896 réponses à ce sujet

[GreenDragon37]

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Each and every Shepard has lost, by
my count, atleast 23 people under their command.  That seems like PLENTY
for the 'we sacrificed for this victory' drama requirement,
especially since Shepard has potentially lost far more than that. 

You're refering to the Normandy SR1 crew, right? That doesn't really serve for the drama factor for the player because, aside from a few like Pressley, we didn't know any of the crew. They were faceless npcs to fill the ship. The player isn't attached to them and doesn't really care much when they die. The effort is pointless if the player themselves dont feel the weight of the sacrifice with Shepard.

And Jenkins and the VS, yes.  And perhaps some don't care when they died.  But as a Shepard that wanted to save everyone...my Shepard did.  I spent 45 minutes searching that wreck for every single one of those dog tags, tearing up as I did so.  Think I did it for the 5 xp per tag? Hell no.  I did it, SHEPARD did it, because no one gets left out in the cold.  Because everyone comes home.  So yeah, for my Shepard, 23 was plenty and far too many.  And I'd just as soon have the option for that to be it as far as my crew goes.  You can have your deaths if you want, but why the hell you wish to impose them on ME is and always has been beyond me.

Because you can't control life. If this is a war, someone is going to die. Maybe it is your friend, maybe it's a random soldier under your commnand, but it will happen. In war, you can't save everyone. Every soldier knows this. Everyone who leads knows this. Shepard (no matter how Paragon) knows this. Will he try to save everyone? Yes. Can he? No. But he knows that he can make sure that their deaths will not have been in vain.

I'm a Paragage, but with a strong lead towards Paragon, but even my Shep knows that he isn't perfect. He can't save everyone, but not making their deaths mean something... that is the greatest betrayl of his men and women.

Videogame =/= real life

Fiction in general =/= real life

why do you want to force deaths on others thus maybe souring their experience when choice would allow you to have your deaths and the next person have their sunshine and bunnies ending?

Because even in a videogame, not everything is sunshine and bunnies. In DA:O, you lost people through your actions. Or you had everyone surviv/not leave... but you had to jump through the hoops, and realize that you had to do something that might return to bite you in the ass. Choices need to have a consequence, and I doubt that BioWare will make a completely happy ending. They even said you will have to make sacrifices. I just don't understand this whole 'sunshine and bunnies" notion. Choices have consequences.

You can choose who to save; just realize that it has a string attatched to it.

your choice, your preference, your tastes...why are they superior/more worthy than anyone else's who wants a "perfect" ending? Who gets to say whose view is "better" in this case and why?

if you have the choice to have sacrifices or have everyone live then you pretty much please everyone but those who actually wanted the choice taken away from them for the sake of it being taken away

Because even BioWare has stated "sacrifices will need to be made". So you won't get the sunshine and bunnies ending. It's choises and consequences. You want X to live? then someone else may have to be thrown into the fire. Maybe it's only one person? Maybe 3? Depending on how you play, you won't lose as many. But know that sacrifices have to be made. There will be no "sunshine and bunnies" ending. Just like Paragon and Renegade decisions will have positives and negatives. You actually think saving the Rachni Queen will have no consequences? Or saving the Genophage cure? I knew friction would happen, but I made those decisions anyway, and would accept the consequences as they come.

Oh, and need I remind you that you will have to sacrifice races? You can't avoid it. Once again, there is no "sunshine and bunnies" ending in the Reaper War.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 31 août 2011 - 01:22 .

[Ghost Warrior]

crimzontearz wrote...

Because, Ghost warrior, the only way to achieve what YOU desire is to discard someone else's and remove the element of crafting our story.

So either A: you think that your "imposed and inevitable deaths" are better than a scenartio in which you actually get to choose.......and thus my question to you earlier

or B: you just want others to suffer through something that might sour their experience....

which one is it?

It's neither.Obviously whatever BioWare does,somebody won't be thrilled. Either people like you,or people like me. I'm not saying it should absolutely be you because my opinion is more worthy or something. BioWare will do what they think it's for the best,I'm just saying what I would prefer. Is that somehow wrong?

And one more thing. It is a game of choices,but just like in real life,some things you can't control. In ME1,were you able to save both Kaidan and Ashley? In ME2,were you able to give the Collector base to the Alliance? Were you able to control the events of Arrival? Some things are out of our control.

[crimzontearz]

^^ again...your opinion on something "worthy"

just an opinion.

Bioware gave you the tools to tell YOUR story, and MY story as well and everything in between. Stop whining and USE them

[GreenDragon37]

crimzontearz wrote...

^^ again...your opinion on something "worthy"

just an opinion.

Bioware gave you the tools to tell YOUR story, and MY story as well and everything in between. Stop whining and USE them

But they also said that you had to make sacrifices. Which you continue to ignore. You can't have everything.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 31 août 2011 - 01:24 .

