896 réponses à ce sujet

[TheOptimist]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Everything is a "cliche," so calling it that doesn't help.

I quite agree.

I think a lot of the arguing here comes down to realism. In a realistic world, several people on your team--yes, your team of superheroes--would die. Some people don't want that. They want escapism. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Mass Effect has ever been about escapism.

If the Mass Effect series were about realism, it should have ended when you started a gunfight in a bar on the citadel as a plain old Alliance Naval officer with zero authority to do any such thing.  Or when pieces of Sovereign crashed into the Council tower, killing you and your team.  Or when Shepard died of asphyxiation and decompression, and Sheps body subsequently crashed on an ice world, meaning the body subsequently was heavily burned, subjected to intense impact stresses, and then what was left was frozen.  I'd go on, but I think even leaving aside some of the...improbable future technology, these events are not on the 'realistic' side of the scale.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 31 août 2011 - 08:11 .

[nitefyre410]

Good writers  don't ,  Bad ones do  all the time.   

How  does one know - well me  for at least  when the character dies  I kinda of have this one my face.   

Compared to  this   reaction  :pinched: 

Example:  Psylocke  one of the my favorite  X-men  Clarmount killed her in  the last run he did a while ago and I was  reading  it  with this   look on my face . Asking what was the point  and to make it worst She was killed by a some Random  villian  in a sword fight  that you did not even see play out  completely ignoring the fact that she is one of the best hand to hand fighters on the whole team. It was just bad all around  badly potrayed, badly writen just bad.  

Now compare that to  Nightcrawlers and Cables Deaths at the end of the Second Coming both characters are two of my  Favorites.  Nightcrawler  bites it  pushing Hope of the way of  Bastion and takes that attack himself before he said one final prayer and ports her and himself to San Fransico  where his  final words are  - To a young girl no more that 16 with burden of being a savior to a people.  - "I have faith in you"    Me:  :pinched:  

Cable dies  letting the   techno virus that he was plagued with his whole life  take him over so  be  a bridge/slash shield  for the rest of his team to get back through a portal that  burns through organic matter.    No last words  he just looks at  Hople who he  raised from a baby and smiles.   Afters works  Xavier narrates it  perfect say " He does not see a savior - just a little girl who just lost her father."      Me:  :pinched:  

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 08:22 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Tali finding her father was an emotional death.

I don't think it has to be a squad member. A central character like Captain Anderson or Dr. Chakwas would rattle Shepard, and the player. Shepard and Anderson captured, and having to watch Anderson being made into a husk while the Reapers via Cerberus study Shepard's reaction for some unknown reason -- there doesn't have to be a reason. Maybe TIM just wants you to suffer. Meanwhile the team is fighting through to rescue the two, and Anderson asks Shepard to kill him when your team arrives. Nothing you could do about it. Just something to let you know that not all things are in your control.

[nitefyre410]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Tali finding her father was an emotional death.

I don't think it has to be a squad member. A central character like Captain Anderson or Dr. Chakwas would rattle Shepard, and the player. Shepard and Anderson captured, and having to watch Anderson being made into a husk while the Reapers via Cerberus study Shepard's reaction for some unknown reason -- there doesn't have to be a reason. Maybe TIM just wants you to suffer. Meanwhile the team is fighting through to rescue the two, and Anderson asks Shepard to kill him when your team arrives. Nothing you could do about it. Just something to let you know that not all things are in your control.

 


Thats good  I could get down with this  -  but i don't see Anderson making off of  Earth After freeing Shepard....

[nitefyre410]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...




Good writers  don't ,  Bad ones do  all the time.   

What exactly does this mean? I'm not sure.

 

It  means what  exactly I said  -   Not to be taken as personal  attack... If that is what you are thinking. 

[nitefyre410]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...




Good writers  don't ,  Bad ones do  all the time.   

What exactly does this mean? I'm not sure.

 

It  means what  exactly I said  -   Not to be taken as personal  attack... If that is what you are thinking. 

I don't recall exactly what I said, so "don't" and "do" are rather ambiguous. And I don't take it as a personal attack; every one of my friends ridicules my writing mercilessly, though I've written ten times as much as all of them combined. Oddly enough, only people over foty seem to like it...

