896 réponses à ce sujet

[Zu Long]

I think this argument generally can be boiled down to two sides.

One side wants the threat of plot-mandated death because that helps them emotionally invest in the story and makes it more real for them.

The other side, the side I take, is already emotionally invested. That's why we don't want our friends to die.

[Mike2640]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.)

Fallout 3's ending made no sense for alot of reasons. Luckily Bioware's writers are much better than the monkey Bethesda taped to a typewriter. They can make it work.

[Mike2640]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.

I did. I still talked to both of them all throughout the game,  because they're good characters and interesting. Just because they can die, doesn't mean they're not worth getting to know.

[TheOptimist]

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.

Because plenty of people don't play video games to be depressed.  It's the same reason many people on these boards dismiss either Ashley or Kaidan and barely talk to them.  They throw the one they like less to the wolves and move on, half of them cracking jokes while they do it.  If you make it inevitable for Squadmate X to die, they are going to stop using said character, stop talking to said character, and ignore that character, because that character is doomed.  Meanwhile, those people that were really invested in that character are emotionally crushed and a decent percentage stop playing altogether.  Also, killing someone for a cheap emotion spike is poor writing, but I digress.   

[nitefyre410]

Mike2640 wrote...

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?

 

Thats about right

Its more of  a  Shepard created the situation where outcome D or L  could happen instead of the  him(the player)   choose outcome D or L.  Which really puts the player on the spot because then you have to have some foresight...   Oh and all of that does not have to play out in sequence but the player would get red flags subtle  but  still there - don't pay attention or not pick up on em then  your best bud  Garrus is going to  be taking a dirt nap.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 10:38 .

[Lunatic LK47]

TheOptimist wrote...

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.

Because plenty of people don't play video games to be depressed.  It's the same reason many people on these boards dismiss either Ashley or Kaidan and barely talk to them.  They throw the one they like less to the wolves and move on, half of them cracking jokes while they do it.  If you make it inevitable for Squadmate X to die, they are going to stop using said character, stop talking to said character, and ignore that character, because that character is doomed.  Meanwhile, those people that were really invested in that character are emotionally crushed and a decent percentage stop playing altogether.  Also, killing someone for a cheap emotion spike is poor writing, but I digress.   

Thank you. The one thing I found to be sad on my end is when it came to picking Kaidan or Ashley, I flipped a coin 2/3rds of my playthroughs, while the other 1/3rd are because I had a Shepard waiting to romance them.

[TheOptimist]

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.

Except for saving all the squadmates.  That choice can't happen, because it wouldn't be realistic/ruins the story/doesn't have the same emotional impact/new flavor of the minute excuse for why everything under the sun should be an option with consequences with the SOLE exception of all the Squadmates living to see a universe without Reapers.

[Sepewrath]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
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.)

How is that nonsensical, your ship has crappy armor, so it gets hammered and someone dies. That makes perfect sense, more sense than a permanent cold war.

And when it comes to the topic, forced deaths that try and be dramatic are rarely ever so, they are generally as comical as Carmine dying in Gears. At least Epic embraces that as a joke. I would hate to see

"Shep....Shepard..I..I...just *cough* wanted to do you proud. D..did I do it, did I st..stop the Reaper attack?"

*Shepard stroking their head* "Your sure did buddy, you sure did"

*Dying squad members coughs and smiles* "Good...now I'm going to leave the rest to you"

*Shepard rises with a look of renewed determination, I laugh* lol

Shepard is a soldier in a middle of a war, you think they never saw a friend go die in battle? As a leader, you think they haven't sent people to die. Soldiers are trained to not react, on the battlefield, so the standard death scene would not apply here.

[nitefyre410]

TheOptimist wrote...

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.

Because plenty of people don't play video games to be depressed.  It's the same reason many people on these boards dismiss either Ashley or Kaidan and barely talk to them.  They throw the one they like less to the wolves and move on, half of them cracking jokes while they do it.  If you make it inevitable for Squadmate X to die, they are going to stop using said character, stop talking to said character, and ignore that character, because that character is doomed.  Meanwhile, those people that were really invested in that character are emotionally crushed and a decent percentage stop playing altogether.  Also, killing someone for a cheap emotion spike is poor writing, but I digress.   

Aeris being a good example   i have issues with  her death  and how its blown out proption all round but I am not going to go on my FF 7 Rant( Still love the game though).    Hell  I  knew what was going to happen on  Virimire with  Kaiden and Ashley before  it even came up and  I pretty made up my mind -oh well Kaiden Sorry you seem likea nice guy but its time to punch your ticket.   So  I  fall in the top  bracket. - I did not even bother leveling him up or getting him equipment - no need to waste  game resources on and dead man.  I did talke to him  and do   his quest.    

