232 réponses à ce sujet

[lovgreno]

I don't mind it if I have to work hard to keep Garrus alive in ME3 as it would certanly be worth the effort.

[turian councilor Knockout]

Not Garrus for f*cks sake, james vega can die for all i care instead.

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 05 octobre 2011 - 12:03 .

[Warheadz]

If there is a God, s/he will kill Garrus just to ****** of the already angry fanboys!

[Melra]

Warheadz wrote...

If there is a God, s/he will kill Garrus just to ****** of the already angry fanboys!

Dis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lovgreno]

Warheadz wrote...

If there is a God, s/he will kill Garrus just to ****** of the already angry fanboys!

So your god is Trollface then?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

I think it is evident the utmost account of people don't just want one-dimensional deaths. Virmires yes, possibly quite some of those situations are alike in which decision go at the expense of deaths of one or another, situations that pit individual squadmates or even a small group of two or three well developed characters (including squadmates) against a greater strategic goal where you have to decide which one to forfeit.

But I abhor any death that is inevitable in its form, as in Garrus would die no matter what in every single playthrough with no chance to change that.

How does that make it "one-dimensional"?
And should Sheppard be able to influnce everything?

If Shep is on trial, and Garrus on Tavlen during hte reaper attack, hoe can Shep influence anything? If the building Garrus is in collapses, how can Shep save him?

The very idea that Shepard ( or the player) is ablet to influence/change everythingg is redicolous.

[Menycet]

Omggggg, Garrus will die, omgomgomg.

*yawn*

[azerSheppard]

Menycet wrote...

Omggggg, Garrus will die, omgomgomg.

*yawn*

I understand what you mean, i kill miranda everytime, i don't understand why people get so angry about it.

[Eire Icon]

A decision without consequence is not much of a decision

Personally I think the position Shepard was put in on Virmire has been one of the highlights of the series so far. When I played ME1 I had not read any spoilers or details about the game so I didn't know whether there was a "Right" or "Wrong" choice and what affect it would have on the game come Virmire. It took me an hour, a couple of beers, and allot of "why" questions directed at an imaginary spirit of Bioware in the room. I didn't like the Alenko character, and still I struggled with the choice. I hated having to make the choice but I applaud Bioware for putting me in that position.

For me (and its just my own opinion) there must be collatoral damage in ME3. This is war not a disney movie where everyone skips off into the sunset singing "I did it my way". I want the heartbreak and frustration of seeing events spiral out of control, I want Shepards mental strength tested, I want Shepard to be a man, just a man.

Ultimately for the future of ME (Beyond ME3) I believe the story arc of more characters then just Shepard need to come to an end. Once ME3 is completed, rather then sit back and pat myself on the back for saving the world and and my team yet again, I want to be tortured by doubt and second guessing the decisions I made.

Modifié par Eire Icon, 05 octobre 2011 - 12:26 .

[Tonymac]

relax fiddles - we will see. This may not be a story with a happy ending.

[weedyfun]

Menycet wrote...

Omggggg, Garrus will die, omgomgomg.

*yawn*

this.

carbon-based lifeforms die. true story... pixels also die. too f_cking bad.

[Menycet]

azerSheppard wrote...


I understand what you mean, i kill miranda everytime, i don't understand why people get so angry about it.

Your trolling attempt is pretty fail, sir. But I admire your efforts. 

Modifié par Menycet, 05 octobre 2011 - 12:25 .

[Jack Package]

Garrus will get the same dying chance like every other awesome or important character else. No big deal.

Menycet wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...


I understand what you mean, i kill miranda everytime, i don't understand why people get so angry about it.

Your trolling attempt is pretty fail, sir. But I admire your efforts. 

fail troll is fail

[Obsidian Gryphon]

I'm prepared to see them (the squad and whoever else) fall. *shrug*

[ItsPhilsTime]

Ya thats what I say dont Kill Garrus kill off one of them that doesnt have a sniper rifle, hell kill off Mordin pleaz!! lol

[Kaiser Shepard]

Even if Garrus does die, what would be wrong with that?

[Mims]

Garrus won't have a 'dramatic death' simply because he could already be dead. It'd be somewhat anticlimatic in whatever scene it took place in for people who already had him dead. Unless they have some sort of backup deadguy.

[Although that does amuse me:

Shepard: ALRIGHT. Heroic sacrifice time!
Liara: But Garrus is dead! You killed him in ME2!
Shepard: ****. Who do we got? Vega! Take one for the team!
Vega: But I just got here111 ]

That said, I'm sure he'll be killable again, along with the rest of the squad and Shepard.

Modifié par Mims, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:23 .

[Collider]

I do not want to have saved Garrus in ME2 just so he can die in ME3.

[Dean_the_Young]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Garrus CAN die, like everyone else.

Um, says who? You don't know that. These articles are nothing to go by.

Wait...

Garrus will live even in a Reaper victory? :O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O

[Lotion Soronarr]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
How does that make it "one-dimensional"?
And should Sheppard be able to influnce everything?

If Shep is on trial, and Garrus on Tavlen during hte reaper attack, hoe can Shep influence anything? If the building Garrus is in collapses, how can Shep save him?

The very idea that Shepard ( or the player) is ablet to influence/change everythingg is redicolous.

One-Dimensional as in all we can do is watch him die. No interaction, nothing.

That depends. You had interaction before, and you may have interaction after that is a consequence of their death.

A good cinematic death with an appropriate build-up is certainly nice to see ... but only so many times. It loses its importance, its shock value if you know it will happen anyhow after you first completed the game. That is what I call one-dimensional.
Sounds awfully boring to me, besides, there is a ****load of characters that would be equally worth being a target.
Thinking Garrus would be somewhat special that he absolutely, positively needs to die without you having any chance to influence that outcome is ridiculous.

"Cinematic death" is just as one-deimensional as a disney happy ending.
It shouldn't feel forced.

Epic, larger than life, hammy deaths generally do. In war people die all the time. Most of the time not heroicly, or not even when fighting. There is no real glory in it.

I wouldn't mind at all for a squaddie to die a miserablem, pointless death. During sleep... frienldy fire or stuff like that. It's jarring exactly beacuse it feels so pointelss and unheroic - and that's exactly how it should be.

And Garrus is just an example. Don't get your fanboy panties in a twist.

[NYG1991]

Garrus gets implanted with reaper nanites and Shepard's gonna have to kill him.

Or Kai Leng kills him by cutting his throat while Garrus is trying to snipe a Cerberus centurion