896 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
Maybe the OP should make a poll,so we can say with the results that GW may be able to appreciate it,but a majority of players will see the forced deaths as cliche and boring.

I don't need a poll to tell me the average person prefers sunshine and bunny endings.

Typical,not wanting your team to die is sunshine and bunnies.

That's not necessarily what I said but yes having your whole team survive fighting in a galactic war against the undefeated cthulhu machines of doom is a bit too sunshine and bunnies for me.

Congrats,your argument is now void of merit,good day.

That's twice now.

[Eckswhyzee]

I'd rather not have a Virmire type choice and instead have some properly tough decisions.

The problem with Virmire is that it's a bit contrived. Imagine in ME3: OMG U CAN ONLY SAVE TALI OR GARRUS WHO DO U PICK???? OMG!?

What you need is something less binary:
-Save Garrus, leave Tali
-Save Tali, leave Garrus
-Pick up both in Normandy, but Normandy's weapons/shields/kitchen is damaged so someone else dies on the next mission
-Save both, but at the cost of 1,000 civilians on the evac transport you are protecting
-Send in a second fireteam of 3 squadmates who will take one random casualty


--------------------------------

I think you guys get the general idea. Note I have nothing against Tali or Garrus, they're just the 1st two that popped into my head.

EDIT:Spelling/grammar.

Modifié par Eckswhyzee, 30 août 2011 - 10:56 .

[Reikenji]

Eckswhyzee wrote...

I'd rather not have a Virmire type choice and instead have some properly tough decisions.

The problem with Virmire is that it's a bit contrived. Imagine in ME3: OMG U CAN ONLY SAVE TALI OR GARRUS WHO DO U PICK???? OMG!?

What you need is something less binary:
-Save,Garrus, leave Tali
-Save Tali, leave Garrus
-Pick up both in Normandy, but Normandy's weapons/shields/kitchen is damaged so someone else dies on the next mission
-Save both, but at the cost of 1,000 civilians on the evac transport you are protecting
-Send in a second fireteam of 3 squadmates who will take one random casualty


--------------------------------

I think you guys get the general idea. Note I have nothing against Tali or Garrus, they're just the 1st two that popped into my head.

EDIT:Spelling/grammar.

Remove the bolded one and then you have some nice choice and potential impact there. Why remove that one? Because EVERYONE will save the teammates they like over 1,000 nameless civilians.


Rei

Modifié par Reikenji, 30 août 2011 - 09:53 .

[ForumHelper]

Having to choose between Tali and Garrus would be really hard.

It was baad in ME2, no reaction at all, Shepard's reaction was just "Ok, I just lost a squad member. Carry on people, nothing to see here."

[Eckswhyzee]

Reikenji wrote...

Eckswhyzee wrote...

...

Remove the bolded one and then you have some nice choice and potential impact there. Why remove that one? Because EVERYONE will save the teammates they like over 1,000 nameless civilians.


Rei

Yeah that was just off the top of my head. I kind of had a gruesome slaughter cutscene thing going on  in my head: "OMG SHEPARD WHERE'S OUR SUPPORT!!??":o "OH NOES!!"

Actually, interesting consequence: Sacrificing 1000 humans/turians/quarians/kittens means that squadmate X is disloyal, crucially affecting some future confrontation.

[Reikenji]

Eckswhyzee wrote...

Yeah that was just off the top of my head. I kind of had a gruesome slaughter cutscene thing going on  in my head: "OMG SHEPARD WHERE'S OUR SUPPORT!!??":o "OH NOES!!"

Actually, interesting consequence: Sacrificing 1000 humans/turians/quarians/kittens means that squadmate X is disloyal, crucially affecting some future confrontation.

Agreed. But it HAS to mean something to Shepard or your team/allies. Because if the penalty doesn't affect you or your game in any way you'll pick it no matter what else may be available, as it is the 'safe' option. Unless you are intentionally trying to kill your squadmates or allies of course. 


Rei

[Golden Owl]

Reikenji wrote...

Eckswhyzee wrote...

I'd rather not have a Virmire type choice and instead have some properly tough decisions.

The problem with Virmire is that it's a bit contrived. Imagine in ME3: OMG U CAN ONLY SAVE TALI OR GARRUS WHO DO U PICK???? OMG!?

