4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

jeweledleah wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Counter-question:

Why shouldn't it be a squadmate?

becasue squadmate vs another squadmate becomes an impactless choice.  it removes drama rather then adding to it.  as people's reactions to virmire demonstrated.  but tougher choice, like squadmate vs something else, whether its letting criminal go, losing potential alliance, making some battle harder down the road, etc - that decision lasts through countless playthroughs.  not to mention - for those who wish to have an expedient perfect ending without having to sacrifice completionist urges or "making bad choices" - can.  and those who wish to save all the squadmates?  can as well.

replayability is a big thing when it comes to the game that involves "chose your own adventure" mechanics.

It's not implactless...as peoples reactions demonstrated.

The choice you're proposing isn't tougher - it's jsut more to your liking. You simply don't want ot choose btween two squad memebers and are trying to invent reason why its' bad.
Not that I mind choosing between a squaddie and something else, mind you. But the quesiton is why not have forced squaddie death - not one kind of choices you like.

So you really haven't answered my question, because I havn't really asked what the underline attempts to answer.

[Robuthad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Counter-question:

Why shouldn't it be a squadmate?

becasue squadmate vs another squadmate becomes an impactless choice.  it removes drama rather then adding to it.  as people's reactions to virmire demonstrated.  but tougher choice, like squadmate vs something else, whether its letting criminal go, losing potential alliance, making some battle harder down the road, etc - that decision lasts through countless playthroughs.  not to mention - for those who wish to have an expedient perfect ending without having to sacrifice completionist urges or "making bad choices" - can.  and those who wish to save all the squadmates?  can as well.

replayability is a big thing when it comes to the game that involves "chose your own adventure" mechanics.

It's not implactless...as peoples reactions demonstrated.

The choice you're proposing isn't tougher - it's jsut more to your liking. You simply don't want ot choose btween two squad memebers and are trying to invent reason why its' bad.
Not that I mind choosing between a squaddie and something else, mind you. But the quesiton is why not have forced squaddie death - not one kind of choices you like.

So you really haven't answered my question, because I havn't really asked what the underline attempts to answer.

Which way would you have it Lotion?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Undertone wrote...
By that definition you shouldn't play the entire game more then once. Oh look it's that scene again where we meet TIM, oh look it's Noveria again. Oh look Shepard comes unscathed again at the end of ME1.

I can't/wont even begin to tell you how foolish that whole statement is.

Do try, since there's nothing foolish about it.
We know you will fail, but it' amusing either way.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Undertone wrote...
By that definition you shouldn't play the entire game more then once. Oh look it's that scene again where we meet TIM, oh look it's Noveria again. Oh look Shepard comes unscathed again at the end of ME1.

I can't/wont even begin to tell you how foolish that whole statement is.

Do try, since there's nothing foolish about it.
We know you will fail, but it' amusing either way.

Because everything Undertone mentioned is emotionally neutral narrative or mission-related gameplay for the most part. Virmire is just an annoyance that gets more irritating each time you're forced to do it. That isn't difficult to puzzle out for yourself.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Counter-question:

Why shouldn't it be a squadmate?

Replay value?


*12th play-through* " Oh great this scene again...real emotional... *throws controller* F this game."

The friend death in GoW3 kind of hit me with the combined weight of a trillion........photons....


Kill everyone around your squad to bring he squad closer together.

Non-argument.
It doesn't affect the replay value of the game - only of the segment, and only to a point.
But the same can be said of ANY instance where the player has no direct control.

Shep taking a shuttle ride right after IFF mission? No replay value, I've seen this scene before.
Shep having to accept wroking with Certberus and TIM? No replay value, I've seen this before.
Etc, etc..
Did you throw your controller in disgust?

So again, why should squad memebr death be a choice at the expense of some other choice (because you can only implement so many meaningfull choices)

Ah, good ol lotion, nitpick for your point.


Good luck with that.

