4309 réponses à ce sujet

[lovgreno]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Also, you lose points for not even attempting to see the other side or offer compromises.  Which I've done.  Just not with you.  Because it's more fun this way. :3

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

For yourself, which is the critical distinction. I have never argued that you should desire what I want. I have argued that we can't have it both ways because the only way a character dies in your scenario is through player agency. My scenario requires that Bioware killing the characters is a possibility.

True, but as I said, that tension is only ever in full effect before the first playthrough. You can't argue the tension is the same after that because you will know it is coming.

Given that you are arguing for your "preferred playthrough" where circumstances are ideal, that removes the possibility of tension, since it's all dependent on my abilities as a player and I can keep trying until success. I chose to settle for a less than perfect scenario. Your scenario would give me less tension, hence it has less value to me.

Who said anything about ideal circumstances? The circumstances can be anything imaginable. Shep and squaddies have been captured and imprisoned. Squaddies are taken away to be executed while Shep is taken to be interrogated. Injured and with no armour and using only fists or weapons picked up from fallen foes Shepard must then affect a rescue before the squaddies die. Make the level and enemies variable or even randomly generated and you have a high risk, high difficulty scenario with a lot of drama which can be replayed however many times with little loss in tension between playthroughs. Yes it depends on your skill as a player but that is a tuning issue and not an issue with the scenario or the limitations of the narrative.

As I've said before, I know Obi-Wan dies during Star Wars, After the first viewing the lightsaber fight between him and Darth Vader held no tension for me. If it retains tension for you then that's something particular to you and you shouldn't expect anyone else to be in the same boat. It is highly unlikely that it would be the case in fact.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

True, but as I said, that tension is only ever in full effect before the first playthrough. You can't argue the tension is the same after that because you will know it is coming.

The same? No. Can it affect subsequent perceptions? Certainly. You want an example? Let's go back to the novel .

Scenario A: Someone tells you that your favorite character is going to die.
Scenario B: You experience your favorite character's death over the course of the narrative.

So subsequently, you should view the experience the exact same way now, since in both cases you now "know" of the death. But in scenario 2, you never actually experienced the death; you were told about it and were (as a result) expecting it, which drastically affects how you viewed the scene. And it will be worse if more detailed circumstances are given. In many cases, the first experience colors subsequent impressions because it affects how I originally received it. And as I said multiple times, I typically consider the first experience the most significant, so it means more to me than my third/fourth/millionth viewing, since it's typically the most enjoyable.

By your logic, most novels/films should not kill characters because on subsequent viewings, there is nothing there, since you know in those cases that it's going to happen. But video games, despite being an interactive experience, are still allowed to engage in this; they should engage in this imo if they feel it's necessary/important, no different than a film/novel. Games allowing player agency in some areas does not mean games must allow player agency in every area. A game could force a major course of action on the player (such as tracking Saren) while still allowing major decisions in other areas.   

Who said anything about ideal circumstances? The circumstances can be anything imaginable. Shep and squaddies have been captured and imprisoned. Squaddies are taken away to be executed while Shep is taken to be interrogated. Injured and with no armour and using only fists or weapons picked up from fallen foes Shepard must then affect a rescue before the squaddies die. Make the level and enemies variable or even randomly generated and you have a high risk, high difficulty scenario with a lot of drama which can be replayed however many times with little loss in tension between playthroughs. Yes it depends on your skill as a player but that is a tuning issue and not an issue with the scenario or the limitations of the narrative.

You have several times now argued for a scenario of the "ideal ending" where Shepard is able to come out with squad intact, major planets intact, etc. The existence of the ideal ending means that throughout the experience, I know that it's all contingent on me, which reduces/removes tension, since I know that it's all dependent on my abilities.

More options for the narrative leads to more tension, since it becomes increasingly difficult to predict what direction a writer will go in. Character X might die, Character X might live, Character X might live/die if I take a certain course of action. Like mandatory character death, your scenario still reduces dramatic tension on subsequent run throughs, since in those scenarios you know what to expect. The difference is that your scenario starts us off with less possibilities for the writers to go down.

As I've said before, I know Obi-Wan dies during Star Wars, After the first viewing the lightsaber fight between him and Darth Vader held no tension for me. If it retains tension for you then that's something particular to you and you shouldn't expect anyone else to be in the same boat. It is highly unlikely that it would be the case in fact.

