896 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

AwesomeName wrote...

I didn't either - on ANY playthrough - because, frankly, it wasn't done that well.  That doesn't prove that, in principle, a death you're powerless to stop can't ever be moving. 

It can also be moving in a completely different way than intended.

Like anger over a death of a squadmate you like, but couldn't stop.

I know some people that would play the game exactly one time or not at all if that happened. 

[Never]

I don't feel like you're powerless in the case of the VS. True, it's unavoidable that someone will die, but you get to choose who it is. I would sacrifice any of the squaddies in ME3 to save Kaidan again, for example, but I can't imagine they would use that scenario again.

[TheOptimist]

gosimmons wrote...

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

 Again, not what we're advocating.  If saving the squad means you had to make some choices right early in the game or even in the last two games, so much the better.

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?

Seems to me you're making some fairly massive assumptions about the best case scenario, here.  If Kal'Reegar or Anderson buy it, you think that's not going to be emotional?  You think that won't matter to people?

Modifié par TheOptimist, 02 septembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[TheOptimist]

Lizardviking wrote...

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.

Thus complaining that once you know about them those deaths are more avoidable is an invalid argument.

[TheOptimist]

AwesomeName wrote...

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.

I didn't either - on ANY playthrough - because, frankly, it wasn't done that well.  That doesn't prove that, in principle, a death you're powerless to stop can't ever be moving. 

See, but what you said in that first quote was that the emotional impact of deaths you can overcome is blunted once you play through it over and over again.  Something that is just as true for a death where you are 'powerless'.  Personally, I feel much worse when someone dies because I screwed up, then when I never had the ability to prevent it.

[LGTX]

So is this thread about deaths being emotional, or having control over them?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

TheOptimist wrote...
Thus complaining that once you know about them those deaths are more avoidable is an invalid argument.

Errhh no?

Because knowing that you could avoid those deaths changes your basic perception of the story. I was talking about what happens when you watch a movie/read a book/play a game for the for tenth time or something.

[Hathur]

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?

What do I mean by an emotional death? Simple.

Not having Shepard look at an old friend like Garrus or Tali for all of 2.5 seconds if they die in ME2 and look about as bothered as if they squashed an ant. Shepard's reaction (or 100% lack thereof) erases any potential impact their already extremely brief death scene already had.

At least in ME1 when Ash or Kaidan dies on Virmire, we see Shepard with an angry / pained expression on his or her face just as the nuke goes off... clearly bothered in some manner by the loss... then we see a brief somber moment during the debriefing immediately after.... wasn't much.. but it was something.... ME2 treats squad member death with about as much care / impact as when you kill Collector #292 or Blue Sun Merc #59 or Geth #429... or.... you get the point.... basically, no reaction / feedback from Shepard whatsoever.

Modifié par Hathur, 02 septembre 2011 - 09:29 .

[BioWareM0d13]

TheOptimist wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

For perhaps the 100th time, so choose to allow those character's deaths.  No one makes you save everyone, and no one here that I've seen has advocated that.  You can have all the tragedy you want.  You just have to admit while you're playing that that's the story you want.  A human, fallable Shepard, who screws up sometimes.

Situations where people only die if Shepard makes tactical blunders (the ME2 Suicide Mission) simply don't work. It lacks the same emotional impact as Virmire because unlike Virmire those deaths are Shepard's fault. The story isn't quite as good if the protagonist seems like a  bumbling incompetant who is ill-suited for the task he's been given.

Also, that doesn't reflect the reality of combat. The reality is that it is often impossible for a combat leader to get everyone in his squad or platoon out alive. In fact, people sometimes die because a combat leader made the right tactical decisions.

Sure it does.  How often have you heard that if a leader had been better, not made a mistake, that person could have lived?

I never said that human errror doesn't occur during war or that people don't occasionally die because of it. What I did say is that the reality is that it is often impossible for a combat leader to get everyone out alive, and that people often die even when (or because) the right tactical decisions were made. That is an absolute truth.

And Mass Effect has never reflected realistic combat on the scale you're talking about.  Medigel and Unity anyone?  Never mind that you don't send a 3 man squad to assault dug in positions of platoon strength or more.

