896 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Ghost Warrior wrote...

Virmire. There you have both mandatory death and a choice.

 

and  no emotional impact because people threw the character the liked the least too wolves...  

And what if I liked both characters? Because I did.

So did I.  I've never thrown any character away.  But I don't care if someone else does in their game.  

[sheperdhy]

PLEASE BIOWARE GIVE THE PARAGON ENDING FOR ME3 WHERE SHEPEARD SACRIFICES HIMSELF AS A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO SAVE HUMANITY. I REALLY FEEL THAT SHEPARD MUST PERMANENTLY DIE FOR THE PARAGON ENDING THEREBY EFFECTIVELY ENDING HIS STORY EVEN FOR THE RENEGADE OPTION

[Undertone]

Why it should be paragon exclusive? If there was such opportunity and necessity I would always pick it despite my Shepard is 80-90% renegade with a few paragon strokes here and there.

[marstor05]

I think Shep will probably die whatever. There may be a (if you are very very lucky) chance to save him, but in my eyes he's gotta die - and take the tech that built him with him when he goes up in a million megatonne ball of nuclear flame.

I ask you what better way than to end the game than a heroic death?

[MarauderESP]

sheperdhy wrote...

PLEASE BIOWARE GIVE THE PARAGON ENDING FOR ME3 WHERE SHEPEARD SACRIFICES HIMSELF AS A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO SAVE HUMANITY. I REALLY FEEL THAT SHEPARD MUST PERMANENTLY DIE FOR THE PARAGON ENDING THEREBY EFFECTIVELY ENDING HIS STORY EVEN FOR THE RENEGADE OPTION

1- well ... u know.... if that happens i and many others will think  why the hell i spent so much time since 2007 building  "my Shp history" just to die at the end? :blink: , that will mean ok fine, take the dvd put in the case and forget its existence, then i will think ME1 like a stand alone game , and forget the rest....

2- ok ok .... killing the protagonist TWICE...... aaaah sureeeee!! <_<

[Undertone]

marstor05 wrote...

I think Shep will probably die whatever. There may be a (if you are very very lucky) chance to save him, but in my eyes he's gotta die - and take the tech that built him with him when he goes up in a million megatonne ball of nuclear flame.

I ask you what better way than to end the game than a heroic death?

I agree with you. I usually prefer to play fallible, vice ridden, realistic anti-heroes who are able to redeem themselves in the end. Death seems fitting for it.

[mopotter]

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.

You are supposed to be "Victorious"  It's a video game about saving the galexy from the reapers.  Even if you lose part of your team, you will be victorious. That's a given.  The only way you could lose to the reapers is if BioWare gives you enough choices to fail and if they give you enough choices to fail they need to give you enough choices to have everyone survive.

I keep wondering if everyone who wants this only plays one or maybe two games.  I've got at least 10 Sheaprds and while I don't want 10 different endings, (I just want a few different endings), but I want enough choices in how I get to those endings, to make it worth re-playing 10 times, or more.  

If there are a specific number of deaths that can't be controled it's a stagnent game and the "your choices matter" no longer applies.  

[MarauderESP]

^ this 100 agree %

but take cover....

[mopotter]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

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.

  This is true.  BioWare will do what they want to.  

I just hope they give us a lot of choices and multiple endings.  I don't play video games for real life experiences, I play them for fun and if every choice is pick A to die or pick B to die; and they get so depressing that I want to drive my car into a tree on the way to work, I'll pitch it.  

Choices like the collecor's base, and Overlord those I liked.  Yes, giving the base to the Alliance would have been a nice 3rd option, like they did in one of the other missions but I don't expect to get everything I want, unless I start making my own games. 

I do expect a game that says my choices matter, to give me those choices.

[nitefyre410]

mopotter wrote...

Ghost Warrior wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Ghost Warrior wrote...

Virmire. There you have both mandatory death and a choice.

 

and  no emotional impact because people threw the character the liked the least too wolves...  

And what if I liked both characters? Because I did.