Please point to where I said I expect you to feel what I feel with respect to how tension is created? I'm not arguing for what other people want, but for what I want.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 04:27 .

[jeweledleah]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Athayniel wrote...


Perhaps so but the grammatical nature of the statement is not at issue here, but the results of applying it are. That freedom available in your method is only ever of benefit in creating tension through one playthrough. Whereas my method allows for tension in any given playthrough.

To play the devil's advocate, your method allows for tension until the mechanics are discovered. We have a flowchart that explains how to kill off specific squadmates during the suicide mission if someone wishes for it to happen. I don't want to see that happen in the third game, so I'd accept a tough decision instead.

/Opinion. 

there will be flowcharts.  there will be flowcharts describing which decision leads to which death and if the deaths are manadory but still come with a choice of which squadmate, even if that choice is not done on thespot like with virmire - there will beflowcharts telling you exactly where that  and how that choice was made.  complete with dialogue trees.

regardless of what happens - sooner or later it will all come down to charts.

[Nilfalasiel]

As a former literature student, I can appreciate a good dramatic story. I've read and analyzed the living daylights out of several tragedies and painfully depressing novels, and found some of them to be masterpieces despite them making me feel like I'd run over a litter of kittens in a monster truck. I've also cried at countless films where my favourite characters died, without it lessening my enjoyment or, for some of them, my acknowledgement of the filmmakers' skill.

But the thing is, WRPGs are NOT literature, drama or film, or any other videogame genre. They are a unique medium with an emphasis on choice, and ignoring that uniqueness to try to recreate an experience that's inherent to other entertainment media is something that, IMO, they should not be doing. Where I wouldn't question a director's choice of killing off a character (or, alternatively, character death in an action game), I will do so in a WRPG. Yes, it has to do with fantasy fulfilment, yes, it's unrealistic, but as has already been pointed out several times, there's already plenty of realism to go around. If I want a story I have no impact on, I have plenty of options besides a WRPG. But what other media is there that allows you, the audience, to have an input? (even if the options you're being given have all been designed by the developers anyway, it's still more input than you would have in a novel or a film)

I wouldn't condone forcing storyline choices either way, be it good or bad. So just as I disagree with there being forced character deaths, I would also disagree with there being a forced happy ending. The operative word is "choice". So I agree with there being the possibility of losing people OR having a "no one left behind" ending. Perhaps make it more difficult to achieve than the ME2 Suicide Mission. But don't take it away. I've seen several people craft the SM to their liking so that some squaddies wouldn't make it, specifically for dramatic purposes. And if that's what they feel their story should be like, more power to them. They have the choice to do so. So why should that choice take away from the choices of other people, who would prefer to have everyone come through unscathed, no matter how unrealistic that may seem? (but again, as has been argued before, expecting realism from a sci-fi videogame...)

The counterargument to this is that you have to make stupid decisions during or pre-SM to lose people. For instance, it doesn't make sense to NOT upgrade your spaceship before going into a battle with impossible odds. That one, I agree with. But here's a counter-example: when Miranda, who is a genetically engineered biotic, tells you that she can manage the biotic bubble during the SM, is that so outlandish? Is it hard to believe? I don't think so. In fact, had I not liked Samara better, I might very well have picked her. And yet, here's a choice that will get one of your squadmates killed if you haven't been metagaming.

There should be more instances of this, so that you wouldn't have to "play stupid" to get people killed. That I firmly support. But then I also firmly support choice. If you think that losing some people makes for a better story, you should have the possibility to do so, and in a believable, dramatic way. If you think that NOT losing those people makes for a better story, you should also have the possibility to save them, and not in a "push button to win" way.

That being said, I know perfectly well that we can't possibly control EVERY aspect of the storyline and that, ultimately, this is BioWare's baby, and they will do with it whatever they see fit, as it is their undeniable prerogative to do.

Modifié par Nilfalasiel, 17 octobre 2011 - 04:46 .

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

The same? No. Can it affect subsequent perceptions? Certainly. You want an example? Let's go back to the novel .

Scenario A: Someone tells you that your favorite character is going to die.
Scenario B: You experience your favorite character's death over the course of the narrative.

