896 réponses à ce sujet

[TheZyzyva]

Alright, well I've said everything I can think of. Thank you to everyone who has made an effort to understand the opinions of the other side. Obviously some people have been more stubborn than others, and I for one am glad that they aren't the ones writing the story.

Now I bid this thread good day.

[TheOptimist]

TheZyzyva wrote...

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.

 
Again, that's A) if you know you can prevent it, and if you think it 'right' to go to the extra effort of saving them.  There are Ren players out there that killed Wrex because they felt he would be an unknown quantity even later.  Some of them even liked him, but they did it anyway.  Same thing with the Feros colonists, god knows there's been more than one topic where people argued it was the right decision to waste no effort saving them when they were infected with an unknown pathogen.  The same could easily be applied to squadmates.

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.

Got news for you, unless you kill EVERY squaddie, auto-kill the persons love interest, AND kill a healthy number of NPCs like TIM and Anderson, there's gonna be people who don't care.  'Forcing' drama upon us has not been the usual Mass Effect MO, Renegades generally can act like a sociopath and get off scot-free.

If it allowed us to only see the nice things it would be fundamentally incomplete as a story.

 

This doesn't require squadmate death.

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.

I come back to the example of Star Wars again, where in RotJ the whole crew makes it out alive.  Anyone think RotJ wasn't memorable? Annnnybody?  Cause I'm betting most people who play this game remember it.  And if people can't deal with a choose your own adventure in a game so built on choice, well...you get the idea.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

TheOptimist wrote...

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.

I come back to the example of Star Wars again, where in RotJ the whole crew makes it out alive.  Anyone think RotJ wasn't memorable? Annnnybody?  Cause I'm betting most people who play this game remember it.  And if people can't deal with a choose your own adventure in a game so built on choice, well...you get the idea.

Right let's use a 'kiddy' friendly movie in relation to a 'mature' rated game and before you say it, yes I know Star Wars has oft been used as reference but to try and use RotJ as an example of what to expect from ME3 is a bit silly considering how the devs have made it clear that ME3 is going to be a 'War story'.

Me thinks ME3 will be more reminiscent of 'Saving Private Ryan'  and/or <insert other war movies here> than 'Ewoks save the day and everyone sings yub nub around a camp fire' ala 'RotJ'

[BioWareM0d13]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

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.

I come back to the example of Star Wars again, where in RotJ the whole crew makes it out alive.  Anyone think RotJ wasn't memorable? Annnnybody?  Cause I'm betting most people who play this game remember it.  And if people can't deal with a choose your own adventure in a game so built on choice, well...you get the idea.

Right let's use a 'kiddy' friendly movie in relation to a 'mature' rated game and before you say it, yes I know Star Wars has oft been used as reference but to try and use RotJ as an example of what to expect from ME3 is a bit silly considering how the devs have made it clear that ME3 is going to be a 'War story'.

Me thinks ME3 will be more reminiscent of 'Saving Private Ryan'  and/or <insert other war movies here> than 'Ewoks save the day and everyone sings yub nub around a camp fire' ala 'RotJ'

Pretty much this.

And Mass Effect isn't Star Wars. Star Wars is basically Space-based fantasy. Mass Effect is little more gritty and realistic,  although it doesn't always live up to the hard Sci Fi label.

As much as I love Stars RotJ should not be used as a template for Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 02 septembre 2011 - 10:40 .

[eternalnightmare13]

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?

A slow agonizing death for Joker - that'd be emotional. The emotion being sheer and utter bliss with tears of joy streaming down my face.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Han Shot First wrote...

As much as I love Stars RotJ should not be used as a template for Mass Effect 3.

ESPECIALLY not the ending... no matter WHICH version of it people want to use ie. yub nub with just endor celebrations or earthly theme with galaxy celebrations

[TheOptimist]

AwesomeName wrote...
You misunderstand me; what I meant in that first quote was that the emotional impact of those deaths are blunted once you realise it was only because you did crap job of playing the game the first time round (something you inevitably discover if you play enough times), not because you had already seen it happen.  Subtle distinction there, but that's what I was talking about.  I wasn't talking about how replay itself dimishes the emotional impact of a death, which it obviously does, regardless of how it happens.

You claim there's a substantive difference, but I'm not seeing it.  Both depend on prior knowledge of the event to lessen the impact later.  And again, depending on exactly which choices you made, saying someone did a crap job is really silly.  The choices made may not have been perfect, choices made under such stress rarely are.

With regards to feeling worse about a death I could have prevented - I do too, if it's real life, since there's no replay button :/  But I'm simply not going to be moved by a squaddie dieing in ME2, since the only reason that would happen would be if I actively played badly and contrived for it to happen.  There's zero sense of powerlessness.