[jeweledleah]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Counter-question:

Why shouldn't it be a squadmate?

becasue squadmate vs another squadmate becomes an impactless choice.  it removes drama rather then adding to it.  as people's reactions to virmire demonstrated.  but tougher choice, like squadmate vs something else, whether its letting criminal go, losing potential alliance, making some battle harder down the road, etc - that decision lasts through countless playthroughs.  not to mention - for those who wish to have an expedient perfect ending without having to sacrifice completionist urges or "making bad choices" - can.  and those who wish to save all the squadmates?  can as well.

replayability is a big thing when it comes to the game that involves "chose your own adventure" mechanics.

It's not implactless...as peoples reactions demonstrated.

The choice you're proposing isn't tougher - it's jsut more to your liking. You simply don't want ot choose btween two squad memebers and are trying to invent reason why its' bad.
Not that I mind choosing between a squaddie and something else, mind you. But the quesiton is why not have forced squaddie death - not one kind of choices you like.

So you really haven't answered my question, because I havn't really asked what the underline attempts to answer.

all right.  its the wrong impact.  when you can kill - or save all the squadmates - by that virtue alone, you can replay the game more times then when you are forced to kill some of the squadmates no matter what you do. it reduces the choice becasue some of those choices are already made for you. sheer numbers game. 

not to mention - you never gave a satisfactory ecplanation as to WHY forcing deaths of squadmates makes for a better story then giving people a choice whether to save them or not? 

it sounds a little too much to me, like you wish for it to happen simply because it would make a game less fun for what you all like to call "paragon" players. 

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Undertone wrote...
By that definition you shouldn't play the entire game more then once. Oh look it's that scene again where we meet TIM, oh look it's Noveria again. Oh look Shepard comes unscathed again at the end of ME1.

I can't/wont even begin to tell you how foolish that whole statement is.

Do try, since there's nothing foolish about it.
We know you will fail, but it' amusing either way.

Because everything Undertone mentioned is emotionally neutral narrative or mission-related gameplay for the most part. Virmire is just an annoyance that gets more irritating each time you're forced to do it. That isn't difficult to puzzle out for yourself.

It's best not to try and use basic reasoning...or logic, they just fly right on by.

And to lotion..... in case you haven't been reading we have given a couple examples from another game that would work just fine, deaths of people you directly work with but are not part of your core team can have the same-greater impact than just choosing to kill off a squad mate for a cheap dramatic effect.


I patiently await your spin of words.

[Undertone]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Undertone wrote...
By that definition you shouldn't play the entire game more then once. Oh look it's that scene again where we meet TIM, oh look it's Noveria again. Oh look Shepard comes unscathed again at the end of ME1.

I can't/wont even begin to tell you how foolish that whole statement is.

Do try, since there's nothing foolish about it.
We know you will fail, but it' amusing either way.

Because everything Undertone mentioned is emotionally neutral narrative or mission-related gameplay for the most part. Virmire is just an annoyance that gets more irritating each time you're forced to do it. That isn't difficult to puzzle out for yourself.

Every scene or gameplay has some emotional leverage / impact. Because if your gameplay is emotionally neutral then you fail. How is an ending of a game emotionally neutral? Every time I know Shepard comes out of the rubble and he/she is doing fine. There's no surprise there, it's that scene again which is perfectly fine cause well... oh god maybe I played the game before? To make an argument that Virmire is pointless because "it's that scene again" is well...retarded. 

Virmire is anything but emotionally neutral. The music, the situation, everything gives you a sense of urgency, should I help Kirahe team's and make it harder for me? Or easier for me? Will my mission succeed? The sense that you have to keep pushing and that you have no other choice. And then the culmination of having to leave one of my friends/team mates/possible romance. When you've played it 200 times of course previous enchantment over the particular moment is lost upon you. Which is the most logical thing. 

Of course the problem of Virmire was that you could send your other squad or the Normandy to pick up the other, while you help the first, then come pick you up. That's not that Virmire itself sucks, but that the writing sucks. 

