4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Homebound]

wrex is wearing a tophat.

[jamesp81]

Cheez, you have created a monster.

[CaptainZaysh]

Athayniel wrote...

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.

Which, admit it, is the way you prefer it.  You *want* those seven million casualties because they make a much better story than a war in which nobody dies.  We want the same thing, we just want the casualties to extend to Shepard's squad as well, because that will make it a much better story than a war in which nobody important dies.

[Rob Sabbaggio]

On my first ME2 playthrough I got everyone back alive. I wasnt expecting to or hadnt read any guidance about it, but somehow I pulled it off. I was delighted!

Quite a few games recently have taken the option of killing the main character at the end, and I always feel gutted at the end. The Dragon Age and Mass Effect games have all had various endings, some with the main character dying, and/or NPCs. Thats fine, but I would prefer me to have some choice in the matter, based on how I played the game.

For example, in DA2 the save your mother quest was brilliant the first time round, but second time round I felt slightly cheated when I realised NOTHING I could do would mean saving her. I recognise now that was fine on that occasion, but if that happens too often (as it did in DA2) then you just feel powerless. Which is pretty much the opposite of what a Shepherd should be. I still want some chance of actually being the hero occasionally, of making the difference.

And I would also like the chance of walking off into the sunset at the end with my loved ones like Indiana Jones or Luke Skywalker.

Personally, I would at least like the option of a happy ending. It doesnt have to be universal, indeed if it was tough to get based on the outcomes of many different decisions that would promote replayability. Thats great IMO. ME and ME2 both had a range of endings depending on how you played the game, and I hope that happens in ME3 as well.

But please dont force some horrible ending on us.

[jeweledleah]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

Which, admit it, is the way you prefer it.  You *want* those seven million casualties because they make a much better story than a war in which nobody dies.  We want the same thing, we just want the casualties to extend to Shepard's squad as well, because that will make it a much better story than a war in which nobody important dies.

squadmates mandatorily dying making much better story is ENTIRELY subjective.

which is why WE want the choice of saving them. we're not asking them to be immune to death.  if you want your "better" story - we want you to have it.  YOU want your better story at the cost of OUR better story.

also - this was 6 pages ago, but I feel like I have to adress this... again.  my loved one dying sucks.  its sucks horribly, ESPECIALY when there's nothing you can do to save them, especialy when you have to make a decision to let them go.  I had to go through this, several times already.  it feels like crap and then you get over and try to remember them as they were in their best of times.

but this is not real life.  this is a game, a fantasy, an escape, a CHOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE.  it shouldn't have to be easy to save the loved ones.  and if people think loved ones dying creates a better story - they they should have that option.  but the option, the fantasy to save them?  it should be there.

becasue real life sucks enough already and if I want to experience suffering and loss and feeling of helplessness, there's plenty of that in real life. I do not play Shepard, the hero of the Citadel to feel helpless.  if you do - well then, play the game as if you are.  create your OWN story.  let me have mine.

[WizenSlinky0]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Which, admit it, is the way you prefer it.  You *want* those seven million casualties because they make a much better story than a war in which nobody dies.  We want the same thing, we just want the casualties to extend to Shepard's squad as well, because that will make it a much better story than a war in which nobody important dies.

I dunno a war in which noone dies makes the winner look pretty badass. "Oh, well, Jim hurt his toe. It was tragic. We had to send an email to his family and everything. He'll never be able to wiggle it again."

[CaptainZaysh]

I see what you're saying, Leah, but as a writer how far do you go before your war story is ludicrous? Say somebody genuinely wants a way to win the war with ZERO casualties. Should that be a possibility?