What you need is something less binary:
-Save,Garrus, leave Tali
-Save Tali, leave Garrus
-Pick up both in Normandy, but Normandy's weapons/shields/kitchen is damaged so someone else dies on the next mission
-Save both, but at the cost of 1,000 civilians on the evac transport you are protecting
-Send in a second fireteam of 3 squadmates who will take one random casualty


--------------------------------

I think you guys get the general idea. Note I have nothing against Tali or Garrus, they're just the 1st two that popped into my head.

EDIT:Spelling/grammar.

Remove the bolded one and then you have some nice choice and potential impact there. Why remove that one? Because EVERYONE will save the teammates they like over 1,000 nameless civilians.


Rei

Don't be so sure about that....it would be horrible decision to make and I would hope something like that isn't in the game, but as this would stand....Emotionally driven, I would save the 1000...Tactically driven (which is what I will be doing), whatever would make the most sense tactically.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 30 août 2011 - 10:12 .

[Swimming Ferret]

Meh. Knowing Bioware death scenes will be much like DA2; when your brother/sister dies Hawke just stood about with a stone face. It was completely facepalm worthy.

[Mike2640]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Maybe the OP should make a poll,so we can say with the results that GW may be able to appreciate it,but a majority of players will see the forced deaths as cliche and boring,and be turned off to the game,most players don't just have one game to import,and if they know something horrible like their LI is going to die or a fav squad member will die,they feel that time is wasted,beat the game once and leave it on the shelf or return it.

Well thank god we have you to speak for us.<_<

When Fred died in Season Five of Angel I cried. Still gets me choked up on repeat viewings. When Dumbledore died, I was so shocked I dropped the book. So excuse me if I call bull**** on your assumption that "most people" believe character deaths are boring. If implemented well they can be the most memorable part of an entire body of work, which is why they still used.

I'm expecting deaths in ME3. Shepard is not Space Jesus. He cannot save everyone, and it's completely ludicrous to think everyone's gonna be okay after a war with virtual gods.

That was one of the weakest parts of Mass Effect 2; how easy it was for everyone to survive. Yeah it felt good to get everyone out, but it really made these mythic Collectors seem really on par with Storm Troopers in actual lethality.

Having characters die is gonna suck (In a good way), but Bioware "defanging" the Reapers would be an even worse turn of events.

Modifié par Mike2640, 30 août 2011 - 10:33 .

[MarauderESP]

as long i can chose to save it or not, i don´t care if someone want to play a drama and cry a river, forced deaths a la DA2 just sucks , no matter how u tried and what u do they die anyway? no thanks, for dramas we already have the news!!

[MarauderESP]

Mike2640 wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Maybe the OP should make a poll,so we can say with the results that GW may be able to appreciate it,but a majority of players will see the forced deaths as cliche and boring,and be turned off to the game,most players don't just have one game to import,and if they know something horrible like their LI is going to die or a fav squad member will die,they feel that time is wasted,beat the game once and leave it on the shelf or return it.

Well thank god we have you to speak for us.<_<

When Fred died in Season Five of Angel I cried. Still gets me choked up on repeat viewings. When Dumbledore died, I was so shocked I dropped the book. So excuse me if I call bull**** on your assumption that "most people" believe character deaths are boring. If implemented well they can be the most memorable part of an entire body of work, which is why they still used.

I'm expecting deaths in ME3. Shepard is not Space Jesus. He cannot save everyone, and it's completely ludicrous to think everyone's gonna be okay after a war with virtual gods.

That was one of the weakest parts of Mass Effect 2; how easy it was for everyone to survive. Yeah it felt good to get everyone out, but it really made these mythic Collectors seem really on par with Storm Troopers in actual lethality.

Having characters die is gonna suck (In a good way), but Bioware "defanging" the Reapers would be an even worse turn of events.

fine then so let me chose who dies ^^ ........
lets see my personal choice..... squadies from ME1----> NONE
squadies from ME2 ----> all the rest (Tali & Garrus don´t count ME1 squadies)
and that is my opinion and is as valid as yours

[Mike2640]

MarauderESP wrote...

as long i can chose to save it or not, i don´t care if someone want to play a drama and cry a river, forced deaths a la DA2 just sucks , no matter how u tried and what u do they die anyway? no thanks, for dramas we already have the news!!

