896 réponses à ce sujet

[Apollo Starflare]

I would actually like to see an unemotional death. Some squadmate gets blown away/shot out to space/read Vogon Poetry to/is crowned in gold/is devoured by a flying Moon shark and option 3 on the dialogue wheel is just:

-Eh.

Shepard shrugs and walks off eating a baguette. No-one would ever see it coming, and could never say it was overdone.

On a more serious note I would say that Chris' question is somewhat irrelvant in regards to ME3. When we say we want an emotional death, we can happily mean that want BOTH/ALL kinds. Afterall, ME has a nice juicy cast ripe for the ole emotional shuffle, Garrus or Reeger could have a scenario where they die in a Boromir/Spock type 'already knows' kinda way. Whilst conversely Thane could be cut off midsentance by the aforementioned Moon Shark taking his head off out of nowhere.

I think in a cataclysmic epic showdown with Galaxy ending sentient machine beings from Dark Space there is room for at least a couple of emotional deaths. Let your writing and cinematic team go wild with bloodlust and the desire to make fanboys and girls the world over cry.

[mopotter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Oh hey, platitudes. Wait, I got some. 
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Death and taxes.
An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

And I do not want to control everything.  I want the choice to save a small group of people.

Oh, I want to do some platitudes too!

A half full glass of water is also half empty.

Money don't grow on trees.

Me too Me too.
I got this one from my grandmother 30 odd years ago.  Why buy a cow if the milk is free. And for anyone too young to know what this means, go ask your grandparents.
Anything worth doing is worth doing well
That’s for me to know and you to find out

[sgtrock]

there needs to be a death of a squad mate similar to Sgt Elias's death in PLATOON.

[TheOptimist]

mopotter wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Oh hey, platitudes. Wait, I got some. 
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Death and taxes.
An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

And I do not want to control everything.  I want the choice to save a small group of people.

Oh, I want to do some platitudes too!

A half full glass of water is also half empty.

Money don't grow on trees.

Me too Me too.
I got this one from my grandmother 30 odd years ago.  Why buy a cow if the milk is free. And for anyone too young to know what this means, go ask your grandparents.
Anything worth doing is worth doing well
That’s for me to know and you to find out

Heh.  In case I haven't said so, btw, I appreciate the support in this topic.

[sgtrock]

AwesomeName wrote...

sgtrock wrote...

there needs to be a death of a squad mate similar to Sgt Elias's death in PLATOON.

Good shout - I'm adding that to my post

It would have to be an important squad mate though, that way it feels more personal when they die. maybe garrus, ashley/kaiden, tali, a squad mate that you like alot. though it could depend on a mistake you make who dies. 
maybe a squadmate death where you have to kill them as there slowly dying or before they are about to be killed horribly. 

[Zu Long]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Interesting thread. I'm not going to talk about who, if anyone, does or does not die in ME3 (notice how I skirted that? Didja? I'm a professional obfuscator), it is interesting for discusison. So, in your opinions, what IS an "emotional death"? Off the top of my head, thinking of recent Sci-Fi films, there are basically 2 sorts of "death".

One is the "Spock". When, as in Wrath of Khan, you get an emotional death where the person knows they are about to die or are dying and say a goodbye of some sort.

The otehr is the "Wash". Where you don't see the death coming, as in Serenity, so when it happens it is a huge blow to the heart that someone you care about has been killed.

What do YOU mean when you want an emotional death?

I've always thought that if you are going to have the hero lose and you want that hero to be thought of as badass even into death, you should have them lose in overtime. They get critically wounded and then keep going.
Example: V in V for Vendetta

Of course, in my opinion the best death scenes of this type are the ones where the hero forgets to die at the end. Examples would be Inigo Montoya, or Captain Reynolds.

Modifié par Zu Long, 02 septembre 2011 - 12:35 .

[mopotter]

TheOptimist wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Oh hey, platitudes. Wait, I got some. 
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Death and taxes.
An apple a day keeps the doctor away.

And I do not want to control everything.  I want the choice to save a small group of people.

Oh, I want to do some platitudes too!

A half full glass of water is also half empty.

Money don't grow on trees.

Me too Me too.
I got this one from my grandmother 30 odd years ago.  Why buy a cow if the milk is free. And for anyone too young to know what this means, go ask your grandparents.
Anything worth doing is worth doing well
That’s for me to know and you to find out

Heh.  In case I haven't said so, btw, I appreciate the support in this topic.

