416 réponses à ce sujet

[KainrycKarr]

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.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that the player should have some influence over who is saved and who dies.

[arne1234]

So their are multiple good endings but should their be multiple bad endings? Say if shepard get's indoctrinated should he get the answers on why the reapers are culling every other generation? will we be able to see a human reaper? Also something tells me that seeing a reaper shepard with his LI intertwined wouldn't be the worst ending possible

[jamesp81]

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.

So it's immersion breaking for you if the team gets lucky and wins, but there are still a few billion dead?

That few billion dead ought to be enough.

[nhsk]

"No one left behind" just means that you go to great lengths to recover someones body to give them a proper funeral to honor them and their families.

[AlanC9]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Hence why it would be better if the outcomes were better depending on how look at it.

I'll go back to my evac point scenario.

Garrus sets up, snipes as cover, then retreats with the civilians to make it back to the ship. Some of the civvies that lag behind get picked off.

You send Grunt, Grunt "holds the line", all the civvies make it, but Grunt being Grunt decides to keep fighting, and eventually is killed.

In that scenario, the player influences who in his squad dies, but the outcome isn't necessarily better or worse, just different.

Sure. Of course, what Shep's doing here and what the player's doing are different things --- at  least, by the second playthrough they would be. Unless Bio determines the outcome by chance.

[Legbiter]

ME 3 won't be a picnic. Hope you researched that Thanix cannon.

[jamesp81]

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.

So is the idea of milenia old war machines coming to kill everyone every 50,000 years.

So is the idea that, assuming such machines exist, that we have a snowball's chance in hell of actually stopping them.

So what makes sense kind of doesn't matter.  I want to be entertained.  That includes a way to achieve an ending that doesn't make me want to start cutting or dress emo.

Modifié par jamesp81, 21 juin 2011 - 09:06 .

[SennenScale]

jamesp81 wrote...

nhsk wrote...

And the "everyone lives" is a fairy tale fantasy, which is... Cliche

And so is the heroic sacrifice.

So is the grim ending.

There are no endings that are NOT cliche.

This, basically. The tragedies are older anyway than the happy endings, last I checked.

Besides which, cliches are not bad in and of themselves, it's how the story handles it that matters.

[KainrycKarr]

AlanC9 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Hence why it would be better if the outcomes were better depending on how look at it.

I'll go back to my evac point scenario.

Garrus sets up, snipes as cover, then retreats with the civilians to make it back to the ship. Some of the civvies that lag behind get picked off.

You send Grunt, Grunt "holds the line", all the civvies make it, but Grunt being Grunt decides to keep fighting, and eventually is killed.

In that scenario, the player influences who in his squad dies, but the outcome isn't necessarily better or worse, just different.

Sure. Of course, what Shep's doing here and what the player's doing are different things --- at  least, by the second playthrough they would be. Unless Bio determines the outcome by chance.

I'm not sure I know what you mean here.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I like happy endings because real life sucks.  I like to escape from it and feel like a hero once in a while.

[Repearized Miranda]

Kronner wrote...

I think that Shepard should face tough decisions that ultimately lead to sacrifices. "Everyone lives" ending would make Reapers pretty lame. The "Suicide Mission" was a joke..it took more effort to get someone killed than to keep everyone alive. Do. Not. Want.

On the contrary, it didn't! We just didn't know how to do it - not to mention that, generally, gamers don't play to lose - not even "what if I try to lose".

Seriously if you played the first time and did everything right, why not just do the opposite. LMs AND Ship upgrades = win! Don't do any lick of that. you lose!! I saw this on Youtube and it was so damn simple. People were laughing their butts off!

Yes, the effort comes in recruiting these people, but it's just as easy if not easier to kill them.

I had written a post in respnse to Undertone, but my connection fudged. What I was trying to say was this regarding the multiple endings which he among others wants.

As we have agreed that the SM was written badly (once you take the immersion away from it), I made the point that it wasn't the endings, but how they wrote them for ME2. (See above) Then, he goes on to ask for a "middle ending." TBBH, there is no middle anything with this game or that's how many have approached it. (The middle "Indifferent" dialog choices didn't help; yet, even if they did, who would pick them? (but that's beside the point)

However, I am not opposed to his idea of a "Did we really win?" type where it is bittersweet. You win the battle, but Sheperd, comrads, LI among others Shep cares about dies! However, I don't want it to be because I forgot to do something at least not as simplistic as it was in ME2 nor do I want some insignificant decision from two games ago to determine this game outcome. Should it be a considered variable? Yes, but it'll upset alot players if it is THAT far reaching.