I'm not asking for absolute realism. Just some plausibility so that I don't have to facepalm because of situations that prevent suspense of disbelief. For Shepard to go into the final battle against a more technologically advanced foe, under conditions where there is a high probability of death for his entire team, only to have that team emerge completely unscathed AGAIN is just not plausible. It starts to stretch the limits of what is believable a little too far in the fairy tale direction. At that point you might as well have Shepard defeat the Reapers from the open cockpit of a WW1 era Sopwith Camel. Because it has about the same amount of believability as Shepard getting everyone out alive.

The other problem presented by the 'everyone lives' scenario is that it makes the antagonist less threatening. There should be a real sense of dread on the part of the player for the Reapers, and that is best achieved by having squad mates die.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 02 septembre 2011 - 09:29 .

[TheOptimist]

LGTX wrote...

So is this thread about deaths being emotional, or having control over them?

Apparently both, since there is a faction that says if you can avoid it, it's not an emotional death.

[TheOptimist]

Lizardviking wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
Thus complaining that once you know about them those deaths are more avoidable is an invalid argument.

Errhh no?

Because knowing that you could avoid those deaths changes your basic perception of the story. I was talking about what happens when you watch a movie/read a book/play a game for the for tenth time or something.

Explain to me the difference.  In both cases replay lessens emotional impact.  The only difference is you can have a corresponding upswing on the additional play through where the choice actually matters, when you realize that this time, you can save them all.

[Captain_Obvious]

I've only worked through a few pages of this discussion, but I gotta say I don't want any deaths on my squad.  I don't really have a hard time with the VS (I have a history of not liking Ash), but I lost Mordin on my first ME2 playthrough, and seeing that coffin was absolutely devastating to me.  I did everything I could to save everyone and still I lost him.  It didn't make me happy.  It didn't make me appreciate loss.  It didn't make me recognize that sometimes sacrifice is required.  I already know all of those things.  I get enough heartache and loss in real life. 

I don't care how important it is to the story to lose some team members.  I don't care how the emotional impact of that loss would make the story more meaningful, or the eventual victory that much more tangible.  The most meaningful part in ME2 for me was when everyone made it out alive.  That's what I want for ME3. 

With ME1, we got a good ending.  With ME2, we got a cliffhanger. For ME3, I want my fracking happy ending, dammit. 

Bioware, after five years and twenty-odd Shepards, don't you dare pull a Matrix on me. 

[BioWareM0d13]

TheOptimist wrote...

LGTX wrote...

So is this thread about deaths being emotional, or having control over them?

Apparently both, since there is a faction that says if you can avoid it, it's not an emotional death.

It isn't.

For example if during the Suicide Mission Shepard decides that Grunt would make a better team leader than Garrus or Miranda, or that Jacob is a better tech specialist than Tali or Legion, he gets those squad mates killed because of ridiculous tactical blunders. He is one of the worst kinds of leaders, one who doesn't even know his own people or the strengths and weaknesses of his own team.

Sure, maybe the deaths of those squad mates are sad. But the cost is an incompetant Shepard who is poorly suited to the task at hand, and thus, unlikable.

[LGTX]

TheOptimist wrote...

LGTX wrote...

So is this thread about deaths being emotional, or having control over them?

Apparently both, since there is a faction that says if you can avoid it, it's not an emotional death.

Yeah well my question was half-rhetorical. I went over the thread and it's an all-out tug of war on opinions of what's "right" regarding emotional impact in games, without any party saying why their opinion dominates the other and putting forward arguments which don't only work for them.

Can't we just agree to disagree and avoid the flame? There were some pretty non-obscure insults throughout.

[Zakatak757]

Death should be handled just like in Battlestar Galactica. Similar to the US Navy.

The caskets of the dead crew members are placed just outside an airlock. The crew, standing somewhere safe, look straight ahead, holding a salute as the airlock closes, and ejects them.

[TheOptimist]

Han Shot First wrote...

I never said that human errror doesn't occur during war or that people don't occasionally die because of it. What I did say is that the reality is that it is often impossible for a combat leader to get everyone out alive, and that people often die even when (or because) the right tactical decisions were made. That is an absolute truth.

But often only because they don't get that second chance.  No restarts, no saved games if you die in a real war, you're just dead.  Who wants to see a Mass Effect with no replay? Die once and that's it!

I'm not asking for absolute realism. Just some plausibility so that I don't have to facepalm because of situations that prevent suspense of disbelief. For Shepard to go into the final battle against a more technologically advanced foe, under conditions where there is a high probability of death for his entire team, only to have that team emerge completely unscathed AGAIN is just not plausible. It starts to stretch the limits of what is believable a little too far in the fairy tale direction. At that point you might as well have Shepard defeat the Reapers from the open cockpit of a WW1 era Sopwith Camel. Because it has about the same amount of believability as Shepard getting everyone out alive.

