4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Valdrane78]

JeffZero wrote...

Valdrane78 wrote...

Who are we raving at, I am in a rave mood.

Reaperaving.

Oh, the people who want the Reapers to kill everythign and everyone, and the galaxy sinks into a black hole consuming what coudl very well be the next generation, thus ending the cycle of genocide an dkilling the Reapers.

I call em pessemists.

[Valdrane78]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You just HAD to bring this back on topic, didn't you.

Ninjaing a thread is only fun if I am the ninja.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm not. I provide reasons... you basicly seem to be repeating "because"[/quote]
But your reasons do not make your argument true.

Like pie and cake, taste in fiction is just that: taste.[/quote]

And tastes can be discusssed.

I ask you again to give me a reason as to why squadie death should not be in.

"Because they can achive X another way" is NOT the answer. They can accomplish half the things another way.
Unless you cna prove that the other way is intrinsicly better, or that the normal way is bad, we have nothing to discuss.
Give me ONE reason besides your own unwilligness to part with said party members.

I'm waiting.


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

No. You can't get away with anything in any kind of story. A specific atmosphere and presentation are NECESSARY for specific things to work.
In a parody? Sure, Shep can be a walking Chuck Norri meme and we'd all laugh and have a good time. But it's a compeltely different atmosphere/setting. TI's a completley differetn kind of story with a completely different purpose.
In a serious/deep story? No. The more you stretch crediulity, the harder the story is to take seriously.


[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]
Happens all the time.  Especially on Casual.  Never bothered me.[/quote]

No it doesn't. For one, you never face more than a dozen enemies, and oyu practicly always behind cower.
Quite lying.


[quote]
[quote]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)[/quote]
And Shepard has her command ability, experience fighting the Reapers, and a squad of kickass soldiers.[/quote]

Command ability? Experience? Kickass soldiers?
Nope. Doesn't explain it it any more than "badassery shields" do.


[quote]
Sometimes parodies are the best stories around.  And honestly, don't take Mass Effect too seriously.  I mean, come on, blue space babes.  It even makes fun of itself.[/quote]

ME isn't a parody. If it was, it would be a VERY poor one becaus  Ican't recall the last time I laughed. You dont' mix parody, drama war story and other genres into one clusterf****.


[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]
Nothing says that sort of situation has to happen, though.  It's not a required element, no more than any other single dramatic trope.[/quote]

Statistic sez it has to happen.
The other way around doesn't hold true.


[quote]
[quote]And..that is suposed to counter my argument how exactly?[/quote]
If someone wants you dead, and you're a badass, you shrug it off, shoot all of them before they shoot you, and don't give a rat's ass.  Movies, books, and videogames do it all the time.  Tension is created when the hero's in danger, sure, but the hero usually finds a way out of it.

So the counter is, basically, fiction does not care how unlikely an event is.  It's motherf*cking fiction.  Real life only has to apply enough for the audience to understand the characters and events at hand, and to relate to them to maintain interest.
[/quote]

Bollocks. You basicly claim that the effort, capability and intention of hte big bad should have no impact.

You wave aroudn the word "fiction" like it's some magical word. It's not.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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?

I could ask you the same thing.

The difference between you and me is that  I never calimed I (we) have any say in the matter. It's not really "our" story. Never was.

Yeah, but I'm not the one advocating for the complete removal of a feature because it infringes on my specific style of roleplay, which is ultimately just metagaming anyway.

If you still think it's metagaming, then you haven't been reading the posts. That, or you haven't understood any of them.

It's very much like the fussing about how m/m shouldn't be an option because one's Shep happens to be straight.  The solution there is don't flirt with guys, and the solution here is don't metagame and try to justify it as roleplaying.

Nope. Nothing like that. Not even close.
You have no idea what you're talking about bro.

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

I don't give a rats ass about your points.
Our desires are mutually exclusive. There is no compromise. If there is a sensible way to save crewmates, then  Icna't get my ending. If the way to save crewmates is not sensible, then you don't get your hapyp ending.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:28 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

kylecouch wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Any good story neeeds moments of joy and sorrow. I don't "bask" in sorrow or misery. I just don't run from it liek a sissy.
I want to experience a mature, intense story. Becasue that's the impression ME universe gives me.

I'm really curious how people derive basking in sorrow and misery from wanting to feel a moment of emotion. Plenty of stories with happy endings have moments of misery.

Dark and grittyness does not automaticly symbolize a "mature" story.

"Dark" and "gritty" are overused words. I dont' even think we think the same things when we hear them.

A mature story doesn't cut corners. A mature story is nto afraid to tell a story in all of it's details - the heights of joy and depths of sorrow. A mature story doesn't treat it's audience as babies or idiots.

