416 réponses à ce sujet

[KainrycKarr]

Nerevar-as wrote...

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.

That's not as good replay value, as getting to see the game play out multiple different ways.

[jamesp81]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Happy ending are for wussy anyway... [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/policeman.png[/smilie]

<_<

Modifié par jamesp81, 21 juin 2011 - 09:16 .

[KainrycKarr]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Happy ending are for wussy anyway...

Fine, call me a wuss.

[Bnol]

KainrycKarr wrote...

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.

The quote I responded to was stating that a detail oriented officer could get all of his men out alive.  That generally is not the case, especially if you are fighting worthy opposition.  Further, you don't always have the ability to control everything.  Sure, you can assess the risk, but sometimes what you think is going to be the least risky turns out to be the most dangerous.  I think the Virmire thing was fine, but quite honestly a lot more of that will be ridiculous.  You don't always know what your choices are going to be.  I think the story will be weak if the first playthrough I could have a perfect ending like you could in ME2.  I worry about the implementation of "good"/"bad" outcomes at the extreme potentially weakening the overall story.  I mean if I go through my first playthrough and get that good story, it is so much harder now to go back and meta-game the wrong choice, because I know it is the wrong choice, but I just want to see it anyways.

[KainrycKarr]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Happy ending are for wussy anyway...

Fine, call me a wuss.

I didn't expect that answer...

I don't really care what anyone in this thread thinks of me.

I just want to get what I want out of ME3, as well as the rest of you.

I'm saying there's room for all of us to be satisfied. The rest of you are saying there isn't.

[marshalleck]

jamesp81 wrote...

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.

A few billion people we've never met on a planet we've never seen. Big whoop, who cares? There's no impact. It could be 10 people, 10 million, or a billion and it still has no personal relevance to the player. 

[AlanC9]

jamesp81 wrote...

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.

The SM proper was fine. The problem is that the game lets you get to the SM without any tradeoffs if you hold up on the IFF mission. ME2 would be a better game if that mission was forced the way Horizon is forced.

[Ianamus]

I think that it should depend on what you've done in the previous games. If you had almost eveybody die in the suicide mission and did none of the Loyalty Missions then you should definitely be far less likely to succeed than somebody who did all of those things. As for choices like the Rachni queen, there should be both positive and negetive reprecussions for these. A "happy" ending should be possible, but only if the player has put the effort in.

[Dean_the_Young]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Happy ending are for wussy anyway...

Fine, call me a wuss.

Wussy wuss wuss wussy wuss.

Wuss.

Hey, guess what begins with a w? Wuss. But I bet you already knew that, didn't you? Because you are a wuss.

Who's name is Wuss. Probably because when you plopped out your parents were like 'listen to those lungs: this kid is defenitely a wuss." And so they called you what you were, Wuss, because even when you were born you were crying like a wuss.

Wuss.

Which is you. Wuss, I mean. Not which, because that would be silly because you are a Wuss.






(End of Joke)

[KainrycKarr]

marshalleck wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

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.

A few billion people we've never met on a planet we've never seen. Big whoop, who cares? There's no impact. It could be 10 people, 10 million, or a billion and it still has no personal relevance to the player. 

Fine. Add in a few spots in the story where someone HAS to die.

That first playthrough, I go through, hope I make the right choices, maybe they survive...maybe they die.

Why shouldn't I be able to go back and try to find the method to save them, once the story has played out and I know what happens?

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 21 juin 2011 - 09:22 .

[KainrycKarr]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Happy ending are for wussy anyway...

Fine, call me a wuss.

Wussy wuss wuss wussy wuss.

Wuss.

Hey, guess what begins with a w? Wuss. But I bet you already knew that, didn't you? Because you are a wuss.

Who's name is Wuss. Probably because when you plopped out your parents were like 'listen to those lungs: this kid is defenitely a wuss." And so they called you what you were, Wuss, because even when you were born you were crying like a wuss.

Wuss.

Which is you. Wuss, I mean. Not which, because that would be silly because you are a Wuss.






(End of Joke)

Ok. I lol'd.

[KainrycKarr]

AwesomeName wrote...

I imagine there will be a best case scenario, but if *that* scenario is good to the point where everyone survives, then the story is going to feel very juvenile. The threat is armageddon, so I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can to stop it; if everyone survives after I make maximum effort, then the Reaper threat is going to feel like something out of My Little Pony and I will be forced to wonder how that is even consistent with their reputation of wiping out god-knows-how-many advanced galactic civilisations.

Because it's a lot harder to save billions of people, than it is to keep a team of 8-10 people alive.

