896 réponses à ce sujet

[GreenDragon37]

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

The Suicide Mission was laughable because you could save everyone. Stop "defanging" the enemy. If I'm going up against the impossible to defeat "gods", I expect some deaths.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 31 août 2011 - 12:31 .

[crimzontearz]

Someone With Mass wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
*snip*

 better example, Red Dead Redemption (seriously, what's the point of trying to redeem John Marston if he was going to get offed from the get-go? And no, I don't considering playing as his sub-par son as a fitting end, and all that told me is "Marston sacrificed himself for nothing".). ,

 Oh there is a lot  but   that is a discussion for another theard at another time. Though  I see your point  and your reaction is exactly how I  see the rest of the  fanbase reacting if the Bioware did something like that  with a LI or Squadmate in ME 3.  

or worse with Shepard

Though, if it's absolutely necessary, I'd rather let Shepard bite the dust than anyone else.

I would like to be able to avoid the whole thing, though.

with post-end gameplay confirmed I am sure there is a way to keep shepard alive without him sending someone else to die

[crimzontearz]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

As long as no major character death (well ok maybe one but not your LI) is forced upon me without choice and without  the possibility to change the outcome in a following run  then I'm ok with it

[GreenDragon37]

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

As long as no major character death (well ok maybe one but not your LI) is forced upon me without choice and without  the possibility to change the outcome in a following run  then I'm ok with it

A character's death should be because of the choices you made. Someone needs to die, but who should be depended on your choices.

[nitefyre410]

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

As long as no major character death (well ok maybe one but not your LI) is forced upon me without choice and without  the possibility to change the outcome in a following run  then I'm ok with it

 

Exactly its what the franchise  is built it on - Choice

As for maturity...  Killing characters off in  story does not make it mature , it just means your killing off  characters and cheapens the story more than not killing people off.

[crimzontearz]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

As long as no major character death (well ok maybe one but not your LI) is forced upon me without choice and without  the possibility to change the outcome in a following run  then I'm ok with it

A character's death should be because of the choices you made. Someone needs to die, but who should be depended on your choices.

I'm good with that

say goodnight Miranda/Jacob

[Chuvvy]

Mass Effect's never done emotion properly.

[GreenDragon37]

nitefyre410 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

As long as no major character death (well ok maybe one but not your LI) is forced upon me without choice and without  the possibility to change the outcome in a following run  then I'm ok with it

 

Exactly its what the franchise  is built it on - Choice

As for maturity...  Killing characters off in  story does not make it mature , it just means your killing off  characters and cheapens the story more than not killing people off.

And having them all live is not mature, especially now that the Reaper invasion has come. Deaths need to happen, but they need to be a product of your choice, and they need to be meaningful, not just because the game said so. If everyone can live, it'll be like the SM: laughable.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 31 août 2011 - 12:35 .

[mopotter]

Quole wrote...

How about... no deaths?

I did like this option in ME2 and would be ok with it in ME3.   I don't mind the death of some of my team, if I can controle it.  I have one game where everyone came out alive in ME2. I would like it to take more time and be harder to accomplish, unless you use the cheat sheet.  

Which I didn't do in ME2 even if my LI was one of the deaths, but if my LI died in ME3, I'd be looking it up in a flash for  at least for one game.  

[Ghost Warrior]

I don't feel like reading previous posts,I'll just say I want some (or one) of my people dead at the end of ME3,regardless of how it happens,as long as it's emotional. IMO,this Reaper threat that's been building up since ME1 wouldn't be so terrifying if everybody survives.

[nitefyre410]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

As long as no major character death (well ok maybe one but not your LI) is forced upon me without choice and without  the possibility to change the outcome in a following run  then I'm ok with it

 

Exactly its what the franchise  is built it on - Choice

As for maturity...  Killing characters off in  story does not make it mature , it just means your killing off  characters and cheapens the story more than not killing people off.

