4309 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

I bet that survival of all your squad members will depend on your actions, heh Karma is a ****.

Almost certainly.  As has been done in every other BW game to date.

[UnitedWashclothExpress]

If it is anything like ME2's "Suicide Mission," difficulty and making choices will not be a problem. It was bad enough that they handed us the answers through menus filled with "party member qualifications," which said, "Hey! Don't choose this person for this. Hey! Choose this person for this!"

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...

I'm pretty certain ME3 will operate in a similar manner.  DAO was a very successful game, as was every other BW game that had 'happy' endings.  They're not going to change a winning formula.

This does however assume that happy endings are necessary to the winning formula. As an example, Mass Effect was the first Bioware game to incorporate the voiced protagonist, which one could argue broke Bioware tradition, where most previous games were considered exceptional. And depending on whom you speak with, it's praised and criticized accordingly. Regardless, correlation does not equal causation. Every winning game having a good ending does not tell us that every winning game is because of the happy ending.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 06:02 .

[IndigoWolfe]

jamesp81 wrote...

I'm pretty certain ME3 will operate in a similar manner.  DAO was a very successful game, as was every other BW game that had 'happy' endings.  They're not going to change a winning formula.

Yes, but even the happiest ending, ostensibly the Alistair/Cousland marrige, involved Alistair doing the nasty with Morrigan, which not many girls --the ones toward whom the ending was geared--  were happy about. There was still a price to be paid.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...


This does however assume that happy endings are necessary to the winning formula. Mass Effect was the first Bioware game to incorporate the voiced protagonist, which one could argue broke Bioware tradition, where most games were considered exceptional. And depending on whom you speak with, it's praised and criticized accordingly. Regardless, correlation does not equal causation. Every winning game having a good ending does not tell us that every winning game is because of the happy ending.

Instead of comparing two different franchises with different writers, let's try to compare ME3 with ME1 and ME2 shall we? :happy: 

ME1 was overall very lighthearted when it came to atmosphere. Sure, the story was rather grim and horrible things happened - but overall the atmosphere was kept idealistic as a homage to 80's scifi. The ending was Shepard crawling away from the remains of Sovereign with a smirk that says "You didn't think you'd get rid of me that easily, did you? B)"

ME2 shifted it's focus and the atmosphere was darker. They kept hyping up the "Anyone can die" aspect of the game which resulted in the suicide mission being rather tense (at least that's how it should work in theory). 

The difference here is that ME1 had a mandatory death on Virmire, and in the second game they only died if you didn't succeed as a commander.

Now, since the developers have promised us that we WILL cry during ME3 it's safe to assume that someone will die/get severily hurt/indoctrinated/whatever. What I want (As I've said quite a few times ) is the option to migitate or redirect the damage. I don't want Garrus to die, but I don't want us to curbstomp the reapers either. Giving civillians a face and a voice would go a long way to make us feel how dramatic things are (the kid in the vents really made me choke, not gonna lie)

/Opinion disclaimer. 

[CoffeeHolic93]

IndigoWolfe wrote...

Yes, but even the happiest ending, ostensibly the Alistair/Cousland marrige, involved Alistair doing the nasty with Morrigan, which not many girls --the ones toward whom the ending was geared--  were happy about. There was still a price to be paid.

And a social darwinist was given the soul of a god, which is a recipe to disaster in my opinion. We haven't seen any repercussions though so there's no need to worry about that for now. 

[TheRevanchist]

^ like I said...the kid in the vent does a lot more then another companion death. Honestly I didn't care about any of the companions in ME2 except Tali, Garrus and maybe Samara. if anyone else died I would have been like "eh...oh well sucks for them." And the entire point would have been missed for me. Forceing companion deaths does not promise sorrow or drama as there is always that possibility of someone not giving a rats a** about the companion who dies...then its not really a hard choice for someone and the all the tension is gone.

[Il Divo]

Mi-Chan wrote...


