4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Soul Cool]

crimzontearz wrote...
if you mean the book then I heard of the "immortal broderhood" serie vaguely from one of my players who wanted to make a were-eagle  character

No, it's a tower defense game. I would rather not spoil it for anyone who enjoys such things, but the ending is, well, spectacular. (Not spectacular as in "awesome/cool/sweet!", but as in "...wow".)

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...


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.  

And respectfully, I think this is the problem with Bioware's presentation on squad-mates. In most Bioware games, squad-mates play second fiddle to your PC, which tends to limit the roles they have in the main narrative, with exceptions of course.

But the problem with these scenarios, where no squad mate death is mandatory, appears because it removes dramatic tension. If no party member dies unless I (as the player) choose for them to die, there's no reason for me to worry about my squad-mates. His ability to live is contingent upon my decision to kill him, that's all. It doesn't mean that Bioware has to kill squad-mates, but knowing that they refuse to do so is a limitation.

And there are potential scenarios for a squad-mate death which is not reliant upon Shepard.

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 actually my problem with LIs is the sense of attachment people have to their love-interests to the point where their roles in the narrative are limited. It leads us to a scenario where they must all get equal treatment. You can't kill character X because character X is a love interest and fans will be angry if character X dies but character Y, who is also a love interest, survives. It doesn't matter that in ME2 someone chose to romance Thane, knowing full well what his condition was, some fans think that he needs to be treated equally with other LIs.

[Il Divo]

Soul Cool wrote...

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

That's a great question which I don't have an answer to.

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

It definitely shouldn't. I don't have a checklist of things Bioware has to do in order for ME3 to be a proper tragedy. There are many methods of demonstrating sacrifice: large scale, small scale, Obliteration of Earth, death of Anderson, death of your squad, psychological trauma, physical trauma. But the point of war is that, by the end, everyone comes out a little less than they did going in. I think that sensation needs to be preserved at all costs.

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...

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. 

Good you're understanding the thought process now. That's where emotion comes from. The book allowed you to form an attachment to that character. And that character died. It doesn't matter that you never physically met the person; if the book is doing its job, then you should have felt like you knew that person. Death of the masses can never feel personal. That is why they are masses; it operates strictly on the macro-level, never the micro-level. You don't know any of those people, so how can it be personal? You keep bringing your ethical theories to the emotional level. What is just to do is not contingent on how you feel about that decision.

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.

No, that's simply realism in terms of how people deal with death. The people around me will always trigger fiercer emotions because they are closer.

You want to know what your scenario comes down to? Let's go back to Lord of the Rings. Since "more deaths" should always be more important than fewer deaths, your position means that the audience should be feeling more pain and suffering watching those montages of soldiers dying.

Hell, you'll find it in a Michael Bay film. How many airplanes explode? How many anonymous soldiers find themselves dead? Killed by giant robots? Blown up in space? You (as the viewer) are aware of all these deaths. But for your conception to have any value, every single one of those moments must have significance, merely because someone died. That is why death is most effective when it's made personal; you specifically have lost something. Not someone else. That's why showing the child in the vent works so much better than merely hearing about it over the radio. The death was made more personal because you had an actual interaction with that child.

Do you honestly think that when the developers shoot those montages of people dying that they spend as much time in crafting each shot as when a major character dies? A face always has more value than a non-face in creating emotional value. Those scenes have utility in creating a general atmosphere. But the idea that Peter Jackson spent as much time on depicting each soldier's death as the entire sequence of Boromir's death is more ridiculous, in my opinion.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 02:25 .

[jeweledleah]

Soul Cool wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...
I'm still not seeing the point.  becasue not only it brings replayability down to zero, it also makes the game completely and utterly pointless.  even in real life, you don't always lose and most of the times, trying hard enough actualy results in a win.

why would I care for characters or what happens if they all die anyways?  why do I keep trying if no matter what I do will result in a loss anyways.  hope to win is only there as long as there's basis for it.  in a video game, once you know that nothing you do results in a win?  you might as well put the game aside and play something that's not this much of a waste of time.  if you want to lose?  play the worst possible outcome. making it the only outcome?  the phrase goes - I want to have what he's smoking, but honestly? I don't. 

