896 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

nitefyre410 wrote...
Noble team did not die just  for the sake of   - "Oh we have to be mature now lets kill some people" 

And are you suggesting that people who feel that there needs to be some casuelties in ME3 just want them to happen for the sake of it?

[Feanor_II]

FFinfinity1 wrote...

My LI died on the suicide mission and i expected a more emotional death sequence but shepard just brushed it off that should be fixed

Hey, do you remember the rain of shoots Virmire was? There was no time, I think that the Virmire part was perfectly handled, in the middle of a though battle (with a countdown for an atomic mushrom) there's no time for cheap heart-touching moment.

Well, there should be time for things like that, but the Virimere situation looks more beliable than "stop everything, heart touching moment, continue"

[TheOptimist]

Lizardviking wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...
Noble team did not die just  for the sake of   - "Oh we have to be mature now lets kill some people" 

And are you suggesting that people who feel that there needs to be some casuelties in ME3 just want them to happen for the sake of it?

For the sake of drama and believability because everyone surviving would be "juvenile"?  Yes, I believe that is what some people have been saying.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 31 août 2011 - 03:55 .

[Gorosaur]

I think the major concern here is that alot of people want to control more aspects of the game than average storytelling would allow.

Wouldn't it have been awful if you could chose whether or not the twist in KOTOR existed or not?

I personally think it would be great if character decisions still decided deaths, but deaths were not clear consequences of the decision when making it. Or if a cahracter is going to die, make it difficult to save them, but possible.

[nitefyre410]

Lizardviking wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...
Noble team did not die just  for the sake of   - "Oh we have to be mature now lets kill some people" 

And are you suggesting that people who feel that there needs to be some casuelties in ME3 just want them to happen for the sake of it?

 

Some do - not all...

What I am saying  and have been saying   for  the past coupe of the pages is that  Killing of a Bunch a characters is not  going to make the plot and story anyless or more mature  if  the themes and maturity were not there from the start.

I made a post about the  the ending of Shadow Hearts: Covenent   and ending where the  main character can die . It was not the death that made the ending "mature" but the   question that it  presented to a player. What makes one "Alive"  The fact there they are breathing or it is the ability to  feel, love, cry,  having memories, thoughts, ideals, dreams. beliefs.

[Nizzemancer]

Arppis wrote...

Takotna wrote...

Concidering they haven't done a very good job on "emotional death scenes", I wouldn't hold my breath. And no Vermire wasn't at all emotional, all it felt was that one of the devs was a tragic Japanse rpg geek and said "Hey let's make em choose between these two who to kill". I mean good lord Ash and Kaidan are like 40 yards apart from each other, you can't tell me that you couldn't leave Wrex and Garrus to help gaurd the bomb while you go to pick up the other team member. -.-;

And Shepard's death was just.. "WTF", with both death clips the only thing I was feeling was pissed, not at Saren, Reapers, Geth or Collecters (as is should have been if it was done properly) but at Bioware for such poor handling of those particular "stories"

Yeah, Ashley had it comming.

You mean Carth...err...Kaidan.

[xentar]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

GodWood wrote...
All the main characters surviving is just childish and boring.

And a million times more cliche too.

Let me tell you how many times that bland "oh noes, that character died" idea will work. One. Exactly one time.

And honestly, I have seen that stupid mandatory death idea so often in other fictions like movies and books, it's a breath of fresh air if they don't die to me.

For that matter, what will deaths like that accomplish?

People are already dying by the millions in ME3.

Emotional engagement, because it hits home. Those other millions are merely statistic.

Also, the entire team surviving AGAIN will do a number on what's left of the game's versimilitude.

Problem is, those emotions are going to be targeted at the developers, not the reapers or whatever other in-game reason that caused it.

[Gorosaur]

xentar wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

GodWood wrote...
All the main characters surviving is just childish and boring.

And a million times more cliche too.

Let me tell you how many times that bland "oh noes, that character died" idea will work. One. Exactly one time.

And honestly, I have seen that stupid mandatory death idea so often in other fictions like movies and books, it's a breath of fresh air if they don't die to me.

For that matter, what will deaths like that accomplish?

People are already dying by the millions in ME3.

Emotional engagement, because it hits home. Those other millions are merely statistic.