Easy to support something I agree with.  

[TheZyzyva]

Look Optimist, talk all you want about how much YOU can care about all those numbers, but to the vast majority, and I feel quite comfortable making that statement, they are just nothing but numbers on a screen. If those deaths are to have any real impact, I need to see it, not just be told about it.
Also, there is one thing you are quite failing to understand. You seem to be of the mind that picking squadmates to die satisfies my desire for drama, but that ignores one of the fundamental aspects of drama, the feeling of powerlessness. (And Chris if you're still reading this thread this ties in to your question) By forcing me to choose to have someone die there is no drama. It creates a disconnect between me and the story so that even if it is written to be dramatic from the perspective of the story, there is no impact outside of it. It becomes a gameplay mechanic that wedges itself in my immersion and makes it impossible for me to take it seriously. Again, the SM was dreadfully done because they were gameplay deaths and not story deaths. It was a missed opportunity to further the characters and develop the plot.
The other point you're missing is that ME isn't about player choice as much as you seem to think. You seem to want to wrest the control from Bioware when this is there story. I agree that there need to be key decisions, but like I already said, they can't be gameplay decisions because that doesn't allow the story to have an impact.
Look, I'm not trying to attack you or your camp of thought, I just don't think it's realistic. I hope I've made it clear enough why it just doesn't work.

[crimzontearz]

TheZyzyva wrote...

Look Optimist, talk all you want about how much YOU can care about all those numbers, but to the vast majority, and I feel quite comfortable making that statement, they are just nothing but numbers on a screen. If those deaths are to have any real impact, I need to see it, not just be told about it.
Also, there is one thing you are quite failing to understand. You seem to be of the mind that picking squadmates to die satisfies my desire for drama, but that ignores one of the fundamental aspects of drama, the feeling of powerlessness. (And Chris if you're still reading this thread this ties in to your question) By forcing me to choose to have someone die there is no drama. It creates a disconnect between me and the story so that even if it is written to be dramatic from the perspective of the story, there is no impact outside of it. It becomes a gameplay mechanic that wedges itself in my immersion and makes it impossible for me to take it seriously. Again, the SM was dreadfully done because they were gameplay deaths and not story deaths. It was a missed opportunity to further the characters and develop the plot.
The other point you're missing is that ME isn't about player choice as much as you seem to think. You seem to want to wrest the control from Bioware when this is there story. I agree that there need to be key decisions, but like I already said, they can't be gameplay decisions because that doesn't allow the story to have an impact.
Look, I'm not trying to attack you or your camp of thought, I just don't think it's realistic. I hope I've made it clear enough why it just doesn't work.

what part of "Bioware told us it is our story"  are you missing?

literally...more than once...I am not kidding you.

Also, Mass Effect does not need to be realistic. It's fiction, the kind of non static fiction the outcome of which is largely decided by the player himself, apparently, who becomes partly the author. You know like in Table Top RPGs?

Also, all this is YOUR opinion, YOUR ideas, YOUR likings and why you THINK it does not work. For others, as you see, it does. Hopefully Bioware will find a way to please us both to a degree.....otherwise, I selfishly hope they will give us as much control as possible over the story without (again in my opinion) pointless forced deaths and catch 22s decisions

Also what breaks your immersion is the reason why many people replaied the first two games over and over again and the lack of it might be the reason why they will not anymore. Bioware knows that. 

[mopotter]

Zu Long wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Interesting thread. I'm not going to talk about who, if anyone, does or does not die in ME3 (notice how I skirted that? Didja? I'm a professional obfuscator), it is interesting for discusison. So, in your opinions, what IS an "emotional death"? Off the top of my head, thinking of recent Sci-Fi films, there are basically 2 sorts of "death".

One is the "Spock". When, as in Wrath of Khan, you get an emotional death where the person knows they are about to die or are dying and say a goodbye of some sort.

The otehr is the "Wash". Where you don't see the death coming, as in Serenity, so when it happens it is a huge blow to the heart that someone you care about has been killed.

What do YOU mean when you want an emotional death?

I've always thought that if you are going to have the hero lose and you want that hero to be thought of as badass even into death, you should have them lose in overtime. They get critically wounded and then keep going.
Example: V in V for Vendetta

Of course, in my opinion the best death scenes of this type are the ones where the hero forgets to die at the end. Examples would be Inigo Montoya, or Captain Reynolds.

