Aller au contenu

Photo

I loved the Suicide Mission; here's why...


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
108 réponses à ce sujet

#1
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages
Before we begin, I know what you're thinking: Oh, look!  Another Bioware buttkisser!  Great, just what I need--another obsessive fanboy that thinks Bioware can do no wrong!

Well, no.  I actually have a few gripes with the Suicide Mission, which I'll list here:

1. It was pretty damn easy to get the "perfect ending" if you actually paid attention and played the game.
2. Regardless of whether or not it looked like the Terminator, the final boss wasn't much of a challenge, either.
3. Huzzah!  Assault rifles for everyone!  Can't wield them in-game?  Who cares?!
4. Commander Sherpderp strikes again with the occasional hilariously bad line and logic fail.

... and then some.  So yeah, not perfect.  However, the Suicide Mission, or rather the concept behind it, was genius, and here's why.

My God, the Variables!
Your survival depended on how well you played the game up to that point.  It tested your preparedness, your ability to make command decisions, and the bond between you and your crew.  Yes, in many cases, the smart thing to do was obvious (and the Magic Red Circle of Protection mechanic was a bit too simple and repetitive, if you ask me), but seriously, if you did one thing wrong, one of your crewmates was gone.  Forever.  And if you really f*cked up, you lost.  It didn't matter how good you were at shooting stuff--if you weren't ready, you got a game over that hit so hard you had to start over if you wanted to play the next installment in the series!  Granted, you had to really, really f*ck up to lose that badly, but the fact that failure was possible, and the fact that every single person on the Normandy could die (except Joker and EDI), even though several of these people could possibly be important in ME3, made things pretty intense.

Now let's crank things up a notch.  Pretend this is Mass Effect 3.  Replace your squadmates with entire civilizations, the Collectors with an armada of god-like sentient dreadnoughts, a few colonial outposts with the whole damn galaxy, and push the factors that could possibly affect the outcome all the way back to the trouble you got into in ME1.  Make things more difficult, the situation more dire, and the solutions less obvious.  Epic sh*t, I tell you!

Personalized Cutscenes and Dramatic Tension
All those variables can be hell to program.  However, Bioware found a rather slick solution--cutscenes that could be completely changed by something as simple as swapping a character model.  Now, you may argue that this is pretty damn cheap, and it would have been, but the way it played out led me to believe it worked well enough.  Maybe it had something to do with the music and the pacing or whatever, but even if I know for sure that my fire team leader is both loyal and qualified, I still hold my breath when (s)he takes that bullet in the stomach.  Maybe I'm just gullible--an easy audience to manipulate--but each loss or narrow escape still felt real and not all that cut-and-pastey, thanks to some sneaky cinematic tricks.  Could use polish, sure, but how often do you find a way to solve a problem that is both economical for you and personal for the player?

Anyway, in one of the GI interviews (I forget which one--here, have the hub page until I cite the proper video), Casey Hudson mentioned that the Suicide Mission was largely an experiment in using this technique.  They intend to impliment it on a much grander scale in ME3 and smooth it out in the process.  Which is nice.  It's a good system, one that won't sacrifice dramatic impact and cinematic quality if implimented properly.

There is No "I" in "Team"
One of my biggest complaints about ME2 was that each squadmate was largely isolated from one another.  It's like they each existed in their own little bubble which they only came out of when it was time to solve their daddy issues or you needed someone to spam warp for you.  Granted, I loved them all and genuinely cared about them--damn you, Bioware, for duping me into giving a sh*t about an imaginary character--but the least they could do is acknowledge each other's existence more than frickin' twice.

But then, suddenly, we get this:

Posted Image

Suddenly, you have the whole team out at once, working together, and looking to you for command.  They discuss strategies, argue with each other, help each other out, perform special tasks, and actually behave like a cohesive unit.  Sure, it wasn't much, but it made recruiting their angsty little butts worth it.  The only thing that could have made it better is if there was more squaddie-to-squaddie interaction, but that was lacking throughout the entire game.  ME3 fix plz kthnx.

