416 réponses à ce sujet

[Fathom72]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Fathom72 wrote...

No, thats not what the Virmire crowd wants at all.

To which quote are you referring to?

Edited my last post for clarification.

[KainrycKarr]

Fdingo wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...
The impression that I've been getting from this thread is that people feel that the best war stories don't have the hero survive, and that the best love stories don't end with it working out.

Be thankful that Joss Whedon is not writing ME3.

Ironically, Joss Whedon is one of my favorite writers, and has been behind some of my most beloved stories.

I don't dislike gloom and doom. It serves it's purpose, I just don't feel like I should have things like squadmate deaths taken completely out of my control in a game where my control over how the story plays out is one of the key features.

[KainrycKarr]

Fathom72 wrote...

No, thats not what the Virmire crowd wants at all.

Edit: not targeted at the post above me.

When I say choice, there should be potential for everyone to live, but sacrifices should be made.  In other words, pick your poison.

works for me.

[Fathom72]

Thats what most people want, lol.

[ZLurps]

To add something to this discussion before ZzzZ....

There are lot of ways to bring elements like loss in game. Killing squad mate, or former squad mate are couple of them.

But think of it.
Were we able to communicate and interact with the Normandy crew in ME2 that much because:

A) Writers wanted to make Normandy bit more lively
Writers wanted to establish some sort of connection between Shepard and crew so player would care if they die on the Collector base or not? (Quest for the cook and Chakwas, even more, Kelly...)
C) Bit of both.

[nhsk]

People never argued that they want Tali f.example to die no matter what you do, but we should get at least 1 situation, probably a maximum of 2 (and that is already stretching it...) where we get to choose between say Tali and lets say "new guy, that Vega dude".

I'm frankly appalled by peoples reading comprehension sometimes. It's all thats been asked for in this thread and in the "lets have another virmire" thread.

/rant

Modifié par nhsk, 21 juin 2011 - 11:44 .

[Rollingcabbage]

Sorry.

The final chapter needs to be brutal, even if there's a happy ending. The journey to that ending has to be brutal and confronting. That's what total war and genocide is about. You got your upbeat story in ME1.

[KainrycKarr]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Hey, I just want to have an ending where Shep and Tali(or whoever your LI is) ride into the sunset. Or something similiar in space.

You can fill the rest of the game with gloom and doom if you really feel it's necessary, but give me that one moment of "good feeling" at the end.

Is that too much to ask?

S'all I'm askin' for. Everything is else is up for the doom and gloom treatment.

[Saberchic]

Nope. I agree with the OP. There should be multiple endings.

There should be the option of everyone surviving, the option of epically failing, and others in between.

If people don't want their game to come out all roses, then don't play it like that, but I hate the idea of forced deaths just because people feel like someone should die. That's just ridiculous to me.

[Lord Coake]

Bnol wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...
You do realise that methodical attention to detail and common sense (combined with a mean streak) are the core of tactics that work, right?  A good officer not only wrrecks the enemy, he get the mojority, and oftentimes even all of his people out alive.  The only difference no is the scale of the Reapers, and even then, with the right information, planning and outright balls someone as skillied as Shepard (and a large nmber of his team) is written to be can and will accomplish things everyone else thought impossible.

A good officer also knows that there will be losses and will weigh the probability/severity of those losses against the whole of the mission.  You can't go into battle without a chance of someone dying, no matter how prepared and knowledgable you are.  Unless of course the enemy is so inferior, in which case there is no meaningful battle and story to be told.

I completely agree.  Hand in hand with that though, is that good combat officers are also very good at ad-hocing when The Plan goes to hell.  If Shepards manages to get his whole team out alive in the end, I don't see it as some Disneyland fantasy scripted by the devs to sop to the tweenagers, wspecially if it's written right.  If done right, it highlights just how good Shep and his/her team really is.  It's not just Shepard that's reknowned for overcoming absurd odds, it's everyone on the Normandy.

[nhsk]

At least I hope it comes with save squad mate and a 10.000 civilians die, everyone goes home happy.

[Repearized Miranda]

nhsk wrote...

At least I hope it comes with save squad mate and a 10.000 civilians die, everyone goes home happy.

Blantantly the opposite of what Fox said in Wanted

[nhsk]

Well everyone can save their squads, but at least Paragons get to experience loss as well since those people would never accept such an outcome.

[Aedan_Cousland]

Again, you still have the dark and not-everyone-survives ending. But you also have the fantasy ending.

You take the dark ending. I take the fantasy one. Me taking the fantasy ending has absolutely no effect on you taking your darker ending.

There is room for both.