I have to say, there seem to be an awful lot of people here that forget you can do everything 'right' and still lose people.  Two of the most common I've seen were picking Zaieed for fire team 2 leader (a completely defensible choice) and picking NOT Mordin or Tali to escort the crew back because you're worried they'll need someone who can actually fight, like Grunt, Garrus or Jacob.  Heck, I lucked into a No One Left Behind ending the first time through because I enjoyed having Mordin in my party, otherwise I'd have lost him like many others did. Would never have dreamed of sending the parties worst combatant to escort my rather defenseless crew back.  And you overemphasize powerlessness.  As I believe I mentioned earlier, I cannot recall feeling powerless watching any death I can think of.  Sadness and anger, perhaps admiration if it's a death done right.

It's been explained before several times, but I'll say it again:

AwesomeName wrote...
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.

 
Again, Earth burning should accomplish this nicely.  For that matter, Ashely/Kaidan should really still be somewhere in the back of your mind, as should Jenkins and those you lost on the Normandy.  Point being, we have already SEEN that Shepard is not God, and is not invincible.  We will see other characters die, of this I have no doubt (Aria, perhaps?).  So now the only question is, is he/she badass enough to get through this with what remains of his/her team? My answer is yes.  The Reapers do not face what they faced every other time they've tried this trick, or else I might agree with you.  And I am not referring to Shepard.  Some of the biggest heroes in this story died 50,000 years before it ever took place.

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.

Actually, depending on which squadmate dies, it'd really just feel 'meh, back to game stop. Another disappointment.'  I won't lie, I have my favorite squadmembers and those I tend not to use as often. Killing off those squadmates I really don't want to see dead will simply kill the story, not make it better.  However, I do not presume my favorites are other people's favorites.  I do not presume that my personal list of who can die without ruining the game matches those of other people.  So I argue for the choice to save all. 

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.)

...*Raises Hand*
Obi-wan and Yoda were old, their time had come and gone.  They had lived full lives (900 years, in one case) and accomplished a lot.  Vader's death was mandated, 'redemption' only gets one so far.  If he'd lived, I'd have rooted for Han or Chewy to shoot him in the face.

[TheOptimist]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

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.

I come back to the example of Star Wars again, where in RotJ the whole crew makes it out alive.  Anyone think RotJ wasn't memorable? Annnnybody?  Cause I'm betting most people who play this game remember it.  And if people can't deal with a choose your own adventure in a game so built on choice, well...you get the idea.

Right let's use a 'kiddy' friendly movie in relation to a 'mature' rated game and before you say it, yes I know Star Wars has oft been used as reference but to try and use RotJ as an example of what to expect from ME3 is a bit silly considering how the devs have made it clear that ME3 is going to be a 'War story'.

To be repeated ad nauseum, Star Wars is a war story.  And if you hate the Star Wars example, let's go with Babylon 5, a far more 'mature' story as far as such things go.  Or Iron Man 2, for that matter.

Me thinks ME3 will be more reminiscent of 'Saving Private Ryan'  and/or <insert other war movies here> than 'Ewoks save the day and everyone sings yub nub around a camp fire' ala 'RotJ'

Any comparison only goes so far.  For instance, I suspect that not even many of the people advocating for mandatory death want to see every single person die.  I used RotJ as an example where the major protagonist characters live, not of the absolute perfect way to write a space opera.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 02 septembre 2011 - 11:29 .

[mopotter]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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!

I love Tom Hanks.  He's really the only reason I watch both of these movies.  <sigh>  Like his son too.

[Zu Long]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

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.

I come back to the example of Star Wars again, where in RotJ the whole crew makes it out alive.  Anyone think RotJ wasn't memorable? Annnnybody?  Cause I'm betting most people who play this game remember it.  And if people can't deal with a choose your own adventure in a game so built on choice, well...you get the idea.

Right let's use a 'kiddy' friendly movie in relation to a 'mature' rated game and before you say it, yes I know Star Wars has oft been used as reference but to try and use RotJ as an example of what to expect from ME3 is a bit silly considering how the devs have made it clear that ME3 is going to be a 'War story'.

Me thinks ME3 will be more reminiscent of 'Saving Private Ryan'  and/or <insert other war movies here> than 'Ewoks save the day and everyone sings yub nub around a camp fire' ala 'RotJ'

How about "The Longest Day" instead? John Wayne lived, Sean Connery lived, Red Buttons lived, Robert Ryan lived, Peter Lawford lived, Henry Fonda lived, Richard Todd lived...and the good guys win.

