896 réponses à ce sujet

[gosimmons]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I just want to influence the outcome in some way, because it'd go against the illusion of choise BioWare is trying to give the player otherwise.

A little intervening is all I'm asking for.

Nothing wrong with wanting your decisions to have some impact.  But in my opinion that doesn't necessarily mean you should feel like you have control over every main character's outcome. Especially in a war. 

They've been establishing for a while now that we're going to lose people. And I hope dramatic decisions boil down to more than the player choosing his favorite character/race to survive over another.
.

[AdmiralCheez]

TheZyzyva wrote...

Posting this one last time for TheOptimist, since it is a fact he still seems to be failing to grasp.

Choosing to let someone die defeats the whole purpose the death is supposed to serve. Witnessing a death is supposed to invoke fear, anger, powerlessness, all of which are greatly diminished by the presence of choice. Diminish those emotions, and the story is diminished as well. And that's the exact reason we believe death befits the story. A death moves the story onward. An utter lack of it makes me wonder what the big deal is.

Not so.

See, you make the mistake of assuming that the average player knows what is going to happen when they make a certain decision.  The average player doesn't have five or more Shepards, consult the forums for advice, or seek every corner of the game to unlock every secret.  The average player relies on intuition and information within the game itself.  Maybe she didn't know that maxing out a persuasion skill was important.  Maybe she didn't know the mathematical trick behind "Hold the Line."  Maybe she skipped upgrading the ship because it didn't seem like a big deal.  Maybe she forgot a loyalty quest or did a few missions out of order.  Maybe for her, Ashley shot Wrex due to a dialogue wheel oopsie, Jack took a laser to the face on the Collector Base approach, Legion died because she sided with Tali, and Mordin bit it because he's too squishy to hold a defensive point for more than five minutes.  Also, she could have easily trusted Miranda to hold up the biotic barrier or figured Zaeed was qualified as a fire team leader.  The average player, by virtue of being less obsessive than the rest of us, probably sat there as the credits rolled, jaw dropped, control hanging loosely in her hands, as she stared at the screen and wondered, "was that my fault?"

This adds a whole new dynamic to the "emotional impact" of the game: consequence and guilt.  Sometimes the knowledge that you could have saved someone had you acted differently is just as chilling as knowing you were powerless.  The first time I let the Council die, I remember swearing under my breath as that one cinematic rolled.  I saw the consequences of my actions, heard the quiver of horror in the asari pilot's voice as she announced that the Fifth Fleet had cut communications, watched as vessel after vessel was torn apart by the geth bombardment.  I watched with full knowledge that I could have saved them had I acted differently, had I chosen to take the chance and rush in before the Citadel arms opened.  I think that was my greatest "holy sh*t" moment in Mass Effect ever.

Also, it isn't death that moves the story forward, but conflict.  A challenge is presented to the hero, and he is tasked with overcoming it.  Whether the resolution of this conflict ends in cheers or tears is irrelevant, as both can give rise to powerful emotions.  Watching the hero struggle, constantly wondering "will he make it," is what keeps the audience hooked.  Granted, failure here and there is necessary to intensify that struggle, as it raises the stakes and leaves the audience wondering if victory really is possible, but ultimately that triumph in the end is what makes me, at least, want to play again and again.

But it isn't necessary to auto-kill squadmates to have conflict and struggle.  Killing someone off for drama is a bit overrated and uncreative anyway, if you ask me.  It's one of the (many) reasons why I lost interest in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows before I even finished reading it: J. K. Rowling seemed to be axing off characters largely for gits and shiggles.  Granted, death can be a very effective storytelling tool, and has been done very well in countless works of fiction, but seriously, I think characters like Ashley and Garrus deserve a bye since they've endured enough tragedy and possible deaths already.  Cut some of these poor bastards a break.

[mopotter]

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm thankful that those who want an 'everyone lives' ending where not involved in any way with the making of the movies Gladiator,  Glory, Terminator 2, Saving Private Ryan, Spartacus or Road to Peridition.  Instead the protagonist would have lived in all of them (history be damned in a few of them) and they wouldn't be half as good as they are.

I'm not sure why have some have difficulty with the characters being killed off, so long as it makes sense in the story and is executed well.