Instead of comparing two different franchises with different writers, let's try to compare ME3 with ME1 and ME2 shall we? :happy: 

ME1 was overall very lighthearted when it came to atmosphere. Sure, the story was rather grim and horrible things happened - but overall the atmosphere was kept idealistic as a homage to 80's scifi. The ending was Shepard crawling away from the remains of Sovereign with a smirk that says "You didn't think you'd get rid of me that easily, did you? B)"

ME2 shifted it's focus and the atmosphere was darker. They kept hyping up the "Anyone can die" aspect of the game which resulted in the suicide mission being rather tense (at least that's how it should work in theory). 

The difference here is that ME1 had a mandatory death on Virmire, and in the second game they only died if you didn't succeed as a commander.

Now, since the developers have promised us that we WILL cry during ME3 it's safe to assume that someone will die/get severily hurt/indoctrinated/whatever. What I want (As I've said quite a few times ) is the option to migitate or redirect the damage. I don't want Garrus to die, but I don't want us to curbstomp the reapers either. Giving civillians a face and a voice would go a long way to make us feel how dramatic things are (the kid in the vents really made me choke, not gonna lie)

/Opinion disclaimer. 

And I'm fairly supportive of this position. But let's go back to your point regarding Mass Effect 1's ending, which I'd consider "happy" but not "perfect". Do most here consider ME1 to be an example of a perfect ending? What prevents this for me from being a "perfect ending" is the mandatory Virmire death, which results in some sacrifice on the part of the player. I think you used the Captain Kirrahe example earlier, which I do consider an acceptable compromise in letting the player feel pro-active.

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...


Instead of comparing two different franchises with different writers, let's try to compare ME3 with ME1 and ME2 shall we? :happy: 

ME1 was overall very lighthearted when it came to atmosphere. Sure, the story was rather grim and horrible things happened - but overall the atmosphere was kept idealistic as a homage to 80's scifi. The ending was Shepard crawling away from the remains of Sovereign with a smirk that says "You didn't think you'd get rid of me that easily, did you? B)"

ME2 shifted it's focus and the atmosphere was darker. They kept hyping up the "Anyone can die" aspect of the game which resulted in the suicide mission being rather tense (at least that's how it should work in theory). 

The difference here is that ME1 had a mandatory death on Virmire, and in the second game they only died if you didn't succeed as a commander.

Now, since the developers have promised us that we WILL cry during ME3 it's safe to assume that someone will die/get severily hurt/indoctrinated/whatever. What I want (As I've said quite a few times ) is the option to migitate or redirect the damage. I don't want Garrus to die, but I don't want us to curbstomp the reapers either. Giving civillians a face and a voice would go a long way to make us feel how dramatic things are (the kid in the vents really made me choke, not gonna lie)

/Opinion disclaimer. 

And I'm fairly supportive of this position. But let's go back to your point regarding Mass Effect 1's ending, which I'd consider "happy" but not "perfect". Do most here consider ME1 to be an example of a perfect ending? What prevents this for me from being a "perfect ending" is the mandatory Virmire death, which results in some sacrifice on the part of the player. I think you used the Captain Kirrahe example earlier, which I do consider an acceptable compromise in letting the player feel pro-active.

lol thats funny...because I consider the losses at the battle to be much more meaningful then the death of a single person. IMO no companion death will ever be as tragic as all the ordinary people or soldiers who end up dieing for the cause. My Shepard fights so they don't have to, and with each death he has failed in his duty to keep the fight away from them. See this is where RP comes in, people want to keep insisting that NPC deaths mean nothing...well I heavily disagree. They mean a great deal to me personally, as they probably should for anyone really but I won't get into THAT lol.

[CoffeeHolic93]

kylecouch wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

And I'm fairly supportive of this position. But let's go back to your point regarding Mass Effect 1's ending, which I'd consider "happy" but not "perfect". Do most here consider ME1 to be an example of a perfect ending? What prevents this for me from being a "perfect ending" is the mandatory Virmire death, which results in some sacrifice on the part of the player. I think you used the Captain Kirrahe example earlier, which I do consider an acceptable compromise in letting the player feel pro-active.

lol thats funny...because I consider the losses at the battle to be much more meaningful then the death of a single person. IMO no companion death will ever be as tragic as all the ordinary people or soldiers who end up dieing for the cause. My Shepard fights so they don't have to, and with each death he has failed in his duty to keep the fight away from them. See this is where RP comes in, people want to keep insisting that NPC deaths mean nothing...well I heavily disagree. They mean a great deal to me personally, as they probably should for anyone really but I won't get into THAT lol.