And having them all live is not mature, especially now that the Reaper invasion has come. Deaths need to happen, but they need to be a product of your choice, and they need to be meaningful, not just because the game said so. If everyone can live, it'll be like the SM: laughable.

 


Character Death  can happen  but It should  not happen  just to make a story Mature or to create emotion  - That is cheap.   Your choices can be meaningful  either way.  Killing off Characters it not going  make themes of the story more mature if they are already immature for the start.       

[GreenDragon37]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

I don't feel like reading previous posts,I'll just say I want some (or one) of my people dead at the end of ME3,regardless of how it happens,as long as it's emotional. IMO,this Reaper threat that's been building up since ME1 wouldn't be so terrifying if everybody survives.

Exactly, it's just like the SM if everyone lives. All of this hype they built up about how impossible it would be to storm the base, and how not everyone can make it out alive... and everyone can walk out freely, with no deaths. It cheapened the experience. Deaths need to happen, but they need to be emotional, and they need to happen because of the choices you made.

[mopotter]

crimzontearz wrote...

mopotter wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

because some of us replay the game dozens of times

forcing a LI death or Shepard's death on the player would prevent many of us from replaying

Like I could never bring myself to replay "the darkness"

Up to a point I agree.  I do not want the LI to die in every re play becuase like you I'd stop playing if all 10 current Shepards lost their LI because of a forced death.    But I can handle the LI dieing if I've messed up something.  True, I'll probably go back and fix whatever it was, but I could do that.  

I would dislike another vs choice.  Been there done that and I would dislike deaths that you can't controle somehow.  I'm playing a video game for fun, not for real life experiences.  

which brings us back to our original point

choice. You can CHOOSE to let them die by not fixing what you ***ed up......or......you can choose to go back and fix it because it is, indeed, YOUR story

Yes!  :happy:  It's why I keep playing it and why I keep spending my hard earned money on their games.  

[GreenDragon37]

nitefyre410 wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

As long as no major character death (well ok maybe one but not your LI) is forced upon me without choice and without  the possibility to change the outcome in a following run  then I'm ok with it

 

Exactly its what the franchise  is built it on - Choice

As for maturity...  Killing characters off in  story does not make it mature , it just means your killing off  characters and cheapens the story more than not killing people off.

And having them all live is not mature, especially now that the Reaper invasion has come. Deaths need to happen, but they need to be a product of your choice, and they need to be meaningful, not just because the game said so. If everyone can live, it'll be like the SM: laughable.

 


Character Death  can happen  but It should  not happen  just to make a story Mature or to create emotion  - That is cheap.   Your choices can be meaningful  either way.  Killing off Characters it not going  make themes of the story more mature if they are already immature for the start.       

And having everyone live is cheap. It'll make me laugh at this "Reaper threat" if they couldn't even take down one man in my squad. No, you don't need death to create emotion, but if no-one dies, then it cheapens the "Reaper threat".

[GreenDragon37]

Eckswhyzee wrote...

Hmmm.....not really sure where I stand on this. The question is "Should it be possible for Shepard/the player to do everything they can possibly to do for the best of all possible outcomes, AND still have squadmates/other characters die?"

The best thing Bioware could do is make it so that there is no 'best ending' - someone you know will die, you just have greater control over who it is. If you want squadmates X, Y and Z alive you can, there just might be a tradeoff somewhere else.

As for Shepard's reaction to casualties, that's why there's a dialogue wheel. Most likely there'll be different things to say to the crew, and maybe some different lines for conversing in private with your LI or other squadmates.

This is pretty much what I'm talking about. X, Y, and Z can live, but A, C, and F, might have to die. Or just A, or A and F. Any combination. Would also make for great re-play value.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 31 août 2011 - 12:50 .

[Undertone]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

The Suicide Mission was laughable because you could save everyone. Stop "defanging" the enemy. If I'm going up against the impossible to defeat "gods", I expect some deaths.

