896 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

TheOptimist wrote...
In many ways, 'you don't get to decide everything' is the worst counter argument of all.  Deciding everything is not what we're asking for, no matter how some people try to twist it that way.  We merely ask for the same choice we were given in Mass Effect 2.  Trying to take us to task for asking for an option and writing style the writers already gave us once strikes me as a bit silly.

And what was done ine ME2 is garbage...

Loyality and deaths in Me2 were horribly handled and the writing was average at best.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taesuun wrote...

Fire team leader: In addition to the leadership skill, personal relationships would play a role. The first thing that pops in mind here is of course how putting Jack under Mirandas authority (or vice versa!) is just asking for trouble.

Frankly, personal relationships should be irrelevant. If we're talking about professionals.
Anyone whos doesn't act 100% proffesional has no place on my team.

[TheOptimist]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
In many ways, 'you don't get to decide everything' is the worst counter argument of all.  Deciding everything is not what we're asking for, no matter how some people try to twist it that way.  We merely ask for the same choice we were given in Mass Effect 2.  Trying to take us to task for asking for an option and writing style the writers already gave us once strikes me as a bit silly.

And what was done ine ME2 is garbage...

Loyality and deaths in Me2 were horribly handled and the writing was average at best.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.  I loved the SM and the way things were handled.  We can argue back and forth on the merits of ME2, but the simple truth is that 'you don't get to decide everything' when not only are we not asking for that but they already gave us those choices in a previous game is a specious argument.

[Nizzemancer]

marstor05 wrote...

death on the battlefield is quite often random. This would act as a shock factor in the game itself if at any moment in any raid any member of your team can die - depending on certain factors.

In war people die. Why sanitise it?

Because this is a fictional story we dictate the outcome of...

[Han Shot First]

Yes.

As much I loved Mass Effect 2, I thought it was a bit silly that you could get your entire team through unscathed on the poorly named suicide mission. In fact it was easier to get your entire team through unscathed than it was to lose team members.

In Mass Effect 3 I don't think an ending where everyone lives should be a possibility. Now that Shepard's genius as a small unit leader has been established, it is time to put him in some situations where it is impossible to get everyone out alive. Mass Effect 3 should have a Virmire or two, and an end run that is an actual suicide mission. A perfect run should be one where you suffered the minimum amount of casualties on your squad, but some casualties couldn't be avoided.

[TheOptimist]

AwesomeName wrote...

Indeed.  Optimist, you may not be asking to decide everything, but you are asking to have control over something you shouldn't have any control over.  Having everyone survive the "suicide" mission was pretty badass - to the point where royally kicking the Collectors collective arse with everyone surviving was so easy they felt pretty rubbish in comparison to our team.

I am asking for an option, you are asking for writer fiat.  I could just as easily ask that the writers ignore what you want and not have the option for squadmate death at all.  But I don't, because if you want death for the sake of drama, I hope they let you craft that story.  All I ask is the opportunity to once again see my squad through the coming cataclysm.  Maybe you thought the SM was easy, many people did not.  I seem to recall 2 topics in the last month on this forum talking about how hard it was to achieve. 

I can forgive that and actually enjoyed it for ME2 - but in ME3, the scale of the threat is vastly worse for very obvious reasons.  And no, the Reapers are not just the current threat in the series; Mass Effect is a space opera trilogy with a beginning, a middle and an end - it is not like Star Trek or Stargate where it's a new threat each episode.

Once again, Star Wars Return of the Jedi.  Rebels outnumbered significantly, facing impossibly powerful Death Star II behind impenetrable shield.  The whole crew, Han, Luke, Chewy, Leia, 3PO, R2, heck, throw in Wedge and Lando, they're all still there at the end.

In any case, I'm not too worried; one of their selling points seems to be that this is an emotionally engaging war story - and I'm pretty sure one of the devs has hinted about not being able to save everyone on the team.

Beware marketing doublespeak, in my experience Bioware is pretty good at letting people hear what they wish to hear, and we shall see what happens.

[Han Shot First]

Once again, Star Wars Return of the Jedi.  Rebels outnumbered significantly, facing impossibly powerful Death Star II behind impenetrable shield.  The whole crew, Han, Luke, Chewy, Leia, 3PO, R2, heck, throw in Wedge and Lando, they're all still there at the end.

As much as I love Star Wars, I don't think it should be used as a template for Mass Effect. A butterflies & rainbows ending makes sense for Star Wars, which is a lighter and less realistic story than Mass Effect. Mass Effect on the other hand, while it doesn't always live up the hard Sci Fi label, is a lot more gritty and realistic than Star Wars. As such I think it should have a more appropriate ending.

An ending where everyone lives just shouldn't be in the cards, IMO.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Han Shot First wrote...

As much as I love Star Wars, I don't think it should be used as a template for Mass Effect. A butterflies & rainbows ending makes sense for Star Wars, which is a lighter and less realistic story than Mass Effect. Mass Effect on the other hand, while it doesn't always live up the hard Sci Fi label, is a lot more gritty and realistic than Star Wars. As such I think it should have a more appropriate ending.

