4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

As I said - google a bit.
There isn't a single front line squad that's been on extended duty that didn't suffer a casualty.

You want else is also improbable?
The universe destroying itself 5 seconds from now. Me shooting 20 people with one bullet. Etc.. Insert any event that you can't directly prove 100000% impossi ble, but it's so improbable it's nto even worth discussing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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)

My point was that if we once managed to save the galaxy with nobody dying, who's to say we can't do it again?

I survived being shot once - that means I'll survive it every time? Regardless who shoot me, how many times and with what?

Again..makes no sense.

[Someone With Mass]

Why are we comparing real military forces to fictional ones?

Is it because you want Mass Effect to be realistic in some bizarre fashion?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Youknow wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

Not an answer.
Being able to take care of yourself and being immune to dying are two different things.

Tell me, how will Moridin "Take care of himself" is the reapers bombard/collapse the entire building he is in?
What amazing abiltiy (aside from plot shields) can save hims from a particle beam that can cut cruisers in half?

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Not an answer.
Being able to take care of yourself and being immune to dying are two different things.

Tell me, how will Moridin "Take care of himself" is the reapers bombard/collapse the entire building he is in?
What amazing abiltiy (aside from plot shields) can save hims from a particle beam that can cut cruisers in half?

Unless the reapers personally decide to take out your squadmates I think that we'll fight shock troops at most in the scenario we're crafting here.

Mordin was in the STG so he's excellent at being a covert operative. And one person with a life's worth of experience should be able to sneak past a dangerous situation.

Garrus held off three merc bands for DAYS without sleep, so he can certainly take care of himself when thrown against quote on quote impossible odds.

And most people on your squad aside from Grunt have experience fighting, so their survival rate is quite high if you ask me. Of course, real life spec ops die quite often, but comparing a game where bullets can be stopped by shields, you can alter the mass of an enemy or instant-freeze them with real life is a moot point IMO.

/opinion.

Modifié par Mi-Chan, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:47 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That's...not an answer.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

You can just as well argue taht "because" is an proper answer.

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.

So..you're basicly asking for redicolous levels of luck?
And you think that makes a good, believable story and compelling storytelling?

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.

It's already been said the team is scattered, doing their own stuff.
When the game starts, Shep is on Earth.

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.

When that dozen people constantly walk into danger (and your guns), while hte trillions do everything to get OUT of danger?
When you want that specific dozen dead? When you have god-like firepower?

VERY HIGH.

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."

They're not always there and Shep cannot always be there.

And telling them to duck? Ya know, bullets tend to travel faster than sound. Especially ME bullets.

Unless Shep can catch bullets mid-air, and cross distances in a blink of an eye, he can't be everywhere and save everyone.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

And that explanation is crap. They didn'tseem to have any problems in missions before SM. Tehre is such a disconnect between loyalty, SM and death that it's mind-boggling.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That's...not an answer.

Yes it is.

No it's not.

You can just as well argue taht "because" is an proper answer.

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.

So..you're basicly asking for redicolous levels of luck?
And you think that makes a good, believable story and compelling storytelling?

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.

It's already been said the team is scattered, doing their own stuff.
When the game starts, Shep is on Earth.

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.

When that dozen people constantly walk into danger (and your guns), while hte trillions do everything to get OUT of danger?
When you want that specific dozen dead? When you have god-like firepower?

VERY HIGH.

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."

They're not always there and Shep cannot always be there.

And telling them to duck? Ya know, bullets tend to travel faster than sound. Especially ME bullets.

Unless Shep can catch bullets mid-air, and cross distances in a blink of an eye, he can't be everywhere and save everyone.

Gameplay and story segregation. You're outgunned god knows how many times during the two games. 

[CptBomBom00]

I hope they have something like loyalty mission in ME3 but with more drama maybe.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


And that explanation is crap. They didn'tseem to have any problems in missions before SM. Tehre is such a disconnect between loyalty, SM and death that it's mind-boggling.

Are you always this depressing? Are you unable to enjoy the story for what it is instead of complaining that it's not what you want it to be? No one's forcing you to play it. :happy:

[Athayniel]

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.

You are still equating "no mandatory deaths" to "impervious plot armour". Why are you doing this? It's not something for which any proponent of the OP's position has been advocating. So why are you always misrepresenting their position?

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well what is "too many"? I don't think making the player choose one person to die is "too many". It fits the theme of the game well and has dramatic and emotional depth. It also requires that the player think carefully so that this sacrifice saves the most lives.

