416 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

I disagree with you. Mass 1 would've been a weaker story without Virmire. I think that to make the war affect Shepard it needs to harm some of the people he most cares about.

[KainrycKarr]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I disagree with you. Mass 1 would've been a weaker story without Virmire. I think that to make the war affect Shepard it needs to harm some of the people he most cares about.

Here's the thing; I agree.

I'm saying the PLAYER should INFLUENCE who dies or lives. That is EXACTLY what Virmire is.

We are in agreement.

What I'm fighting against, is for instance, at point x in the story, Miranda MUST die.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I like happy endings.  When a game is TOO dark (as in Knights of the Old Republic 2, where the Jedi were dead, Republic help was nonexistent, almost all of your party members were either crazy or evil in some form, the ending was lackluster and a cliffhanger, and T3-M4 was probably the only one you could trust), it just gets depressing.

[KainrycKarr]

marshalleck wrote...

I don't see how either A, B, or C are uniquely distinctive of Battlestar Galactica.

KainrycKarr wrote...
I just want the possibility of Shepard and his squad making it out alive. Is that really so offensive, just allowing theoption?

Oh FFS, get over yourself. This is Bioware we're talking about. There will probably be an option for Shepard to **** rainbows and butterflies; they're the Walt Disney of video game developers.

Get over myself? Way to make it personal. I'm completely unconcerned that BW won't allow this.

I'm just discussing the opinions and attitudes of those on the forum.

Way to be a dick Marshalleck.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 21 juin 2011 - 06:55 .

[nhsk]

TheCrakFox wrote...

The sunshine and unicorns ending cheapens the darker ending through it's mere existance. Knowing the deaths were avoidable and you deliberately played to get them removes any emotional impact.

Exactly, everyone will play for the best possible outcome so having to deliberately chose the dark ending removes the emotions.

Now on my first Virmire mission, I had Ashley be the bomb activater and Kaidan the go with the salarians because he volunteered first.

Now I was trying to seduce Ashley but when she armed the bomb alone, and Kaidan had fought bravely from the start pushing all the way up, I felt it would be unfair to rescue Ashley from a position she had put herself in - So I was torn between saving the LI or saving the one who deserved it, in the end my Shepard didn't get laid in ME1, but it took 10 minutes of debate with myself to leave Ashley behind.

If I have the option to save everyone I will, thus removing the emotional impact because I knew I didn't rescue everyone on purpose, so my Paladin Paragon Ultimate Hero will suddenly not be exactly that.

Even some of my renegades will go to great lengths to save everyone they care about, as they are not stonecold killers, just tired of saving Eclipse mercenaries who just killed civilians in cold blood.. But oh no, we should let them go... It's just not feasible to have The Paragon Paladins of Virtue to rescue everyone, as it even removes their status as they just are infallible, great stories and heroes requires sacrifices.

[HTTP 404]

why is it an argument that when something was done in a story before that it should never be done again?

if thats the case perhaps mankind should have stopped making stories after the bible.

[Nozybidaj]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

This is like asking for a love story but without any heartbreak.

/shrug Throwing heartbreak into a love story is a crutch for folks not creative enough to make a love story interesting without it.  Same thing we are discussing here.  A happy ending can be just as interesting as a sorrowful one, just everyone feels the need to be grimdark because its the "cool thing" in media today.  They'll grow out of it eventually.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 21 juin 2011 - 07:03 .

[KainrycKarr]

Fine; I can see that my wish for a happy ending somehow harms everyone else.

Can we at least compromise on influencing *who* dies?

[KainrycKarr]

HTTP 404 wrote...

why is it an argument that when something was done in a story before that it should never be done again?

if thats the case perhaps mankind should have stopped making stories after the bible.

It's because heroic sacrifices tend to be the most common these days, and I personally would like a story where the hero doesn't have to screw himself for once.

[SennenScale]

My two cents: The mere existence of a happy ending doesn't destroy the integrity of a sadder ending unless you metagame. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a sad ending isn't sad if it wasn't avoidable...then it's just the roll of the dice, not really all that much of a tragedy.

I support happy endings if we're working really hard to get them.

[KainrycKarr]

SennenScale wrote...

My two cents: The mere existence of a happy ending doesn't destroy the integrity of a sadder ending unless you metagame. In fact, I'd go so far as to say a sad ending isn't sad if it wasn't avoidable...then it's just the roll of the dice, not really all that much of a tragedy.

