team of the most dangerous and skilled people in the universe.



There is absolutely no reason you should let anyone die in the SM, and I agree with the second poster wholeheartedly. This was a dumbf*ck idea to put in the second game. But I think I understand what BW was doing. So I present the options they have:



1. Bring em all back. This would require the most work obviously, but they avoid hiring new voice actors to play the parts of new people. This also will please the fans most, and allow for continuing romance options (which I think, on a larger scale would be extremely effective. ex. Tali get planet back, Garrus gets to... take down an entire gang in the name of justice(???), Miranda gets to talk to her sister again... Jack gets to meet her parents (lol). You get the point). Also, and most importantly, this provides the player with a huge moral dilemma. If the player lost people in the ME2SM, then they will have to deal with the potentially monumental consequences that lacking that teammate could present. I feel like this would be an incredible jump from the "god mode" feeling most gamers get when playing an RPG where they control every game element from the armor they wear to the world they shape. This adds a whole new dimension to what will probably be a game for the ages.



2. Bring only some back. This in my opinion is the worst option BW could choose. It would upset legions of fans terribly, and I just think this would be bad for BW's rep.



3. Cameos. Bring none back. This would also be a terrible idea. BW spent all of ME2 developing characters. THATS IT!!! I don't know how in depth many of us went into this game, but when you really look at it, the story is terribly cliche, and not all too engaging. Its the characters that drive the game.



So essentially, nobody should be allowed to die in the SM, and I believe that it will only punish the player in ME3, because the options that BW is presented with are quite strenuous and binding. Bioware should ignore the SM all together and treat ME3 as if all squad members survived.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ideally it would make room for new, alternate chars instead of just having none at all.

And sure you can survive a suicide mission without suffering a single casualty, but it was called a suicide mission by the game itself... not just chars in the game passing by. So given the stakes and how difficult it was "supposed" to be, it would make more sense to take some losses.. even when surviving the suicide mission itself.


The full happy ending (no casualties) is possible though it would come from luck more than Shepard's leadership skills.

None of the Collectors could tag a member of your crew the entire time you were in the base... sure it could happen... but wow, lol.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 06 janvier 2011 - 01:21 .

[samuraix87]

it would be better if you got people killed you dont get any replacements really with the squad you have left you should have to play me3 with them it would make it more interesting

[Mr. Gogeta34]

samuraix87 wrote...

it would be better if you got people killed you dont get any replacements really with the squad you have left you should have to play me3 with them it would make it more interesting

If you didn't recruit any others that would make sense too, but if you need that position filled, could always get another dossier and go on another recruitment/loyalty mission.

[BaneTheSpecTRe]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

On my Shepard with a War Hero psychological profile, everyone survived, as it fit his, well, psychological profile.
On my Sole Survivor playthrough, she ended up dead and on another run, only the bare minimum squaddies were left alive.
On my Ruthless, only a handful got out alive.

Basically, my decision on how many should die depends solely on my Shepard's personality, which is what I think makes most sense.

A Sole Survivor, in my opinion should actually have everybody saved.  They already lost their entire aquad on Akuze, I think they'd do their damndest to keep everybody alive.

That said in my first playthrough I lost Garrus, which made me sad bus, I kept playing.  I loaded up a save on that same profile and got everybody through for the acheivement because, well, I'm a cheater.  Still though, the game where Garrus died is my main because I made a mistake, I let somebody die, and so I'll suffer the consequences of that.  Then I played a new playthrough with that same character on Insanity, and had everybody die.  =P

[Rip504]

In one of my playthroughs I have covered this.



Paragon Male Shepard,with only Loyal Female surviving crew. Meaning all Males execpt Shepard died. Miranda,Jack,Samara,Kasumi,and Tali all Loyal,all lived...

[Lunatic LK47]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

samuraix87 wrote...

it would be better if you got people killed you dont get any replacements really with the squad you have left you should have to play me3 with them it would make it more interesting

If you didn't recruit any others that would make sense too, but if you need that position filled, could always get another dossier and go on another recruitment/loyalty mission.

Ever read the back of the box? "PROVE THEM WRONG". Prove them wrong meant, "It's *NOT* a suicide mission" and that entails getting your crew out of the mission alive.

