4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

CRPGs are more like advanced forms of choose your own adventures than they are tabletop RPGs.

People need to accept the limitations of the medium (limitations that will ALWAYS be there - because you simply cannot program the human imagination, the processor which functions in tabletop gaming, into a video game.)

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...


But we're not talking about a squadmate being unkillable, we're talking about a squadmate which can die, but whom Shepard can potentially save, if he/she is willing to make some sort of compromise.  I think that takes things in more directions.  How much is the player willing to sacrifice?  Would the character resent Shepard for it?  Or be grateful?    Does saving one character endanger another later on?

But there we get into the issue of the "perfect ending". It still doesn't remove the tension though; the problem is that since the player is now aware of this fact (he can save every squad-mate), it is still contingent on him. If I want, I can now say "every squad-mate will survive", long as I wish it.

I'm not saying a mandatory plot death is always a bad thing.  But it needs to be done carefully.  Mass Effect 3 in particular, because some of these characters have been with us since the beginning, and bonding has taken place.  These are not new characters in a new story.

But I'd argue that's the case in any medium, especially considering there character death is mandatory. Obviously I agree that "good character death" is better than "bad character death", but that's an issue of implementation. That does not change that other characters have died in other stories, and very effectively. Bioware can certainly do it if others can.

Actually that may be another reason to hope Bioware goes on to new projects after this...

That was my wish. I love both Dragon Age and Mass Effect, but I miss new IPs, which was one great advantage of being able to play Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Origins in succession: the experience of a new setting.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 02:20 .

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

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? 

We could get into a semantic argument about the difference between "you allow it to happen" and "you are able to prevent it in gameplay or with story choices". At that point it's just difference in implementation that matters. The point being that squadmate death isn't the only way to create tension, and subjectively it's not even the best way either.

Different people have different tolerances for "Drama!" and whereas for one person they like it when it gets bloody and dark and grim and the more it happens over the course of the story the better, others just get numb after a while and will stop playing because they will no longer enjoy it.

Some people also only invest themselves in the characters in their squad, so only things which happens to them will affect them, whereas others immerse themselves in the entire universe and they are affected by anything that happens in the universe.

Neither extreme is wrong. Neither is better than the other. This is something that has been explained by proponents of "no mandatory squadmate deaths" ad infinitum. We're not advocating that squadmates be immune to death or that the stories available in ME3 not include them. Just that if choices are made a certain way, if the player fights hard enough and well enough, that they get the ending they want to achieve, with a story they are satisfied with having played a Shepard they are happy with.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

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.

And to that I say no. A good story is a good story. Period.

The presenation changes. But the core is the same.
The writing is the same. There is no difference in a good story for a game or a book or a TV. The only difference is in the implemenation/presentation.

If your argument boils to down to "story went where I didn't want it to, therefore it suicks" then that's nothing new. Same holds true for a movie or book. If you don't like the story, you don't

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...


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.

Sure, and yet players complain about everything. It doesn't make them good complaints. An interactive narrative means just that; you interact with the narrative. However, you are not the author, you are not God. There is no reason that mandatory squad deaths should not be possible from an artistic stand point. You are still engaging in a medium of story-telling.  

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.

That's all still there. You're still free to decide how to react within any given situation, within limitations. That you are in an interactive story does not mean you should have the ability to decide in every instance whether your favorite character dies or not, consequences or not, any more than I get to decide whether Taris is blown up in KotOR.  

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No it's not.

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

You're pretty much doing the same thing, so I don't see the problem.

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

Yes.  You know how Luke Skywalker was able to blow up the Death Star?  How Frodo was able to get all the way to Mt. Doom without being torn apart by orcs?  How Shepard was able to receive the beacon's message without having her brain fried?

Successful protagonists are more often than not very lucky bastards.  In fact, it's luck that often puts them into situations where they must become a hero in the first place.  Or bad luck.  Coincidences, being in the right place at the right time, unlikely events happening to otherwise normal people...  This is the stuff many stories are made of.

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

So everyone dies before Shep gets the chance to recruit 'em?

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.

How bad someone wants you dead in a videogame rarely matters, since it's usually relatively easy to plow through endless seas of mooks.  Even in movies--check out Star Wars and Zombieland.  Or pretty much every James Bond movie ever made.

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

Close enough.

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

Shields.

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

Medigel.

[Lotion Soronarr]

And you see that same complaint in every story/move ever told frothe beginign of time, when the audience doesn't particualy like the way the story went.

People complaining means nothing. They will ALWAYS complain. You will never satisfy everyone.

