4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...


Such a perfect ending, imo should only exist under the most stringent of circumstances, perhaps affected by decisions in all three games.  

The more layered it is, the more I'm willing to allow it, but that still leaves us with the problem of there being definitive "right" and "wrong" choices. If an ideal scenario exists and we assume that my Shepard's goal is that best possible ending, the game is essentially telling me that I played badly.

The argument in favor of allowing all squad-mates to survive necessarily excludes mandatory death, which is a potential narrative element. And considering how people tend to care about the characters in a story, that fear of what might happen is extremely important.

But while knowing that your characters' lives are under your control affects how you view the narrative, so does knowing that they will die.  Knowing that Bastilla can be saved, but Sagacious Zu is doomed causes you to view the characters differently.  Well, that among other things.

We shouldn't "know" that characters are going to die, but we should know that it's a possibility, which the ideal ending would necessarily exclude. At this point, the only game I can honestly say where I felt I properly earned the ideal ending was Heavy Rain, to which the inability to save/reload played a huge affect on my psychological mentality, since I didn't have the option of going back.

You can't affect all aspects of the game, but shouldn't Shepard be able to exert influnce around his immediate surroundings?  In addition, even if Shepard can act, it might not be the right move to save someone.  How many people sent Thane through the vents figuring he can hack the door?  Or sent Miranda to be the Biotic Bubble Babe?

I have never argued that Shepard should not have choice. As per Lotion, not having choice at point X does not mean that you do not get a choice at point Y. You still have the ability to affect your surroundings, as this is your story, but all characters are ultimately independent of you, meaning (as per real life) I don't always have the ability to affect the actions of those around me.
 

For story purposes, yes.  But it should be done very carefully.  Not just to prove that the situation is grim....

But that is an issue in any medium. And even there, proving the situation is grim is an acceptable motivation (this is war), assuming that I'm able to feel emotion at that particular moment and it's handled well. In other words, that it doesn't come off as cheesy.

The "games are an interactive medium" argument is a fallacy because it asserts that at every point you must have the ability to affect the events on screen in a significant manner, which is untrue. Shepard should always be able to affect actions from his perspective, but that is all. In essence, you are not the writer deciding where the story twists and turns.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 octobre 2011 - 02:14 .

[Someone With Mass]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
I am rapidly plunging this thread into off-topic hell yet again, but my escort is pretty much always Tali.  Her score is basically the same as Mordin's even though her death isn't as high priority.  Originally, I sent her back because she was of little use to me in a level with no synthetics, but then my head!canon did crazy things and now I won't have it any other way.

See, on Freedom's Progress, her squad ran ahead of her, she couldn't stop them, and they died.

On Haestrom, even more died trying to protect her, and Shep needed to rescue her wimpy purple ass.

On her loyalty mission, her father and his team were slaughtered, partially out of his desire to do something good on her behalf, and she wasn't there to protect him and feels partially responsible for helping him in his endeavor.

So by making her the escort, she proves to herself and everyone else that she is a strong fighter capable of protecting herself as well as others.  It's redemption for all the times she failed to do so, even if it wasn't entirely her fault.

F*ck yeah, extreme roleplaying.

I sent the crew away with Legion, because I thought that a tough geth sniper with the most powerful rifle on the ship should be able to take down any Collector that comes in their way with ease. That, and I felt sorry for the poor thing. Never got a chance to contribute like the rest or to bond with the crew a bit.

Roleplaying! 

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Well, whatever you want to call them.  Redshirts, extras, whatever.  Don't you think a credible war story has to confront the reality of casualties, and the loss of friends on the battlefield?

Sure I do, but when there will be billions to choose from, and with the ability to show the scope of devastation and loss so easily, what benefit is acrued by killing a squadmate by comparison? Remember that some people can be moved by loss quite heavily without it being a squadmate and that beyond a certain point it all just becomes numbing instead of affecting.

[Il Divo]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

So because I liked Kreia in KOTOR II I was dicked over when she died? The same could be said of any character in any plot that I liked?

Great example. Now, I can't say I see ME3 taking that kind of a turn, where a squad-mate becomes a major villain, but the point is that Kreia was used as a critical narrative element. She died, my character may have felt remorseful, but it was intended as an end to that character's story.