As for you kids:

@Humanoid_Typhoon
@Something With Mass

Learn to actually post presented arguments rather then pointless little jabs and maybe somebody will take you seriously.  

[Undertone]

jeweledleah wrote...


not to mention - you never gave a satisfactory ecplanation as to WHY forcing deaths of squadmates makes for a better story then giving people a choice whether to save them or not? 

it sounds a little too much to me, like you wish for it to happen simply because it would make a game less fun for what you all like to call "paragon" players. 

It cheapens the death of said character. If there's an option to save somebody then by that alone it means it's the player's fault for not saving the character or that the player is a retard/plays the idiot ball or hates said character and intentionally does not save him, which logically doesn't make any sense because if Shepard let someone die just because of personal reasons he/she wouldn't be in the position he/she is in the first place (not to mention has psychological problems).  

Because Shepard can't control every variable on the battlefield and because Shepard shouldn't have the power to save whoever they please at their whim because it breaks any suspension of disbelief.

Of course I'm not going to be surprised if someone yet again retardedly claims that bohoo science-finction and realism/logic are to mutually exclusive things. 

Modifié par Undertone, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:02 .

[Athayniel]

Undertone wrote...

Every scene or gameplay has some emotional leverage / impact. Because if your gameplay is emotionally neutral then you fail. How is an ending of a game emotionally neutral? Every time I know Shepard comes out of the rubble and he/she is doing fine. There's no surprise there, it's that scene again which is perfectly fine cause well... oh god maybe I played the game before? To make an argument that Virmire is pointless because "it's that scene again" is well...retarded. 

Virmire is anything but emotionally neutral. The music, the situation, everything gives you a sense of urgency, should I help Kirahe team's and make it harder for me? Or easier for me? Will my mission succeed? The sense that you have to keep pushing and that you have no other choice. And then the culmination of having to leave one of my friends/team mates/possible romance. When you've played it 200 times of course previous enchantment over the particular moment is lost upon you. Which is the most logical thing. 

Of course the problem of Virmire was that you could send your other squad or the Normandy to pick up the other, while you help the first, then come pick you up. That's not that Virmire itself sucks, but that the writing sucks. 

Granted. The point still stands, the things you mentioned do not have the negative backlash which Virmire brings. It is much easier to replay something which makes you feel like a hero, than something which just pisses you off.

[Someone With Mass]

Undertone wrote...
@Something With Mass

Learn to actually post presented arguments rather then pointless little jabs and maybe somebody will take you seriously.  

Last time I checked, that's not a requirement to post on this forum.

Not to mention that I don't feel like writing twenty paragraphs just to tell a point I can get through in one sentence.

[Undertone]

Athayniel wrote...


Granted. The point still stands, the things you mentioned do not have the negative backlash which Virmire brings. It is much easier to replay something which makes you feel like a hero, than something which just pisses you off.

Virmire doesn't ****** me off, it's a necessary sacrifice, I'm playing a war game (a sci-fi war, but war regardless) after all.  If anything Virmire is my favorite part of the entire ME1.

[jeweledleah]

Undertone wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...


not to mention - you never gave a satisfactory ecplanation as to WHY forcing deaths of squadmates makes for a better story then giving people a choice whether to save them or not? 

it sounds a little too much to me, like you wish for it to happen simply because it would make a game less fun for what you all like to call "paragon" players. 

It cheapens the death of said character. If there's an option to save somebody then bt that alone it means it's the player's fault for not saving the character or that the player is a retard/plays the idiot ball or hates said character and intentionally does not save him, which logically doesn't make any sense because if Shepard let someone die just because of personal reasons he/she wouldn't be in the position he/she is in the first place (not to mention has psychological problems).  

Because Shepard can't control every variable on the battlefield and because Shepard shouldn't have the power to save whoever they please at their whim because it breaks any suspension of disbelief.

