91 réponses à ce sujet

[LadyJaneGrey]

Saphra Deden wrote...
The fact that you care so much about your squad is precisely why you should be forced to lose some of them on the Suicide Mission.
It increases the drama, preserves the threat of the villains, and brings the conflict closer to home.

I'm all for drama (I even planned and played a Shepard in which characters died to create good character arcs; heck, I killed Shepard once).  Still, sometimes players want the option for a pure "Yes!  We did it!" moment if they feel they earned it.  And after all the loyalty missions, upgrades, and scanning: a completionist earned the opportunity to save everyone.

[Made Nightwing]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Some of us play video games to escape the real-life drama.

I understand that, but... wow. You must live a really exciting life. Are you a Navy SEAL or something?

Dunno about him, but one of my buddies is an Air Force Combat Comms Tech and loves Mass Effect above all other games.

[kglaser]

It's really hard to beat, "You exist because we allow it. You will end because we demand it."
Come on, who didn't get chills hearing that for the first time? What is there in ME2 to compare to the sheer chilling import of that single line?

(by the way, that's what I say to my kids when they don't finish their homework.)

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I understand that, but... wow. You must live a really exciting life. Are you a Navy SEAL or something?

Nope.  Just perpetually dealing with watching family members irreversably deteriorate as they succumb to various degenerative illnesses.  Like seriously, all of them at f*cking once.

It's pretty much an "oh, poor me, I can't handle reality, so I need to pay Bioware $60 to pretend to be a hero baaaaaw" sort of thing. Honestly, it's pathetic, and I'll admit it, but there are times when I need to feel powerful enough to actually help people.  All I can do IRL is provide a hand to hold.

[Devbo22]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I suppose I can understand that, but if you want a happy time watch a Disney movie. I can't take this **** as seriously when Paragon Shepard's naive crap always works out for the best. The choices don't have any real meaning. Neither does playing Paragon for that matter. It doesn't prove anything when you walk the high road because the high road is the easiest road to walk.

Oh dear...

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I suppose I can understand that, but if you want a happy time watch a Disney movie. I can't take this **** as seriously when Paragon Shepard's naive crap always works out for the best. The choices don't have any real meaning. Neither does playing Paragon for that matter. It doesn't prove anything when you walk the high road because the high road is the easiest road to walk.

Here's the thing, though--renegade is equally valid, and they don't take any real losses, either.  There is no point in giving players two paths to choose from unless they both work.  I'm not saying that anybody should be given a free ride.

Besides, saving the squad and stuff?  That doesn't rely on your morality, but your command skill.  You can be pure renegade and still get out scott-free.  The greatest rewards don't come from idealism or "Shepard's naive crap," but from actually doing his/her job as a commander.

The no-win situations hit both sides equally as well, or do paragon players meet both Ash and Kaidan on Horizon?

Anyway, drama, yes.  Sacrifice, yes.  Totally bleak ending where everyone dies and you can't do anything about it?  Only if you goofed up and did something really stupid.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 02 avril 2011 - 05:46 .

[AdamNW]

TheDFO wrote...

Eh the paragon route isn't all hookers and sunshine. Sometimes it's straight naivety mixed with self righteousness

I don't think any amount of Paragon bull**** can make up for killing Samara in her trust mission.  It's one thing to do rash things to protect mankind, it's another to kill a psudeo-cop to allow a serial killer to roam free.

Modifié par AdamNW, 02 avril 2011 - 06:05 .

[Nashiktal]

How is that paragon?

[Devbo22]

I think that is what is great about the SM. By choices you make throughout the game, people can die in large numbers, smaller numbers, or everyone can survive. The game can feel a little more "personal" as it were. If somebody wants to put in the time and planning to come out on top with everyone alive, great. I too don't like losing people. If you want to play so that people die, more power to you. And the collector general died, so that was kind of a scripted death.

[Mr0TYuH]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

hex23 wrote...

I'm a Paragon myself.

Technically the game should be dark and depressing. You can't soft peddle god-like machines that murder trillions every 50,000 years. There's no "lite" Disney version of that. We need to see that in motion though for it to really hit home. Having another Reaper make empty threats for 5 minutes ain't gonna cut it.

Well, duh.

You know what I thought would really make things hit home?  A sidequest that takes place in a refugee camp.

I really liked that about Feros the first time I played ME.  Here were these people fighting for their lives and in a terrible situation.  Shepard comes in and basically says, "I'm not here to help.  I'm just here to find out what Saren wanted, and then I'm going to leave you in this mess."  I felt so bad for those people.  Of course, Shepard saved them (or killed them based on the playthrough) in the end, but that first moment had great atmosphere.

As for how dark the game is, I just don't want it to be straightfoward.  Sometimes holding on to your ideals and working for the greater good should be the right choice.  Sometimes optimism and faith should be rewarded.  Other times, making sacrifices and being ruthless should reap the greatest benefit.

