4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Nilfalasiel]

Lol *blush*, didn't expect the praise. Thanks!

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Well, so far, Shepard's choices have had an impact, directly or indirectly on quite a lot of storyline decisions and the fate of squadmates. Picking one person over another for a task, thus possibly resulting in their death is an example of direct impact. Choosing to defend the Destiny Ascension, thus resulting in greater human casualties but the survival of the Council, is another one. Choosing not to upgrade a part of your ship to have a squadmate die because of it down the line is an example of indirect impact. Having someone turn on you (Wrex) or die during the SM because you disagreed with them and/or failed to gain influence with them is another.The fact remains that all of this is still dependant on Shepard's/the player's input.

[Sharrack]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...
*nice story*

Made me smile and all warm inside, thank you.

On topic:
While i don't really hate forced death (still prefer the possibility of an everyone survives ending) i hate it if afterwards i have the feeling that there should have been an option to change it , because i think i would have been able to change it given the situation. So if i'm not able to save someone, please make sure there isn't  a obvious possibility to save them or even avoid the situation that i just can't use, without any sensible reason as for why.

Example DA2:
Why doesn't he ask his mother about her new admirer and if there are flowers involved although knowing about a possible serial killer sending flowers, and this i asked myself on my very first playthrough without any further knowledge.

[Kaiser Shepard]

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.

Not realistic enough; I would at least have expected the fruit merchant and the daughter to die.

[Athayniel]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Not realistic enough; I would at least have expected the fruit merchant and the daughter to die.

I'm sure in someone's headcanon the daughter is dead and the old man is just lying about it.

[Athayniel]

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

I want to kill whoever i want and make sure.the ones i want to live stay alive

i want to know why dos everything think being a Paragone means everyone has to live

I have never seen this debate as a Paragon/Renegade dichotomy. I don't understand why people make that inference.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

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?

The best way to say this is: I'm not. The squad-mate issue just happens to be the hot topic. Any moment can be an opportunity for "choice" or "not-choice". It really is all in the implementation. As a fact, I can say that I want their to be enjoyable choices, because that plays to the strengths of video games as a form of art, but I won't say where/when/how I want Bioware to implement them, because this occurs to their detriment as story-tellers.

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.

It also depends on how much enjoyment each of us derives from certain sources of tension. I place the most value on the first experience, far more than subsequent play-throughs. That is why the inability to know a squad-mates status has more value for me. The "not knowing" followed by the revelation is pretty much my favorite aspect of story-telling. In this case, Bioware is the story-teller; they, not us, should ultimately be deciding how the story is told, which includes when/where/how to kill a character and if it will be optional.

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.

Well, let's be careful of anecdotal evidence; appeals to circumstance don't tell us how the majority feels.The tension is never held to the same degree, but there is always some "echo" of it. That's my primary point with the only being able to watch a film for the first time once, how spoilers can ruin a story, and (imo) the first time viewing typically being the most enjoyable. Likewise, I always feel emotions on subsequent viewings/readings, but the effect is always lessened; there is no surprise. It still goes back to the first viewing as being (imo) the most important.

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.

Again, that wouldn't have to be the case. Does Carth killing Saul Karath limit replayability? Bastila being kidnapped? Bioware games will never off full freedom of choice, since there will always be someone somewhere who doesn't get their way. If you want an illustration of this principle, does ME1 lack replay value since you're required to hunt Saren? Because Benezia dies? Because Jenkin dies?
 
Of course, there's always room for "more replayability", but I hardly think any Bioware game has really been lacking in this department as they currently stand, excluding maybe NwN.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 octobre 2011 - 07:26 .

[Medhia Nox]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

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.

Not realistic enough; I would at least have expected the fruit merchant and the daughter to die.

Better yet - there's a plague, and they're all infected and dying. Oh, and a war - so real - and babies heads are rolling down the street - cause, that's what evil bads do! Oh, and there's an oppressive government - literally stealing candy from babies... OH, and a religious Inquisition cause everyone knows that religion is the meanest evil bad there IS!