[who would know]

Coming through the fire unscathed, with zero squad casualties, may just belittle the magnitude of the threat. I wouldn't mind so much if some other sacrifice had to be made instead, or if the conditions were nigh incomprensible. Something should be out of our hands.

[CaptainZaysh]

Athayniel wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Well, whatever you want to call them.  Redshirts, extras, whatever.  Don't you think a credible war story has to confront the reality of casualties, and the loss of friends on the battlefield?

Sure I do, but when there will be billions to choose from, and with the ability to show the scope of devastation and loss so easily, what benefit is acrued by killing a squadmate by comparison? Remember that some people can be moved by loss quite heavily without it being a squadmate and that beyond a certain point it all just becomes numbing instead of affecting.

Because we (and Shepard) are emotionally more attached to people we know.  Like, if I tell you that a hundred people were killed in a protest in Syria this morning, you might think that it's sad, then go to lunch.  If I were to tell you your best friend just got run over your reaction would be much more visceral even though objectively speaking it's a lesser tragedy.  That's just reality.

So from a writing perspective, killing X number of redshirts/extras/Syrians is pretty easy to write.  Shepard shakes his head and curses the damn Reapers, and then gets on with the war.  But losing Garrus is much more complex and interesting.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 19 octobre 2011 - 02:31 .

[Il Divo]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Because we (and Shepard) are emotionally more attached to people we know.  Like, if I tell you that a hundred people were killed in a protest in Syria this morning, you might think that it's sad, then go to lunch.  If I were to tell you your best friend just got run over your reaction would be much more visceral.  That's just reality.

So from a writing perspective, killing X number of redshirts/extras/Syrians is pretty easy to write.  Shepard shakes his head and curses the damn Reapers, and then gets on with the war.  But losing Garrus is much more complex and interesting.

Have you seen the film Hotel Rwanda? An example very similar to this is used by a news reporter explaining to the main character why so many people find it so easy to ignore the genocide obviously occurring in a foreign country. I actually thought that scene was brilliant in demonstrating how humans tend to feel emotions.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 octobre 2011 - 02:57 .

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Because we (and Shepard) are emotionally more attached to people we know.  Like, if I tell you that a hundred people were killed in a protest in Syria this morning, you might think that it's sad, then go to lunch.  If I were to tell you your best friend just got run over your reaction would be much more visceral even though objectively speaking it's a lesser tragedy.  That's just reality.

So from a writing perspective, killing X number of redshirts/extras/Syrians is pretty easy to write.  Shepard shakes his head and curses the damn Reapers, and then gets on with the war.  But losing Garrus is much more complex and interesting.

Not denying that, just the necessity of it. And to bring in Il Divo's point about Hotel Rwanda, there is a difference between reading about a massacre in the black and white print of a newspaper, or having it narated to you by a fop in a suit on the evening news and seeing it rendered in perfect visual clarity right before your eyes. Humans are very visual creatures. Our eyes are a direct connection to every critical part of our cognitive processing. Why do you think Cheez thought it might be fun to see what happened if she chose the renegade option when deciding whether to save the council or not and then when the effects of that choice actually played out before her eyes she promptly lost it?

[Notlikeyoucare]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...


Such a perfect ending, imo should only exist under the most stringent of circumstances, perhaps affected by decisions in all three games.  

The more layered it is, the more I'm willing to allow it, but that still leaves us with the problem of there being definitive "right" and "wrong" choices. If an ideal scenario exists and we assume that my Shepard's goal is that best possible ending, the game is essentially telling me that I played badly.

The argument in favor of allowing all squad-mates to survive necessarily excludes mandatory death, which is a potential narrative element. And considering how people tend to care about the characters in a story, that fear of what might happen is extremely important.

But while knowing that your characters' lives are under your control affects how you view the narrative, so does knowing that they will die.  Knowing that Bastilla can be saved, but Sagacious Zu is doomed causes you to view the characters differently.  Well, that among other things.

We shouldn't "know" that characters are going to die, but we should know that it's a possibility, which the ideal ending would necessarily exclude. At this point, the only game I can honestly say where I felt I properly earned the ideal ending was Heavy Rain, to which the inability to save/reload played a huge affect on my psychological mentality, since I didn't have the option of going back.