In short, in ME1 & 2 (especially 2) you had the "black or white" ending (even if a couple of squadmates died); yet, because of this, many players played for the "black AND white" endings. So, it's legit that some would ask for a "gray" ending as well. I hope this is the case, but they'd really do wonders if within the gray ending, you saw the black and white ones.

[macrocarl]

As long as the end of ME3 doesn't pull the BSG religion thing or start giving shout outs to Jimmy Hendrix I'll be OK with it.

[jamesp81]

nhsk wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I'll add this.

Dark and gritty stories suck when everyone ends up dead.

They're epic when, against all odds and expectations, the good guys pull victory from the jaws of defeat. This is why Lord of the Rings was so damned awesome.

There was still deaths in LotR... I name Boromir, and Frodo had to go to the elven lands or he would die and suffer and all different things, even the lands of the hobbits came under attack, where fuzzy hobbits died, by Saruman after he lost his tower (albeit not in the movie).

The deaths were not those of the most important characters that people were attached to.  Boromir and Gandalf were the only ones, and one of them was resurrected essentially.

The lands of the hobbits did get savaged pretty good, but even this passed with time after Shire was liberated (I expect Earth to be savagely scared after ME3, but that too shall pass in time).

Frodo did go with the Elves.  So that he could finally find peace.  He had his happy ending too.

As for Saruman......that son of a **** had it coming

Modifié par jamesp81, 21 juin 2011 - 09:12 .

[Bnol]

KainrycKarr wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Because some people have different definitions of entertainment and they believe their definition is superior.

Hence why options that appease both sides is best.

But it really comes down to the implementation of those options and the balance in terms of choice and story.  The most recent example we have is ME2.  If you actually pay attention to any of the dialogue statements that say "make sure the team is ready" or "we should upgrade the ship", then everyone lives and nobody dies.  If you make it very dificult to either get a perfect or terrible outcome then those outcomes seem so contrived and less about story and more about the meta-game.  I think a range of somewhat close to perfect to somewhat close to complete failure allows a better implementation that at least feels a bit more natural.  This gets even more complicated by the whole Paragon/Renegade system, since you would have either side of the fence complaining if an all Paragon/Renegade playthrough couldn't get a "good" outcome.

[jamesp81]

nhsk wrote...

"No one left behind" just means that you go to great lengths to recover someones body to give them a proper funeral to honor them and their families.

In reality.  Not in the context of this game, however.

[KainrycKarr]

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

If you agree with me about multiple endings, why can't one of them be a happy ending?

If people have to die, allow the player to influence who and when. That's all I'm askin' at the end of the day.

And in a game based on player choice, why shouldn't I have that?

i understand that.but the reapers are a threat that really signifies a damnation of endings or at least crippling the universe.with such a threat it wouldnt make much sense to have a heros happy ending.

i want mulitply endings like you but nothing to fixed on being truely happy.if anything bitter,sweet with justify sorrow.yeah i want my shep to live,and his/her LI to be with them and retire on a planet where they dont have to worry but it thats an ending i want with aton of the Shepard crew/squad to die the galaxy to fall into termoil while the council figures out what/how theyre going to fix the destruction of the galaxy..along with more darker and much more depressing endings

I don't think people are understanding me.

I'm not saying no deaths. I'm saying the player should have influence on WHO and WHEN. Someone will die, no matter what the player chooses.

[AlanC9]

KainrycKarr wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Hence why it would be better if the outcomes were better depending on how look at it.

I'll go back to my evac point scenario.

Garrus sets up, snipes as cover, then retreats with the civilians to make it back to the ship. Some of the civvies that lag behind get picked off.

You send Grunt, Grunt "holds the line", all the civvies make it, but Grunt being Grunt decides to keep fighting, and eventually is killed.

In that scenario, the player influences who in his squad dies, but the outcome isn't necessarily better or worse, just different.

