4309 réponses à ce sujet

[nitefyre410]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@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. 

 


interesting now this where  we have hard choices because - I can actually understand  taking that option. Yet if there is on constant in life is that  life is constantly changing and constantly  evolving.   So  know we have two points of view that very well  could be right.  DIffcult choices come where there a no really wrong answers.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:01 .

[sorentoft]

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...

Humanity can only explore its own galaxy. Besides, if you do reach such levels of civilization why not try to master creation itself? Big Bang in abundance. Rip through dimensions? Advance the human race in terms of intelligence and biotics to compensate for the lack of comprehension created by such a vast spectrum of knowledge? Immortality? Plenty of stuff to research, why not destroy the Universe for the heck of it? So, no I do not buy the whole 'Reapers will save us because we're too stupid' thing. If anything it will only be because people become complacent that they stop advancing. Even then humanity always wants more and that is good.

[jamesp81]

kylecouch wrote...

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. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/happy.png

@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 ../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png)
) 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.

This is how a good story is written.



Don't force a squadmate
death to try to communicate the gravity of the situation.  It's not
effective.  That's a case of trying to tell the player that things are
serious, rather than showing that they are.



Show me more scenes like the kid in the vents.



Show me displaced refugees literally starving to death.



Show parents distraught over the indoctrination of a child.



Show entire worlds burning.



In doing so, remind Shepard what he's fighting for.  Remind him that that little N7 patch on his armor means something.



Do
that, and you will have told the story, and it won't matter if all the
companions survive or not.  Leave that up to player decision.

Modifié par jamesp81, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:10 .

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...


This is how a good story is written.

Don't force a squadmate death to try to communicate the gravity of the situation.  It's not effective.  That's a case of trying to tell the player that things are serious, rather than showing that they are.

Once more, most stories where major characters die would disagree with you, which is how war works. Your conception implies that "good story" and "character dying" are mutually exclusive. 

You also misrepresent what showing and telling actually mean in fiction. They do not refer to what you are referring to.

Show me more scenes like the kid in the vents.

Show me displaced refugees literally starving to death.

Show parents distraught over the indoctrination of a child.

Show entire worlds burning.

In doing so, remind Shepard what he's fighting for.  Remind him that that little N7 patch on his armor means something.

Do that, and you will have told the story, and it won't matter if all the companions survive or not.  Leave that up to player decision.

You realize squad-mate death is simply another demonstration of everything you just listed? 

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:13 .

[nitefyre410]

sorentoft 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...

Humanity can only explore its own galaxy. Besides, if you do reach such levels of civilization why not try to master creation itself? Big Bang in abundance. Rip through dimensions? Advance the human race in terms of intelligence and biotics to compensate for the lack of comprehension created by such a vast spectrum of knowledge? Immortality? Plenty of stuff to research, why not destroy the Universe for the heck of it? So, no I do not buy the whole 'Reapers will save us because we're too stupid' thing. If anything it will only be because people become complacent that they stop advancing. Even then humanity always wants more and that is good.

 

That is good  point and it can really go both ways -  and master creation itself just think about  that  power  would you REALLY want that kind of power  in hands  of a spieces as self destructive as man but than   man can also create  wonderful things as well.    Who the  Reapers to tell us we are advancing to far  but who are we given our history to tell them they can't .  

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...
You realize squad-mate death is simply another demonstration of everything you just listed? A more personal one.

Not really.

A squadmate death would probably never get even close to that level simply because they're not on the same scale.

Not to mention that I'd really like to see them achieve something like it without resorting to killing characters that are close to the player all the time.

[nitefyre410]

jamesp81 wrote...





Show me more scenes like the kid in the vents.



Show me displaced refugees literally starving to death.



Show parents distraught over the indoctrination of a child.



Show entire worlds burning.



In doing so, remind Shepard what he's fighting for.  Remind him that that little N7 patch on his armor means something.



Do
that, and you will have told the story, and it won't matter if all the
companions survive or not.  Leave that up to player decision.

 


Having me  take an indoctrinated child away from the mother and to what needs to be  done before that child is fully indoctrinated.  Hell  you could with squadies but just don't hand  Shepard the idot  ball or give me another virmire.  Don't feed me stupid and tell me its ... DRAMMMA 

[jamesp81]

Once more, most stories where major characters die would disagree with
you, which is how war works. Your conception implies that "good story"
and "character dying" are mutually exclusive.