I'd actually be okay with one (or even two, provided they are well woven into the narrative) Virmire-esque situation(s).  It is the removal of choice for the sake of forcing a subjective concept of a "good" story that frustrates me.  Having an "everyone gets out alive" ending would just be a nice thing to have.

Un fortunately it happens in every gaem..EVER.

Most of the game in existence don't even give yo uany choices in the narrative. They are fully railroaded.
Of those that do give you choices, they only give you some.

You can't choose to not work with cerberus. Yo ucan't choose to stay working with them. Etc, etc..

In the end, there will ALWAYS be forced choices for the sake of forcing the DEVELOPERS idea/vision of a good story. You can just as easily that Garrus being male and not female is removal of choice, forcing a subjective concept of good storytelling.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:56 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


And that explanation is crap. They didn'tseem to have any problems in missions before SM. Tehre is such a disconnect between loyalty, SM and death that it's mind-boggling.

Are you always this depressing? Are you unable to enjoy the story for what it is instead of complaining that it's not what you want it to be? No one's forcing you to play it. :happy:

True. But same holds true for you. No one is forcing you to be on this forum.

I can also ask - are you always this simple? Are your standards realyl that low? Can you truly enjoy any story, regardless how shallow?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Not an answer.
Being able to take care of yourself and being immune to dying are two different things.

Tell me, how will Moridin "Take care of himself" is the reapers bombard/collapse the entire building he is in?
What amazing abiltiy (aside from plot shields) can save hims from a particle beam that can cut cruisers in half?

Unless the reapers personally decide to take out your squadmates I think that we'll fight shock troops at most in the scenario we're crafting here.

Mordin was in the STG so he's excellent at being a covert operative. And one person with a life's worth of experience should be able to sneak past a dangerous situation.

Garrus held off three merc bands for DAYS without sleep, so he can certainly take care of himself when thrown against quote on quote impossible odds.

And most people on your squad aside from Grunt have experience fighting, so their survival rate is quite high if you ask me. Of course, real life spec ops die quite often, but comparing a game where bullets can be stopped by shields, you can alter the mass of an enemy or instant-freeze them with real life is a moot point IMO.

/opinion.

It's not moot. Since your opponents ALSO   have shields, instant-freeze and everything else. You got no advantage.

And your'e again trying to use badassery as some justification/explanation. It's not. Never has been, never will be.

And you didn't even answer the question. Why? Because you know you can't.
the only explanation you can offer is that is simply doesn't happen...or enemy stupidity.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


True. But same holds true for you. No one is forcing you to be on this forum.

I can also ask - are you always this simple? Are your standards realyl that low? Can you truly enjoy any story, regardless how shallow?

The thing is, I enjoy being on the forums. With all the complaints you have, I honestly find it hard to believe you enjoy the game.

And you may consider my standards low, but I aswell as many others enjoy Bioware's writing. The thing I like about Bioware is not the plot, but how they take stock tropes and play around with them leading to interesting results. Their stories aren't perfect, but it's up to the individual to judge if they can live with it or not (There's no justification for Thermal clips or LOKI mechs being present on Jacob's mission, but as it's a gameplay thing I choose to accept it).

And what are good standards anyway? Your standards? They're only good in your opinion, and the same goes for my standards. To some people platformers aren't worth playing and people playing them must have low standards. Some people feel the same way about strategy games or shooters, or the horror-genre or romantic novels. It's all based on your own opinions which is the point I've been trying to make ever since I ventured into this thread. 

[CoffeeHolic93]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


[/quote]

It's not moot. Since your opponents ALSO   have shields, instant-freeze and everything else. You got no advantage.

And your'e again trying to use badassery as some justification/explanation. It's not. Never has been, never will be.

And you didn't even answer the question. Why? Because you know you can't.
the only explanation you can offer is that is simply doesn't happen...or enemy stupidity.
[/quote]

 To answer the question: If Mordin was in there he'd get squished like a fly. Happy now?

And of course the enemies are stupid, it's FICTION. In fiction stuff like sneaking past guards with a surprise inspection is probable. In fiction you can escape the grim reality to play around in a world that is much more enjoyable/immerse yourself in the horror story you love/whatever.

[ViceVersaMan]

Wow. This is quite an argument. Normally, I would trust my better judgment and stay out of it, but I have to ask:

Am I the only one who just wants to see the story play out however BioWare wants it to play out?

I mean, my favorite thing about a story is being surprised. Not a SHOCKING TWIST, mind you, but not being sure about what might happen next.