[ZLurps]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

After the last Halo
game, the forums were overwhelmed with people demanding that Earth be destroyed and everyone die. Personally, I don't believe the large majority of fans would prefer that. After spending 2 games building up relationships, having it all inevitably destroyed in the end would ****** most people off and totally kill the game's replayability. This isn't a
shooter with a short campaign, its a 100 hour odyssey.

Very good point.

I'v understood that some people here claim that in ME2 we didn't really needed to work hard enough to keep our squad alive through SM.

We on BioWare Social present only 1% of Mass Effect players. Many of us are hard core fans of the series but we don't present the majority of players. We take it for granted that everybody upgrades the Normandy and everyone has
their whole squad survive through SM. However, when I checked ME2
statistics that isn't true in general.

From ME2 statistics:social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/4690597/1

• Only 50% of players have fully upgraded the <Ship> by the end of the game
• 14% of squad members die in the end-game, on average

So 50% of players lose some some squad members even before they land on the Collector base. Then on 14% more die in Collector base. That's 1,4 or 1,68 depending if player has DLC characters or not. So, avarage player loses at least 1 and lot of people at least 2 squad members during SM.


Good example how that can scew things is how some people who has posted in this topic has said that it was really easy to keep your whole squad alive through ME2, but statistics don't support that at all.

KainrycKarr wrote...

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? [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

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. ...snip...

Very true. The real world is pretty dark place if people think about it a while. We can't always make things right, no matter how hard we try in real life, but games.. in games everything is possible. That's why we play story based games.

I'm all for options though, I think there should be possibility to fail and shades of different endings... real dark ending and I think there most likely is going to be ending like that, but personally I would like possibility for ending where Shepard rides to the sunset with his / her LI as well.

Realistically though, I think the best chance to survive from the Reaper invasion is to join Shepard's crew. You have resources, shelter and you are mobile and you have at least some freedom to choose your battles. The Alliance military forces and civilians on the Earth don't have such luxury.

What comes to another Virmire, I hope we don't see it. We have seen it once already and I hope we experience something else this time.

Edit: Formatting.

Modifié par ZLurps, 21 juin 2011 - 09:31 .

[jamesp81]

marshalleck wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

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.

A few billion people we've never met on a planet we've never seen. Big whoop, who cares? There's no impact. It could be 10 people, 10 million, or a billion and it still has no personal relevance to the player. 

Maybe not to you.

[jamesp81]

AlanC9 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

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.

The SM proper was fine. The problem is that the game lets you get to the SM without any tradeoffs if you hold up on the IFF mission. ME2 would be a better game if that mission was forced the way Horizon is forced.

No, it wouldn't.

[Bnol]

KainrycKarr wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

I imagine there will be a best case scenario, but if *that* scenario is good to the point where everyone survives, then the story is going to feel very juvenile. The threat is armageddon, so I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can to stop it; if everyone survives after I make maximum effort, then the Reaper threat is going to feel like something out of My Little Pony and I will be forced to wonder how that is even consistent with their reputation of wiping out god-knows-how-many advanced galactic civilisations.

Because it's a lot harder to save billions of people, than it is to keep a team of 8-10 people alive.

Oh please no biblical flood type ending....

[KainrycKarr]

ZLurps wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

After the last Halo
game, the forums were overwhelmed with people demanding that Earth be
destroyed and everyone die. Personally, I don't believe the large
majority of fans would prefer that. After spending 2 games building up
relationships, having it all inevitably destroyed in the end would ******
most people off and totally kill the game's replayability. This isn't a
shooter with a short campaign, its a 100 hour odyssey.

Very good point.

I'v understood that some people here claim that in ME2 we didn't really needed to work hard enough to keep our squad alive through SM.

We on BioWare Social present only 1% of Mass Effect players. Many of us are hard core fans of the series but we don't present the majority of players. We take it for granted that everybody upgrades the Normandy and everyone has
their whole squad survive through SM. However, when I checked ME2
statistics that isn't true in general.

From ME2 statistics:social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/4690597/1

• Only 50% of players have fully upgraded the <Ship> by the end of the game
• 14% of squad members die in the end-game, on average

So 50% of players lose some some squad members even before they land on the Collector base. Then on 14% more die in Collector base. That's 1,4 or 1,68 depending if player has DLC characters or not. So, avarage player loses at least 1 and lot of people at least 2 squad members during SM.


Good example how that can scew things is how some people who has posted
in this topic has said that it was really easy to keep your whole squad
alive through ME2, but statistics don't support that at all.

KainrycKarr wrote...

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? [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

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. ...snip...

Very true. The real world is pretty dark place if people think about it a while. We can't always make things right, no matter how hard we try in real life, but games.. in games everything is possible. That's why we play story based games.

I'm all for options though, I think there should be possibility to fail and shades of different endings... real dark ending and I think there most likely is going to be ending like that, but personally I would like possibility for ending where Shepard rides to the sunset with his / her LI as well.

