141 réponses à ce sujet

[KainrycKarr]

TheCrakFox wrote...

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.

That is exactly what I'd be okay with. I want the player to be able to influence character deaths. If I want Tali and Shepard to make it out alive, I should be able to influence that.

[VoidCabbage]

KainrycKarr wrote...

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".

I dissagree.. I believe making choices based off the circumstances given to us has alot of merit. Gandalf says something to this effect.

Sometimes stuff happens that's completely out of our control, we then have to choose how to react to these circumstances.

Modifié par VoidCabbage, 21 juin 2011 - 05:44 .

[Eurhetemec]

AtlAggie wrote...

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...

The sacrifice wouldn't necessarily have to be crew members, either.  You could make it like the reverse of upgrading the Normandy in ME2 - like, you want to get Garrus out of the damn spaceport control tower he's firing from, you're going to have to go in low and slow, and potentially get hit by anti-spacecraft SAMs and planet-defense lasers. Joker is upset, he like Garrus but the Normandy might be heavily damaged, potentially endangering the greater mission, and EDI regretfully advises against it.

So Shepard has a choice:

Sacrifice Garrus, or get the Normandy severely dented rescuing him.

Instead of losing Garrus, you permanently might lose one of the Normandy's systems, like it's ECM system might be wrecked, or the Thanix Cannon utterly destroyed (and no chance of getting a new one in this short a time frame). Or both.

This in turn could have effects on the space battles later in the game.

You could also add "mitigating factors" to make it even more complex. Maybe if Legion is alive and helping, you can take less damage only lose the ECM, not the Thanix. Or if Legion is alive and EDI is at her full potential from you deciding to completely free her earlier (against Alliance orders!), you get to dodge everything, and it's an all-round win here.

However later on having totally free EDI might get you into a battle with an anti-AI lunatic running an Alliance warship, which could potentially cause other problems.

Etc.

They could do a hell of a lot with this. I don't think they will do anything this complex, but it's fun to imagine what they could do.

Even a simple system of sometimes sacrificing a ship upgrade/system instead of a companion would be cute. Plus I could refuse to sustain permanent Kinetic Barrier damage to save Vega

EDIT - It doesn't even have to be that you lose people from your squad to death/anger/etc. either.

For example, maybe you lose Garrus from your squad not because he dies, but because you get him put in charge of the Turian anti-Reaper squad. This would mean you didn't get to play with him, and would affect the plot, but might improve the ending or the like.

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 21 juin 2011 - 05:55 .

[bobdooly]

Sure. I'd love to have Ash and Kaiden both dead. Seriously, I don't want Liara and the survivor on my squad because they were so bad of characters.

[StowyMcStowstow]

Curunen wrote...

I'm not sure about the forced deaths (either one squad member or another), but to me Virmire has the best structure out of all the missions in both games.

Maybe instead squad deaths could depend on how well you as Shepard are able to handle the combat, and/or complete mission segments?

It actually doesn't, and is quite a large plot hole. You have five squadmates. Two are with Shepard. One is with the Salarians. One is setting up a nuke. WTF is the fifth one doing? Nothing. Nor are any of the crew (the ARMED crew, might I add) doing anything helpful. The choice is forced because Bioware wanted to make the story have more weight.

I do NOT want another virmire. I want a choice without holes that makes sense.

P.S. Seriously. A dozen Normandy crew members and Liara (on my run) were just faffing about in the Normandy, How's about they do something helpful next time? Like not letting a squadmate and friend die?

[AtlAggie]

Eurhetemec wrote...

AtlAggie wrote...

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...

The sacrifice wouldn't necessarily have to be crew members, either.  You could make it like the reverse of upgrading the Normandy in ME2 - like, you want to get Garrus out of the damn spaceport control tower he's firing from, you're going to have to go in low and slow, and potentially get hit by anti-spacecraft SAMs and planet-defense lasers. Joker is upset, he like Garrus but the Normandy might be heavily damaged, potentially endangering the greater mission, and EDI regretfully advises against it.

So Shepard has a choice:

Sacrifice Garrus, or get the Normandy severely dented rescuing him.

Instead of losing Garrus, you permanently might lose one of the Normandy's systems, like it's ECM system might be wrecked, or the Thanix Cannon utterly destroyed (and no chance of getting a new one in this short a time frame). Or both.

This in turn could have effects on the space battles later in the game.

You could also add "mitigating factors" to make it even more complex. Maybe if Legion is alive and helping, you can take less damage only lose the ECM, not the Thanix. Or if Legion is alive and EDI is at her full potential from you deciding to completely free her earlier (against Alliance orders!), you get to dodge everything, and it's an all-round win here.

