4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...

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.

Where did I say that? I said personal tragedy typically means more than impersonal tragedy, with respect to it being personal. There is no rule which says that impersonal tragedy cannot be meaningful, but since the deaths are impersonal you cannot distinguish between any of them. That is a key difference. Your sadness over the tsunami would probably be significantly greater if you knew someone involved in that tragedy, because you now have a personal involvement in that situation.  

If you happen to value the lives of the many over the few, then that's great. Bioware can provide that opportunity for you to choose between squadmate X and 100 civilians, or some similar scenario.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 07:48 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

nitefyre410 wrote...



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 

I'd personally prefer not to get a choice like that as I feel guilty for doing it, but I've been playing the devil's advocate in this thread so I might aswell come with the suggestions. 

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

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.

Where did I say that? I said personal tragedy typically means more than impersonal tragedy, with respect to it being personal. There is no rule which says that impersonal tragedy cannot be meaningful, but since the deaths are impersonal you cannot distinguish between any of them. That is a key difference. Your sadness over the tsunami would probably be significantly greater if you knew someone involved in that tragedy, because you now have a personal involvement in that situation.  

If you happen to value the lives of the many over the few, then that's great. Bioware can provide that opportunity for you to choose between squadmate X and 100 civilians, or some similar scenario.

Is this really so hard to understand? I care about both the same...I would be just as sad if my mother died then if those poor people in Japan died. All life, no matter how impersonal holds the same weight. and therefor I will always consider saving many over one more important...because that outweights what I feel for that one person.

[Xilizhra]

IndigoWolfe wrote...

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.

A price, but really quite a minor one. And none of your companions had to die; I didn't even have Loghain die and I still got Alistair as king. I think he does better with Anora anyway than alone.

[TheRevanchist]

Xilizhra wrote...

IndigoWolfe wrote...

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.

A price, but really quite a minor one. And none of your companions had to die; I didn't even have Loghain die and I still got Alistair as king. I think he does better with Anora anyway than alone.

Indeed...a hardened Alistair and Anora are the best future for the country...as long as Anora isn't baron and puts out enough to give Alistiars little problem a chance to hit that small percent lol.

[nitefyre410]

Mi-Chan wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...



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 

I'd personally prefer not to get a choice like that as I feel guilty for doing it, but I've been playing the devil's advocate in this thread so I might aswell come with the suggestions. 

 

Well while I was getting some coffee and stepping outside to take in some of  the nice indian summer air. I  was playing around with a for things.   For instance  if you really want to mess with peoples heads. What the Reapers are going is actually insuring the life  conintues. Given the  nature of the spieces themselves   wiping out galatic life at a point before it becomes too self destructive.   This mass extinctions are they way of insuring that  Life in galaxy continues. Remember they only attack space faring cultures yet  others planets are completely untouched.   What if their view of life is more than just sentinent life  but all life big or small. The Existence of the space faring cultures  threatens that through wars, etc ,etc,etc that if unchecked  could leave the galaxy barren  devoid of all life or the potential for life to continue.   Start throwing choices around with that  arena and now you talking about difficulty.   Are the Reapers really wrong in their thinking given the  past histories. 


All of opinion of course 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 16 octobre 2011 - 08:03 .

[TheRevanchist]

^ Honestly...the age old theory of "Are the Reapers good by being bad" I really hope is proven false. I REALLY don't want that to be the case, because that's hardly "reasons we cannot comprehend" as Nezarra promised.

[Medhia Nox]

@nitefyre410: I've posed that question myself. Reapers ONLY destroy space faring species (we are told).

We know that our own species is a detriment to the other 5 million plus animal and 250,000 plus plant species on our own planet.

There have been 5 major extinction events - but some scientists predict that the 6th major extinction event will be the cause of one species - ours.

If this WERE the angle they were taking with Mass Effect - I would support the Reapers.