[88mphSlayer]

they should just randomize the deaths... like you pick the best tech person for the tech job, but some unforeseen event happens and they die anyways



that'd be more realistic for the kind of scenarios that happen in the Mass Effect games anyways, since when has commander Shepard ever truly been in control of the situation?

[Lunatic LK47]

88mphSlayer wrote...

they should just randomize the deaths... like you pick the best tech person for the tech job, but some unforeseen event happens and they die anyways

that'd be more realistic for the kind of scenarios that happen in the Mass Effect games anyways, since when has commander Shepard ever truly been in control of the situation?

It's just as stupid as saying "2+2=4" and getting an F on a ten-point quiz, despite getting the answer right.

[88mphSlayer]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

they should just randomize the deaths... like you pick the best tech person for the tech job, but some unforeseen event happens and they die anyways

that'd be more realistic for the kind of scenarios that happen in the Mass Effect games anyways, since when has commander Shepard ever truly been in control of the situation?

It's just as stupid as saying "2+2=4" and getting an F on a ten-point quiz, despite getting the answer right.

since when is combat a mathematical formula?

[Lunatic LK47]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

they should just randomize the deaths... like you pick the best tech person for the tech job, but some unforeseen event happens and they die anyways

that'd be more realistic for the kind of scenarios that happen in the Mass Effect games anyways, since when has commander Shepard ever truly been in control of the situation?

It's just as stupid as saying "2+2=4" and getting an F on a ten-point quiz, despite getting the answer right.

since when is combat a mathematical formula?

Think about the analogy carefully. You want a suicide mission where the player loses something no matter what. Ever wonder why Fallout 3 was stigmatized? It got reduced to "Keep the status quo, or you'll **** things up some more." I am not that type of gamer, hence the mathematical formula analogy.


Let me put something better: You go to school, do all of your homework correctly, passed all of your quizzes and tests with correct answers with good grades in those classes, and you suddenly get an F on all of your classes. This is what you're basically asking for with the suicide mission.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 06 janvier 2011 - 06:53 .

[88mphSlayer]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

they should just randomize the deaths... like you pick the best tech person for the tech job, but some unforeseen event happens and they die anyways

that'd be more realistic for the kind of scenarios that happen in the Mass Effect games anyways, since when has commander Shepard ever truly been in control of the situation?

It's just as stupid as saying "2+2=4" and getting an F on a ten-point quiz, despite getting the answer right.

since when is combat a mathematical formula?

Think about the analogy carefully. You want a suicide mission where the player loses something no matter what. Ever wonder why Fallout 3 was stigmatized? It got reduced to "Keep the status quo, or you'll **** things up some more." I am not that type of gamer, hence the mathematical formula analogy.

Let me put a better analogy: You go to school, do all of your homework correctly, and pass all of your quizzes and tests with the correct answers and get an F in your classes. That is what you're basically asking for with the suicide mission.

i like the idea of completing the suicide mission without losing anybody as like winning the lottery, luck-based

it being a "by-the-numbers" mission doesn't really make it a true "suicide mission"... more like a "noob trap" mission

[Lunatic LK47]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

they should just randomize the deaths... like you pick the best tech person for the tech job, but some unforeseen event happens and they die anyways

that'd be more realistic for the kind of scenarios that happen in the Mass Effect games anyways, since when has commander Shepard ever truly been in control of the situation?

It's just as stupid as saying "2+2=4" and getting an F on a ten-point quiz, despite getting the answer right.

since when is combat a mathematical formula?

Think about the analogy carefully. You want a suicide mission where the player loses something no matter what. Ever wonder why Fallout 3 was stigmatized? It got reduced to "Keep the status quo, or you'll **** things up some more." I am not that type of gamer, hence the mathematical formula analogy.

Let me put a better analogy: You go to school, do all of your homework correctly, and pass all of your quizzes and tests with the correct answers and get an F in your classes. That is what you're basically asking for with the suicide mission.

i like the idea of completing the suicide mission without losing anybody as like winning the lottery, luck-based

it being a "by-the-numbers" mission doesn't really make it a true "suicide mission"... more like a "noob trap" mission

I hate randomness, period. All this promotes is rage against a product like I don't know... Pokemon?