So subsequently, you should view the experience the exact same way now, since in both cases you now "know" of the death. But in scenario 2, you never actually experienced the death; you were told about it and were (as a result) expecting it, which drastically affects how you viewed the scene. And it will be worse if more detailed circumstances are given. In many cases, the first experience colors subsequent impressions because it affects how I originally received it. And as I said multiple times, I typically consider the first experience the most significant, so it means more to me than my third/fourth/millionth viewing, since it's typically the most enjoyable.

By your logic, most novels/films should not kill characters because on subsequent viewings, there is nothing there, since you know in those cases that it's going to happen. But video games, despite being an interactive experience, are still allowed to engage in this; they should engage in this imo if they feel it's necessary/important, no different than a film/novel. Games allowing player agency in some areas does not mean games must allow player agency in every area. A game could force a major course of action on the player (such as tracking Saren) while still allowing major decisions in other areas.

Ummm... no. I accept that as a limitation of the medium. Books and films are static stories of which I can only be a consumer. The expectations I have and conventions I accept for them are different than that of video games. Especially in RPGs which allow the story itself to be crafted "on the fly" using my choices and gameplay actions.

I'm not arguing that game writers be forbidden from excercising their authority and summarily killing off characters when they wish to. I am arguing that it is unnecessary and makes for a better game experience overall when they tie such occurences to player agency. Especially when you factor replayability into account which, believe me when I stress this, is a big deal to game makers. BioWare certainly wants you to play its games more than once and the fact that some folks have been clocked as having close to or more than thirty playthroughs of ME2 is a testament to their success at crafting a story which allows this.

Who said anything about ideal circumstances? The circumstances can be anything imaginable. Shep and squaddies have been captured and imprisoned. Squaddies are taken away to be executed while Shep is taken to be interrogated. Injured and with no armour and using only fists or weapons picked up from fallen foes Shepard must then affect a rescue before the squaddies die. Make the level and enemies variable or even randomly generated and you have a high risk, high difficulty scenario with a lot of drama which can be replayed however many times with little loss in tension between playthroughs. Yes it depends on your skill as a player but that is a tuning issue and not an issue with the scenario or the limitations of the narrative.

You have several times now argued for a scenario of the "ideal ending" where Shepard is able to come out with squad intact, major planets intact, etc. The existence of the ideal ending means that throughout the experience, I know that it's all contingent on me, which reduces/removes tension, since I know that it's all dependent on my abilities.

No. Every time I've mentioned "preferred ending" nowhere have I qualified that getting there requires any particular set of circumstances or lack of limitations being placed on the player.

More options for the narrative leads to more tension, since it becomes increasingly difficult to predict what direction a writer will go in. Character X might die, Character X might live, Character X might live/die if I take a certain course of action. Like mandatory character death, your scenario still reduces dramatic tension on subsequent run throughs, since in those scenarios you know what to expect. The difference is that your scenario starts us off with less possibilities for the writers to go down.

And again, the tension you're speaking of only exists before the first playthrough. Before the first playthrough of ME3 we can each say, "character X may die in this game." The only difference being yours comes with the caveat, "and there's nothing I'll be able to do about it." This adds to your tension, I'll grant you that, but only up to the moment it happens, at which point my tension really kicks in when I get to discover if I'm good enough to save them. And afterwards you will never feel the same level of tension in that moment, but I will, and depending on difficulty tuning I can always increase or decrease the tension I feel in that moment as desired.

As I've said before, I know Obi-Wan dies during Star Wars, After the first viewing the lightsaber fight between him and Darth Vader held no tension for me. If it retains tension for you then that's something particular to you and you shouldn't expect anyone else to be in the same boat. It is highly unlikely that it would be the case in fact.

Please point to where I said I expect you to feel what I feel with respect to how tension is created? I'm not arguing for what other people want, but for what I want.

Fair enough. But then we start getting into the territory of your method only being appropriate for you, whereas my method will serve a broader audience more effectively. And even then it's all subjective. I want you to get your story and tension fix. I really do. But if the method required to accomplish that is only effective for you then I have to ask why should everyone else who doesn't share your ability at retaining dramatic tension between viewings need to experience the same story moments as you do?

Anyways. Writers limit their narrative possibilities all the time, through choice of genre or setting or through characterisation. Every decision a writer makes simultaneously creates more narrative possibilities and takes them away. And in an interactive story where replayability is a desirable factor then establishing rules which limit the narrative avenues taken which can only be exploited the first time a story is encountered may actually be a benefit to the enterprise as a whole.