Now, the coolest part of all this, for me, at least, was that they were my team.  I spent a whole game rounding them up and getting them to put their personal baggage aside, and finally, finally, I get to reap the benefits.  In getting to know them, in caring about them, in convincing them to trust each other and being smart about my command decisions, I could not only blow through that base like it was tissue paper, but I could do it without losing a single man.  Frankly, I'm surprised that I got such a hard-on for Teamwork and the Power of Friendship, but damn, did it feel good.

Coulda been a helluva lot harder, though.  I'd be way more satisfied with my butterflies and rainbows if I had to bust my ass a little to earn them.

In Summary
I loved the Suicide Mission because:

1. Nearly everything I had done up to that point could affect the outcome.

2. Total victory was possible, but so was absolute failure and everything in-between.

3. Cutscenes and gameplay were programmed in such a way that decisions and outcomes could be woven in fairly seamlessly, making them both easy on the developers and satisfying for the players.

4. The squad actually behaved like a unified team, interacting with Shepard, their environment, and each other in both universal and specific roles.

5. Forgot to mention it in the main body of my wall-o-text, but this.

Yes, every single one of these points can be improved upon.  However, I was damn impressed by what I saw the first time, and I still get psyched every time the Normandy jumps through the Omega 4 Relay.  The Suicide Mission wasn't perfect, but it was a helluva start.

Your mileage may vary.

#2
SlottsMachine

SlottsMachine
  • Members
  • 5 548 messages
I'm with you Cheez, I just wish the mission was longer, but all good things have to come to an end or some such.

#3
JeffZero

JeffZero
  • Members
  • 14 400 messages
My brain is still processing the awesome of Cheez's post so consider this a placeholder:

Hell yes.

#4
samurai crusade

samurai crusade
  • Members
  • 1 405 messages
Agreed. Only complaint.... wish there were more scenes of the Squad at the round table. (like ME1 had everyone post-mission to discuss).

#5
JeffZero

JeffZero
  • Members
  • 14 400 messages
I think it stands to be said that I wish it were a good bit more difficult to ensure the survival of all squadmates.

I'm also torn between the belief that ending the mission with a few casualties helps improve the dramatic impact from a storytelling perspective and finishing the so-called 'suicide' mission with none left behind is the ultimate statement for worthiness of survival. This bit is really just a personal issue, though. I can't exactly blame the developers for my taste in tale.

Yes, the final boss was underwhelming. I didn't mind its appearance too terribly much, nor did its implications bother me in regard to the plot. I did feel a little disheartened by the fact that I didn't even come close to dying, though.

Lastly, playing ME2 on the PS3 with all the DLC credits included in the roll really messed with my emotional catharsis while I listened to the music because there is none for any of the DLCs while they're scrolling. So it's four minutes of awesome followed by another five minutes of silence. But this is a PS3 port issue and technically doesn't have jack to do with the mission, anyway.

Those are my nags. And they're all fairly insubstantial at that. The pacing is great, the cutscenes are great, the dialogue is great, the resonance is great, the cinematic tricks are great (and I'm with you, Cheez -- my heart skips a beat on that shot) and everything is just frelling great. Ugh, such a highlight.

Modifié par JeffZero, 29 avril 2011 - 04:29 .


#6
The Minority

The Minority
  • Members
  • 943 messages
This thread is win

#7
ExtremeOne

ExtremeOne
  • Members
  • 2 829 messages
It would have been better if the idea of losing a squad member or many members was real and could happen . Bioware made it all to easy .

#8
lazuli

lazuli
  • Members
  • 3 995 messages

ExtremeOne wrote...

It would have been better if the idea of losing a squad member or many members was real and could happen . Bioware made it all to easy .


..if you paid attention.  Most players on the forums are exceptional to one degree or another.  Not everyone experiences absolute success on their first playthrough.

It could be harder, but Bioware probably expected people to skip missions.

#9
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages

ExtremeOne wrote...

It would have been better if the idea of losing a squad member or many members was real and could happen . Bioware made it all to easy .