So did I.  I've never thrown any character away.  But I don't care if someone else does in their game.  

 

You don't but Bioware does and that is  who makes the game  and as we have seen the mere idea of them  placing  a mandatory death on the play in  fanchise about built around player being shape  the MC  how they want. How the MC  reacts to agiven situation emotional its  not going to work.  My Shepard is different from his shepard which is different from you Shepard.  

IMO  that type of  "Dramatic" death that people want is just not going  to work in a game franchise like Mass Effect... Its not. 

And the whole  notion that Character Death = Mature story telling is completely laughable by the mindset   Bambi and  Charolette's Web's are not  children stories. (not saying  that you said this but it has been brought up)

If the story  you writing is immature  from the start  killing off a few people its not going to suddenly make it Mature.
Same goes for drama if you story lacks the sense of human drama and emotion because  writing was not getting that across then no matter  if  pull off a "Kill em All" ending its not going to make it dramatic.    


Things like  Project Overlord,  Mordin and Samara Loyality missions are  examples good drama.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 12:17 .

[TheOptimist]

Undertone wrote...

People give money cause they want to make themselves feel better. It makes you feel good. You can justify it however you want but in the end it's an enlightened self-interest. You can tell me thousands of reasons why you donate but in the end of the line subconsciously is cause it makes you feel good.

I'm really not sure how to respond to this.  Yes, helping other people can make you feel good.  That doesn't mean you don't care that you're also helping them.  There's nothing I'm going to say to convince you that not everyone acts only to benefit themselves, because clearly you've already decided that's how everyone acts.

And yeah you could think of me as a hardcore sociopath or myzanthrope

I have in fact called you nothing of the sort.  
 

(which is funny considering half of you blubbering paragons would sacrifice humanity for another race if given the choice, cause teh humanity is so evil) but I would actually help somebody on the street if I can. I have no illusion as to why I'm doing it though - it makes me feel better about myself. I gain nothing else from it but personal satisfaction.

Again, I'm highly doubting at this point that I'll convince you others act for different reasons.  I would caution you that imputing your own motivations and thought processes on to others is a fallacy, however.

So goes for the rest of the stuff - if you care about the whole world and every single person in it then go ahead and do whatever you want. I'm not blind and I'm direct and straightforward enough to tell you I don't give a **** if something happens to somebody I don't know or whatever. You can care about the whole world, the world doesn't care about you. If I can help my family or you, my best friends or you - who do you think I would help

Why can't you help both?  It's understandable you try to help the people you know first, but rather often that's not the only option.

So shut the **** up about the whole people volunteer ****. People die just because of your mere existence - people die on this world because you simply have a place to stay, food to eat and so on and there's not enough resources. You hurt people without you even realizing it. So don't give me the high bound moralistic crap because it's usually people that haven't seen anything outside of their comfortable home, neighbourhood and mommy and daddy giving them money. And even if such was not the case, it shows lack of experience.

No, I will not shut up.  You clearly have a cynical view of the world, and I suppose that's fine.  I do not.  I try to make the world that little bit better, that little bit brighter.  You can speculate all you like about why this is, if it helps you sleep at night to think I'm a kid that has never seen the horrors of the world, so be it.

You are fighting omni-potent or so supposed Gods that have been extinguishing all life in the galaxy for the past kajilion years without a single fail and complete success, that possess indoctrination and untold technology vastly superior to yours. There's absolutely no reason for everyone to make it from your squad none whatsoever. The Collectors were nothing compared to the Reapers.

Sure there is.  Because they're awesome.

It brakes any suspension of disbelief for the whole crew to make it alive again.

So don't have the whole crew make it out.  No one is making you keep the whole crew alive.  Hell, in a lot of ways sending someone weak, like Mordin or Tali, to guard the crew on the way back makes less sense than sending someone who can take care of themselves. I fully expect there to be times when your squad can die, and I would not dream of telling you they have to survive.  But I would like the option to make sure they do.

[TheOptimist]

AwesomeName wrote...

