141 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

that courage to kill some characters that we love.
.
You are aware that you teammates in ME2 can die, right? This is really what you are talking about, even if it's not forced, it's there... and it's not sunshine and rainbows. Mass Effect as a series has a lot of critical moments, probably Virmire is the second best of them (the first being the SM), but there are others.
.
But rest assure, ME3 will have more death, and it seens you will have to choose between entire races or planets.
.
Anyway... KoTOR has better moments like those than both MEs. If you haven't played it yet, you should.

[KainrycKarr]

Sparrow Hawke wrote...

CajNatalie wrote...

Someone - a main squadmate - needs to die considering how much crap the Galaxy is going through. Maybe add more flexibility than a simple A or B choice, though.

I nominate Vega or Tali.

Get out.

But seriously, I'd be okay if you have to choose.

What I don't want, is, say, you get to a certain point in the game, and Tali or Miranda or whoever, dies, no matter what, no player influence on the outcome, etc.

In that situation, I'd be okay with a Save Tali or Save Miranda, or a Save Garrus or Save Vega, or something.

[CajNatalie]

Eurhetemec wrote...

[snip]

Maybe the best situation would be if you had a few places where you could either leave someone to die, or where someone would die, if you wanted the best win condition for that area. For example, you're evacuating the Turian government or what-have-you, and maybe Garrus is sniping and holding back the tide of enemies. You can either get him on board in time, and potentially lose some of the Turian government guys, or you can leave him behind and make a clean take-off.

Bad example probably, but I'd prefer deaths to not be "Either Garrus or Tali MUST DIE!"-type nonsense, and to actually come from, y'know, people trying to be heroic, to do the right thing.

I... really like this idea... actually.

This could end up where in the end game...
If you kept your squad alive 100%, you screwed up with saving the galaxy.
Or your squad sacrificed themselves for the greater good... and the galaxy is in a much better state, ready to recover from the Reaper invasion ASAP... Shep could even optionally die for great justice because it's the last game in the series.

[LGTX]

It would be generic and stupid, imho. A decision which doesn't branch back into past choices and spawn choices based on what you've accomplished would be far too unrewarding for the trilogy finale. If such a choice WILL be present, I want to know that it's because I screwed something up sometime in the story. And that I could have avoided a lose-lose decision model altogether. Basically, I'm thinking of a more refined Suicide Mission system, where stuff is less obvious.

[Knight of Dane]

CajNatalie wrote...

What's with all the people who 'can't take it'?
Don't have the stomach for losing a fictional character who'll be there the next time you start a new game?

This is... unsettling.
Toughen up, people.

The point is that in ME3, all hell breaks loose. It's just too idealistic to have a sunshine and bunnies 'everybody lives' outcome.
The so-called Suicide Mission of Mass Effect 2 isn't even worthy of the title.

You talk as if you ignore that people can differ. Why are you more right than the softies?

Caring about a fictional character compared to a real person will never be the same, but alot of people actually find a comfort in set charcters.
You should respect that some pefer it the other way you don't, as much as we(i cannot speak for all of course) respect your opinion.
Peace

[Maugrim]

No.

Make it hard to get through unscathed with crazy but FFS not random requirements, sure no problem. Forced and/or random deaths? Nah. This is the end of the trilogy and we've got 9 months to go I want total death, destruction and failure as well as sunshine and rainbows plus everything in between as viable endings. Don't want the ending where a JesusHShepard saves everyone? Don't make all the best decisions.  Don't know why people always want less options, it's mindboggling.  Anyone elses inability to RP and stop metagaming  IS NOT MY PROBLEM.

Modifié par makenzieshepard, 20 juin 2011 - 10:48 .

[CajNatalie]

Knight of Dane wrote...

CajNatalie wrote...

What's with all the people who 'can't take it'?
Don't have the stomach for losing a fictional character who'll be there the next time you start a new game?

This is... unsettling.
Toughen up, people.