QFT.

Shepard isn't some kind of a God that can choose - mmmkay Jack you go die, Thane you go die as well. Kaidan I don't need you. Mmmm Liara, Tali, Garrus you guys are gonna survive. No matter what kind of way they sugar coat it in terms of game play Shepard shouldn't be the one that always chooses who survives and who doesn't because there a kajilion other variables beyond Shepard's control and regardless of decisions taken or to be taken.

[nitefyre410]

GreenDragon37 wrote...



And having everyone live is cheap. It'll make me laugh at this "Reaper threat" if they couldn't even take down one man in my squad. No, you don't need death to create emotion, but if no-one dies, then it cheapens the "Reaper threat".

 


The Reaper  Threat was  Cheap from the Start because they never REALLY acted like a threat  and this is something that BIoware did in DA that irked me to no end. The build the whole  Darkspawn thing and Archdemon then it  becomes an after thought to  Loghain.    They built up this huge deal about the big bad and then give me  a Giant Robotic  Space Squid While the characters of Harbinger and Sovereign are cool - they are still Giant Robotic Space Squids and  the have very few lines and I'm now  fighting  TIM and Cerberus. 
 

But I digress  - Yes it does work both ways and I never said It didn't  

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 12:55 .

[Mike2640]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...


I still love Tara from Buffy the Vampire Slayer even though I know she has one of the more shocking and sudden deaths i've seen on television. I enjoy all the time she gets and I love how her death affects the story. I don't know why you wouldn't want to get invested in the character, even if they die. Why wouldn't you, especially now that the series is ending? Either way you're not going to see these characters again. Your time with Bastila wasn't "Short lived." You had the better part of a twenty-hour-or-longer game to get to know her and enjoy her character. With Mass Effect you've had one or two full games to get to know these characters. Why would their death negate the experiences you have with them in beforehand?

Because it makes the fact that you invested all of this time caring about the character only to end up being for nothing? What's the point of investing in a journey if the destination is sub-par? If I have 24 Mass Effect files with a Shepard going for a happy ending with an LI, I should be able to do so instead of having a forced death a la Vanilla Fallout 3 shoved down my throat or a better example, Red Dead Redemption (seriously, what's the point of trying to redeem John Marston if he was going to get offed from the get-go? And no, I don't considering playing as his sub-par son as a fitting end, and all that told me is "Marston sacrificed himself for nothing".). ,

Why would the character dying a potentially dramatic death be sub-par? As awesome as Garrus is, having him go out in a blaze of glory would be a crowning moment of epic for the guy. Conversely, if he got a shocker death of TIM calmly shooting him in the head, it would make me feel certain that TIM's brains would be painting the walls very soon.

If a character death can generate that kind of reaction in me then I do not see the time spent as "for nothing".

Also, and a bit off topic, John Marston did redeem himself. Him sacrificing his life to ensure his family's survival was his redemption.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

The only characters I can see dying without batting an eye would be Mordin, Samara, the DLC characters, and maybe Thane, but even with Thane on the chopping block, forcing a plot-related date would incite riots, and as far as I know, I'd rather see Thane die from his disease AFTER THE GAME or if we're lucky enough, seeing him cured. As for the Genophage cure proposal you're hell-bent on implementing, all you're telling us is "Don't bother caring about the Krogan," no matter how you're spinning the words.  All you're asking for is telling us "Your choices in helping the Krogan is meaningless, since the Reapers are going to off them anyway."

It's just an example. I'm using multiple times because it's the easiest to use to get my point across. I'm not saying "Dont care about the Krogan". Why do you think the experience becomes meaningless if it ends in death (especially if they die at the end of the series)? Why do you think the emotions you'll feel when a character dies are meaningless? The fact that you are feeling something means the devs succeeded. That's why I said it'll suck, but in a good way. When a body of work can make you feel emotions such as grief, loss, and pride then it has done it right.

nitefyre410 wrote...
Right but when you're writing and trying
to create something  that  has emotional impact  you need the main
character involved to react in  way that allows the viewer, player,
reader etc to empathize with character. If the player has controll over
how Shepard   reactions and choose the option that has Shepard  shrug
his shoulders and say  "oh well"   The character death that just
happened has  lost its  emotional impact.   