Also, the entire team surviving AGAIN will do a number on what's left of the game's versimilitude.

Problem is, those emotions are going to be targeted at the developers, not the reapers or whatever other in-game reason that caused it.

Which is incredibly idiotic. You don't get mad at a writer, or director for killing off a character if the story dictates that they die.

[nitefyre410]

Gorosaur wrote...


Which is incredibly idiotic. You don't get mad at a writer, or director for killing off a character if the story dictates that they die.

 

Right  you don't but Bioware  put themselves  in position with  the "Build your own Story"  idea behind the game and plot itself.   If they take away player choice for the sake of drama now its going  to not go over well. 

The problem with  killing people off to create drama especial in a game like mass effect is the fact  death has to affect the MC  in a certain manner but when have people playing Shepard  A this way and Shepard B that  way, players choosing how Shepard can responded emotional -  the Death of the character looses its impact.  

I don't think there is a  message board  big enouch for the list of all the   great  emotional character deaths I have seen, read and play in my time.  

But those stories,etc,  had the element of drama before  the characters death - not because of it.  

[nitefyre410]

Threat? Giant , Robotic , Space, Talking, Squids.... yeah

[Whatever42]

Character deaths in writing, like everything else, are done to advance the plot or the development of the main character. Deaths to simply evoke an emotional response from the audience is cheap theatrics.

Kaidan/Ash died because of Shepard's choice in ME1. It gave us a chance to see Shepard making a tough decision, to see (or decide) how Shepard reacts. It was all about Shepard. In ME2, it was again about Shepard's decisions. 

In Harry Potter, Rowling wanted to show her readers how Harry moved beyond the deaths and to show him moving on and picking up the mantle of his parents and their friends.

However, since almost all the characters in ME3 might be dead already, I'm not sure how they can really write such a scene in properly, except to have deaths just for cheap theatrics.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 31 août 2011 - 06:28 .

[nitefyre410]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Character deaths in writing, like everything else, are done to advance the plot or the development of the main character. Deaths to simply evoke an emotional response from the audience is cheap theatrics.

Kaidan/Ash died because of Shepard's choice in ME1. It gave us a chance to see Shepard making a tough decision, to see (or decide) how Shepard reacts. It was all about Shepard. In ME2, it was again about Shepard's decisions. 

In Harry Potter, Rowling wanted to show her readers how Harry moved beyond the deaths and to show him moving on and picking up the mantle of his parents and their friends.

However, since almost all the characters in ME3 might be dead already, I'm not sure how they can really write such a scene in properly, except to have deaths just for cheap theatrics.

   

I like this human he understands

[Gorosaur]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...


Which is incredibly idiotic. You don't get mad at a writer, or director for killing off a character if the story dictates that they die.

 

Right  you don't but Bioware  put themselves  in position with  the "Build your own Story"  idea behind the game and plot itself.   If they take away player choice for the sake of drama now its going  to not go over well. 

The problem with  killing people off to create drama especial in a game like mass effect is the fact  death has to affect the MC  in a certain manner but when have people playing Shepard  A this way and Shepard B that  way, players choosing how Shepard can responded emotional -  the Death of the character looses its impact.  

I don't think there is a  message board  big enouch for the list of all the   great  emotional character deaths I have seen, read and play in my time.  

But those stories,etc,  had the element of drama before  the characters death - not because of it.  

Very few are supporting the idea that characters should die to create drama. More so are supporting the idea that its poor storytelling for everyone to escape this all out war alive. My original intention for this thread was that Bioware when creating a death scene, because they will exist, should make sure they carry the weight and emotion they should.


I think overall people over time have twisted the Mass Effect franchise in their heads into something its not. This is only natural (seeing as it happens to pretty much every fanbase over time). However, with me its more extreme. Because the game allows a degree of player freedom , the expectations for what should happen in game are much more varied and extreme than they would be for any other series.

Most people accept things that were presented in the original Mass Effect without doubt because thats what we based our opinions of the franchise on. It was our introduction to the series as a whole. However, I'm pretty sure if Bioware were to create a scenario similar to Virmire where characters die due to dialogue decisions than people would throw a tirade because Bioware didn't give them the ending they wanted.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Gorosaur wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...


Which is incredibly idiotic. You don't get mad at a writer, or director for killing off a character if the story dictates that they die.