@Divo: Yes, I used Kirrahe as an example as your decisions that you make on the fly during combat can help him survive if you bother doing it. :happy:

@Kyle: Indeed. If a civillian berated Shepard for letting their loved ones die for the sake of the mission while crying, I'd feel more than if a squadmate died (and I LOVE the squadmates, so that's saying something (I'm a wuss ) ) And small scenes like the kid in the vents, or the mechanic on Horizon who exist to give humanity/the sacrifices a face is much better than killing a squadmate. 


/opinion

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...


lol thats funny...because I consider the losses at the battle to be much more meaningful then the death of a single person. IMO no companion death will ever be as tragic as all the ordinary people or soldiers who end up dieing for the cause. My Shepard fights so they don't have to, and with each death he has failed in his duty to keep the fight away from them. See this is where RP comes in, people want to keep insisting that NPC deaths mean nothing...well I heavily disagree. They mean a great deal to me personally, as they probably should for anyone really but I won't get into THAT lol.

Then I consider that a very interesting thought process. 

Just to be clear, do you also consider random mook deaths in Lord of the Rings to be more meaningful  than either Boromir's or Theoden's? Random rebel soldiers more meaningful than Obi-Wan Kenobi's/Yoda's? Death always becomes more meaningful when the person has a face. It becomes especially meaningful when it's a face you've spent a significant amount of time with. And it becomes yet more significant if you've had to make that choice resulting in that person dying.

And I can make these examples even more personal using  friends, family, pets, pretty much any  loved ones to make my point: Death can only feel personal if you have something more invested in one person's death than another, hence why it's "personal" rather than "impersonal", specific to you. You don't know random mook #578 whose ship was just blown up, you do know the people you've become intimately familiar with, however.

So I can't really agree that the deaths of ordinary soldiers mean more than squad-mates ( or rather, major characters).

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 06:55 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

crimzontearz wrote...
ugh..the italian Censors REALLY translated "chi bending" as "life bending"? Would not be surprised after what they did to City Hunter way back when

Given how Chi works, it snot that big of a difference.

Either way, City Hunter was a kick-ass show!

now, messing with someone's Bending is not really an *** pull.

Yes it was. that turtle-thing comes out of nowhere and gives Aang the answers on a silver pladder, even after all the previous avatars simple told him to kill him. That is an PERFECT example of an ass pull.

[TheRevanchist]

Mi-Chan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

And I'm fairly supportive of this position. But let's go back to your point regarding Mass Effect 1's ending, which I'd consider "happy" but not "perfect". Do most here consider ME1 to be an example of a perfect ending? What prevents this for me from being a "perfect ending" is the mandatory Virmire death, which results in some sacrifice on the part of the player. I think you used the Captain Kirrahe example earlier, which I do consider an acceptable compromise in letting the player feel pro-active.

lol thats funny...because I consider the losses at the battle to be much more meaningful then the death of a single person. IMO no companion death will ever be as tragic as all the ordinary people or soldiers who end up dieing for the cause. My Shepard fights so they don't have to, and with each death he has failed in his duty to keep the fight away from them. See this is where RP comes in, people want to keep insisting that NPC deaths mean nothing...well I heavily disagree. They mean a great deal to me personally, as they probably should for anyone really but I won't get into THAT lol.

@Divo: Yes, I used Kirrahe as an example as your decisions that you make on the fly during combat can help him survive if you bother doing it. :happy:

@Kyle: Indeed. If a civillian berated Shepard for letting their loved ones die for the sake of the mission while crying, I'd feel more than if a squadmate died (and I LOVE the squadmates, so that's saying something (I'm a wuss ) ) And small scenes like the kid in the vents, or the mechanic on Horizon who exist to give humanity/the sacrifices a face is much better than killing a squadmate. 