We are the  dictate
how  Shepards feels(as Bioware has designed the game)   and if 
Character A dies and I never had any like or ties to character A then I
as the player  who is in control of  shepard feels  is going to have not
react to Character A death so... no impact.

If you
didn't care about the character then I suppose you'd choose the "shrug"
option. But just because it wasn't a dramatic moment for you personally
doesn't mean it is never a dramatic moment.

crimzontearz wrote...
how many times did Bioware tell us that this is "our" story?

There is nothing wrong with Meta if helps you tell the story YOU desire

also.....the
"shock" moment kinda dies off after the first playthrough...then it
becomes tedious especially is no choice (Virmire-like choice I mean) is
given..or aggrivating to the point some people just do not want to
replay anymore.

Bioware will say a lot of things when they think it will sell games. It may becomes tedious for you maybe, but not for others.

Modifié par Mike2640, 31 août 2011 - 12:54 .

[GreenDragon37]

Undertone wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If no-one dies, it cheapens the experience. The Reapers have come, I expect there to be some deaths. However, they should be avoidable and others you can choose who has to die. You don't have to have your LI or favorite character die, but someone should. I don't want a kids' story. I want a mature story, with deaths because you either screwed up, or your squaddies were idiots. I want to be reminded what was lost to defeat the Reapers. Face-less "millions" won't cut it.

The Suicide Mission was laughable because you could save everyone. Stop "defanging" the enemy. If I'm going up against the impossible to defeat "gods", I expect some deaths.

QFT.

Shepard isn't some kind of a God that can choose - mmmkay Jack you go die, Thane you go die as well. Kaidan I don't need you. Mmmm Liara, Tali, Garrus you guys are gonna survive. No matter what kind of way they sugar coat it in terms of game play Shepard shouldn't be the one that always chooses who survives and who doesn't because there a kajilion other variables beyond Shepard's control and regardless of decisions taken or to be taken.

Yep. Shepard isn't Jesus, he's not perfect. He'll have to lose someone, but you have a choice over who you lose. You can't have your cake and eat it too, not during the Reaper invasion. "You want Liara, Garrus, and Ashley to live? Ok. But you'll have to put someone in their place." It ain't pretty, but war isn't pretty. Especially not a war against the "Gods".

[TheOptimist]

Mike2640 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Each and every Shepard has lost, by
my count, atleast 23 people under their command.  That seems like PLENTY
for the 'we sacrificed for this victory' drama requirement,
especially since Shepard has potentially lost far more than that. 

You're refering to the Normandy SR1 crew, right? That doesn't really serve for the drama factor for the player because, aside from a few like Pressley, we didn't know any of the crew. They were faceless npcs to fill the ship. The player isn't attached to them and doesn't really care much when they die. The effort is pointless if the player themselves dont feel the weight of the sacrifice with Shepard.

And Jenkins and the VS, yes.  And perhaps some don't care when they died.  But as a Shepard that wanted to save everyone...my Shepard did.  I spent 45 minutes searching that wreck for every single one of those dog tags, tearing up as I did so.  Think I did it for the 5 xp per tag? Hell no.  I did it, SHEPARD did it, because no one gets left out in the cold.  Because everyone comes home.  So yeah, for my Shepard, 23 was plenty and far too many.  And I'd just as soon have the option for that to be it as far as my crew goes.  You can have your deaths if you want, but why the hell you wish to impose them on ME is and always has been beyond me.

[mopotter]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Ghost Warrior wrote...