It is compeltely unreasonable that a player has every choice. Even for a real live GM that would be a strenius task. You were talking about medium, yet you now seem to be forgetting the limiations of the very same medium.
At the end of hte day you will only have choices on SOME things. You insist the death of all squadmates be among those choices. What makes the squadmates more worthy of being in that group than anything else (like for example, working with Cerberus?)
Nothing..Not a single thing.
There is no logical reason behind it. No advantage. No story-telling or writing reason.
There is only one reason behind it - the smae reason that has been from the first page. "Il ike character X, dont' let him die!". That's it.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...


Neither extreme is wrong. Neither is better than the other. This is something that has been explained by proponents of "no mandatory squadmate deaths" ad infinitum. We're not advocating that squadmates be immune to death or that the stories available in ME3 not include them. Just that if choices are made a certain way, if the player fights hard enough and well enough, that they get the ending they want to achieve, with a story they are satisfied with having played a Shepard they are happy with.

It doesn't matter how hard you fight, or what perceived difficulties you feel are implemented. If Bioware implements this, by necessity narrative options are lost merely because I know that I can bring my entire squad out of the experience alive. "Mandatory Squad-mate deaths can happen" does not mean "Mandatory squad-mate deaths will happen", which is a critical difference. Bioware should not limit themselves in any fashion regarding the narrative merely because someone wants a happy ending. If they think the best method to go is to shoot Garrus, by all means. If they think the best method is to keep him alive, that's fine too.

Your position by necessity results in the reduction of possibilities, which by extension limits the narrative. Bioware's prime attribute as they say is "story-telling", which your position would inhibit.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 01:41 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Bad form.  Provide the link to the info yourself.  Haughtily declaring "google it" makes you look like an ass.

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.

However, sh*t like that happens in videogames all the time.  Hell, fiction pretty much relies in improbability.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

And you can't think outside your little box as usual.

Oh, and by the way. I have never said that I want unrealistic (Mass Effect is unrealistic? NO WAY!) escapism in ME3. I just said that I don't want those cheap "death for drama" situations like Virmire, where there are logical holes one can fly the Normandy through (why can't the rest of the team assist Ashley and/or Kaidan, for example, and up their chances of not getting neck-deep in sh*t).

I also just love how it's either death scenarios or the whole thing is My Little Pony with fairy tales. Just shows how unimaginative you are.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 17 octobre 2011 - 01:45 .

[Jenova65]

My feelings exactly, AdmiralCheez....
I don't want to be forced to stomach squad death, losing Ashley is still hard after multiple times played through.... I want to save everyone, I want Terry Pratchett's concept of ''It's a million to one chance, but it just might work''

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

But there we get into the issue of the "perfect ending". It still doesn't remove the tension though; the problem is that since the player is now aware of this fact (he can save every squad-mate), it is still contingent on him. If I want, I can now say "

"Perfect ending" is another semantic creature used by those who prefer for there to be mandatory squad deaths use when misrepresenting the arguments of their oppositiong. For instance, I never say "perfect ending" I say "preferred ending" or "the ending we want". No ending with billions of dead sentients and planets left in ruins and fleets of ships destroyed could ever be described as "perfect". Anyone who does has an agenda they are pushing.

But I'd argue that's the case in any medium, especially considering there character death is mandatory. Obviously I agree that "good character death" is better than "bad character death", but that's an issue of implementation. That does not change that other characters have died in other stories, and very effectively. Bioware can certainly do it if others can.

And I'm arguing that character death, regardless of how well implemented, is not necessary to tell a great story, its not even a truism to say that two stories where the only difference is that a character who dies in one gets to live in the other can't be equally worthy.

That was my wish. I love both Dragon Age and Mass Effect, but I miss new IPs, which was one great advantage of being able to play Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Origins in succession: the experience of a new setting.

I would love to see a Jade Empire sequel.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And you see that same complaint in every story/move ever told frothe beginign of time, when the audience doesn't particualy like the way the story went.

And then videogames come along where the audience can finally have a say in that sort of thing.

People complaining means nothing. They will ALWAYS complain. You will never satisfy everyone.

People like you?

It is compeltely unreasonable that a player has every choice. Even for a real live GM that would be a strenius task. You were talking about medium, yet you now seem to be forgetting the limiations of the very same medium.
At the end of hte day you will only have choices on SOME things. You insist the death of all squadmates be among those choices. What makes the squadmates more worthy of being in that group than anything else (like for example, working with Cerberus?)
Nothing..Not a single thing.
There is no logical reason behind it. No advantage. No story-telling or writing reason.
There is only one reason behind it - the smae reason that has been from the first page. "Il ike character X, dont' let him die!". That's it.