/opinion

Exactly. the odds of like 6 people surviveing a galactic war are undoubtedly higher then the masses. Killing off memebers of such a small group is...to me...nothing but heavy handed attempts to make us QQ when it's hardly nessasary. Give a face, a voice to those who suffer. Because they cannot protect themselves, their very survivel depends on Shepard and those like him. Your companions can...for the most part, defend and take care of themselves, whereas the masses cannot. They do not have the best training in the galaxy, they don't have access to top of the line weapons and armor. They aren't trained in the arts of war. They NEED a shield to stand in front and take the brunt of the enemies power. Companions do not, giving us choices between saving a companion and saving a planet is..imo...insulting. It is insulting to the masses that cannot help themselves. It is insulting to Shepard that even the possibility of him thinking about that choice is outrageous. It is insulting to me because that means the devs honestly think that I'll find that to be a difficult choice.

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Yes it was. that turtle-thing comes out of nowhere and gives Aang the answers on a silver pladder, even after all the previous avatars simple told him to kill him. That is an PERFECT example of an ass pull.

Did we really just agree on two things in one thread? I think we've set a record.

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...


Exactly. the odds of like 6 people surviveing a galactic war are undoubtedly higher then the masses. Killing off memebers of such a small group is...to me...nothing but heavy handed attempts to make us QQ when it's hardly nessasary. Give a face, a voice to those who suffer. Because they cannot protect themselves, their very survivel depends on Shepard and those like him. Your companions can...for the most part, defend and take care of themselves, whereas the masses cannot. They do not have the best training in the galaxy, they don't have access to top of the line weapons and armor. They aren't trained in the arts of war. They NEED a shield to stand in front and take the brunt of the enemies power. Companions do not, giving us choices between saving a companion and saving a planet is..imo...insulting. It is insulting to the masses that cannot help themselves. It is insulting to Shepard that even the possibility of him thinking about that choice is outrageous. It is insulting to me because that means the devs honestly think that I'll find that to be a difficult choice.

And yet, if we're going to play the "I'm insulted" game, then I find it insulting that Bioware would think that the death of npcs whom I've ever met is supposed to be meaningful.

However I don't really, but I think this adequately demonstrates the ridiculousness of your position. Death has existed as long as fiction has existed. As long as the human race has existed. The notion that Bioware is not allowed to mandatorily kill squad-mates or that their deaths cannot be significantly emotional flies in the face of some of the greatest stories ever told in fiction ranging from novels, to plays, to films.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 07:17 .

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


lol thats funny...because I consider the losses at the battle to be much more meaningful then the death of a single person. IMO no companion death will ever be as tragic as all the ordinary people or soldiers who end up dieing for the cause. My Shepard fights so they don't have to, and with each death he has failed in his duty to keep the fight away from them. See this is where RP comes in, people want to keep insisting that NPC deaths mean nothing...well I heavily disagree. They mean a great deal to me personally, as they probably should for anyone really but I won't get into THAT lol.

Then I consider that a very interesting thought process. 

Just to be clear, do you also consider random mook deaths in Lord of the Rings to be more meaningful  than either Boromir's or Theoden's? Random rebel soldiers more meaningful than Obi-Wan Kenobi's/Yoda's? Death always becomes more meaningful when the person has a face. It becomes especially meaningful when it's a face you've spent a significant amount of time with. And it becomes yet more significant if you've had to make that choice resulting in that person dying.

And I can make these examples even more personal using  friends, family, pets, pretty much any  loved ones to make my point: Death can only feel personal if you have something more invested in one person's death than another, hence why it's "personal" rather than "impersonal", specific to you. You don't know random mook #578 whose ship was just blown up, you do know the people you've become intimately familiar with, however.

So I can't really agree that the deaths of ordinary soldiers mean more than squad-mates ( or rather, major characters).

The death of Yoda did nothing for me at all, as cool as he is not sure why it would. The death of Obi-Wan and Boromir are sad because of WHY they died...not because of who they are, in my opinion of course. I think the death of Boromir is outstanding because he is desperately trying to redeem his failure to Frodo and the Fellowship. He is determined with all his soul to not fail a second time. it has nothing to do with how well I knew the character at all. Obi-Wan is the same, he died for a reason...and that reason is why his death has meaning, not because its someone I knew. Theodan...I'll be frank, I liked Theodan. But his time and the time of his house was over, that was pretty obvious. I didn't feel what you probably did at his death, but I respected the man greatly.

