4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Undertone]

hotdogbsg wrote...

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.

Because in my opinion it'll reinforce a canon pattern for the past 2 games and for the third choice-wise. Because it's unrealistic and because it cheapens the other ends. Because it attributes squad mates death's in other endings due to the player failings, wrong choices or sadism and not because we are fighting against incredibe odds. 

It doesn't matter how hard it is to achieve - people play games by nature in a completionist, perfectionist fashion (the large majority). By the time the SM initiated I had every single possible upgade I could get. 

Modifié par Undertone, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:47 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

Virmire IS mission related.
Working with TIM emotioanlly neutral? No it's not. Just take a look at how many people fowam at the mouth because of it.

Try again.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jeweledleah wrote...

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. 

Except not. Because you get some OTHER choice in it's place.

You don't get to choose between Bob and blowing up a faciltiy. But you get to choose between blowing a faciltiy and a ship in orbit. Or something similar.

Choice remains. Replayability remains.
There is no reduction.

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?

 
Bigger emotional impact.
More believabiltiy/immersion.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
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.

And you've been ignoring my question...again. Not sruprisingly really.

But the gist remains.
Why should squad memebrs be off-limit?

And the proof is in the pudding. The impact will be greater exactly because you don't want it.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:54 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

Everything about the SM is completely invalid.
It hurts my brain just thinking about the horrible travesty that is ME2 end game.

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.

Yes it does add more realism.
Also, while the player may or many not feel responsible, Shepard would (asumign he's a sane individual).

The more you argue against party memebr deah, the more you reinforce the fact that it's emotional impact cannot be overstated. The very IDEA already has had a huge impact on you lot.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

LOL @ you
There's nothing pointless about those deaths. Everythig surves a purpose. You just cannot accept it.
To you, everything that doesn't follow your precise mould is "poitnless drama".
Well, that "pointless drama" has proven to be effective though  thousands of years of storytelling.
The problem lies not there.

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.

And you do have CHOICES. The only problem is that your obssesed that that chocies must be exactly those you want to make.

The only agency a palyer should have is over Sheps action. That's it. Nothing more. Shep doesn't direct the universe. He doesn't control anything else. And he should always be limited to what he can do at a given time and place.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Undertone wrote...

hotdogbsg wrote...

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.

Because in my opinion it'll reinforce a canon pattern for the past 2 games and for the third choice-wise. Because it's unrealistic and because it cheapens the other ends. Because it attributes squad mates death's in other endings due to the player failings, wrong choices or sadism and not because we are fighting against incredibe odds. 

It doesn't matter how hard it is to achieve - people play games by nature in a completionist, perfectionist fashion (the large majority). By the time the SM initiated I had every single possible upgade I could get. 

Also, "harder" means nothing to the player. IT's only an additonal challenge.

"Oy, if you take option A, you will face 10 more opponents in the next room!"
"I will? SWEET! Bring it on!"

That's not really a choice or hard - because the players WILL pass that challenge.

[Notlikeyoucare]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And you do have CHOICES. The only problem is that your obssesed that that chocies must be exactly those you want to make.

Exactly this. It seems like people are more concerned with choices that wiill make the story play out the way they want rather than having choice that would enrich the story or provide some element of characterisation. In particular the " I want the option to save X or not" feels kind of strange to me because:

a) The only reason people want the option is because they want that character to survive. Which makes you wonder why they want the "option" if they only want one outcome and aren't going to think or even care about the consequences of the opportunity cost.

I don't see how X character dying at this point affects the plot if they die in a battle "with" the Reapers. It would be different if Shepard was a character but he isn't. If the sqaudmate X dying has not impact on the plot or characters, what exactly is the point of having a choice in the matter?

[AdmiralCheez]

So I've decided not to talk to Lotion anymore because we're just being b*tches to each other at this point. It's whining and clawing over an ambiguous concept that boils down to personal taste.

I still think it's better to allow for more options with compromises than to deny a possibility entirely. This goes for everything except character pregnancies and marriages. That's just... better if the player imagines it him/herself after the credits roll. I can't think of any way of implementing it that wouldn't be weird and creepy. I mean, if it's not forced (which would be absolutely horrible--NINJAPREGNANCY), then the choice itself would be extremely awkward. Extremely.

[onelifecrisis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

So I've decided not to talk to Lotion anymore because we're just being b*tches to each other at this point. It's whining and clawing over an ambiguous concept that boils down to personal taste.

