141 réponses à ce sujet

[Good Chaos7]

They probably will but I hope not.. Because what if the make you choose between the two characters you just can't be without?! I'm sorry but I think that would suck! But if I got to choose, I'd Happily say bye bye to Miri or Jacop!

[thatguy212]

I'm hoping we'll have to choose between allies like geth or quarians, it just seems not very believable to me that after 300 years of fighting they will be able to get peace between the two just by shepard yelling at them about giant killer starships for 5 minutes

[ObserverStatus]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...
 
I know some will argue that squad mate deaths  should be optional like ME2, but the problem with ME2's suicide mission was that people only die if Shepard makes tactical or strategic blunders. This only serves to undercut Shep as a leader, and as such, makes the story less engaging.

Bump this thead if you also want Bioware to have the stones to kill off some of our squad!

Well, I suppose that you could play in such a way that Samara survives even if you skip her loyalty mission, but not very many of us finished the game with all 13 squadmates alive.

[Siansonea]

Another way to add gravitas to the game is to kill cherished non-squad NPCs. I think Conrad Verner, a joke character, could make for a very dramatic death scene if handled right. You wouldn't expect Conrad Verner to do something genuinely heroic, so if somehow he did, if he did sacrifice himself to save Shepard or some civilians, and had a poignant dying speech, it could really be a powerful moment, even if you think he's a douche. Same goes for characters like Captain Anderson, Joker, Admiral Hackett, the Illusive Man, Aria T'Loak, Matriarch Aethyta, Shiala, etc. Many people are attached to non-squad characters, and many of them are canonically alive in all games, so they could easily be opportunities to add dramatic death scenes to the game. Especially if they're avoidable depending on the savegame/Shepard's actions. Especially if they're keyed to savegame/player action criteria that aren't immediately obvious to the player.

[eternalnightmare13]

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.

.

Bad example, but very good idea.  Reason I say bad example is cause personally I would feel ZERO emotional connection to random turian politicans when compared to Garrus.  Maybe something more along the lines of 'leave Garrus behind and get a clean escape with women and children refugees or retrieve Garrus and risk losing some - maybe all of the refugees.  

Not the best example, but ya know what I'm getting at...emotions/morality.

[Cutlass Jack]

A Virmire option would be arbitrary and pointless given its the last game. A smarter play (and one I'm half expecting) is you may get a choice that lets you choose between saving people you care about or saving yourself.

Do you do the noble sacrifice, or do you live with no companions to share your victory with?

[Siansonea]

I think the upshot of this entire thread is "raise the emotional stakes". There's a number of ways they can do that. Character death is one, but it's not the only way to do it.

[KainrycKarr]

Siansonea II wrote...

I think the upshot of this entire thread is "raise the emotional stakes". There's a number of ways they can do that. Character death is one, but it's not the only way to do it.

This.

Quite frankly, I just wanna make it to the end of ME3 with Garrus, Tali, and Shep alive.

Every game out there tries so hard to be "emotionally engaging" and killng people off just for effect.

For once, I want the hero, his girl, and his bro to survive. Even if that's only one ending, and that ending is hard to get, I want it.

[Cutlass Jack]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Quite frankly, I just wanna make it to the end of ME3 with Garrus, Tali, and Shep alive.

Every game out there tries so hard to be "emotionally engaging" and killng people off just for effect.

For once, I want the hero, his girl, and his bro to survive. Even if that's only one ending, and that ending is hard to get, I want it.

Hey that's my ending! You can't have it! Mine!

[Oblivious]

Bioware shouldn't do a "choose between squadmates" scenario since the squadmates for ME3 are the most loved (or least hated if you like) people in the trilogy. VS, assuming you saved the one you liked most, Liara, Garrus, Tali. To be forced to lower your oldest teammates by one more again is too difficult of a situation.

I'd rather what others have suggested, choose between saving the life of one squadmate or the lives of dozens of innocent civilians. The Garrus and bridge thing would be a good example if instead of old politicians they were women and children, but what happens if you don't have Garrus? I would assume that you'd probably get a replacement that you can't evacuate and still gets innocents killed, but I don't necessarily want there to be a stock replacement for every character.

[CajNatalie]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I think the upshot of this entire thread is "raise the emotional stakes". There's a number of ways they can do that. Character death is one, but it's not the only way to do it.

This.

Quite frankly, I just wanna make it to the end of ME3 with Garrus, Tali, and Shep alive.

Every game out there tries so hard to be "emotionally engaging" and killng people off just for effect.

For once, I want the hero, his girl, and his bro to survive. Even if that's only one ending, and that ending is hard to get, I want it.

That sounds like such a fairy tale ending... =.=''
Go watch a Disney movie or something, lol. =P

[Whyp_2]

I kinda want a happening like this one. The SM was little of a disappointment that everyone survived. 1-3 would have been good IMO.

