896 réponses à ce sujet

[TheOptimist]

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.

So if you want death, create death. No one forces you to go through the suicide mission with everyone surviving.  Hell, one of the great things about it is that you can pretty much kill as many people as you think necessary.  Is it just that you don't want to admit that you were the one who made a character die, rather than mysterious forces beyond your control? 

It always strikes me as hilarious when people say the SM was cheesy because you could save everyone when the only way that happens is if your Shepard makes every decision perfectly.  If you want a fallible Shepard, the SM gives you that option, but forcing that on those of us who DON'T want it because you can't deal with the knowledge that had Shepard acted differently, everyone might have lived is just stupid.

[Ghost Warrior]

TheOptimist wrote...
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 I want to achieve the best possible ending in one of my playthroughs. I just don't want it to be perfect. In ME2 the best ending was perfect - everybody gets out alive and well. That cheapened the entire Suicide mission for me. I want to be able to do the best I can,without losing the feeling that the entire battle left me scared somehow. Sacrifices should be made,friends lost and worlds destroyed. But that's just my opinion.

[crimzontearz]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

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.

Videogame =/= real life

Fiction in general =/= real life

why do you want to force deaths on others thus maybe souring their experience when choice would allow you to have your deaths and the next person have their sunshine and bunnies ending?

[Lunatic LK47]

Mike2640 wrote...



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

And guess what, Jack killing off Ross undid all of Marston's redemption. Everything's back to square one, making all his sacrifices for nothing. So much for redemption right there other than to "soothe his conscience."

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.

Uh, Just because you see things a certain way doesn't mean others will share the same opinion, unless we got demented individuals like Undertone added to the mix. Regardless of how you spin it, you're telling the players "Don't bother with X because they die anyway." What's the point of investing in anything other than frustration just for the sake of frustration? With that attitude, might as well say "Don't bother with college, you're not going to get employed anyway."

[nitefyre410]

Mandatory death of Squadmates and LI is not going to work because Bioware built this franchise around the player have Choice and those Choices having a meaningful out come. There will be Hellfire and Brimstone, the oceans will boil, and the skies will burn if people play though ME 3, a tons of the battles, make choices just for it all(in their eyes) to mean nothing in the... I'm telling you- Just take a look at the DA 2 forums they are pissed about NPC's and Quest Characters like Grace.


The quest with Hawkes mother in Act 2 of DA 2 is a perfect example - personally I liked that quest I like how it played out. Yeah - that did not go over so well 6 months later you still see threads about Hawke being a "lazy idiot" etc etc etc.

[Mike2640]

crimzontearz wrote...
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

Then this comes down to agreeing to disagree. You and I clearly have very differen't perspectives when it comes to death in literature. I think when a work can make me feel heightened emotions such as grief or joy that it is fantastic, and that the creators did their jobs marvelously.

[crimzontearz]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
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 I want to achieve the best possible ending in one of my playthroughs. I just don't want it to be perfect. In ME2 the best ending was perfect - everybody gets out alive and well. That cheapened the entire Suicide mission for me. I want to be able to do the best I can,without losing the feeling that the entire battle left me scared somehow. Sacrifices should be made,friends lost and worlds destroyed. But that's just my opinion.

that is what YOU want....what YOU think would make a best ending


is your idea of a "best ending" better than his? more worthy? who decides that? and why?

[Ghost Warrior]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mandatory death of Squadmates and LI is not going to work because Bioware built this franchise around the player have Choice and those Choices having a meaningful out come.

Virmire. There you have both mandatory death and a choice.

[Mike2640]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mandatory death of Squadmates and LI is not going to work because Bioware built this franchise around the player have Choice and those Choices having a meaningful out come. There will be Hellfire and Brimstone, the oceans will boil, and the skies will burn if people play though ME 3, a tons of the battles, make choices just for it all(in their eyes) to mean nothing in the... I'm telling you- Just take a look at the DA 2 forums they are pissed about NPC's and Quest Characters like Grace.


The quest with Hawkes mother in Act 2 of DA 2 is a perfect example - personally I liked that quest I like how it played out. Yeah - that did not go over so well 6 months later you still see threads about Hawke being a "lazy idiot" etc etc etc.

People aren't pissed because they killed Hawkes mom, they're pissed because it was done so sloppily. There was little to no build up, it was completely inexplicable and was completely worthless because Hawkes mom was barely more than furniture in your mansion.

The deaths were implimented terribly in that game and had next to no impact.People aren't mad because characters died, they're mad because that game sucked.

