4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Notlikeyoucare]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

Pokemon has no story, so its a moot point. In terms of gameplay balance, it works because your whole party is gaining xp regardless if they're being used or not; the level of challenge is constantly relative, something like Pokemon isn't. KOTOR I & II pulled this off fine, ME 3 can do so as well.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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*

Except it doesn't shoot replayabiltiy in the foot. You got other choices to pick from.

Saving a character in ME2 does not guarantee that character will survive ME3.  Why should anyone expect that?

[Aldyramon]

I like the Romances, but I would appreciate if you game would not take any friendly conversation as I sign that I want to hook up with someone. It would be much more important to have read deep friendships than romances. Because you can be friends with everyone, but only romance one person.

[Notlikeyoucare]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

Yes, thats exactly the point. The death is effective each and everytime regardless, nothing has changed since the first time. The only thing that has is your tolerance of repetition.

And yes, you're right. FF VII is overrated, but so is Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Notlikeyoucare, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:59 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

I do have tio gree with Cheez that FF is over rated. In fact, I consider it a crime agaisnt humanity.

But I also have to agree with Saphra - people remained invested with the character despite a fixed death.

[AdmiralCheez]

Soul Cool wrote...

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.

You can't cheat a plot event.  Not without breaking the game, unfortunately.  Also, I know allll about people I am deeply attached to meeting their end when I don't want them to.  I don't need my entertainment to reinforce that.

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?

Some people do, actually.  If someone they love is terminally ill, they begin to grow distant and detached to lessen the pain it will cause when that loved one finally departs.  But the cool thing about games is that they're a fun escape from real life.

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.

The fact that it is Bioware's problem is why they should consider it.  One of the reasons people play Mass Effect over and over is to test different outcomes to different situations.  "What if I played as a female sentinel this time?"  "What if I romanced Thane and kept the Collector Base?"  "How different will things be if I save the Council, but let Wrex die?"

All players are presented with the same problems, yes.  However, if the solution to these problems is always the same, there is little point to try solving them again from a different angle.  Hence doing the Kahje mission  = James Vega dies is a - 1 variable for players to experiment with.

[Arcadian Legend]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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

You're dumb. You're overrated. You're exactly the same every time you post.

Regardless of what you may think though, Aeris was a successful as a character in FFVII that people cared about and who was then killed off. Many people played that game multiple times and were taken by that scene each time. They remained invested in the character.

At that rate, so could everyone on the boards be considered overrated and saying the same things, me included.. It is true, though, JRPG's like VII, almost never change in any way storywise when you play them. (Unlike XIII-2, which is looking pretty interesting, which reminds me...)  You can do gameplay challenges sure, but the core story never changes in any way. While I have no problem with Aerith/Aeris, I never did understand/remember why she ran off on her own like that towards the end of disc 1, seemed a little stupid. 

Sorry for going so off topic like that, I just have little else to contribute to the thread, other than what I put earlier in it.

Modifié par DarkRiku7, 19 octobre 2011 - 01:21 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Pokemon has no story, so its a moot point. In terms of gameplay balance, it works because your whole party is gaining xp regardless if they're being used or not; the level of challenge is constantly relative, something like Pokemon isn't. KOTOR I & II pulled this off fine, ME 3 can do so as well.

Actually, Pokémon does have a story, despite it being bare-bones.  And regardless of XP gained, each squadmate is a resource that can be used in combat.  Having a mission or two where you can't use your designated tank is a challenge, but not being able to use your tank at all for the rest of the game is a pointless restriction on gameplay, especially if you can continue playing after "beating" it.  Mass Effect 3 is known to have this feature.

[Soul Cool]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
You can't cheat a plot event.  Not without breaking the game, unfortunately.  Also, I know allll about people I am deeply attached to meeting their end when I don't want them to.  I don't need my entertainment to reinforce that. Some people do, actually.  If someone they love is terminally ill, they begin to grow distant and detached to lessen the pain it will cause when that loved one finally departs.  But the cool thing about games is that they're a fun escape from real life.

