896 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Unfortunately for you, that "excuse" is the truth.

And it has a hulluva more weight than your "Waaah! SWM DO NOT WANT!"

Sorry to tell you this, but Mass Effect will never be even close to a realistic war.

So shove that attitude where the sun don't shine.

[Massadonious1]

If we're going for gritty realism, we should conduct wars the way African warlords conduct their conflicts. I want to be able to employ child soldiers, and take women as "trophies"

[Han Shot First]

Massadonious1 wrote...

If we're going for gritty realism, we should conduct wars the way African warlords conduct their conflicts. I want to be able to employ child soldiers, and take women as "trophies"

I think Bioware should maintain a fine balance between realism and the Sci FI/fantasy elements. Obviously it doesn't need absolute realism. 

But seeing as the final battle against the Reapers is going to be the most epic battle in the history of the entire galaxy (perhaps the Universe), there should be some losses. There is no such thing as a war with no casualties.

Why is it rainbows and puppies to not want your squad to die but expecting millions-billions of others to die, you guys with your asinine "sunshine and rainbows" comment,it's pathetic.

This was addressed earlier in the thread.

All those millions or billions of people dying don't appear on screen.  They are a statistic rattled off by the Codex guy or some random news report. Shepard, and by extension the player, has no emotional connection to them.

Put it this way: If you open up the newspaper and see an obituary for someone you didn't know, at best maybe you think their passing is sad or unforunate. But you wouldn't truly mourn that person because you didn't know him or her. But if that person was a friend or relative, no doubt the grief over their passing would be profound.

For the story to truly have an emotional impact on the player, some characters that the player has come to know & like have to die.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 02 septembre 2011 - 07:22 .

[RocketManSR2]

Because everyone knows that a war wasn't worth fighting if all your buddies made it through, right?

[Golden Owl]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Just to get it out there, I don't need a game to be a reminder of how painful it can be to lose someone close to me in real life.

And I don't need a game to shower me with rainbows and puppies either. Escapism into perfection-land is for the weak.

Why is it rainbows and puppies to not want your squad to die but expecting millions-billions of others to die, you guys with your asinine "sunshine and rainbows" comment,it's pathetic.

This

[Han Shot First]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

Because everyone knows that a war wasn't worth fighting if all your buddies made it through, right?

There is no such creature.

People always die in war.

[JSwisha]

Apocsapel91 wrote...

I want deaths like the ones in Lost. The kind that you know that it's going to happen but you can't do anything to save them. Nothing is worse than helplessness.

Yeah, I agree. Lost is a good example for character death scenes like that. Spoilers below...

They built up Charlie's death for almost half a season, and there was no way to stop it from happening. When he finally dies, it's still tough to watch even though you knew it was coming. At least he got to die in a heroic way by helping the other castaways. This actually reminds me a lot of Thane, and I would love for him to get a similar type of send off because he will most likely die due to Kepral's Syndrome anyway.

Lost also had some deaths that you didn't see coming at all but worked equally well. Sayid's death happened so fast and unexpectedly that it just left me in complete disbelief. None of the characters could really take it in either, and that just made it even more sad. But like Charlie, he at least sacrificed himself to help everyone else out.

So character deaths can work both ways and be quite emotional in my opinion, as long as they are presented effectively. I'm definitely cool with some Lost esque deaths.

Modifié par JSwisha, 02 septembre 2011 - 07:33 .

[Someone With Mass]

Han Shot First wrote... 

Why is it rainbows and puppies to not want your squad to die but expecting millions-billions of others to die, you guys with your asinine "sunshine and rainbows" comment,it's pathetic.

This was addressed earlier in the thread.

All those millions or billions of people dying don't appear on screen.  They are a statistic rattled off by the Codex guy or some random news report. Shepard, and by extension the player, has no emotional connection to them.

Put it this way: If you open up the newspaper and see an obituary for someone you didn't know, at best maybe you think their passing is sad or unforunate. But you wouldn't truly mourn that person because you didn't know him or her. But if that person was a friend or relative, no doubt the grief over their passing would be profound.

For the story to truly have an emotional impact on the player, some characters that the player has come to know & like have to die.

Then again, we don't know if we'll see many of those people die. Just that kid in the vents dying about five minutes later caused a huge ruckus on the fourm not long ago.

[Han Shot First]

Golden Owl wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Just to get it out there, I don't need a game to be a reminder of how painful it can be to lose someone close to me in real life.