So much real...

Your happy market bread story is such a fairy tale... that NEVER happens.

[Il Divo]

Nilfalasiel wrote...


Well, so far, Shepard's choices have had an impact, directly or indirectly on quite a lot of storyline decisions and the fate of squadmates. Picking one person over another for a task, thus possibly resulting in their death is an example of direct impact. Choosing to defend the Destiny Ascension, thus resulting in greater human casualties but the survival of the Council, is another one. Choosing not to upgrade a part of your ship to have a squadmate die because of it down the line is an example of indirect impact. Having someone turn on you (Wrex) or die during the SM because you disagreed with them and/or failed to gain influence with them is another.The fact remains that all of this is still dependant on Shepard's/the player's input.

But that still doesn't there haven't been non-options for Shepard. He doesn't get to stop Jenkins' death. Or Benezia's. Or really stop Saren from dying. But even when the choice is gone, the ability to react should stll remain, which still indicates that we are playing to the strengths of gaming as a genre, since it remains interactive.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

I want to kill whoever i want and make sure.the ones i want to live stay alive

i want to know why dos everything think being a Paragone means everyone has to live

I have never seen this debate as a Paragon/Renegade dichotomy. I don't understand why people make that inference.

It's usually framed as a result of Paragon being on par with the Light Side/Open Palm/Good path, while Renegade is equated to Dark Side/Closed Fist/Evil path. It's not necessarily true, but considering that Renegade is also intended as the "Ends justify the Means" scenario, which typically involves making sacrifices, this scenario can result in the above dichotomy.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

*snip snip snip*
 

*nods* that's a good read.

I think we've come to a pretty good idea of where we each stand on this now and I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others and it's all cool. I've really enjoyed the debate so thanks for that. I'm sure we both want ME3 to be first and foremost a great story that resolves the reaper threat in a very satisfying way. How we each get to that point and what BioWare decides to throw our way to do that is up in the air of course.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

I think we've come to a pretty good idea of where we each stand on this now and I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others and it's all cool. I've really enjoyed the debate so thanks for that. I'm sure we both want ME3 to be first and foremost a great story that resolves the reaper threat in a very satisfying way. How we each get to that point and what BioWare decides to throw our way to do that is up in the air of course.

Yeah, it's a shame, but it happens. Even if Bioware goes your way, there won't be any bitterness on my part; I love everything they've done and probably will love everything they're going to do. I'm more here for the arguments then for convincing Bioware of anything, if that makes sense.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

It's usually framed as a result of Paragon being on par with the Light Side/Open Palm/Good path, while Renegade is equated to Dark Side/Closed Fist/Evil path. It's not necessarily true, but considering that Renegade is also intended as the "Ends justify the Means" scenario, which typically involves making sacrifices, this scenario can result in the above dichotomy.

I suppose the first thing that comes to mind is the BDtS decision. So I guess I can see that but I always come from the mindset that even Renegade Sheps would prefer that they're squaddies live even if just from the point of view that it makes it easier to field an effective fighting force when needed. It never really struck me as an in-universe issue either but purely a player preference issue.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

Yeah, it's a shame, but it happens. Even if Bioware goes your way, there won't be any bitterness on my part; I love everything they've done and probably will love everything they're going to do. I'm more here for the arguments then for convincing Bioware of anything, if that makes sense.

Absolutely. I'm also here just to state my preferences and lobby for them as a participant of the debate. I'll still play and I'm sure enjoy ME3 no matter who dies or doesn't die. *fingers crossed*

[Nilfalasiel]

Il Divo wrote...

But that still doesn't there haven't been non-options for Shepard. He doesn't get to stop Jenkins' death. Or Benezia's. Or really stop Saren from dying. But even when the choice is gone, the ability to react should stll remain, which still indicates that we are playing to the strengths of gaming as a genre, since it remains interactive.

