141 réponses à ce sujet

[Greysturm]

i think the best way to decide this would be to base the appearance of Virmire esq decision on your choices of previous games for example, You show garrus the virtue of the paragon path on me 1 but allow him to take the shot in me2 so in me3 at one point garrus breaks off the group to do what he thinks is right and dies saving an orphan or something equally dramatic. Had you chose to teachthe renegade path he kills the orphan to spare him suffering or if you stop him from taking the shot he doesnt leave because he follows your lead no matter what.

I personally loved virmire the first time around because i thought your choices had consequences (example if you choose ashley to go with the salarians they attract more atention or enter without a problem on the original plan because of her combat skills, if you chose kaidan the groups gets into problems because of his lower fighting skill or hack their way in allowing to get to their objective faster) and the final choice i made because i thought if saren got to the bomb he would deactivate. So i was really disapointed the second time around when i discovered non of that matters and is prettty much a popularity contest. The suicide mission i think was better overall as it took more varialbes into acount and made evident the skills of the other teamates beyond i can kill this fast (which was their major contribution throughout all of me2), Even if most people got their squadmates alive because they paid attention, a great chunk paid the price by losing the crew on the time factor which was a good choice since it had unknowable consequences and would prefer that aproach to the shallow virmire decision.

Modifié par Greysturm, 21 juin 2011 - 01:16 .

[Pharos]

The way I see it the problem with ME2 (or at least the one which is most relevent to this thread) was that there was no apparent consequence to taking all the time you needed to prepare the ship and your squad (apart from the Normandy crew). If the game had kept track of how long it took to retrofit the Normandy and all the time taken traipsing around the galaxy doing loyalty missions and as a consequence more and more human colonies were being taken, that would have been better...at least to me. There would have been a real moral/ethical dilemma, save human colonies or save members of your squad. As it is, the SM is simply used by those so inclined to get rid of characters they don't like...something which hadn't occurred to me before I started reading these threads.

My point being: Something similar could easily work in ME3, the more allied races you get on your side the less likely casualties among your squad would be. But at the same time, the more time you spend getting those races on your side the greater the number of worlds being lost to the Reapers and the more Earth's human population is reduced.

Edit: Yes, I know, I forgot about the Normandy crew time-factor...laugh all you want.

Modifié par Pharos, 21 juin 2011 - 01:22 .

[Kadzin]

Lizardviking wrote...

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?

What's incredibly stupid is people wanting more plot that doesn't give you a choice.
How exactly does it damage the integrity of the story? If the "everyone survived" concept doesn't fit in your story doesn't mean it doesn't fit in other people's view on the same story.
P/R choices have everything to do with it, you have to make choices the whole game and what better way to show it then see the results of your choices from the entire game or 3 games for that matter?

[Virginian]

Virmire sucked.

Give me anything but Virmire.

[Chuvvy]

Bioware give us multiple squad deaths through out the game.

[Jenova65]

Let's not... And say we did.......

[lazuli]

CajNatalie wrote...

I support the abolition of sunshine and rainbows.

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.

Agreed.  There should be forced deaths of different types.  Some squadmates should die no matter what.  Some should be included in Virmire-like scenarios, where you can only save one.

[robtheguru]

I think the possibility of all squad members past and present dying would be great, however for the most part should be avoidable. Although, I would like to see one huge decision, such as choosing between a LI and favourite squad member(most used or whatever). Or maybe choosing between your LI and Earth. Just so many possibilities.

For the most part I just want to feel what I felt during Virmire and the Overlord DLC towards the end.

[Medhia Nox]

I'm absolutely fine with squad-mates dying. I think largely it's because I don't ever want to see these characters again. It's not because I don't like them - it's because their story goes with Shepard's story. If Shepard is finished - then so too should be these characters.

Now - fine, if Tali goes on to be part of her people's government. Cool. If Garrus ran C-Sec... great. Etc. etc. But in future games - I don't want them anywhere near whatever main character Bioware concocts for a long period of time. I want them relegated to quest giver.

So - if they all died, I'd be fine with that. It's not my idea of great storytelling necessarily (though it could be - it all depends on how it would play out).

But what if choices weren't just: "Kill Character"?