An ending where everyone lives just shouldn't be in the cards, IMO.

Agree. Star Wars is more or less a well told fairy tale set in space. But that is just my opinion.

[TheOptimist]

Han Shot First wrote...

Once again, Star Wars Return of the Jedi.  Rebels outnumbered significantly, facing impossibly powerful Death Star II behind impenetrable shield.  The whole crew, Han, Luke, Chewy, Leia, 3PO, R2, heck, throw in Wedge and Lando, they're all still there at the end.

As much as I love Star Wars, I don't think it should be used as a template for Mass Effect. A butterflies & rainbows ending makes sense for Star Wars, which is a lighter and less realistic story than Mass Effect. Mass Effect on the other hand, while it doesn't always live up the hard Sci Fi label, is a lot more gritty and realistic than Star Wars. As such I think it should have a more appropriate ending.

An ending where everyone lives just shouldn't be in the cards, IMO.

Meh.  Atleast in Star Wars once you're dead you stay dead, force ghosts not withstanding.  Just because something is gritty and realistic does not necessarily mean more death for the protagonists, look at Iron Man 2.  And as charming as it is to refer to it that way, I just don't see how a 'buterflies and rainbows' ending with 1/2 the galaxy and 3/4 of Earth in ruins isn't 'gritty' enough, squad survival aside. 

[crimzontearz]

Honestly, Bioware, again, said it numerous times. This is OUR story..some things might not be up to us (someone MUST die on virmire....we CANNOT ally with the reapers, Nylus dies, Saren dies, Shepard becomes a Spectre, Shepard must wor5k With Cerberus in ME2 and so on) But Bioware can give us control of a number of other things and they have before wether you think it's a good thing or not. Giving full options to the player is never a bad thing unless someone just wants **** to be imposed upon them in the name of "mature writing" or "realism".....which is utter BS because mature and reslism (verosimile more likely) are subjective matters.

[Biotic Sage]

I can't vote on that poll because in my opinion it should be a mix of both. There should definitely be some player decided deaths, Virmire type choice situations. However, there should also be plot points and deaths that are beyond Shepard's control. Shepard isn't god of the universe, after all.

[Enmystic]

TheOptimist wrote...

Meh.  Atleast in Star Wars once you're dead you stay dead, force ghosts not withstanding.  Just because something is gritty and realistic does not necessarily mean more death for the protagonists, look at Iron Man 2.  And as charming as it is to refer to it that way, I just don't see how a 'buterflies and rainbows' ending with 1/2 the galaxy and 3/4 of Earth in ruins isn't 'gritty' enough, squad survival aside. 

Emphasis mine. 

If the ending still carries the same amount of power, emotional or otherwise, regardless of the squad members I keep or lose then that's a good game to me.

If I lose people, fine, have Shepard and crew get as emotional as they want.  I just don't want to be forced to lose squad mates and not have any input whatsoever. 

[robtheguru]

I want to see many different endings. Things from happy ever after with your LI, full on wedding, kids etc, all the way to the opposite end of the scale with the universe being cleansed of all life.

Certain things i'd like to see i'll list below. They are a wishlist of things i'd like to happen dependent on choices, rather than happening no matter what:

-Shepard takes a bullet for LI and dies
-LI takes place of Shepard in some sort of suicide attack leaving Shepard banging on a window in tears
-Same as above but other way around

[Han Shot First]

TheOptimist wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Once again, Star Wars Return of the Jedi.  Rebels outnumbered significantly, facing impossibly powerful Death Star II behind impenetrable shield.  The whole crew, Han, Luke, Chewy, Leia, 3PO, R2, heck, throw in Wedge and Lando, they're all still there at the end.

As much as I love Star Wars, I don't think it should be used as a template for Mass Effect. A butterflies & rainbows ending makes sense for Star Wars, which is a lighter and less realistic story than Mass Effect. Mass Effect on the other hand, while it doesn't always live up the hard Sci Fi label, is a lot more gritty and realistic than Star Wars. As such I think it should have a more appropriate ending.

An ending where everyone lives just shouldn't be in the cards, IMO.

Meh.  Atleast in Star Wars once you're dead you stay dead, force ghosts not withstanding.  Just because something is gritty and realistic does not necessarily mean more death for the protagonists, look at Iron Man 2.  And as charming as it is to refer to it that way, I just don't see how a 'buterflies and rainbows' ending with 1/2 the galaxy and 3/4 of Earth in ruins isn't 'gritty' enough, squad survival aside. 

The deaths of millions or billions is nothing more than a statistic to the player. He or she doesn't have an emotional connection with the people being snuffed out.

If the story is to have any emotional impact on the player, characters that the player cares about also have to die.

Using Star Wars as example, the death of Obi Wan in A New Hope probably had more of an emotional impact on most of us as kids than did the destruction of Alderaan, where millions of people we never see on screen die.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 01 septembre 2011 - 09:09 .