[Aedan_Cousland]

Let me put something better: You go to school, do all of your homework correctly, passed all of your quizzes and tests with correct answers with good grades in those classes, and you suddenly get an F on all of your classes. This is what you're basically asking for with the suicide mission.

Except suffering some unavoidable casualties wouldn't give Shepard an 'F' in leadership.

Casualties are a reality of war, and more often than not, expected. Also a combat leader has exactly two priorities. The first is mission accomplishment and the second is troop welfare. The welfare of the men is always important, but never more so than accomplishing the mission.

In no way would suffering unavoidable casualties on the suicide mission nerf Shepard as a combat leader, or punish the player. Was the player punished on Virmire, or was Shepard in any way underminded as a combat leader? A perfect run on the suicide mission would still be possible, it would just be one where Shepard accomplished the mission with a minimum and acceptable amount of unavoidable casualties, rather than with zero losses.

Of course, with the way the suicide run was written rather than how it should have been, you can only lose squadmates if Shepard makes tactical or strategic errors. (i.e., not getting upgrades or assigning tasks to squadmates that are poorly suited for them) So unless you roleplay a Shepard who makes tactical blunders, the suicide mission isn't a suicide mission at all.

Hopefully the end run in ME3 is better written, with friendly casualties sometimes coming as a result of the correct tactical decision.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 06 janvier 2011 - 08:17 .

[RiouHotaru]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Let me put something better: You go to school, do all of your homework correctly, passed all of your quizzes and tests with correct answers with good grades in those classes, and you suddenly get an F on all of your classes. This is what you're basically asking for with the suicide mission.

Except suffering some unavoidable casualties wouldn't give Shepard an 'F' in leadership.

Casualties are a reality of war, and more often than not, expected. Also a combat leader has exactly two priorities. The first is mission accomplishment and the second is troop welfare. The welfare of the men is always important, but never more so than accomplishing the mission.

In no way would suffering unavoidable casualties on the suicide mission nerf Shepard as a combat leader, or punish the player. Was the player punished on Virmire, or was Shepard in any way underminded as a combat leader? A perfect run on the suicide mission would still be possible, it would just be one where Shepard accomplished the mission with a minimum and acceptable amount of unavoidable casualties, rather than with zero losses.

Of course, with the way the suicide run was written rather than how it should have been, you can only lose squadmates if Shepard makes tactical or strategic errors. (i.e., not getting upgrades or assigning tasks to squadmates that are poorly suited for them) So unless you roleplay a Shepard who makes tactical blunders, the suicide mission isn't a suicide mission at all.

Hopefully the end run in ME3 is better written, with friendly casualties sometimes coming as a result of the correct tactical decision.

Except in Virmire you still HAD A CHOICE.  Choice is the essential thing here.  If you're going to force death, do NOT take it out of the player's hands.

[Lunatic LK47]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Let me put something better: You go to school, do all of your homework correctly, passed all of your quizzes and tests with correct answers with good grades in those classes, and you suddenly get an F on all of your classes. This is what you're basically asking for with the suicide mission.

Except suffering some unavoidable casualties wouldn't give Shepard an 'F' in leadership.

Casualties are a reality of war, and more often than not, expected. Also a combat leader has exactly two priorities. The first is mission accomplishment and the second is troop welfare. The welfare of the men is always important, but never more so than accomplishing the mission.

In no way would suffering unavoidable casualties on the suicide mission nerf Shepard as a combat leader, or punish the player. Was the player punished on Virmire, or was Shepard in any way underminded as a combat leader? A perfect run on the suicide mission would still be possible, it would just be one where Shepard accomplished the mission with a minimum and acceptable amount of unavoidable casualties, rather than with zero losses.

Of course, with the way the suicide run was written rather than how it should have been, you can only lose squadmates if Shepard makes tactical or strategic errors. (i.e., not getting upgrades or assigning tasks to squadmates that are poorly suited for them) So unless you roleplay a Shepard who makes tactical blunders, the suicide mission isn't a suicide mission at all.

Hopefully the end run in ME3 is better written, with friendly casualties sometimes coming as a result of the correct tactical decision.

