4309 réponses à ce sujet

[ViceVersaMan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I say that only because of people here who seem to suggest that their ending of ME3 (and thus their ME3 experience) would be ruined by one ending or another: having everyone survive or being forced to lose someone.

Seriously, if you've enjoyed the story thus far, why does it have to be one or another? Why can't it be whatever the BioWare devs decide best fits this part of the story? And if it can't be, if that would completely ruin this story for you... well... then what option do you have other than writing the ending yourself, or, um... raging on the forums about how correct your position is and hoping that the ME3 writers have similar ideas on how the story should end?

This particular argument just seems silly to me. But it would seem I'm alone in that opinion.

[Notlikeyoucare]

I don't actually know how the crew's death was preventable. If they were loyal they survived, if they weren't or didn't have a certain average value they died. The whole thing seems completely arbitrary.

[Athayniel]

ViceVersaMan wrote...

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.

Actually, you'll find that one thing which most people in both camps agree on is that neither the Virmire choice or the SM were implemented particularly well. Take from that what you will.

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.

Absolutely valid perspective. Which is what the discussion mostly comes down to. How someone prefers to get their fiction in an interactive medium.

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.

Never thought you did. i want everyone to be able to get a story they want, in a way that is satisfying, with a Shepard they are happy with.

[nitefyre410]

Mi-Chan wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

SPOILERS FOR DRAGON AGE 2

In DA2 Hawke controls absolutely nothing, and everything that happens affect him not the other way around. You can't prevent the death of your mom or one of your siblings and you will ALWAYS lose your second sibling (temporarily or permanently). It did a good job of making you feel helpless HOWEVER it felt like we had no choice in the matter.

/opinion

 


*points to the Dragon Age 2 forums* and look at  how well that  was recieved  even thought  I had  no issues with it  besides some better execution.  If Biowares pulls what they pulled in DA 2 in ME 3  oh its going  the end of the world  and collective what the **** from the fan base  is going to resounding.  

I liked DA 2 -  they  could executed things better but I think it was step in a the right direction. 

/opinion 

edit: its early  and I'm still rather 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 17 octobre 2011 - 11:01 .

[ViceVersaMan]

Athayniel wrote...

Actually, you'll find that one thing which most people in both camps agree on is that neither the Virmire choice or the SM were implemented particularly well. Take from that what you will.

Oh, I'm not doubting that. I meant it more generally: ME1 had (at least one) required crew death, ME2 had no required deaths, but almost limitless "optional" crew deaths. We can agree at least that the argument thus far has been more or less between the basic idea of those two systems: inevitable and optional crew deaths, hm?

Athayniel wrote...

Never thought you did. i want everyone to be able to get a story they want, in a way that is satisfying, with a Shepard they are happy with.

Definitely agree with this. At the same time, though, I'm getting tired of hearing these constant arguments about "My ME3 story has to end this way or it will be RUINED" both in this thread and others. The fun for me in these games was always in seeing how the options I was given and the choices I made affected this living story that Shepard is a part of. For me, the hard choices are the best part.

I hope everyone gets the story they want, but more than that, I hope that ME3 has a satisfying conclusion with respect to itself and the two games that came before it... a conclusion not based on the whims of countless rants about happy endings, tragic endings, marriage endings, LI death endings, death to all quarians, vorcha for next council seat, Lorik Qui'in for President 2188, earth must explode, reapers must win, or what have you.

By giving us choice in where Shepard's story goes, it seems like BioWare has given its fans an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Many of us seem to want the EXACT STORY WE WANT DOWN TO THE LAST DETAIL AND NO ONE ELSE'S STORY DESIRES ARE VALID. A healthy debate is always a good thing, but I'm observing way too much extremism in arguments of late, especially this one.

Not that any of the posters I've quoted have been guilty of this :happy:. You've all been civil and cogent... I don't participate in a debate if I don't consider it a healthy one. I just wanted to add another perspective to this argument between two dramatically oppossed sides. I am quite easily ignored, and I don't mind it much either. 

[CoffeeHolic93]

ViceVersaMan wrote...

Definitely agree with this. At the same time, though, I'm getting tired of hearing these constant arguments about "My ME3 story has to end this way or it will be RUINED" both in this thread and others. The fun for me in these games was always in seeing how the options I was given and the choices I made affected this living story that Shepard is a part of. For me, the hard choices are the best part.

I hope everyone gets the story they want, but more than that, I hope that ME3 has a satisfying conclusion with respect to itself and the two games that came before it... a conclusion not based on the whims of countless rants about happy endings, tragic endings, marriage endings, LI death endings, death to all quarians, vorcha for next council seat, Lorik Qui'in for President 2188, earth must explode, reapers must win, or what have you.