Which was one of my complaints.  It should have been much easier to fail and much harder to get everyone out alive, but I suppose they were trying to be easy on the n00bs and underestimated how naturally obsessive their fanbase is.

WE ARE COMPLETIONISTS.  HEAR US ROAR.  WE LEAVE NO QUEST UNFINISHED, NO ITEM UNPURCHASED.

#10
Sebby

Sebby
  • Members
  • 11 989 messages

JeffZero wrote...

I think it's stands to be said that I wish it were a good bit more difficult to ensure the survival of all squadmates.

I'm also torn between the belief that ending the mission with a few casualties helps improve the dramatic impact from a storytelling perspective and finishing the so-called 'suicide' mission with none left behind is the ultimate statement for worthiness of survival. This bit is really just a personal issue, though. I can't exactly blame the developers for my taste in tale.

Yes, the final boss was underwhelming. I didn't mind its appearance too terribly much, nor did its implications bother me in regard to the plot. I did feel a little disheartened by the fact that I didn't even come close to dying, though.

Lastly, playing ME2 on the PS3 with all the DLC credits included in the roll really messed with my emotional catharsis while I listened to the music because there is none for any of the DLCs while they're scrolling. So it's four minutes of awesome followed by another five minutes of silence. But this is a PS3 port issue and technically doesn't have jack to do with the mission, anyway.

Those are my nags. And they're all fairly insubstantial at that. The pacing is great, the cutscenes are great, the dialogue is great, the resonance is great, the cinematic tricks are great (and I'm with you, Cheez -- my heart skips a beat on that shot) and everything is just frelling great. Ugh, such a highlight.



Having everyone survive makes the threat of the Collectors,Harbinger and the Reapers in general into a total joke. It would be like a Friday the 13th where Jason Vorhees kills nobody.

#11
naledgeborn

naledgeborn
  • Members
  • 3 964 messages

lazuli wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

It would have been better if the idea of losing a squad member or many members was real and could happen . Bioware made it all to easy .


..if you paid attention.  Most players on the forums are exceptional to one degree or another.  Not everyone experiences absolute success on their first playthrough.

It could be harder, but Bioware probably expected people to skip missions.

Exactly. I'm one hell of a completionist and even I lost Mordin my first play.

Sidenote: I've been seriously considering making Zaeed and Kasumi my "canon" casualties for the Suicide Mission. They're DLC but.... that guuhddamn Greybox :pinched:

Modifié par naledgeborn, 29 avril 2011 - 04:38 .


#12
ExtremeOne

ExtremeOne
  • Members
  • 2 829 messages

lazuli wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

It would have been better if the idea of losing a squad member or many members was real and could happen . Bioware made it all to easy .


..if you paid attention.  Most players on the forums are exceptional to one degree or another.  Not everyone experiences absolute success on their first playthrough.

It could be harder, but Bioware probably expected people to skip missions.

   



I understand that but they still added the idea of all surviving it into the game. There is no way in hell a real squad of soldiers in real life have any idea on if they all will survive a mission or not . but taking out that possiblity is stupid , why should it be left to players to decide what squad member to kill off just to get the realistic ending to it. yeah a real squad might all survive a mission but that is a rare case.  

#13
Guest_mrsph_*

Guest_mrsph_*
  • Guests
That's the thing.

The game isn't real life.

#14
Firesteel

Firesteel
  • Members
  • 488 messages

AdmiralCheez wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

It would have been better if the idea of losing a squad member or many members was real and could happen . Bioware made it all to easy .

Which was one of my complaints.  It should have been much easier to fail and much harder to get everyone out alive, but I suppose they were trying to be easy on the n00bs and underestimated how naturally obsessive their fanbase is.

WE ARE COMPLETIONISTS.  HEAR US ROAR.  WE LEAVE NO QUEST UNFINISHED, NO ITEM UNPURCHASED.

I agree, the first playthrough I did, I lost only Mordin because I forgot that tech in ME2 is different than tech in ME1, but I tried to do every side mission.