 

Right  you don't but Bioware  put themselves  in position with  the "Build your own Story"  idea behind the game and plot itself.   If they take away player choice for the sake of drama now its going  to not go over well. 

The problem with  killing people off to create drama especial in a game like mass effect is the fact  death has to affect the MC  in a certain manner but when have people playing Shepard  A this way and Shepard B that  way, players choosing how Shepard can responded emotional -  the Death of the character looses its impact.  

I don't think there is a  message board  big enouch for the list of all the   great  emotional character deaths I have seen, read and play in my time.  

But those stories,etc,  had the element of drama before  the characters death - not because of it.  

Very few are supporting the idea that characters should die to create drama. More so are supporting the idea that its poor storytelling for everyone to escape this all out war alive. My original intention for this thread was that Bioware when creating a death scene, because they will exist, should make sure they carry the weight and emotion they should.

Therein lies the beauty of this series. In the second game, you can sort of set things up for someone to die, narratively-speaking, if you want. Doing all the loyalty missions and picking the right people for the right jobs was done as a way so that, if someone wanted no casualties, they could do that too. It was designed to be open-ended and it is.

Although I think deaths should be a little bit harder to degrade into comedy like this one was:

[Whatever42]

However, again, you kill characters to advance the plot or character development.Sure, its fine to have people dying to provide motivation or because its appropriate to the setting - imagine a D-Day movie with no soldiers dying, but this is different.

You wouldn't write Tali dying without a reason beyond that it's realistic that people die. Did you want to show Shepard dealing with grief? But we've seen that so how does it develop the character? Did you want to motivate Shepard? He has motivation. Does it show how Shepard reacts to people dying because of his decisions? Sure but we saw that already so no new progress is made. Does it strike home a critical theme of the story you're telling? Nope, not really. This is a space opera.

It's not that it can't be written well but calling for deaths without knowing how deaths will forward the story or the character makes no sense. It becomes a cheap trick to manipulate emotions.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 31 août 2011 - 06:39 .

[Gorosaur]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


You wouldn't write Tali dying without a reason beyond that it's realistic that people die. Did you want to show Shepard dealing with grief? But we've seen that so how does it develop the character? Did you want to motivate Shepard? He has motivation. Does it show how Shepard reacts to people dying because of his decisions? Sure but we saw that already so no new progress is made. Does it strike home a critical theme of the story you're telling? Nope, not really. This is a space opera.

It's not that it can't be written well but calling for deaths without knowing how deaths will forward the story or the character makes no sense. It becomes a cheap trick to manipulate emotions.

I honestly don't remember any of that.

[Whatever42]

Gorosaur wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


You wouldn't write Tali dying without a reason beyond that it's realistic that people die. Did you want to show Shepard dealing with grief? But we've seen that so how does it develop the character? Did you want to motivate Shepard? He has motivation. Does it show how Shepard reacts to people dying because of his decisions? Sure but we saw that already so no new progress is made. Does it strike home a critical theme of the story you're telling? Nope, not really. This is a space opera.

It's not that it can't be written well but calling for deaths without knowing how deaths will forward the story or the character makes no sense. It becomes a cheap trick to manipulate emotions.

I honestly don't remember any of that.

In ME1, Shepard had to make a choice about who to leave behind. He had to deal with the consquences of that decision and with the emotional aftermath with the VS. He may also have to deal with the death of Wrex. I confess that Shep doesn't have much of an emotional range.

In ME2, based on decisions made in the game, people die and you get a sombre moment at the end with the coffins, where Shepard deals with it stoically and moves on to deal with the Reapers. 

So, if we want more deaths to develop Shepard, how would they achieve that? What would we see that we haven't seen?

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 31 août 2011 - 06:44 .

[nitefyre410]

Gorosaur wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...


Which is incredibly idiotic. You don't get mad at a writer, or director for killing off a character if the story dictates that they die.

 

Right  you don't but Bioware  put themselves  in position with  the "Build your own Story"  idea behind the game and plot itself.   If they take away player choice for the sake of drama now its going  to not go over well. 

The problem with  killing people off to create drama especial in a game like mass effect is the fact  death has to affect the MC  in a certain manner but when have people playing Shepard  A this way and Shepard B that  way, players choosing how Shepard can responded emotional -  the Death of the character looses its impact.  