Nowhere did I say I wanted losing to be the only outcome. You have constantly attacked a viewpoint and argument that I am not making for no reason that I can determine, and have constantly attempted to undermine the point I actually wish to make by diverting me from what I am actually discussing. Why do you do this? Is beating up a man made out of hay fun for you?

but you said that you wanted a loss to happen EVEN if you did everything you possibly could.  then how the hell is it possible to have any other ending BUT loss? if you already did everything and STILl lost, the only other possible endings, are various degrees of losing.

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...


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.  

And respectfully, I think this is the problem with Bioware's presentation on squad-mates. In most Bioware games, squad-mates play second fiddle to your PC, which tends to limit the roles they have in the main narrative, with exceptions of course.

But the problem with these scenarios, where no squad mate death is mandatory, appears because it removes dramatic tension. If no party member dies unless I (as the player) choose for them to die, there's no reason for me to worry about my squad-mates. His ability to live is contingent upon my decision to kill him, that's all. It doesn't mean that Bioware has to kill squad-mates, but knowing that they refuse to do so is a limitation.

And there are potential scenarios for a squad-mate death which is not reliant upon Shepard.

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 actually my problem with LIs is the sense of attachment people have to their love-interests to the point where their roles in the narrative are limited. It leads us to a scenario where they must all get equal treatment. You can't kill character X because character X is a love interest and fans will be angry if character X dies but character Y, who is also a love interest, survives. It doesn't matter that in ME2 someone chose to romance Thane, knowing full well what his condition was, some fans think that he needs to be treated equally with other LIs.

Look when I personally am refering to player chooseing their fate. I dont mean a single choice on screen "Save Garrus VS Save the Dreadnaught." I am talking about, decide their fate based on a combined amount of choices made throughout the game. For example, if you save this city at the cost of this ship, and then later you destroy a reaper at the cost of many turians add whatever else. Then perhaps at some point Garrus says "I feel your sacrificeing too many turians, I refuse to let this continue" then proceeds to some epic hold the line thing alone so turians can escape at the cost of his own. its just one example and Ill admit not a good one...but the player choice is still there, and you have no way of knowing it would happen the first time.

[jeweledleah]

its funny - the "squadmates must die" folks keepmissing this very important distinction that we're trying to make here. we don't want there to be no consequences for savign them. we are not asking for a plot armor where squadmates can never die. we are asking for a possibility of saving them all. we are asking for no scripted unavoidable deaths. we're fine with avoidable deaths and we're fine with consequences. we don't want to take YOUR dramatic ending away. you want to take away ours

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

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. 

Good you're understanding the thought process now. That's where emotion comes from. The book allowed you to form an attachment to that character. And that character died. It doesn't matter that you never physically met the person; if the book is doing its job, then you should have felt like you knew that person. Death of the masses can never feel personal. That is why they are masses; it operates strictly on the macro-level, never the micro-level. You don't know any of those people, so how can it be personal? You keep bringing your ethical theories to the emotional level. What is just to do is not contingent on how you feel about that decision.

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.

No, that's simply realism in terms of how people deal with death. The people around me will always trigger fiercer emotions because they are closer.

You want to know what your scenario comes down to? Let's go back to Lord of the Rings. Since "more deaths" should always be more important than fewer deaths, your position means that the audience should be feeling more pain and suffering watching those montages of soldiers dying.

Hell, you'll find it in a Michael Bay film. How many airplanes explode? How many anonymous soldiers find themselves dead? Killed by giant robots? Blown up in space? You (as the viewer) are aware of all these deaths. But for your conception to have any value, every single one of those moments must have significance, merely because someone died. That is why death is most effective when it's made personal; you specifically have lost something. Not someone else. That's why showing the child in the vent works so much better than merely hearing about it over the radio. The death was made more personal because you had an actual interaction with that child.