Have been told there is a difference between a movie, book and a video game.  
Saving Private Ryan and Road to Perdition are the only movie you have listed that I actually liked enough to watch more than once.  They have a a set story, a beginning, a middle and an end.  We the viewer have no control over what they can do.

I have control over what Shepard does.  Shepard killed the queen and a different Shepard saved the queen.  I have a Shepard who kept the collectors base and one who destroyed it.  One who rallied the crowd for Tali and one who helped Garrus kill someone.  I have a ME2 where everyone survived and more where everyone didn't.

An ending where I've managed to save my team is just as emotional as one where I have lost some.  it's a different emotion, but just as strong.    I am sort of curious about how many Shepard's people have who don't want a lot of options in the game which would result in different endings.  

[Biotic Sage]

mopotter wrote...


Saving Private Ryan and Road to Perdition are the only movie you have listed that I actually liked enough to watch more than once.  They have a a set story, a beginning, a middle and an end.  We the viewer have no control over what they can do.

Are you Tom Hanks?  Come on now, Mr. Hanks, is it you?  If it is you I am a big fan of your work, but you shouldn't have made Larry Crowne; that was beneathe you.  Be well!

[mopotter]

k177sh0t wrote...

I wonder if Mark Meer is capable of doing "emotional vocals", been hearing the same tone of his voice since ME1 and ME2

He is if they let him.  I've heard him in other projects.  

[Biotic Sage]

AwesomeName wrote...

Raspberry wrote...

i want to choose if someone dies. like in me2 if you do your stuff well you save them all if not well not. i don't want deaths i have no power to do something about.

Of course you don't want to be powerless - no one does, and that's the point.  Providing they do it well, this is exactly why it would be effective if one of your squadmates die, no matter how hard you tried to keep everyone on your team alive.  By making you feel powerless, it basically shows that Shepard is limited, not a god-like character, and it would also show that no one, not even main characters are immune to death. It would do justice to just how dangerous a threat the Reapers are compared to you and your team, not just the rest of the galaxy, which is important because the Reapers have been built up as this uber threat who have been around much longer than you, have much better technology than you, and have been doing this for millions of years. It will make you realise just how hard you're going to have to work to win, and so when you do win, it's going to feel really, bloody satisfying.  Plus when a squadmate dies it's a hell of a lot more moving than knowing that an entire city got wiped out (hands up anyone if you thought the destruction of Alderaan was even remotely as moving as Obi-wan's, Yoda's or Anakin's death?  Seriously.)

You speak the truth.

Shepard is not God, he cannot control every single thing around him.

[mopotter]

Han Shot First wrote...

For the main fact we already invested hundreds of hours into this franchise? I already gave away Fallout 3 halfway into the game after knowing everything I did for was for nothing.  I prefer Mass Effect for the main fact I felt like I was the hero of the story, and I'm not interested in being railroaded into having myself and my friends die just because "it suits the plot."

Because I've invested hundreds of hours into this franchise I want to see some of the squadmates die, and possibly Shepard as well, depending on the player's actions. There should be a little tragedy and the story shouldn't be all butterflies and rainbows.

Though I do agree that the player shouldn't be railroaded into scripted deaths. Any deaths that occur should occur based on choices the player makes, or Shepard's actions throughout the game. Shepard's actions should affect who lives and dies, but death itself should be unavoidable.

Just because you feel this way doesn't mean anyone else will. I hate being railroaded, period. I don't understand why you have to go out of your way to make everyone else's lives miserable just because "It fits Mass Effect."

That assumes that everyone shares your opinion and want everyone to live. They don't. The community pretty much split on that point. Second, why would squadmates deaths make you miserable? When Kaidan or Ashley died at Virmire did you rage quit the game?

If you agree that our choices should be the key factors in deaths of our team, I think we agree.  Maybe.  I don't have a problem if any of my team dies because i made a choice that will cause that death.  i do have a problem with not having a choice I can make to keep them alive.   

I'm starting to loose track on who is in favor of what. 

edit - ok just saw that "should be unavoidable part'  Nope we don't agree.   
I have that t-shirt.

Modifié par mopotter, 02 septembre 2011 - 08:55 .

[Lunatic LK47]

TheOptimist wrote...


