416 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr Powers94]

i agree

[Undertone]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Why don't you go play sims 3 instead? Seriously I actually have reverse opinion - What's with all the "I want-spoiled-super-happy-ending-have-babies-with-Liara" endings.

It's an action game with some semblance of war story. It's unrealistic to have drama and casualties. And if you don't want realism play a fantasy game or something.

Some people, some ideals.

If I want realistic, I wouldn't be playing a game where I can press a button and make black holes out of nothing, would I?

People play games to be entertained, to get away from reality.

I want a happy ending with my LI ending because that would make me feel good about investing myself in this game.

If I want to be depressed over the ending to war story, I'll go check out every single real life war story on wiki.

But I guess I'm just not as hip and edgy as you.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a some seblance of a happy ending. But as the story and context goes "All survive, no casualties, no sacrifices" is retarded. Considering the Reapers are Gods/Impossible to defeat etc. such ending (All survive) is stupid. It's like the SM - it's supposedly SM but it's very easy for everyone to make it. It's hard to actually kill somebody even on purpose! If such ending is there - it should be next to impossible to achieve and with a mix of paragon and renegade decisions.

If I didn't want realism I would be playing Heroes or Final Fantasy or some such game. Do you know what Sci-Fi stands for? Let me answer that for you - science fiction. It's supposed to have semblance of realism. If the war was won without losing anyone, what war was this then? Winning without losing anything has no value.

[KainrycKarr]

nhsk wrote...

Who says that it must the LI that dies? It should still come down to some choices who you go save or who to sacrifice.

And people saying its because we want "grim-dark" - No it is not, but there is something called "willing suspension of disbelief" that goes out the crapper if no one dies in the greatest war of humanity (and the rest of the current galaxy).

If there is no downsides to saving everyone, why would anyone not want to do that...? As it is more content in the end.

As long as this is the case, then sure, kill away. I just don't want "forced" deaths. If someone has to die, then I'd like to at least influence who.

[CheeseEnchilada]

If we get missions like Virmire again, I'm going to get complacent and stop caring so much about my squad. Virmire was heart-wrenching and emotional, and one of the best parts of ME1. However, if I get numerous missions in ME3 that are similar (Garrus or Tali! Wrex or Grunt!) I'm going to be more frustrated than anything.

Some players like to have control. Virmire was a great moment because we had that control wrestled from us, than immediately given back. Personally, if I go through a game watching my squadmates die left and right, or having to choose between squadmates again, I'm not going to feel the same way as I did after Virmire. I'm going to stop caring. There needs to be some sort of balance.

A squadmate is going to be sent to certain death. You get to choose who you send. With that sort of scenario you still maintain some control while complying with the grimdark style. Should there be an option to save everyone? Personally, I think so, but it would require an incredible amount of effort, and they would have to be careful on implementing it. Taking a third option should involve sacrifice.

I'm not sure why we can't have a wide array of endings, from sugary sweet to 'rocks fall, everyone dies'. And if there do have to be deaths, they should be implemented with some form of player choice. I can't speak for everyone, but if Garrus dies every time, I'm going to stop caring about him.

[Seeker Sparrow]

If you really want to save everyone then you have to earn it, preferably this means we would get to do this by doing certain actions as opposed to 'Garrus will always die in this scene no matter what'.

Inevitably people will die and especially in a galactic war there are gonna be some casualties.

[Undertone]

KainrycKarr wrote...


As long as this is the case, then sure, kill away. I just don't want "forced" deaths. If someone has to die, then I'd like to at least influence who.

That's what I find really funny - you play a game that represents a galactic war. Go tell the indoctrinated sniper to shoot Jack instead of Garrus or Tali cause you like her less then the other too.

Yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm not saying Virmire every NPC but it's completely retarded that Shepard should have full control over who dies or lives.

[AtreiyaN7]

Excuuuuuse me? The modern BSG series was dark, but it was dealing with war, conflict and complex adult characters. It was anything but a chore, and if ME3 has even a hint of what made the show great, they'd probably be better off.

[Lord Coake]

Eurhetemec wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

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

It's more of the overall need for loss, character twists, and imo, just generally depressing points in the story.

Remember how 4896463436 of the main characters in BG ended up dead or Cylons? Yeah, I don't want that.

Whilst I agree that multiple endings would be the win (the more the merrier!), I think you're being overdramatic.

I mean, nBSG starts just after their planet and all other colonies have been NUKED INTO THE GROUND. They have a rag-tag fleet and a single carrier with the remnants of the entire race fleeing an overwhelming threat.