Do you honestly think that when the developers shoot those montages of people dying that they spend as much time in crafting each shot as when a major character dies? A face always has more value than a non-face in creating emotional value. Those scenes have utility in creating a general atmosphere. But the idea that Peter Jackson spent as much time on depicting each soldier's death as the entire sequence of Boromir's death is more ridiculous, in my opinion.

I'm not saying EACH AND EVERY single death should have as much impact as the death of a main character. I'm saying that the deaths of the masses should be depicted equally. That they need indiviuals such as the child, to give equal representation to the masses...because their is nothing that makes Garrus more special then any other Turian. Their is nothing special about Garrus dieing then any other Turian dieing, because eaither way a Turian is dead...there is no difference.

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...

its funny - the "squadmates must die" folks keepmissing this very important distinction that we're trying to make here. we don't want there to be no consequences for savign them. we are not asking for a plot armor where squadmates can never die. we are asking for a possibility of saving them all. we are asking for no scripted unavoidable deaths. we're fine with avoidable deaths and we're fine with consequences. we don't want to take YOUR dramatic ending away. you want to take away ours

This is where we cannot both have our way. This is where dramatic tension disappears, in the knowledge that I know that my squad is untouchable unless I allow them to be touched. Some games, everyone gets to live. Some games, some people are forced to die. Some games, I might choose who lives and who dies. Dramatic tension comes from not knowing what possibility I can obtain. If we accept the idea of no scripted unavoidable deaths? Well, that's a severe narrative limitation.

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...

Look when I personally am refering to player chooseing their fate. I dont mean a single choice on screen "Save Garrus VS Save the Dreadnaught." I am talking about, decide their fate based on a combined amount of choices made throughout the game. For example, if you save this city at the cost of this ship, and then later you destroy a reaper at the cost of many turians add whatever else. Then perhaps at some point Garrus says "I feel your sacrificeing too many turians, I refuse to let this continue" then proceeds to some epic hold the line thing alone so turians can escape at the cost of his own. its just one example and Ill admit not a good one...but the player choice is still there, and you have no way of knowing it would happen the first time.

It's not the worst idea I've seen on the BSN. It's certainly better than the Origins scenario which allows me to save Connor using the Circle of Magi.

[TheRevanchist]

But my point is...things can be done to kill characters without removing player choice.

[jeweledleah]

Il Divo wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

its funny - the "squadmates must die" folks keepmissing this very important distinction that we're trying to make here. we don't want there to be no consequences for savign them. we are not asking for a plot armor where squadmates can never die. we are asking for a possibility of saving them all. we are asking for no scripted unavoidable deaths. we're fine with avoidable deaths and we're fine with consequences. we don't want to take YOUR dramatic ending away. you want to take away ours

This is where we cannot both have our way. This is where dramatic tension disappears, in the knowledge that I know that my squad is untouchable unless I allow them to be touched. Some games, everyone gets to live. Some games, some people are forced to die. Some games, I might choose who lives and who dies. Dramatic tension comes from not knowing what possibility I can obtain. If we accept the idea of no scripted unavoidable deaths? Well, that's a severe narrative limitation.

except to me, knowing that no matter what I do it will result in squadmate death?  that removes the tension.  you know what keeps me tense every single time?  set up like Bring down the sky.  I never really know what I'm going to do untill that moment of truth.  save Kate Bowman and let criminal go?  or don't let him escape and sign her death warrant?

see Kate Bowman doesn't have to die.  her death is completely avoidable.  but is the consequence of saving her worth it?  you decide.

here's another example of a decision that keeps me tense even now - rewrite the geth, or kill them?  rewriting, brainwashing - its not exactly a nice thing to do.  and there's always danger of them going bad again.  but destroying them could mean weaker alliesdown the road.  and who am Ito decide to take so many lives.