Thus why choice is so much better.  You go your way, we go ours.  Your side is the only one advocating an all or nothing take here.  And I highly doubt anyone still on the boards rage quit over Virmire, they're still Mass Effect fans.  Those people probably never played ME2 to realize how much better things got.

Bolded for emphasis. As far as I remember for Virmire, 2/3rds of my playthrough decided Ash and Kaidan's fate on a flip of a coin, while two of my Shepards had a dedicated romance for them.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Biotic Sage wrote....

Shepard is not God, he cannot control every single thing around him.

No one here is advocating that, just people IN the squad,and since squaddies don't work the same way,you really wouldn't be fully in-charge of them anyway, they can add NPCs we intereact with regularly and kill them,Anderson? Hackett? TIM? fair-game, this asinine assertion that people want complete control and that it is "sunshine and rainbows" to have your squad live is quite frankly, sickening.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Not so.

See, you make the mistake of assuming that the average player knows what is going to happen when they make a certain decision.  The average player doesn't have five or more Shepards, consult the forums for advice, or seek every corner of the game to unlock every secret.  The average player relies on intuition and information within the game itself.  Maybe she didn't know that maxing out a persuasion skill was important.  Maybe she didn't know the mathematical trick behind "Hold the Line."  Maybe she skipped upgrading the ship because it didn't seem like a big deal.  Maybe she forgot a loyalty quest or did a few missions out of order.  Maybe for her, Ashley shot Wrex due to a dialogue wheel oopsie, Jack took a laser to the face on the Collector Base approach, Legion died because she sided with Tali, and Mordin bit it because he's too squishy to hold a defensive point for more than five minutes.  Also, she could have easily trusted Miranda to hold up the biotic barrier or figured Zaeed was qualified as a fire team leader.  The average player, by virtue of being less obsessive than the rest of us, probably sat there as the credits rolled, jaw dropped, control hanging loosely in her hands, as she stared at the screen and wondered, "was that my fault?"

This adds a whole new dynamic to the "emotional impact" of the game: consequence and guilt.  Sometimes the knowledge that you could have saved someone had you acted differently is just as chilling as knowing you were powerless.  The first time I let the Council die, I remember swearing under my breath as that one cinematic rolled.  I saw the consequences of my actions, heard the quiver of horror in the asari pilot's voice as she announced that the Fifth Fleet had cut communications, watched as vessel after vessel was torn apart by the geth bombardment.  I watched with full knowledge that I could have saved them had I acted differently, had I chosen to take the chance and rush in before the Citadel arms opened.  I think that was my greatest "holy sh*t" moment in Mass Effect ever.

While I support Virmire like decisions in ME3. I agree that there should be some deaths that can be avoided as long as the player makes the right choices. But having only the "Ops! I made a mistake" deaths winds up leading up to the "Wrex paradox" (althrough I feel Ash/Kaidan would make for a better example of what he is tallking about). Do you want Ashley to die? No. But her sacrifice on Virmire made for a better story, and made Saren so much more indtimidating (and you wanted to kick his ass even more). And the fact that you could not save her shows the strenght of the opposing force. 

Also, it isn't death that moves the story forward, but conflict.  A challenge is presented to the hero, and he is tasked with overcoming it.  Whether the resolution of this conflict ends in cheers or tears is irrelevant, as both can give rise to powerful emotions.  Watching the hero struggle, constantly wondering "will he make it," is what keeps the audience hooked.  Granted, failure here and there is necessary to intensify that struggle, as it raises the stakes and leaves the audience wondering if victory really is possible, but ultimately that triumph in the end is what makes me, at least, want to play again and again.

Yes. Not all stories need deaths. Inception is a good example. But Inception was really about a man facing and coming to terms about his guilt regarding his wife's death. Mass effect is not about someone facing his inner demons. It is about one (wo)man and their squad trying to stop armegeddon in the shape of god-like space-ships. Not having any kind of deaths will really undermine the opposing force, makeing you wonder how grave the threat really was.

And no, just having faceless civilians die do not work. There needs to be loss, both on a grand scale and on a personal level.