I would like ME3 to maybe work like some tabletop wargames were there are victory conditions.  If you don't have enough points, you lose.  If you have some, it's a Pyrrhic Victory.  Some more would be a Marginal Victory.  More would be a Decisive Victory.  If you have almost all possible, it is a Crushing Victory From Which There Is No Recovery.  To extend the metaphor, say you have a choice to blow up the Reapers Secret Weapon or Save a Squadmate.  The destruction of the Weapon is worth 30 Victory Points.  You should be able to save the squadmate, but it would be very difficult to gain the necessary points to after that decision.  You may have to do everything else exactly right.  It may even be impossible to get the very best ending if that choice is made.  Of course, that's just what I would like to see.

As for your personal problems, you have my condolences.  I'm sure it doesn't mean much coming from some anonymous idiot on the Internet, but I wish you the best possible outcome, whatever that may be.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

They do by virtue of the fact that none of their sacrifices are ever actually necessary and the player misses out on additional content.

Renegades haven't really sacrificed anything, miss out on a store discount and a few "meh" cameos, and get better lines/interrupts.  I play as one every once in a while, and yes, the badassery more than makes up for the extra credits I have to spend at Rodam Expeditions and lack of Shiala/Giana.

I'd give up a cameo to make Shep sound less herp derp.  Wouldn't you?

Only noobs play one straight morality path, anyway.  Total lack of imagination, if you ask me. (jk)

You are given choice so that you can shape your character. That is called roleplaying. Mass Effect was marketed on the presumption of difficult choices with consequences. So far no choices have any real consequences other than whether you get a cameo or you don't.

Look at the difference between Tuchanka under Wrex and Tuchanka under Wreave.  Look at the difference in how humanity is preceived by the galactic community based on what happened with the Council.  They may be in the background, but those are pretty big changes.  Also, consider that ME3 still has to come out, so that there couldn't be too much divergence quite yet.  Consider how long those threads are on the geth/CB decisions.

The point is here is not the morality, it is the credibility of the situation and the threat. Command skill need have nothing to do with it. Sometimes things happen which are beyond the protagonist's control and the best they can do is adapt to the changes. The choice on Virmire was an example of this. Nothing Shepard could have done would have saved the other squadmate.

And Virmire wasn't bad, but there was still player control in the choice.

I feel the Suicide Mission should have been this way. For god's sake, it was a suicide mission! That anyone came back alive should be miraculous. The entire squad making it back, including the entire Normandy crew if you are so inclined, is just ridiculous. All that tech and the advantage of numbers and home turf and the Collectors can't manage to kill even one person? Come on.

The whole point of the game was to go out and do the impossible.  Or did you not read the back of the box?

I never implied that should be the ending. However there should have been at least one, or maybe two, scripted deaths that can't be avoided. This wouldn't be a bad thing. A scripted death, that was part of the plot, could be done very well. It would have meaning and evoke a lot more emotions in the player and on Shepard. It wouldn't be like it is now where all the deaths are interchangable minus one line of dialog.

Sorry for the misinterpretation.  Anyway, scripted deaths of NPCs (Hackett, Anderson) would be awesome(ly depressing), but the squad?  No.  Why?  Because that would take away a resource from the player and dimish player interest in growing attached to them (why should I invest in X if he just dies later?)  It's lousy gameplay design.

"We decided to make the latest installment of Pokémon more dramatic, so right before you fight the Elite Four we're going to force you to release half your team and never get them back, even though you worked so hard to raise them and developed an important strategy for use in the upcoming fight with them!"

Player response: ... You sh*ttin' me?

At the very least, make it a choice, a la Virmire/Samorinth, or action-dependent, like Wrex and all the deaths in the SM.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 02 avril 2011 - 06:14 .

[AdmiralCheez]

@Mr0TYuH: Thanks. And those are actually really good ideas.

[Nashiktal]

Too bad pheonix downs were retconned. If only they had kept htem up like in the first part of the game where they actually revived the dead...

[Pwener2313]

Yeah, the Reapers are in no way a credible threat. Of course they're not, these are just Geth ships, no reason to get worked over this, dismissing them is enough.







I'd like to know what made the OP state that they're nit a credible threat. LOOK AT THOSE THINGS! I go with trolling because nowhere in ME2 was there any indication that they weren't genocidal machines that make the Terminators look like toddlers. We defeated the Collectors and stopped they're arrival? Those weren't Reapers, those were they're lackeys. If I kick a guy's dog, Im not kicking the guy.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

What difference?

Humans are either more powerful than ever, but hated, or more integrated into the galactic community.  Krogans are either uniting and pushing forward or sitting there and allowing their society to decay.  These are signs of things to come; trust me.

In the end this is all window dressing. I want something that affects Shepard and the player.

Samorinth: access to either Reave or Dominate.  Personal danger averted if you're a renegade and choose Morinth.

However, I WOULD like to see greater changes in the game due to previous decisions.

Not if it happens in the final act of the game.

Now, that's just trolling.

"Congratulations for beating the game, here's your reward--DECAPITATION!"