Nah, I want to be able the save the ones I don't like much, either.  Mostly because I'm tired of the forced drama sh*t.

[Someone With Mass]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
However, sh*t like that happens in videogames all the time.  Hell, fiction pretty much relies in improbability.

That's why it's fictional. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No it's not.

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

You're pretty much doing the same thing, so I don't see the problem.

I'm not. I provide reasons... you basicly seem to be repeating "because"

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

Yes.  You know how Luke Skywalker was able to blow up the Death Star?  How Frodo was able to get all the way to Mt. Doom without being torn apart by orcs?  How Shepard was able to receive the beacon's message without having her brain fried?

Successful protagonists are more often than not very lucky bastards.  In fact, it's luck that often puts them into situations where they must become a hero in the first place.  Or bad luck.  Coincidences, being in the right place at the right time, unlikely events happening to otherwise normal people...  This is the stuff many stories are made of.

There's luck and then there's luck. Where do you draw a line?
When is it too much?

Would it bother you if Shep stood still in place, fireing a heavy-machinegun Rambo-style with a hunderd enemeis shooting at him..and all missing? After all, it's luck right? You shouldn't be bothered by it.

Also, Luke used the Froce (and was established before as being very accurate)
Frodo had help from Sam and both had elven cloacks and supplies. (and they still got captured)

So yes. Main protagonsit are always lucky and skilled. But after a certain treshold it turns into a parody, instead of a serious story.

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

So everyone dies before Shep gets the chance to recruit 'em?

Nope. But it's hihgly likely at least one would.
Even so, Shep runs around in 3-man teams. He's not in the position to protect hte others then.
And even in small teams, you can be in position to not be able to save your friend ,even tough ysour' just a few meters apart.

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.

How bad someone wants you dead in a videogame rarely matters, since it's usually relatively easy to plow through endless seas of mooks.  Even in movies--check out Star Wars and Zombieland.  Or pretty much every James Bond movie ever made.

And..that is suposed to counter my argument how exactly?

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.[/quote]
Bad form.  Provide the link to the info yourself.  Haughtily declaring "google it" makes you look like an ass.[/qutoe]

Don't care.
It's not my job to eduicte you on things that are common sense or self-evident.



[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]

However, sh*t like that happens in videogames all the time.  Hell, fiction pretty much relies in improbability.
[/quote]

No.
Fiction takes place in different places, but unless tehy are parodies or comedies - and if they turly want to be taken as serious works - they mantain a high level of believability and do as little as possible to break the Suspension of Disbelief.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And to that I say no. A good story is a good story. Period.

The presenation changes. But the core is the same.
The writing is the same. There is no difference in a good story for a game or a book or a TV. The only difference is in the implemenation/presentation.

If your argument boils to down to "story went where I didn't want it to, therefore it suicks" then that's nothing new. Same holds true for a movie or book. If you don't like the story, you don't

Except in the case of interactive fiction, the variability becomes part of the quality of the story. I can look at the various endings available in ME1 and ME2 and although I can see them as collections of separate stories I can also see the entire structure as a beautifully crafted whole. I don't reduce Mass Effect to a single canonical story. I accept its myriad possibilities as the artistic expression that it is.

[TheRevanchist]

Il Divo wrote...

Athayniel wrote...


Neither extreme is wrong. Neither is better than the other. This is something that has been explained by proponents of "no mandatory squadmate deaths" ad infinitum. We're not advocating that squadmates be immune to death or that the stories available in ME3 not include them. Just that if choices are made a certain way, if the player fights hard enough and well enough, that they get the ending they want to achieve, with a story they are satisfied with having played a Shepard they are happy with.

It doesn't matter how hard you fight, or what perceived difficulties you feel are implemented. If Bioware implements this, by necessity narrative options are lost merely because I know that I can bring my entire squad out of the experience alive. "Mandatory Squad-mate deaths can happen" does not mean "Mandatory squad-mate deaths will happen", which is a critical difference. Bioware should not limit themselves in any fashion regarding the narrative merely because someone wants a happy ending. If they think the best method to go is to shoot Garrus, by all means. If they think the best method is to keep him alive, that's fine too.

Your position by necessity results in the reduction of possibilities, which by extension limits the narrative. Bioware's prime attribute as they say is "story-telling", which your position would inhibit.

Except that by forceing a death you are also limiting possibilites. You cannot do another possible plot with that character down the road, you cannot take the alternate path during that critical moment, and find out where that path takes you. By forceing a character to die you are imposeing just as much limitation to story possibility.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

And you can't think outside your little box as usual.