[Enmystic]

Han Shot First wrote...

The deaths of millions or billions is nothing more than a statistic to the player. He or she doesn't have an emotional connection with the people being snuffed out.

If the story is to have any emotional impact on the player, characters that the player cares about also have to die.

Using Star Wars as example, the death of Obi Wan in A New Hope probably had more of an emotional impact on most of us as kids than did the destruction of Alderaan, where millions of people we never see on screen die.

I would care.  It would hurt me a lot to see Earth or any other planet go up in flames.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TheOptimist wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
In many ways, 'you don't get to decide everything' is the worst counter argument of all.  Deciding everything is not what we're asking for, no matter how some people try to twist it that way.  We merely ask for the same choice we were given in Mass Effect 2.  Trying to take us to task for asking for an option and writing style the writers already gave us once strikes me as a bit silly.

And what was done ine ME2 is garbage...

Loyality and deaths in Me2 were horribly handled and the writing was average at best.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.  I loved the SM and the way things were handled.  We can argue back and forth on the merits of ME2, but the simple truth is that 'you don't get to decide everything' when not only are we not asking for that but they already gave us those choices in a previous game is a specious argument.

I don't care.

There was no logical connection between the LM and the SM deaths. It was done badly. Period. This a satatment of fact.

[robtheguru]

Enmystic wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The deaths of millions or billions is nothing more than a statistic to the player. He or she doesn't have an emotional connection with the people being snuffed out.

If the story is to have any emotional impact on the player, characters that the player cares about also have to die.

Using Star Wars as example, the death of Obi Wan in A New Hope probably had more of an emotional impact on most of us as kids than did the destruction of Alderaan, where millions of people we never see on screen die.

I would care.  It would hurt me a lot to see Earth or any other planet go up in flames.

I'd feel somewhat bad knowing x billion people all around the galaxy were wiped out, but I wouldn't shed a tear over it. Yet it someone like an LI who you've been to hell and back with is taken from you, well thats tears no amount of Kleenex can stop

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nizzemancer wrote...

marstor05 wrote...

death on the battlefield is quite often random. This would act as a shock factor in the game itself if at any moment in any raid any member of your team can die - depending on certain factors.

In war people die. Why sanitise it?

Because this is a fictional story we dictate the outcome of...

You dicate only part of it.
And it doesn't matter if it's fictional. It's not YOUR story. It's bioware's story.

[Enmystic]

robtheguru wrote...

Enmystic wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The deaths of millions or billions is nothing more than a statistic to the player. He or she doesn't have an emotional connection with the people being snuffed out.

If the story is to have any emotional impact on the player, characters that the player cares about also have to die.

Using Star Wars as example, the death of Obi Wan in A New Hope probably had more of an emotional impact on most of us as kids than did the destruction of Alderaan, where millions of people we never see on screen die.

I would care.  It would hurt me a lot to see Earth or any other planet go up in flames.

I'd feel somewhat bad knowing x billion people all around the galaxy were wiped out, but I wouldn't shed a tear over it. Yet it someone like an LI who you've been to hell and back with is taken from you, well thats tears no amount of Kleenex can stop

Not for me I've seen that love interest dying for the main character thing done waaaay too much.     

That's just how I feel though.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Shep should only have control over a situationif it makes sense to have control. Period.

[crimzontearz]

uh...yeah. Good or Bad are subjective concepts thus stating that something is good or bad (albeit it could be recognized as a nearly universal truth) cannot be a fact

That said at this point the factions are "those who want control" vs "those who want marginal control and a degree of ineluctable **** imposed upon them"

There is no compromise between them because they are mutually exclusive so now we can only wait and see

As I said as long as we avoid a Fallout 3 scenario or an "Infamous 2" one and I get to save the vast majority of my squad (especially my LI) withouth stupid catch 22 scenarios I'm good

[Enmystic]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nizzemancer wrote...

marstor05 wrote...

death on the battlefield is quite often random. This would act as a shock factor in the game itself if at any moment in any raid any member of your team can die - depending on certain factors.

In war people die. Why sanitise it?

Because this is a fictional story we dictate the outcome of...

You dicate only part of it.
And it doesn't matter if it's fictional. It's not YOUR story. It's bioware's story.

Err...
Yes, being fiction does matter because that's part of the game's genre.  It is Bioware's story but they also can't forget that some control is promised to the player which means we have more ability to project ourselves into their story.  We can influence how some events occur or when they occur.  Suddenly locking us out would betray that interactivity.

Modifié par Enmystic, 01 septembre 2011 - 09:35 .

[crimzontearz]

oh and Shepard too...no Killing Shep off, that means no replayability for me

Modifié par crimzontearz, 01 septembre 2011 - 09:58 .

[Lunatic LK47]

crimzontearz wrote...

oh and Shepard too...no Killing Shep off means no replayability for me

Mandatorily killing off the LI's will also kill the replayability for me. Just saying.