 

Okay I apologize I should have been more clear in my statement  -    NP -   A   Good writer  will  try to have the death be the  outcome of the story where the emotional depth is there already with the characters. Where is a bad writer will use the death to create emotional  depth. The Expamples I gave  below where the first being example of the bad -   Claremount clearly killed off a beloved character to create some kind of emotional impact in a storyline that did not have it..  Where  as if take the the examples I pulled form  

Second Coming  with Cable and Nightcrawler   those Deaths  brought to light several emotional understones. They fit because the Story was writen with Bastion out to kill the Team Teleporters(which  Nightcrawler was)  to isolate them.  Cable death worked because  not  organic matter could pass through the portal and he had the only means downside being the it meant he was going to die(because the virus was going to kill him)  

Another example of a Bad Death was the movie Empire -    the Main characters the whole movie trying to get out of the Puerto Rican  Mafia only to  run to where Puerto Rico where he gets a bullet in the back of the head.  Serious is going to run from the mob  and go to the place  mob orginated -    bad writing in the context in which the story takes place. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 09:07 .

[nitefyre410]

Montezuma IV wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...




Good writers  don't ,  Bad ones do  all the time.   

How  does one know - well me  for at least  when the character dies  I kinda of have this one my face.   

Compared to  this   reaction  :pinched: 

Example:  Psylocke  one of the my favorite  X-men  Clarmount killed her in  the last run he did a while ago and I was  reading  it  with this   look on my face . Asking what was the point  and to make it worst She was killed by a some Random  villian  in a sword fight  that you did not even see play out  completely ignoring the fact that she is one of the best hand to hand fighters on the whole team. It was just bad all around  badly potrayed, badly writen just bad.  

Now compare that to  Nightcrawlers and Cables Deaths at the end of the Second Coming both characters are two of my  Favorites.  Nightcrawler  bites it  pushing Hope of the way of  Bastion and takes that attack himself before he said one final prayer and ports her and himself to San Fransico  where his  final words are  - To a young girl no more that 16 with burden of being a savior to a people.  - "I have faith in you"    Me:  :pinched:  

Cable dies  letting the   techno virus that he was plagued with his whole life  take him over so  be  a bridge/slash shield  for the rest of his team to get back through a portal that  burns through organic matter.    No last words  he just looks at  Hople who he  raised from a baby and smiles.   Afters works  Xavier narrates it  perfect say " He does not see a savior - just a little girl who just lost her father."      Me:  :pinched:  

What the Hell! NOOOOOOOOOO! Not Psylocke!! She IS my absolute favorite. 

 


Thats okay - They rectified that bone head move and brought her back ,  I am not a big fan of bring back the dead but in  this instance it made sense becasue what Claremount did was just   BAD . She deserved better than that.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 09:07 .

[Mike2640]

nitefyre410 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...




Good writers  don't ,  Bad ones do  all the time.   

What exactly does this mean? I'm not sure.

 

It  means what  exactly I said  -   Not to be taken as personal  attack... If that is what you are thinking. 

I don't recall exactly what I said, so "don't" and "do" are rather ambiguous. And I don't take it as a personal attack; every one of my friends ridicules my writing mercilessly, though I've written ten times as much as all of them combined. Oddly enough, only people over foty seem to like it...

 

Okay I apologize I should have been more clear in my statement  -    NP -   A   Good writer  will  try to have the death be the  outcome of the story where the emotional depth is there already with the characters. Where is a bad writer will use the death to create emotional  depth. The Expamples I gave  below where the first being example of the bad -   Claremount clearly killed off a beloved character to create some kind of emotional impact in a storyline that did not have it..  Where  as if take the the examples I pulled form  

Second Coming  with Cable and Nightcrawler   those Deaths  brought to light several emotional understones. They fit because the Story was writen with Bastion out to kill the Team Teleporters(which  Nightcrawler was)  to isolate them.  Cable death worked because  not  organic matter could pass through the portal and he had the only means downside being the it meant he was going to die(because the virus was going to kill him)  

Another example of a Bad Death was the movie Empire -    the Main characters the whole movie trying to get out of the Puerto Rican  Mafia only to  run to where Puerto Rico where he gets a bullet in the back of the head.  Serious is going to run from the mob  and go to the place  mob orginated -    bad writing in the context in which the story takes place. 

So, if the deaths were fitting for the story and character, they would be okay with you?

Example: "Garrus sacrifices himself because saving Shepard and the team now will redeem him for failing his team on Omega"

Because that's what i've been thinking the entire time. I mean maybe one shock death, like Wash in Serenity, but mostly things done well that fit the character and are appropriate for the characters arc.

[Whatever42]

Ok, here is a problem with inevitable scripted character deaths.

Replayability is important to Bioware. With emotional, inevitable deaths, how does that affect replayability? Let's say I don't Tali is ridiculous and I do get very sad when she dies. Do I want to replay her death over and over? Most people flinch and try to avoid powerful emotional scenes.What will that do to their perception of Tali?