The problem with those that suggest having both an 'everyone lives' ending, and an ending where some or all of your team dies, is that nearly everyone that wants that option wants casualties to be tied to player performance like it was in ME2. In other words, you get the everyone lives ending by making all the right tactical decisions and by making all the necessary preparations beforehand, and team mates die when you fail to prepare adequately or when you make the wrong tactical decisions. The issue with tying casualties only to player performance, is that it means that those that want a more emotionally engaging and realistic game where some of their squad dies, only get that outcome if their Shepard is incompetent. And that sort of defeats the purpose of having squad mates die in the first place, because the story isn't all that emotionally engaging if the protagonist is a poor leader that only gets his team killed through tactical or strategic errors.

I would have preferred to have lost some squad mates in ME2 for story telling purposes, but I didn't because it would have come at the expense of my canon Shep. I could only do that by making him a moron that thinks Grunt would make a better team leader than Garrus. So instead, I stuck with the outcome of my first playthrough. (everyone lives) The same is true for a lot of those who like me, prefer a game where some of their squad mates die. The suicide mission, though fun, shouldn't have had an 'everyone lives' outcome and shouldn't be used as a template for ME3.

I'm all for an 'everyone lives' ending so long as there are consequences.

The US Marine Corps defines the two main responsibilities of a combat leader as

1. Mission Accomplisment
2. Troop Welfare

Whether an NCO or an officer the welfare of the men under your command is an important priority, but always secondary to accomplishing the mission. While I'm using the US Marine Corps is an example, these priorities are the same for the militaries of most nations. The combat 'leader' that is afraid to risk the lives of his own men is no leader at all. Google George B. McClellan.

What does that have to do with Mass Effect?

I'd tie the 'everyone lives' ending to a style of play where you are placing the lives of your team above mission priorities. You might defeat the Reapers in the end and get everyone out alive, but you'd do so at the expense of the rest of the galaxy. Maybe Earth is rendered uninhabitable and greater damage has been done to the major alien civilizations of the galaxy, whereas the endings where you made the right tactical decisions and lost some squadmates resulted in Earth still being habitable, and less damage done to the galaxy than the 'everyone lives' ending.

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 22 juin 2011 - 12:00 .

[Fdingo]

It's pretty hard to generate any real drama this way though. In real life the choice would be incredibly hard but in the game we care more about that one character than about thousands of people.

[KainrycKarr]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Again, you still have the dark and not-everyone-survives ending. But you also have the fantasy ending.

You take the dark ending. I take the fantasy one. Me taking the fantasy ending has absolutely no effect on you taking your darker ending.

There is room for both.

The problem with those that suggest having both an 'everyone lives' ending, and an ending where some or all of your team dies, is that nearly everyone that wants that option wants casualties to be tied to player performance like it was in ME2. In other words, you get the everyone lives ending by making all the right tactical decisions and by making all the necessary preparations beforehand, and team mates die when you fail to prepare adequately or when you make the wrong tactical decisions. The issue with tying casualties only to player performance, is that it means that those that want a more emotionally engaging and realistic game where some of their squad dies, only get that outcome if their Shepard is incompetent. And that sort of defeats the purpose of having squad mates die in the first place, because the story isn't all that emotionally engaging if the protagonist is a poor leader that only gets his team killed through tactical or strategic errors.

I would have preferred to have lost some squad mates in ME2 for story telling purposes, but I didn't because it would have come at the expense of my canon Shep. I could only do that by making him a moron that thinks Grunt would make a better team leader than Garrus. So instead, I stuck with the outcome of my first playthrough. (everyone lives) The same is true for a lot of those who like me, prefer a game where some of their squad mates die. The suicide mission, though fun, shouldn't have had an 'everyone lives' outcome and shouldn't be used as a template for ME3.

I'm all for an 'everyone lives' ending so long as there are consequences.

The US Marine Corps defines the two main responsibilities of a combat leader as

1. Mission Accomplisment
2. Troop Welfare

Whether an NCO or an officer the welfare of the men under your command is an important priority, but always secondary to accomplishing the mission. While I'm using the US Marine Corps is an example, these priorities are the same for the militaries of most nations. The combat 'leader' that is afraid to risk the lives of his own men is no leader at all. Google George B. McClellan.

What does that have to do with Mass Effect?

I'd tie the 'everyone lives' ending to a style of play where you are placing the lives of your team above mission priorities. You might defeat the Reapers in the end and get everyone out alive, but you'd do so at the expense of the rest of the galaxy. Maybe Earth is rendered uninhabitable and greater damage has been done to the major alien civilizations of the galaxy, whereas the endings where you made the right tactical decisions and lost some squadmates resulted in Earth still being habitable, and less damage done to the galaxy than the 'everyone lives' ending.