Virmire?  virmire has degenerated into - whichcharacter am I keeping alive this time.  i know one of them will die, there is no tension.  only annoyance.

[crimzontearz]

Il Divo wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

its funny - the "squadmates must die" folks keepmissing this very important distinction that we're trying to make here. we don't want there to be no consequences for savign them. we are not asking for a plot armor where squadmates can never die. we are asking for a possibility of saving them all. we are asking for no scripted unavoidable deaths. we're fine with avoidable deaths and we're fine with consequences. we don't want to take YOUR dramatic ending away. you want to take away ours

This is where we cannot both have our way. This is where dramatic tension disappears, in the knowledge that I know that my squad is untouchable unless I allow them to be touched. Some games, everyone gets to live. Some games, some people are forced to die. Some games, I might choose who lives and who dies. Dramatic tension comes from not knowing what possibility I can obtain. If we accept the idea of no scripted unavoidable deaths? Well, that's a severe narrative limitation.

fine.....let me save my LI, Shepard and the Normandy and everyone else can die in a horrible painful, mandatory  way

I kid I kid

If they approach it the way Epic approached the ending of GoW3 I'll be more than happy

[TheRevanchist]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
 their is nothing that makes Garrus more special then any other Turian. Their is nothing special about Garrus dieing then any other Turian dieing, because eaither way a Turian is dead...there is no difference.

What? Next you'll be telling me that Tali isn't any more special than other quarians, or Liara than other asari, or Shepard than other humans. All of which is ridiculous, of course.

Really? cuz they are...each and every one of them. Shepard is just another human who took N7 training. Tali is just another Quarian who just happens to be just a little smarter then other Quarians. Liara is just another Asari who knows alot about Protheans...and everything else at this point. Liara might be the exception. But regardless the others are nothing special.

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...


I'm not saying EACH AND EVERY single death should have as much impact as the death of a main character. I'm saying that the deaths of the masses should be depicted equally. That they need indiviuals such as the child, to give equal representation to the masses...because their is nothing that makes Garrus more special then any other Turian.

But you just admitted to my point; the child's death was made more personal. That is the distinction between speaking with that child and watching him die vs. having a character tell you "Hey, a child just died". Now imagine that you had an intimate connection to that child. His death will, by necessity, feel even worse.

Think of how personal something is as a scale; it's not absolute yes or no, but has multiple levels. The more personal any connection is to you, the more emotion it becomes capable of triggering. More interaction = more emotion. It's that simple.

Their is nothing special about Garrus dieing then any other Turian dieing, because eaither way a Turian is dead...there is no difference.

And this is why I think you do not get my point that ethical theory is not tied to emotions. Ethical theory is intended to be as objective as possible; it's not concerned with any personal connections. Ethical theory tells us the right thing to do; it cannot tell us how easy it is to perform that action.

Our emotions are not, by necessity, tied to ethical theory. As a single life, Garrus is not in any way special vs. any other life. As an individual, whom you are familiar with, and assuming Bioware didn't crap up on their character design, Garrus' death should have more of an emotional impact than any single turian's death. It's no different than how a child in a vent dying, whom you interact with, should have more impact than a single child whom you've never met. You know Garrus and so you've lost something more through his death.

[TheRevanchist]

jeweledleah wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

its funny - the "squadmates must die" folks keepmissing this very important distinction that we're trying to make here. we don't want there to be no consequences for savign them. we are not asking for a plot armor where squadmates can never die. we are asking for a possibility of saving them all. we are asking for no scripted unavoidable deaths. we're fine with avoidable deaths and we're fine with consequences. we don't want to take YOUR dramatic ending away. you want to take away ours

This is where we cannot both have our way. This is where dramatic tension disappears, in the knowledge that I know that my squad is untouchable unless I allow them to be touched. Some games, everyone gets to live. Some games, some people are forced to die. Some games, I might choose who lives and who dies. Dramatic tension comes from not knowing what possibility I can obtain. If we accept the idea of no scripted unavoidable deaths? Well, that's a severe narrative limitation.