The fact is that I hold a different viewpoint, and just because what you say is true for you...does not mean it's true for everyone. I always hold the many above the few no matter who it is with no regrets.

[CoffeeHolic93]

kylecouch wrote...


Exactly. the odds of like 6 people surviveing a galactic war are undoubtedly higher then the masses. Killing off memebers of such a small group is...to me...nothing but heavy handed attempts to make us QQ when it's hardly nessasary. Give a face, a voice to those who suffer. Because they cannot protect themselves, their very survivel depends on Shepard and those like him. Your companions can...for the most part, defend and take care of themselves, whereas the masses cannot. They do not have the best training in the galaxy, they don't have access to top of the line weapons and armor. They aren't trained in the arts of war. They NEED a shield to stand in front and take the brunt of the enemies power. Companions do not, giving us choices between saving a companion and saving a planet is..imo...insulting. It is insulting to the masses that cannot help themselves. It is insulting to Shepard that even the possibility of him thinking about that choice is outrageous. It is insulting to me because that means the devs honestly think that I'll find that to be a difficult choice.

Of course Squadmate vs.  Planet would be insulting.

But what about Squadmate vs. Minor station with a few houndred people? The option to nuke a downed reaper at the cost of losing a squadmate/killing innocents? Those are the difficult choices I see as acceptable (Although I'd prefer not to kill anyone ). And if you choose to kill innocents (300,000 batarians anyone?) Do like they did in Bring Down the Sky. Sacrifice the workers? The survivor doesn't say he blames you, but maker knows he's heartbroken. You had the option to save his daughter and friends, and you chose to kill Balak instead, and he seems to resent you for it. That's good writing IMO.

/opinion. :happy:

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

In any case, it's not up for debate AFAIC.  If the grim people get a grim ending, it's perfectly reasonable for those of us that prefer a happier ending to get one.  That's not a negotiating position, that's a condition of me purchasing the game.

I love it how people get all uppity and throw around threats how they will not buy a game if it doesn't have X.
So fickle...

In a free market economy, purchasing or not purchasing a product is the most effective way the consumer has for expressing approval or disapproval of the product.

I love how you don't get that.

OK, that was mean.  I'll stop.

No, I find if funny how you throw a hissy fit over ONE feature.

I dunno, even after hearing all the bad news and info on DA2, I still gave it a chance. I really can't imagine ever saying what you did.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, I find if funny how you throw a hissy fit over ONE feature.

I dunno, even after hearing all the bad news and info on DA2, I still gave it a chance. I really can't imagine ever saying what you did.

 That's a healthy attitude. I won't let another person's opinion keep me from trying something. I quite like DA2 (even with the recycled maps and whatnot). Sure, it's not the best game by any stretch of the imagination, but I didn't expect that going in - and singing "It's raining men" while fighting the enemies is hilarious.

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


Exactly. the odds of like 6 people surviveing a galactic war are undoubtedly higher then the masses. Killing off memebers of such a small group is...to me...nothing but heavy handed attempts to make us QQ when it's hardly nessasary. Give a face, a voice to those who suffer. Because they cannot protect themselves, their very survivel depends on Shepard and those like him. Your companions can...for the most part, defend and take care of themselves, whereas the masses cannot. They do not have the best training in the galaxy, they don't have access to top of the line weapons and armor. They aren't trained in the arts of war. They NEED a shield to stand in front and take the brunt of the enemies power. Companions do not, giving us choices between saving a companion and saving a planet is..imo...insulting. It is insulting to the masses that cannot help themselves. It is insulting to Shepard that even the possibility of him thinking about that choice is outrageous. It is insulting to me because that means the devs honestly think that I'll find that to be a difficult choice.

And yet, if we're going to play the "I'm insulted" game, then I find it insulting that Bioware would think that the death of npcs whom I've ever met is supposed to be meaningful.