Yes.  I like hero's who forget to die.  or maybe I just really like Inigo Montoya and Captain Reynolds.

As far as Chris's post goes when Kate was killed in NCIS I hated it and when Wash died I hated it.  Spock I was rather indifferent.  The scene where Khan put that creature in Chekov's ear, that upset me far more than Spock's death.

This does not mean I want something that I can't partially controle.     I want replay value 

[TheZyzyva]

Alright Chris, to directly answer your question, an emotional death will be any that the game lets us connect to. It really doesn't matter who it is or how it happens so much as how the death impacts the survivors. Since people tend to naturally empathetic, even if we don't care about the person, if we care about those that do and see them being emotional, that will be enough to draw the player in. Tali's father is a prime example of what I'm talking about. I didn't know him, but I like Tali and seeing her in grief was enough to instill that grief in me. A poor example would be the SM, as has already been discussed to death. Also that method allows the "Wash" death to be just as effective as the more drawn out ones. Now personally I wouldn't advocate a wash death for anyone of prime importance, as I feel like most characters deserve the blaze of glory treatment if they are to die and NOT go out like a chump, but I'm sure you guys can get it done well. And thanks for taking an interest in the discussion, always nice to see guys from Bioware stop by.

[MrFob]

Didn't read much in this thread, just want to answer to evil Chris' call for opinions:
I though Wash's death in Serenity was about the only part of the movie that was really badly handled. The only good thing I can say about it is that it definitely was not cliche because it was so unexpected but other than that, I didn't like it at all. It was comparable to the deaths in the suicide mission where there is just so much action going on that there is no time to go into it and see the characters deal with the situation and it is also not really addressed later on.
Spocks death in Star Trek II very cliched but I still liked it better none the less. It gives the audience time to absorb and think.
I think his should happen, even if it is delayed due to the action that might be going on at the time. That is something ME should still work on.

[Han Shot First]

TheOptimist wrote...

Ah yes, seeing Biggs, Red Leader, etc. die had no impact.  Oh wait, yes it did.  If you feel nothing for planets being wiped out, if your imagination does not incompass the sadness of so many deaths, I can do nothing but feel pity for you.  For that matter, if things like that don't have an impact on a player, why do you think a squadmate dying would?  Especially since it's essentially random chance it'll be a squadmate they actually give a **** about?

You shed a tear for Biggs, a character who has maybe five minutes of screen time before he dies? Did you seriously cry when Alderaan was destroyed?
 
I find that hard to believe.

I'm not saying that those scenes didn't have any emotional impact. But since the viewer doesn't really know Biggs or the countless faceless people who die on Alderaan, it wouldn't have been anywhere near the same level as say, Han going out in a blaze of glory in RotJ.

Likewise in Mass Effect 3 random Alliance soldier #54318 dying isn't going to have the same emotional impact as losing a member of your team, no matter how the death scene is presented. Since the player wouldn't have had time to get to know (and like) that random Alliance soldier, the death would have all the emotional impact of a Red Shirt's death.

[Zu Long]

TheZyzyva wrote...

Look Optimist, talk all you want about how much YOU can care about all those numbers, but to the vast majority, and I feel quite comfortable making that statement, they are just nothing but numbers on a screen. If those deaths are to have any real impact, I need to see it, not just be told about it.
Also, there is one thing you are quite failing to understand. You seem to be of the mind that picking squadmates to die satisfies my desire for drama, but that ignores one of the fundamental aspects of drama, the feeling of powerlessness. (And Chris if you're still reading this thread this ties in to your question) By forcing me to choose to have someone die there is no drama. It creates a disconnect between me and the story so that even if it is written to be dramatic from the perspective of the story, there is no impact outside of it. It becomes a gameplay mechanic that wedges itself in my immersion and makes it impossible for me to take it seriously. Again, the SM was dreadfully done because they were gameplay deaths and not story deaths. It was a missed opportunity to further the characters and develop the plot.
The other point you're missing is that ME isn't about player choice as much as you seem to think. You seem to want to wrest the control from Bioware when this is there story. I agree that there need to be key decisions, but like I already said, they can't be gameplay decisions because that doesn't allow the story to have an impact.
Look, I'm not trying to attack you or your camp of thought, I just don't think it's realistic. I hope I've made it clear enough why it just doesn't work.