I don't feel like reading previous posts,I'll just say I want some (or one) of my people dead at the end of ME3,regardless of how it happens,as long as it's emotional. IMO,this Reaper threat that's been building up since ME1 wouldn't be so terrifying if everybody survives.

Exactly, it's just like the SM if everyone lives. All of this hype they built up about how impossible it would be to storm the base, and how not everyone can make it out alive... and everyone can walk out freely, with no deaths. It cheapened the experience. Deaths need to happen, but they need to be emotional, and they need to happen because of the choices you made.

I really don't get this.  The first couple of times I play are the ones with the real emotional outburst and those will be played without any walkthrough info (unless it's a puzzle, I hate puzzles and will look up any answer to a puzzle)  That means I'll have characters dieing.  

After those first few play throughs I want as many options as possible, including one where the main team can make it to the end if I want to bother looking up the way it's accomplished.  With enough re-plays I should be able to come up with this on my own, which is why I only have 2 everyone survived in ME2.  

I don't understand wanting every game to have a specific number of deaths when it's a game built on choices, good and bad and I guess I never will understand so I think I'll go play ME2 for awhile before heading to bed so i can get up and go to work.  

[Someone With Mass]

You know, I am capable of understanding and grasping the dark tone of the game without having anyone on my team die.

And if you need people to die so badly to make your experience worth it, since a risky mission is apparently not enough, then just kill them all.

But don't think that just because some of you want a cheap mandatory death of a squadmate in ME3 that everyone who plays it wants the same.

I am capable of walking out of a terrifying battle without losing my squad and not start to complain about a lack of "drama" (I really don't call it drama. I call it a forced emotion which is also a really lazy way to try and connect with the audience), because I can and like to think that I defied all odds. That I achieved something.

Or maybe some people on the squad should have died at the battle of the Citadel too?

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 31 août 2011 - 12:59 .

[crimzontearz]

Mike2640 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...


I still love Tara from Buffy the Vampire Slayer even though I know she has one of the more shocking and sudden deaths i've seen on television. I enjoy all the time she gets and I love how her death affects the story. I don't know why you wouldn't want to get invested in the character, even if they die. Why wouldn't you, especially now that the series is ending? Either way you're not going to see these characters again. Your time with Bastila wasn't "Short lived." You had the better part of a twenty-hour-or-longer game to get to know her and enjoy her character. With Mass Effect you've had one or two full games to get to know these characters. Why would their death negate the experiences you have with them in beforehand?

Because it makes the fact that you invested all of this time caring about the character only to end up being for nothing? What's the point of investing in a journey if the destination is sub-par? If I have 24 Mass Effect files with a Shepard going for a happy ending with an LI, I should be able to do so instead of having a forced death a la Vanilla Fallout 3 shoved down my throat or a better example, Red Dead Redemption (seriously, what's the point of trying to redeem John Marston if he was going to get offed from the get-go? And no, I don't considering playing as his sub-par son as a fitting end, and all that told me is "Marston sacrificed himself for nothing".). ,

Why would the character dying a potentially dramatic death be sub-par? As awesome as Garrus is, having him go out in a blaze of glory would be a crowning moment of epic for the guy. Conversely, if he got a shocker death of TIM calmly shooting him in the head, it would make me feel certain that TIM's brains would be painting the walls very soon.

If a character death can generate that kind of reaction in me then I do not see the time spent as "for nothing".

Also, and a bit off topic, John Marston did redeem himself. Him sacrificing his life to ensure his family's survival was his redemption.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

The only characters I can see dying without batting an eye would be Mordin, Samara, the DLC characters, and maybe Thane, but even with Thane on the chopping block, forcing a plot-related date would incite riots, and as far as I know, I'd rather see Thane die from his disease AFTER THE GAME or if we're lucky enough, seeing him cured. As for the Genophage cure proposal you're hell-bent on implementing, all you're telling us is "Don't bother caring about the Krogan," no matter how you're spinning the words.  All you're asking for is telling us "Your choices in helping the Krogan is meaningless, since the Reapers are going to off them anyway."