Player: B|

I'm guessing you never bothered leveling up Aeris, huh?

She was the goddamn healer; do you think I had a choice?

And yeah, I honestly didn't give a crap about her.  Or Cloud.  Mopey bastard.

[Leonia]

Pft, Aeris is the reason I never finish that game. Invest so heavily only to lose her early on. Yeah, no thanks. Better not see that happen in Mass Effect.

[Praetor Knight]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Making the Reapers a credible threat would make the game too depressing for all the Paragon players.

^ They disagree

[Pwener2313]

leonia42 wrote...

Pft, Aeris is the reason I never finish that game. Invest so heavily only to lose her early on. Yeah, no thanks. Better not see that happen in Mass Effect.

Yeah, because all ME squadmates are unique......

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Mr0TYuH wrote...

As for how dark the game is, I just don't want it to be straightfoward.  Sometimes holding on to your ideals and working for the greater good should be the right choice.  Sometimes optimism and faith should be rewarded.  Other times, making sacrifices and being ruthless should reap the greatest benefit.

I would like ME3 to maybe work like some tabletop wargames were there are victory conditions.  If you don't have enough points, you lose.  If you have some, it's a Pyrrhic Victory.  Some more would be a Marginal Victory.  More would be a Decisive Victory.  If you have almost all possible, it is a Crushing Victory From Which There Is No Recovery.  To extend the metaphor, say you have a choice to blow up the Reapers Secret Weapon or Save a Squadmate.  The destruction of the Weapon is worth 30 Victory Points.  You should be able to save the squadmate, but it would be very difficult to gain the necessary points to after that decision.  You may have to do everything else exactly right.  It may even be impossible to get the very best ending if that choice is made.  Of course, that's just what I would like to see.

This is a great writeup and neatly summarizes the kind of setup I'd love to see, with weights and stats and inter-relations, but the possibility to go back and do it all RIGHT in one final playthrough, if you want to.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Personally, being able to get everyone out alive in the SM felt awesome for me, mostly because the game got me to give a sh*t about the squad.  I'm way too f*cking familiar with not being able to save the people I care about in real life, thanks.

The fact that you care so much about your squad is precisely why you should be forced to lose some of them on the Suicide Mission.

It increases the drama, preserves the threat of the villains, and brings the conflict closer to home.

Not really no. All it would accomplish is a whole slew of save files with Jacob in a coffin. If the entire squad can die and some death is mandatory, then people will inevitably kill off whomever they dislike. Moreover, mandatory deaths would weaken the possibility of squad mates returning in ME3. The vast majority of save files being imported will have a perfect run. This would not be the case in your scenario and who dies would be entirely random amongst players.

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I'm guessing you never bothered leveling up Aeris, huh?

She was the goddamn healer; do you think I had a choice?

And yeah, I honestly didn't give a crap about her.  Or Cloud.  Mopey bastard.

Pick a different character?

The game employs a customizable magic system. You can make the goth vampire a healer (he is actually fairly good at it ironically) for all that matters. It may makes virtually no sense but it is doable. Hell, I blew away the Ruby Weapon with just Cloud.

leonia42 wrote...

Pft, Aeris is the reason I never finish that game. Invest so heavily only to lose her early on. Yeah, no thanks. Better not see that happen in Mass Effect.

Aerith was a plot integral character and had more relevance than the entire cast of Mass Effect, including Shepard. Her death was a significant impact but progressed the narrative. Sure was a moron for rushing off by her lonesome to deal with Sephiroth however you discover later her motivations later on if I recall.

And no offense however not finishing a game because a character you like dies is not a negative toward the game. It is quite the opposite, and sort of makes you a fanboy/girl. I do agree it is an annoyance since you have to level up someone else however what else can they narrative do?

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 02 avril 2011 - 07:21 .

[Mr0TYuH]

@AdmiralCheez and CulturalGeekGirl

Thank you.

[blindchaos]

I'm not sure why people have been saying the Reaper threat has been diminished by ME2. Look at all Harbinger accomplished over the course of that game:

He killed Shepard, granted it didn't stick but it took him/her out of the conflict for two years. Without Shepard's influence the galaxy ignored the Reaper threat, and now seems much less prepared then it could have.

Harbinger was responsible for the killings of entire colonies of humans and as a consequence created some political instability among humans in the Traverse and the Alliance.

Then there was the plague on Omega, generating anti-human sentiments while also showing that they can make a plague that is deadly to almost all civilized alien races.

Lastly, all of Arrival. The Reapers might be delayed up to a year but at the cost of weakening Humans yet again with a conflict with the Batarians, not to mention if Shepard is detained for the Trial. The reapers have accomplished this with apparently minimal losses, Harbinger showed no anger at losing the Collectors as a resource, and only used them because they were in dark space.

Frankly this all seems more damaging then anything sovereign accomplished. The galaxy is clearly unprepared for the Reaper invasion, when they finally do make their entrance i expect a lot of chaos amongst the various races.