Of course I'm not going to be surprised if someone yet again retardedly claims that bohoo science-finction and realism/logic are to mutually exclusive things. 

because allowing Kate Bowman to die in order to catch and detain (or kill) ar terrorist is idiotic, amirite?  becasue role playing a shepard who doesn't lie, and because of that releases the evidence at Tali's trial and then she dies in the vents - is completely invalid?  because letting the workers die, in order to catch a leader of a rampaging mercenary band and stop him from commiting more crimes against civilians stupid? just to give you a few examples off the top of the head.

broaden your views, just a little, try it out.  there is no one true way to play.  there is no ultimate, best solution that fits all.  even saving every single squadmate in ME2 can be accomplished in a variety of ways that shapes and defines individual Shepards.

but forcing deaths?  it doesn't really add more realism.  in a video game where you eventualy figure out every single trigger and outcome, death that you cannot prevent ischeap.  precicely because it DOESN'T make you feel responsible for it.  pfft, nothing I could do, who cares. 

as for virmire?  you have to play a calous, lazy, overly cautions, overly trusting in ability of salarians to manage the oposition Shepard not to help Kirrahe.  becasue there really isn't a drawback in helping him, just a few more geth to kill.  you save Kirrahe with no real cost to you.  there is no real trade off.  and Kaidan and Ash? nothing you can do prevents it, so the impact is lost.  YOU are not responsible for ther deaths.  even the game reinforces it.  they die for arbitrary dramaz and becasue bioware needed to merge them into single character

Modifié par jeweledleah, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:14 .

[Athayniel]

jeweledleah wrote...

but forcing deaths?  it doesn't really add more realism.  in a video game where you eventualy figure out every single trigger and outcome, death that you cannot prevent ischeap.  precicely because it DOESN'T make you feel responsible for it.  pfft, nothing I could do, who cares. 

as for virmire?  you have to play a calous, lazy Shepard not to help Kirrahe.  becasue there reallyisn't a drawback in helping him, just a few more geth to kill.  you save Kirrahe with no real cost to you.  there is no real trade off.  and Kaidan and Ash? nothing you can do prevents it, so the impact is lost.  YOU are not responsible for ther deaths.  even the game reinforces it.  they die for arbitrary dramaz and becasue bioware needed to merge them into single character

A point I brought up 40 pages or so ago. If the death is forced it absolves the player of any responsibility for it.

I think for most of the proponents of forced squadmate death would just prefer to read Mass Effect as a series of novels than to take charge of shaping the narrative the way BioWare has intended.

[Athayniel]

Undertone wrote...

Virmire doesn't ****** me off, it's a necessary sacrifice, I'm playing a war game (a sci-fi war, but war regardless) after all.  If anything Virmire is my favorite part of the entire ME1.

That is purely a matter of opinion and not even one in which you'd find yourself in the majority I'd wager, but that is my opinion.

[Undertone]

jeweledleah wrote...


because allowing Kate Bowman to die in order to catch and detain (or kill) ar terrorist is idiotic, amirite?  becasue role playing a shepard who doesn't lie, and because of that releases the evidence at Tali's trial and then she dies in the vents - is completely invalid?  because letting the workers die, in order to catch a leader of a rampaging mercenary band and stop him from commiting more crimes against civilians stupid? just to give you a few examples off the top of the head.

broaden your views, just a little, try it out.  there is no one true way to play.  there is no ultimate, best solution that fits all.  even saving every single squadmate in ME2 can be accomplished in a variety of ways that shapes and defines individual Shepards.

but forcing deaths?  it doesn't really add more realism.  in a video game where you eventualy figure out every single trigger and outcome, death that you cannot prevent ischeap.  precicely because it DOESN'T make you feel responsible for it.  pfft, nothing I could do, who cares. 

This examples are good but in terms of the choices they present. Unfortunately this is soured by the blue win button but oh well. 

Regardless however NPC death or population death's aren't as personal. You don't care that someone died, someone you don't know. You care about those who are close to you. 