Not ala DA2. Never ala DA2. DA2 was exactly how not to do it. You cant get an emotional reaction from the deaths of characters the player doesnt know or care about. It also doesn't hurt that the Mass Effect Team seems to be much more talented than the Dragon Age team, if their last effort is anything to go by. Fortunately any deaths will most likely be from the main characters we already know, so they will probably play out much more effectively. Also Mass Effect has always been dramatic. You've had two games to accept this by now.

I'm thinking the way it's implemented differently than you guys are thinking. I doubt it's going to be "Garrus dies at this point every time, no matter what". It's definately going to have to do with our choices, during the game and from the previous ones (Ideally), so that depending on how you played, it'll be a different character for different reasons each time. Such as,
"Because you chose to abandon the Flotilla, Tali steals the shuttle to join the battle. Though the Quarians were successful, Tali did not survive." Or
"Because you kept the Genophage cure, Mordin stayed on Tuchanka to ensure it was spread properly, which meant he was at ground zero when the Reapers nuked it from orbit"

Just examples of course, and hopefully it will be less clear cut and include more variables, but you get what i'm trying to say.

Modifié par Mike2640, 30 août 2011 - 11:02 .

[mopotter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

GodWood wrote...
All the main characters surviving is just childish and boring.

And a million times more cliche too.

Let me tell you how many times that bland "oh noes, that character died" idea will work. One. Exactly one time.

And honestly, I have seen that stupid mandatory death idea so often in other fictions like movies and books, it's a breath of fresh air if they don't die to me.

For that matter, what will deaths like that accomplish?

People are already dying by the millions in ME3.

Yes.  I don't like the idea of vs style mandatory deaths of my team.  

Plus, I liked the way ME2 was handled.  It gave me a lot of options in how I played each game.  I don't use cheat information, I assign jobs to people who should be able to handle them so I have people who died.  I do all of the upgrades, because that makes sense.   

I would like my decisions in ME3 to be the reason someone dies or not.  Not a choose A or B death.  Save team member B and leave team member A behind.  After a couple of play throughs it's lost the shock value and just becomes ok this time lets save B, next time we'll save A.  VS worked in ME1 because it was unexpected.   The final mission in ME2 still makes me sad when someone dies, if I like them.  

[SkittlesKat96]

I liked it when they had the 'love theme' music play on the Normandy when your squad mate dies on Virmire in ME 1...maybe it was a bit melodramatic but it still added to the emotion, yet for some reason I think it got taken out in a patch or something and now people just think of 'Love theme' as being just a love theme whereas I always thought of it as also being a grief/serious music about what happened on Virmire.

[Undertone]

Izhalezan wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Izhalezan wrote...
The problem with some characters dying no matter what is people will start to go "Why should I care about Character? it dies no matter what, shouldn't even bother upgrading em"

How is real life any different?

If Garrus dies In act2 mission 3 no matter what, you know how it happens for sure.
You don't know when and where people you know in life will die.

It's because the majority of this forum are having this fantasy world in which Shepard is a god and everyone MUST make it otherwise the game is ruined and cliche. Add to that a general naivete and immatureness.

And yes the SM was total bull****. For someone to die I had to play an idiot when the correct choices are so easily predictable it wasn't a challenge even in the first playthrough.

Seriously even a kid's book like Harry Potter has death and main characters dying.

If Shepard manages to pull another SM without anyone dying in ME3 then the Reapers and the entire invasion is pure joke.

Modifié par Undertone, 30 août 2011 - 11:20 .

[MarauderESP]

Mike2640 wrote...

MarauderESP wrote...

as long i can chose to save it or not, i don´t care if someone want to play a drama and cry a river, forced deaths a la DA2 just sucks , no matter how u tried and what u do they die anyway? no thanks, for dramas we already have the news!!

Not ala DA2. Never ala DA2. DA2 was exactly how not to do it. You cant get an emotional reaction from the deaths of characters the player doesnt know or care about. It also doesn't hurt that the Mass Effect Team seems to be much more talented than the Dragon Age team, if their last effort is anything to go by. Fortunately any deaths will most likely be from the main characters we already know, so they will probably play out much more effectively. Also Mass Effect has always been dramatic. You've had two games to accept this by now.