[nitefyre410]

Mike2640 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.)

Fallout 3's ending made no sense for alot of reasons. Luckily Bioware's writers are much better than the monkey Bethesda taped to a typewriter. They can make it work.

 

Fallout  3  ending made no sense because I had an Intelligent  Super Mutant that was Immune to Radation STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO ME  that to had go in there and press  a freaking button    /rage

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 10:39 .

[TheZyzyva]

This thread is so infuriating. Optimist, for being such a staunch humanitarian, you sure seem to not give much of a crap about what other players want in this game. There are plenty of other games out there for your escapism, ME was never about that, as Virmire quite sufficiently displays.
For one thing, I think you're quite over-estimating the amount of choice ME offers. Why do you demand you be able to save everyone in 3 when you couldn't in 1? Why change that now?
And I've already been over why the SM mission was such a failure in a prior post, people dying because the player failed is not good story, people dying while knowing they can live, and dying before the end of their story is not good from any point of view. Now if their was a scripted death on the SM, that would have been nice. That would have allowed a character to complete their story and allowed an emotional parting. And because it happens at the end of the game, my time with them would not have been wasted, I wouldn't ignore them in later playthorughs. The problem with the Areis example that has been brought up is that she dies long before the end of the game. I ignored her as a fighter because I didn't want my play style to become dependent on her if I couldn't use her for most the game. I did not however, ignore her as a character, and that death scene always gets me. If a death has lost its impact because you personally decided you didn't want it to have impact, how is that Biowares fault? How is that the stories fault? I don't care about the Virmire decision from a gameplay standpoint because I didn't use either of them, and I killed Ash because I liked her less. Then I see the reaction to it and I always feel for Shep, because I let the scene move me. If you want to fight it and treat it like a joke, that's just you.
That said, Optimist, I understand you're not advocating a perfect end, but how are the losses that occur going to be shown? Because I want to see the grief. If a planet gets wiped to save Miranda, the casualties better not just be shown to me as numbers on the screen because there's no emotion in that. You say "Sheps already lost 23 that's enough" but in reality he has not. He has lost no more than 2 meaningful people, assuming you do the SM right. There's the one on Virmire, and Pressly. That. Is. It. 20 nameless soldiers that invoke no reaction from player or Sheppard do not count, and neither does Jenkins, who the player never gets to know. So if I sacrifice multitudes of civilians to save an oh-so-important squaddie, I want to be called out on that decision, I want to question whether or not I did the right thing.
At its core, this is a war story. As the saying goes, war is ****. Stop trying to make it anything but. There are already plenty of other games out there that let you be your infallible hero. This is one set in a harsher reality.

Edit: And thank you MoPotter, it makes me happy when people actually respond to reasonable and well thought out posts like those were.

Modifié par TheZyzyva, 31 août 2011 - 11:34 .

[TheZyzyva]

I'm all for what Mike has said, sounds great. Since 3 is the conclusion, Bioware is finally going to be able to let us off the railroad. There are a vast amount of possibilities for outcomes from not only the first 2 games, but also decisions from 3 that will have more subtle impacts than is possible with the carry-over system that ME uses. For example, when you run into Jack again, you can either be friendly or gruff. Then maybe because you saved the CB, you have to go back and destroy it. In the attempt, something goes wrong and Jack has to use her biotics to hold off an explosion. The scene then plays out differently depending on how you interacted with her before, either she tells you she hopes you burn in **** after it's all over, or she wishes you the best of luck. Maybe earlier in the base you can leave Tali at the bomb to finish prepping it and instead she dies, again with the scene playing out differently depending on how you had been treating her. That gives you consequence of a prior action and still retains the ability to have a say in the outcome at the same time. This is how I dream ME3 plays out.
Things like this would allow character arcs to reach their conclusion in a manner befitting that one playthroughs Shepard and still let the arcs go on in other playthroughs.

[mopotter]

Zu Long wrote...

I think this argument generally can be boiled down to two sides.

One side wants the threat of plot-mandated death because that helps them emotionally invest in the story and makes it more real for them.

The other side, the side I take, is already emotionally invested. That's why we don't want our friends to die.

I think your right.  I don't like the idea of mandated deaths that I have absolutely no controle over and I'm also on the side of already being emotionally invested, except, I don't mind my friends dying in one game, if I can prevent it in another.  I want choices that can allow me to bring everyone out, with bruises and broken bones, but alive, and choices that will mean I lose people.   I love choices.  

[nitefyre410]

mopotter wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

I think this argument generally can be boiled down to two sides.

One side wants the threat of plot-mandated death because that helps them emotionally invest in the story and makes it more real for them.

The other side, the side I take, is already emotionally invested. That's why we don't want our friends to die.