However later on having totally free EDI might get you into a battle with an anti-AI lunatic running an Alliance warship, which could potentially cause other problems.

[snip]

I think such a series of choices could be really awesome and add a lot of depth to the story, if effectively implemented. I do think at some point it would get too complicated to be feasible for the devs, though--but you're right, it's fun to think about! 

Whatever they do, I hope they continue to evolve the way the "big choices" play out and find a way to creatively move beyond the simplicity of Virmire while having something more emotionally affecting than the suicide mission (where it is relatively simple for everyone to emerge unscathed). 

[mopotter]

LGTX wrote...

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.

Yes.  I would hate another Virmire type choice.  Kill Tali or save Earth,  Kill Ash or save yourself.  Kill 20 little kids or kill Liara.  Kill off Liara or kill of Tali.  This kind of choice would make me start cussing.   

I am fine with a decision i made in ME1 or 2 or even a decision made in ME 3, coming back and biting my butt.  I want a game that if I work at it, i can save the universe with no loses.  I only have one or two perfect ME2 games because I want to see what these decisions will do in ME3.  

I want to be able to have a perfect game in ME3 if I'm willing to do the work for it.  And in some games it won't be perfect, but I want new experiences in ME3, not a repeat of the VS experience.

[mopotter]

KainrycKarr wrote...

TheCrakFox wrote...

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.

That is exactly what I'd be okay with. I want the player to be able to influence character deaths. If I want Tali and Shepard to make it out alive, I should be able to influence that.

I had better have ONE *$#@KEkike8****@ ending where the galaxy is saved or at least disaster has been pushed back for another 50,0000 years or so; the LI survives and is by Shepards side;  and we have fireworks.  Fireworks!  Celebrations!  and a moment of silence for those who fell along the way maybe images of the fallen.

 They've said we'll have multiple endings and one of them had better be schmaltzy.  I've spent too much of my life playing these last 2 games to have it end like FO3.  

[SeaSquared]

I guess if its done well (like virmire, which was by far the most fun mission in mass effect 1 in all ways)

but to be honest I was always stuck with the descision (I guess thats good) because Kaiden was my sheps best friend, EI the guy that he would hang out with if he could, talked to for fun etc. In other words he was to me what it seems garrus was for many people. I liked everyone in ME1 squad but he filled that certain role.

Where as Ashley was usually my LI and slightly more valuable to me gameplay wise (barely, shes low-teir for being a pure combat class in a game where the AI parteners  huff paint on the battlefield) since I usually had garrus with me if I wasnt infiltrator, in which case I mostly ran with liara and wrex. Plus I always sent Kaiden with the Salarians since he, being an officer, a biotic (are there any biotic salarians at all?) and better with aliens then Ash. and then I rationed that If I went for Ash I could ensure the bomb worked and Kaiden, being further had a 1% chance of survival instead of 0%.

so yeah.

[CajNatalie]

It's a computer game, it follows a logical code where the exact same input always results in the exact same output... if there's some 'chance' of a schmaltzy sunshine and bunnies Disney BS ending, like there's a 'chance' of surviving the so-called suicide mission, so many people are just going to find themselves taking that path in the end. As it is with the "suicide" mission.

Alternatively if it comes down to a dice roll due to some pseudo random number generator, it's going to lead to constant reloads and raging that you didn't roll the right numbers to get the right people to live.

Both these things are bad.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 21 juin 2011 - 09:28 .

[alihou]

I agree with Squaddie deaths, BUT, I want control as who I want dead or alive...if it's a random cut scene and a squad member just randomly dies I will be mad... Give us choice... Save A or save B options... Someone needs to die and I believe it will occur in ME3... the greatest battle of all time and everyone's unscathed is a bit corny... In ME2 prior to the suicide mission, I was so scared that people were going to die, in fact I expected it... However I was also thrilled that we all survived... this is the final curtain though... Someone we care about will die, I will guarantee it with my life! ...

[jamesp81]

mopotter wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

TheCrakFox wrote...

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.

That is exactly what I'd be okay with. I want the player to be able to influence character deaths. If I want Tali and Shepard to make it out alive, I should be able to influence that.

I had better have ONE *$#@KEkike8****@ ending where the galaxy is saved or at least disaster has been pushed back for another 50,0000 years or so; the LI survives and is by Shepards side;  and we have fireworks.  Fireworks!  Celebrations!  and a moment of silence for those who fell along the way maybe images of the fallen.

 They've said we'll have multiple endings and one of them had better be schmaltzy.  I've spent too much of my life playing these last 2 games to have it end like FO3.  

I'm all in favor of schmaltzy.