As important as Shep's crew is, I can't imagine a situation where simply not getting them killed would result in an entire planet being unihabitable.

[sighineedname]

I don't know that it matters either way how happy the ending is, so long as the ending is written well. Just so long as Shepard isn't forced to sacrifice him/herself and his/her LI can make it through. He/she deserves to get some after that, you know.

I just don't want some lame ending like "he/she finds a button of doom and blows up all the reapers!!!"

[KainrycKarr]

sighineedname wrote...

I don't know that it matters either way how happy the ending is, so long as the ending is written well. Just so long as Shepard isn't forced to sacrifice him/herself and his/her LI can make it through. He/she deserves to get some after that, you know.

I just don't want some lame ending like "he/she finds a button of doom and blows up all the reapers!!!"

This basically sums it up for me.

[nhsk]

And still, no one ever argued for a forced certain squad members death - Just a forced death of a squadmember, chosen by the player.

Modifié par nhsk, 22 juin 2011 - 12:07 .

[KainrycKarr]

nhsk wrote...

And still, no one ever argued for a forced certain squad members death - Just a forced death of a squadmember, chosen by the player.

Oh, well then this has all been one big misunderstanding. My bad.

[CajNatalie]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Again, you still have the dark and not-everyone-survives ending. But you also have the fantasy ending.

You take the dark ending. I take the fantasy one. Me taking the fantasy ending has absolutely no effect on you taking your darker ending.

There is room for both.

The problem with those that suggest having both an 'everyone lives' ending, and an ending where some or all of your team dies, is that nearly everyone that wants that option wants casualties to be tied to player performance like it was in ME2. In other words, you get the everyone lives ending by making all the right tactical decisions and by making all the necessary preparations beforehand, and team mates die when you fail to prepare adequately or when you make the wrong tactical decisions. The issue with tying casualties only to player performance, is that it means that those that want a more emotionally engaging and realistic game where some of their squad dies, only get that outcome if their Shepard is incompetent. And that sort of defeats the purpose of having squad mates die in the first place, because the story isn't all that emotionally engaging if the protagonist is a poor leader that only gets his team killed through tactical or strategic errors.

I would have preferred to have lost some squad mates in ME2 for story telling purposes, but I didn't because it would have come at the expense of my canon Shep. I could only do that by making him a moron that thinks Grunt would make a better team leader than Garrus. So instead, I stuck with the outcome of my first playthrough. (everyone lives) The same is true for a lot of those who like me, prefer a game where some of their squad mates die. The suicide mission, though fun, shouldn't have had an 'everyone lives' outcome and shouldn't be used as a template for ME3.

I'm all for an 'everyone lives' ending so long as there are consequences.

The US Marine Corps defines the two main responsibilities of a combat leader as

1. Mission Accomplisment
2. Troop Welfare

Whether an NCO or an officer the welfare of the men under your command is an important priority, but always secondary to accomplishing the mission. While I'm using the US Marine Corps is an example, these priorities are the same for the militaries of most nations. The combat 'leader' that is afraid to risk the lives of his own men is no leader at all. Google George B. McClellan.

What does that have to do with Mass Effect?

I'd tie the 'everyone lives' ending to a style of play where you are placing the lives of your team above mission priorities. You might defeat the Reapers in the end and get everyone out alive, but you'd do so at the expense of the rest of the galaxy. Maybe Earth is rendered uninhabitable and greater damage has been done to the major alien civilizations of the galaxy, whereas the endings where you made the right tactical decisions and lost some squadmates resulted in Earth still being habitable, and less damage done to the galaxy than the 'everyone lives' ending.

I'm gonna give one big THIS to this post.

Well said. Losing your squad because of incompetance fails to result in any emotional impact.
Doing everything right but not being able to avoid an important death does have impact.

[marshalleck]

Seems like Aedan Cousland pretty much ended this thread with that righteous post.

[SennenScale]

I rather disagree with that. Where's the emotional impact if it was just the way things roll? I find it a lot more meaningful if the squad dies because Shepard made a bad decision or the death was avoidable rather than them just being killed because people's sense of realism demands it or being killed to make the enemy more threatening.

[CajNatalie]

SennenScale wrote...

I rather disagree with that. Where's the emotional impact if it was just the way things roll? I find it a lot more meaningful if the squad dies because Shepard made a bad decision or the death was avoidable rather than them just being killed because people's sense of realism demands it or being killed to make the enemy more threatening.

So emotional impact can only happen by Shepard being incompetant and botching it up like some idiot?
All I'd do is facepalm... there is no emotional impact in a facepalm. There's only the slight impact of when your palm collides with your face.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 22 juin 2011 - 04:26 .