Modifié par Athayniel, 17 octobre 2011 - 04:57 .

[TheRevanchist]

^ And that right there will make the "forced death completionists" unhappy forever.

[Someone With Mass]

kylecouch wrote...

^ And that right there will make the "forced death completionists" unhappy forever.

In before the whining about how choices won't matter in the end.

[Doug4130]

Nilfalasiel wrote...

As a former literature student, I can appreciate a good dramatic story. I've read and analyzed the living daylights out of several tragedies and painfully depressing novels, and found some of them to be masterpieces despite them making me feel like I'd run over a litter of kittens in a monster truck. I've also cried at countless films where my favourite characters died, without it lessening my enjoyment or, for some of them, my acknowledgement of the filmmakers' skill.

But the thing is, WRPGs are NOT literature, drama or film, or any other videogame genre. They are a unique medium with an emphasis on choice, and ignoring that uniqueness to try to recreate an experience that's inherent to other entertainment media is something that, IMO, they should not be doing. Where I wouldn't question a director's choice of killing off a character (or, alternatively, character death in an action game), I will do so in a WRPG. Yes, it has to do with fantasy fulfilment, yes, it's unrealistic, but as has already been pointed out several times, there's already plenty of realism to go around. If I want a story I have no impact on, I have plenty of options besides a WRPG. But what other media is there that allows you, the audience, to have an input? (even if the options you're being given have all been designed by the developers anyway, it's still more input than you would have in a novel or a film)

I wouldn't condone forcing storyline choices either way, be it good or bad. So just as I disagree with there being forced character deaths, I would also disagree with there being a forced happy ending. The operative word is "choice". So I agree with there being the possibility of losing people OR having a "no one left behind" ending. Perhaps make it more difficult to achieve than the ME2 Suicide Mission. But don't take it away. I've seen several people craft the SM to their liking so that some squaddies wouldn't make it, specifically for dramatic purposes. And if that's what they feel their story should be like, more power to them. They have the choice to do so. So why should that choice take away from the choices of other people, who would prefer to have everyone come through unscathed, no matter how unrealistic that may seem? (but again, as has been argued before, expecting realism from a sci-fi videogame...)

The counterargument to this is that you have to make stupid decisions during or pre-SM to lose people. For instance, it doesn't make sense to NOT upgrade your spaceship before going into a battle with impossible odds. That one, I agree with. But here's a counter-example: when Miranda, who is a genetically engineered biotic, tells you that she can manage the biotic bubble during the SM, is that so outlandish? Is it hard to believe? I don't think so. In fact, had I not liked Samara better, I might very well have picked her. And yet, here's a choice that will get one of your squadmates killed if you haven't been metagaming.

There should be more instances of this, so that you wouldn't have to "play stupid" to get people killed. That I firmly support. But then I also firmly support choice. If you think that losing some people makes for a better story, you should have the possibility to do so, and in a believable, dramatic way. If you think that NOT losing those people makes for a better story, you should also have the possibility to save them, and not in a "push button to win" way.

That being said, I know perfectly well that we can't possibly control EVERY aspect of the storyline and that, ultimately, this is BioWare's baby, and they will do with it whatever they see fit, as it is their undeniable prerogative to do.

This.. is the most amazing post I've ever read on these forums!  

[AdmiralCheez]

Nilfalasiel wrote...

*epic post*

See, I wish I could post stuff like this, but usually I am either too overworked, sleep deprived, drunk, or FULL OF EMOTIONS to do so.

But seriously, this is brilliant.  This is the whole "Mass Effect is not a film" thing I was trying to argue.  You took all the things in my brain, subtracted the batsh*t crazy combativeness, added eloquence and sensibility, and then topped it off with a "but I'm not going to freak the hell out because I respect the writers and I'm awesome."

God damn.  Here.  You can wear my tophat.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

That explains a lot.

MY EMOTIONS, SAPH.

FLOWING OUT OF MY UTERUS.

ALL THE HORMONES, ALL THE TIME.

[sorentoft]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Why does choice have to mean "someone dies or no one dies"? It can also mean "who dies?".

If I can have Thane die, I'll join your side. <_<

[CrazyRah]

Nilfalasiel wrote...
*Best post ever*

Oh my god this got to be the best post i've ever read on the BSN!:happy: It's amazing and i 110% agree with it

Modifié par CrazyRah, 17 octobre 2011 - 06:10 .