I'm just going to let the crickets chirp on this one. I've got no idea how to respond to something so personal without being incredibly insensitive.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
The fact that it is Bioware's problem is why they should consider it.  One of the reasons people play Mass Effect over and over is to test different outcomes to different situations.  "What if I played as a female sentinel this time?"  "What if I romanced Thane and kept the Collector Base?"  "How different will things be if I save the Council, but let Wrex die?"

Still not seeing how this connects to what I said, or why it should persuade me to agree.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
All players are presented with the same problems, yes.  However, if the solution to these problems is always the same, there is little point to try solving them again from a different angle.  Hence doing the Kahje mission  = James Vega dies is a - 1 variable for players to experiment with.

This is...also not my problem, or a problem for me?

Modifié par Soul Cool, 19 octobre 2011 - 01:18 .

[Notlikeyoucare]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Pokemon has no story, so its a moot point. In terms of gameplay balance, it works because your whole party is gaining xp regardless if they're being used or not; the level of challenge is constantly relative, something like Pokemon isn't. KOTOR I & II pulled this off fine, ME 3 can do so as well.

Actually, Pokémon does have a story, despite it being bare-bones.  And regardless of XP gained, each squadmate is a resource that can be used in combat.  Having a mission or two where you can't use your designated tank is a challenge, but not being able to use your tank at all for the rest of the game is a pointless restriction on gameplay, especially if you can continue playing after "beating" it.  Mass Effect 3 is known to have this feature.

Let me be more specific: Pokemon has no story worth paying attention to.

Tough. Mass Effect 1 did it, Mass Effect 3 can too. This has nothing to do with choices at all. This is just you wanting a certain outcome to be the option of a choice.

I find it funny that Bioware are apparently "all about choice" yet they railroad us into adopting one attitude or the other based on dialouge options, which locks us out of content that impacts the story. I am Shepard and I can play my way, but my way can only consist of two possible options unless I want to not be able to make certain choices. Good job Bioware, ROFLMAO.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

So in your opinion ME2 shouldn't have had any deaths?

I liked the fact that they were all optional, yes.  I feel the mechanics of the Suicide Mission were a little too obvious for myself and other "hardcore" players, but the "14% average casualties" statistic leads me to believe it was difficult enough for the non-obsesssed player.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

So in your opinion ME2 shouldn't have had any deaths?

I liked the fact that they were all optional, yes.  I feel the mechanics of the Suicide Mission were a little too obvious for myself and other "hardcore" players, but the "14% average casualties" statistic leads me to believe it was difficult enough for the non-obsesssed player.

Obvious? What was obvious about it?

The upgrades affect survivabilty? That is reasonable.

Loyalty missions and survival? Not. If you want to attribute deaths to anything, attribute it to players not having a clue what affects survivability.

[AdmiralCheez]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Let me be more specific: Pokemon has no story worth paying attention to.

Try Nuzlocking.

Tough. Mass Effect 1 did it, Mass Effect 3 can too. This has nothing to do with choices at all. This is just you wanting a certain outcome to be the option of a choice.

So... me wanting additional, story-impacting choices to be present has nothing to do with choices?

I find it funny that Bioware are apparently "all about choice" yet they railroad us into adopting one attitude or the other based on dialouge options, which locks us out of content that impacts the story. I am Shepard and I can play my way, but my way can only consist of two possible options unless I want to not be able to make certain choices. Good job Bioware, ROFLMAO.

I don't like how the persuasion system works, either, but you actually have a lot more freedom with it than you think.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Actually, Pokémon does have a story, despite it being bare-bones.  And regardless of XP gained, each squadmate is a resource that can be used in combat.  Having a mission or two where you can't use your designated tank is a challenge, but not being able to use your tank at all for the rest of the game is a pointless restriction on gameplay, especially if you can continue playing after "beating" it.  Mass Effect 3 is known to have this feature.