Not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Just not necessarily preferable to my own tastes in video games.  That's not necessarily my preference in books or movies.

You also misrepresent what showing and telling actually mean in fiction. They do not refer to what you are referring to.

Not really, no.  My example may not fit a formal definition, but it certainly describes a similar problem that is unique to the video game medium.

"Oh look, we mandated one of your people died, how serious is that?" is far less effective than what I've mentioned above.  It's forced.  It doesn't work because it's not really surprising that a soldier might get killed.  It's a rather contrived way of telling the player things are bad.  A better way is to show the player what's happening outside of his little clique of Certified Badasses.

You realize squad-mate death is simply another demonstration of everything you just listed? A more personal one.

Not a very effective one, either.  It pisses off certain elements of the fanbase while not accomplishing the goal as well as other methods would have.

[Il Divo]

Someone With Mass wrote...


Not really.

A squadmate death would probably never get even close to that level simply because they're not on the same scale.

Scale is ultimately irrelevant; it's implementation which matters most, which is what distinguish good and bad fiction. Some movies have very tacky/cliche` character deaths, and are recognized as bad. Others handle the topic very well and are recognized as good. It's not clear why squad-mates must be untouchable. The argument can be turned around to say that I'm tired of seeing cliche` shots of cities being burned to the ground, of people screaming, etc. It's always the implementation that matters most.

[jamesp81]

nitefyre410 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...





Show me more scenes like the kid in the vents.



Show me displaced refugees literally starving to death.



Show parents distraught over the indoctrination of a child.



Show entire worlds burning.



In doing so, remind Shepard what he's fighting for.  Remind him that that little N7 patch on his armor means something.



Do
that, and you will have told the story, and it won't matter if all the
companions survive or not.  Leave that up to player decision.

 


Having me  take an indoctrinated child away from the mother and to what needs to be  done before that child is fully indoctrinated.  Hell  you could with squadies but just don't hand  Shepard the idot  ball or give me another virmire.  Don't feed me stupid and tell me its ... DRAMMMA 

Oh, I agree.  Just say no to Virmire and Idiot Ball Shenanigans.

That is a pretty harsh scenario, one that you might expect to encounter.

Another scenario might be the player being forced to choose between which groups to save.  Evacuation shuttles may not have enough room, so do you save women and children who can't contribute to the war, or do you save a group of scientists working on weapons to fight the Reapers with?

Sounds like a good P vs R decision and, handled well, would bring the situation home so much better than a contrived, scripted death.

[Ultai]

kylecouch wrote...

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.

Even the fabled Seal Team 6 has had casualties.

articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/06/world/la-fg-afghanistan-chopper-20110807

Modifié par Ultai, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:31 .

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...


Not really, no.  My example may not fit a formal definition, but it certainly describes a similar problem that is unique to the video game medium.

The problem with the example is that it's off-base. "Showing, not telling" has a definition in writing. A squad-mate dying is "showing not telling", what you are referring to is that you dislike what is being shown, which is very different.

Showing vs. telling has to do with the ability of a writer/director to convey an actual image to the viewer of what is happening that doesn't resort to (in the most literal way possible) telling them what is happening. If a writer says, "the boy is scared". That is telling. If the writer says, "The boy began to shiver fiercely", that is showing, since it provides a much clearer image.  

"Oh look, we mandated one of your people died, how serious is that?" is far less effective than what I've mentioned above.  It's forced.  It doesn't work because it's not really surprising that a soldier might get killed.  It's a rather contrived way of telling the player things are bad.  A better way is to show the player what's happening outside of his little clique of Certified Badasses.

What does surprise have to do with it? If the Reapers invade, people are going to die on multiple levels. There is nothing surprising about that. Killing a major character is no more contrived than directors using children as an attempt at emotional appeal. It's all in the implementation. There is nothing about the scenarios which you posed that are new to fiction/film and haven't been seen before.

Not a very effective one, either.  It pisses off certain elements of the fanbase while not accomplishing the goal as well as other methods would have.

There is nothing about your method which has proven more effective. If Bioware is allowed to force the death of a child, a person, a city, why not a squad-mate?

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:39 .

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...
You realize squad-mate death is simply another demonstration of everything you just listed? A more personal one.