You can't affect all aspects of the game, but shouldn't Shepard be able to exert influnce around his immediate surroundings?  In addition, even if Shepard can act, it might not be the right move to save someone.  How many people sent Thane through the vents figuring he can hack the door?  Or sent Miranda to be the Biotic Bubble Babe?

I have never argued that Shepard should not have choice. As per Lotion, not having choice at point X does not mean that you do not get a choice at point Y. You still have the ability to affect your surroundings, as this is your story, but all characters are ultimately independent of you, meaning (as per real life) I don't always have the ability to affect the actions of those around me.
 

For story purposes, yes.  But it should be done very carefully.  Not just to prove that the situation is grim....

But that is an issue in any medium. And even there, proving the situation is grim is an acceptable motivation (this is war), assuming that I'm able to feel emotion at that particular moment and it's handled well. In other words, that it doesn't come off as cheesy.

The "games are an interactive medium" argument is a fallacy because it asserts that at every point you must have the ability to affect the events on screen in a significant manner, which is untrue. Shepard should always be able to affect actions from his perspective, but that is all. In essence, you are not the writer deciding where the story twists and turns.

To add to that, it seems like people think the only advantage to an interactive medium a dialouge choices.

I once again need to reference the great game that is Uncharted 2 As you play on the fly the character consistently banter with one another giving insight into the characters, what drives them, and past relationships and events. All of this is told to us on the fly using dialouge or animations or a combination of the two to give us character development all while we're doing the business of the plot. This is something film could not acomplish on such a scale.

[WizenSlinky0]

A required death can be good for game-play if it moved the story. Character death for the sake of character death is pointless. You could say the VS situation gave Shepard suitable motivation to finish the damn job. But the great part of the drama that choice created, was exactly that, the choice. You had an option on who to leave behind. A decision *you* had to make.

A repetitive death of the same character each and every single play through is way out of place in a game like this. If every time I reach a certain point in the game, Garrus, or Tali, or whoever...takes two in the head and falls over limp...regardless of my choices, then there better be some damn good writing behind it to make that *necessary* to the story and not because "lulz, we couldn't think of what to put here. You didn't use that character, did you?".

I much prefer the option, however difficult, of the perfect unicorn rainbow surfing ending. As it's been mentioned more often than not things like this are meant to distract us from real life. Not meant to remind us how utterly powerless we are to change the things around us. But I do not object to character death in games like this when it is relevant and has a basis in our choices.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

They claim the moral high ground by presenting getting exactly what they want as a compromise, and thus painting those who don't find that the "compromise" addresses their concerns as unreasonable.

Just like you're doing here.

Actually, I said repeatedly that I'd be okay with squadmate deaths so long as the same person, regardless of who they are, doesn't die every single damn time.  I don't care if it's my least favorite character, even.  I just find that kind of thing annoying.

And I'm the OP, so there.

I do not think anyone is asking for characters to be Wilson'd. Let there be choice. Is it Garrus or Miranda who is going to die for example?

Modifié par Lizardviking, 19 octobre 2011 - 02:59 .

[Saber Wolf]

People can die, but I agree, not the same person in every single playthrough.

[CaptainZaysh]

Athayniel wrote...

Not denying that, just the necessity of it. And to bring in Il Divo's point about Hotel Rwanda, there is a difference between reading about a massacre in the black and white print of a newspaper, or having it narated to you by a fop in a suit on the evening news and seeing it rendered in perfect visual clarity right before your eyes. Humans are very visual creatures. Our eyes are a direct connection to every critical part of our cognitive processing. Why do you think Cheez thought it might be fun to see what happened if she chose the renegade option when deciding whether to save the council or not and then when the effects of that choice actually played out before her eyes she promptly lost it?

You can argue this point all you like, but nobody believes that you would feel just as emotionally moved by the death of an extra as you would over losing Tali or Liara.

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

You can argue this point all you like, but nobody believes that you would feel just as emotionally moved by the death of an extra as you would over losing Tali or Liara.

*sighs* it's not an extra. It's seven million extras in the first week. Don't make light of the scale of the destruction. I've had this discussion before with Il Divo and I'm not going to bother repeating it.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

You can argue this point all you like, but nobody believes that you would feel just as emotionally moved by the death of an extra as you would over losing Tali or Liara.