By giving us choice in where Shepard's story goes, it seems like BioWare has given its fans an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Many of us seem to want the EXACT STORY WE WANT DOWN TO THE LAST DETAIL AND NO ONE ELSE'S STORY DESIRES ARE VALID. A healthy debate is always a good thing, but I'm observing way too much extremism in arguments of late, especially this one.

Not that any of the posters I've quoted have been guilty of this :happy:. You've all been civil and cogent... I don't participate in a debate if I don't consider it a healthy one. I just wanted to add another perspective to this argument between two dramatically oppossed sides. I am quite easily ignored, and I don't mind it much either. 

Extremism is never a good thing. I'm all for people voicing their opinions, approval or disapproval of certain aspects of the game, but shouting never helps. :blush:If it ends with shouting at each other it becomes a contest of stamina, and then the more patient one will "win" even if it was a discussion based on opinions. 

[Athayniel]

ViceVersaMan wrote...

Oh, I'm not doubting that. I meant it more generally: ME1 had (at least one) required crew death, ME2 had no required deaths, but almost limitless "optional" crew deaths. We can agree at least that the argument thus far has been more or less between the basic idea of those two systems: inevitable and optional crew deaths, hm?

Implementation details aside, you are correct. I've never made any bones about that.

Definitely agree with this. At the same time, though, I'm getting tired of hearing these constant arguments about "My ME3 story has to end this way or it will be RUINED" both in this thread and others. The fun for me in these games was always in seeing how the options I was given and the choices I made affected this living story that Shepard is a part of. For me, the hard choices are the best part.

Quite so. I'd like to see the choices available to the player to run that gamut from how Shepard finally gets to dis the Turian councilor, to having to choose between saving a fleet of turian warships or the refugee ships they are escorting to safety.

But I also want to see a lot more variety in how those decisions are implemented, so not just choosing two different options on a dialogue wheel, but taking two different directions on a map, or assaulting different targets at different times and then adding on top of that if you accomplish your first objective quickly and efficiently enough that you may just have time to accomplish objective number two if you really scramble, perhaps taking extra risks with your squaddies.

[Notlikeyoucare]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I always get the IFF as soon as possible. I did that my very first run too. I lost the whole crew, including Chakwas. However I don't feel that's enough. The crew is not the squadmates. They have significantly less dialogue and screen time.

See, this is the problem.  You measure things, attach rules, develop formulas for what you consider accceptable.  You quantify things that aren't supposed to be quantified.  You're too detached.

Try feeling instead of analyzing, going with instinct instead of rules.  Become part of the experience instead of just observing it from afar.

It's the difference between looking at a painting and looking at a painting.

Rubbish. The standards of a film are not in question here; its the standards of a story that are being questioned, the medium is irrelivant. Screentime isn't the issue, its how that screentime and what is in it is of any value to the story. I am feeling.... Feeling nothing but a mixture of anger, frustration, confusion, and disappointment of said story.

[Athayniel]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Rubbish. The standards of a film are not in question here; its the standards of a story that are being questioned, the medium is irrelivant. Screentime isn't the issue, its how that screentime and what is in it is of any value to the story. I am feeling.... Feeling nothing but a mixture of anger, frustration, confusion, and disappointment of said story.

Medium is very important. Film's are not judged the same way books are which are not judged the same way paintings are, which are not judged the same way music is. Each medium has different conventions, different modes of expression, different standards and sometimes even different audiences. Expecting computer games to be judged by the same rules as films or books is to ignore the differences which the medium can bring to the storytelling and doing a disservice to computer games as a result.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
See, when I play, I don't think to myself, "what would be the most artistically valid conclusion to this particular segment?" but rather "it's my responsibility to overcome this challenge; how do I do that?"  I accept the role the game wants me to play (that of Shepard), and instead of an audience member I become an actor.  Eventually, I get in the mindset that I am the thing I'm pretending to be, not to the point of delusion of course, but to the point where when I play I think of the Normandy as my ship, and her crew, my crew.  Shepard's mission is my mission, and on behalf of everything we're fighting for I can't fail.

My method of play is not necessarily more valid than yours, but in order to understand my points, you need to see it from that perspective.

Interestingly enough, I play the same way...however, quite often I find bad writing slapping me in the face and jolting me out of that immersive experience.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nizzemancer wrote...

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.

:blink:
...
...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D:D


Fighting for your life doesn't require your full attention?
Really?
Dear Lord!

I have no idea by what kind of f****-up petty excuse for logic you're operating, but it certanly ain't from this world.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Yes it would. Your'e not making any sesne (as usual).

I dont' care that its' fictional. Since when a tale being fictional means it HAS to throw out believabiltiy and reason?

You want fantastical, unrealistic escapism. I don't.
There is no reconciliation between these two approaches (or types of stories).