I'd bet more people would find the mass death affecting than you seem to think Zyzava. In any case, claiming the onus of "the majority" without any evidence is a pretty weak arguement, don't you think?

As far as seeing it, based on the previews so far, you're going to see it. I've read a ton of reviewers who said the death of a little boy in one of the demos made them tear up.

I understand that you want emotional impact in the game. I'm not sure there's a middle ground for the two sides where both will be happy. I do think you're wrong about the importance of choice though. Our choices have been limited thus far because there were always supposed to be three games, and they've still given us quite a bit of leeway to craft our own stories. In the third game, as bioware has stated, the gloves can be taken off. One of the key themes IS choice and what choices to offer and what to take away.

Finally, it's been said before in this topic, but realism is not why I play Mass Effect. Realistically, three man teams do not wipe out dozens upon dozens of entrenched enemy soldiers. I don't play it solely for the choices either. It has been pointed out that other games like Deus Ex offer more of that. I don't play it for the combat, or the weapon powers or inventory or the lore. It's really the unique combination of them that makes me want to play. But in the end, the characters are what keeps me coming back to these games. I love the way the relationships between the commander and the squad develop over the course of the games. And I feel really attached to all of them for different reasons. I'd love want to see what they become at the end of the game, the way Shepard (and by extension, me), changed them for the better. Having the story team auto-kill them on the cusp of our desperate victory denies me fullfilment in the biggest reason I play the games.

Modifié par Zu Long, 02 septembre 2011 - 01:54 .

[TheZyzyva]

crimzontearz wrote...
what part of "Bioware told us it is our story"  are you missing?

literally...more than once...I am not kidding you.

Also, Mass Effect does not need to be realistic. It's fiction, the kind of non static fiction the outcome of which is largely decided by the player himself, apparently, who becomes partly the author. You know like in Table Top RPGs?

Also, all this is YOUR opinion, YOUR ideas, YOUR likings and why you THINK it does not work. For others, as you see, it does. Hopefully Bioware will find a way to please us both to a degree.....otherwise, I selfishly hope they will give us as much control as possible over the story without (again in my opinion) pointless forced deaths and catch 22s decisions

Also what breaks your immersion is the reason why many people replaied the first two games over and over again and the lack of it might be the reason why they will not anymore. Bioware knows that. 

What part am I missing? The part where I turned the rachni queen over to the council, told Cerberus to screw off,  and gave the collector base to the alliance. That's what I'm talking about, we don't really have as many options as you seem to feel we do, we never have and it's a fine system. The "It's your story" line is purely marketing, I would have thought after the last two games you would have figured that out.

And I'm not entirely sure which portions of my argument you are trying to refute there, but one portion that is not just my opinion is the aspect of drama. Powerlessness is a key component in conveying drama, that is just a simple truth. Sure it's not applicable 100% of the time, but it's close to it. And I very much doubt that I am alone in saying that by being granted the power over life and death, the impact of both loses its edge.

Since it has been firmly established that our two camps cannot both be pleased, I will also selfishly hope that it's my side that ultimately "wins out". But honestly, I do believe that even if everyone making out unscathed turns out to be an impossibility, you will still very much so enjoy the game, seeing how you have enjoyed the previous incarnations. Will I still enjoy it if it is possible? Hard to say right now. I don't like the idea of a "best" ending option as it devalues all the others. By only having multiple levels of imperfection, it levels the playing field and ,I feel, ups the replay value as a whole.

Also, you're using catch-22 incorrectly. A catch-22 decision would be one where regardless of who you chose, Kaiden died anyways. Not trying to be combative there, just noticed people have been using it wrong. Related note, if you haven't read it, it's a great book. And it's actually a comedy more than a war story. Highly recommended.

[TheOptimist]

TheZyzyva wrote...

Look Optimist, talk all you want about how much YOU can care about all those numbers, but to the vast majority, and I feel quite comfortable making that statement, they are just nothing but numbers on a screen. If those deaths are to have any real impact, I need to see it, not just be told about it.

I think you overestimate the number of people who will care even if Bioware does exactly what you want.  They will either ignore those characters or stop playing.  How many people do you think actually give a **** about the Virmire sacrifice they pick? 

Also, there is one thing you are quite failing to understand. You seem to be of the mind that picking squadmates to die satisfies my desire for drama, but that ignores one of the fundamental aspects of drama, the feeling of powerlessness. (And Chris if you're still reading this thread this ties in to your question) By forcing me to choose to have someone die there is no drama. It creates a disconnect between me and the story so that even if it is written to be dramatic from the perspective of the story, there is no impact outside of it. It becomes a gameplay mechanic that wedges itself in my immersion and makes it impossible for me to take it seriously.