*sighs* it's not an extra. It's seven million extras in the first week. Don't make light of the scale of the destruction. I've had this discussion before with Il Divo and I'm not going to bother repeating it.

We certainly did have this discussion. And I think we understand each other at this point.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

We certainly did have this discussion. And I think we understand each other at this point.

No doubt about it!

[CaptainZaysh]

Athayniel wrote...

*sighs* it's not an extra. It's seven million extras in the first week. Don't make light of the scale of the destruction. I've had this discussion before with Il Divo and I'm not going to bother repeating it.

Look, if you were really that bothered about extras dying you'd be arguing vociferously for a chance to save them.  But you're not, so obviously the prospect of losing a squadmate is much worse to you than losing seven million anonymous souls.

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Look, if you were really that bothered about extras dying you'd be arguing vociferously for a chance to save them.  But you're not, so obviously the prospect of losing a squadmate is much worse to you than losing seven million anonymous souls.

Are you somehow under the impression I don't want to save them? So far I've only counted the deaths that have already been officially confirmed in the trailer. My Sheps will fight as hard as they can to prevent more. Nice strawman by the way.

[CaptainZaysh]

Athayniel wrote...

Are you somehow under the impression I don't want to save them? So far I've only counted the deaths that have already been officially confirmed in the trailer. My Sheps will fight as hard as they can to prevent more. Nice strawman by the way.

Yes, I am under the impression that you think seven million scripted deaths are fine, so long as none of them are your squadmates.

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Yes, I am under the impression that you think seven million scripted deaths are fine, so long as none of them are your squadmates.

Then I feel sorry for you.

[CaptainZaysh]

Athayniel wrote...

Then I feel sorry for you.

Okay, so let me get this straight.  You're claiming you would like it to be possible to defeat the Reapers with ZERO casualties?

[tonnactus]

CaptainZaysh wrote...


Look, if you were really that bothered about extras dying you'd be arguing vociferously for a chance to save them.  But you're not, so obviously the prospect of losing a squadmate is much worse to you than losing seven million anonymous souls.

Of course: "
One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

"
Squadmates are poeple you "know", so their dead matters more.

Modifié par tonnactus, 19 octobre 2011 - 04:02 .

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Okay, so let me get this straight.  You're claiming you would like it to be possible to defeat the Reapers with ZERO casualties?

I think you should always hope for as few casualties as possible. If you go into a fight with the mentality that you are going to lose people then it is very likely that you will. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyways, we know zero casualties are impossible. How do we know? Seven. Million. Humans. Are. Already. Dead.

[lovgreno]

A unavoidable squadmate death has already been done in ME1, and also almost in ME2, so now it's time to come up with some new way to add drama and suspense. A story that repeats itself quickly becomes boring.

[Labrev]

Someone With Mass wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
I am rapidly plunging this thread into off-topic hell yet again, but my escort is pretty much always Tali.  Her score is basically the same as Mordin's even though her death isn't as high priority.  Originally, I sent her back because she was of little use to me in a level with no synthetics, but then my head!canon did crazy things and now I won't have it any other way.

See, on Freedom's Progress, her squad ran ahead of her, she couldn't stop them, and they died.

On Haestrom, even more died trying to protect her, and Shep needed to rescue her wimpy purple ass.

On her loyalty mission, her father and his team were slaughtered, partially out of his desire to do something good on her behalf, and she wasn't there to protect him and feels partially responsible for helping him in his endeavor.

So by making her the escort, she proves to herself and everyone else that she is a strong fighter capable of protecting herself as well as others.  It's redemption for all the times she failed to do so, even if it wasn't entirely her fault.

F*ck yeah, extreme roleplaying.

I sent the crew away with Legion, because I thought that a tough geth sniper with the most powerful rifle on the ship should be able to take down any Collector that comes in their way with ease. That, and I felt sorry for the poor thing. Never got a chance to contribute like the rest or to bond with the crew a bit.

Roleplaying! 

For me it was Mordin because he proved on Omega he can look after himself and lots of people at once, and I pretty much stuck with that one on my ever-replayed canon career.

One of the few things I did right in my first SM run, I went with a half-loyal squad and didn't know about the ship upgrades loool.