Man up and adapt. It's not that hard.
You have over a dozen squadmates in ME2. You get plenty of options. Losing a tank is hardly debilitating.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Obvious? What was obvious about it?

The upgrades affect survivabilty? That is reasonable.

Loyalty missions and survival? Not. If you want to attribute deaths to anything, attribute it to players not having a clue what affects survivability.

I got this Cheez...

Considering the game beat you over the head with the need to do loyalty missions by constantly reminding you that your squadmates needed to have their heads in the game, then yes, to a moderately hardcore player as Cheez describes the link between the LMs and survivability was obvious.

[Xilizhra]

Ultimately, no side in this has some kind of moral high ground over the other, it's all about preferred styles of gameplay. So the wisest choice for Bioware would be to take the most popular option. Which so far seems to be giving the possibility of all squadmates surviving, and not dicking people over by killing off whomever's closest to them, which I hope does indeed come true.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
The fact that it is Bioware's problem is why they should consider it.  One of the reasons people play Mass Effect over and over is to test different outcomes to different situations.  "What if I played as a female sentinel this time?"  "What if I romanced Thane and kept the Collector Base?"  "How different will things be if I save the Council, but let Wrex die?"

All players are presented with the same problems, yes.  However, if the solution to these problems is always the same, there is little point to try solving them again from a different angle.  Hence doing the Kahje mission  = James Vega dies is a - 1 variable for players to experiment with.

But they get another varialbe to play with.

You continue to want to force the squad memeber death as a problem loss, instead or realising you get other problems/choices.
You don't get any less variables.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Obvious? What was obvious about it?

The upgrades affect survivabilty? That is reasonable.

Loyalty missions and survival? Not. If you want to attribute deaths to anything, attribute it to players not having a clue what affects survivability.

I got this Cheez...

Considering the game beat you over the head with the need to do loyalty missions by constantly reminding you that your squadmates needed to have their heads in the game, then yes, to a moderately hardcore player as Cheez describes the link between the LMs and survivability was obvious.

The whole mechanics, reasoning and logic behind it was attrocious.
Besides, how many of the players that suffered loses are casuals or first-time RPG plaers?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ultimately, no side in this has some kind of moral high ground over the other, it's all about preferred styles of gameplay. So the wisest choice for Bioware would be to take the most popular option. Which so far seems to be giving the possibility of all squadmates surviving, and not dicking people over by killing off whomever's closest to them, which I hope does indeed come true.

Waht does moral have to do with anything? We're not discussing morals. We're discussing storytelling, choice and atmosphere.
And it in that regard, some of us do hold the high ground...

[Athayniel]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ultimately, no side in this has some kind of moral high ground over the other, it's all about preferred styles of gameplay. So the wisest choice for Bioware would be to take the most popular option. Which so far seems to be giving the possibility of all squadmates surviving, and not dicking people over by killing off whomever's closest to them, which I hope does indeed come true.

The difference being that the proponents of the OP never claim the moral high ground, freely admit that it is a preference and have no wish to deny anyone else their own desire for "Drama!". Those in favour of forced squadmate deaths claim it's necessary for a better story and that their enjoyment will be affected by the mere existence of endings which do not include them. Take from that what you will.

[Wulfram]

The hold the line bit is totally non-obvious - to the extent that I really didn't know that the mix of people I was leaving behind was something I should care about. But since I'd done all the loyalty missions, it wasn't a problem that I sent Zaeed as crew escort and took Garrus with me.

[AdmiralCheez]

Wulfram wrote...

The hold the line bit is totally non-obvious - to the extent that I really didn't know that the mix of people I was leaving behind was something I should care about. But since I'd done all the loyalty missions, it wasn't a problem that I sent Zaeed as crew escort and took Garrus with me.

Did you have Kasumi?

Because the little snitch drops your HTL score.