[jamesp81]

jeweledleah wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

Which, admit it, is the way you prefer it.  You *want* those seven million casualties because they make a much better story than a war in which nobody dies.  We want the same thing, we just want the casualties to extend to Shepard's squad as well, because that will make it a much better story than a war in which nobody important dies.

squadmates mandatorily dying making much better story is ENTIRELY subjective.

which is why WE want the choice of saving them. we're not asking them to be immune to death.  if you want your "better" story - we want you to have it.  YOU want your better story at the cost of OUR better story.

also - this was 6 pages ago, but I feel like I have to adress this... again.  my loved one dying sucks.  its sucks horribly, ESPECIALY when there's nothing you can do to save them, especialy when you have to make a decision to let them go.  I had to go through this, several times already.  it feels like crap and then you get over and try to remember them as they were in their best of times.

but this is not real life.  this is a game, a fantasy, an escape, a CHOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE.  it shouldn't have to be easy to save the loved ones.  and if people think loved ones dying creates a better story - they they should have that option.  but the option, the fantasy to save them?  it should be there.

becasue real life sucks enough already and if I want to experience suffering and loss and feeling of helplessness, there's plenty of that in real life. I do not play Shepard, the hero of the Citadel to feel helpless.  if you do - well then, play the game as if you are.  create your OWN story.  let me have mine.

This is a reasonable and well thought out position.  Unfortunately, the other side wants it their way or the highway.

[WizenSlinky0]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I see what you're saying, Leah, but as a writer how far do you go before your war story is ludicrous? Say somebody genuinely wants a way to win the war with ZERO casualties. Should that be a possibility?

Can't we just permanently cripple someone like civilized folks? They can never fight again, sad face, now go kill the reapers.

[Labrev]

jeweledleah wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

Which, admit it, is the way you prefer it.  You *want* those seven million casualties because they make a much better story than a war in which nobody dies.  We want the same thing, we just want the casualties to extend to Shepard's squad as well, because that will make it a much better story than a war in which nobody important dies.

squadmates mandatorily dying making much better story is ENTIRELY subjective.

which is why WE want the choice of saving them. we're not asking them to be immune to death.  if you want your "better" story - we want you to have it.  YOU want your better story at the cost of OUR better story.

It should also be said that people overrate the emotional-effect of mandatory death. It only works if you care about everyone involved. Ultimately, most people will probably just kill-off the squaddies they don't like. Then they're robbed of having that character the next time around.

It's happened once in the series and most players treat it like a popularity contest between Ash and Kaidan. Even wildly-popular Garrus/Tali would have a lot of people who would be apathetic to their deaths if it were scripted.

If you want death to make your own story more dramatic, have at it. But having it for the sake of making the story dramatic is poor writing, the story should be made dramatic in itself and that can be achieved without forced-death.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 19 octobre 2011 - 04:53 .

[jeweledleah]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I see what you're saying, Leah, but as a writer how far do you go before your war story is ludicrous? Say somebody genuinely wants a way to win the war with ZERO casualties. Should that be a possibility?

we;re not asking for zero casualties.  we are asking for an OPTION to save a few select people.

you can have your war story.  and we can have ours.  this is the whole point of choice and having different endings.

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Which, admit it, is the way you prefer it.  You *want* those seven million casualties because they make a much better story than a war in which nobody dies.  We want the same thing, we just want the casualties to extend to Shepard's squad as well, because that will make it a much better story than a war in which nobody important dies.

What I've bolded is our main point of disagreement, especially the use of the word "will". It's entirely subjective and we will never agree with each other on that point. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a good story, or that it couldn't be called 'better' if the death were handled properly. I will not agree that it is guaranteed to be so and personally I will be much happier with my choice in interactive fiction if the interactive part of it extends to the ability to save my squadmates. I want to play a game of Mass Effect 3 that lets me do that, because I think it will be a lot of fun. I'm more interested in ME3 for the experiences I can get playing through the branching paths of the story than in any one particular difinitive storyline. I don't believe Mass Effect *even has* a single definitive story.