When I play ME1, I just write off Kaidan right from the start. Don't know him, don't want to know him. The scene on Virmire has no impact on me because its no one important dying.However, its still cool because of the impact it has on Shepard and the VS.

Why is Tali dying in ME3? Heck, I might just dump Tali right from the get-go when replaying the series if I know she's roadkill. Skip the whole deal.

Hawke's mother in DA2 was good choice - it was done for a reason, to advance the character and the plot and it couldn't be sidestepped.

Perhaps if they killed Anderson or Hackett, that might be more meaningful perhaps. The death of a mentor perhaps elevates you to a position of greater authority. There might be some character development. It's an unavoidable part of the story. It's hard to simply dismiss those characters. Killing a squadmate who might be dead, though, just to create meaningless emotional impact that I can avoid by avoiding the character would be a bad choice.

[nitefyre410]

Mike2640 wrote...



So, if the deaths were fitting for the story and character, they would be okay with you?

Example: "Garrus sacrifices himself because saving Shepard and the team now will redeem him for failing his team on Omega"

Because that's what i've been thinking the entire time. I mean maybe one shock death, like Wash in Serenity, but mostly things done well that fit the character and are appropriate for the characters arc.

It could done better that but I would have  no problem with  it BUT that is me  - I don't speak for the mob of the Garrus fans who want the  opition of seeing that  him live throught that arch.

Its not the characters deaths are the issue - its  making them manadatory at this point where I think its a bad idea. 

In ME 2 you have the option for him live or die  why should ME 3 being any different.  

Like I have been Saying I have never been against  Character  Death ... At all... not once....

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 09:32 .

[Whatever42]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...



So, if the deaths were fitting for the story and character, they would be okay with you?

Example: "Garrus sacrifices himself because saving Shepard and the team now will redeem him for failing his team on Omega"

Because that's what i've been thinking the entire time. I mean maybe one shock death, like Wash in Serenity, but mostly things done well that fit the character and are appropriate for the characters arc.

It could done better that but I would have  no problem with  it BUT that is me  - I don't speak for the mob of the Garrus fans who want the  opition of seeing that  him live throught that arch.

Its not the characters deaths are the issue - its  making them manadatory at this point where I think its a bad idea. 

In ME 2 you have the option for him live or die  why should ME 3 being any different.  

Like I have been Saying I have never been against  Character  Death ... At all... not once....

Bioware will not arbitrarily kill one LI while letting the other's live, no. So if you romance Thane, you're a happy player with little Shep-fish running around but if you romance Garrus, sorry but we hate you and are going to kill him.

[nitefyre410]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...



So, if the deaths were fitting for the story and character, they would be okay with you?

Example: "Garrus sacrifices himself because saving Shepard and the team now will redeem him for failing his team on Omega"

Because that's what i've been thinking the entire time. I mean maybe one shock death, like Wash in Serenity, but mostly things done well that fit the character and are appropriate for the characters arc.

It could done better that but I would have  no problem with  it BUT that is me  - I don't speak for the mob of the Garrus fans who want the  opition of seeing that  him live throught that arch.

Its not the characters deaths are the issue - its  making them manadatory at this point where I think its a bad idea. 

In ME 2 you have the option for him live or die  why should ME 3 being any different.  

Like I have been Saying I have never been against  Character  Death ... At all... not once....

Bioware will not arbitrarily kill one LI while letting the other's live, no. So if you romance Thane, you're a happy player with little Shep-fish running around but if you romance Garrus, sorry but we hate you and are going to kill him.

 

I know  Bioware not going to do   that - I would be okay with but I know they are not going to do it for the reason you state here and it the post before. 

In short I agree with you ... I was just clearifing my stand point for Mike because  he and I having a lengthy debate about it.

[Mike2640]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...



So, if the deaths were fitting for the story and character, they would be okay with you?

Example: "Garrus sacrifices himself because saving Shepard and the team now will redeem him for failing his team on Omega"

Because that's what i've been thinking the entire time. I mean maybe one shock death, like Wash in Serenity, but mostly things done well that fit the character and are appropriate for the characters arc.

It could done better that but I would have  no problem with  it BUT that is me  - I don't speak for the mob of the Garrus fans who want the  opition of seeing that  him live throught that arch.

Its not the characters deaths are the issue - its  making them manadatory at this point where I think its a bad idea. 

In ME 2 you have the option for him live or die  why should ME 3 being any different.  

Like I have been Saying I have never been against  Character  Death ... At all... not once....