That's just for starters. nBSG is infinite more depressing and downbeat than ME has ever been.

I mean, be realistic, do you think the guys who let Shepard survive the suicide mission without losing any a single squad member and hardly any crew members are going to force your Shepard or his LI to die?

Personally I think that if you just play through ME3, without a guide, without knowing what will do what, you should lose people. I bloody hated being able to do the suicide mission and keep everyone alive just by being logical and thorough. It felt so cheap. I didn't have to be brave or skilled. Just to check all boxes and have basic common sense. It was like the easiest multiple choice in history. That's not what a "suicide mission" should be like. I personally think it should be impossible to complete ME2 without losing anyone at all, that at least two people should get killed in the "suicide mission", but that's just me.

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.

[KainrycKarr]

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Why don't you go play sims 3 instead? Seriously I actually have reverse opinion - What's with all the "I want-spoiled-super-happy-ending-have-babies-with-Liara" endings.

It's an action game with some semblance of war story. It's unrealistic to have drama and casualties. And if you don't want realism play a fantasy game or something.

Some people, some ideals.

If I want realistic, I wouldn't be playing a game where I can press a button and make black holes out of nothing, would I?

People play games to be entertained, to get away from reality.

I want a happy ending with my LI ending because that would make me feel good about investing myself in this game.

If I want to be depressed over the ending to war story, I'll go check out every single real life war story on wiki.

But I guess I'm just not as hip and edgy as you.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a some seblance of a happy ending. But as the story and context goes "All survive, no casualties, no sacrifices" is retarded. Considering the Reapers are Gods/Impossible to defeat etc. such ending (All survive) is stupid. It's like the SM - it's supposedly SM but it's very easy for everyone to make it. It's hard to actually kill somebody even on purpose! If such ending is there -  1 it should be next to impossible to achieve and with a mix of paragon and renegade decisions.

If I didn't want realism I would be playing Heroes or Final Fantasy or some such game. 2 Do you know what Sci-Fi stands for? Let me answer that for you - science fiction. It's supposed to have semblance of realism. If the war was won without losing anyone, what war was this then? Winning without losing anything has no value.

Bolded number one - I agree completely, that's what I'm asking for.

Bolded number two -

Wrongo.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...science fiction

sci·ence fic·tionNoun: Fiction
based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major
social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time
travel and life on other planets.


That is what sci-fi stands for, and it has absolutely no relevance on things like the likelihood of people surviving or dying in a galactic war.

[KainrycKarr]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Excuuuuuse me? The modern BSG series was dark, but it was dealing with war, conflict and complex adult characters. It was anything but a chore, and if ME3 has even a hint of what made the show great, they'd probably be better off.

It was an amazing show, it was just incredibly depressing most of the time for me. That was the point.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 21 juin 2011 - 08:11 .

[KainrycKarr]

Sparrow Hawke wrote...

If you really want to save everyone then you have to earn it, preferably this means we would get to do this by doing certain actions as opposed to 'Garrus will always die in this scene no matter what'.

Inevitably people will die and especially in a galactic war there are gonna be some casualties.

That's exactly what I want. I want to have that goal, to keep playing until I've achieved that happy ending.

[nhsk]

It is still based on visions on how science and technologies will be like in 2-300 years, but war, war never changes - There should be casualties.

[KainrycKarr]

CheeseEnchilada wrote..

I'm not sure why we can't have a wide array of endings, from sugary sweet to 'rocks fall, everyone dies'. And if there do have to be deaths, they should be implemented with some form of player choice. I can't speak for everyone, but if Garrus dies every time, I'm going to stop caring about him.

Exactly!!!!

[KainrycKarr]

nhsk wrote...

It is still based on visions on how science and technologies will be like in 2-300 years, but war, war never changes - There should be casualties.

But that has absolutely no bearing on people surviving galactic war.

And using a fallout3 quote doesn't make your argument any more valid. In fact, Fallout 3 is the exact opposite of realism.

[AngelicMachinery]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Why don't you go play sims 3 instead? Seriously I actually have reverse opinion - What's with all the "I want-spoiled-super-happy-ending-have-babies-with-Liara" endings.

It's an action game with some semblance of war story. It's unrealistic to have drama and casualties. And if you don't want realism play a fantasy game or something.

Some people, some ideals.

If I want realistic, I wouldn't be playing a game where I can press a button and make black holes out of nothing, would I?

People play games to be entertained, to get away from reality.

I want a happy ending with my LI ending because that would make me feel good about investing myself in this game.