except to me, knowing that no matter what I do it will result in squadmate death?  that removes the tension.  you know what keeps me tense every single time?  set up like Bring down the sky.  I never really know what I'm going to do untill that moment of truth.  save Kate Bowman and let criminal go?  or don't let him escape and sign her death warrant?

see Kate Bowman doesn't have to die.  her death is completely avoidable.  but is the consequence of saving her worth it?  you decide.

here's another example of a decision that keeps me tense even now - rewrite the geth, or kill them?  rewriting, brainwashing - its not exactly a nice thing to do.  and there's always danger of them going bad again.  but destroying them could mean weaker alliesdown the road.  and who am Ito decide to take so many lives.

Virmire?  virmire has degenerated into - whichcharacter am I keeping alive this time.  i know one of them will die, there is no tension.  only annoyance.

I'm afraid I must echo this sentiment...Virmire to me is nothing but an annoyance. Where as a situation liek Balak...I actually still sit there and go "hmm...what would THIS Shepard do?"...it still makes me think about it. Because we really don't know if Balak will ever attack again, if not then those lives are lost for nothing and I would feel terrible. and indeed...the Geth Solution...I have a hard time living with eaither choice, and still struggle to make it. Where as Virmire is nothing more then "is eaither one gonna be a LI? if not then who cares." It does nothing for me.

[Il Divo]

crimzontearz wrote...


fine.....let me save my LI, Shepard and the Normandy and everyone else can die in a horrible painful, mandatory  way

I kid I kid

If they approach it the way Epic approached the ending of GoW3 I'll be more than happy

Don't even joke about that. You might find a mob outside your front door.

[crimzontearz]

Il Divo wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...


fine.....let me save my LI, Shepard and the Normandy and everyone else can die in a horrible painful, mandatory  way

I kid I kid

If they approach it the way Epic approached the ending of GoW3 I'll be more than happy

Don't even joke about that. You might find a mob outside your front door.

what? Epic did a great job!...one major character death that literally deals a  mind numbing blow to the protagonist.....millions dead even tho the enemy was defeated? and entire almost-innocent race ERADICATED...the protagonist still alive? a conveninently sexy blonde girl (OR a conveniently sexy olive skinned girl with Claudia black's voice) who is also grieving and in need to share her "survivor's guilt" with someone ready at hand? it was awesome


oh wait./you meant the mandatory deaths?

how about this.......a Virmire scenario........only you have to choose between Garrus, Tali and the original VS.......ond TWO must die 


ok gonna hide now

Modifié par crimzontearz, 17 octobre 2011 - 03:06 .

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...

except to me, knowing that no matter what I do it will result in squadmate death?  that removes the tension.  you know what keeps me tense every single time?  set up like Bring down the sky.  I never really know what I'm going to do untill that moment of truth.  save Kate Bowman and let criminal go?  or don't let him escape and sign her death warrant?

And that's always contingent upon how much you enjoy any character. That all comes down to implementation. If I really hate Kate Bowman, the difficulty of that decision is diminished. That easily removes tension, in my opinion. Where as, whenever I re-engage in any narrative, I'm always (to some degree) echoing my reactions my first time through, even though it's not as strong. Kaidan/Ashley will always have a degree of tension, because I remember the first time it happened. I find the same thing happens with Quentin Tarantino films with respect to the tension in the atmosphere. It's really not an easy skill to pull off.

here's another example of a decision that keeps me tense even now - rewrite the geth, or kill them?  rewriting, brainwashing - its not exactly a nice thing to do.  and there's always danger of them going bad again.  but destroying them could mean weaker alliesdown the road.  and who am Ito decide to take so many lives.

Ethical dilemmas are always fun to toy with.