What i've been saying though is that it's not always the sam character dying in the same place every time, but a differen't character based on past decisions, but not in a way that's as clear cut as virmire. So it's not just Shep saying "I pick Garrus to live" or "I pick Jack to live". 

Some one always dies, because we're fighting gods and that's just a certainty, but who it is depends on the decisions made in the past, and can be different for each playthrough.

[nitefyre410]

Mike2640 wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...



So, if the deaths were fitting for the story and character, they would be okay with you?

Example: "Garrus sacrifices himself because saving Shepard and the team now will redeem him for failing his team on Omega"

Because that's what i've been thinking the entire time. I mean maybe one shock death, like Wash in Serenity, but mostly things done well that fit the character and are appropriate for the characters arc.

It could done better that but I would have  no problem with  it BUT that is me  - I don't speak for the mob of the Garrus fans who want the  opition of seeing that  him live throught that arch.

Its not the characters deaths are the issue - its  making them manadatory at this point where I think its a bad idea. 

In ME 2 you have the option for him live or die  why should ME 3 being any different.  

Like I have been Saying I have never been against  Character  Death ... At all... not once....

What i've been saying though is that it's not always the sam character dying in the same place every time, but a differen't character based on past decisions, but not in a way that's as clear cut as virmire. So it's not just Shep saying "I pick Garrus to live" or "I pick Jack to live". 

Some one always dies, because we're fighting gods and that's just a certainty, but who it is depends on the decisions made in the past, and can be different for each playthrough.

 

Hmmm  -  I see.  it could work  I personally would not have that much a problem with it  but thats just me.  That is dancing with a very thin line  because  you still are putting them in a no win situation and  cutting off story telling options.   Which is I have been  saying - If you going to do something like that you have a plot line where everyone makes it out  in one  living piece.   

I  could explain  it  better if I had white board cause but let me try.

Choice  A: Jack 

Choice  B : Tali

Choice  C: Garrus 

Outcome D = Death

Outcome  L =  Life

Now if   Choice A, B, C  are going to lead to  Outcome  D.  Then It doesn't matter who choice because its all the same out come.   Now to do that if you did Choice A, B, C  then Shepard is faced with  Event X  he then has choice being  Option  H, I, J  one or two  Leading to Outcome D or L for choice A, B, C  

[Lunatic LK47]

Mike2640 wrote...

So, if the deaths were fitting for the story and character, they would be okay with you?

Example: "Garrus sacrifices himself because saving Shepard and the team now will redeem him for failing his team on Omega"

Because that's what i've been thinking the entire time. I mean maybe one shock death, like Wash in Serenity, but mostly things done well that fit the character and are appropriate for the characters arc.

Uh, just because you felt a certain way about Garrus doesn't mean the rest of the fanbase did. Ever know how much of a big following Garrus has, even after he was made an LI? All you'd be telling those fans is "You liked the wrong character regardless of the reason" when you're going far out of your way for your "fitting end."

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 31 août 2011 - 09:56 .

[Mike2640]

[quote]Lunatic LK47 wrote...

[quote]Mike2640 wrote...


[/quote]

So, if the deaths were fitting for the story and character, they would be okay with you?

Example: "Garrus sacrifices himself because saving Shepard and the team now will redeem him for failing his team on Omega"

Because that's what i've been thinking the entire time. I mean maybe one shock death, like Wash in Serenity, but mostly things done well that fit the character and are appropriate for the characters arc.

[/quote]

Uh, just because you felt a certain way about Garrus doesn't mean the rest of the fanbase did. Ever know how much of a big following Garrus has, even after he was made an LI? All you'd be telling those fans is "You liked the wrong character regardless of the reason" when you're going far out of your way for your "fitting end."

[/quote]

Only if you think a character dying is a bad thing. If it fits the story, and makes sense for the character, I do not have a problem with a scenario that involves Garrus (Or any other character) dying.

Like I've been saying, it would'nt be every playthrough. It would be something based on decisions made previously, but not in such an obvious way (like Virmire) that it's Shepard choosing who lives and who dies. That worked in the first game, doing it again would be redundant.

[KainrycKarr]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Tali finding her father was an emotional death.

I don't think it has to be a squad member. A central character like Captain Anderson or Dr. Chakwas would rattle Shepard, and the player. Shepard and Anderson captured, and having to watch Anderson being made into a husk while the Reapers via Cerberus study Shepard's reaction for some unknown reason -- there doesn't have to be a reason. Maybe TIM just wants you to suffer. Meanwhile the team is fighting through to rescue the two, and Anderson asks Shepard to kill him when your team arrives. Nothing you could do about it. Just something to let you know that not all things are in your control.

This.

[Lunatic LK47]

Mike2640 wrote...