Hmm, no, I get it.  You absolutely want the writer fiat, so you can go back and say 'Shepard tried his best, but it wasn't enough' because for you making the CHOICE for that story would mean admitting Shepard didn't do as good a job as was possible. You want to be reassured life sucks by the writer.

Again, the SM was dreadfully done because they were gameplay deaths and not story deaths. It was a missed opportunity to further the characters and develop the plot.

I continue to disagree.  The SM was an excellent way to give players the story they wanted.  Only thing is, it requires the player to admit what kind of story they want to see.  No way to blame 'life' or 'the universe', or say 'that's just the way things go' if Thane dies in the SM; it's entirely you and Shepard's fault.

The other point you're missing is that ME isn't about player choice as much as you seem to think. You seem to want to wrest the control from Bioware when this is there story.

'Wrest the control?'  You make me sound like some kind of Marvel supervillain.  They have told us, multiple times, that within the confines of certain possibilities, this is our story.  That our decisions make a difference to that story.   And they are correct.  I could easily create 15 Shepards, no two of which have the same story. Every Shepard has had no less than 5 (and counting!) different opportunities for romantic interest.  Shepard can have lost anywhere from 1 to 13 squadmates at the end of the day.  The differences between Shepards in ME3  will astronomically huge.  This is choose your own adventure.  I'd like mine to come with all my squadmates still there at the end.

I agree that there need to be key decisions, but like I already said, they can't be gameplay decisions because that doesn't allow the story to have an impact.
Look, I'm not trying to attack you or your camp of thought, I just don't think it's realistic. I hope I've made it clear enough why it just doesn't work.

You've made fairly clear why it doesn't work for you.  We'll see what Bioware chooses (there's that word again)
to do.

[Han Shot First]

I think you overestimate the number of people who will care even if Bioware does exactly what you want.  They will either ignore those characters or stop playing.  How many people do you think actually give a **** about the Virmire sacrifice they pick? 

I think the first time most people played the game, assuming they were completely unspoiled, Virmire had some emotional impact. In fact immediately after Mass Effect 1 it was often ranked as most players' favorite mission in the game in polls.

Of course, with some people on their 20th playthrough I'm sure Virmire no longer does trigger the same emotional response as the first time they played that mission. But the same is true for any story in which a main character dies, regardless of whether it occurs in a game, film, or book. It isn't going to have the same impact on the player, viewer, or reader on subsequent playthroughs, viewings, or readings.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 02 septembre 2011 - 02:05 .

[TheOptimist]

Han Shot First wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Ah yes, seeing Biggs, Red Leader, etc. die had no impact.  Oh wait, yes it did.  If you feel nothing for planets being wiped out, if your imagination does not incompass the sadness of so many deaths, I can do nothing but feel pity for you.  For that matter, if things like that don't have an impact on a player, why do you think a squadmate dying would?  Especially since it's essentially random chance it'll be a squadmate they actually give a **** about?

You shed a tear for Biggs, a character who has maybe five minutes of screen time before he dies? Did you seriously cry when Alderaan was destroyed?

I find that hard to believe.

Biggs? Na, he was kind of a jerk.  Alderaan?  I choked up a little.  I also saluted Red Leader when he deliberately sacrificed himself to try and give Luke and the others more time.  You will note I said it had impact, not that I started bawling every time, jeez.
 

I'm not saying that those scenes didn't have any emotional impact. But since the viewer doesn't really know Biggs or the countless faceless people who die on Alderaan, it wouldn't have been anywhere near the same level as say, Han going out in a blaze of glory in RotJ.

See, I kinda doubt Star Wars would hold the same place in so many people's hearts if Han had bit it during RotJ.  God knows I'd only have watched it once.

Likewise in Mass Effect 3 random Alliance soldier #54318 dying isn't going to have the same emotional impact as losing a member of your team, no matter how the death scene is presented. Since the player wouldn't have had time to get to know (and like) that random Alliance soldier, the death would have all the emotional impact of a Red Shirt's death.

I think if done correctly even minor character death can have a huge emotional impact.  Killing squadmates is the quick and easy path, to quote some movie or other.