And I don't need a game to shower me with rainbows and puppies either. Escapism into perfection-land is for the weak.

Why is it rainbows and puppies to not want your squad to die but expecting millions-billions of others to die, you guys with your asinine "sunshine and rainbows" comment,it's pathetic.

This

The player has no emotional connection to those millions or billions who die off screen.

In order for there to be some sort of emotional impact felt over the losses being suffered, those losses have to people that the player has come to know and like.

[Golden Owl]

Han Shot First wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Just to get it out there, I don't need a game to be a reminder of how painful it can be to lose someone close to me in real life.

And I don't need a game to shower me with rainbows and puppies either. Escapism into perfection-land is for the weak.

Why is it rainbows and puppies to not want your squad to die but expecting millions-billions of others to die, you guys with your asinine "sunshine and rainbows" comment,it's pathetic.

This

The player has no emotional connection to those millions or billions who die off screen.

In order for there to be some sort of emotional impact felt over the losses being suffered, those losses have to people that the player has come to know and like.

You maybe...others think and feel differently.

[GodWood]

Golden Owl wrote...
You maybe...others think and feel differently.

So hearing about the millions of people who died in the first trailer affects you as much as what it would if you saw your favourite character die?

Chris Priestly wrote...
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?

Both are good but the latter is best.

The glorious 'Red Wedding' of ASOIAF comes to mind.

[Seboist]

Watching Zaeed,Tali and most importantly TIM die might give me a heart attack.

[Han Shot First]

You maybe...others think and feel differently

Are you seriously saying that the Codex Guy or Emily Wong announcing that 200,000 people were just vaporized in some random colony you've never visited, would have the same emotional impact on you as Shepard or your favorite squadmate dying?

I don't buy that.

The glorious 'Red Wedding' of ASOIAF comes to mind

After finishing the Red Wedding chapter I slammed the book shut with both rage & disbelief. I came back to it the next day with a deeper appreciation of how great ASOIAF is.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 02 septembre 2011 - 07:49 .

[JSwisha]

Han Shot First wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Just to get it out there, I don't need a game to be a reminder of how painful it can be to lose someone close to me in real life.

And I don't need a game to shower me with rainbows and puppies either. Escapism into perfection-land is for the weak.

Why is it rainbows and puppies to not want your squad to die but expecting millions-billions of others to die, you guys with your asinine "sunshine and rainbows" comment,it's pathetic.

This

The player has no emotional connection to those millions or billions who die off screen.

In order for there to be some sort of emotional impact felt over the losses being suffered, those losses have to people that the player has come to know and like.

Definitely. It is way more impactful when you know of the person that bites the dust. I mean I felt more upset about Pressly's death then I did about the 300,000+ Bartarians that died in Arrival.

That's not to say that certain unknown character deaths aren't emotional. Some people feel bad for that one girl on the Normandy that dies before getting to the escape shuttle. And then there's also the kid in ME3. However, I just don't expect most people will feel more emotionally attached to a "number of casualties given" when compared to casualties with a face, especially the characters we've known over the course of ME1 & 2.

Modifié par JSwisha, 02 septembre 2011 - 07:57 .

[Bostur]

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?

Emotional death is simple, it's any death I care about. But what makes me care?

The most important thing is of course to have fully realized characters with depth and personality. This should be a no-brainer but games and stories sometimes get it wrong anyway by killing of complete nobodies and expect the audience to care - yes I'm looking at you DA2


Copying real life emotions can be powerful as well. I think the most common emotions we go through in real life when faced with death are those of loss, blame and unfinished business.

The feeling of loss can manifest itself in many ways. In real life it's a very complex psychological feeling that games probably can't or shouldn't try to copy in full. Parts of this feeling can be copied though. Loss is basically the feeling that we used to have something and now we don't. The emotional loss will carry over automatically if we care about the characters, but the emotional loss can be increased if combined with a practical loss as well:
"Ben's fireball spell would  have been handy here, and he was a really cool guy too *sob*"
As a player we may notice the lack of a game mechanic at first, and then linger on the personality. This may even trigger the emotion of guilt: "Why do I care about fireballs when Ben is dead". I'm exaggerating the emotional impact a bit here it's just a game after all, but I think the 'mechanics' of these emotions are similar in fiction.