I get enough realism in, you know, reality.  The whole idea is to avoid it here.

[Wulfram]

I don't really like Virmire because it just comes down to an arbitrary choice based on who you like more.

But I do think squad mates should get the opportunity for some heroic deaths. Dying heroically is the coolest thing you can do in fiction, and it's the end of the series anyway.

[TheCrakFox]

jamesp81 wrote...


I'm all in favor of schmaltzy.

I get enough realism in, you know, reality.  The whole idea is to avoid it here.

Good fiction elicits the full spectrum of emotions, not just joy.

Despair and sadness seem appropriate considering the plot.

[jamesp81]

TheCrakFox wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


I'm all in favor of schmaltzy.

I get enough realism in, you know, reality.  The whole idea is to avoid it here.

Good fiction elicits the full spectrum of emotions, not just joy.

Despair and sadness seem appropriate considering the plot.

Good fiction is entertaining.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, the best fiction is the kind drags you down the very bottom of despair, but has the goodguys coming out winning big before it's over.  See Lord of the Rings for a prime example.

At least that's my preference.

If people want a depressing story with a depressing ending, I have no doubts Bioware will have a path of choices written into the game that will accomplish that for you.

Naturally, I won't be following that path.

Modifié par jamesp81, 21 juin 2011 - 10:07 .

[KainrycKarr]

VoidCabbage wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

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".

I dissagree.. I believe making choices based off the circumstances given to us has alot of merit. Gandalf says something to this effect.

Sometimes stuff happens that's completely out of our control, we then have to choose how to react to these circumstances.

Then we don't disagree. Because I'm saying the decisions you make in-game should determine who lives in dies.

I don't mean a black and white "Do you want Tali to die, or Garrus to die?"

I mean making a decision in a situation that later leads to character X dying, whereas if you made a different choice, Character X doesn't die, or simply a different character dies.

Savvy?

[DaringMoosejaw]

TheCrakFox wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


I'm all in favor of schmaltzy.

I get enough realism in, you know, reality.  The whole idea is to avoid it here.

Good fiction elicits the full spectrum of emotions, not just joy.

Despair and sadness seem appropriate considering the plot.

Your opinion of good fiction, just like others have theirs.

[TheCrakFox]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

TheCrakFox wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


I'm all in favor of schmaltzy.

I get enough realism in, you know, reality.  The whole idea is to avoid it here.

Good fiction elicits the full spectrum of emotions, not just joy.

Despair and sadness seem appropriate considering the plot.

Your opinion of good fiction, just like others have theirs.

Of course.

[Undertone]

TheCrakFox wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


I'm all in favor of schmaltzy.

I get enough realism in, you know, reality. The whole idea is to avoid it here.

Good fiction elicits the full spectrum of emotions, not just joy.

Despair and sadness seem appropriate considering the plot.

Pretty much agree with this. It's like watching a thriller or war movie. If you wanted joy, unicorns and happiness watch Ice Age or something.

And yes I want another Virmire and SM but better executed. Having everyone make it is absurd.

[KainrycKarr]

Undertone wrote...

TheCrakFox wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


I'm all in favor of schmaltzy.

I get enough realism in, you know, reality. The whole idea is to avoid it here.

Good fiction elicits the full spectrum of emotions, not just joy.

Despair and sadness seem appropriate considering the plot.

Pretty much agree with this. It's like watching a thriller or war movie. If you wanted joy, unicorns and happiness watch Ice Age or something.

And yes I want another Virmire and SM but better executed. Having everyone make it is absurd.

As long as your decisions reflect who makes it and who doesn't. I should just go ahead and put this in my signature...lol

[TheCrakFox]

Mac Walters latest tweet seems relevant.

"Reviewing a very tragic plot in #ME3 today... So good. But hard stuff. War is terrible, even in video games..."

Credit to Vertigo_1

[KainrycKarr]

TheCrakFox wrote...

Mac Walters latest tweet seems relevant.

"Reviewing a very tragic plot in #ME3 today... So good. But hard stuff. War is terrible, even in video games..."

Credit to Vertigo_1

Doesn't bode very well for me...

[StreetlightEagle]

I think there should be unavoidable deaths. I didn't lose anyone in ME2 and actually felt disappointed for it. I shouldn't be dramatically short-changed because I'm good at the game and can make logical decisions. Virmire is one of my all time favourite gaming moments simply because there was nothing you could do about it and I want those emotional hits in ME3... hits that ME2 was sorely lacking.

[GnusmasTHX]

As long as it's not save Liara or Wrex... Then the choice is simple.

[KainrycKarr]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

As long as it's not save Liara or Wrex... Then the choice is simple.

....Wrex?