[GreenSoda]

kylecouch wrote...

^ And that right there will make the "forced death completionists" unhappy forever.

It will ? ...because it doesn't say anything about "forced deaths" being in or out. Having only one squadmember die for certain is a better outcome than three, etc.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

Ummm... no. I accept that as a limitation of the medium. Books and films are static stories of which I can only be a consumer. The expectations I have and conventions I accept for them are different than that of video games. Especially in RPGs which allow the story itself to be crafted "on the fly" using my choices and gameplay actions.

I'm not arguing that game writers be forbidden from excercising their authority and summarily killing off characters when they wish to. I am arguing that it is unnecessary and makes for a better game experience overall when they tie such occurences to player agency. Especially when you factor replayability into account which, believe me when I stress this, is a big deal to game makers. BioWare certainly wants you to play its games more than once and the fact that some folks have been clocked as having close to or more than thirty playthroughs of ME2 is a testament to their success at crafting a story which allows this.

But this is still ignoring that because Bioware deprives you of a choice in one area that they cannot give you a choice in another area. Here's the problem with arguing to video games as an interactive medium: even if a Bioware game deprives you of a material choice, you still have the ability to react to it, but always with limitations (otherwise, there's no story). The dialogue always exists which pretty much nullifies any argument that the video game stops being interactive. The advantage of video games as a medium is not simply that you get to make physical choices, but that you also get to react to what happens, from the perspective of a character.  

If Bioware kills Garrus and it fuels some plot development to the central narrative, it does not mean that Bioware is not going to give you the ability to either save a different squad-mate, or that there won't be some meaningful heart-felt decision, such as saving Earth, along the way. It means that, similar to many moments in a Bioware story, they chose to make something plot critical, which involved a character dying, akin to Dom in GoW2, akin to Carth getting his vengeance on Saul Karath, or Bastila being kidnapped by Malak, all of which involve the player not having any choice.

If Bioware does not give you a choice at point X, it does not follow that Bioware will not give you a choice at point Y.

And again, the tension you're speaking of only exists before the first playthrough. Before the first playthrough of ME3 we can each say, "character X may die in this game." The only difference being yours comes with the caveat, "and there's nothing I'll be able to do about it." This adds to your tension, I'll grant you that, but only up to the moment it happens, at which point my tension really kicks in when I get to discover if I'm good enough to save them. And afterwards you will never feel the same level of tension in that moment, but I will, and depending on difficulty tuning I can always increase or decrease the tension I feel in that moment as desired.

And for myself, this tension always decreases on subsequent play throughs, as it did with the Deus Ex example. Saving Farida was only exhilarating the first time, and that's partially because I had no idea it was even going to happen.

This is my central point, which you need to address: you don't need to feel the same tension than I do at a character death, that's where we differ. But you have accepted that my tension/enjoyment arises from very different scenarios than you. So why should I accept your argument that our goals are not mutually exclusive? You have not provided anything to that effect, besides telling me what you want from the game and why you want it, which I have accepted.

Fair enough. But then we start getting into the territory of your method only being appropriate for you, whereas my method will serve a broader audience more effectively. And even then it's all subjective. I want you to get your story and tension fix. I really do. But if the method required to accomplish that is only effective for you then I have to ask why should everyone else who doesn't share your ability at retaining dramatic tension between viewings need to experience the same story moments as you do?

Who said it's only effective to me? I said it's where I differ from you, where we obtain enjoyment/tension from video games. Unless you're implying that everyone has the exact same reactions to Bioware choices as you do, which I'm not certain is provable in this context. Any time someone wants to avoid spoilers in any story, it's essentially admitting to my point; people derive enjoyment experiencing the events of a story for the first time, which involves not having any absolute knowledge of what will happen.

You only get to view a movie for the first time once. You only get to play a game for the first time once. And so on. I do not want that spoiled by the mandate that Bioware "can't do X", in this case kill a squad-mate. That is why I argue against it. My scenario means Bioware can (literally) do whatever they think will be best for the central narrative, which may or may not involve killing a character.

Anyways. Writers limit their narrative possibilities all the time, through choice of genre or setting or through characterisation. Every decision a writer makes simultaneously creates more narrative possibilities and takes them away. And in an interactive story where replayability is a desirable factor then establishing rules which limit the narrative avenues taken which can only be exploited the first time a story is encountered may actually be a benefit to the enterprise as a whole.