This is true, but at this point, differences in emotional investment come into play. Had Jenkins been a full-blown squadmember, then there probably would have been more of an outcry against his death. As for Benezia or Saren, they were antagonists: people Shepard is trying to defeat rather than protect. And while I do know several people who would have wanted to keep Saren alive, an antagonist and an ally still don't provoke the same emotional investment in most of the audience.

[Phaedon]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
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.

You have actually managed to criticisize utilitarianism, just by using regular logic and without (probably?) being aware of the philosophy itself. That's definitely an achievement.

But here is where you are wrong. It's not about being too "detached". The "detachment" as you mean it, is plain sociopathy. It's the kind of line of thinking that would have pretended the foundation of the first organized human societies and their maintaining, later on.

Utilitarianists aren't sociopaths. Some of the "cool and edgy kids" are. A utilitarianist cares about one's life and well-being, they just want to maximize the good.

Where that philosophy ends up being silly is that it states that you can count everything in "utils", which just doesn't work. People's hapiness and value of life isn't something you can count. The problem with this, is that that way of thinking has been rebutted thousands of years before it was even "formally" stated.

I can point you to a couple of things if you are interested, but I'd rather not bore you if you are not.

[Saber Wolf]

Nilfalasiel wrote...
This is true, but at this point, differences in emotional investment come into play. Had Jenkins been a full-blown squadmember, then there probably would have been more of an outcry against his death. As for Benezia or Saren, they were antagonists: people Shepard is trying to defeat rather than protect. And while I do know several people who would have wanted to keep Saren alive, an antagonist and an ally still don't provoke the same emotional investment in most of the audience.

Yup, considering how you could spare Loghain but the majority still killed him.

[Athayniel]

Nilfalasiel wrote...

This is true, but at this point, differences in emotional investment come into play. Had Jenkins been a full-blown squadmember, then there probably would have been more of an outcry against his death. As for Benezia or Saren, they were antagonists: people Shepard is trying to defeat rather than protect. And while I do know several people who would have wanted to keep Saren alive, an antagonist and an ally still don't provoke the same emotional investment in most of the audience.

Just to say that if my Sheps could have saved Benezia they would have. If only for Liara's sake. Saren... I'm far more ambivalent about.

[Phaedon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I don't know where Admiral Cheez got that from in the first place because all I was ever doing was pointing out how I thought a well written squadmate death or two would better serve the STORY being told in Mass Effect 2. I feel it goes hand in hand with the themes of the overall story both in the game and in the series.

Except that a debate surrounding this holds no merit.

Some people hated Virmire, others loved it.

That doesn't mean you can please everyone by having an extremely hard to achieve ending that saves every squadmate.

[Chewin]

Datas_12 wrote...
Yup, considering how you could spare Loghain but the majority still killed him.

People who misjudged him goes into that category.

[Phaedon]

And don't forget the mods for the ending of KOTOR *cough*

[AdmiralCheez]

Phaedon wrote...

You have actually managed to criticisize utilitarianism, just by using regular logic and without (probably?) being aware of the philosophy itself. That's definitely an achievement.

But here is where you are wrong. It's not about being too "detached". The "detachment" as you mean it, is plain sociopathy. It's the kind of line of thinking that would have pretended the foundation of the first organized human societies and their maintaining, later on.

Utilitarianists aren't sociopaths. Some of the "cool and edgy kids" are. A utilitarianist cares about one's life and well-being, they just want to maximize the good.

Where that philosophy ends up being silly is that it states that you can count everything in "utils", which just doesn't work. People's hapiness and value of life isn't something you can count. The problem with this, is that that way of thinking has been rebutted thousands of years before it was even "formally" stated.

I can point you to a couple of things if you are interested, but I'd rather not bore you if you are not.

Uh, that's actually pretty cool, I guess.

Wow, I am tired.