The point is that in ME3, all hell breaks loose. It's just too idealistic to have a sunshine and bunnies 'everybody lives' outcome.
The so-called Suicide Mission of Mass Effect 2 isn't even worthy of the title.

You talk as if you ignore that people can differ. Why are you more right than the softies?

Caring about a fictional character compared to a real person will never be the same, but alot of people actually find a comfort in set charcters.
You should respect that some pefer it the other way you don't, as much as we(i cannot speak for all of course) respect your opinion.
Peace

I can try to argue people to 'toughen up'... and still respect their opinions if they respectfully decline, can't I? =D

Peace indeed, I mean no hostility.

[Sailears]

Yes I don't want a black and white "either or" choice with squad deaths.
I agree there should be situations where squad death is very likely, but it should also be well weaved into the particular mission structure - not as obvious as the suicide mission.

[shadowreflexion]

 Some are saying sunshine and rainbows are a no and I agree. If playing this game is all about decisions then that should be left up to the player right? Now if there's a situation that someone may die then give us the opportunity to really overcome odds in order to save a squaddie. Take the Archangel recruitment from ME2. We had a choice to leave someone behind with Garrus or not. On Insanity, there wasn't much of an option, someone had to stay. Depending on how quickly we closed those shutters determined how badly Garrus was hurt but we still had a fighting chance to get to him.

If choices are given like those, and we have to fight harder for survival, I'm all for it. But I don't want to be stripped of that choice. First time I played Virmire, I tried going back for the second person only to find out that it wasn't possible no matter how quickly I ran through it. A repeat of that negates the primary aspect of what it really means to make choices. I would rather give my all in an attempt to forestall certain death. Even in war, some may try to help a comrade if they get into trouble. People talk that this is war, which it is but the human nature element can't be ignored even in war. Decisions will be hard but at least make those decisions our "own".

Modifié par shadowreflexion, 20 juin 2011 - 11:02 .

[BigBody26]

Personally, I loved the way the suicide mission was done. My original playthrough I did not read any tips or hints as to what to do to make sure everyone survived. Unfortunately, I made a couple of wrong choices and did not have all my loyalty missions done before my crew was abducted. As such, my entire crew is dead, Mordin died, and Grunt (my favorite of the new characters) died. I have been tempted to playthrough again with my canon Shep so I have everyone in ME3. I won't though. I made my decisions and those decisions had consequences.

I would love more choices like we had to make on the suicide mission throughout ME3. Our decisions should have consequences as small as a single squad member dying and as large as an entire civilization being wiped out (Quarians). Every choice should have visible consequences in ME3, some big, some small.

[Knight of Dane]

CajNatalie wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

CajNatalie wrote...

What's with all the people who 'can't take it'?
Don't have the stomach for losing a fictional character who'll be there the next time you start a new game?

This is... unsettling.
Toughen up, people.

The point is that in ME3, all hell breaks loose. It's just too idealistic to have a sunshine and bunnies 'everybody lives' outcome.
The so-called Suicide Mission of Mass Effect 2 isn't even worthy of the title.

You talk as if you ignore that people can differ. Why are you more right than the softies?

Caring about a fictional character compared to a real person will never be the same, but alot of people actually find a comfort in set charcters.
You should respect that some pefer it the other way you don't, as much as we(i cannot speak for all of course) respect your opinion.
Peace

I can try to argue people to 'toughen up'... and still respect their opinions if they respectfully decline, can't I? =D

Peace indeed, I mean no hostility.

Good, no hard feelings
Sometimes a little fluff is nice too, i must admit that ME1 was more exciting than 2, perhaps it's because i play 2 on PS3, but i doubt i's because of Virmire, i didn't use Ash and Kai anyway

[Aedan_Cousland]

Whats with you emo death loving kids?

At 33 years old I'm too old for emo. I was well into my twenties before that crap went mainstream. 