I think your right.  I don't like the idea of mandated deaths that I have absolutely no controle over and I'm also on the side of already being emotionally invested, except, I don't mind my friends dying in one game, if I can prevent it in another.  I want choices that can allow me to bring everyone out, with bruises and broken bones, but alive, and choices that will mean I lose people.   I love choices.  

 

Its always been about Choices that been  the Back Bone of the  Mass Effect  series Choices.    

 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 11:47 .

[mopotter]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.)

Fallout 3's ending made no sense for alot of reasons. Luckily Bioware's writers are much better than the monkey Bethesda taped to a typewriter. They can make it work.

 

Fallout  3  ending made no sense because I had an Intelligent  Super Mutant that was Immune to Radation STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO ME  that to had go in there and press  a freaking button    /rage

I was on the verge of throwing the game away when I heard about broken steel.  And this is the reason.  He was right there with me and it was my "Destiny" or some bs like that.  Hated it.  

Modifié par mopotter, 31 août 2011 - 11:47 .

[mopotter]

nitefyre410 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

I think this argument generally can be boiled down to two sides.

One side wants the threat of plot-mandated death because that helps them emotionally invest in the story and makes it more real for them.

The other side, the side I take, is already emotionally invested. That's why we don't want our friends to die.

I think your right.  I don't like the idea of mandated deaths that I have absolutely no controle over and I'm also on the side of already being emotionally invested, except, I don't mind my friends dying in one game, if I can prevent it in another.  I want choices that can allow me to bring everyone out, with bruises and broken bones, but alive, and choices that will mean I lose people.   I love choices.  

 

Its always been about Choices that been  the Back Bone of the  Mass Effect  series Choices.  

 

I agree. :happy:

[nitefyre410]

mopotter wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.)

Fallout 3's ending made no sense for alot of reasons. Luckily Bioware's writers are much better than the monkey Bethesda taped to a typewriter. They can make it work.

 

Fallout  3  ending made no sense because I had an Intelligent  Super Mutant that was Immune to Radation STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO ME  that to had go in there and press  a freaking button    /rage

I was on the verge of throwing the game away when I heard about broken steel.  And this is the reason.  He was right there with me and it was my "Destiny" or some bs like that.  Hated it.  

 

I know -   I want  that type of the ending to that type of the story I'll pick up  JRPG, something like   Shadow Hearts: Covenent.

[JSwisha]

The reason I like Virmire and think it's more impactful is due to the fact that you only have some control over the situation. They are forcing a death between Ashley/Kaidan, but the choice is yours. I still remember playing ME1 for the first time and having to make that choice. I just sat at the screen in disbelief. Those are the type of moments I'd prefer in ME3 regarding character deaths.

During the SM, I never had that reaction because I was able to save everyone with ease on my first playthrough. I wasn't going to go back and force certain characters to die because that's just not how I roll. Maybe some players like to do that because certain characters annoy them or whatever, but that doesn't evoke a sense of sadness/shock/anger in their death scenes.

[crimzontearz]

also please

as it was said before no BS endings ala FO3 vanilla or Infamous 2

[CuseGirl]

this discussion sounds pointless. Basically "impactful/emotional death = death of somebody you actually care about = death of somebody you dont want dying". The only way that is going to happen is if you make a decision that delibrately betrays that character at the moment. The question is whether Bioware will compel you to betray that character?

[TheOptimist]

TheZyzyva wrote...

This thread is so infuriating. Optimist, for being such a staunch humanitarian, you sure seem to not give much of a crap about what other players want in this game. There are plenty of other games out there for your escapism, ME was never about that, as Virmire quite sufficiently displays.

I do give a crap, that's why I want choices instead of the writer fiat this-is-the-way-I-want-it-so-tough line you and a couple other people on here are so fond of.  There are plenty of other games for your realism, and ME was ALWAYS about choices, right from the get go to the SM. 

For one thing, I think you're quite over-estimating the amount of choice ME offers. Why do you demand you be able to save everyone in 3 when you couldn't in 1? Why change that now?

I wanted to be able to save everyone in 1, but they didn't let me.  They did in 2, which is a vast improvement.  I do not wish to go back to 1, which is what several people in this topic seem to want. The series is all about choices.
For the love of God, the tag line for mass effect 3 is 'The war for Earth has begun/Decide how it ends.'
 

And I've already been over why the SM mission was such a failure in a prior post, people dying because the player failed is not good story, people dying while knowing they can live, and dying before the end of their story is not good from any point of view. Now if their was a scripted death on the SM, that would have been nice. That would have allowed a character to complete their story and allowed an emotional parting. And because it happens at the end of the game, my time with them would not have been wasted, I wouldn't ignore them in later playthorughs.