I once again stop to marvel that for some people 'plausibility' encompasses Shepard being asphixiated, decompressed, burned, splattered, and frozen, and somehow coming back from all that without actually being a clone, but not a squad of badass operators coming through intact.

The other problem presented by the 'everyone lives' scenario is that it makes the antagonist less threatening. There should be a real sense of dread on the part of the player for the Reapers, and that is best achieved by having squad mates die.

No, that SHOULD be achieved when you watch Earth burning to the ground as you leave.  Killing a squadmate isn't going to make me dread the Reapers more than I already do at that point, it's just gonna ****** me off at the writers.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

TheOptimist wrote...
Explain to me the difference.  In both cases replay lessens emotional impact.  The only difference is you can have a corresponding upswing on the additional play through where the choice actually matters, when you realize that this time, you can save them all.

Because when you realise you could save squadmate X. You will look back at the death and go "Oh, I guess that could just have been avoided." it undermines the death of the character.

What I was talking about was basicly like this: Half-life 2: episode 2 is a great game. But if I were forced to play it a 100 times. I would in the end be kinda bored when I am on my one hundred playthrough.

[TheOptimist]

Han Shot First wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

LGTX wrote...

So is this thread about deaths being emotional, or having control over them?

Apparently both, since there is a faction that says if you can avoid it, it's not an emotional death.

It isn't.

For example if during the Suicide Mission Shepard decides that Grunt would make a better team leader than Garrus or Miranda, or that Jacob is a better tech specialist than Tali or Legion, he gets those squad mates killed because of ridiculous tactical blunders. He is one of the worst kinds of leaders, one who doesn't even know his own people or the strengths and weaknesses of his own team.

Sure, maybe the deaths of those squad mates are sad. But the cost is an incompetant Shepard who is poorly suited to the task at hand, and thus, unlikable.

So Shepards that sent Grunt, or Jacob, or Garrus back with the crew to keep them safe are somehow incompetent?  Shepards that thought that Zaieed would be a good fire team leader, or that Garrus should be able to hack electronics like he could in the first game are incompetent?  Whatever. 

[TheOptimist]

LGTX wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

LGTX wrote...

So is this thread about deaths being emotional, or having control over them?

Apparently both, since there is a faction that says if you can avoid it, it's not an emotional death.

Yeah well my question was half-rhetorical. I went over the thread and it's an all-out tug of war on opinions of what's "right" regarding emotional impact in games, without any party saying why their opinion dominates the other and putting forward arguments which don't only work for them.

Can't we just agree to disagree and avoid the flame? There were some pretty non-obscure insults throughout.

Internet message board dude.  People start arguing about something they care about, they're less likely to stay polite(*this is a generality and YMMV) than they would be if they were arguing face to face. And apparently a lot of people care about this.  S' all good, we gotta do something for the next 6 months anyway.

[Spinotech]

 Should the deaths that end up occuring be emotional?  Yes.  Should the deaths be forced upon the player?  Depends on the character.  In my opinion squadmate deaths should not be forced, but I think forced deaths will be present to some extent for characters that are not on the squad.  One character that I think will have a forced death is Anderson.

If squadmate deaths should not be forced, how should the deaths occur?  Based on the character deaths present so far, there are three models for character deaths.

1.  Choices, example: Wrex
2.  Task Delegation, example: suicide mission
3.  Virmire Survivor

For the choices model which would be based on choices made throughout the series, Wrex is a good example.  In order for Wrex to survive on Virmire your options were: 1) have high paragon, 2) have high renegade, 3) not have Garrus on the squad, 4) found Wrex's family armor.  I believe this will be the predominant model in determing whether a character lives or dies.

For the task delegation model which would be based on task centered choices made only during a single mission, the suicide mission is the only example.  The survival of the squadmates was dependent on who you assigned to what task.  I believe this model will be present in ME3, but on a smaller scale in terms of the number of squadmates that can die on one mission.

For the Virmire Survivor model which is based on choosing one squadmate over another, Virmire is the only example.  I believe this model will be present, but will probably factor in choices and task delegation to a greater extent.

Here is an example I came up with that incorporates in-mission choices and task delegation that may result in two squadmate death and/or massive casualties of Turian forces.