I just enjoy good story telling. Sometimes in good fiction characters must die. It would make little sense to set up the Reapers as the most dangerous enemy to civilization the galaxy has ever seen, only to have Shepard and company defeat them with little effort and with no casualties.

that courage to kill some characters that we love.
.
You are aware that you teammates in ME2 can die, right? This is really what you are talking about, even if it's not forced, it's there... and it's not sunshine and rainbows. Mass Effect as a series has a lot of critical moments, probably Virmire is the second best of them (the first being the SM), but there are others.

None of those deaths was unavoidable. In fact those deaths were extremely easy to avoid, as I I had a perfect run on my first playthrough without even knowing that was possible.

The problem with linking squad mate deaths to player performance like they did with ME2, is that those deaths lose emotional impact if they caused by Shepard not preparing adequately or making tactical blunders. That just makes him seem like the wrong person for the job.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 20 juin 2011 - 11:43 .

[Lunatic LK47]

laecraft wrote...


Still, if you really, truly want to save that particular character, because that character means so MUCH to you, then Shepard should be allowed to do so...at a price. And that price should be very high. But if you value that character more than anything, nothing will stop you from saving them, right?

Virmire and Bring Down The Sky had a good idea on paper, but when it comes to the execution, there are factors calling "bull****" where it's down to "either or, there's no 'think outside of the box' moment.

Bring Down The Sky:

You had the option to let Balak go and save the hostages, or kill the hostages to capture or kill Balak. Um, why couldn't the Normandy tail Balak if we decided to let him go, or have the rest of the squad ambush him while Shepard's defusing the bombs?

Virmire: 

We had a squad of four members total. Why couldn't the other half of the team focus on saving whoever we didn't pick? On top of this, picking whoever you wanted to save is simple "Do you want to bone this character or not?" is the only motivation. Not a really good reason to pick whoever survives Virmire.

Shepard is not

I want to see casualties meaningful to Shepard even when Shepard does everything right and takes every single best decision. I want Shepard to make his decisions thinking they're the best, and then realize that they lead to massive failures and casualties. Otherwise I'll be bored with his unbelievable godlike status and incomprehensible perfection.

Shepard's been untouchable for too long. It's time to make him human again. Being human means making mistakes and suffering. Welcome back to humanity, Shepard.

Problem is the definition of meaningful is very subjective at best. As it was, Virmire was nothing more than "Sacrifice who you hate the most" than anything else. What adds more insult to injury is if certain characters just die off without player input whatsoever, and we'll eventually have another Dragon Age 2 on our hands.

[Saberchic]

I don't want forced character deaths. Deaths that come from a decision I made in the distant past or one I make in the here and now I can live with. Besides, from what I've heard so far about ME3, we'll be deciding the fate of entire species. I'm sure that'll be tense enough for me.

[Lady Catastrophe]

I'd love another Virmire.I got rid of Ashley and I'm already desperate to get rid of Kaidan--both quite frankly annoy the living hell out of me.

Modifié par Lady Catastrophe, 21 juin 2011 - 12:11 .

[TheCrakFox]

War is dangerous, people will die. Squadmates dying will give the player a more personal motive for beating the Reapers. I think it's probably better that deaths are compulsary, the poorly titled suicide mission at the end of ME2 was laughably easy to complete without casualties, and Wrex's death in ME1 was just a simple skillcheck.

If all major characters survive it just diminishes the sense of danger and desperation that really should be there.

[Bluko]

 Well on one hand I don't want Bioware to just deliberately kill off characters in cutscenes for dramatic effect. (That's a bit lame whenever it happens. It should be due to direct actions of the player.)

Of course I find it a bit silly that Shepard can always potentially save everyone and everything with no real noticeable losses. If no one on your squad can be killed or all of the major characters have "plot armor" it detaches you from the experience. If you're not at risk of losing anything why should the player care?

Sacrifcing one team-mate in place of another isn't exactly the best means to go about this, but it does add to the reality that people will die in combat and that not all decisions are fun. All the training and experience in the world can't stop a bomb from turning you into dust. It's just how it is. You also can't save everyone, you can try, but there will always be things out of your control.