Cheez, I completely agree with your statement about the fan base. For me, I have completed ME1 at least 25 times, with about 20 being completion runs (albeit without the collection assignments)

#15
ExtremeOne

ExtremeOne
  • Members
  • 2 829 messages

Seboist wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I think it's stands to be said that I wish it were a good bit more difficult to ensure the survival of all squadmates.

I'm also torn between the belief that ending the mission with a few casualties helps improve the dramatic impact from a storytelling perspective and finishing the so-called 'suicide' mission with none left behind is the ultimate statement for worthiness of survival. This bit is really just a personal issue, though. I can't exactly blame the developers for my taste in tale.

Yes, the final boss was underwhelming. I didn't mind its appearance too terribly much, nor did its implications bother me in regard to the plot. I did feel a little disheartened by the fact that I didn't even come close to dying, though.

Lastly, playing ME2 on the PS3 with all the DLC credits included in the roll really messed with my emotional catharsis while I listened to the music because there is none for any of the DLCs while they're scrolling. So it's four minutes of awesome followed by another five minutes of silence. But this is a PS3 port issue and technically doesn't have jack to do with the mission, anyway.

Those are my nags. And they're all fairly insubstantial at that. The pacing is great, the cutscenes are great, the dialogue is great, the resonance is great, the cinematic tricks are great (and I'm with you, Cheez -- my heart skips a beat on that shot) and everything is just frelling great. Ugh, such a highlight.



Having everyone survive makes the threat of the Collectors,Harbinger and the Reapers in general into a total joke. It would be like a Friday the 13th where Jason Vorhees kills nobody.





   




yeah the end mission in 2 is a joke because of that one part . death needs to matter in games period . If there is no chance of death then why even call it  a suicide mission .  

#16
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages

Seboist wrote...

Having everyone survive makes the threat of the Collectors,Harbinger and the Reapers in general into a total joke. It would be like a Friday the 13th where Jason Vorhees kills nobody.

Well, they didn't.  Thousands of colonists bit it.

I understand that making it through without a scratch was way too easy--it should have been nigh impossible to come out without casualties--but what's wrong with making the option available for the people willing to work for it?

It's like if somebody placed a jar of cookies at the top of a mountain.  If you want the cookies, you have to climb the mountain.  However, if you go for the cookies, you have no right to complain that Bioware is trying to make you fat.

Granted, I'm not expecting sunshine and bunnies for ME3, but a solid, triumphant ending with most of the people closest to you still alive would be nice.

#17
ExtremeOne

ExtremeOne
  • Members
  • 2 829 messages

mrsph wrote...

That's the thing.

The game isn't real life.

   



I hate when people bring up that stupid defense for games . If you have a mission in a game and you specifically say that there is a chance you  and your squad might not survive the mission in the game. Then the game needs to have the possiblity that happens . with out the payer having to set that up .  

#18
BeardedNinja

BeardedNinja
  • Members
  • 501 messages
yes, agreed the final mission was fantastic. I hope normal missions are like it in ME3

#19
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages

ExtremeOne wrote...

I understand that but they still added the idea of all surviving it into the game. There is no way in hell a real squad of soldiers in real life have any idea on if they all will survive a mission or not . but taking out that possiblity is stupid , why should it be left to players to decide what squad member to kill off just to get the realistic ending to it. yeah a real squad might all survive a mission but that is a rare case. 

1. You DIDN'T know if you'd survive.  In fact, half the game was spent telling you how risky the mission was.

2. You only get to "pick" who lives if you cheat the system and read all those guides about how to kill/save whomever.

3. This is not real life.  Shepard's a hero, and heroes have a habit of doing heroic things.  A "real" team of soldiers probably wouldn't have stopped Saren, either.

#20
Guest_mrsph_*

Guest_mrsph_*
  • Guests

ExtremeOne wrote...

I hate when people bring up that stupid defense for games . If you have a mission in a game and you specifically say that there is a chance you  and your squad might not survive the mission in the game. Then the game needs to have the possiblity that happens . with out the payer having to set that up .  


That's the thing. Not everyone that plays the game will know that Garrus is a poor tech expert, or that Grunt can't lead squads. Leading to people losing characters completely on accident.