You wouldn't. Hell, I wouldn't, even though I'd have been angry about it. Other people could careless about drama and would stop playing with those characters.  So you get what you want, those other people ignore it and I get to be depressed every time I play the game. Awesome.

 And people dying because the player failed is EXCELLENT story.  If you want to have drama and fail to save someone, do so.  Don't cop out and say 'I want the writer to make it happen!' If you truly believe in realism and drama, one of the things people do in real life is screw up.

The problem with the Areis example that has been brought up is that she dies long before the end of the game. I ignored her as a fighter because I didn't want my play style to become dependent on her if I couldn't use her for most the game. I did not however, ignore her as a character, and that death scene always gets me.

Hell, I used her regardless, leveled her up just the same, and FF7 remains one of my favorite games to this day. 

If a death has lost its impact because you personally decided you didn't want it to have impact, how is that Biowares fault? How is that the stories fault? I don't care about the Virmire decision from a gameplay standpoint because I didn't use either of them, and I killed Ash because I liked her less. Then I see the reaction to it and I always feel for Shep, because I let the scene move me. If you want to fight it and treat it like a joke, that's just you.

I think you've gotten confused.  I was using examples of users on this board, which you can find all over the place.  I personally always talk to Ash and Kaidan, find out their backstories, etc.  Heck, I tend to use Ashley a lot until I pick up Liara. I am a fan of this series.  I did not like the Virmire choice, but I built myself a bridge and got over it.  I enjoyed the SM much more, and advocate for handling character death in a similar fashion in ME3.

That said, Optimist, I understand you're not advocating a perfect end, but how are the losses that occur going to be shown? Because I want to see the grief. If a planet gets wiped to save Miranda, the casualties better not just be shown to me as numbers on the screen because there's no emotion in that.

Tell me, did killing 305,000 living beings, many of them having done nothing to deserve death, have an emotional impact on you? It did on me, irrespective of the fact that I never saw them or that Shepard knew, beyond doubt, that those people were already dead, they just hadn't been informed yet.

You say "Sheps already lost 23 that's enough" but in reality he has not. He has lost no more than 2 meaningful people, assuming you do the SM right. There's the one on Virmire, and Pressly. That. Is. It. 20 nameless soldiers that invoke no reaction from player or Sheppard do not count, and neither does Jenkins, who the player never gets to know.

 
If Jenkins' buying 30 seconds into the mission after being so eager to get out there had no effect on you, I cannot help you. If walking through the Normandy wreckage digging out each and every one of those dogtags because Shepard WOULD BE DAMNED IF SHE LEFT THEM THERE had no effect on you, I cannot help you. I can only say they had a profound effect on me, and 23 is quite enough.

So if I sacrifice multitudes of civilians to save an oh-so-important squaddie, I want to be called out on that decision, I want to question whether or not I did the right thing.

Oh good, more catch-22 decisions.  I love those.  Save Squadmember X or kill millions of people isn't a choice, it's a death sentence. 

At its core, this is a war story. As the saying goes, war is ****. Stop trying to make it anything but. There are already plenty of other games out there that let you be your infallible hero. This is one set in a harsher reality.

Star Wars was a war.  And the crew made it through Return of the Jedi just fine. There already plenty of games where the world is **** and you play someone who loses companions left and right.  Go play one of those, this is set in a more awesome reality.   

Modifié par TheOptimist, 01 septembre 2011 - 01:40 .

[crimzontearz]

I still cannot fathom WHY people are not willing to use the tools Bioware gave us to craft the story we want and demand the deaths to be imposed upon us......it just baffles me at this point

[CuseGirl]

crimzontearz wrote...

I still cannot fathom WHY people are not willing to use the tools Bioware gave us to craft the story we want and demand the deaths to be imposed upon us......it just baffles me at this point

tools as in modding the game? or r u talking about the choices we make over the course of the game? For console users, there are no mods, we get the game as-is and hope for patches....

But yea, I hope I dont have to choose between my LI and humanity's survival. But I wudn't freak out if Dr. Chakwas or Tali kicked the bucket.

[GodWood]

TheOptimist wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Selecting a "I would like to have Master Li to betray me" option [Jade Empire] does not have the same impact as the plot twist happening outside of the player's control.

Funny you bring up Jade Empire, as not a single member of your permanent Squad has to die to achieve victory.

Funny you say that, because you're wrong

Sagacious Zu dies no matter what.

Main Character and squadmate death is not required for any of the things you mentioned.  I will admit never having seen or read 'Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' but I would venture to guess that it is drearily depressing. A simple check of IMDB tells me I am correct.  I do not play video games, read books, or watch movies to be depressed, I turn on the news.

And there's your problem.

You're one of those people.

Modifié par GodWood, 01 septembre 2011 - 07:05 .

[jbblue05]

Hopefully their is no sugary-sweet endings.