Sure. Of course, what Shep's doing here and what the player's doing are different things --- at  least, by the second playthrough they would be. Unless Bio determines the outcome by chance.

I'm not sure I know what you mean here.

I'll unpack it. Shepard's taking a risk that something will happen to Grunt; it's not a certainty that he'll get killed. Or he picks Garrus who isn't likely to get himself killed, but won't draw fire to himself the way Grunt would. Shepard's dealing in probabilities, but the game would likely make them certainties.

[jamesp81]

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

If you agree with me about multiple endings, why can't one of them be a happy ending?

If people have to die, allow the player to influence who and when. That's all I'm askin' at the end of the day.

And in a game based on player choice, why shouldn't I have that?

i understand that.but the reapers are a threat that really signifies a damnation of endings or at least crippling the universe.with such a threat it wouldnt make much sense to have a heros happy ending.

i want mulitply endings like you but nothing to fixed on being truely happy.if anything bitter,sweet with justify sorrow.yeah i want my shep to live,and his/her LI to be with them and retire on a planet where they dont have to worry but it thats an ending i want with aton of the Shepard crew/squad to die the galaxy to fall into termoil while the council figures out what/how theyre going to fix the destruction of the galaxy..along with more darker and much more depressing endings

There's plenty of other tragic literature you can indulge in.  This series, however, is about the outcome resulting from your choices.  If you can't handle that, perhaps this is not the game for you.

[jamesp81]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

I like happy endings because real life sucks.  I like to escape from it and feel like a hero once in a while.

This x1000

[KainrycKarr]

Bnol wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Because some people have different definitions of entertainment and they believe their definition is superior.

Hence why options that appease both sides is best.

But it really comes down to the implementation of those options and the balance in terms of choice and story.  The most recent example we have is ME2.  If you actually pay attention to any of the dialogue statements that say "make sure the team is ready" or "we should upgrade the ship", then everyone lives and nobody dies.  If you make it very dificult to either get a perfect or terrible outcome then those outcomes seem so contrived and less about story and more about the meta-game.  I think a range of somewhat close to perfect to somewhat close to complete failure allows a better implementation that at least feels a bit more natural.  This gets even more complicated by the whole Paragon/Renegade system, since you would have either side of the fence complaining if an all Paragon/Renegade playthrough couldn't get a "good" outcome.

So don't make the "right" choices as obvious.

All of that only matters in the first playthrough, because afterwards, the story is sploiled.

You play a game like this the first time, to see how the story plays out.

Then you play it again to see how it might have played out differently if you did this or that.

The second playthrough, to me, is about "could I have saved this person by doing this, instead of that?"

If I play through the game multiple times, and the same people HAVE to die each and every time, and the ending doesn't change, then what's the replay value?

[KainrycKarr]

AlanC9 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Hence why it would be better if the outcomes were better depending on how look at it.

I'll go back to my evac point scenario.

Garrus sets up, snipes as cover, then retreats with the civilians to make it back to the ship. Some of the civvies that lag behind get picked off.

You send Grunt, Grunt "holds the line", all the civvies make it, but Grunt being Grunt decides to keep fighting, and eventually is killed.

In that scenario, the player influences who in his squad dies, but the outcome isn't necessarily better or worse, just different.

Sure. Of course, what Shep's doing here and what the player's doing are different things --- at  least, by the second playthrough they would be. Unless Bio determines the outcome by chance.

I'm not sure I know what you mean here.

I'll unpack it. Shepard's taking a risk that something will happen to Grunt; it's not a certainty that he'll get killed. Or he picks Garrus who isn't likely to get himself killed, but won't draw fire to himself the way Grunt would. Shepard's dealing in probabilities, but the game would likely make them certainties.

Makes sense to me. The choice isn't as obvious or black and white. Both Garrus and Grunt are likely to succeed, but how they accomplish the mission is obviously gonna be very different.

Choices like that, I think, would be best when it comes to character deaths.

[jamesp81]

As we have agreed that the SM was written badly

I've agreed to no such thing.

I personally think the SM was one of the greatest moments in all of video gaming, and I've been playing them for a long time now.

[Nerevar-as]

KainrycKarr wrote...

If I play through the game multiple times, and the same people HAVE to die each and every time, and the ending doesn't change, then what's the replay value?

To me is like going back to a movie or book you liked.