I don't think there is a  message board  big enouch for the list of all the   great  emotional character deaths I have seen, read and play in my time.  

But those stories,etc,  had the element of drama before  the characters death - not because of it.  

Very few are supporting the idea that characters should die to create drama. More so are supporting the idea that its poor storytelling for everyone to escape this all out war alive. My original intention for this thread was that Bioware when creating a death scene, because they will exist, should make sure they carry the weight and emotion they should.


I think overall people over time have twisted the Mass Effect franchise in their heads into something its not. This is only natural (seeing as it happens to pretty much every fanbase over time). However, with me its more extreme. Because the game allows a degree of player freedom , the expectations for what should happen in game are much more varied and extreme than they would be for any other series.

Most people accept things that were presented in the original Mass Effect without doubt because thats what we based our opinions of the franchise on. It was our introduction to the series as a whole. However, I'm pretty sure if Bioware were to create a scenario similar to Virmire where characters die due to dialogue decisions than people would throw a tirade because Bioware didn't give them the ending they wanted.

 


True  but I come back to  DA 2 and the of Hawkes mother -  people went and are still going ape**** of  over that   one quest and more.  I personally liked it but many feel that  it control of  how their Hawke  reacted was taken from  them without the option of being able to save  Hawkes mother.   That type of the reaction is going to happen  if they try to pull the same thing in ME 3 with character deaths   especially if the character death serves no purpose other that create a false sense of the drama.   

Also in  creating  the type of Emotional  Death scene that you and I are looking -  You have  into consideration that  Shepard is  blank slate for the  players  feelings so if Player A wants Shepard not to give a damn about Character Y- then  Shepards is not going to have any kind of emotional connection to create the emotional scene when Character Y -  get dead.     Which puts  Bioware into corner  when in comes to that type of the story telling and limiting the options that they give people.  

Honestly I don't know how this turned into a  No Character Death vs Character  Death debate.

[Gorosaur]

Its understandable. The fact of the matter is character deaths will exist in game, I just want them to be executed well and carry the weight they should.

The fact of the matter is Mass Effect 3 is a resolution to a trilogy. And sometimes character arcs end in deaths, thats just the way the writing works.

I'm a DM/GM for numerous RPGs I play with friends. Although I love to give my players as much freedom as they chose, sometimes certain characters just have to do certain things for the sake of the story. Its sad and frustrating, but I understand where Bioware is coming from.

[TheOptimist]

AwesomeName wrote...
Yes - but at least he's meant to be a carricature... Of James T Kirk, incidentally... because Kirk is ridiculous.  And indeed the fact that the main characters never die in the TV show is also ridiculous.  Hopefully Shep and squad won't fall down to that level in ME3.

And what you call falling, I call aspiring to be like. And hopefully they will. I suppose Star Wars was ridiculous too, since every single 'squad' character that starts out Return of the Jedi is alive and well at the end.

But what you're asking for means that if you try your best to save everyone, then none of your squadmates should die. Well, a lot of people want a story that's actually moving, and they don't want that by making an effort to play badly, as you would have to in ME2 - I simply cannot fathom how playing that way would satisfyingly invoke a sense of tragedy. A lot of people want a game where you do try the best you can to beat the Reapers, and have the unavoidable deaths of at least some of the main characters you're invested in along the way.  What better way to validate the gravity of the situation by showing that no matter how hard you try, no one, not even your exceptional squadmates, are safe?

A moving story need not involve the death of squadmates.  And like Mr. Kirk, I don't believe in the no win situation, which is what you are asking for.  I have never liked it when no matter how hard you try, the story or the plot dictates you lost anyway.  And again, (I have lost track of how often I have said this) we have had our resident death requirement.  Each and every Shepard has lost 23 people, at the very least.  How does this not satisfy your need for emotional string-tugging?

But yes, it would of course be lovely if Shepard could have the option to make sure no one dies... Except it doesn't work that way; you only control Shepard and only have influence insofar as that. E.g. I'm sure Shepard would love to cure Thane's Kepral syndrome, but it's not going to happen just because she wants it to.  She can try, but simply trying doesn't guarantee success.