[TheOptimist]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Because you can't control life. If this is a war, someone is going to die. Maybe it is your friend, maybe it's a random soldier under your commnand, but it will happen. In war, you can't save everyone. Every soldier knows this. Everyone who leads knows this. Shepard (no matter how Paragon) knows this. Will he try to save everyone? Yes. Can he? No. But he knows that he can make sure that their deaths will not have been in vain.

I'm a Paragage, but with a strong lead towards Paragon, but even my Shep knows that he isn't perfect. He can't save everyone, but not making their deaths mean something... that is the greatest betrayl of his men and women.

No, you can't save everyone, and Shepard hasn't.  That's my point.  We've already had the requisite 'these people WILL die moments', and again, that's the bare MINIMUM.  Want to get that one more mission, buy that one more upgrade before you go get your crew? Congratulations, you've just lost another 12 people (on the low end of Normandy crew estimates, I'd think more like 25), irrespective of Squadmates.  Shepard didn't save the 20 Cruisers the Turians lost at the Citadel and didn't save the 8 cruisers humanity lost.  Shepard won't save the billions of people about to die in the Reaper invasion.  There is, however, no reason Shepard can't make sure the people immediately around him/her survive.

[crimzontearz]

and I am totally ok with the concept of mutally exclusive allies ala DAO and sacrifice one of the two possible allied races if there is no other choice.

I was talking more in a "within the squad" perspective

"sacrifices will have to be made" can mean anything not just "yeah some people on your team will die"

[Ghost Warrior]

Golden Owl wrote...
The thing is though too Ghost Warrior....how would these deaths be decided, as to who dies, who lives, etc...would it be from past and present decisions Shep makes? Will BW be throwing all the squaddies, etc...names in a hat and who gets drawn dies? Find fav squad members, LI's, etc... and make player choose A or B? There in lie a lot of problems.

I agree with that. Honestly,with so many variables,I have no idea how they will pull off a lot of things in ME3,not just this.

Modifié par Ghost Warrior, 31 août 2011 - 01:25 .

[TheOptimist]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
You can have your deaths if you want, but why the hell you wish to impose them on ME is and always has been beyond me.

Because I want to achieve the best possible ending in one of my playthroughs. I just don't want it to be perfect. In ME2 the best ending was perfect - everybody gets out alive and well. That cheapened the entire Suicide mission for me. I want to be able to do the best I can,without losing the feeling that the entire battle left me scared somehow. Sacrifices should be made,friends lost and worlds destroyed. But that's just my opinion.

Then you don't want the best possible ending, just a good one.  And that ain't what I want.

[nitefyre410]

Golden Owl wrote...

Ghost Warrior wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
You can have your deaths if you want, but why the hell you wish to impose them on ME is and always has been beyond me.

Because I want to achieve the best possible ending in one of my playthroughs. I just don't want it to be perfect. In ME2 the best ending was perfect - everybody gets out alive and well. That cheapened the entire Suicide mission for me. I want to be able to do the best I can,without losing the feeling that the entire battle left me scared somehow. Sacrifices should be made,friends lost and worlds destroyed. But that's just my opinion.

The thing is though too Ghost Warrior....how would these deaths be decided, as to who dies, who lives, etc...would it be from past and present decisions Shep makes? Will BW be throwing all the squaddies, etc...names in a hat and who gets drawn dies? Find fav squad members, LI's, etc... and make player choose A or B? There in lie a lot of problems.

 

Exactly -  how are they going to pull this off ,  I just don't see them being able to.   This dicussion really shows the pro and cons of  player and view choice when it comes to telling a story though.

[Ghost Warrior]

crimzontearz wrote...

^^ again...your opinion on something "worthy"

just an opinion.

Bioware gave you the tools to tell YOUR story, and MY story as well and everything in between. Stop whining and USE them

First,I'm not whining. And right,each person tells its own story. Maybe in my story planet or person A will be sacrificed,and in your story it will be planet or person B. Or C.

[GreenDragon37]

crimzontearz wrote...

and I am totally ok with the concept of mutally exclusive allies ala DAO and sacrifice one of the two possible allied races if there is no other choice.

I was talking more in a "within the squad" perspective

"sacrifices will have to be made" can mean anything not just "yeah some people on your team will die"

And why wouldn't it apply to the squad? The Reapers have been exterminating everyone for millions of years. If you think everything frost squad to galaxy is going to be sunshine and rainbows, you will be disappointed. I accept character death, as long as it is a choice over who dies and it was because of my choices, not because the game decided to randomly kill off "that one squaddie for the lolz".

[crimzontearz]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

^^ again...your opinion on something "worthy"

just an opinion.