It's just an example. I'm using multiple times because it's the easiest to use to get my point across. I'm not saying "Dont care about the Krogan". Why do you think the experience becomes meaningless if it ends in death (especially if they die at the end of the series)? Why do you think the emotions you'll feel when a character dies are meaningless? The fact that you are feeling something means the devs succeeded. That's why I said it'll suck, but in a good way. When a body of work can make you feel emotions such as grief, loss, and pride then it has done it right.

you seem to fail to understand that just because YOU you believe that garrus dying in a blazew of glory would be epic that does not mean others would not think differently. For some people Garrus dying in any way shape or form would be really Really REALLY bad regardless of how you spin it because they do not want the character to die

Modifié par crimzontearz, 31 août 2011 - 12:57 .

[mopotter]

TheOptimist wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Each and every Shepard has lost, by
my count, atleast 23 people under their command.  That seems like PLENTY
for the 'we sacrificed for this victory' drama requirement,
especially since Shepard has potentially lost far more than that. 

You're refering to the Normandy SR1 crew, right? That doesn't really serve for the drama factor for the player because, aside from a few like Pressley, we didn't know any of the crew. They were faceless npcs to fill the ship. The player isn't attached to them and doesn't really care much when they die. The effort is pointless if the player themselves dont feel the weight of the sacrifice with Shepard.

And Jenkins and the VS, yes.  And perhaps some don't care when they died.  But as a Shepard that wanted to save everyone...my Shepard did.  I spent 45 minutes searching that wreck for every single one of those dog tags, tearing up as I did so.  Think I did it for the 5 xp per tag? Hell no.  I did it, SHEPARD did it, because no one gets left out in the cold.  Because everyone comes home.  So yeah, for my Shepard, 23 was plenty and far too many.  And I'd just as soon have the option for that to be it as far as my crew goes.  You can have your deaths if you want, but why the hell you wish to impose them on ME is and always has been beyond me.

Me too.  It's not my favorite "mission" but it's my favorite responsibilty and I agree 100%.  .  

[GreenDragon37]

TheOptimist wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

Each and every Shepard has lost, by
my count, atleast 23 people under their command.  That seems like PLENTY
for the 'we sacrificed for this victory' drama requirement,
especially since Shepard has potentially lost far more than that. 

You're refering to the Normandy SR1 crew, right? That doesn't really serve for the drama factor for the player because, aside from a few like Pressley, we didn't know any of the crew. They were faceless npcs to fill the ship. The player isn't attached to them and doesn't really care much when they die. The effort is pointless if the player themselves dont feel the weight of the sacrifice with Shepard.

And Jenkins and the VS, yes.  And perhaps some don't care when they died.  But as a Shepard that wanted to save everyone...my Shepard did.  I spent 45 minutes searching that wreck for every single one of those dog tags, tearing up as I did so.  Think I did it for the 5 xp per tag? Hell no.  I did it, SHEPARD did it, because no one gets left out in the cold.  Because everyone comes home.  So yeah, for my Shepard, 23 was plenty and far too many.  And I'd just as soon have the option for that to be it as far as my crew goes.  You can have your deaths if you want, but why the hell you wish to impose them on ME is and always has been beyond me.

Because you can't control life. If this is a war, someone is going to die. Maybe it is your friend, maybe it's a random soldier under your commnand, but it will happen. In war, you can't save everyone. Every soldier knows this. Everyone who leads knows this. Shepard (no matter how Paragon) knows this. Will he try to save everyone? Yes. Can he? No. But he knows that he can make sure that their deaths will not have been in vain.

I'm a Paragage, but with a strong lead towards Paragon, but even my Shep knows that he isn't perfect. He can't save everyone, but not making their deaths mean something... that is the greatest betrayl of his men and women.