Not bad for a war movie, and the best part is that it's a set of real stories about what happened.

[TheOptimist]

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

Precisely. Because this is not real. It's a GAME.  Thus, calling for realism beyond a certain point is silly, and I believe you and others here have reached and passed that point.

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.

It should when you keep arguing how damn realistic the rest of the story is in comparison to a certain group of people surviving a war.  Mass Effect has never had that level of plausibility, thus no reason plausibility should even enter into the discussion.

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.

No one said they're invincible, most of them can have died in this story and even then some of them have gotten beat to hell.  The sole issue is whether they could survive.  I believe they could.

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.

Except it won't be offscreen, we have definitive proof from the demo that it will most definitely be front and center ON screen.  Characters you know and like has nothing to do with squadmates.  There are people that hate certain squadmates and many more that are indifferent.  Taking a shot in the dark that THIS one will be emotional is just irrational.

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.

 
Actually, that's an internet meme.  Only one of his stories ends with anything like that.

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?

Perhaps you thought the hacker might need to fight through something, or you trust Garrus to get it done but not Tali, Legion or (later) Kasumi.

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.

That leaves aside how you know someone won't try to ambush your crew necessitating better protection than Mordin or Tali can offer.  Where as you have a max of 9 other people to hold the line, those two should be able to stay back and use their tech powers.  Only after you know the trick can you say it was obvious.

[mopotter]

AwesomeName wrote...

mopotter wrote...

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.  

Do you have a Shepard that saved both Kaidan and Ashley?  One where Shepard deferred the fate of the Rachni Queen to the Council?  One where you ditched Cerberus at the first opportunity? Etc., etc...

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.

Right.   I am quite aware that I can only do what BioWare lets me.  

Which is why when they let me have choices I take them.  I take different combinations each time I play.  If I could have saved Ash and Kaidan I would have had one of those too.  As it is I reached the point where I just take turns  This time I save Ash, This time I save Kaidan.  Romance Kaidan, save Ash.  Romance Ash Save Kaidan, don't romance either toss a coin.  Really that's a rather un-argument.   By the time I've played the game 5 or 6 times, the emotion effect will fluctuate depending on my mood at the time.  

No, for me, the way the SM in ME2 is emotional is to refuse to use a cheat sheet that lets you play God.  I don't.  My choices are the ones I make and none of them are - I hate Thane send him through the tunnel.  I only send peoploe on jobs that they are qualified for.   I usually do not play paragon or renegade I make decisions based on my choices, not trying to reach some kind of paragon or renegade acheivement.  This means I don't always get people to agree, but that's part of the replay value, for me.  When Jack is carried away by the bugs I am sad.  When Tali is shot I'm sad.  Zaeed, not so much.  When the entire crew does make it I'm elated.  I worked hard for that ending.  

ME3 isn't here yet, though they probably have it finished and are just tweeking,  so I'm one among many who are voicing our hopes for the game, just like you.

[TheOptimist]

Zu Long wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

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.

I come back to the example of Star Wars again, where in RotJ the whole crew makes it out alive.  Anyone think RotJ wasn't memorable? Annnnybody?  Cause I'm betting most people who play this game remember it.  And if people can't deal with a choose your own adventure in a game so built on choice, well...you get the idea.

Right let's use a 'kiddy' friendly movie in relation to a 'mature' rated game and before you say it, yes I know Star Wars has oft been used as reference but to try and use RotJ as an example of what to expect from ME3 is a bit silly considering how the devs have made it clear that ME3 is going to be a 'War story'.

Me thinks ME3 will be more reminiscent of 'Saving Private Ryan'  and/or <insert other war movies here> than 'Ewoks save the day and everyone sings yub nub around a camp fire' ala 'RotJ'

How about "The Longest Day" instead? John Wayne lived, Sean Connery lived, Red Buttons lived, Robert Ryan lived, Peter Lawford lived, Henry Fonda lived, Richard Todd lived...and the good guys win.

Not bad for a war movie, and the best part is that it's a set of real stories about what happened.

Unforgivable, forgetting Robert Mitchum...who also lives.

[Zu Long]

TheOptimist wrote...
Unforgivable, forgetting Robert Mitchum...who also lives.

How the hell did I miss putting him in there? Good catch though.

[crimzontearz]

TheZyzyva wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

this is what happens when I have to go to sleep...Bam...4 pages missed.
*Walloftextpreventionsnip*

Yup.