Ugh. At the end of the day it would be a childish story if all squad members were so awesome that they could survive a mission to stop armageddon as it is happening. It should be completely impossible no matter how hard you try. Especially since you'll be the first ever to stop the Reapers - the first in the tens of millions of years (at least) that the Reapers have been around for. The idea that the first team of people ever to stop the Reapers getting a Perfect is completely and utterly lame.

So don't have that happen.  No one is making you get this option.  Some of us would just like to see it.

[Sajuro]

Icinix wrote...

I would love every single death in ME3 to have meaning.

Everytime you kill a cerberus trooper, a small cut scene jumps to their family in mourning, holding a small ceremony with crying children and sad looking dog.

The wife breaking down as the officer tells her of her husband being killed, and better yet let random numbers determine siblings who worked in Cerberus, kill their brother or so and they will become more aggressive.

[Siegdrifa]

nitefyre410 wrote...


IMO  that type of  "Dramatic" death that people want is just not going  to work in a game franchise like Mass Effect... Its not. 

And the whole  notion that Character Death = Mature story telling is completely laughable by the mindset   Bambi and  Charolette's Web's are not  children stories. (not saying  that you said this but it has been brought up)

If the story  you writing is immature  from the start  killing off a few people its not going to suddenly make it Mature.
Same goes for drama if you story lacks the sense of human drama and emotion because  writing was not getting that across then no matter  if  pull off a "Kill em All" ending its not going to make it dramatic.    

I can't agree more, making main characters die don't make it better or more epique story.

While i have no problem to make it optionnal for the people who wants it so badly, i would hate to see it forced upon the player.
Let's face it, people who wants to see it happen have the same right to enjoy their game this way, as much as other who would enjoy the game with optionnal choice to avoid those death.

If Shepard will die 100% then i won't bother playing with a soon to be corps.Waste of time in my opinion, and letting Shap died at Eden Prime would have been a time savior for the same corps.
If it's optionnal, i would be more intrigued to found out myself how it will turn.

From my 27 years of video game experience, the best moment i had was story when you felt pretty sure some characters was condamned to die / sacrifice themself, BUT still hope something will turn out in a good way, rather than making actualy the character dies.


Anyway, today i had my share of characters that sacrifice themself for the greater good, so boring... any RPG fan with J-RPG have encountered many times that's stuff.
"hey ! i have a wonderfull story ! it' about a hero that will have to sacrifice himslef to save the others !"
Yaaawwwwwn, congrat, you are number 36 with the same stuff since last week, no thanks, bye.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

What is it with people thinking that those who want unavoidable dead squadmates wishes the entire cast to get killed. I think everyone can agree on that too many deaths (as things can easily become grim!Dark) can be just as bad as having everyone survive armegeddon. We just want a few meaningful deaths, because in a story like this you should experience loss. Both on a large scale, and on a personal level.

And no. Just because a character dies in the third act does not mean that they are completely pointless and you should not bother to invest anymore emotion in them if you ever revisit the story.

[nitefyre410]

AwesomeName wrote...

Ugh. At the end of the day it would be a childish story if all squad members were so awesome that they could survive a mission to stop armageddon as it is happening. It should be completely impossible no matter how hard you try. Especially since you'll be the first ever to stop the Reapers - the first in the tens of millions of years (at least) that the Reapers have been around for. The idea that the first team of people ever to stop the Reapers getting a Perfect is completely and utterly lame.

 


See that is not going to work the game is built around the player  controlling Shepard   influencing the world around them. They  tried that in  DA  2 with Hawke and his mothers death... and it did not go over well   at all.   ( I personally like the quest  and its out come) .   If Bioware tries that again espicail in the Mass Effect with its  bigger fan base - not going to well.    


At the end of the day its a childish story if it was written in a  childish manner, has childish themes etc.  The body count at the end is not going to make it any less  childish.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 01:08 .

[TheOptimist]

AwesomeName wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Undertone wrote...

It brakes any suspension of disbelief for the whole crew to make it alive again.