---

What if you could have the option to leave Tali with her people - and that would make them stronger. Or take her with you and compromise the strength of the Migrant Fleet?

Mordin might have to stay on Tuchanka - Garrus, on the Turian homeworld - Miranda or Jacob with Cerberus (if they're ever "saved). Etc. etc.

So Shepard "loses" Tali - but she doesn't die. She moves on to become her own leading character in her own story (same with all the others). But it depends on Shepard giving her the confidence and conviction to stand on her own two feet instead of being a groupie.

[CajNatalie]

I don't understand that suggestion someone said was idiotic about how Paragon would have sunshine, rainbows, and everybody alive, while Renegade would have everyone dead.

How would a Paragon's decisions of doing things the right way, saving the galaxy the right way avoid sacrificing for the greater good? Speaking of such sacrifices, taking it to the extreme the biggest Paragon choice I can imagine is finishing the game with Shep doing an epic kamikaze for great justice to save the galaxy at the expense of own life. Truly a heroic an hero. The galaxy is in a good condition as it could ever be after a Reaper invasion, but to accomplish that your team had to make sacrifices.
Meanwhile, a Renegade would say 'to hell with the Galaxy, I'm gonna place my selfish needs of keeping only my buddies alive ahead of this colony full of civilians' or something... and get plenty of people killed, sure, but not their squad and not themself. The galaxy got owned heavily by the Reapers before you stopped them, but your squad is all alive.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 21 juin 2011 - 02:39 .

[-Skorpious-]

While I'm not jumping out of my seat for another Virmire with squadmates involved, I do like the idea of Shepard being forced in a Virmire confrontation regarding the fate of various factions or npc's.

[Mathy16]

Or what about a timer, I do not really like timers but it would the fairest way to do so.
I you are in time = nobody dies
If you aren't in time= somebody dies

Or with on screen health meters: the mission is to save for example Liara and Tali.
The health meter of Liara and Tali are on screen, they are both on different locations and the player can choose who to save first. If the player is fast enough both squadmates will be saved but if you save Liara but aren't in time to save Tali then Tali dies....

The last option is how they handled it in ME2-suicide mission and in ME1 on Virmire

Modifié par Mathy16, 21 juin 2011 - 03:02 .

[Fathom72]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

I'm not talking about a carbon copy of that mission or the decision you were faced with, but similar points in ME3 where Shep is faced with decisions (none of them easy) that have deadly and unavoidable consequences for his team. I'd love to see Bioware take a page out of the George RR Martin playbook for ME3, and have that courage to kill some characters that we love.

Simply put: The story isn't going to be that emotionally engaging if it is possible to make it through the entire game with your entire team completely unscathed. It shouldn't be all sunshine and rainbows. Death should be an unavoidable reality for Shep, like it was on Virmire.
 
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!

1000 times this.  It adds a sense of gravity to the game when there isn't a way to resolve every situation perfectly.

[LGTX]

A better game would be where you still can resolve an issue perfectly, but have to work your *** off in order to achieve this, and make a lot of seemingly insignificant and non-obvious choices along the way. I heard Casey say somewhere that the entirety of ME3 would be structured like ME2's suicide mission, with loads of variables being calculated in realtime. That's kindof what I am hoping to actually see.

[Eurhetemec]

LGTX wrote...

A better game would be where you still can resolve an issue perfectly, but have to work your *** off in order to achieve this, and make a lot of seemingly insignificant and non-obvious choices along the way. I heard Casey say somewhere that the entirety of ME3 would be structured like ME2's suicide mission, with loads of variables being calculated in realtime. That's kindof what I am hoping to actually see.

I would love to see that, but I think it's unlikely that we will for a couple of reasons:

1) It's really hard to find a balance between making the decisions subtle enough that they're not "DO THIS OR ONE OF UR MANS DIES!", and yet also keeping them believable/predictable enough that you have player buy-in and not someone screaming "THAT IS SUCH BULL****!" and throwing his controller at the TV when he finds that because of decisions he made earlier, Tali (say) is totally going to die and he hasn't got a save from before that.