By teh same defition being able to prevent every squad mate death is absolutely the cheapest thing possible. And Shepard shouldn't feel responsible for everything - his goal is to win the war. There are sacrifices to be made for that to be achieved and if there weren't then the war wasn't worth it in the first place. And the fact of it is that you do care - that's why you are arguing here. If Bioware told you that Garrus/Tali or whoever favorite you have is going to die in ME3 you wil scream your mouth on the forums asking that they make a way possible for him to survive.  

That's why it would be cheap if Thane is all fine and dandy in ME3 - because part of what made him so great is that he is a dying man and has a different perspective as such. 


And yes it does add more realism - because as I said Shepard can't make every single choice. Some things are beyond him - being a game of choice doesn't suddently change the odds we are fighting against, it doesn't change the fact that the Reapers are vastly superior and it doesn't change the fact we are not prepared yet. It also doesn't change the fact that Shepard and his squad will be in the thick of the battle. The squad is going to be spread to different places very likely, and Shepard won't be able to be everywhere at any moment. 

ME2 deaths only make me feel two things - I kill somebody on purpose cause I hate 'em or cause I decided to play idiot Shepard when the right choices are so painfully clear. 

We already had a supposedly impossible mission where everyone can make it. It's time things got real in ME3. 

Modifié par Undertone, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:31 .

[Undertone]

Athayniel wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Virmire doesn't ****** me off, it's a necessary sacrifice, I'm playing a war game (a sci-fi war, but war regardless) after all.  If anything Virmire is my favorite part of the entire ME1.

That is purely a matter of opinion and not even one in which you'd find yourself in the majority I'd wager, but that is my opinion.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. You had to leave one team mate to get the job done, that's it. As for the latter - of course, the majority on these forums are people who are extremely idealistic and want sunshine, ponies and what not. If it was up to them, you wouldn't lose a single person in the entire galaxy.

[Undertone]

Athayniel wrote...


A point I brought up 40 pages or so ago. If the death is forced it absolves the player of any responsibility for it.

I think for most of the proponents of forced squadmate death would just prefer to read Mass Effect as a series of novels than to take charge of shaping the narrative the way BioWare has intended.

One of your closest friends dies - you have no responsibility over their death, that's why you feel absolutely nothing? Wow you must teach me this sorcery of yours. 

As for the latter you mean shaping who Shepard (and some aspects in terms of the squad and maybe political set up) is right? I don't see where you are given control over the narrative or the galaxy or the fate of your squad mates.  

Modifié par Undertone, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:34 .

[jeweledleah]

death that you cause by making a choice when you could have prevented that death? that's ALWAYS personal. at least to me. death that I didn't cause? its not personal, in real life- its just a fact of life you accept, eventualy and in game - its an annoyance.

if bioware tells me that whatever character dies in ME3 no matter what I do (and I'm not talking something like Mordin of old age, or Thane eventually succumbing to his sickness - I'm talking random arbitrary death like Wash in Serenity, or Trinity in Matrix, or Ballard in Dollhouse), you bet I'm going to rage. because they are pointless deaths. they are cheap attempts to create "realism" because they basically tell you that you don't really have to try, since whether you try or not, those characters will die anyways. waste of time, waste of money.

you know what Mass Effect is? Mass Effect is "run, Lola run." or at least it should be.

I don't want to be able to get a perfect for me playthrough first time around (emphasis on "me" - my perfect playthrough is not necessarily someone else's perfect playthrough). I don't want the choices to be painfully clear from the start (and the examples that I showed you - those choices never become painfully clear, especially if you are role playing) but having a chance to rewind, replay, do differently... this is what makes a game different from real life, or even from most stories that are not "run, Lola, run" I want to actually HAVE choices.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:41 .

[Athayniel]

Undertone wrote...

One of your closest friends dies - you have no responsibility over their death, that's why you feel absolutely nothing? Wow you must teach me this sorcery of yours.

Nice strawman, not once did I write about feeling nothing.