I don't care if someone wrote a book that basiclly says "This is how a good story is written, anything that deviates from this is not good story." If I disagree with them, then thats not a good story for everyone, that don't make me wrong, and that don't make him wrong..

Yes it does. It does make you wrong.
I can just as well argue that Care Bears is a mature and compelling movie for adults. By your own logic, I'm not wrong.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

You're not making sense. Are you saying there's only one single story being told in Mass Effect? Because that is patently untrue.

No. I'm saying the ME story is the story in it's entirety.
Every single line of dialogue. Every plot point. Form every angle.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nilfalasiel wrote...
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)

A logical fallacy. You never have full impact on everything.
In a RPG, you have impact on a story. But not on everything. You basicly demand that you MUST have an impact on X. But why not Y?
Why cna't we have Shep decide to go with TIM? Why can't we have Shep shoot the turian councilor?

Your argument is flawed, in that you suddenly start arguing for choices, only because of specific choice X.
So the problem is not in CRPG's. It's not in the story.
There is no problem. There is only your desire to affect X.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yezdigerd wrote...

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

Several of the participants are quite recognizable in the common Paragon/Renegade discussions. It's hardly surprising that those who prefer summary excecutions, abandoning the council, rachni queen etc want more misery.

Would it surprise you to know that I'm a 90% paragon player?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nizzemancer wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

Nizzemancer wrote...


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

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

/opinion

Trust me, being on the battlefield takes focus, it's not something you do lighthearted while chatting about last nights game or something. The Omega relay base is basicly in the thickest ****storm they can find, it's obvious that it requires a lot more focus than the other missions, there's no inconsistency there at all.

BULLS****!

Every life-or-death situation requires full and undevided focus.
Tehre is 0 difference inrequired forus between the SM and al lthe mission before. None. Zilch. Niente. Nada. Nix.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nizzemancer wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

: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.

It was a longer way of saying "those missions where a cake-walk"...

There are varying degrees of difficulty, when you've got a company fighting a division or brigade (Suicide mission) you're pretty much screwed, but when a company is fighting 1-2 companies you stand a good chance.at winning (other missions).

Don't tell me you've never heard of ODDS before? So who's the one with the petty logic now?

edit: And this thread is killing me, I had to wade through 20 pages before I found my latest post again...

Odss matter little. 2 people can kill you jsut as easily as 20 can. Bullets don' know the difference.
Also, Shep and the gang faced heavy opposition in several places.
I didn't find the SM particularry challenging.

[Lotion Soronarr]

JeffZero wrote...

Valdrane78 wrote...

Who are we raving at, I am in a rave mood.

Reaperaving.

Bi-reapring?

[Yezdigerd]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

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

Several of the participants are quite recognizable in the common Paragon/Renegade discussions. It's hardly surprising that those who prefer summary excecutions, abandoning the council, rachni queen etc want more misery.

Would it surprise you to know that I'm a 90% paragon player?

Not really, claiming a paragon preference while arguing for the sensibility of the renegade decisions doesn't seem to be uncommon.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

"Perfect ending" is subjective.  Is a perfect ending if you save the forest, or your favorite trees?  You could declare that "everyone lives" but at what price?  Would Garrus thank you for saving him if he's the last living turian?  

Perfect in the sense of "most ideal". If there exists an ending where I save both the forest and my favorite tree, that would be a perfect ending. Also keep in mind that the topic is in reference to the ability to have a "good" ending. My point is that if I know that the only way Bioware can kill my squad-mates is as a result of my decision, that can still affect how I view the narrative. The best situation imo is simply to give Bioware full control; let them decide where choices are appropriate or not appropriate.

Ah but most mediums the reader/viewer is a passive participant.  The author is dictating a story.  In something like Mass Effect, the player has an active role in the story (within limits of course)  It is Shepard's decisions which guides the story.  It's what determined if Wrex died on Virmire or not.  Whether Ashley or Kaidan survived.  Who lived and died on the Suicide Mission.  And to an extend who got recruited for it as well.  At this pont every single squadmate save Liara has had his or her life in Shepard's hands at some point in the trilogy.  If that were to change now, that could lead to...unpleasantness...

I've bolded the most significant portion. Within limits. You don't get to make decisions that affect every aspect of the story. Even take something like Heavy Rain which features choice on an unprecedented scale still features rail-roading. Arguing that because video games are an interactive medium does not mean they must exhibit choice at every point of the experience. "Passive story-telling"is still available to the story-teller, as in any other medium. Or imagine arguing that Bioware games shouldn't have the codex because this isn't a novel. However the ability to read the Codex allows them to better flesh out the world without cramming too much into the central narrative.
 
I should also point out that even if Bioware kills character X, that does not impede your abilities from saving character Y. They should have the option to kill squad-mates for story purposes, even if they choose not to take it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 octobre 2011 - 01:25 .