====

But no, I think that the Reapers are face value baddies. 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 16 octobre 2011 - 08:11 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Well while I was getting some coffee and stepping outside to take in some of  the nice indian summer air. I  was playing around with a for things.   For instance  if you really want to mess with peoples heads. What the Reapers are going is actually insuring the life  conintues. Given the  nature of the spieces themselves   wiping out galatic life at a point before it becomes too self destructive.   This mass extinctions are they way of insuring that  Life in galaxy continues. Remember they only attack space faring cultures yet  others planets are completely untouched.   What if their view of life is more than just sentinent life  but all life big or small. The Existence of the space faring cultures  threatens that through wars, etc ,etc,etc that if unchecked  could leave the galaxy barren  devoid of all life or the potential for life to continue.   Start throwing choices around with that  arena and now you talking about difficulty.   Are the Reapers really wrong in their thinking given the  past histories. 


All of opinion of course 

I guess that makes sense. To quote Mordin

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates! Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastrous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disastrous. Our Fault."

If we can explore the universe at will and colonize any planet, the only thing that can advance would be art and philosophy, which is dangerously close to stagnation. The reapers saving the galaxy could be an unexpected plot twist...But, knowing BSN there will be MILLIONS of rage/OMGPLOTHOLE threads...

[nitefyre410]

Mi-Chan wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Well while I was getting some coffee and stepping outside to take in some of  the nice indian summer air. I  was playing around with a for things.   For instance  if you really want to mess with peoples heads. What the Reapers are going is actually insuring the life  conintues. Given the  nature of the spieces themselves   wiping out galatic life at a point before it becomes too self destructive.   This mass extinctions are they way of insuring that  Life in galaxy continues. Remember they only attack space faring cultures yet  others planets are completely untouched.   What if their view of life is more than just sentinent life  but all life big or small. The Existence of the space faring cultures  threatens that through wars, etc ,etc,etc that if unchecked  could leave the galaxy barren  devoid of all life or the potential for life to continue.   Start throwing choices around with that  arena and now you talking about difficulty.   Are the Reapers really wrong in their thinking given the  past histories. 


All of opinion of course 

I guess that makes sense. To quote Mordin

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates! Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastrous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disastrous. Our Fault."

If we can explore the universe at will and colonize any planet, the only thing that can advance would be art and philosophy, which is dangerously close to stagnation. The reapers saving the galaxy could be an unexpected plot twist...But, knowing BSN there will be MILLIONS of rage/OMGPLOTHOLE threads...

 

Oh I know   and sadly I know. 

[TheRevanchist]

Mi-Chan wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Well while I was getting some coffee and stepping outside to take in some of  the nice indian summer air. I  was playing around with a for things.   For instance  if you really want to mess with peoples heads. What the Reapers are going is actually insuring the life  conintues. Given the  nature of the spieces themselves   wiping out galatic life at a point before it becomes too self destructive.   This mass extinctions are they way of insuring that  Life in galaxy continues. Remember they only attack space faring cultures yet  others planets are completely untouched.   What if their view of life is more than just sentinent life  but all life big or small. The Existence of the space faring cultures  threatens that through wars, etc ,etc,etc that if unchecked  could leave the galaxy barren  devoid of all life or the potential for life to continue.   Start throwing choices around with that  arena and now you talking about difficulty.   Are the Reapers really wrong in their thinking given the  past histories. 


All of opinion of course 

I guess that makes sense. To quote Mordin

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates! Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastrous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disastrous. Our Fault."

If we can explore the universe at will and colonize any planet, the only thing that can advance would be art and philosophy, which is dangerously close to stagnation. The reapers saving the galaxy could be an unexpected plot twist...But, knowing BSN there will be MILLIONS of rage/OMGPLOTHOLE threads...

If they can pull it off WELL...I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to it. But it just seems like a waste of a scarey bad guy to make them brutul good guys at the very end.

[CoffeeHolic93]

kylecouch wrote...


If they can pull it off WELL...I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to it. But it just seems like a waste of a scarey bad guy to make them brutul good guys at the very end.

I quite like well intentioned extremists, but I don't know if the giant cuttlefishies will fit the trope. 