I still think it's better to allow for more options with compromises than to deny a possibility entirely. This goes for everything except character pregnancies and marriages. That's just... better if the player imagines it him/herself after the credits roll. I can't think of any way of implementing it that wouldn't be weird and creepy. I mean, if it's not forced (which would be absolutely horrible--NINJAPREGNANCY), then the choice itself would be extremely awkward. Extremely.

Choices that are awkward by their mere existence? Now what does that remind me of...

[CptBomBom00]

Extremely indeed.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I still think it's better to allow for more options with compromises than to deny a possibility entirely. This goes for everything except character pregnancies and marriages. That's just... better if the player imagines it him/herself after the credits roll. I can't think of any way of implementing it that wouldn't be weird and creepy. I mean, if it's not forced (which would be absolutely horrible--NINJAPREGNANCY), then the choice itself would be extremely awkward. Extremely.

Wut? What is this? I don't even.. why would anyone want-...

BSN, you are seriously fraked up.
When people start obesessing over virtual characters and having smoochies/babies with them, then something is very wrong.
When a guy without at life tells you to get a life, then you should really start think things over

[sorentoft]

NINJAPREGNANCY

Kasumi got pregnant? She got the priiiize?

[AdmiralCheez]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Exactly this. It seems like people are more concerned with choices that wiill make the story play out the way they want rather than having choice that would enrich the story or provide some element of characterisation. In particular the " I want the option to save X or not" feels kind of strange to me because:

a) The only reason people want the option is because they want that character to survive. Which makes you wonder why they want the "option" if they only want one outcome and aren't going to think or even care about the consequences of the opportunity cost.

Not really.  If saving so-and-so required me to do something seriously awful, I'd pass it up.  I think most would.  In fact, that sort of thing would add a whole new level of tough decisions that could make the BSN a raging debate hell.

I don't see how X character dying at this point affects the plot if they die in a battle "with" the Reapers. It would be different if Shepard was a character but he isn't. If the sqaudmate X dying has not impact on the plot or characters, what exactly is the point of having a choice in the matter?

If it's not going to affect the plot, why kill 'em in the first place?  I mean, seriously, why suddenly remove a valuable resource from the game for no purpose other than "drama?"

It's kind of like forcing the player to release his Charizard right before fighting the Elite Four.  Hell, even afterwards would be annoying, since you've got that whole post-game thing.

[Soul Cool]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That's not really a choice or hard - because the players WILL pass that challenge.

Ave Machina.

There is no choice to make that is hard in this game or any other game with non-permanent character death, period. You can always start another game, reload an old save, or use a save editor.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I don't see how X character dying at this point affects the plot if they die in a battle "with" the Reapers. It would be different if Shepard was a character but he isn't. If the sqaudmate X dying has not impact on the plot or characters, what exactly is the point of having a choice in the matter?

If it's not going to affect the plot, why kill 'em in the first place?  I mean, seriously, why suddenly remove a valuable resource from the game for no purpose other than "drama?"

Why? Drama. Atmosphere. Demonstration of reaper power/threat.

Why remove a valubale resource? That depends. How valubale they really are?
And why not? It's galactic war. Making it harder only makes sense.

It's kind of like forcing the player to release his Charizard right
before fighting the Elite Four.  Hell, even afterwards would be
annoying, since you've got that whole post-game thing.

Pokemon reffernce.

-30 approval.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:35 .

[Estelindis]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wut? What is this? I don't even.. why would anyone want-...

BSN, you are seriously fraked up.
When people start obesessing over virtual characters and having smoochies/babies with them, then something is very wrong.
When a guy without at life tells you to get a life, then you should really start think things over

When someone imagines that a romance might eventually lead to marriage and children, something is very wrong.

Wait a second...

[AdmiralCheez]

Soul Cool wrote...

Ave Machina.

There is no choice to make that is hard in this game or any other game with non-permanent character death, period. You can always start another game, reload an old save, or use a save editor.

And yet, the same character dying 100% of the time, especially if you made a point to keep that character alive one or two whole games ago when they could have died, makes everything you've done up to that point completely pointless.  Unable to alter that point, people will either stop caring about the character in subsequent playthroughs or just ragequit.

It's a bad idea to shoot replayability in the foot if you plan on selling DLC.

*trying really hard not to reply to Lotion again*

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:39 .

[Aldyramon]

Meaningful choice is Mass Effect would require a couple of things:

1. Kick Paragon/Renegade Points: With Moral Points all choice is practicly "do I want Paragon Points" or "do I want Renegade Points". If they would giv you a point for every time you lied, then most people will try to go for max lieing points...