Modifié par Mike2640, 31 août 2011 - 01:10 .

[nitefyre410]

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

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.

Videogame =/= real life

Fiction in general =/= real life

why do you want to force deaths on others thus maybe souring their experience when choice would allow you to have your deaths and the next person have their sunshine and bunnies ending?

 

Especially when the entire  game Franchise that you are playing is built around the players having choice and this choices affecting the outcome .

[crimzontearz]

Mike2640 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
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

Then this comes down to agreeing to disagree. You and I clearly have very differen't perspectives when it comes to death in literature. I think when a work can make me feel heightened emotions such as grief or joy that it is fantastic, and that the creators did their jobs marvelously.

with the difference that Bioware told us MANY times this is OUR story. Not just a story written by -insert author here- but OUR story

in MY story I want everyone to live.....in yours things might be different

that is the great differential between any static literature and any game like Mass Effect

[nitefyre410]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mandatory death of Squadmates and LI is not going to work because Bioware built this franchise around the player have Choice and those Choices having a meaningful out come.

Virmire. There you have both mandatory death and a choice.

 

and  no emotional impact because people threw the character the liked the least too wolves...  

[Ghost Warrior]

crimzontearz wrote...

that is what YOU want....what YOU think would make a best ending


is your idea of a "best ending" better than his? more worthy? who decides that? and why?

Yes,it's what I want. When did I say it's more worthy? When did I demand anything? I'm just putting it out there.

Modifié par Ghost Warrior, 31 août 2011 - 01:10 .

[GreenDragon37]

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

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.

Videogame =/= real life

Fiction in general =/= real life

why do you want to force deaths on others thus maybe souring their experience when choice would allow you to have your deaths and the next person have their sunshine and bunnies ending?

Because even in a videogame, not everything is sunshine and bunnies. In DA:O, you lost people through your actions. Or you had everyone surviv/not leave... but you had to jump through the hoops, and realize that you had to do something that might return to bite you in the ass. Choices need to have a consequence, and I doubt that BioWare will make a completely happy ending. They even said you will have to make sacrifices. I just don't understand this whole 'sunshine and bunnies" notion. Choices have consequences.

You can choose who to save; just realize that it has a string attatched to it.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 31 août 2011 - 01:13 .

[Ghost Warrior]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Ghost Warrior wrote...

Virmire. There you have both mandatory death and a choice.

 

and  no emotional impact because people threw the character the liked the least too wolves...  

And what if I liked both characters? Because I did.

Modifié par Ghost Warrior, 31 août 2011 - 01:13 .

[nitefyre410]

Mike2640 wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Mandatory death of Squadmates and LI is not going to work because Bioware built this franchise around the player have Choice and those Choices having a meaningful out come. There will be Hellfire and Brimstone, the oceans will boil, and the skies will burn if people play though ME 3, a tons of the battles, make choices just for it all(in their eyes) to mean nothing in the... I'm telling you- Just take a look at the DA 2 forums they are pissed about NPC's and Quest Characters like Grace.


The quest with Hawkes mother in Act 2 of DA 2 is a perfect example - personally I liked that quest I like how it played out. Yeah - that did not go over so well 6 months later you still see threads about Hawke being a "lazy idiot" etc etc etc.

People aren't pissed because they killed Hawkes mom, they're pissed because it was done so sloppily. There was little to no build up, it was completely inexplicable and was completely worthless because Hawkes mom was barely more than furniture in your mansion.

The deaths were implimented terribly in that game and had next to no impact.People aren't mad because characters died, they're mad because that game sucked.

 

No their pissed because    DA was   pitched to be in the same vein and ME  a game where you choices matters and none of the Choice mattered (in their eyes) when came to Hawkes mother. They felt control of the outcome was taken away from them...  Which is over general feeling  among most  - soo YMMV 

[crimzontearz]

Because, Ghost warrior, the only way to achieve what YOU desire is to discard someone else's and remove the element of crafting our story.

So either A: you think that your "imposed and inevitable deaths" are better than a scenartio in which you actually get to choose.......and thus my question to you earlier

or B: you just want others to suffer through something that might sour their experience....

which one is it?

[KainrycKarr]

TheOptimist wrote...

As long as I can choose to save them, I hope Bioware makes the deaths of your characters as emotional as you could ask for.  Why I liked the idea of the SM.  You want drama? You can have drama.  You want a team that whoops ****? You can have that to.

this.