[nitefyre410]

kylecouch wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Well while I was getting some coffee and stepping outside to take in some of  the nice indian summer air. I  was playing around with a for things.   For instance  if you really want to mess with peoples heads. What the Reapers are going is actually insuring the life  conintues. Given the  nature of the spieces themselves   wiping out galatic life at a point before it becomes too self destructive.   This mass extinctions are they way of insuring that  Life in galaxy continues. Remember they only attack space faring cultures yet  others planets are completely untouched.   What if their view of life is more than just sentinent life  but all life big or small. The Existence of the space faring cultures  threatens that through wars, etc ,etc,etc that if unchecked  could leave the galaxy barren  devoid of all life or the potential for life to continue.   Start throwing choices around with that  arena and now you talking about difficulty.   Are the Reapers really wrong in their thinking given the  past histories. 


All of opinion of course 

I guess that makes sense. To quote Mordin

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates! Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastrous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disastrous. Our Fault."

If we can explore the universe at will and colonize any planet, the only thing that can advance would be art and philosophy, which is dangerously close to stagnation. The reapers saving the galaxy could be an unexpected plot twist...But, knowing BSN there will be MILLIONS of rage/OMGPLOTHOLE threads...

If they can pull it off WELL...I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to it. But it just seems like a waste of a scarey bad guy to make them brutul good guys at the very end.

 

whats scarier a complete monster or a complete monster the refects your nature as complete monster from a different prective... kind removes the good vs evil from the whole thing 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 16 octobre 2011 - 08:28 .

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...


Is this really so hard to understand? I care about both the same...I would be just as sad if my mother died then if those poor people in Japan died. All life, no matter how impersonal holds the same weight. and therefor I will always consider saving many over one more important...because that outweights what I feel for that one person.

Believe it or not, yes. Let me explain further so that doesn't come off purely as offensive. Death in popular entertainment is  not simply intended to demonstrate ethical theory. It's intended to provoke emotions, as well as fuel the actions of the protagonist.

I, like you, believe that all life is equivalent in terms of ethical theory. That does not mean that I  feel equivalent amounts of emotion at every death. Every time someone mentions the kid in the vent scenario as an "emotional death", they are affirming my conclusion while trying to argue against it. That death was made more personal; you saw the child. Now imagine that the scenario occurs in a different context; Shepard simply hears over the intercom from a random soldier that a child died. Are you honestly going to tell me that you feel the exact same level of emotion in the two scenarios?

 If so, you are remarkable. Because other wise, for most human beings, in terms of emotions personal trumps impersonal every time. And from there, we can logically derive why squad-mate deaths are typically more emotional than random soldiers; you have a personal relationship with your squadmates, which (as I said) does not exist with the anonymous soldier. You can trace all your experiences through that personal relationship. 

In ethical theory, we attempt to derive rules through an impersonal stance, ignoring our own personal circumstances (Ex: My life is not more valuable than your life, all other things being equal). But ethical theory is typically concerned with what is "right", regardless of any individual, not what is emotional.

Do I think you're wrong? Well, I really don't know if that's the best way to put it. I will say that you are providing a very different thought process from what is typical, given how emotions are typically triggerred in mediums of story-telling.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 08:26 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

IndigoWolfe wrote...

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.

A price, but really quite a minor one. And none of your companions had to die; I didn't even have Loghain die and I still got Alistair as king. I think he does better with Anora anyway than alone.

Ehrm, Alistair (or Loghain/the Warden) laying with Morrigan isn't the price that's being paid, it merely is the circumstance that allows it to occur.

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


Is this really so hard to understand? I care about both the same...I would be just as sad if my mother died then if those poor people in Japan died. All life, no matter how impersonal holds the same weight. and therefor I will always consider saving many over one more important...because that outweights what I feel for that one person.

Believe it or not, yes. Let me explain further so that doesn't come off purely as offensive. Death in popular entertainment is  not simply intended to demonstrate ethical theory. It's intended to provoke emotions, as well as fuel the actions of the protagonist.

I, like you, believe that all life is equivalent in terms of ethical theory. That does not mean that I  feel equivalent amounts of emotion at every death. Every time someone mentions the kid in the vent scenario as an "emotional death", they are affirming my conclusion while trying to argue against it. That death was made more personal; you saw the child. Now imagine that the scenario occurs in a different context; Shepard simply hears over the intercom from a random soldier that a child died. Are you honestly going to tell me that you feel the exact same level of emotion in the two scenarios?