And that's why I like Virmire. For once Shepard is forced to make a choice because of enemy actions. (I might have liked Arrival, except the choice present there is basically just a hoax unlike BDTS.)

I'll be disappointed if ME3 doesn't force us to make some of those hard decisions. 

[jamesp81]

I am straight out opposed to any forced deaths. Results of your campaign should rest solely on your performance.

Just say no to Virmire-esque writing.

Modifié par jamesp81, 21 juin 2011 - 12:44 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

Eurhetemec wrote...
...

Maybe the best situation would be if you had a few places where you could either leave someone to die, or where someone would die, if you wanted the best win condition for that area. For example, you're evacuating the Turian government or what-have-you, and maybe Garrus is sniping and holding back the tide of enemies. You can either get him on board in time, and potentially lose some of the Turian government guys, or you can leave him behind and make a clean take-off.
...

I like this idea, though another Virmire situations would be great as well.  Success should come at a cost, one that can't be avoided.  Certainly more "Suicide Mission" stuff would be nice too, but sacrifices of value to the player (not everyone likes every character to be sure, but still) should be mandatory.

[darklordpocky-san]

welp

so long Miranda

[l DryIce l]

laecraft wrote...

The Reapers attacked, and the galaxy is a blood bath. The teammates survival rate in ME3 should reflect that.

I support the idea of forced deaths in ME3. If there is "the best" route where you can save everyone, then everyone will just take that route, except for those weird people who killed their teammates in suicidal mission on purpose to get an emotional experience, to get more replay value out of the game, or just because they didn't want to see those teammates in ME3. The rest of us will be robbed of emotional experience, because we're never going to get those people killed if we can avoid it, and the most we're going to do is to watch it on youtube.

Granted, I hated it when they did it in DA2. I have no idea why. Maybe because everything in that game is completely out of your control, and you cannot change a thing no matter how hard you try.

The problem with avoidable deaths is that if you get someone killed and you know you could've prevented it, it's like you killed them on purpose. Virmire was good in the sense that while someone had to die, you still could save the single character you really wanted to save, but you had to pay a price. So, while the death was unavoidable, the character was not. You still had a choice, and you were in control of the game.

Still, if you really, truly want to save that particular character, because that character means so MUCH to you, then Shepard should be allowed to do so...at a price. And that price should be very high. But if you value that character more than anything, nothing will stop you from saving them, right?

Shepard is not the deity, to keep every single thing in the galaxy under his control. You can't always make "the best decisions". Things happen that are out of your control. Your teammates fail you. Plans go astray. Enemies interfere with your plans. Even the most brilliant strategist can be betrayed. Even the most badass fighter can be overcome by the overwhelming brute force.

I want to see casualties meaningful to Shepard even when Shepard does everything right and takes every single best decision. I want Shepard to make his decisions thinking they're the best, and then realize that they lead to massive failures and casualties. Otherwise I'll be bored with his unbelievable godlike status and incomprehensible perfection.

Shepard's been untouchable for too long. It's time to make him human again. Being human means making mistakes and suffering. Welcome back to humanity, Shepard.

I agree completely. I don't want forced deaths necessarily, but if there's a point where I have to save them, doing so should come with great consequences. Currently, it's just too easy to make the "right" decisions in Mass Effect. Buying all the upgrades was a very obvious thing to do in ME2. 

In ME1 they could have made it to where, had you saved both Kaidan and Ashley, the mission would have been a complete failure. Saren would have had a more powerful army and you would have had to deal with that. 

Modifié par l DryIce l, 21 juin 2011 - 01:21 .

[Darth Death]

Don't worry, it will happen.

[l DryIce l]

Darth Death wrote...

Don't worry, it will happen.

"It"? Okay. 

[Iwantobelieve]

I agree with OP.

I want to face, like The G-Man says, "unexpected consequences".