Death and guilt always go side by side. It's something most people don't want to talk about, maybe for a good reason. Normally when bad things happen we rationalize and ponder if we could have done things better. Thats a sound reaction when we are in control, but useless when we're not.
Guilt can be turned outwards: "You were his commander, why didn't you save him?", or inwards "I should have saved him." The first case is easy to recreate in a game through dialogue or other communications. The second case is a bit more tricky if we can go back in time and change events, which we often can through reloading. Thats probably why death in a game is often an inevitable event where players are out of control, as in Virmire for instance.

'Unfinished business', 'Loose ends'. I wasn't sure how to describe this with a simple word. Death is always inconvenient. It always happens at an impractical moment. There is no such thing as a good day to die, tomorrow would always be better. If recreated in a game this is probably the emotion that would make completionist players like me scream in frustration, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. ;-)
I imagine a game could have a side mission that can never be completed because an important character dies before it is done. A less frustrating variation could be dialogue options left unexplored, or loot designed for that particular character to appear after the death. Imagine a vendor sending a special delivery for a character that died, with the note: "Here is the new armour you ordered".



Of course not all deaths needs to be emotional, but it needs to serve a purpose.

Modifié par Bostur, 02 septembre 2011 - 08:10 .

[Golden Owl]

Han Shot First wrote...

You maybe...others think and feel differently

Are you seriously saying that the Codex Guy or Emily Wong announcing that 200,000 people were just vaporized in some random colony you've never visited, would have the same emotional impact on you as Shepard or your favorite squadmate dying?

I don't buy that.
 

Let's put it this way...if BW decides to really screw ME up for me and have me return the game with a very unpleasent note....they will implement that stupid idea some people here have been spouting about choosing to save either Shep, loved squaddie or 200,000 to perish...the 200,000 souls in my game would be saved.

[GodWood]

Han Shot First wrote...

The glorious 'Red Wedding' of ASOIAF comes to mind

After finishing the Red Wedding chapter I slammed the book shut with both rage & disbelief. I came back to it the next day with a deeper appreciation of how great ASOIAF is.

I was sitting on a bus next to a friend when I first read it.

According to her as I was reading she could see my face transition from a look of complete tranquility to a look of absolute gobsmacked horror.
When I was finished I slammed the book shut and started babbling incoherently with the occasional "WHAT THE ****!?" thrown in.

Then my friend told me to shut up and not spoil it.

[Someone With Mass]

Golden Owl wrote...

Let's put it this way...if BW decides to really screw ME up for me and have me return the game with a very unpleasent note....they will implement that stupid idea some people here have been spouting about choosing to save either Shep, loved squaddie or 200,000 to perish...the 200,000 souls in my game would be saved.

The fact that people are willing to accept that incredibly old and cliche setup which only belongs in a Batman/Spiderman/other superhero movie makes me slightly disgusted too.

[Massadonious1]

Han Shot First wrote...
There is no such thing as a war with no casualties.

I never said or implied there wasn't, but people who automatically spout "DIS IS DA WARZ, NETHING GOEZ!!" clearly have no or limited understanding to what actual conflict entails and need to be reminded of what they are actually advocating for.

Anyway, I have no issues with squad deaths, plot driven or otherwise, if done right. Shepard and crew aren't your typical cannon fodder grunts. They're clearly more important than random Earth Alliance Marine #46 and if they have to die they shouldn't die in the same way he does, just because it might be more "realistic"

[GodWood]

Someone With Mass wrote...
The fact that people are willing to accept that incredibly old and cliche setup which only belongs in a Batman/Spiderman/other superhero movie makes me slightly disgusted too.

You can't keep hating on something for being cliche when the thing you prefer is MORE cliche.

Anyways who advocated for that type of setup? That's not the kind of character death I'd want.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

GodWood wrote...

 the thing you prefer is MORE cliche.

Source?

[Han Shot First]

I never said or implied there wasn't, but people who automatically spout "DIS IS DA WARZ, NETHING GOEZ!!" clearly have no or limited understanding to what actual conflict entails and need to be reminded of what they are actually advocating for.

Be careful with those assumptions.

[GodWood]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

GodWood wrote...
 the thing you prefer is MORE cliche.

Source?

There's a reason why the death of a MAJOR character is usually a shock.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

GodWood wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

GodWood wrote...
 the thing you prefer is MORE cliche.

Source?

There's a reason why the death of a MAJOR character is usually a shock.

Just because it has a shock doesn't mean it is any less cliche...try again.

[Han Shot First]

If anything it is more of a cliche for the protagonist to live. That is after all, what usually happens.