ME2 kind of chickened out of this, by just making it a case of "Were you thorough?", and "Do you actually know what the characters in you party do? (the latter being a better test than the former, I admit), with the only possibly hard decision being if you believed Miranda's macho bull**** re: her level of biotic powers.

2) It could potentially make DLC hard to fit into the game (you can't just have all mission DLC be "after you win" stuff, because only 50% of people who bought ME2 ever completed it, but more than that bought DLC for it - last I heard).

Still, if they do it, AWESOME.

I want people to die because I didn't do everything perfectly, didn't anticipate everything, didn't just clear every mission. I wanted that in ME2, but I didn't get it - you have to be intentionally dumb or slack to lose people.

[gunswordfist]

As long as there are only two unavoidable squad members deaths. Will sacrifice Liara and VS in a heartbeat.

[Eradyn]

I don't want anything as contrived as forced deaths. I do, however, want the cumulative effects of past decisions to have consequences. If one of those consequences is the death of a squadmate, fine. Conversely, if another consequence of a series of past choices is that a character lives, even better. Regardless, I am strongly opposed to a second Virmire.

[AtlAggie]

CajNatalie wrote...

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.

This sort of concept makes sense to me and would be good for the game I think--not so much another "Kill A or Kill B" scenario.  But it would be interesting to have choices where you have to decide what your Shepard is willing to sacrifice in order to save a partciular squadmate. Of course, it can be difficult to make up meaningful scenarios that fit this description.  As someone else pointed out, I wouldn't have much trouble making a choice between Garrus and some random Turian government types. Setting up a choice that is actually agonizingly difficult to make is the catch...

[Eradyn]

That's the problem, though. What makes for an "agonizing decision" is different for each individual. BW can't design such a system that takes into account the plethora of varying personalities and preferences. I think it best that there be certain criteria that must be reached by the player, and those decisions should, cumulatively, determine (or help determine) if any one character's death or survival should occur.

Modifié par Eradyn, 21 juin 2011 - 05:07 .

[Chewin]

A Virmire incident would add more replayability to the game, but I rather not have one.

[TheCrakFox]

The Mass Effect 1 trailer promised me difficult choices, so far there has been very few.
I want difficult decisions, dammit!

I'd really rather not have a schmaltzy ending where the galaxy comes out just fine. People are gonna die, Shepard should get to influence who and how many.

EDIT: and the setup shouldn't be blatantly obvious like the suicide mission, consequences of your decisions should be unclear, until they actually come to pass.

Modifié par TheCrakFox, 21 juin 2011 - 05:14 .

[CajNatalie]

Eradyn wrote...

That's the problem, though. What makes for an "agonizing decision" is different for each individual. BW can't design such a system that takes into account the plethora of varying personalities and preferences. I think it best that there be certain criteria that must be reached by the player, and those decisions should, cumulatively, determine (or help determine) if any one character's death or survival should occur.

Well I don't think that it's necessary to make a set of dilemnas where people will consistently feel urged to do the 'right thing' instead of getting their friend out and deprioritising the masses who are in trouble... having different dilemnas pull at different strings would encourage a greater likelihood in survival variation.
Some people/Sheps would save some squaddies, while others would save others.
Also, as an additional cause for variety... sometimes, no matter what... you (or a specific Shep of yours) will always save a particular squaddie regardless (eg: Talimancers). I don't think it's possible to make certain people or their certain Sheps sacrifice certain squaddies. But then again I think that adds a further layer of survival variety on top of the standard morality-style choices.

[VoidCabbage]

Garrus: I don't like this Sheperd, doesn't the planet name "splirmire" remind you of anything?

Sheperd: I don't know what you're talking about Garrus, but we need someone to stay here and arm the bomb while someone else goes with the Salarians.

Garrus: But Sheperd, thats exactly like....

Sheperd: There's no time for your "logic" Garrus, we need to get moving.

[KainrycKarr]

No specific squadmate or LI should be forced into a death. In a game where player choice is one of the main logos, the more forced, or inevitable "anythings", the less choice we have.

I don't know about you, but scripted or forced deaths, without a virmire-esque choice, only makes the game more linear for me.

Is that what you people, more linear story-telling, less player choice? Because that's what this boils down to, if "someone absolutely must die".