I think people forget that not everyone that played Mass Effect 2 knew every single nook and cranny of the game. Mordin alone also probably dies more than every character.

#21
lazuli

lazuli
  • Members
  • 3 995 messages

AdmiralCheez wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I understand that but they still added the idea of all surviving it into the game. There is no way in hell a real squad of soldiers in real life have any idea on if they all will survive a mission or not . but taking out that possiblity is stupid , why should it be left to players to decide what squad member to kill off just to get the realistic ending to it. yeah a real squad might all survive a mission but that is a rare case. 

1. You DIDN'T know if you'd survive.  In fact, half the game was spent telling you how risky the mission was.

2. You only get to "pick" who lives if you cheat the system and read all those guides about how to kill/save whomever.

3. This is not real life.  Shepard's a hero, and heroes have a habit of doing heroic things.  A "real" team of soldiers probably wouldn't have stopped Saren, either.


Agreed.  ExtremeOne, try to think back to your first time playing through the SM, assuming you didn't consult a guide and you didn't already know everything there was to know about it.  Your view of it then is probably the one that Bioware cares most about.

That said, I would welcome some deaths that we cannot control in ME3, as it is supposed to be the grand finale.  But that's probably a topic for another thread.

#22
Elite Midget

Elite Midget
  • Members
  • 4 193 messages
Command decisions? You mean 'common sense choices'? If so than I agree with you.

"We need someone with tech skills."

Tali is an engineer.
Legion is geth and was created by Quarians. Highly intelligent in all things technological.

"We need someone with leadership skills."

Miranda was in charge of a team of scientist and was a high ranking member of Cerberus. She even has an ability that as 'leader' in it.
Garrus was in charge of his team. They died after betrayal and him being too trusting. None of that is a factor since this is Shepard's Squad thus he can do fine.

"We need someone to escourt the rest of the crew back to the Normandy."

Mordin is the weakest fighter here but is highly intellient and is skiled at avoiding combat. It would be most logical to send him back through the path you just cleared.

"We need a Powerful Biotic for this shield."

Samara is an Asari, who are natural Biotics, and is very old and powerful.
Jack is the most powerful human Biotic you know.
Morinth is an Asari with unimagineable power.

"We need to hold the line."

Grunt is the biggest and toughest guy on the Squad. Why wouldn't he stay?
Garrus has a record of fighting against impossible odds, taking a rocket to the face, and killing large swaths of people.

#23
Sebby

Sebby
  • Members
  • 11 989 messages
I must say the first time I played through the suicide mission was by far the most thrilling gaming experience I've ever had. Not knowing what to do and the notion that squadmates could die based on past and future decisions of mine was both exciting and nerve wrecking. It was the only time in the entire game where I felt Shep and co were in any real danger. I ended up with four squadmate deaths and the entire crew dead.

#24
ExtremeOne

ExtremeOne
  • Members
  • 2 829 messages

mrsph wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

I hate when people bring up that stupid defense for games . If you have a mission in a game and you specifically say that there is a chance you  and your squad might not survive the mission in the game. Then the game needs to have the possiblity that happens . with out the payer having to set that up .  


That's the thing. Not everyone that plays the game will know that Garrus is a poor tech expert, or that Grunt can't lead squads. Leading to people losing characters completely on accident.

I think people forget that not everyone that played Mass Effect 2 knew every single nook and cranny of the game. Mordin alone also probably dies more than every character.


   





Thats true but still if a game has a all will survive idea in it . then why call it a suicide mission just call it something else . Its stupid for players like myself who want a realistic style ending with maybe half the squad not making it out has to plan for it . why should I as a player need to plan for that when it should be part of the game design  and story. 

#25
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages
@Elite Midget: I DID mention that the right decisions were fairly obvious. I'd like a little more ambiguity in ME3, but the fact that this sort of thing was included at all was a plus.

@Seboist: There, see?  That's the feeling that made it awesome.

@ExtremeOne: They said that landing on the Moon couldn't be done, but we did that just fine, didn't we?

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 29 avril 2011 - 04:54 .