[Golden Owl]

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.

I had my Shep do that ...in my canon playthrough... as his very first act once he received control of the Normandy...his search for  redemption as such...Bringing his people home, trying to come to terms with his own death, etc...

[crimzontearz]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

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.

Videogame =/= real life

Fiction in general =/= real life

why do you want to force deaths on others thus maybe souring their experience when choice would allow you to have your deaths and the next person have their sunshine and bunnies ending?

Because even in a videogame, not everything is sunshine and bunnies. In DA:O, you lost people through your actions. Or you had everyone surviv/not leave... but you had to jump through the hoops, and realize that you had to do something that might return to bite you in the ass. Choices need to have a consequence, and I doubt that BioWare will make a completely happy ending. They even said you will have to make sacrifices. I just don't understand this whole 'sunshine and bunnies" notion. Choices have consequences.

You can choose who to save; just realize that it has a string attatched to it.

your choice, your preference, your tastes...why are they superior/more worthy than anyone else's who wants a "perfect" ending? Who gets to say whose view is "better" in this case and why?

if you have the choice to have sacrifices or have everyone live then you pretty much please everyone but those who actually wanted the choice taken away from them for the sake of it being taken away

[nitefyre410]

[quote]Ghost Warrior wrote...

[quote]nitefyre410 wrote...

Virmire. There you have both mandatory death and a choice.

[/quote] 

and  no emotional impact because people threw the character the liked the least too wolves...  

[/quote]
And what if I liked both characters? Because I did.
[/quote]

well thats you so it was impacting for you... but in game like ME where choice matters and the  player can dicate how the main character reacts to a given situation, how he/she feels  the emotional impact of the scene changes depending on the player.   

For the Record  Imma state again I am not against character death  I  just   don't think its going to work and be emotoinal impacting if made  required  because we the player can choose how shepards reacts emotional to the situation.  

Modifié par nitefyre410, 31 août 2011 - 01:29 .

[Someone With Mass]

Wrex was really the only one I cared about saving on Virmire. And I thought that having him as a friend would be better than being forced to kill him for no good reason.

[Undertone]

TheOptimist 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.

So if you want death, create death. No one forces you to go through the suicide mission with everyone surviving.  Hell, one of the great things about it is that you can pretty much kill as many people as you think necessary.  Is it just that you don't want to admit that you were the one who made a character die, rather than mysterious forces beyond your control? 

It always strikes me as hilarious when people say the SM was cheesy because you could save everyone when the only way that happens is if your Shepard makes every decision perfectly.  If you want a fallible Shepard, the SM gives you that option, but forcing that on those of us who DON'T want it because you can't deal with the knowledge that had Shepard acted differently, everyone might have lived is just stupid.

Again why should I play like an idiot to lose people? Why should I purposefully make dumb decisions to create death? Why would I want to admit it was me that killed the character? I didn't aimed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger? Wtf is that logic anyway? There's no mysterious forces beyond my control - I'm fighting a supposedly unstoppable army of immensly intelligent beings who have been destroying life for the past kajilion years without a fail...

It's ridiculously hard for Shepard to die on the SM, hell some characters will survive even if unloyal. When the mission is harder to fail then it is win (and win without a single loss at that) something is wrong...

Modifié par Undertone, 31 août 2011 - 01:18 .

[Someone With Mass]

Undertone wrote...

Again why should I play like an idiot to lose people? Why should I purposefully make dumb decisions to create death? Why would I want to admit it was me that killed the character? I didn't aimed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger? Wtf is that logic anyway? 

It's ridiculously hard for Shepard to die on the SM, hell some characters will survive even if unloyal. When the mission is harder to fail then it is win (and win without a single loss at that) something is wrong...

And why would I want to lose people I like just to create some emotional drama I can be perfectly fine without?

[Golden Owl]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...
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 I want to achieve the best possible ending in one of my playthroughs. I just don't want it to be perfect. In ME2 the best ending was perfect - everybody gets out alive and well. That cheapened the entire Suicide mission for me. I want to be able to do the best I can,without losing the feeling that the entire battle left me scared somehow. Sacrifices should be made,friends lost and worlds destroyed. But that's just my opinion.

The thing is though too Ghost Warrior....how would these deaths be decided, as to who dies, who lives, etc...would it be from past and present decisions Shep makes? Will BW be throwing all the squaddies, etc...names in a hat and who gets drawn dies? Find fav squad members, LI's, etc... and make player choose A or B? There in lie a lot of problems.