Shepard doesn't want that option, because Shepard does not know what will happen.  I want that option, because that is the story I wish to see, just as you want your tragedy.  Thane may well die of his Kepral syndrome.  Hopefully he will live to see the Reapers vanquished before he goes.

I'm not sure why you put so much stock in the Reapers being some kind of uber threat that nothing before or since compares to.  We, humanity, have faced annihlation before the Reapers, and given that this is unlikely to be the last game in the Mass Effect series even if it is the conclusion to Shepard's story, we will face it again afterwards.  More to the point, the sacrifice you speak of has already been made.  We are not attempting to beat the Reapers in the situation every other species has found itself in.  We have been given our chance by the Protheans, who threw us our shot with their races dying breaths. 

As to it being cliched, both sacrifice and survival have been done countless times.  God, look at Halo: Reach, where you get to watch your entire squad get snuffed one by one before finally dying yourself in a hopeless battle.  No thanks.

And difficulty does not equate to character death.  Just because your squad survives doesn't mean it wasn't difficult. 

You don't know why I see the Reapers as an "uber threat"?  Really?  If they're not an uber threat, then what on earth are they?  It's not like we've ever faced up to a threat even remotely close to the scale of galactic mass exinction due to a race of machines that have existed for at least 37 million years and have been doing this roughly every 50,000 years before... This is as bad as it's ever been.  And while we'll win thanks to the protheans, their death didn't give us so much that our squad should now be able to beat the Reapers without at least one of us dying. A good shot at beating the Reapers, yes, but that's all it should be.  The protheans died trying to beat the Reapers and so I think it makes sense that their successors, given the threat, barely survive and that only some of our squad survives if we do beat them (since they're the ones we're emotionally invested in, and whose deaths we would empathise the most with), even with our best shot.  You say, difficulty does not equate to character death - well sure... as long as you're talking about a situation that's not *that* difficult; in ME3 I think the situation very obviously is.  Having all the main characters survive would be vastly more cliched than having the tragic loss of some of them in this situation.

I respectfully disagree.  The Reapers are the threat now.  We will beat them and move on to the new threat.  As big and bad as they are, they are ultimately just a collection of monsters to cross off a very, very long list of things and people the galaxy is better off without.  I don't buy into the logic that 'this threat requires X number of people to die to defeat'.  That's ludicrous, the difficulty of a task is not measured by how many people died to do it.  And in any case, given this dire threat, it would actually be quite a surprise if everyone lived through it, don't you think?  Hell, in a lot of ways the requisite heroic sacrifice to save the galaxy is far MORE cliche than 'I can't believe we all made it!'

[nitefyre410]

Gorosaur wrote...

Its understandable. The fact of the matter is character deaths will exist in game, I just want them to be executed well and carry the weight they should.

The fact of the matter is Mass Effect 3 is a resolution to a trilogy. And sometimes character arcs end in deaths, thats just the way the writing works.

I'm a DM/GM for numerous RPGs I play with friends. Although I love to give my players as much freedom as they chose, sometimes certain characters just have to do certain things for the sake of the story. Its sad and frustrating, but I understand where Bioware is coming from.

 


Oh Absolutly  -  whether is squadsmates or LI  vs more supporting characters that is open to debate  espeicall y when it comes to the "Required"    character death issue.   Honestly its one the of the pitfalls of  the "Build  your own story"  direction it takes alot of the control  from the writer and puts in the  player  hands.  Especially if want to kill of a character to  emotional affect the main character.

[TheOptimist]

Gorosaur wrote...

Its understandable. The fact of the matter is character deaths will exist in game, I just want them to be executed well and carry the weight they should.

The fact of the matter is Mass Effect 3 is a resolution to a trilogy. And sometimes character arcs end in deaths, thats just the way the writing works.

I'm a DM/GM for numerous RPGs I play with friends. Although I love to give my players as much freedom as they chose, sometimes certain characters just have to do certain things for the sake of the story. Its sad and frustrating, but I understand where Bioware is coming from.

So when you come to resolution phase of your plotlines, do you just arbitrarily pick a PC to kill with no chance to avoid it so your players will know it's "fo' reals this time"?  I'm guessing not.  If they do something stupid, sure, and there's always random chance, but rocks fall party member X dies no save GG see how serious and deadly my story is?