I support happy endings if we're working really hard to get them.

Most sensible post in the thread, including my own. Thanks for the input.

[AngelicMachinery]

marshalleck wrote...

Do you seriously believe there's even a remote possibility Bioware won't include a best possible outcome scenario? Have you played any other Bioware games!?

Only if you choose  all paragon options,  survival only comes to the absurdly moral.

[CaptainZaysh]

@Nozy: I disagree. I think that writing about love (but not addressing heartbreak) or writing about war (but not addressing casualties) would be timid choices for a writer to make.

[KainrycKarr]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Fine; I can see that my wish for a happy ending somehow harms everyone else.

Can we at least compromise on influencing *who* dies?

[CaptainZaysh]

@Kainryc: without self sacrifice it's not heroism, mate!

[nhsk]

Problem with the "unless you metagame" is that throughout ME2 we are told to "blah blah blah prepare prepare prepare or you die horribly" so even without knowing the SM it was way way way to easy to figure out to have everyone loyal (especially because it usually gave some cool abilities...) and have every possible upgrade.

And when Miranda tells you that you need a tech expert instead of Jacob, the obvious choice is Tali and to lesser extent Legion which I didn't think about using.

Next, who is a fireteam Leader? Oh is it Garrus, yes he lost a squad because he was betrayed but from backstory it was an obvious choice..

Oh in essence any biotic could do it but it would require a powerfull biotic so no Miranda, no glory for you - Samara, over here please as everyone who followed the game lore just a bit would know that 1000 year old battle hardened A S A R I whose entire race are all capable biotics < Half emo human who are what? 30 years old, I mean, humans rely on implants for biotics...

Oh and second fireteam leader, oh it went well for Garrus last time, why not try him again?

And who to send back to Normandy, let me guess, someone who is entirely useless in combat against organics with biotic shields.... Tali?!? Yep (or Mordin whatever)

And who to bring to the final fight, lets see a hold the line type thing will the remaining to.. Its not that hard to think... Maybe Grunt isn't as good to take with me, or Garrus... Or Jacob, or Legion, or ... lets see, who is weak sauces in a stand up firefight (from lore PoV)... Mordin? Yep you're with me, and lets see... That psycho **** who doesn't like to take orders.. Yep you're coming too..

So everyone lived, and there was almost as much rejoicing than when Sir Robins bards were eaten.

And yes, without sacrifice it isn't heroic, it's just really Shepard that becomes the storys very own Deus Ex Machinima.

[KainrycKarr]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

@Kainryc: without self sacrifice it's not heroism, mate!

Not every hero dies being heroic in real life.

[KainrycKarr]

nhsk wrote...

Problem with the "unless you metagame" is that throughout ME2 we are told to "blah blah blah prepare prepare prepare or you die horribly" so even without knowing the SM it was way way way to easy to figure out to have everyone loyal (especially because it usually gave some cool abilities...) and have every possible upgrade.

And when Miranda tells you that you need a tech expert instead of Jacob, the obvious choice is Tali and to lesser extent Legion which I didn't think about using.

Next, who is a fireteam Leader? Oh is it Garrus, yes he lost a squad because he was betrayed but from backstory it was an obvious choice..

Oh in essence any biotic could do it but it would require a powerfull biotic so no Miranda, no glory for you - Samara, over here please as everyone who followed the game lore just a bit would know that 1000 year old battle hardened A S A R I whose entire race are all capable biotics < Half emo human who are what? 30 years old, I mean, humans rely on implants for biotics...

Oh and second fireteam leader, oh it went well for Garrus last time, why not try him again?

And who to send back to Normandy, let me guess, someone who is entirely useless in combat against organics with biotic shields.... Tali?!? Yep (or Mordin whatever)

And who to bring to the final fight, lets see a hold the line type thing will the remaining to.. Its not that hard to think... Maybe Grunt isn't as good to take with me, or Garrus... Or Jacob, or Legion, or ... lets see, who is weak sauces in a stand up firefight (from lore PoV)... Mordin? Yep you're with me, and lets see... That psycho **** who doesn't like to take orders.. Yep you're coming too..

So everyone lived, and there was almost as much rejoicing than when Sir Robins bards were eaten.

And yes, without sacrifice it isn't heroic, it's just really Shepard that becomes the storys very own Deus Ex Machinima.