I'm thinking the way it's implemented differently than you guys are thinking. I doubt it's going to be "Garrus dies at this point every time, no matter what". It's definately going to have to do with our choices, during the game and from the previous ones (Ideally), so that depending on how you played, it'll be a different character for different reasons each time. Such as,
"Because you chose to abandon the Flotilla, Tali steals the shuttle to join the battle. Though the Quarians were successful, Tali did not survive." Or
"Because you kept the Genophage cure, Mordin stayed on Tuchanka to ensure it was spread properly, which meant he was at ground zero when the Reapers nuked it from orbit"

Just examples of course, and hopefully it will be less clear cut and include more variables, but you get what i'm trying to say.

fair enough but that its what i mean u have choice of saving them or not, u don´t get a death becouse plot dictates.... WTF!!!

[Undertone]

Mike2640 wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Maybe the OP should make a poll,so we can say with the results that GW may be able to appreciate it,but a majority of players will see the forced deaths as cliche and boring,and be turned off to the game,most players don't just have one game to import,and if they know something horrible like their LI is going to die or a fav squad member will die,they feel that time is wasted,beat the game once and leave it on the shelf or return it.

Well thank god we have you to speak for us.<_<

When Fred died in Season Five of Angel I cried. Still gets me choked up on repeat viewings. When Dumbledore died, I was so shocked I dropped the book. So excuse me if I call bull**** on your assumption that "most people" believe character deaths are boring. If implemented well they can be the most memorable part of an entire body of work, which is why they still used.

I'm expecting deaths in ME3. Shepard is not Space Jesus. He cannot save everyone, and it's completely ludicrous to think everyone's gonna be okay after a war with virtual gods.

That was one of the weakest parts of Mass Effect 2; how easy it was for everyone to survive. Yeah it felt good to get everyone out, but it really made these mythic Collectors seem really on par with Storm Troopers in actual lethality.

Having characters die is gonna suck (In a good way), but Bioware "defanging" the Reapers would be an even worse turn of events.

QFT.

[Mike2640]

MarauderESP wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

MarauderESP wrote...

as long i can chose to save it or not, i don´t care if someone want to play a drama and cry a river, forced deaths a la DA2 just sucks , no matter how u tried and what u do they die anyway? no thanks, for dramas we already have the news!!

Not ala DA2. Never ala DA2. DA2 was exactly how not to do it. You cant get an emotional reaction from the deaths of characters the player doesnt know or care about. It also doesn't hurt that the Mass Effect Team seems to be much more talented than the Dragon Age team, if their last effort is anything to go by. Fortunately any deaths will most likely be from the main characters we already know, so they will probably play out much more effectively. Also Mass Effect has always been dramatic. You've had two games to accept this by now.

I'm thinking the way it's implemented differently than you guys are thinking. I doubt it's going to be "Garrus dies at this point every time, no matter what". It's definately going to have to do with our choices, during the game and from the previous ones (Ideally), so that depending on how you played, it'll be a different character for different reasons each time. Such as,
"Because you chose to abandon the Flotilla, Tali steals the shuttle to join the battle. Though the Quarians were successful, Tali did not survive." Or
"Because you kept the Genophage cure, Mordin stayed on Tuchanka to ensure it was spread properly, which meant he was at ground zero when the Reapers nuked it from orbit"

Just examples of course, and hopefully it will be less clear cut and include more variables, but you get what i'm trying to say.

fair enough but that its what i mean u have choice of saving them or not, u don´t get a death becouse plot dictates.... WTF!!!

Well no, I mean someone dies either way, it just means that depending on choices made in the past, either obvious ones or ones you wouldn't even think would matter, causes someone else to die instead. I should've explained better.

Okay take my Mordin scenario from before, but you didn't save the Genophage cure. Because you didn't the Krogan tribes collapse and Grunt goes to help Urdnot, but is killed.

See what I'm saying? You cant save everyone, but your actions can influence the likelihood of the survival of the others.

[MarauderESP]

Undertone wrote...
*snip*
Seriously even a kid's book like Harry Potter has death and main characters dying.