Uh, the back of the box, as well as Casey Hudson explicitly stated "It's your job to prove them wrong." By "prove them wrong," it's basically prove to everyone that doubted Shepard that the suicide mission isn't suicidal at all. You don't just create characters that you care about only for them to just die at the behest of the plot. 24 already started falling apart during and after Season 5 because none of the new cast members were worth liking. Last time I checked, only Renee Walker from Season 7 and Season 8 was remotely likeable until she got offed during the last several episodes.

[Renessa]

Well, I am all for choice and I really don't get why the "doom and gloom" crowd seems so adamant that everybody has to participate in their interpretation of the story. I don't see any topics coming up: "Oh, it is so lame, that you can actually loose squadmates. All players should be forced to have a perfect suicide run." But some people constantly want to push their choices onto other players, because, allegedly their version is "deeper". Bah.

From a gameplay point of view, the possibility to influence the outcome of the suicide mission by changing you tactics or avoiding mistakes is a very sensible one. It invites you to replay. If it was a lottery, I would not care (and probably not buy the next game either!).

And you know what - The perfect outcome is not such a walkthrough as some here proclaim (at least for players not quite as perfect as some on this forum) I own up to one of those "noob" mistakes: I left it too long to go to the collectors base (I still had loyalty missions open) and I lost the crew. It was terrible and I was totally glad that I could reload and (after some research) change the outcome.

[FlintlockJazz]

KeyBane wrote...
A Sole Survivor, in my opinion should actually have everybody saved.  They already lost their entire aquad on Akuze, I think they'd do their damndest to keep everybody alive.

Agreed, my sole survivor takes the viewpoint of 'never again', and because he is Shepard, the baddest badass and star of a cinematic game he succeeds.

[FlintlockJazz]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Let me put something better: You go to school, do all of your homework correctly, passed all of your quizzes and tests with correct answers with good grades in those classes, and you suddenly get an F on all of your classes. This is what you're basically asking for with the suicide mission.

Except suffering some unavoidable casualties wouldn't give Shepard an 'F' in leadership.

Casualties are a reality of war, and more often than not, expected. Also a combat leader has exactly two priorities. The first is mission accomplishment and the second is troop welfare. The welfare of the men is always important, but never more so than accomplishing the mission.

In no way would suffering unavoidable casualties on the suicide mission nerf Shepard as a combat leader, or punish the player. Was the player punished on Virmire, or was Shepard in any way underminded as a combat leader? A perfect run on the suicide mission would still be possible, it would just be one where Shepard accomplished the mission with a minimum and acceptable amount of unavoidable casualties, rather than with zero losses.

Of course, with the way the suicide run was written rather than how it should have been, you can only lose squadmates if Shepard makes tactical or strategic errors. (i.e., not getting upgrades or assigning tasks to squadmates that are poorly suited for them) So unless you roleplay a Shepard who makes tactical blunders, the suicide mission isn't a suicide mission at all.

Hopefully the end run in ME3 is better written, with friendly casualties sometimes coming as a result of the correct tactical decision.

Hopefully ME3 does not do that.  If you want people to die, fair enough let them get killed, but don't remove that choice from those of us who want it.  The ME series are games, not real life combat, and while a combat simulator might warrant what you are asking the ME games are not intended to be combat simulators, they are intended to be cinematic experiences, where the impossible is made possible for the sake of PA (Pure Awesomeness).  Think John Rambo rather than some documentary.  If ME was intended to be as realistic as you're making it out then Shepard should be killed by some random landmine while out on maneuvers.

As it currently stands, the SM is fine compromise between those who want death and those that don't: if you want someone to die to give it meaning then you can do so, but if you want to get them all out you can do that too.  I don't see any problem here.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

samuraix87 wrote...

it would be better if you got people killed you dont get any replacements really with the squad you have left you should have to play me3 with them it would make it more interesting

If you didn't recruit any others that would make sense too, but if you need that position filled, could always get another dossier and go on another recruitment/loyalty mission.

Ever read the back of the box? "PROVE THEM WRONG". Prove them wrong meant, "It's *NOT* a suicide mission" and that entails getting your crew out of the mission alive.