However I don't really, but I think this adequately demonstrates the ridiculousness of your position. Death has existed as long as fiction has existed. As long as the human race has existed. The notion that Bioware is not allowed to mandatorily kill squad-mates or that their deaths cannot be significantly emotional flies in the face of some of the greatest stories ever told in fiction ranging from novels, to plays, to films.

I'm not saying it CAN'T be meaningful. Theres just other, less obvious and less cliche ways to do it. If you honestly tell me you cared nothing about those died from the Tsunami or 9/11 then we will simple never agree. Because like I said...I don't really care about the lionshare of the companions, their deaths will mean nothing to me, I don't feel close to them, they are nothing but co-workers to me. So to insist that their deaths are the only way to show drama is defending the inability to try and use a different form to show tragety. The fact that death has exsisted since time began does not change this. Yes when my dog died I was sad and I cried. But I was also sad when those poor people in Japan and Taiwan drowned to death in the Tsunami. But I don't know them, so apparently I can't feel anything about that according to you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

kylecouch wrote...
Exactly. the odds of like 6 people surviveing a galactic war are undoubtedly higher then the masses. Killing off memebers of such a small group is...to me...nothing but heavy handed attempts to make us QQ when it's hardly nessasary.

You would be wrong there. First off, it's roughly a dozen..not 6.

Secondly, a commadno team is constatnly at greater risk than normal people. That because commanod teams constantly go into danger and  dangerous missions.
Even the most elite of the elite (like the Delta Force or SEALs) suffer losses. So it's actually the OPPOSITE.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 16 octobre 2011 - 07:29 .

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...

The death of Yoda did nothing for me at all, as cool as he is not sure why it would. The death of Obi-Wan and Boromir are sad because of WHY they died...not because of who they are, in my opinion of course. I think the death of Boromir is outstanding because he is desperately trying to redeem his failure to Frodo and the Fellowship. He is determined with all his soul to not fail a second time. it has nothing to do with how well I knew the character at all. Obi-Wan is the same, he died for a reason...and that reason is why his death has meaning, not because its someone I knew. Theodan...I'll be frank, I liked Theodan. But his time and the time of his house was over, that was pretty obvious. I didn't feel what you probably did at his death, but I respected the man greatly.

You got to know the character over the course of an hour and a half. Obviously it's relevant. Are you honestly going to tell me that the death of Boromir would have held the same emotional value if it were condensed to the amount of time that Porkins is on screen in Star Wars Episode IV? Boromir had an intricate motive behind his character, which arose from the narrative as he was developed. All that comes with watching the character, seeing how he interacts, when he makes jokes, is sarcastic, demonstrates emotion. Character development is a critical element which is why death is sad. You don't get to see the character any more because they are gone, in the most permanent manner possible.

The fact is that I hold a different viewpoint, and just because what you say is true for you...does not mean it's true for everyone. I always hold the many above the few no matter who it is with no regrets.

Then your view should be applied consistently. Again, do you value your loved ones more than people you have never known? As long as you answer "yes" to this question, in which case I'll assume you are a normal person, then your logic is being applied inconsistently. Characters you know always mean more, because everything you just applied to the nameless soldier can be applied to them, in addition to being a person whom you are intimately familiar with.

Personal indicates that it is an experience specific to you. You might feel more emotion at random soldier's death than another human being might feel emotion, but that can simply be a result of you being an overall more emotional person. But your mother remains your mother, complete with all the experiences you have of her, which others don't have. That's how writers often make death significant.

Your ethical theories on "needs of the many vs. the few" only tell us that you think that their lives ultimately matter more than any individual life. It doesn't change the emotion which any death can trigger, particularly personal ones. Mook A can't mean any more to you than Mook B because you don't know either of them.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 07:37 .