No...it's not the same...You continue to insist that the death of a single squadmate is more tragic then the deaths of thousands of innocents. This is simpley not the case. Weather you know them or not does not change that it is simpley not nearly as tragic as the deaths of so many innocents. Just because "oh so many" stories have been in this way, does not mean its the ONLY way to tell a good story. Showing a burning planet means a hell of a lot more then garrus being blown to bits. Seeing innocent, defenceless people dieing of starvation and disease is far more tragic then Tali falling to her death. Watching a Reaper obliterate thousands of people at a time is far more impactful then Ashley being left behind. 

Why? because THOSE are the stakes. THAT is what your fighting for, your not fighting the Reapers to just save your friends. If that was the case then you would have a point. Your fighting for EVERYONE, Every criminal who ever wronged someone, every mother who raises her children as best she can, every father who works hard to feed his family, every child who dreams of changeing the universe when they grow up. The universe is not perfect, and it don't always get along, but your fighting to give them that CHANCE. The chance to live and experience life to the fullest. The chance to fullfil their dreams and make them reality. The chance to make the universe a better place for everyone. THAT is what your fighting for...THAT is whats at stake, and a companion death simpley CANNOT represent that.    

[TheRevanchist]

Ultai wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

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.

Even the fabled Seal Team 6 has had casualties.

articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/06/world/la-fg-afghanistan-chopper-20110807

Yes...but not during the situation I am talking about.

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...


No...it's not the same...You continue to insist that the death of a single squadmate is more tragic then the deaths of thousands of innocents.

Based on an appeal to originality? Death on a massive kill has been done so many times it's not even funny.

This is simpley not the case. Weather you know them or not does not change that it is simpley not nearly as tragic as the deaths of so many innocents. Just because "oh so many" stories have been in this way, does not mean its the ONLY way to tell a good story. Showing a burning planet means a hell of a lot more then garrus being blown to bits. Seeing innocent, defenceless people dieing of starvation and disease is far more tragic then Tali falling to her death. Watching a Reaper obliterate thousands of people at a time is far more impactful then Ashley being left behind.

There is no logic behind why squad-mates must be spared which you have shown, beyond wanting a happy ending. And if that's the argument you'd like to appeal to, then I can appeal to the "I should be able to prevent all casualties" argument.

THAT is whats at stake, and a companion death simpley CANNOT represent that.    

Much like the death of millions can never be personal if you don't know any of those millions. The macro-scale and the micro-scale are not the same thing. Watching a million people you don't know die in a film and watching a major character die are also not the same thing.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:49 .

[Soul Cool]

Il Divo wrote...
Much like the death of millions can never be personal if you don't know any of those millions. The macro-scale and the micro-scale are not the same thing.

A good way to emotionally reach someone on the macro-scale would be to burn Earth. Nothing quite like watching your home burn down to reach you on a very personal level.

[Ultai]

kylecouch wrote...

Ultai wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

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.

Even the fabled Seal Team 6 has had casualties.

articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/06/world/la-fg-afghanistan-chopper-20110807

Yes...but not during the situation I am talking about.

What situation?  Are you talking about from 9/11 til Osama's time of death?

[Il Divo]

Soul Cool wrote...

A good way to emotionally reach someone on the macro-scale would be to burn Earth. Nothing quite like watching your home burn down to reach you on a very personal level.

That certainly is a possibility, but for alot of people, Earth can't "burn", as that would result in a non-perfect ending. In the case of Earth burning, that is also a personal attachment, but that's a result of Earth burning, which I can have a personal attachment to (as a being from Earth). That doesn't necessarily apply to the individuals from Earth, at least on a personal level if I don't know them.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:57 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

There is nothing about your method which has proven more effective. If Bioware is allowed to force the death of a child, a person, a city, why not a squad-mate?

I think the answer here is because Shepard is responsible for the squadmate.  If a squadmate dies, it's because he/she was in all probability following Shepard's orders.  Shepard can't protect every child, every city, every world.  But Shep is probably going to do everything possible to protect his/her frinds and crew.  

As such, forcing a death like that would have to be taken with utmost care, or it will feel like railroading.  Particularly since something like half the cast are now potential LIs.  

This is way I favor the idea of tradeoffs  You may save your friends, but others may suffer for your choice.  Perhaps in ways that are not immediately obvious.  "Optimal endings" may just be a matter of perspective.