If Shepard manages to pull another SM without anyone dying in ME3 then the Reapers and the entire invasion is pure joke.

1 - er.... well..... u know...... u can´t interact in a BOOK or a MOVIE , if a game says that my decicions counts let me CHOSE
2 - ME2 plot was a joke itself (and this is an opinion and is as valid as any other )

[Someone With Mass]

Yeah, because God forbids that Shepard is a capable leader or anything. Let's traumatize the hell out of him/her just for giggles.

Besides, if you're going against certain factions, certain characters might turn against you in ME3, and you might be forced to kill them. How about that?

Or do we need a excessive and melodramatic death by gunshot from husk #861?

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 30 août 2011 - 11:32 .

[Hathur]

 The deaths of the VS in ME1 affected me emotionally because it was a very dramatic moment that was built up to... when the bomb went off, I was wiping away tears and choking back sobs.

The deaths of any member in ME2 had very little impact on me at the time (except Garrus when / if he dies leading fire team 2... I adore Garrus and his last words right before death nearly get me bawling like an infant every time). The main reason being it happens so rapidly and there's only about 3-4 seconds of Shepard reacting to it before moving on... there's no time for it to emotionally hit me yet as the plot is almost instantly moving forward.

However, when the game is finished and we see the near-final scene with Shepard placing her hand on the casket of one of her dead squad members, that definitely gets me tearing up profusely... so the callous way their deaths were handled was in a way made up for with that final scene at the end.

The one death scene that gets me actually crying is Shepard's own on a complete fail run (yeesh it was harder to completely fail sufficiently to get Shepard dead than to just win the game). With Shepard's death scene we see the complete decimation of her whole squad... just her left at the end, making a hail-mary run for the Normandy... all alone... and to die at the end.... 

Hearing her pained voice as she clings on to the edge of the ship as she tells Joker to go with that slight tremble in her voice.... ugh... I'm trembling just thinking about it. I've seen the scene dozens of times and I can't help but get teary-eyed every time (first time I saw it I outright cried for several minutes). That was by far the most emotional death of the entire series for me by far.

If you feel like seeing it again (or for the first time): 

Modifié par Hathur, 30 août 2011 - 11:32 .

[Mike2640]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Yeah, because God forbids that Shepard is a capable leader or anything. Let's traumatize the hell out of him/her just for giggles.

Besides, if you're going against certain factions, certain characters might turn against you in ME3, and you might be forced to kill them. How about that?

Or do we need a excessive and melodramatic death by gunshot from husk #861?

Capable leaders sometimes have soldiers die under their command. Capable leaders expect it. Because it's ****ing war. People die, even the ones we like.

[mopotter]

GodWood wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
Actual response:"WTF is this sh-t? I spent 3 games getting to know this guy and they are just going to kill him? F--- that."

Yes, that's called chucking a hissy fit.

Someone With Mass wrote...

GodWood wrote...
You would develop a strong bond with the character, then they'd die.

That's how one achieves emotional impact.

It's not the only way to achieve an emotional impact.

In fact, killing characters makes their whole story completely pointless, because the main storyline must move on with or without them.

Because Saren died his entire story was pointless?

You better believe that I'd enjoy to see a character achieve something great instead of dying in my character's hands like a sappy drama flick.

And I'd rather experience actual mature drama instead of playing a children's fairytale.

See? I can do it too.

Have you actually read any real children's fairytales?  Not Disney, though Bambi is a bit tramatic watching his father get killed, but the real  stuff.  Hanzel and Gretel involved not a witch a devil and his wife, the kids slit the devil wife's throat after tricking her to get on the sawhorse.   The real Cinderella - her step-sisters cut part of their feet off in order to fit in the shoes and birds plucked their eyes out.  Sleeping Beauty - raped by the king, had twins and all while she was in a coma, one of the kids sucked the splinter out.  

But, I do want one ending where we have a Lord of the Rings, Lethal Weapon, Independence Day, Starwars VI- we destroyed the enemy, for now,  and we survived lets shoot off fireworks and celebrate, remember our loses and see different races celebrate in their own way.   

I don't mind losing people in some play throughs, but I want as much controle as possible over who and how many.  For me, a lot of it is a want to re-play this game for every one of my 11 Shepards and I don't want to have the same deaths each time I play.