So don't have the whole crew make it out.  No one is making you keep the whole crew alive.  Hell, in a lot of ways sending someone weak, like Mordin or Tali, to guard the crew on the way back makes less sense than sending someone who can take care of themselves. I fully expect there to be times when your squad can die, and I would not dream of telling you they have to survive.  But I would like the option to make sure they do.

That's completely daft.  Why would you deliberately do that? :/ 

Hell if I know.  Why do people kill Wrex when they don't have to, even as a Renegade?  Why do people cheer and make gifs when Liara gets crushed by the Atlas in the demo?  If the Suicide Mission was such a bad idea, why are there so many people running around with certain squadmates dead?  All I can tell you is that it happens, and if that's what they want to do, more power to them.  Their stories are not mine.

That squad death would have no impact because you deliberately made it happen, as opposed to a squad death which happens despite your best efforts.

 

Sure it does.  And unless you kill off every single squadmate, many people will have no emotional impact from certain squadmates anyway.

Also, how on earth would you be able to just choose for no one to die given the gravity of the situation??

I have never said no one will die.  I fully expect people Shepard knows and meets not to be there at the end.  But the squad?  The squad is full of awesome people who are ridiculously good at what they do.  And if you do everything just right, I would think there's a chance they'd all still be there when the dust settles.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 31 août 2011 - 01:10 .

[nitefyre410]

Siegdrifa wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...


IMO  that type of  "Dramatic" death that people want is just not going  to work in a game franchise like Mass Effect... Its not. 

And the whole  notion that Character Death = Mature story telling is completely laughable by the mindset   Bambi and  Charolette's Web's are not  children stories. (not saying  that you said this but it has been brought up)

If the story  you writing is immature  from the start  killing off a few people its not going to suddenly make it Mature.
Same goes for drama if you story lacks the sense of human drama and emotion because  writing was not getting that across then no matter  if  pull off a "Kill em All" ending its not going to make it dramatic.    

I can't agree more, making main characters die don't make it better or more epique story.

While i have no problem to make it optionnal for the people who wants it so badly, i would hate to see it forced upon the player.
Let's face it, people who wants to see it happen have the same right to enjoy their game this way, as much as other who would enjoy the game with optionnal choice to avoid those death.

If Shepard will die 100% then i won't bother playing with a soon to be corps.Waste of time in my opinion, and letting Shap died at Eden Prime would have been a time savior for the same corps.
If it's optionnal, i would be more intrigued to found out myself how it will turn.

From my 27 years of video game experience, the best moment i had was story when you felt pretty sure some characters was condamned to die / sacrifice themself, BUT still hope something will turn out in a good way, rather than making actualy the character dies.


Anyway, today i had my share of characters that sacrifice themself for the greater good, so boring... any RPG fan with J-RPG have encountered many times that's stuff.
"hey ! i have a wonderfull story ! it' about a hero that will have to sacrifice himslef to save the others !"
Yaaawwwwwn, congrat, you are number 36 with the same stuff since last week, no thanks, bye.

  


A good example would be Shadow Hearts: Convent and the MC  Yuri -  he can either die at the end or  live and just be  in complete Zombie like state.   It was not the fact that he died  at the  end of game that made  this ending "Mature"   it was the theme of the dilemia and the question  that is posed to the player.  

Would   you rather live and be nothing more than shell with no sense of self   or die with all your  memories and your sense of the self

What makes a person alive the fact that they  are breathing or that they laugh, cry, love, have memories and experiences that they can share with  people around them.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 01:23 .

[Siegdrifa]

TheOptimist wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Undertone wrote...

It brakes any suspension of disbelief for the whole crew to make it alive again.

So don't have the whole crew make it out.  No one is making you keep the whole crew alive.  Hell, in a lot of ways sending someone weak, like Mordin or Tali, to guard the crew on the way back makes less sense than sending someone who can take care of themselves. I fully expect there to be times when your squad can die, and I would not dream of telling you they have to survive.  But I would like the option to make sure they do.