[CptBomBom00]

What Hell always I come here some one is arguing can someone tell me if this is normal?

[Il Divo]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

What Hell always I come here some one is arguing can someone tell me if this is normal?

Have you...not been to most Internet forums? 

[jamesp81]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

What Hell always I come here some one is arguing can someone tell me if this is normal?

BSN is actually fairly tame.  I could show you some places that would haunt you:devil:

[Lotion Soronarr]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Jeez, Soronnar. Octuple post!

I've been away for a while......Not my fault the thread moves so fast!

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

CptBomBom00 wrote...

What Hell always I come here some one is arguing can someone tell me if this is normal?

BSN is actually fairly tame.  I could show you some places that would haunt you:devil:

/b ?

[AdmiralCheez]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And tastes can be discusssed.

I ask you again to give me a reason as to why squadie death should not be in.[/quote]
I said they COULD be in, so long as they COULD be avoided if the player was very careful or willing to make certain choices that may cause trouble some other way.

[quote]"Because they can achive X another way" is NOT the answer. They can accomplish half the things another way.
Unless you cna prove that the other way is intrinsicly better, or that the normal way is bad, we have nothing to discuss.[/quote]
The "normal" way does not work so well because the player has input on the narrative.  That's what makes ME3 a game and not a movie with shooting.  The alternative ways work better because they are less often used, therefore show more creativity and versatility on the writers' part if pulled off well.

[quote]Give me ONE reason besides your own unwilligness to part with said party members.

I'm waiting.[/quote]
Because I'm f*ckin' usin' em, that's why.  You'd be pissed if they took away all your guns/powers and never gave them back, wouldn't you?

When you invest time in a resource across three games, it's a dick move to take it away.

[quote]No. You can't get away with anything in any kind of story. A specific atmosphere and presentation are NECESSARY for specific things to work.
In a parody? Sure, Shep can be a walking Chuck Norri meme and we'd all laugh and have a good time. But it's a compeltely different atmosphere/setting. TI's a completley differetn kind of story with a completely different purpose.
In a serious/deep story? No. The more you stretch crediulity, the harder the story is to take seriously.[/quote]
1. Slow down your typing.
2. I think you're taking ME a little too seriously.  It's allowed to have funny moments where it makes fun of how OP Shepard is.

[quote]No it doesn't. For one, you never face more than a dozen enemies, and oyu practicly always behind cower.
Quite lying.[/quote]
Play Arrival as a Vanguard or Sentinel.  Over 20 enemies in the room at once, and you never even have to touch cover if you keep moving/keep your armor up.  So nope, not lying.

[quote]Command ability? Experience? Kickass soldiers?
Nope. Doesn't explain it it any more than "badassery shields" do.[/quote]
My point is that they're capable of survivng.  They're not unarmed wussies and they've been up against impossible odds before.

[quote]ME isn't a parody. If it was, it would be a VERY poor one becaus  Ican't recall the last time I laughed. You dont' mix parody, drama war story and other genres into one clusterf****.[/quote]
You didn't laugh playing ME?  Ever?  Dude, you have no sense of humor.

[quote]Statistic sez it has to happen.[/quote]
No, it doesn't.  You are a bad, bad statistician.

[quote]The other way around doesn't hold true.[/quote]
What?  That you can get away with leaving certain elements out if the rest are good enough to cover for it?

[quote]Bollocks. You basicly claim that the effort, capability and intention of hte big bad should have no impact.[/quote]
No.  I am claiming that the big bad being better than the hero doesn't mean the big bad is going to win.

[quote]You wave aroudn the word "fiction" like it's some magical word. It's not.[/quote]
It's a versatile genre with very few absolute rules.  You'd be surprised what it can get away with.

[Nizzemancer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nizzemancer wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

: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.

It was a longer way of saying "those missions where a cake-walk"...

There are varying degrees of difficulty, when you've got a company fighting a division or brigade (Suicide mission) you're pretty much screwed, but when a company is fighting 1-2 companies you stand a good chance.at winning (other missions).

Don't tell me you've never heard of ODDS before? So who's the one with the petty logic now?

edit: And this thread is killing me, I had to wade through 20 pages before I found my latest post again...

Odss matter little. 2 people can kill you jsut as easily as 20 can. Bullets don' know the difference.
Also, Shep and the gang faced heavy opposition in several places.
I didn't find the SM particularry challenging.

There's a higher risk that you'll be killed when facing 20 opponents than if you face 2, it's not ****ing rocket science. And as for the SM not being harder than any other mission for you, that's game mechanics.

I don't even know why I'm arguing here, I couldn't care less if you think it doesn't make sense really.

[CptBomBom00]

I don't know what just happen so I think I'm just gonna stay in da shadows.