If you so want feel-good fairy tales, go wathc My Little Ponies or something.

[Sgt Stryker]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

jreezy wrote...

If only luck could be taken out of the equation...

If luck were taken out of the equation, the Reapers would have shown up five minutes into ME1 and everyone would be dead.

More like the Reapers would have showed up thousands or hundreds of years ago, and humanity would have stumbled into an empty galaxy. Instead of the "prothean" Citadel, we would inherit the asari/turian/salarian Citadel.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ViceVersaMan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I say that only because of people here who seem to suggest that their ending of ME3 (and thus their ME3 experience) would be ruined by one ending or another: having everyone survive or being forced to lose someone.

Seriously, if you've enjoyed the story thus far, why does it have to be one or another? Why can't it be whatever the BioWare devs decide best fits this part of the story? And if it can't be, if that would completely ruin this story for you... well... then what option do you have other than writing the ending yourself, or, um... raging on the forums about how correct your position is and hoping that the ME3 writers have similar ideas on how the story should end?

This particular argument just seems silly to me. But it would seem I'm alone in that opinion.

Did I ever say that any other solution but mine RUINS EVERYTHING FOREVER?
Did I throw a fit stating that Bioware will have betrayed me otherwise and I won't buy the game?
Nope.
I clearly stated what I feel is superior storytelling and a better story/solution.
I can live with it not being like that. I might enjoy the story less, but it's harldy going to be the end of existence as we know it (despite what fanboys here seem to think)

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Rubbish. The standards of a film are not in question here; its the standards of a story that are being questioned, the medium is irrelivant. Screentime isn't the issue, its how that screentime and what is in it is of any value to the story. I am feeling.... Feeling nothing but a mixture of anger, frustration, confusion, and disappointment of said story.

Medium is very important. Film's are not judged the same way books are which are not judged the same way paintings are, which are not judged the same way music is. Each medium has different conventions, different modes of expression, different standards and sometimes even different audiences. Expecting computer games to be judged by the same rules as films or books is to ignore the differences which the medium can bring to the storytelling and doing a disservice to computer games as a result.

The basics of writing a good story remian the same for ALL MEDIUMS.

We're not trying to ingore the difference in medium - you're the one trying to use it as an excuse for bad writing.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The basics of writing a good story remian the same for ALL MEDIUMS.

We're not trying to ingore the difference in medium - you're the one trying to use it as an excuse for bad writing.

No. What I'm saying is that what makes for a good story in one medium does not necessarily make for a good story in another. In a medium such as computer games where variability and player agency are a consideration, the ability to tailor the events which happen in the story to the tastes of the consumer can make that story better overall. The overall quality of a story is not dependent solely on the writer but on the interpretation and preference of the consumer. One-size-fits-all storytelling has no place in interactive fiction. When you give the audience choices to make which go on to shape the experience and the outcome then that affects the way you can present the fiction as well. If you convince the player that they have a stake and a voice in the direction the story goes, arbitrarily taking away that agency can and does have a negative effect on the perception of your story.

[ViceVersaMan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Did I ever say that any other solution but mine RUINS EVERYTHING FOREVER?
Did I throw a fit stating that Bioware will have betrayed me otherwise and I won't buy the game?
Nope.
I clearly stated what I feel is superior storytelling and a better story/solution.
I can live with it not being like that. I might enjoy the story less, but it's harldy going to be the end of existence as we know it (despite what fanboys here seem to think)

Nor did I intend to accuse you of doing so. You were not among the people I was referencing, and my apologies for not making that clear. As I said in an earlier post:

ViceVersaMan wrote...
Not that any of the posters I've quoted have been guilty of this. You've all been civil and cogent... I don't participate in a debate if I don't consider it a healthy one. I just wanted to add another perspective to this argument between two dramatically oppossed sides. I am quite easily ignored, and I don't mind it much either. 

Modifié par ViceVersaMan, 17 octobre 2011 - 12:41 .

[crimzontearz]

good and bad are entirely subjective concepts. Someone's writing gold is someone else's trash. For some a good story is about escapism, for others it's a reminder of how completely ****** life truly is.


here's some food for thought

as customers who may or may not buy a product depending on its features (may it be gameplay related or otherwise...I mean I did not buy DA2 mainly because of the lack of NG+) should we have the right to be informed of how endings are handled in a much less vague (yet not utterly spoilerific) manner?

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...


No. What I'm saying is that what makes for a good story in one medium does not necessarily make for a good story in another. In a medium such as computer games where variability and player agency are a consideration, the ability to tailor the events which happen in the story to the tastes of the consumer can make that story better overall. The overall quality of a story is not dependent solely on the writer but on the interpretation and preference of the consumer. One-size-fits-all storytelling has no place in interactive fiction. When you give the audience choices to make which go on to shape the experience and the outcome then that affects the way you can present the fiction as well. If you convince the player that they have a stake and a voice in the direction the story goes, arbitrarily taking away that agency can and does have a negative effect on the perception of your story.

