4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Youknow]

 Nothing wrong with everyone living in the end of the game. As long as it's not a:

Sheperd: Miranda! How'd you survive that explosion? 
Miranda: Heh. What can I say? I'm perfect. 
*Suddenly a sound is heard that is the sound of the Virmire Sacrifice turning over in their debris filled grave*

If it's literally actions that you make that determine who lives or dies, I'm cool with that. So long as they aren't the most transparent options known to man. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That is statisticly impossible.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.

Statistically IMPROBABLE.  It is highly UNLIKELY for a unit to experience zero casualties, but by no means impossible.

/stats nerd

Given that no single team/unit/squad so far has finished their tour of duty without casualties.....for all intents and purposes it is impossible.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Given that no single team/unit/squad so far has finished their tour of duty without casualties.....for all intents and purposes it is impossible.

IMPROBABLE.  There is nothing saying it COULDN'T happen.

And I'd like to see the research, plz.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I do keep asking this question - but what logical justification is there for Shep being in position to save every squad member?

Because last I checked there wasn't one.

Luck, skill, small squad size, competence of the squadmates themselves...

You know, the usual. *examines fingernails*

That's...not an answer.

I'm asking for LOGICAL justification. Not BS.

Shepard is on Earth on a trial. The rest of his team is scattered across the galaxy. The greatest was in history is taking place, agaisnt the deadliest foe in history.

Shep can't be at 10 places at once. Again, how can he be in position to save everyone?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I do keep asking this question - but what logical justification is there for Shep being in position to save every squad member?

Because last I checked there wasn't one.

The same justification that there was for saving them all in ME2.

There wasn't any.....

The SM didn't really make any sense (except for ship upgrades)

[AdmiralCheez]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Well, I have to say, I do hate being punished (rewarded?) for being a completionist. I just wish it was related to choices.

The chances of you discovering all content in one playthrough are...?

And for most players, that sort of thing WOULD be considered a reward.

[Biotic Sage]

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 17 octobre 2011 - 07:29 .

[Youknow]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I do keep asking this question - but what logical justification is there for Shep being in position to save every squad member?

Because last I checked there wasn't one.

Luck, skill, small squad size, competence of the squadmates themselves...

You know, the usual. *examines fingernails*

That's...not an answer.

I'm asking for LOGICAL justification. Not BS.

Shepard is on Earth on a trial. The rest of his team is scattered across the galaxy. The greatest was in history is taking place, agaisnt the deadliest foe in history.

Shep can't be at 10 places at once. Again, how can he be in position to save everyone?

Because the party members can take care of themselves. Sure, they might need my help eventually, but I don't want to think that all of my team is so incompetent that if I'm not there they'll kick the bucket simply because Sheperd wasn't there to be their brain. Characters like Grunt or Tali I would expect to die if left alone too long. But characters like Ashley, Jacob, Miranda and Wrex I'd expect them to be able to pull themselves out of a bind, or at least be able to keep a defensed fortified long enough to give you some time to help others. 

My only problem with having a method like this where you can possibly go by without a "sacrifice," is that there becomes an inherently "right" way of playing the game. 

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That's...not an answer.

Yes it is.

I'm asking for LOGICAL justification. Not BS.

You expect there to be a logical explanation for rolling a six on a perfectly weighted die five times in a row other than luck?

Why did X not get shot?  He knew not to stand in the way of the bullets.

Shepard is on Earth on a trial. The rest of his team is scattered across the galaxy. The greatest was in history is taking place, agaisnt the deadliest foe in history.

Where is this "scattered across the galaxy" BS coming from?  I am pretty sure that, if they are ON THE SQUAD, they are currently with Shepard.

As for the greatest, deadliest foe we've ever faced, let's talk for a sec about the odds of killing half a dozen specific people out of trillions.

Shep can't be at 10 places at once. Again, how can he be in position to save everyone?

THEY ARE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM ON THE BATTLEFIELD.  He can tell them to duck.

Because that's the thing about being a SQUADMATE.

They are on THE SQUAD.

What kind of a commander leaves one soldier behind all the damn time, anyway?  "Here, guard this important thing by yourself."

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There wasn't any.....

The SM didn't really make any sense (except for ship upgrades)

:happy: Let me explain my viewpoint.

Loyalty missions and how they affect the capabilities of the squad.

Argument: How can doing a mission improve their inherent abilities?!

Answer: It distracts them. Garrus is an excellent leader, but he got his squad killed. Of course that'll make him doubt himself unless he gets some closure. Tali is a better hacker than anyone else, but what good is her exceptional hacking when all she can think about is the fact that she's on trial? Samara's daughter is out there raping people to death, and she knows her location - that would distract her and detract from her abilities.

Argument 2: But they're elites! Elites don't get distracted!!

Answer: Ever heard of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? It basically proves that even the soldiers who've "seen it all" are human and prone to weakness. I like the justification of how the Loyalty missions worked with clearing their heads. Doesn't mean it has to be that easy in the third game.

/Opinion disclaimer. 

[AdmiralCheez]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Not sure what you mean by content, do you mean all the endings? Or all the missions. Cause I totally did about 95% of the missions on my first ME2 run.

All the missions.  And yeah, 95%.  Which isn't 100%.  How much of that was before the Suicide Mission?

And I guess it's a reward, but it just makes any deaths seem contrived.

The average player isn't itching to drop party members or looking to orchestrate a heartbreaking war drama.  Mostly, the average player is interested in just beating the game.  If they play exceptionally well, they expect some sort of reward, usually a high score or an achievement.

Success in Mass Effect isn't measured in points, but in how much Reaper ass you kick vs. how much you lose in the process.

Expecting to do the best you can and still lose is like studying very hard for a test and wanting to flunk it.  In order to fail on some level, you're going to have to screw up, be it by accident or by design.

I do agree, however, that there should be more decisions that have dire consequences either way.

[AdmiralCheez]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Going with what I said earlier on this page--I agree with you completely that it would distract them. I just don't see how NOT doing them is in any way really valid.

Easy.  F*ck up the quest order.  Go for the IFF before everyone's loyal.  Because really, you have NO idea in-game that the IFF will trigger the endgame timer.

[AdmiralCheez]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I guess...

Oh, come on.  I did it once.

And then I was rushing to get as many loyalty missions done before the crew got kidnapped as possible and then the Collectors showed up and I was like crap crap crap and even though we weren't ready I decided to go in after them and then I realized that there was no way I was getting everyone out alive and I was like craaaappp...

Seriously, in the moment, it's intense.

[CptBomBom00]

Nice, but what have I missed ?

[SandTrout]

Human colonies are still disappearing while you're fooling around doing LMs, if you listen to your crew. If your purpose is to save the colonists, then go for the IFF as soon as you can.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No really, you think? Orchestrating the drama is the job of the development team. If I'm the one responsible for creating the drama in the game then I better start getting paychecks.

However, they also have to factor in player choice and adequate reward for playing the game well.  They cannot force too many uncontrollable events on the player because then the game gets too railroady, and if playing the game well isn't rewarded, there's no reason for the player to come back again, try to do better, or explore content more deeply.

It's a delicate balancing act that screenplay writers and novelists don't have to worry about.