You mean that stuff about "only Shepard can save galaxy" actually becomes true and not just marketing drivel? I'm okay with that.


And again...just make it harder and make the choices less obvious next time.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 21 juin 2011 - 07:20 .

[Bnol]

KainrycKarr wrote...

It's because heroic sacrifices tend to be the most common these days, and I personally would like a story where the hero doesn't have to screw himself for once.

Sure, but you can't really ask for that not to have consequences.  I mean if you are looking out for number one then someone will have to pay the price.  I agree that the player should have choice in the matter, but at least from the OP it looked like you wanted everyone to survive.  That is what made ME2 a weaker story with everyone being able to pretty easily survive the suicide mission.

The thing is that a completionist RPG players will go and do every mission and will pay attention to the dialogue and the codex.  Thus if the decisions are based at least in part on following the story/ logic/information gathered, it is likely that those players will be able to make good decisions based on that information, leading them to the happy ending.  If you want to make that happy ending more difficult to get then you have to make some of the choices a bit more arbitrary.  Then the choices move from being interesting story to a metagame, because that "best" outcome is out there.

[JamieCOTC]

The heroic sacrifice is a cliche, but ultimately, it depends on how it's done. If it's done well, it will work.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ai've long believed that a Suicide Mission in which there were mandatory (but player-determined) deaths would have driven the weight home. A suicide mission in which someone is going to die... but fewer people if you were good with your decisions.

So for example, whoever gets sent through the vents will die in the vents... but if they aren't loyal, then someone else dies as well.

Whoever gets sent back with the crew will die... but the crew will be safe if the character is loyal.

The biotic specialists dies of exhaustion (and possibly injuries), but if they're loyal then they get everyone else through.

An assassination specialist to kill the Collector General: they die regardless, but if they aren't loyal then they fail and Harbinger keeps showing up.


And so on. No one gets away scotfree, but how bad the suicide mission is (and who dies) is still up for grabs.

[KainrycKarr]

Bnol wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

It's because heroic sacrifices tend to be the most common these days, and I personally would like a story where the hero doesn't have to screw himself for once.

Sure, but you can't really ask for that not to have consequences.  I mean if you are looking out for number one then someone will have to pay the price.  I agree that the player should have choice in the matter, but at least from the OP it looked like you wanted everyone to survive.  That is what made ME2 a weaker story with everyone being able to pretty easily survive the suicide mission.

The thing is that a completionist RPG players will go and do every mission and will pay attention to the dialogue and the codex.  Thus if the decisions are based at least in part on following the story/ logic/information gathered, it is likely that those players will be able to make good decisions based on that information, leading them to the happy ending.  If you want to make that happy ending more difficult to get then you have to make some of the choices a bit more arbitrary.  Then the choices move from being interesting story to a metagame, because that "best" outcome is out there.

Honestly, the bottom line is I just want at least one ending where Shepard and his LI get to survive.

That's really all I'm concerned about. That, and I don't want anyone to be alienated by shoehorning specific LI's into death.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

*crosses his arms* Nobody agreed with my reply. I am disappoint.

[KainrycKarr]

Bnol wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

It's because heroic sacrifices tend to be the most common these days, and I personally would like a story where the hero doesn't have to screw himself for once.

Sure, but you can't really ask for that not to have consequences.  I mean if you are looking out for number one then someone will have to pay the price.  I agree that the player should have choice in the matter, but at least from the OP it looked like you wanted everyone to survive.  That is what made ME2 a weaker story with everyone being able to pretty easily survive the suicide mission.

The thing is that a completionist RPG players will go and do every mission and will pay attention to the dialogue and the codex.  Thus if the decisions are based at least in part on following the story/ logic/information gathered, it is likely that those players will be able to make good decisions based on that information, leading them to the happy ending.  If you want to make that happy ending more difficult to get then you have to make some of the choices a bit more arbitrary.  Then the choices move from being interesting story to a metagame, because that "best" outcome is out there.

Here's the thing. Interesting story and metagaming don't matter beyond the first playthrough.

You play it through, and you don't know how it plays out, so you can't metagame.

Afterwards, the story is spoiled, you know what happens, now you can go back and write the story you want.

What's wrong with that?

[CaptainZaysh]

As with nearly all of Dean's ideas: Captain Zaysh approves (+10).