I liked ME's system, where someone had to die, and you, as the commanding officer, were forced to make that choice. I also liked ME2's system, where someone might die, but only if you, as the commanding officer, botched a command decision.

Isn't that what this argument is really about at its core? Whether you prefer the ME or ME2 "Who Survives?" system, and the degree to which these systems should be employed?

I liked both. The devs could use either, both, or neither and I would be content, so long as it fit with the rest of the story they're telling. I'm only hoping ME3 surprises me. Maybe that surprise means someone has to die. Maybe it means that no one has to die, but I make a mistake, and someone does anyway. Or maybe it means I get lucky and no one dies at all, and my Shepard can feel proud for bringing everyone under his command through this horrible war alive.

Everyone else here seems to want to dictate exactly what it SHOULD be. If you're so sure of what this story should be, how it should end, or how many people should die... why don't you just go write it yourself and skip ME3 altogether?

Shouldn't this be a story we experience--one we make choices in, but ultimately, a story that is told to us--rather than the one we would like to see written? I'm all for options, but I'd rather leave it to the storytellers to decide what those options should be. They haven't disappointed me yet, and, like I said, I like being surprised.

Modifié par ViceVersaMan, 17 octobre 2011 - 10:10 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

ViceVersaMan wrote...

Wow. This is quite an argument. Normally, I would trust my better judgment and stay out of it, but I have to ask:

Am I the only one who just wants to see the story play out however BioWare wants it to play out?

I mean, my favorite thing about a story is being surprised. Not a SHOCKING TWIST, mind you, but not being sure about what might happen next.

I liked ME's system, where someone had to die, and you, as the commanding officer, were forced to make that choice. I also liked ME2's system, where someone might die, but only if you, as the commanding officer, botched a command decision.

Isn't that what this argument is really about at its core? Whether you prefer the ME or ME2 "Who Survives?" system, and the degree to which these systems should be employed?

I liked both. The devs could use either, both, or neither and I would be content, so long as it fit with the rest of the story they're telling. I'm only hoping ME3 surprises me. Maybe that surprise means someone has to die. Maybe it means that no one has to die, but I make a mistake, and someone does anyway. Or maybe it means I get lucky and no one dies at all, and my Shepard can feel proud for bringing everyone under his command through this horrible war alive.

Everyone else here seems to want to dictate exactly what it SHOULD be. If you're so sure of what this story should be, how it should end, or how many people should die... why don't you just go write it yourself and skip ME3 altogether?

Shouldn't this be a story we experience--one we make choices in, but ultimately, a story that is told to us--rather than the one we would like to see written? I'm all for options, but I'd rather leave it to the storytellers to decide what those options should be. They haven't disappointed me yet, and, like I said, I like being surprised.

I'm just here to pull the discussion in a civil direction while trying to argue that a squadmate doesn't necessarily have to die.  And yes, it's entirely up to Bioware, but complaining is a favorite pastime here on BSN so...Myah.

[Athayniel]

ViceVersaMan wrote...

Wow. This is quite an argument. Normally, I would trust my better judgment and stay out of it, but I have to ask:

Am I the only one who just wants to see the story play out however BioWare wants it to play out?

I mean, my favorite thing about a story is being surprised. Not a SHOCKING TWIST, mind you, but not being sure about what might happen next.

I liked ME's system, where someone had to die, and you, as the commanding officer, were forced to make that choice. I also liked ME2's system, where someone might die, but only if you, as the commanding officer, botched a command decision.

Isn't that what this argument is really about at its core? Whether you prefer the ME or ME2 "Who Survives?" system, and the degree to which these systems should be employed?

I liked both. The devs could use either, both, or neither and I would be content, so long as it fit with the rest of the story they're telling. I'm only hoping ME3 surprises me. Maybe that surprise means someone has to die. Maybe it means that no one has to die, but I make a mistake, and someone does anyway. Or maybe it means I get lucky and no one dies at all, and my Shepard can feel proud for bringing everyone under his command through this horrible war alive.

Everyone else here seems to want to dictate exactly what it SHOULD be. If you're so sure of what this story should be, how it should end, or how many people should die... why don't you just go write it yourself and skip ME3 altogether?

Shouldn't this be a story we experience--one we make choices in, but ultimately, a story that is told to us--rather than the one we would like to see written? I'm all for options, but I'd rather leave it to the storytellers to decide what those options should be. They haven't disappointed me yet, and, like I said, I like being surprised.