"THEY CALL IT A SUICIDE MISSION"

"They" being people in the game, not the game itself or the game makers themselves.  And you can "PROVE THEM WRONG" while still suffering losses.


But like I said before, nothing wrong with the perfect ending where everybody lives.  It's not realistic in the sense that it would take a lot of luck to pull off (seriously, you can't just 'lead' your way to a flawless victory, all kinds of things beyond your control would have to work out).

No casualties is a "lucky" ending.  You can't lead the Collectors into not hitting your squad with a stray shot etc.  You wouldn't be able to ensure they weren't good shots either... it's blind luck, but a perfectly valid ending if you suspend belief to an extent (that during the entire time you were there, none of the Collectors managed to get off a single shot to your crew... even your unarmed and unshielded crew).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 06 janvier 2011 - 10:44 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

samuraix87 wrote...

it would be better if you got people killed you dont get any replacements really with the squad you have left you should have to play me3 with them it would make it more interesting

If you didn't recruit any others that would make sense too, but if you need that position filled, could always get another dossier and go on another recruitment/loyalty mission.

Ever read the back of the box? "PROVE THEM WRONG". Prove them wrong meant, "It's *NOT* a suicide mission" and that entails getting your crew out of the mission alive.

"THEY CALL IT A SUICIDE MISSION"

"They" being people in the game, not the game itself or the game makers themselves.  And you can "PROVE THEM WRONG" while still suffering losses.

Uh, that doesn't make sense. Technical definition suicide means "The intentional taking of one's own life." If it was a suicide mission, every single person dying on the mission would have been mandatory. The "Prove them wrong" still stands, and that will also mean "Squadmates can survive with no casualties." 

[Aedan_Cousland]

As it currently stands, the SM is fine compromise between those who want death and those that don't: if you want someone to die to give it meaning then you can do so, but if you want to get them all out you can do that too.  I don't see any problem here.

The SM isn't that at all, because the only way there are any casualties on the squad is if Shepard makes tactical or strategic blunders, and/or the player metagames to create casualties for dramatic effect.

Though I think the suicide mission is flawed in that is possible (and easy) to get through without losing anyone, I think it is fine for the middle chapter of the story.

But ME3 should end differently. This going to be the final climactic battle agains the Reapers, a battle that the story has set up as the most imprtant battle fought in all of human, and potentially all of galactic history. It is going to be an epic battle against a race of superadvanced machines that have so far destroyed every civilization that stood against them for millenia upon millenia. It is a battle literally for the survival of the human species. Given the stakes and what Shepard is up against, I agree fully with Sir Ulhrich that Shepard getting his entire team through unscathed would be the "biggest pile of cheese on the biggest cheesiest sandwich that has ever been thought of.

The end doesn't necessarily have to be dark & gloomy, but it should feel like a triumph that came after an extremely tough and close fight. If I can compare the final battle to a football game, it should end 24-23 in overtime, in dramatic fashion, instead of a 47-0 route.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 06 janvier 2011 - 10:56 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

"THEY CALL IT A SUICIDE MISSION"

"They" being people in the game, not the game itself or the game makers themselves.  And you can "PROVE THEM WRONG" while still suffering losses.


But like I said before, nothing wrong with the perfect ending where everybody lives.  It's not realistic in the sense that it would take a lot of luck to pull off (seriously, you can't just 'lead' your way to a flawless victory, all kinds of things beyond your control would have to work out).

No casualties is a "lucky" ending.  You can't lead the Collectors into not hitting your squad with a stray shot etc.  You wouldn't be able to ensure they weren't good shots either... it's blind luck, but a perfectly valid ending if you suspend belief to an extent (that during the entire time you were there, none of the Collectors managed to get off a single shot to your crew... even your unarmed and unshielded crew).

It's not real world, it's cinematic.  The game has been touted as such, and an attempt at reconstruction of space opera.  If you think they should be killed due to real life combat being that way then you should also argue for character death at any time, not just during the SM.  You should argue that when a character is killed in any battle they should actually be dead and not just get back up again once all the bad guys are dead like they currently do.  Except that would suck.  As it currently is it is a fine compromise, you want character death go ahead and get them killed, if you don't then don't, I don't see why your preference should be forced on us who don't want it.