Virmire?  virmire has degenerated into - whichcharacter am I keeping alive this time.  i know one of them will die, there is no tension.  only annoyance.

And aside from the ethical aspect, I don't see the difference here. The tension is choosing who has to die. The only issue I can think of lies in that if you have a clear preference for one character over the other, it might make that decision more clear. It still doesn't leave me hopping with joy that I had to leave a man behind.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 03:02 .

[Soul Cool]

jeweledleah wrote...
but you said that you wanted a loss to happen EVEN if you did everything you possibly could.

I said "It makes me wonder if there is a situation in which you can do everything right and still lose".

jeweledleah wrote...
then how the hell is it possible to have any other ending BUT loss? if you already did everything and STILl lost, the only other possible endings, are various degrees of losing.

At which point do you give up your "have your cake and eat it, too" argument?

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


I'm not saying EACH AND EVERY single death should have as much impact as the death of a main character. I'm saying that the deaths of the masses should be depicted equally. That they need indiviuals such as the child, to give equal representation to the masses...because their is nothing that makes Garrus more special then any other Turian.

But you just admitted to my point; the child's death was made more personal. That is the distinction between speaking with that child and watching him die vs. having a character tell you "Hey, a child just died". Now imagine that you had an intimate connection to that child. His death will, by necessity, feel even worse.

Think of how personal something is as a scale; it's not absolute yes or no, but has multiple levels. The more personal any connection is to you, the more emotion it becomes capable of triggering. More interaction = more emotion. It's that simple.

Their is nothing special about Garrus dieing then any other Turian dieing, because eaither way a Turian is dead...there is no difference.

And this is why I think you do not get my point that ethical theory is not tied to emotions. Ethical theory is intended to be as objective as possible; it's not concerned with any personal connections. Ethical theory tells us the right thing to do; it cannot tell us how easy it is to perform that action.

Our emotions are not, by necessity, tied to ethical theory. As a single life, Garrus is not in any way special vs. any other life. As an individual, whom you are familiar with, and assuming Bioware didn't crap up on their character design, Garrus' death should have more of an emotional impact than any single turian's death. It's no different than how a child in a vent dying, whom you interact with, should have more impact than a single child whom you've never met. You know Garrus and so you've lost something more through his death.

If I got to know that child personally...I would not feel anything extra...period. I feel for him because he represents the masses and they have embraced hopelessness and despire. It has nothing to do with him personally...its what he reprsents that has meaning. I only vote for single people at a time to represent them only because in a video game its too expenseive to do otherwise. in books however thats a different story entierly...and the child would not cut it because the masses can be better represented.

Garrus's death would hold no special meaning to me at all...and hes one of the few companions I actually LIKE. He knew the risks, and died for the cause, his death to me would be no different then any other Turian doing the same thing. instead I would probably say "You were a damn good friend Garrus, you death helps the cause." or something, the point is if he dies I'm not going to cry and sob about it. Therefor the whole point of his death is wasted for me.

[Il Divo]

crimzontearz wrote...



what? Epic did a great job!...one major character death that literally deals a  mind numbing blow to the protagonist.....millions dead even tho the enemy was defeated? and entire almost-innocent race ERADICATED...the protagonist still alive? a conveninently sexy blonde girl (OR a conveniently sexy olive skinned girl with Claudia black's voice) who is also grieving and in need to share her "survivor's guilt" with someone ready at hand? it was awesome

SPOILERS GoW2/GoW3




Agreed, and I personally can't stand GoW. I still managed to find Maria's death in GoW2 and Dom's death in GoW3 to be handled extremely well. I gotta give credit to Epic on that. And I think it demonstrates that people don't need to die left and right; it's all in the implementation. One character death managed to convey enough emotional weight for the entire experience.

oh wait./you meant the mandatory deaths?

how about this.......a Virmire scenario........only you have to choose between Garrus, Tali and the original VS.......ond TWW must die 

ok gonna hide now

RIP, mate. You're done. You just insulted the Tali fans!