Bioware gave you the tools to tell YOUR story, and MY story as well and everything in between. Stop whining and USE them

First,I'm not whining. And right,each person tells its own story. Maybe in my story planet or person A will be sacrificed,and in your story it will be planet or person B. Or C.

I'm ok with having to sacrifice a mutually exlusive ally or a planet....

[Ghost Warrior]

TheOptimist wrote...

Ghost Warrior wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
You can have your deaths if you want, but why the hell you wish to impose them on ME is and always has been beyond me.

Because I want to achieve the best possible ending in one of my playthroughs. I just don't want it to be perfect. In ME2 the best ending was perfect - everybody gets out alive and well. That cheapened the entire Suicide mission for me. I want to be able to do the best I can,without losing the feeling that the entire battle left me scared somehow. Sacrifices should be made,friends lost and worlds destroyed. But that's just my opinion.

Then you don't want the best possible ending, just a good one.  And that ain't what I want.

No,I want the best possible ending given by BioWare. I just don't want too much given.

[GreenDragon37]

TheOptimist wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Because you can't control life. If this is a war, someone is going to die. Maybe it is your friend, maybe it's a random soldier under your commnand, but it will happen. In war, you can't save everyone. Every soldier knows this. Everyone who leads knows this. Shepard (no matter how Paragon) knows this. Will he try to save everyone? Yes. Can he? No. But he knows that he can make sure that their deaths will not have been in vain.

I'm a Paragage, but with a strong lead towards Paragon, but even my Shep knows that he isn't perfect. He can't save everyone, but not making their deaths mean something... that is the greatest betrayl of his men and women.

No, you can't save everyone, and Shepard hasn't.  That's my point.  We've already had the requisite 'these people WILL die moments', and again, that's the bare MINIMUM.  Want to get that one more mission, buy that one more upgrade before you go get your crew? Congratulations, you've just lost another 12 people (on the low end of Normandy crew estimates, I'd think more like 25), irrespective of Squadmates.  Shepard didn't save the 20 Cruisers the Turians lost at the Citadel and didn't save the 8 cruisers humanity lost.  Shepard won't save the billions of people about to die in the Reaper invasion.  There is, however, no reason Shepard can't make sure the people immediately around him/her survive.

Because Shep is Human, he/she has flaws. As do his/her squadmates. The greatest threat that the galaxy has ever faced is no-longer distant... it's here, right now, in a mostly un-prepared galaxy. From the sounds of everything, Shep's squad will be heading right into the thick of the Reaper invasion points. I think people realize that now, Shep can't save everyone on his team, not while the Reapers are here and throwing everything they can at them.

[crimzontearz]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I just wonder why all the people who don't want anyone to die aren't off playing, I don't know, farmville or something. Why do you expect to play a war game--and not just war, but war with a species almost infinitely more capable than yourself--and not lose people?

different tastes?

different sense of worth?

why don't you go play Halo Reach or Red Dead Redemption if you want a downer ending when I want  my story to have a perfect ending?

Wait..if choice is given we do not have to play different games because we can choose the outcomes and craft them to our desires!

[Ghost Warrior]

crimzontearz wrote...



I'm ok with having to sacrifice a mutually exlusive ally or a planet....

And why not a squadmate? They are right there with you,on the front lines. It makes sense for some of them to end up dead.

[GreenDragon37]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I just wonder why all the people who don't want anyone to die aren't off playing, I don't know, farmville or something. Why do you expect to play a war game--and not just war, but war with a species almost infinitely more capable than yourself--and not lose people?

Because people want the sunshine and bunnies ending. I may be mostly Paragon, but I don't want that. I want sacrifices, but I want them to mean something. I recognize that against a species that is on the level of "Gods", there will be losses, especially be Shep and co, who are spearheading the entire thing.

[Undertone]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Again why should I play like an idiot to lose people? Why should I purposefully make dumb decisions to create death? Why would I want to admit it was me that killed the character? I didn't aimed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger? Wtf is that logic anyway? 

It's ridiculously hard for Shepard to die on the SM, hell some characters will survive even if unloyal. When the mission is harder to fail then it is win (and win without a single loss at that) something is wrong...

And why would I want to lose people I like just to create some emotional drama I can be perfectly fine without?

What he said:

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I just wonder why all the people
who don't want anyone to die aren't off playing, I don't know,
farmville or something. Why do you expect to play a war game--and not
just war, but war with a species almost infinitely more capable than
yourself--and not lose people?

Because it's a war story and not a 10 year old kid's game/book/movie.

[TheOptimist]

laecraft wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

The Suicide Mission was laughable because you could save everyone. Stop "defanging" the enemy. If I'm going up against the impossible to defeat "gods", I expect some deaths.

So if you want death, create death. No one forces you to go through the suicide mission with everyone surviving. .