[TheRevanchist]

Mi-Chan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


Exactly. the odds of like 6 people surviveing a galactic war are undoubtedly higher then the masses. Killing off memebers of such a small group is...to me...nothing but heavy handed attempts to make us QQ when it's hardly nessasary. Give a face, a voice to those who suffer. Because they cannot protect themselves, their very survivel depends on Shepard and those like him. Your companions can...for the most part, defend and take care of themselves, whereas the masses cannot. They do not have the best training in the galaxy, they don't have access to top of the line weapons and armor. They aren't trained in the arts of war. They NEED a shield to stand in front and take the brunt of the enemies power. Companions do not, giving us choices between saving a companion and saving a planet is..imo...insulting. It is insulting to the masses that cannot help themselves. It is insulting to Shepard that even the possibility of him thinking about that choice is outrageous. It is insulting to me because that means the devs honestly think that I'll find that to be a difficult choice.

Of course Squadmate vs.  Planet would be insulting.

But what about Squadmate vs. Minor station with a few houndred people? The option to nuke a downed reaper at the cost of losing a squadmate/killing innocents? Those are the difficult choices I see as acceptable (Although I'd prefer not to kill anyone ). And if you choose to kill innocents (300,000 batarians anyone?) Do like they did in Bring Down the Sky. Sacrifice the workers? The survivor doesn't say he blames you, but maker knows he's heartbroken. You had the option to save his daughter and friends, and you chose to kill Balak instead, and he seems to resent you for it. That's good writing IMO.

/opinion. :happy:

100 vs 1...that choice to me is obvious. And yes...I liked that about Bring Down the Sky. You made the safe choice, and saved more people in the long run (as far as we know) And therefor, the cost was worth 3 lives. My shepard has to live with those 3 lives keeping him up at night, but it was the right call. No single person will ever be more importent then the safety of the many as far as I'm concerned.

However...nukeing a Reaper at the cost of innocents...that choice is good...very good. But would also like to see the other possible choices of such a situation. Things like that I would definantly support. THAT is a hard decision, if they just happen to have a companion there then w/e their there too I guess.

[nitefyre410]

Mi-Chan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


Exactly. the odds of like 6 people surviveing a galactic war are undoubtedly higher then the masses. Killing off memebers of such a small group is...to me...nothing but heavy handed attempts to make us QQ when it's hardly nessasary. Give a face, a voice to those who suffer. Because they cannot protect themselves, their very survivel depends on Shepard and those like him. Your companions can...for the most part, defend and take care of themselves, whereas the masses cannot. They do not have the best training in the galaxy, they don't have access to top of the line weapons and armor. They aren't trained in the arts of war. They NEED a shield to stand in front and take the brunt of the enemies power. Companions do not, giving us choices between saving a companion and saving a planet is..imo...insulting. It is insulting to the masses that cannot help themselves. It is insulting to Shepard that even the possibility of him thinking about that choice is outrageous. It is insulting to me because that means the devs honestly think that I'll find that to be a difficult choice.

Of course Squadmate vs.  Planet would be insulting.

But what about Squadmate vs. Minor station with a few houndred people? The option to nuke a downed reaper at the cost of losing a squadmate/killing innocents? Those are the difficult choices I see as acceptable (Although I'd prefer not to kill anyone ). And if you choose to kill innocents (300,000 batarians anyone?) Do like they did in Bring Down the Sky. Sacrifice the workers? The survivor doesn't say he blames you, but maker knows he's heartbroken. You had the option to save his daughter and friends, and you chose to kill Balak instead, and he seems to resent you for it. That's good writing IMO.

/opinion. :happy:

 

Even that choice is  insualting (IMO)   of course if  I have  Reaper on the ropes im take the opputurnity to step on its neck and kill it. When they start throwing choices like the around no matter what the scale that means the writers are getting rather desperate . 


This is all my opinion of course 

[TheRevanchist]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
Exactly. the odds of like 6 people surviveing a galactic war are undoubtedly higher then the masses. Killing off memebers of such a small group is...to me...nothing but heavy handed attempts to make us QQ when it's hardly nessasary.

You would be wrong there. First off, it's roughly a dozen..not 6.

Secondly, a commadno team is constatnly at greater risk than normal people. That because commanod teams constantly go into danger and  dangerous missions.
Even the most elite of the elite (like the Delta Force or SEALs) suffer losses. So it's actually the OPPOSITE.

Really? Seal Team 6....not even wounded....every bad guy dead...9/11...2k+ people dead, caused by the man that they killed...oh yea...quite the opposite.