The thing is in just about every BioWare story, and especially Mass Effect's, you have a say in how it ends, through your choices and actions in the game. BioWare always gives their players some agency in the ultimate outcome of the story. A linear set of fixed points with various paths between those points and branching out to a myriad of endings when all is said and done. Your path through the story is yours alone.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mi-Chan wrote...

 To answer the question: If Mordin was in there he'd get squished like a fly. Happy now?

And of course the enemies are stupid, it's FICTION. In fiction stuff like sneaking past guards with a surprise inspection is probable. In fiction you can escape the grim reality to play around in a world that is much more enjoyable/immerse yourself in the horror story you love/whatever.

Only in BAD fiction. Or campy fiction.

Someone With Mass wrote...
Why are we comparing real military forces to fictional ones?

Is it because you want Mass Effect to be realistic in some bizarre fashion?

There's nothing bizzare about expecting losses in the most destructive war ever.

[Nizzemancer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

And that explanation is crap. They didn'tseem to have any problems in missions before SM. Tehre is such a disconnect between loyalty, SM and death that it's mind-boggling.

It's not crap at all...Are you dense or something? The reason they didn't have any problems with the other missions was because they didn't require their full undistracted attention, the suicide mission however obviously did or everyone would have survived regardless of your choices.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Nizzemancer wrote...


It's not crap at all...Are you dense or something? The reason they didn't have any problems with the other missions was because they didn't require their full undistracted attention, the suicide mission however obviously did or everyone would have survived regardless of your choices.

Using Tali as an example, there's a slight difference between shooting bad guys and hacking alien machinery she's never tried her hand at before. The former can be done while chatting (as proven in LOtSB), while the latter would require someone's undivided attention.

/opinion

[Lotion Soronarr]

ViceVersaMan wrote...
Isn't that what this argument is really about at its core? Whether you prefer the ME or ME2 "Who Survives?" system, and the degree to which these systems should be employed?

I liked both. The devs could use either, both, or neither and I would be content, so long as it fit with the rest of the story they're telling.

I don't think anyone here( with an exception or two) would find a different system off-putting enough to not buy/play the game.

Everyone else here seems to want to dictate exactly what it SHOULD be. If you're so sure of what this story should be, how it should end, or how many people should die... why don't you just go write it yourself and skip ME3 altogether?

Is that even supposed to be an argumnet? "Do it yourself" has never been a good response. Partially because none of us CAN do it.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There's nothing bizzare about expecting losses in the most destructive war ever.

No, but there's nothing bizarre about expecting certain people to survive according to one's choices in a fictional tale either.

It's why it's fictional. It's not trying to simulate a real war, like WWII.

It can take inspiration from a real war, but to expect the game to take almost everything from that war is just silly, because then it wouldn't be telling its own story. It'd be telling the outcome and story of that specific war with a different setting.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 17 octobre 2011 - 10:31 .

[ViceVersaMan]

Athayniel wrote...

The thing is in just about every BioWare story, and especially Mass Effect's, you have a say in how it ends, through your choices and actions in the game. BioWare always gives their players some agency in the ultimate outcome of the story. A linear set of fixed points with various paths between those points and branching out to a myriad of endings when all is said and done. Your path through the story is yours alone.

That's true. But I'm discussing the framework of those options, as this argument seems to be.

The driving question of this thread is: Should crew deaths be preventable?

Some people say yes. Others say no. This reflects a preference for one of two systems demonstrated so far: ME1, where the (one) death was inevitable, and it came down to a simple player choice, and ME2, where anyone could die, but it came down more to simple player strategy and--most importantly--everyone could live.

What I'm saying is that I don't have a preference at all. I liked being surprised that I HAD to choose in ME1. I further liked being surprised that there was no such clear-cut choice in ME2 (I lost someone anyway, and liked that surprise as well).

My preference, therefore, IS surprise. Should it be like ME1, ME2, or a combination of both? Whatever fits best. Maybe even an entirely new system that we haven't yet imagined.

It just seems strange to me that so many people want one or the other. I'd rather not know what was coming at all. Being surprised by the kinds of choices that I had to make in the first two games was most of the fun for me. It kept me on my toes, kept me guessing, and made it feel like there was an unknowable burden on me. This made my decisions feel more real.

I'd rather see a system that fits well with the story BioWare is telling (which NONE of us have all the details on yet) than see one just because I'd prefer being able to save everyone or being forced to lose one or more people.

But hey, that's just my opinion. I'm not here to judge or impugn anyone else's.