 If so, you are remarkable. Because other wise, for most human beings, in terms of emotions personal trumps impersonal every time. And from there, we can logically derive why squad-mate deaths are typically more emotional than random soldiers; you have a personal relationship with your squadmates, which (as I said) does not exist with the anonymous soldier. You can trace all your experiences through that personal relationship. 

In ethical theory, we attempt to derive rules through an impersonal stance, ignoring our own personal circumstances (Ex: My life is not more valuable than your life, all other things being equal). But ethical theory is typically concerned with what is "right", regardless of any individual, not what is emotional.

Do I think you're wrong? Well, I really don't know if that's the best way to put it. I will say that you are providing a very different thought process from what is typical, given how emotions are typically triggerred in mediums of story-telling.

No offence taken...and for the recond I haven't seen the death scene...i've only heard about it. But I was pointing out not the death of the child, but the symbol of his fear and hopelessness that represents the masses that I found touching and sad. "You can't help me"...that poor child has already resigned himself to death, thinking they can't be stopped. But if Garrus explodes in front of my eyes, I MIGHT feel bad about it depending on the situation going on at the time. If for example, he had to be sacrificed to save a much of civilians. Then no, I wouldn't feel bad at all. I would say "It was nice to have known you Garrus, you were a damn good friend...but your just one person." If even Ashley (whos new look I REALLY hate Bioware >.>) my Shepards LI were in danger, her life is not more importent then those of a group of innocents who cannot defend themselves. I find it selfish to try and save friends and loved ones over the masses, and that is not something Logan Shepard would do. He earned his Star of Terra for a reason.

[TheRevanchist]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

IndigoWolfe wrote...

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.

A price, but really quite a minor one. And none of your companions had to die; I didn't even have Loghain die and I still got Alistair as king. I think he does better with Anora anyway than alone.

Ehrm, Alistair (or Loghain/the Warden) laying with Morrigan isn't the price that's being paid, it merely is the circumstance that allows it to occur.

Indeed...we don't yet know the price paid by that action...that could be our salvation OR our doom for all we know.

[DTKT]

Yes!

[dshoub]

I am right there with the OP 100% (except for the bit about being a selfish, social recluse...but I don't judge lol)

[jamesp81]

IndigoWolfe wrote...

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.

As a man, I don't have that same perspective.  You make a very good point.  I wrote a fanfic that went into this, but I guess it was pretty obvious the standpoint I was coming from.

[jamesp81]

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

The kid in the vents was genius, IMO.  If you really want to bring home the gravity of the situation, it's things like that that will do it, without alienating large swathes of the fanbase.

[jamesp81]

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

Now, now, we don't know what kind of person the OGB will turn out to be.

Personally, I'm hoping that that gets revisited down the line.

[TheRevanchist]

jamesp81 wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

The kid in the vents was genius, IMO.  If you really want to bring home the gravity of the situation, it's things like that that will do it, without alienating large swathes of the fanbase.

Exactly...it is the best possible example of how you can have emotion without forced companion deaths. If you give the innocents a face and a voice, it can work just as well...if not better then a companion death.

[jamesp81]

kylecouch wrote...

^ 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.

And on the flip side, a great many of the companions are romance options.  I doubt BW is going to write it so that some romanceable companions are mandatory deaths, as that would be perceived as treating some players unequally compared to others.

I think it's a near certainty that happily ever after with chosen LI will be included in the game.

So, who is not romanceable?  Wrex, Kasumi, Zaeed, Legion, Samara, Mordin, Grunt.  If there are any mandated deaths, it will be one of these.  And the more I think about it, the less likely mandated deaths seem.  It's going to alienate parts of the fanbase if they do that.  You might get a "at least one dies" sort of mechanic, though, where it is a result of player choice, but I have my doubts about even that.

What I think we are going to see is tragic scenes like the kid in the vents.  I would expect to see things far more impactful than even that before it's over with.

[jamesp81]

kylecouch wrote...

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.

That's pretty much how I feel about it too.