Realistically though, I think the best chance to survive from the Reaper invasion is to join Shepard's crew. You have resources, shelter and you are mobile and you have at least some freedom to choose your battles. The Alliance military forces and civilians on the Earth don't have such luxury.

What comes to another Virmire, I hope we don't see it. We have seen it once already and I hope we experience something else this time.

Great post., particularly the bolded.

[Ianamus]

AwesomeName wrote...

I imagine there will be a best case scenario, but if *that* scenario is good to the point where everyone survives, then the story is going to feel very juvenile. The threat is armageddon, so I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can to stop it; if everyone survives after I make maximum effort, then the Reaper threat is going to feel like something out of My Little Pony and I will be forced to wonder how that is even consistent with their reputation of wiping out god-knows-how-many advanced galactic civilisations.

Your squad will mostly be on the Normandy with you though, and between that and the fact that everyone you recruit can handle themselves in combat, they have a much higher chance of survival than civilians. I agree that it would be stupid if no civilisations are brought to the brink of extinction, or have significant losses in even the best ending, but it wouldn't be unrealistic to have the 8 or so people in your team survive.

Modifié par EJ107, 21 juin 2011 - 09:27 .

[KainrycKarr]

Bnol wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

I imagine there will be a best case scenario, but if *that* scenario is good to the point where everyone survives, then the story is going to feel very juvenile. The threat is armageddon, so I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can to stop it; if everyone survives after I make maximum effort, then the Reaper threat is going to feel like something out of My Little Pony and I will be forced to wonder how that is even consistent with their reputation of wiping out god-knows-how-many advanced galactic civilisations.

Because it's a lot harder to save billions of people, than it is to keep a team of 8-10 people alive.

Oh please no biblical flood type ending....

....what? I'm saying it would be a lot easier for a small team of individuals(Shep's crew) to survive a war, considering they can pick their battles, than it is for billions of people who are mostly untrained, have no control over their surroundings, and can't do anything about it.

[KainrycKarr]

AwesomeName wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Teknor wrote...

Total survival cheapens the Reapers' deal hence the story.

Except total survival isn't possible already. Millions are already dead.
Hell, it's possible given the events of Arrival and what we've seen so far for ME3 that at least one race might already be extinct or near-extinct(batarians).

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

Realistically, though, some situations simply don't allow for an option (e.g. there was no way around the Virmire situation). 

Given the gravity of the situation, I don't see how any playthrough, no matter how hard you try is going to avoid similar situations.  If they don't exist anywhere, then how grave is this threat really? 

I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. I'm saying they should be like virmire, with the player influencing the outcome.

[jamesp81]

Good example how that can scew things is how some people who has posted
in this topic has said that it was really easy to keep your whole squad
alive through ME2, but statistics don't support that at all.

This is a good point.  I actually lost one squad member on my first run, mainly because I made a wrong choice on assignments.

People I know have lost even more based on those choices.  Most people aren't into the characters as much as we are on BSN.

For example, my good friend lost three or four the first time he played it.  He made the right choice on who to send through the vents, but picked Mordin to lead the second fire team both times and sent an unloyal Zaeed back with the crew.  His reasoning was that Mordin was an STG operative and had special forces experience.  So Mordin was actually a reasonable choice, as his reasoning made sense.  As for sending back Zaeed, anyone will work for that part, but it weakened his hold the line forces.  Of course, the hard core fans like us on BSN know it has to be Miranda or Garrus on the second fire team, Mordin for crew escort, and Zaeed, Grunt, and Garrus need to be holding the line.

Those things are not immediately obvious to most of the world.

I also think 'most of the world' is going to be pissed if there isn't a path for them to achieve a good ending.

[Bnol]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Bnol wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

I imagine there will be a best case scenario, but if *that* scenario is good to the point where everyone survives, then the story is going to feel very juvenile. The threat is armageddon, so I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can to stop it; if everyone survives after I make maximum effort, then the Reaper threat is going to feel like something out of My Little Pony and I will be forced to wonder how that is even consistent with their reputation of wiping out god-knows-how-many advanced galactic civilisations.

Because it's a lot harder to save billions of people, than it is to keep a team of 8-10 people alive.

Oh please no biblical flood type ending....

....what? I'm saying it would be a lot easier for a small team of individuals(Shep's crew) to survive a war, considering they can pick their battles, than it is for billions of people who are mostly untrained, have no control over their surroundings, and can't do anything about it.

I was just stating that I wouldn't prefer the entire galaxy is destroyed except Shepard and his squad, thus they must rebuild the galaxy ending.  Which could be done with the technological advances of gene alteration and the ability to tank breed.