Objective 1: Transfer data from enemy controlled former Turian command center and destroy the facility.

Objective 2:  Take out bulk of enemy forces and defenses with assault group
Recommended Squadmates (best to worst casualty factor): Garrus (2), Ashley = Miranda = Jacob (4), Vega (6)
*Non-recommended squadmates have a casualty factor of 10*
Cost: Turian assault group may suffer massive casualities, automatic failure of objective #4

Objective 3: Eliminate Reaper avatar of former Turian commander; occurs concurrently with objective #2.
Recommended squadmates (Best to worst casualty factor inflicted by Reaper Avatar): Thane (0), Garrus = Ashley (2), Zaeed = Wrex (4), Vega = Grunt (6)
*Non-recommended squadmates have a casualty factor of 10*
Cost: Turian force casualties and potential death of assault group leader

Objective 4: Disable shield generator shielding damaged Reaper
Recommended squadmates (best to worst in terms of # of alarms triggered): Tali = Legion = Kasumi (1 alarm triggered), Garrus (2 alarms triggered), Miranda (3 alarms triggered)
*Non-recommended squadmates trigger all 4 alarms*
Failure: Damaged Reaper escapes (if 4 alarms triggered), reduced survival timer for objective #5 (-2 minutes per alarm triggered, -4 minutes if 4th alarm is triggered)

Objective 5: Pick-up objective #3 squadmate at LZ; timer starts concurrently with objective #4
Recommended squadmates (longest survival timer to shortest): Thane (10 minutes), Garrus/Ashley (12 minutes), Zaeed/Vega (14 minutes), Grunt (16 minutes), Wrex (18 minutes)
*Non-recommended squadmates have a survival time of 6 minutes*
Failure: Death of squadmate due to survival timer running out, failure of assualt group in objective 2 (high and catastrophic casualty factors)

Summary of Casualty Factors: 2 - 4 (minimal), 5 - 9 (Low), 11 - 14 (moderate), 15 - 19 (high + death of non-recommended assault group leader), 20 (catastrophic + death of assault group leader)

Worst Case Scenario: Total loss of assault group, death of assault team leader, Reaper escapes, death of squadmate for objective 3 and 5.

[TheOptimist]

Lizardviking wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
Explain to me the difference.  In both cases replay lessens emotional impact.  The only difference is you can have a corresponding upswing on the additional play through where the choice actually matters, when you realize that this time, you can save them all.

Because when you realise you could save squadmate X. You will look back at the death and go "Oh, I guess that could just have been avoided." it undermines the death of the character.

If anything, it adds to the drama and replayability. 'THIS time, I won't fail that person.'

[TheZyzyva]

Alright Optimist, in regards to your replies to me.
It's not about needing reassurance. It's not about acknowledging Shep failed. It's that the game gave me the power to dictate the outcome with there being a clear-cut right option. A death has no impact if I have to allow it to happen. There are none of the negative emotions that would otherwise exist; instead it's a quaint curiosity.
Of course it's human nature to try and avoid those negative feelings, but that's why it's the games job to force them upon us. If it allowed us to only see the nice things it would be fundamentally incomplete as a story. There would be no depth. We wouldn't connect to it. It could still be fun and enjoyable, but it surely wouldn't be as memorable. Now, if people are going to quit because they cannot enjoy a story that doesn't hand them everything on a plate, then they have different issues altogether, and I know that if I were the developer, I would not miss their business.

[BioWareM0d13]

TheOptimist wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I never said that human errror doesn't occur during war or that people don't occasionally die because of it. What I did say is that the reality is that it is often impossible for a combat leader to get everyone out alive, and that people often die even when (or because) the right tactical decisions were made. That is an absolute truth.

But often only because they don't get that second chance.  No restarts, no saved games if you die in a real war, you're just dead.  Who wants to see a Mass Effect with no replay? Die once and that's it!

I made it fairly clear that I'm not lookng for absolute realism. In fact, I serious doubt anyone is. I'm just asking for an ending that allows me to suspend disbelief.

I'm also not sure what point you were trying to make with restarts and saved games. They exist for the player but not for Shepard. He isn't continually dying and respawning in the story.