[crimzontearz]

TheZyzyva wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
what part of "Bioware told us it is our story"  are you missing?

literally...more than once...I am not kidding you.

Also, Mass Effect does not need to be realistic. It's fiction, the kind of non static fiction the outcome of which is largely decided by the player himself, apparently, who becomes partly the author. You know like in Table Top RPGs?

Also, all this is YOUR opinion, YOUR ideas, YOUR likings and why you THINK it does not work. For others, as you see, it does. Hopefully Bioware will find a way to please us both to a degree.....otherwise, I selfishly hope they will give us as much control as possible over the story without (again in my opinion) pointless forced deaths and catch 22s decisions

Also what breaks your immersion is the reason why many people replaied the first two games over and over again and the lack of it might be the reason why they will not anymore. Bioware knows that. 

What part am I missing? The part where I turned the rachni queen over to the council, told Cerberus to screw off,  and gave the collector base to the alliance. That's what I'm talking about, we don't really have as many options as you seem to feel we do, we never have and it's a fine system. The "It's your story" line is purely marketing, I would have thought after the last two games you would have figured that out.

And I'm not entirely sure which portions of my argument you are trying to refute there, but one portion that is not just my opinion is the aspect of drama. Powerlessness is a key component in conveying drama, that is just a simple truth. Sure it's not applicable 100% of the time, but it's close to it. And I very much doubt that I am alone in saying that by being granted the power over life and death, the impact of both loses its edge.

Since it has been firmly established that our two camps cannot both be pleased, I will also selfishly hope that it's my side that ultimately "wins out". But honestly, I do believe that even if everyone making out unscathed turns out to be an impossibility, you will still very much so enjoy the game, seeing how you have enjoyed the previous incarnations. Will I still enjoy it if it is possible? Hard to say right now. I don't like the idea of a "best" ending option as it devalues all the others. By only having multiple levels of imperfection, it levels the playing field and ,I feel, ups the replay value as a whole.

Also, you're using catch-22 incorrectly. A catch-22 decision would be one where regardless of who you chose, Kaiden died anyways. Not trying to be combative there, just noticed people have been using it wrong. Related note, if you haven't read it, it's a great book. And it's actually a comedy more than a war story. Highly recommended.

it is also used, nowadays, as a description for a "no win situation".....like "be a hero and die...or live but be a jerk" ala fallout 3

regardless either you are not familiar with table top RPG mentality or you just cannot understand the concept (and I did explain it earlier on) yes the story NEEDS to progress a certain way and some possibilities need to be barred in order for the plot to progress including but not limited to character deaths. So no you cannot side with the reaper, no you cannot tell TIM to **** off while you re-join the alliance at the start of ME2, yes Kaiden or Ash will die.but within the confines of the pre determined story you are given freedom to choose as much of the rest as possible (yet not as much as a TT rpg...hell I remember soooo many times my DA:V group saved people that were meant to die in creative ways and once or twice I had to resort to the good old "yes you are walking up to your rooms with your newfound friend and ally.........suddenly he slips on the stairs, falls down and dies on impact")

ahem....anyways, we all know there are boundries for plot purposes.

Powerlessness is a good component of drama and personal horror. Point is this powerlessness should not be abused (you learn that quickly when you are a ST). Sure, another Virmire situation or a plotline death would not ruin the game for me UNLESS it was a forced Shepard death or a forced LI death..sure it would royally ****** me off and would indeed create drama...and probably, depending on the situation, make me desist from playing more than a handful of times. You may feewl like "degrees of imperfection" hightens replay value but to many others the lack of perfection lowers it. The difference, really, is that you want to be forced to have degrees of imperfection, after that you seem to be A-OK with people choosing how imperfect their run ultimately is. In other words the very existence of a perfect ending is what pisses you off because in your eyes it is diminishing the other outcomes. 

I find it funny, given the option to choose how imperfect your story is (I use the term relatively) your experience will be ruined (sort of) simply because a different outcome exists and other people enjoyed it more than a less perfect one and thus, following their tastes, chose it

sounds rather arrogant when you put it that way

[TheZyzyva]

Zu Long wrote...

I'd bet more people would find the mass death affecting than you seem to think Zyzava. In any case, claiming the onus of "the majority" without any evidence is a pretty weak arguement, don't you think?

As far as seeing it, based on the previews so far, you're going to see it. I've read a ton of reviewers who said the death of a little boy in one of the demos made them tear up.