Oh, and by the way. I have never said that I want unrealistic (Mass Effect is unrealistic? NO WAY!) escapism in ME3. I just said that I don't want those cheap "death for drama" situations like Virmire, where there are logical holes one can fly the Normandy through (why can't the rest of the team assist Ashley and/or Kaidan, for example, and up their chances of not getting neck-deep in sh*t).

I also just love how it's either death scenarios or the whole thing is My Little Pony with fairy tales. Just shows how unimaginative you are.

I learend it all from you.

Now, speaking of vimire and similar - dearth for drama is not cheap. The existance of logical holes is a problem, and indeed, where the VS choice fails is that it it fails to properly convey that other options are not viable. My first though was to bring in the Normandy (it was howevering overh te bomb site a minute ago).

As long as it's well-established and explained why other avenues can't be taken, then tghere is 0 problem with VS scenarios.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

"Perfect ending" is another semantic creature used by those who prefer for there to be mandatory squad deaths use when misrepresenting the arguments of their oppositiong. For instance, I never say "perfect ending" I say "preferred ending" or "the ending we want". No ending with billions of dead sentients and planets left in ruins and fleets of ships destroyed could ever be described as "perfect". Anyone who does has an agenda they are pushing.

Well, then maybe you lot coudl start misinterpreting us too. You know..al lthe doom and gloom, everyone dies things you assert we want?

And I'm arguing that character death, regardless of how well implemented, is not necessary to tell a great story, its not even a truism to say that two stories where the only difference is that a character who dies in one gets to live in the other can't be equally worthy.

Depends on the story. In ME univrse, in this situation?
Defniantely better to have.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And you see that same complaint in every story/move ever told frothe beginign of time, when the audience doesn't particualy like the way the story went.

And then videogames come along where the audience can finally have a say in that sort of thing.

Don't dellude yourself. You got very little say in anything. everything is decided up front, no one is consulting you.
What's with the sense of entiltement?

People complaining means nothing. They will ALWAYS complain. You will never satisfy everyone.

People like you?

And you.

It is compeltely unreasonable that a player has every choice. Even for a real live GM that would be a strenius task. You were talking about medium, yet you now seem to be forgetting the limiations of the very same medium.
At the end of hte day you will only have choices on SOME things. You insist the death of all squadmates be among those choices. What makes the squadmates more worthy of being in that group than anything else (like for example, working with Cerberus?)
Nothing..Not a single thing.
There is no logical reason behind it. No advantage. No story-telling or writing reason.
There is only one reason behind it - the smae reason that has been from the first page. "Il ike character X, dont' let him die!". That's it.

Nah, I want to be able the save the ones I don't like much, either.  Mostly because I'm tired of the forced drama sh*t.

And I'm tired people sucking out all the drama out because tehy can't let go sh*t.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 17 octobre 2011 - 01:58 .

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

It doesn't matter how hard you fight, or what perceived difficulties you feel are implemented. If Bioware implements this, by necessity narrative options are lost merely because I know that I can bring my entire squad out of the experience alive. "Mandatory Squad-mate deaths can happen" does not mean "Mandatory squad-mate deaths will happen", which is a critical difference. Bioware should not limit themselves in any fashion regarding the narrative merely because someone wants a happy ending. If they think the best method to go is to shoot Garrus, by all means. If they think the best method is to keep him alive, that's fine too.

Your position by necessity results in the reduction of possibilities, which by extension limits the narrative. Bioware's prime attribute as they say is "story-telling", which your position would inhibit.

If you think the "mandatory" is the important part instead of "squadmate death" then you're right it does limit the narrative possibilites. I don't consider it the important part and as a loyal consumer of the stories BioWare crafts I don't have a problem with the limitation.

[TheRevanchist]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And I'm tired people sucking out all the drama out because tehy can't let go sh*t.

And I grow tierd of VERY damn story in exsistence being sad and depressing on some level. And telling me to go watch "My Little Pony" then is nothing but childish. Not everyone likes basking in sorrow and misery, and not everyone thinks that makes a good story.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...
Except in the case of interactive fiction, the variability becomes part of the quality of the story. I can look at the various endings available in ME1 and ME2 and although I can see them as collections of separate stories I can also see the entire structure as a beautifully crafted whole. I don't reduce Mass Effect to a single canonical story. I accept its myriad possibilities as the artistic expression that it is.

Then you uinderstand nothing.

Because the ME story and writing is the whole story. Everything.


And speaking of it...woudl you consider action games bad? After all you interact. There is a story. You you basicly get no to little choices. Does that make the writing/story bad?