That's completely daft.  Why would you deliberately do that? :/ 

Hell if I know.  Why do people kill Wrex when they don't have to, even as a Renegade?  Why do people cheer and make gifs when Liara gets crushed by the Atlas in the demo?  If the Suicide Mission was such a bad idea, why are there so many people running around with certain squadmates dead?  All I can tell you is that it happens, and if that's what they want to do, more power to them.  Their stories are not mine.

That squad death would have no impact because you deliberately made it happen, as opposed to a squad death which happens despite your best efforts.

 

Sure it does.  And unless you kill off every single squadmate, many people will have no emotional impact from certain squadmates anyway.

Also, how on earth would you be able to just choose for no one to die given the gravity of the situation??

I have never said no one will die.  I fully expect people Shepard knows and meets not to be there at the end.  But the squad?  The squad is full of awesome people who are ridiculously good at what they do.  And if you do everything just right, I would think there's a chance they'd all still be there when the dust settles.

Talking about that, i was more moved by some of my crew's death then ashley or kaidan's death. Because as a player i suspect that a main character can die to shake the player more rather than a second character type.

But when i get back in the normandy for my firth playthrough with my full squad alive,  without kelly, without the woman enginer... some room more empty.... damn, i felt i lost people and failled at some point... a lot more than if it was a squad member.
So at least for me, a meaningfull and impactfull death is not surly comming for main character death.

[GodWood]

TheOptimist wrote...

That squad death would have no impact because you deliberately made it happen, as opposed to a squad death which happens despite your best efforts.

 
Sure it does. 

Umm no.

I personally would love if Jack (my Shep's LI) died a dramatic heart-breaking death however if I simply choose to have it happen it'd pretty much take all the emotional impact out of it.

These types of things need to be a surprise.

Also, how on earth would you be able to just choose for no one to die given the gravity of the situation??

I have never said no one will die.  I fully expect people Shepard knows and meets not to be there at the end.  But the squad?  The squad is full of awesome people who are ridiculously good at what they do.

And awesome people die.

Seriously dude it's the squadmates who need to die because we like them.
Random character x dying is not nearly going to have as big an impact on the player as say a fan favourite like Garrus dying.

Modifié par GodWood, 31 août 2011 - 01:31 .

[TheOptimist]

Lizardviking wrote...

What is it with people thinking that those who want unavoidable dead squadmates wishes the entire cast to get killed. I think everyone can agree on that too many deaths (as things can easily become grim!Dark) can be just as bad as having everyone survive armegeddon. We just want a few meaningful deaths, because in a story like this you should experience loss. Both on a large scale, and on a personal level.

There are in fact people in this very topic who want said grim tale, but leave that aside for the moment.  We have already had a few meaningful deaths.  To be specific, every single Shepard has had 23 of them, atleast.  Loss will be experienced on a large scale, the fact of the Reaper invasion makes that inevitable.  There is no real reason someone from the squad should be force-killed again.

Besides those points, if we follow your logic it then comes down to whose death you want to see, because for some people, killing Samara will have a far larger impact then killing Grunt.  For others, the opposite.  Witness the number of people on these boards who discard Kaidan or Ashley without a second thought.

And no. Just because a character dies in the third act does not mean that they are completely pointless and you should not bother to invest anymore emotion in them if you ever revisit the story.

That is your opinion and mine as well, but we both know that's not what will happen.

[TheOptimist]

GodWood wrote...

Umm no.

...Yes? I'm going to go with yes.

I personally would love if Jack (my Shep's LI) died a dramatic heart-breaking death however if I simply choose to have it happen it'd pretty much take all the emotional impact out of it.

These types of things need to be a surprise.

And there in lies the rub.  You want something to happen.  I do not want said thing to happen.  The only compromise is choice.  You choose your way, I choose mine.  It is what the Mass Effect franchise is built on.

I have never said no one will die.  I fully expect people Shepard knows and meets not to be there at the end.  But the squad?  The squad is full of awesome people who are ridiculously good at what they do.

And awesome people die.

Everyone dies.  There's no reason they have to die now.