 No story has 100% player agency. Even Bioware games feature a huge number of moments where you're unable to affect what's going on. The importance of player agency in games means that choice should be an option. It does not mean that every plot point must involve a choice, even a squad-mate choice.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel 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.

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?

For the millionth time, I understand the position. It's always going to be a narrative limitation if Bioware says "Okay guys, we'll never allow your squad-mates to die unless you allow it to happen, even with consequences". So how's that? Am I still misrepresenting the position? 

[Il Divo]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I always get the IFF as soon as possible. I did that my very first run too. I lost the whole crew, including Chakwas. However I don't feel that's enough. The crew is not the squadmates. They have significantly less dialogue and screen time.

See, this is the problem.  You measure things, attach rules, develop formulas for what you consider accceptable.  You quantify things that aren't supposed to be quantified.  You're too detached.

Try feeling instead of analyzing, going with instinct instead of rules.  Become part of the experience instead of just observing it from afar.

It's the difference between looking at a painting and looking at a painting.

It's not about rules; it's about how typical human beings feel emotion. It's certainly possible for people to feel emotion for individuals they barely know, but personal connections always affect us more (assuming here the implementation is not crap). That your entire crew has barely any dialogue/screen time limits the emotional connection which the player can form to them.

[Estelindis]

laecraft wrote...

You don't want choice. You want linearity. Here's the choice you want:

1. good. (has only benefits, no drawbacks) You're a hero, you care for lives, you do all the upgrades. You save everyone. You prevail.
2. bad. (has only drawbacks, no benefits) You're a jerk, you're rude to people, you waste lives, you don't care, you're incompetent. You get people killed. You fail.

There is NO choice here. What you're advocating is the complete illusion of choice. If presented with two options - good or bad, everybody will take the good one.

Here's the choice I want:

1. good (has some benefits).
2. good (has other benefits.)

Or this one:

1. bad (has some drawbacks)
2. bad (has other drawbacks.)

Or to be more precise:

1. gray (sacrifice some, save those of your choosing)
2. gray (pick your allegiances, sacrifice some, save those you'd never surrender.)

Now that's the real choice. There are equal paths. You have to think before chosing. You have to consider carefully and weigh the alternatives. You know there's no straight road to victory paved with blue bricks you can tread on without thinking. 

Excellent post.  While I enjoy Cheez's posts and generally sympathise with them more than Saphra's, I think you write the best explanation of the real dynamic at work.  Until a person sits down to write a game's plot, it's not always clear just how difficult it is to give a player real agency (benefit vs. benefit, drawback vs. drawback) while keeping the story from bifurcating so much that it becomes unmanageable.  I also appreciate your identification of us as players vs. writers.  It's natural for us to want the best results as players, but that doesn't mean it's best from a writing perspective.  

Thank you for the link to the book on storytelling.  I just picked up the audiobook version via Audible and am downloading it now.  

[Il Divo]

AdmiralCheez wrote...


A videogame is not a passive experience.  You're evaluating it as if it were a film.  Plus you were all "oh the crew dying didn't have much weight because they had less screentime," which is a rather odd attempt at putting a near-numerical value on dramatic impact based on something as silly as how many lines a character had.  Such quantification of death is disturbingly cold, and also over-simplified when one considers all other dramatic tools that can be ultilized to affect the player.

The mistake here is in assuming that because a video game's strength is that it's an interactive experience that every important moment must involve the player actively shaping the narrative. Sometimes the benefit of the Bioware game is merely that you get to choose your responses in any given situation, even if you're forced into the same actions, which the VS decision demonstrates.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 01:13 .

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

 No story has 100% player agency. Even Bioware games feature a huge number of moments where you're unable to affect what's going on. The importance of player agency in games means that choice should be an option. It does not mean that every plot point must involve a choice, even a squad-mate choice.

And you see players complaining about that endlessly. Why is Shepard working with Cerberus? Why couldn't Shepard just explain what was happening to the VS on Horizon? Why can't I romance Miranda/Jack/Tali/Thane/Jacob/Garrus with my femShep/manShep? Why can I not tell Tela Vasir to go jump out the window and conduct my own investigation? When you get to situations which it can be argued the player could have a choice then the player will complain if they don't.

I'm not saying the story shouldn't be on rails to an extent, it still has to progress along the lines of what they have made available. But when you create an interactive story, then the quality and importance of the interaction becomes an important part of the story, the story stops being a single narrative and the variability itself becomes an objective of the narrative.