Only if you think a character dying is a bad thing. If it fits the story, and makes sense for the character, I do not have a problem with a scenario that involves Garrus (Or any other character) dying.

Like I've been saying, it would'nt be every playthrough. It would be something based on decisions made previously, but not in such an obvious way (like Virmire) that it's Shepard choosing who lives and who dies. That worked in the first game, doing it again would be redundant.

Uh, this would open another can of worms that will ****** off the loyal fans. What if I did a mostly paragon ending and killed off the Council? I automatically lose Garrus just because of that? No ****ing thanks. Same thing goes for the "mandatory" deaths that you seem to have been pushing a few pages back, just because *YOU* think "Garrus dying in a blaze of glory fits him the best."

[Mike2640]

nitefyre410 wrote...
Hmmm  -  I see.  it could work  I personally would not have that much a problem with it  but thats just me.  That is dancing with a very thin line  because  you still are putting them in a no win situation and  cutting off story telling options.   Which is I have been  saying - If you going to do something like that you have a plot line where everyone makes it out  in one  living piece.   

I  could explain  it  better if I had white board cause but let me try.

Choice  A: Jack 

Choice  B : Tali

Choice  C: Garrus 

Outcome D = Death

Outcome  L =  Life

Now if   Choice A, B, C  are going to lead to  Outcome  D.  Then It doesn't matter who choice because its all the same out come.   Now to do that if you did Choice A, B, C  then Shepard is faced with  Event X  he then has choice being  Option  H, I, J  one or two  Leading to Outcome D or L for choice A, B, C  

You're saying that depending on your choices from before leads to a different event that could end in life or death for a character, right?

I'm always okay with more variables, they lead to a more unique playthrough for the player. What I dont like is the idea that it's Shepard choosing whether the character lives or dies. It makes it too much like a gameplay mechanic. Of course if the player didn't want the character to die they'd reload and try again until they surived. But if they wanted them to die it's not really tragic, as someone else mentioned earlier ( I think it was Ghost Warrior?). For it to really have meaning and not just feel like a failed objective, the ability for the player to save everyone needs to be removed (Not necessarily all choice be removed).

Yes there's the possibilty of the player not really caring about the character in question, but I think it's more likely that most people like all the characters on some level and would be affected by seeing their deaths, which is the desired outcome of the devs; to reach the players on an emotional level, while still staying consistent with the character and the story.

I still don't understand why people would write off a character even if they die though? Why would you deny yourself that emotional experience? Personally, I really enjoy it when a movie/book/game can reach me on an any kind of level, especially when it's big emotions like fear, joy, or grief. It means it's a good game with a good story.

Modifié par Mike2640, 31 août 2011 - 10:06 .

[Mike2640]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

Only if you think a character dying is a bad thing. If it fits the story, and makes sense for the character, I do not have a problem with a scenario that involves Garrus (Or any other character) dying.

Like I've been saying, it would'nt be every playthrough. It would be something based on decisions made previously, but not in such an obvious way (like Virmire) that it's Shepard choosing who lives and who dies. That worked in the first game, doing it again would be redundant.

Uh, this would open another can of worms that will ****** off the loyal fans. What if I did a mostly paragon ending and killed off the Council? I automatically lose Garrus just because of that? No ****ing thanks. Same thing goes for the "mandatory" deaths that you seem to have been pushing a few pages back, just because *YOU* think "Garrus dying in a blaze of glory fits him the best."

Then I can only go back to what a lot of people have already said. "Choices have consequences" Just because you didn't see them coming doesn't mean they dont.

[Lunatic LK47]

Mike2640 wrote...

Then I can only go back to what a lot of people have already said. "Choices have consequences" Just because you didn't see them coming doesn't mean they dont.

I expect consequences like "Galaxy enters into a permanent cold war after Reaper threat," not "Your squadmates died just because of those earlier choices." I find it to be outright non-sensical on the same level as Fallout 3's ending, or "Catch 22's." (i.e. "Keep the status quo, or you **** things up.)

[Lunatic LK47]

Mike2640 wrote...

I still don't understand why people would write off a character even if they die though? Why would you deny yourself that emotional experience? Personally, I really enjoy it when a movie/book/game can reach me on an any kind of level, especially when it's big emotions like fear, joy, or grief. It means it's a good game with a good story.

How many people actually bothered leveling up Aeris in FF7 if everyone knew she died? What's the point of leveling up certain NPCs if they're going to be permanently gone later down the road? Same thing. I know for damn sure I never bothered with Ashley or Kaidan if I sent one of them to their deaths with all of my multiple playthroughs.