2. No skill for persuasion/intimidation: every answer should be possible, except it is requiring knowledge/actions the character does not know/has done at the time. In ME2 they practicly even reduced the Renegade Paragon Choices to one decision because you need the stick to one side in order to be able to persuade/intimidate.

3. Re-arrange the dialog wheel: just randomly place the different options. No answer should be clearly the best answer (conveniently highlighted by the lovely blue font). Answers that are not possible should be not visible. No hints like "(lie)" etc.

4. Let me fail at a Dialog: In Mass Effect you cannot fail in a dialog. You always get what you want, you only choose how to get there. There should be the possibility to not get what you want and need to go another way.

5. Real consequence: At the end of Zaeed's mission, if you save the workers, you shouldn't be able to tell him: "Hey Zaeed, don't you feel good about saving all these people, It was clearly the right choice. And how long do you want to hold the grudge against the Merc, it was a long time ago, so let it go..." and he becomes loyal anyway... Zaeed should be pissed and leave! That is a choice "Do the right thing and loose an ally or do the wrong thing and keep an ally." If you would back it up with really fallout for not saving the workers (One of them survived and tells the media), even better. There should never be a choice without consequence. If all available choices lead to the same conclusion, just skip the choice and let Shepard answer automatically.

6. Enforce time limits: not with a clicking clock on you screen, but if someone says you need to hurry, enforce it buy letting bad things happen is they don't (like hostage situation in Deus Ex Human Revolution). Or like saving you crew in ME2, but make it more often(btw: I would just give you the "No one left behind" , if you had saved everybody including the crew)

to the whole Teammate question:

I think there should be a possibility to save every teammate, BUT it should be insanely hard to do so. Also it should definitely not be obvious what to do the get there, to a point that you should not be able to get there without a lot of trail&error or a walkthrough. Additionally it should be hard to succeed, so that you really need to step it up, to a point where most people just will give up. There should definitely be a sense of having archived something, that you had to work to make it happen.

Also everybody should be in danger of dieing, depending on your choices and performance, but this also should not be as obvious as in ME2, were they practically give you a checklist "all companions loyal [x]; Normandy fully upgraded [x]; choose the right people for every job..."

Dieing Teammates should by the default, not the exception.

Modifié par Aldyramon, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:44 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

imagine..key word.

Frankly, I think romances are an overblown feature of Bio games. The next bio game could ship without them and I wouldn't miss the mmuch. tehy are a nice addition, but utterly unnecessary IMHO.

But some view Bio games as dating sims....

[Soul Cool]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
And yet, the same character dying 100% of the time, especially if you made a point to keep that character alive one or two whole games ago when they could have died, makes everything you've done up to that point completely pointless.

Cheat. Or realize that all good things come to an end, and that sometimes characters that we are deeply attached to meet their end when we don't want them to.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Unable to alter that point, people will either stop caring about the character in subsequent playthroughs or just ragequit.

The amount of callousness other people exhibit is no fault of mine. Whether or not they care about the character should be unrelated to whether or not the character dies. Do you stop loving someone simply because you know they will die? Do you stop enjoying the company of your fellow humans (If you do enjoy such a thing) because death is guaranteed?

AdmiralCheez wrote...
It's a bad idea to shoot replayability in the foot if you plan on selling DLC.

That is obviously BioWare's problem, not mine. Why it should affect my enjoyment of their game, or why it should be a reason to not make characters die in a series that ends with this installment is not fathomable to me.

Modifié par Soul Cool, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:44 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

imagine..key word.

Frankly, I think romances are an overblown feature of Bio games. The next bio game could ship without them and I wouldn't miss the mmuch. tehy are a nice addition, but utterly unnecessary IMHO.

But some view Bio games as dating sims....

As an advocate of drama, realism, and immersion, you should support romance.  It makes people feel more, stronger things about what's happening in the game.  In fact, romance is just as widely used as a plot device as death in storytelling.  But see, you'd complain if you were forced into romance (especially with the same character) in every playthrough in ME3 when you were able to avoid it up to that point, wouldn't you?

So if love is utterly unnecessary in a story even though it is a core human emotion, then so is loss.

Oh wait, that's right.  Emotional impact only counts if it's negative.  Drama.  Right.  Sad is intellectually superior to happy.

F*CK I REPLIED.  Damn it damn it damn it I WON'T DO THIS AGAIN I SWEAR.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

It worked with Aeris.

Aeris was dumb.  FFVII is overrated.  Additionally FFVII's plot is exactly the same no matter how many times you play it.