[CaolIla]

Hmmm... since it's gonna be a kind of stealthy game why not include "throwing objects to make a sound and enemies get confused" kind of thing. And in one mission you have to save a bunch of refugees, but you can only make that if you draw off attention.
You don't have anything to throw but Joker is with you. So what would you do? Either let the refugees die or sacrifice Joker by throwing him away to let him shatter like a cheap bottle of wine to distract the enemies and get the time to rescue the refugees?  

[Whereto]

Just on the final Virmire decision. for me it was fairly easy to decide who would get the axe, as per say. See the problem with that sort of discussion is, if the player doesn't care about the character, the whole experience is lost. Sure for the people that do care about them, it's very hard, but as I'm sure was the case with a lot of the people here, it wasn't hard to decide their fav character.

[Kadzin]

relhart wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Whats with you emo death loving kids?

I'm just not a fan of Mary Sue's, or hacky writing in general.  People die, characters in "good" fiction should also die, or at least you need to present an atmosphere where their death seems possible.

How about a compromise?
People who chose Paragon path can save everyone.
People who chose Renegade can kill their whole squad off.
That way all the "badasses" can continue being "badass" and the rest of us can enjoy happy endings. After all the game is all about choice.

[Shaun2406]

I don't mind if its possible to save all squadmates, so long as the decisions that lead to squadmate deaths are made a fair while before their deaths, and aren't obvious... But still make sense!

So to use the Garrus example, perhaps during a previous mission on Palaven you make a choice between saving a number of turian soldiers or wiping out an even larger portion of reaper ground forces (leaving the Turians in a relatively stronger position, even if you do lose some soldiers)... If you weaken the reapers, that Garrus choice doesn't need to be made, but if you save the soldiers, a strong reaper counter attack in a later mission (maybe 2-3hrs down the line) forces you to chose between the mission objective and saving Garrus? Or saving another squadmate and saving Garrus? So that you can't just be like 'oh it was because I made this decision' straight away, and reload and fix it?

[Lunatic LK47]

Whereto wrote...

Just on the final Virmire decision. for me it was fairly easy to decide who would get the axe, as per say. See the problem with that sort of discussion is, if the player doesn't care about the character, the whole experience is lost. Sure for the people that do care about them, it's very hard, but as I'm sure was the case with a lot of the people here, it wasn't hard to decide their fav character.

Ding ding ding, another person on the free beer list (I'm doing the buying).

[CroGamer002]

No Virmire.

I hate Virmire.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

I support this idea.

More Virmire/Wrath of Khan moments in ME3. If only to maintain that the Reapers are actually a genuine threat. Let Shepard face the no-win scenario again. 

[Whereto]

@lunatic, LOL, I'll hold u to it... Thats of course if I was legal drinking age.

[jamesp81]

Kadzin wrote...

relhart wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Whats with you emo death loving kids?

I'm just not a fan of Mary Sue's, or hacky writing in general.  People die, characters in "good" fiction should also die, or at least you need to present an atmosphere where their death seems possible.

How about a compromise?
People who chose Paragon path can save everyone.
People who chose Renegade can kill their whole squad off.
That way all the "badasses" can continue being "badass" and the rest of us can enjoy happy endings. After all the game is all about choice.

I'm good with this.

[Ulathar]

The possibility of your choices resulting in a squadmates death, yes please. That also means that you can make choices that have your squadmates survive. I wouldn't want forced deaths. Virmire was okay, it just didn't have enough options...squadmates aside from Ashley and Kaidan would've been able to arm the nuke or go with the Salarians, too.

[Lumikki]

In my opinion while some part of Virmine mission was good, some of it also wasn't. Example Virmine was suppose to be hard fight because situation. But I was bored how easy it was. I did not even figure why the split team, because I could have soloed 5-10 times more enemies and I tryed to get as many I could.

How ever, structure of the Virmine mission was good. It has pre-brifings, exloration, actions, choises and after situatons. Very diverse missions structure, what make it pretty good. Little like ME2's final mission.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Kadzin wrote...

relhart wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Whats with you emo death loving kids?

I'm just not a fan of Mary Sue's, or hacky writing in general.  People die, characters in "good" fiction should also die, or at least you need to present an atmosphere where their death seems possible.

How about a compromise?
People who chose Paragon path can save everyone.
People who chose Renegade can kill their whole squad off.
That way all the "badasses" can continue being "badass" and the rest of us can enjoy happy endings. After all the game is all about choice.

That is incredibly stupid.The fact that the "Everyone survive" ending is possible damages the integrity of the story and universe.

Beside. What does P/R have to do with this?

[Reever]

I know where you´re coming from, but I actually prefer being able to keep my squad alive.... ^^

But if it´s done well, then why not? As long as you don´t lose half your crew that way?
Still, I think this won´t happen, since your allies are in the focus of the game now. So it will all boil down to the factions you can get on your side - and that depends on the choices you´ve made in the previous games!