I understand that you want emotional impact in the game. I'm not sure there's a middle ground for the two sides where both will be happy. I do think you're wrong about the importance of choice though. Our choices have been limited thus far because there were always supposed to be three games, and they've still given us quite a bit of leeway to craft our own stories. In the third game, as bioware has stated, the gloves can be taken off. One of the key themes IS choice and what choices to offer and what to take away.

Finally, it's been said before in this topic, but realism is not why I play Mass Effect. Realistically, three man teams do not wipe out dozens upon dozens of entrenched enemy soldiers. I don't play it solely for the choices either. It has been pointed out that other games like Deus Ex offer more of that. I don't play it for the combat, or the weapon powers or inventory or the lore. It's really the unique combination of them that makes me want to play. But in the end, the characters are what keeps me coming back to these games. I love the way the relationships between the commander and the squad develop over the course of the games. And I feel really attached to all of them for different reasons. I'd love want to see what they become at the end of the game, the way Shepard (and by extension, me), changed them for the better. Having the story team auto-kill them on the cusp of our desperate victory denies me fullfilment in the biggest reason I play the games.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to use that statement as any sort of an argument really, it was more of a complaint on how those sorts of deaths have been handled thus far. And I say majority just on the basis of the human condition. People are naturally empathetic, but it takes a visual stimulation to acheive (typically). I won't say it's impossible to feel for them, as you and Optimist have both said to connect, and I'm not going to accuse anyone of lying, but it occurring naturally, (as in the person does not need to make an effort) is quite rare.

I will agree that I expect a much broader spectrum of decisions to be available, however I still would not expect an overt amount of control to be handed over to me. Bioware still has the final say in what my Shep will be able to do or not do, regardless of how much more they make available.

And lastly, realistic was a poor choice of words on my part. I wasn't refering to the realism of the story insomuch as the feasibilty of crafting such a story and having it still feel real. If there is a "flawless victory" I'll have to wait and see how it's done. If it's done well, and grounded in the universe, I truely won't mind depending on the path the leads there. However, if I actually have to fail in the game to achieve different endings, I will be very unhappy. Gameplay should not dictate story, in my opinion. It just feels wrong.

[TheOptimist]

Han Shot First wrote...

I think you overestimate the number of people who will care even if Bioware does exactly what you want.  They will either ignore those characters or stop playing.  How many people do you think actually give a **** about the Virmire sacrifice they pick? 

I think the first time most people played the game, assuming they were completely unspoiled, Virmire had some emotional impact. In fact immediately after Mass Effect 1 it was often ranked as most players' favorite mission in the game in polls.

Really? Cause my guess is most people spent 2 seconds going 'Aww' and then said 'Oh well, sucks to be you Kaidan/Ashley'. *button press*  Now I guess that qualifies as emotional impact, but I'd bet Wrex had just as much emotional impact, and you don't have to kill him, it's a choice.

Of course, with some people on their 20th playthrough I'm sure Virmire no longer does trigger the same emotional response as the first time they played that mission. But the same is true for any story in which a main character dies, regardless of whether it occurs in a game, film, or book. It isn't going to have the same impact on the player, viewer, or reader on subsequent playthroughs, viewings, or readings.

Again, contrast that with Wrex, whom you can choose to kill, or not.  What is the difference, other than one is purely the player's choice and one is a forced kill?

[Whatever42]

To take a different tack here, I'll tell what would be cool for me. If decisions in the first or second game had dramatic life-or-death consequences in the third game.

So if you didn't spill the beans on Tali's father and made the right assignments in the SM then Tali lives. However, if you advocated for war on the ship, Tali gets into a conflict with the Geth and dies.

I'd be fine with that. That would make a flawless victory much more challenging and interesting.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 02 septembre 2011 - 02:22 .

[TheOptimist]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

To take a different tack here, I'll tell what would be cool for me. If decisions in the first or second game had dramatic life-or-death consequences in the third game.

So if you didn't spill the beans on Tali's father and made the right assignments in the SM then Tali lives. However, if you advocated for war on the ship, Tali gets into a conflict with the Geth and dies.

I'd be fine with that. That would make a flawless victory much more challenging and interesting.

IMO, that would be a very good way to handle things, choices you made way back when coming around again.  Unfortunately, because Bioware still wants to market the game to newcomers, I'm not sure they'll be able work it without telegraphing what decisions are going to matter.