If I want to be depressed over the ending to war story, I'll go check out every single real life war story on wiki.

But I guess I'm just not as hip and edgy as you.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a some seblance of a happy ending. But as the story and context goes "All survive, no casualties, no sacrifices" is retarded. Considering the Reapers are Gods/Impossible to defeat etc. such ending (All survive) is stupid. It's like the SM - it's supposedly SM but it's very easy for everyone to make it. It's hard to actually kill somebody even on purpose! If such ending is there -  1 it should be next to impossible to achieve and with a mix of paragon and renegade decisions.

If I didn't want realism I would be playing Heroes or Final Fantasy or some such game. 2 Do you know what Sci-Fi stands for? Let me answer that for you - science fiction. It's supposed to have semblance of realism. If the war was won without losing anyone, what war was this then? Winning without losing anything has no value.

Bolded number one - I agree completely, that's what I'm asking for.

Bolded number two -

Wrongo.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...science fiction

sci·ence fic·tionNoun: Fiction
based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major
social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time
travel and life on other planets.


That is what sci-fi stands for, and it has absolutely no relevance on things like the likelihood of people surviving or dying in a galactic war.

The real question is if ME is hard or soft sci-fi.  That tends to matter more than the designation of science fiction.  Look at Star Trek and Star Wars,  both of them are sci fi but one is hard and the other is soft.

[ipgd]

I hope ME3 expresses its BSG syndrome by giving EDI her sexy cylon body.

[KainrycKarr]

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...


As long as this is the case, then sure, kill away. I just don't want "forced" deaths. If someone has to die, then I'd like to at least influence who.

That's what I find really funny - you play a game that represents a galactic war. Go tell the indoctrinated sniper to shoot Jack instead of Garrus or Tali cause you like her less then the other too.

Yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm not saying Virmire every NPC but it's completely retarded that Shepard should have full control over who dies or lives.

Shepard is in command of the mission and who does what. So uh.....yeah, pretty much.

[Undertone]

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

 I can't speak for everyone, but if Garrus dies every time, I'm going to stop caring about him.

So
you are gonna stop liking/caring about a character because he dies at
the end. That actually makes no sense to me either. To me it makes that
character even more important - he allowed you to continue onward.
Without him you would be able to win.

Even regardless how you stop liking a character because he dies... 0.0


As for OP - We seem to agree on the most fundamental part.

I don't want another SM - where it felt incredibly easy to make the right choices and presto - everyone makes it. I want a real challenge and I want a bad ending where the Reapers win to be as likely as there is a good ending. This would make it all the more pleasurable when we actually succeed.

[KainrycKarr]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Why don't you go play sims 3 instead? Seriously I actually have reverse opinion - What's with all the "I want-spoiled-super-happy-ending-have-babies-with-Liara" endings.

It's an action game with some semblance of war story. It's unrealistic to have drama and casualties. And if you don't want realism play a fantasy game or something.

Some people, some ideals.

If I want realistic, I wouldn't be playing a game where I can press a button and make black holes out of nothing, would I?

People play games to be entertained, to get away from reality.

I want a happy ending with my LI ending because that would make me feel good about investing myself in this game.

If I want to be depressed over the ending to war story, I'll go check out every single real life war story on wiki.

But I guess I'm just not as hip and edgy as you.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a some seblance of a happy ending. But as the story and context goes "All survive, no casualties, no sacrifices" is retarded. Considering the Reapers are Gods/Impossible to defeat etc. such ending (All survive) is stupid. It's like the SM - it's supposedly SM but it's very easy for everyone to make it. It's hard to actually kill somebody even on purpose! If such ending is there -  1 it should be next to impossible to achieve and with a mix of paragon and renegade decisions.

If I didn't want realism I would be playing Heroes or Final Fantasy or some such game. 2 Do you know what Sci-Fi stands for? Let me answer that for you - science fiction. It's supposed to have semblance of realism. If the war was won without losing anyone, what war was this then? Winning without losing anything has no value.

Bolded number one - I agree completely, that's what I'm asking for.

Bolded number two -

Wrongo.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...science fiction

sci·ence fic·tionNoun: Fiction
based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major
social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time
travel and life on other planets.


That is what sci-fi stands for, and it has absolutely no relevance on things like the likelihood of people surviving or dying in a galactic war.

The real question is if ME is hard or soft sci-fi.  That tends to matter more than the designation of science fiction.  Look at Star Trek and Star Wars,  both of them are sci fi but one is hard and the other is soft.

Considering how flawed ME is in it's "science" it seems fairly obvious that it is soft.