TheOptimist wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm not asking for absolute realism. Just some plausibility so that I don't have to facepalm because of situations that prevent suspense of disbelief. For Shepard to go into the final battle against a more technologically advanced foe, under conditions where there is a high probability of death for his entire team, only to have that team emerge completely unscathed AGAIN is just not plausible. It starts to stretch the limits of what is believable a little too far in the fairy tale direction. At that point you might as well have Shepard defeat the Reapers from the open cockpit of a WW1 era Sopwith Camel. Because it has about the same amount of believability as Shepard getting everyone out alive.

I once again stop to marvel that for some people 'plausibility' encompasses Shepard being asphixiated, decompressed, burned, splattered, and frozen, and somehow coming back from all that without actually being a clone, but not a squad of badass operators coming through intact.

I never argued that Shepard's death and resurrection in ME2 were plausible. Despite loving ME2 I did have some issues with the story. Not necessarily Shepard dying and being resurrected (this is Sci Fi..so Im not opposed to Sci Fi elements), but that he was resurrected after falling to that planet's surface. His body should have been destroyed. But Mass Effect having some elements that are implausible shouldn't be used as a reason to include more implausible elements to the story.

As for Shepard's squad of bad ass operators, let me refer you to Murphy:

Anything you do can get you shot, including nothing.

You are not Superman; Marines, fighter pilots and Special Operations take note.

His team of badasses would not be invincible.

TheOptimist wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The other problem presented by the 'everyone lives' scenario is that it makes the antagonist less threatening. There should be a real sense of dread on the part of the player for the Reapers, and that is best achieved by having squad mates die.

No, that SHOULD be achieved when you watch Earth burning to the ground as you leave.  Killing a squadmate isn't going to make me dread the Reapers more than I already do at that point, it's just gonna ****** me off at the writers.

Seeing the Earth burn might provoke an emotional response, but it isn't  the same as seeing squad mates die. The deaths of millions or billions of people off screen are not going to have the same emotional impact as seeing a character you know and like die.

So Shepards that sent Grunt, or Jacob, or Garrus back with the crew to keep them safe are somehow incompetent?  Shepards that thought that Zaieed would be a good fire team leader, or that Garrus should be able to hack electronics like he could in the first game are incompetent?  Whatever.

Yes.

Every one of Zaeed's stories end with, "...and I was the only one to make it out alive." Not exactly a great endorsement for his abilities as a squad leader. Choosing Zaeed as a squad leader is stupidity. Likewise choosing Garrus as your tech specialist is equally incompetant. Sure, he's got a few tech skills up his sleeve. But he's no hacker, and you've got people infinitely more skilled than him in that area on your team. Why would you choose a midling tech specialist over an exceptional one?

As for escoting to the Normandy crew back...

Garrus, Grunt or Jacob wouldn't be good choices because they are three of your heavies. Their abilities are better served holding that line against incredible odds, than escorting back crewmen who were essentially out of the fight at that point. You need to send someone back of course, but it should be someone who is less crucial for holding that line.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 02 septembre 2011 - 10:18 .

[AdmiralCheez]

gosimmons wrote...

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

If you don't have the balls to keep going when you screw up, you're the one watering it down.

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?

Generating doubt is key.  Having Earth knocked off right in the first five minutes is a great way to do that, and having Shep fly in to save the day only to be too late is another (as in rushing in to save a city only to find a smoldering ruin with refugees looking at you with an accusing eye).  You can't fight the Reapers directly because they're too damn powerful, and you can't get close anyway thanks to indoctrination.  The task has to seem impossible, and for a large part of the game be impossible, to the point where the player would put it down if it weren't for those tiny pepperings of hope scattered throughout the missions.

Oh yeah, and near-death is almost as good as actual death.  You should have seen my face when Garrus got hit with that rocket or when Miranda started sliding down that broken platform after fighting the Human Reaper.  But, like actual death, using it too much makes it lose potency.

Now, I'm not against people dying entirely, but I want the deaths of important people to be used as sparingly as possible.  As in maybe one Wash (sudden, unexpected death), one Spock (character willingly sacrifices his/herself), and maybe a Virmire, with a couple of Wrex/SM paradoxes sprinkled everywhere to keep the stakes high.  Most importantly, I don't want the same squadmate to die every time.  Because that's railroading, and railroading is dumb.  Everybody knows Aerith dies, but nobody cares.

Now, imagine if sometimes it was Vincent or Tifa that bit it instead, based on tiny little variables you didn't know about and don't necessarily control.  Suddenly, FFVII is a lot scarier, and a lot more intense.