As for the latter you mean shaping who Shepard (and some aspects in terms of the squad and maybe political set up) is right? I don't see where you are given control over the narrative or the galaxy or the fate of your squad mates.

Considering the SM gives you almost direct control over who lives and dies then your point kind of falls flat on its face. And you describe things like Wrex being the leader of the krogan and the survival of the Rachni and Cerberus having possession of the most advanced technological base in the galaxy as "political set up". They're not that important I suppose. It's just potential genocide-in-a-can in all three instances depending on which way you go.

Modifié par Athayniel, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:45 .

[Athayniel]

jeweledleah wrote...

if bioware tells me that whatever character dies in ME3 no matter what I do (and I'm not talking something like Mordin of old age, or Thane eventually succumbing to his sickness - I'm talking random arbitrary death like Wash in Serenity, or Trinity in Matrix, or Ballard in Dollhouse), you bet I'm going to rage. because they are pointless deaths. they are cheap attempts to create "realism" because they basically tell you that you don't really have to try, since whether you try or not, those characters will die anyways. waste of time, waste of money.

Actually someone tried to argue with me that even if a character's death happens no matter what I do that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to save them. I kid you not.

Modifié par Athayniel, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:50 .

[Undertone]

jeweledleah wrote...

death that you cause by making a choice when you could have prevented that death? that's ALWAYS personal. at least to me. death that I didn't cause? its not personal, in real life- its just a fact of life you accept, eventualy and in game - its an annoyance.

if bioware tells me that whatever character dies in ME3 no matter what I do (and I'm not talking something like Mordin of old age, or Thane eventually succumbing to his sickness - I'm talking random arbitrary death like Wash in Serenity, or Trinity in Matrix, or Ballard in Dollhouse), you bet I'm going to rage. because they are pointless deaths. they are cheap attempts to create "realism" because they basically tell you that you don't really have to try, since whether you try or not, those characters will die anyways. waste of time, waste of money.

you know what Mass Effect is? Mass Effect is "run, Lola run." or at least it should be.

I don't want to be able to get a perfect for me playthrough first time around (emphasis on "me" - my perfect playthrough is not necessarily someone else's perfect playthrough). I don't want the choices to be painfully clear from the start (and the examples that I showed you - those choices never become painfully clear, especially if you are role playing) but having a chance to rewind, replay, do differently... this is what makes a game different from real life, or even from most stories that are not "run, Lola, run" I want to actually HAVE choices.

The same question for you then - one of your closests friend dies; you have no responsibility over that so it's not personal to you? It has no emotional impact over you? 

Death is one of the most powerful tools in any kind of media ever - books, movies, games. But it has to be written well. How can death be pointless and cheap...? Your thought process is inconprehensible to me.

There's shouldn't be a perfect ending in ME3 - players should get only parts or segments of what they want. ME3 simply shouldn't have an ending where you can save all your squad mates or all species and even worse manage to save both. Why? Because of the Reapers of course. 

Modifié par Undertone, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:09 .

[Undertone]

Athayniel wrote...



Considering the SM gives you almost direct control over who lives and dies then your point kind of falls flat on its face. 

Uhm this is exactly what I'm arguing against. ME3 shouldn't be this way. 

[Athayniel]

Undertone wrote...

Uhm this is exactly what I'm arguing against. ME3 shouldn't be this way. 

I'm not particularly fond of the SM's implementation either and have mentioned as much before in this very thread. I just brought it up because it disproved your point.

[hotdogbsg]

Undertone wrote...

.There's shouldn't be a perfect ending in ME3 - players should get only parts or segments of what they want. ME3 simply shouldn't have an ending where you can save all your squad mates or all species and even worse manage to save both. Why? Because of the Reapers of course. 

I don't really understand this.

There's going to be multiple endings in ME3, why does it matter if there's a "Every Squadmate Lives" scenario?

It'll probably be the hardest to achieve and require a lot of work.