But it isn't necessary to auto-kill squadmates to have conflict and struggle.  Killing someone off for drama is a bit overrated and uncreative anyway, if you ask me.  It's one of the (many) reasons why I lost interest in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows before I even finished reading it: J. K. Rowling seemed to be axing off characters largely for gits and shiggles.  Granted, death can be a very effective storytelling tool, and has been done very well in countless works of fiction, but seriously, I think characters like Ashley and Garrus deserve a bye since they've endured enough tragedy and possible deaths already.  Cut some of these poor bastards a break.

Why do people think, that those that support unavoidable deaths want the entire case to die? Killing off characters in the dozen is just as bad.

Also. I see alot of people saying they do not want character deaths because "They do not like tragic endings". Do those same people also consider ME1's ending tragic? Because I certainly did not.

[Biotic Sage]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote....

Shepard is not God, he cannot control every single thing around him.

No one here is advocating that, just people IN the squad,and since squaddies don't work the same way,you really wouldn't be fully in-charge of them anyway, they can add NPCs we intereact with regularly and kill them,Anderson? Hackett? TIM? fair-game, this asinine assertion that people want complete control and that it is "sunshine and rainbows" to have your squad live is quite frankly, sickening.

I thought Raspberry was...

And I am getting so confused.  It sounds like your post is meant to contradict and disagree with my post, but I am agreeing with everything you are saying haha.

I'll just avoid this thread for a while...

[gosimmons]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

This adds a whole new dynamic to the "emotional impact" of the game: consequence and guilt.  Sometimes the knowledge that you could have saved someone had you acted differently is just as chilling as knowing you were powerless.

So, you don't think every death in the story being avoidable via loading a last save is watered down at all?

Watching the hero struggle, constantly wondering "will he make it," is what keeps the audience hooked.  Granted, failure here and there is necessary to intensify that struggle, as it raises the stakes and leaves the audience wondering if victory really is possible, but ultimately that triumph in the end is what makes me, at least, want to play again and again.

But I'm curious how you want to establish that feeling of struggle. If all threat of failure/death's able to be dodged through your choices in what's been set up to be a Barely survive or Total Genocide scenario, why would I question whether the hero(s) would make it?

[Lunatic LK47]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...fair-game, this asinine assertion that people want complete control and that it is "sunshine and rainbows" to have your squad live is quite frankly, sickening.

Bolded for emphasis here. Don't understand why it's all or nothing in this case.

[Never]

I hope there aren't any completely unavoidable deaths (of squadmates). That said, I think there should be a pretty big cost if you choose to save someone.

[Someone With Mass]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
No one here is advocating that, just people IN the squad,and since squaddies don't work the same way,you really wouldn't be fully in-charge of them anyway, they can add NPCs we intereact with regularly and kill them,Anderson? Hackett? TIM? fair-game, this asinine assertion that people want complete control and that it is "sunshine and rainbows" to have your squad live is quite frankly, sickening.

The desire to have your favorite squadmate live through the whole game isn't that crazy either. I'm not crazy or idiotic for wanting them to live a normal life.

I don't think emotional moments should be built up upon a squadmate's death, as most people clearly have different opinions about different characters. Make something that would universally make everyone get teary eyes instead.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote....

Shepard is not God, he cannot control every single thing around him.

No one here is advocating that, just people IN the squad,and since squaddies don't work the same way,you really wouldn't be fully in-charge of them anyway, they can add NPCs we intereact with regularly and kill them,Anderson? Hackett? TIM? fair-game, this asinine assertion that people want complete control and that it is "sunshine and rainbows" to have your squad live is quite frankly, sickening.

He's no even in full control of them. Again, He's not God, and he can't watch over their shoulders 24/7. There's 12 squaddies (or more if you count ppl from all 3 games + DLC). Shep can't be in 12 places at once.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Someone With Mass wrote...

[quote]Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
No one here is advocating that, just people IN the squad,and since squaddies don't work the same way,you really wouldn't be fully in-charge of them anyway, they can add NPCs we intereact with regularly and kill them,Anderson? Hackett? TIM? fair-game, this asinine assertion that people want complete control and that it is "sunshine and rainbows" to have your squad live is quite frankly, sickening.
[/quote]

The desire to have your favorite squadmate live through the whole game isn't that crazy either. I'm not crazy or idiotic for wanting them to live a normal life.[/quote]

Nope, there isn't.
But demanding to have a remote control over their life?