See my earlier argument. That Bioware mandates one character's death does not mean they do not give you significant choice in other areas. It shouldn't affect your replayability. Characters are ultimately independent of the PC. By the end of the experience, you should feel like your decisions mattered. That is not synonymous with saying you got to make a major decision at every point in the storyline.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 06:47 .

[Il Divo]

Nilfalasiel wrote...

But what other media is there that allows you, the audience, to have an input? (even if the options you're being given have all been designed by the developers anyway, it's still more input than you would have in a novel or a film)

You still have input in the ability to react through dialogue. WRPGs place all kinds of limitations on the player, which are necessary to tell the story. The importance of the typical WRPG is that they typically emphasize the idea that everything that happens occurs from the perspective of a single character, whose place in the story you take; you are not role-playing Shepard + company, but just Shepard.

Everything typically feels more personal, more meaningful, more real because the story always treats you as a participant, rather than a passive viewer. That does not through itself mean that you/your character must always make the most important decisions, it merely affects your perception of them. Imo, for the better.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 06:32 .

[Someone With Mass]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

With proper presentation, you can get away with anything.  Fiction relies not on the actual story but how it is told.  A three paragraph short about a man going to the market can be ridiculously good if written well, even if nothing dramatic happens.

You asked for it, Cheez.



He rattled the coins in his pocket. The street was busy with people, and they jostled him. He was careful to keep hold of the coins, though. They were all he had, and he needed to buy bread. He walked purposefully towards the market, looking intently at the different merchants.

"Fruit here, buy your fruit!" one shouted. "All the beef you could possibly want!" another called. The man ignored them. He was here to buy bread. As he passed the fruit stand the merchant reached out and touched his arm. The man jerked back as though he'd been burnt. Glaring at the frut merchant, he hurried on. The fruit merchant stared at him, eyes wide. The man moved deftly through the market, soon finding what he was looking for.

The man at the bread stand nodded to him. They didn't know each other, but the man came to the stand every time he had a little money. The man quickly browsed the merchant's wares, but he already knew what he wanted. He grabbed the fresh, warm loaf of white bread and handed over his few coins. The merchant took them, and nodded. "How's your little girl?"

The man stopped, then smiled. "Doing well. Thanks." He turned and walked away, a loaf of bread for his daughter in his hands, and a spark of joy inside his heart.

That was four, but the content was pretty good.

[sorentoft]

Saphra Deden wrote...

sorentoft wrote...
If I can have Thane die, I'll join your side. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png

Oh definitely, otherwise his character arc is kind of invalidated.

Grand. Bloody drell. <_<

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Ummm... no. I accept that as a limitation of the medium. Books and films are static stories of which I can only be a consumer. The expectations I have and conventions I accept for them are different than that of video games. Especially in RPGs which allow the story itself to be crafted "on the fly" using my choices and gameplay actions.

I'm not arguing that game writers be forbidden from excercising their authority and summarily killing off characters when they wish to. I am arguing that it is unnecessary and makes for a better game experience overall when they tie such occurences to player agency. Especially when you factor replayability into account which, believe me when I stress this, is a big deal to game makers. BioWare certainly wants you to play its games more than once and the fact that some folks have been clocked as having close to or more than thirty playthroughs of ME2 is a testament to their success at crafting a story which allows this.

But this is still ignoring that because Bioware deprives you of a choice in one area that they cannot give you a choice in another area. Here's the problem with arguing to video games as an interactive medium: even if a Bioware game deprives you of a material choice, you still have the ability to react to it, but always with limitations (otherwise, there's no story). The dialogue always exists which pretty much nullifies any argument that the video game stops being interactive. The advantage of video games as a medium is not simply that you get to make physical choices, but that you also get to react to what happens, from the perspective of a character.  

If Bioware kills Garrus and it fuels some plot development to the central narrative, it does not mean that Bioware is not going to give you the ability to either save a different squad-mate, or that there won't be some meaningful heart-felt decision, such as saving Earth, along the way. It means that, similar to many moments in a Bioware story, they chose to make something plot critical, which involved a character dying, akin to Dom in GoW2, akin to Carth getting his vengeance on Saul Karath, or Bastila being kidnapped by Malak, all of which involve the player not having any choice.