It defeats the point. Someone had to die because the enemy was simply too strong, not because Shepard was too stupid.

If you do every thing perfect and make no mistakes, fight with everything you've got, and you STILL suffer losses, it shows that the enemy is stronger than you are. Your victory is more valuable if you prevail over such a powerful enemy. If you get out of the confrontation with no losses and no price paid for your victory, it means that the enemy was weaker. Your victory is cheaper, this way. If there are no losses, there's no feeling that we used everything we had.

I'm not saying that every squadmate had to die for every checkpoint you won from the enemy, but there had to be something to show how desperate the struggle was and how the future of the galaxy was hanging by a thread, and how only Shepard's preparations made our victory possible.

Instead, you are victorious no matter what you do, and your preparations influence only the survival of certain squadmates.

Pyhrric victory, perhaps.  If you lose everyone, you didn't win, you lost.  And even leaving that aside, losing is not hard to do, because every single time Shepard dies, YOU LOST. You just restarted, so somehow that ending 'doesn't count'.  The possibility for failure is always there, you just get an infinite number of tries at is, because it is ultimately a game.  Perhaps you do not see watching that woman dissolve before your eyes as showing how desperate the struggle was, what the stakes were. I do.  I do not need squadmates to die to tell me it was important to put a stop to this, and quite frankly I'm kind of worried about the people who do.

[crimzontearz]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Because you can't control life. If this is a war, someone is going to die. Maybe it is your friend, maybe it's a random soldier under your commnand, but it will happen. In war, you can't save everyone. Every soldier knows this. Everyone who leads knows this. Shepard (no matter how Paragon) knows this. Will he try to save everyone? Yes. Can he? No. But he knows that he can make sure that their deaths will not have been in vain.

I'm a Paragage, but with a strong lead towards Paragon, but even my Shep knows that he isn't perfect. He can't save everyone, but not making their deaths mean something... that is the greatest betrayl of his men and women.

No, you can't save everyone, and Shepard hasn't.  That's my point.  We've already had the requisite 'these people WILL die moments', and again, that's the bare MINIMUM.  Want to get that one more mission, buy that one more upgrade before you go get your crew? Congratulations, you've just lost another 12 people (on the low end of Normandy crew estimates, I'd think more like 25), irrespective of Squadmates.  Shepard didn't save the 20 Cruisers the Turians lost at the Citadel and didn't save the 8 cruisers humanity lost.  Shepard won't save the billions of people about to die in the Reaper invasion.  There is, however, no reason Shepard can't make sure the people immediately around him/her survive.

Because Shep is Human, he/she has flaws. As do his/her squadmates. The greatest threat that the galaxy has ever faced is no-longer distant... it's here, right now, in a mostly un-prepared galaxy. From the sounds of everything, Shep's squad will be heading right into the thick of the Reaper invasion points. I think people realize that now, Shep can't save everyone on his team, not while the Reapers are here and throwing everything they can at them.

again....your opinion on what can/cannot happen

as you can see other people's ideas, prreferences and desires can be VERY much different

just like YOU would not like a sunshine and bunnies ending shoved down your throat maybe, JUST maybe other people do not want a bittersweet ending or forced deaths without the element of choice thrown in

[nitefyre410]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I just wonder why all the people who don't want anyone to die aren't off playing, I don't know, farmville or something. Why do you expect to play a war game--and not just war, but war with a species almost infinitely more capable than yourself--and not lose people?

 


not   debating weather   people should die or not -   we are or where debating   how the pull of an emotional death in a Game/Franchise like Mass Effect  that is built around the concept of player choice affecting the   game.   I  am of the opinion you can't have a emotional imptacting death  of character  when the player can choose how the main character  can react  emotoinal to the death of that character.    

[GreenDragon37]

crimzontearz wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I just wonder why all the people who don't want anyone to die aren't off playing, I don't know, farmville or something. Why do you expect to play a war game--and not just war, but war with a species almost infinitely more capable than yourself--and not lose people?

different tastes?

different sense of worth?

why don't you go play Halo Reach or Red Dead Redemption if you want a downer ending when I want  my story to have a perfect ending?

Wait..if choice is given we do not have to play different games because we can choose the outcomes and craft them to our desires!

So, planets are acceptable, but squadmates aren't? Everything should be on the table, even your squadmates, who are spearheading the entire assault on the Reapers. Not just their minions, the actual Reapers... on the front lines.

[crimzontearz]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...



I'm ok with having to sacrifice a mutually exlusive ally or a planet....

And why not a squadmate? They are right there with you,on the front lines. It makes sense for some of them to end up dead.

it makes sense for the council to BELIEVE shepard after sovereign nearly violated them rectally....yet they do not....

it's not a matter of "sense" it's a matter of "satisfaction" in this case. MY satisfaction is muchly different than yours but no less important