[Soul Cool]

Il Divo wrote...
That certainly is a possibility, but for alot of people, Earth can't "burn", as that would result in a non-perfect ending.

Why on earth (Hah!) should they get a perfect ending? Why reduce the argument to such a binary extreme?

Il Divo wrote...
In the case of Earth burning, that is also a personal attachment, but that's a result of Earth burning, which I can have a personal attachment to (as a being from Earth). That doesn't necessarily apply to the individuals from Earth, at least on a personal level if I don't know them.

Which is fine. Why should people dying be the only tragedy?

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


No...it's not the same...You continue to insist that the death of a single squadmate is more tragic then the deaths of thousands of innocents.

Based on an appeal to originality? Death on a massive kill has been done so many times it's not even funny.

This is simpley not the case. Weather you know them or not does not change that it is simpley not nearly as tragic as the deaths of so many innocents. Just because "oh so many" stories have been in this way, does not mean its the ONLY way to tell a good story. Showing a burning planet means a hell of a lot more then garrus being blown to bits. Seeing innocent, defenceless people dieing of starvation and disease is far more tragic then Tali falling to her death. Watching a Reaper obliterate thousands of people at a time is far more impactful then Ashley being left behind.

There is no logic behind why squad-mates must be spared which you have shown, beyond wanting a happy ending. And if that's the argument you'd like to appeal to, then I can appeal to the "I should be able to prevent all casualties" argument.

THAT is whats at stake, and a companion death simpley CANNOT represent that.    

Much like the death of millions can never be personal if you don't know any of those millions. The macro-scale and the micro-scale are not the same thing. Watching a million people you don't know die in a film and watching a major character die are also not the same thing.

What are you not getting? it does not HAVE to ALWAYS be personal. That is just nonesense on every level. When you read a book and someone dies...thats not personal...thats someone in a book you never really met dieing, yet because the book let you "get to know them" as you put it...its somehow more tragic or meaningful then say...doing the same thing for the masses? getting to know them on a deeper level so you know why your fighting? That is outrageous. It's nothing but bias towards the people around you.

I am not saying companions shouldn't die...I'm saying they dont HAVE to. They don't HAVE to die to get the point across like you continue to insist. Yes people die in war...but to insist that those around you are more importent is ridiculous. If you sacrifice say...ten people, since you dont care since you dont know them in order to save one companion.  That is nothing but selfishness to avoid loseing a friend.

I, like most I'm sure...are more then willing to accept companion deaths...they just dont need to be forced upon you in order to be a great story.
 Nor I or anyeone else is asking for a "perfect" ending. We simpley think a "happy" ending should be POSSIBLE. if we think its worth it we will sacrifice a companion, but to force it upon us removes that choice, which is what the game boils down to.

Modifié par kylecouch, 16 octobre 2011 - 11:11 .

[Soul Cool]

kylecouch wrote...
Nor I or anyeone else is asking for a "perfect" ending. We simpley think a "happy" ending should be POSSIBLE. if we think its worth it we will sacrifice a companion, but to force it upon us removes that choice, which is what the game boils down to.

Sometimes you don't get a choice to do things your way. That really is a "I want it to be my perfect story" objection.

[Iakus]

Soul Cool wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
Nor I or anyeone else is asking for a "perfect" ending. We simpley think a "happy" ending should be POSSIBLE. if we think its worth it we will sacrifice a companion, but to force it upon us removes that choice, which is what the game boils down to.

Sometimes you don't get a choice to do things your way. That really is a "I want it to be my perfect story" objection.

Sometimes.  But sometimes all the choices are bad, and you have to pick what you personally consider the "least bad"  Such as the ending for DAO.  Those, I think make for better stories.  At least as far as computer games go, where you as the protagonist have at least a little control.

[jeweledleah]

Soul Cool wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
Nor I or anyeone else is asking for a "perfect" ending. We simpley think a "happy" ending should be POSSIBLE. if we think its worth it we will sacrifice a companion, but to force it upon us removes that choice, which is what the game boils down to.

Sometimes you don't get a choice to do things your way. That really is a "I want it to be my perfect story" objection.

except isn't it what you want as qwell?  YOUR perfect story?  you just refuse to acept that your perfect story can actualy coexist with OUR perfect story.