If Bioware does not give you a choice at point X, it does not follow that Bioware will not give you a choice at point Y.

It is true that a squad mate death isn't the only kind of
plot point which can be used to give players choices. So why are you advocating to make them a special case where there is no
choice as to whether the squadmate lives or dies? Why take the choice away for squadmate deaths and not other things?

And again, the tension you're speaking of only exists before the first playthrough. Before the first playthrough of ME3 we can each say, "character X may die in this game." The only difference being yours comes with the caveat, "and there's nothing I'll be able to do about it." This adds to your tension, I'll grant you that, but only up to the moment it happens, at which point my tension really kicks in when I get to discover if I'm good enough to save them. And afterwards you will never feel the same level of tension in that moment, but I will, and depending on difficulty tuning I can always increase or decrease the tension I feel in that moment as desired.

And for myself, this tension always decreases on subsequent play throughs, as it did with the Deus Ex example. Saving Farida was only exhilarating the first time, and that's partially because I had no idea it was even going to happen. And even there, the tension was limited because I knew that it just depended on me playing well.

This is my central point, which you need to address: you don't need to feel the same tension than I do at a character death, that's where we differ. But you have accepted that my tension/enjoyment arises from very different scenarios than you. So why should I accept your argument that our goals are not mutually exclusive? You have not provided anything to that effect, besides telling me what you want from the game and why you want it, which I have accepted.

I agree that the form of tension you describe is ultimately only available in the manner you have specified. I'm not denying that. What I have been trying to do by highlighting the starting points in my quote above is that the tension we both feel prior to a first playthrough is functionally identical, barring BioWare coming out and saying there will be no forced squadmate death then you can't say that won't be the case. Even if they do then the tension we feel prior to that first place is not at the same level as what you could hope for and I understand this would be an issue for you, but that first playthrough would still be pretty awesome for both of us. However subsequent playthroughs would not. Whichever method used someone would lose out on the tension. The difference being that with your method I would have no tension at all while you get a nostalgia reaction to it, while mine would still create tension for us both at least for a while in your case.

Fair enough. But then we start getting into the territory of your method only being appropriate for you, whereas my method will serve a broader audience more effectively. And even then it's all subjective. I want you to get your story and tension fix. I really do. But if the method required to accomplish that is only effective for you then I have to ask why should everyone else who doesn't share your ability at retaining dramatic tension between viewings need to experience the same story moments as you do?

Who said it's only effective to me? I said it's where I differ from you, where we obtain enjoyment/tension from video games. Unless you're implying that everyone has the exact same reactions to Bioware choices as you do, which I'm not certain is provable in this context. Any time someone wants to avoid spoilers in any story, it's essentially admitting to my point; people derive enjoyment experiencing the events of a story for the first time, which involves not having any absolute knowledge of what will happen.

You only get to view a movie for the first time once. You only get to play a game for the first time once. And so on. I do not want that spoiled by the mandate that Bioware "can't do X", in this case kill a squad-mate. That is why I argue against it. My scenario means Bioware can (literally) do whatever they think will be best for the central narrative, which may or may not involve killing a character.

Your reaction to tension seems fairly unique. I've never met anyone who claims to retain the tension in those moments the way you claim to. Perhaps I'm not understanding what your saying but I can tell you that I would feel no tension at all in such a situation after the first time and everyone I've ever spoken to with a predilection to rewatching movies and rereading books is the same way. They enjoy the emotions that they feel on reading good scenes and things like that but the tension of the unknown is gone.

Anyways. Writers limit their narrative possibilities all the time, through choice of genre or setting or through characterisation. Every decision a writer makes simultaneously creates more narrative possibilities and takes them away. And in an interactive story where replayability is a desirable factor then establishing rules which limit the narrative avenues taken which can only be exploited the first time a story is encountered may actually be a benefit to the enterprise as a whole.

See my earlier argument. That Bioware mandates one character's death does not mean they do not give you significant choice in other areas. It shouldn't affect your replayability. Characters are ultimately independent of the PC. By the end of the experience, you should feel like your decisions mattered. That is not synonymous with saying you got to make a major decision at every point in the storyline.

And read where I said before that limiting themselves in such a way helps replayability  and keeps the tension going which is very important to game makers. Making squad mate death "special" from the replayability perspective doesn't make sense.