Let me better explain what I would like to see, because I am not an any way an advocate of static, "this character will die" moments. Rather, I imagine a total, the-s***-has-just-hit-the-fan moment, Shep is struggling to keep up with everything around him, trying to keep everyone organized, but eventually it all breaks apart and depending on what orders you had been giving, someone has to make some sarcifice to keep the mission going. But it wouldn't just be some character swap of a scene, but rather whoever it ended up being would go out doing what they do best. For example, the same mission might end with Jack forced to hold back an explosion, or Grunt charging headlong into a mass of husks, or Tali staying behind to ensure the bomb goes off. Or there's a way to rescue them all but fail the mission and you have to deal with those consequences. It's not so much about choosing how imperfect it is but where the imperfections lie. It comes back to what I was saying about powerlessness, if I'm choosing to have people killed it won't be as dramatic. I want to be along for the ride as much as anyone else. Also there's the issue of how a chosen death would be handled, because if it's purely a gameplay death, there's no way the story won't become segmented by it. The character wouldn't get the conclusion intended for them. That's what was so wrong about the SM, letting people die didn't befit the story, didn't advance the plot, didn't deepen any characters. It was letting arcs get cut short with no discernable (as of yet) change to the main story. Basically, there needs to be a reason for me to just let someone die if it's avoidable. What changes if a character is dead, if anything? And more importantly to me, how will everyone else respond to it? One of the biggest reasons that I'm against being able to prevent the deaths is because Bioware did it so poorly on the SM. I know that being the last in the trilogy is a different animal though, and that's about all there is preventing me from just dreading watching how it plays out.

So no, I don't think I'm being hypocritical, I think you just misinterpreted what I said. The importance of the imperfections for a playthrough are not in a "how much" but a "where are they" perspective.

which all becomes moot point after the first run..or the first three.....after you know what happens and where...after you have been surprised the first few times by the "holy ****" moments and the deaths and so on and so forth......it becomes metagaming and crafiting the story the way you want it. Would it be better for you if the deaths were tied to decisions that are neither good nor bad? Would it make you feel better if the deaths were tied not to screw-ups (which often were not in ME2 either) but to seemingly un-related things so you can get yours "oh crap he just died" moments in your first run and then consciously choose what to make of your story?

just spitballing there

I know now I'm gonna be getting the Prima guide probably before ME3 comes out to make sure my first playthrough is the way I want it...but that's just me

[Virginian]

I want the kind that makes me want to go back and start over from the very beginning (ME not the start of ME3) because I can't stand the idea of that person dying.

[mopotter]

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.

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.

No.  Every game is separate, or why would I want to play more than one.  I don't want to play the same death sceen in every game.  Some games you have team members die and you feel sad.  Some games you have they live and you feel happy that you were able to save them this time and wonder what will happen next time with different choices.

There are games I like playing that are almost the exact same thing eact time I play them, Jade Empire, KOTOR, even DA:O and DA:2, but ME series isn't one of them.  I've played this game more than any of the others because there are so many ways the story can change for me depending on what I do.    ME is the first game I've come accross that might be able to give me those 100 play throughs and still make me wonder what will happen in 101 with choices.  Good choices, bad choices, gray choices.   

Deaths in some play throughs are fine, but you should be able to save  your team with those choices.  

edit - word correction.

Modifié par mopotter, 03 septembre 2011 - 01:07 .

[TheOptimist]

AwesomeName wrote...
I'm not sure what your first 2 sentences here are referring to, but if you're talking about the substantive difference I see between a death I'm powerless to stop vs. a death which happens because I play poorly, I'm pretty sure the difference is self-implied.  The difference in emotional impact is something I'm not sure you'll ever understand, since it's been explained so many times now.

Replayability lessens the impact of death no matter which way it happens, choice or writer fiat.  And perhaps not, irrational need for depression has always been a bit inexplicable to me.

And me saying you had to have done a crap job for your people to die is not silly at all because you have to fail to get enough upgrades, you have to fail at getting almost everyone's loyalty by the time of the SM and you have to pick people who are obviously bad choices for the SM.  Those are very easy things to get right, to the point where you have to act very deliberately to get them wrong.

The why do so many people mess up on their first playthrough?  I personally know some very bright people that still lost Mordin or Tali, and I have seen convincing arguments for why one might have thought a bad option would work here on this board.

You're kidding, right? Zaeed is obviously a bad choice, if you ever listen to his stories...  The guy obviously cares little for the safety of those under his command, hence so many people he's worked with have died.Plus he's very obviously a jerk who no one on your ship is going to respect over someone like Garrus.

  

The actual quote is someone who can command through experience, not a popularity contest, and few of your squad have anything like his experience.  Miranda is certainly no more popular with certain elements of your crew than Zaeed is and she lost quite a few people in that debacle on the Lazarus Station.