[Undertone]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...


As long as this is the case, then sure, kill away. I just don't want "forced" deaths. If someone has to die, then I'd like to at least influence who.

That's what I find really funny - you play a game that represents a galactic war. Go tell the indoctrinated sniper to shoot Jack instead of Garrus or Tali cause you like her less then the other too.

Yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm not saying Virmire every NPC but it's completely retarded that Shepard should have full control over who dies or lives.

Shepard is in command of the mission and who does what. So uh.....yeah, pretty much.

Aha and in a mission everything goes according to plan yada yada, there are no variables, no possibilities. /sarcasm

[KainrycKarr]

Undertone wrote...

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

 I can't speak for everyone, but if Garrus dies every time, I'm going to stop caring about him.

So
you are gonna stop liking/caring about a character because he dies at
the end. That actually makes no sense to me either. To me it makes that
character even more important - he allowed you to continue onward.
Without him you would be able to win.

Even regardless how you stop liking a character because he dies... 0.0


As for OP - We seem to agree on the most fundamental part.

I don't want another SM - where it felt incredibly easy to make the right choices and presto - everyone makes it. I want a real challenge and I want a bad ending where the Reapers win to be as likely as there is a good ending. This would make it all the more pleasurable when we actually succeed.

Yes, we are in agreement.

I want a happy ending, but I want to have to really break a sweat to achieve it.

It shouldn't be easy to save everyone in a galactic war. It should hard as ****. Some would even say only the insane could find a way(hint hint).

Now that...that would be achievement.

[AtreiyaN7]

I should point out that war is incredibly depressing, and you're talking about extremely high stakes (the survival of the human race in BSG and the survival of all intelligent organic life in ME3). Despite some, ahem, dubious choices as far as the BSG finale went, the ending itself was mostly hopeful (not counting the very last bit where it is basically implied that we might be on the path to destruction again).

[Lord Coake]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Excuuuuuse me? The modern BSG series was dark, but it was dealing with war, conflict and complex adult characters. It was anything but a chore, and if ME3 has even a hint of what made the show great, they'd probably be better off.

It was also fragging stupid at the end.  If everyone decides to dump their tech and live in caves at the end of ME3, I'm emailing every computer virus I can find to BW's dev team.

[KainrycKarr]

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Undertone wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...


As long as this is the case, then sure, kill away. I just don't want "forced" deaths. If someone has to die, then I'd like to at least influence who.

That's what I find really funny - you play a game that represents a galactic war. Go tell the indoctrinated sniper to shoot Jack instead of Garrus or Tali cause you like her less then the other too.

Yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm not saying Virmire every NPC but it's completely retarded that Shepard should have full control over who dies or lives.

Shepard is in command of the mission and who does what. So uh.....yeah, pretty much.

Aha and in a mission everything goes according to plan yada yada, there are no variables, no possibilities. /sarcasm

That has nothing to do with it.

If I have to send someone to there deaths, I'm gonna send someone I don't like, if I have the choice.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Oh I thought you meant the everyone's a cylon thing....I would personally not like the whole save everybody ending like we got in 2 that was a dumb and hallow ending you go on a suicide mission with no intel, one ship, and not one person dies?

According to them I should be able to to take down Kim Jhong with a dozen people, no intel on him other then he's evil, no clue of his defenses, a few pretty speeches, and we should all come out of that alive I don't want that in 3 people species, and solar systems should die in varying degrees and the player should loose people on their team.


EDIT: on the comment that so and so wants to simi influence who should die at points it makes some sense once again using virmire why was it only Ash or Kaiden could do that? Why was only Ash or Kaiden able to be sent with the Salarians? So long as character so and so is an able bodied fighter why couldn't they go with the slarainas? Why if so and so is a capable tech personality they shouldn't be able to arm that nuke?

Kaiden and Ash aren't even tech experse Tali and Garrus where so when who should go with the nuke came up the player should've been able to pick Ash, Kaiden, Tali or Garrus when the decision came up to pick who goes with the salarians Garrus, Kaiden, Ash, Liara, and Wrex should've come up.

BW doesn't need to give us useless choices just choose from whom is qualified and you know who is based off dailouge on ship and how many times you took so and so to battle. For instance say I take Liara once on battle she sits on ship all the rest of the game till Virmire I say go with the Salarians she would fail she doesn't have the battlefeild experiance that Garrus does because I took him every mission. If I say Garrus go he does his job and when the nuke blows up guess what he even made it out of nuke range and lived!

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 21 juin 2011 - 08:30 .