I don't think emotional moments should be built up upon a squadmate's death, as most people clearly have different opinions about different characters. Make something that would universally make everyone get teary eyes instead.
[/quote]

There is no such thing.

[TheOptimist]

AwesomeName wrote...
Also, as far as the SM in ME2 - the only way any of those deaths could be emotional is if you're completely unaware that doing a better job would prevent them; once you replay the game over and over, and eventually realise that it's incredibly difficult for squaddies to die, those deaths no longer have any weight to them.

As someone on your side rightly pointed out a while back, most people feel nothing on the replay anyway.  I've yet to talk to anyone who continued to choke up when Ashley/Kaidan died on the 3rd through umpteenth playthrough.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

TheOptimist wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...
Also, as far as the SM in ME2 - the only way any of those deaths could be emotional is if you're completely unaware that doing a better job would prevent them; once you replay the game over and over, and eventually realise that it's incredibly difficult for squaddies to die, those deaths no longer have any weight to them.

As someone on your side rightly pointed out a while back, most people feel nothing on the replay anyway.  I've yet to talk to anyone who continued to choke up when Ashley/Kaidan died on the 3rd through umpteenth playthrough.

All stories gives smaller emotional experiences the more times we do them.

[Gorosaur]

Again, I feel like what most people want here are deaths that difficult to avoid and have the emotional impact that they should.

The idea of allowing players to chose outwright if they want a character to die is probably just as bad or worse as having them die without any input at all.

The idea is really getting a balance. The Suicide Mission system works good and all, but naturally (Wrex Paradox) you are going to try your hardest to make sure noone dies. Therefore 90% of players come out with little to no casualites. Even when they do die it doesn't mean anything.

An ideal system takes the best of bothe worlds and creates realistically threatening scenarios where its possible but difficult to come out with everyone alive, and if someone were to die than it is impactful, not a quick nod of recognition.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There is no such thing.

How do you know that?

If 90% of the audience gets a emotional reaction out of a certain scene, then I think BioWare did a good job of making almost everyone emotionally touched by that scene.

Also, did I ever say that I want total control over their lives? No, I didn't. I simply want to be a part of the critical decision and not just be an idle bystander. Because that's not the game BioWare is trying to make, where you're simply watching as things happen.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 02 septembre 2011 - 09:15 .

[TheZyzyva]

Ok Admiral, working in reverse order here.

I agree that it's not good to just auto-kill people, people seem to think that I'm for Lotions plan of random deaths when that's not what I want at all. I'm with the thread topic of just asking for emotional deaths, not the "oopsies" that was the SM. I don't think that a particular death should be forced upon anyone, but that death should happen. Whether it's squaddies in 3, former squaddies, another important character, or various colonies doesn't matter as long as it is appropriate and makes me care.

I realize that conflict is the driving force in stories. I was merely saying that death does (or at least should) move it forward, as a portion of conflict. That said, we seem to be in agreement on the story. Only difference being that I have a broader view on triumph. A "mission accomplished" with a number of sacrifices to me is still a triumph, and I would still replay that.

I agree that the saving/ignoring the council was a great moment, but what really detracts from it in my mind is the lack of repercussions for saving them. It made it too much of a cut-and-dry renegade/paragon decision. Either you want a human-lead council or you want to be the hero. I wish that after saving them there had been a moment in ME2 that had you meeting a family broken apart because one of the ships that was destroyed saving the council had their son. I think that would have given the decision more weight. There would have been the emotional impact you're describing for both choices. As it was, my first playthrough I saved them and sat there going, "well that was easy". For my second run I left them and was given a great "wow" moment as a result. But for me it wasn't emotional because it was my decision, I wanted them to die. Still a great scene, but not one that gave me pause. I guess it depends on the mindset when making the decision though, I'm sure since it was your first run the thought process that goes into making it is dramatically different.

I would argue that the average player, after all that, would say, "Wait, no, that's bull". I've already said numerous times why I hate the SM from a story perspective. To save space and time, I'll trust you to either remember or read what I said. Paraphrasing, killing a story element due to a gameplay mechanic is bad all the way around. All they had to do was make those deaths feel like a real ending for them and their story and it would have been much better. I hope that whatever deaths that happen in 3 are done much, much better than those in the SM.