Funny that you mention Mordin and Tali because I've NEVER picked either of them to escort the crew back to the ship; in fact I've always picked Jacob to do the job because he was head of security at the Lazarus station, had some leadership skills, and he wasn't weak like Mordin or Tali.

And guess what?  I've never, ever, lost anyone.

Nor have I.  But I'd say we're definitely the vast minority. So congrats, you managed to avoid losing someone.  That means everyone who did lose someone did a crap job?  Someone has a rather high opinion of themselves.

Again, Earth burning should accomplish this nicely.  For that matter, Ashely/Kaidan should really still be somewhere in the back of your mind, as should Jenkins and those you lost on the Normandy.  Point being, we have already SEEN that Shepard is not God, and is not invincible.  We will see other characters die, of this I have no doubt (Aria, perhaps?).  So now the only question is, is he/she badass enough to get through this with what remains of his/her team? My answer is yes.  The Reapers do not face what they faced every other time they've tried this trick, or else I might agree with you.  And I am not referring to Shepard.  Some of the biggest heroes in this story died 50,000 years before it ever took place.

Sorry, but how does Earth burning show that you and your team are not immune to the Reapers?  And if we can lose Ash/Kaidan/Jenkins in ME1, how the hell are we going to avoid similar situations when the Reapers actually show up??  And, again, what the protheans did was not so amazing that our team is now going to be invincible - they're still going to have to work hard as hell to win.

You and your team aren't immune to them, you're beating the snot out of them.  The possibility that you can all survive doesn't make the danger any less that someone won't.  And our team does not need to be invincible to survive, just lucky and badass.  Hopefully Shepard came out a better commander for getting trapped into losing Ash or Kaidan, experience does teach us lessons.  Perhaps Ash or Kaidan's death will actually turn out to have been instructive.  Shepard certainly had better luck splitting the party in 2.

And I argue that it doesn't do the trilogy justice if you make it possible for Shepard to save everyone.  She's already doing the impossible by beating them.  Beating them without any of her teamates dieing?  When they're on the frontlines fighting the Reapers? 

Sounds like a collection of the biggest badasses to ever roll.  Sign me up.

That's extremely unlikely unless they want to cheapen the threat of the Reapers

Sounds like it's a 1 in a million chance.  Some of you may know where I'm going with this.

http://tvtropes.org/...lionToOneChance

Hmm, how about that XD

Modifié par TheOptimist, 03 septembre 2011 - 12:25 .

[mopotter]

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

[quote]TheOptimist wrote...

[quote]Optimist:  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. [/quote]
Han:
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.
[/quote]


Edit - I'm not so:  
Mopotter:  Not sure I'm doing the quotes right, but 

Shepard can also have a story with "and I was the only one to make it out alive".  So I disagree with this statement.  They fail becuase BioWare set it up that way, which is ok, but they did not fail becuase he was a poor choice.  

He was leader of the Blue Suns.  That is leadership quality.  Now sending Jacob through the tunnels, yes, that's just someone who want's to get rid of a character, and while I think it's stupid, I have no problem with them doing it.  Sending someone back, I take turns.  Except Garrus.  I don't think I've ever had him take the group back.

Modifié par mopotter, 03 septembre 2011 - 12:35 .

[111987]

The Blue Suns betrayed him and shot him in the head...

[gosimmons]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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

I've already told myself I'm not going to reload any decisions my first run. lol
Can't speak for everyone though.

Now, I'm not against people dying entirely, but I want the deaths of important people to be used as sparingly as possible

I don't want character deaths to lose weight by being used too excessively. But I still want to have the feeling that no one's particularly safe. No plot armor this time around.

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.

That's debatable. Just because a death scene's inevitable doesn't mean it can't have impact.

And having character death based on chance would probably be more annoying to people than it would be an example of good story-telling.

[mopotter]

111987 wrote...

The Blue Suns betrayed him and shot him in the head...

He was betrayed by his co-founder, who may have offered them more money and they are a bunch of unpleasant people who tried to kill Garrus.    He's not my favorite character but I found myself interested in some of his stories.

[111987]

mopotter wrote...

111987 wrote...

The Blue Suns betrayed him and shot him in the head...

He was betrayed by his co-founder, who may have offered them more money and they are a bunch of unpleasant people who tried to kill Garrus.    He's not my favorite character but I found myself interested in some of his stories.

I love his stories. But I don't think he was a good choice for being a team leader. He's probably the best soldier/fighter in the squad, but not the best leader. After all his only known leadership experience ended in him being betrayed and shot, and after that he worked as a solitary mercenary for several years...decades, wasn't it?