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...

squadmates mandatorily dying making much better story is ENTIRELY subjective.

which is why WE want the choice of saving them. we're not asking them to be immune to death.  if you want your "better" story - we want you to have it.  YOU want your better story at the cost of OUR better story.

also - this was 6 pages ago, but I feel like I have to adress this... again.  my loved one dying sucks.  its sucks horribly, ESPECIALY when there's nothing you can do to save them, especialy when you have to make a decision to let them go.  I had to go through this, several times already.  it feels like crap and then you get over and try to remember them as they were in their best of times.

but this is not real life.  this is a game, a fantasy, an escape, a CHOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE.  it shouldn't have to be easy to save the loved ones.  and if people think loved ones dying creates a better story - they they should have that option.  but the option, the fantasy to save them?  it should be there.

becasue real life sucks enough already and if I want to experience suffering and loss and feeling of helplessness, there's plenty of that in real life. I do not play Shepard, the hero of the Citadel to feel helpless.  if you do - well then, play the game as if you are.  create your OWN story.  let me have mine.

By this argument I should then be able to argue that, since this is a choose your own adventure, all death should be optional in the end, which would logically derive from the "escape" argument. If my Shepard is the Hero, he should be able to act heroic, correct? Stopping the Reapers with zero casualties certainly sounds heroic. If we're sparing squad-mates, the argument should extent to any organic life by necessity if it makes my ending better. It can be argued that any mandatory death is necessarily subjective and if I want a war story without death, then I should be allowed to make it happen.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 octobre 2011 - 06:13 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Wulfram wrote...

@AdmiralCheez:  I'm glad to hear you've joined the dark side.

I have not joined the dark side.  I still think squadmate death is dumb.  I just did that thing that so many people here apparently don't know how to do--MADE A COMPROMISE.

And that's why dicks get ahead in life while nice people have to deal with crap.  Because the nice people get sick of the whining and say OKAY FINE WE'LL DO IT SORT OF YOUR WAY BUT WITH A FEW BITS MY WAY ALL BETTER NOW?

EDIT: Wow, capital letters make stuff sound a lot more ragey than intended.  Hurrdurr.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 19 octobre 2011 - 06:02 .

[BatmanPWNS]

I bet it's like the same people going on and on and on about this.

[Il Divo]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

I bet it's like the same people going on and on and on about this.

I've been here since page 80, so yeah, pretty much that.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

Which, admit it, is the way you prefer it.  You *want* those seven million casualties because they make a much better story than a war in which nobody dies.  We want the same thing, we just want the casualties to extend to Shepard's squad as well, because that will make it a much better story than a war in which nobody important dies.

squadmates mandatorily dying making much better story is ENTIRELY subjective.

which is why WE want the choice of saving them. we're not asking them to be immune to death.  if you want your "better" story - we want you to have it.  YOU want your better story at the cost of OUR better story.

It should also be said that people overrate the emotional-effect of mandatory death. It only works if you care about everyone involved. Ultimately, most people will probably just kill-off the squaddies they don't like. Then they're robbed of having that character the next time around.

It's happened once in the series and most players treat it like a popularity contest between Ash and Kaidan. Even wildly-popular Garrus/Tali would have a lot of people who would be apathetic to their deaths if it were scripted.

If you want death to make your own story more dramatic, have at it. But having it for the sake of making the story dramatic is poor writing, the story should be made dramatic in itself and that can be achieved without forced-death.

A scripted inevitable death in a video game is a good way to make me just not care at all.  Ashley and Kaiden still just don't mean that much to me, I avoid talking to them, etc, because I know that they're two sides of the same contrived pick-a-victim BS that always comes at Vermire. 

After one playthrough of DA2,  the early death of The Sibling, whatever happens to The Other Sibling, and what happens to Leandra, lose all their impact because you know from the beginning that there are completely scripted events that you have no effect on.  Eventually, after a few more playthroughs, you just don't get attached to those characters at all. 

Meh.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:15 .

[WizenSlinky0]

Il Divo wrote...
By this argument I should then be able to argue that, since this is a choose your own adventure, all death should be optional in the end, which would logically derive from the "escape" argument. If my Shepard is the Hero, he should be able to act heroic, correct? Stopping the Reapers with zero casualties certainly sounds heroic. If we're sparing squad-mates, the argument should extent to any organic life by necessity if it makes my ending better. It can be argued that any mandatory death is necessarily subjective and if I want a war story without death, then I should be allowed to make it happen.

A slippery slope argument is not an actual argument. It is paranoia in a can, with just a daaaash of whipped cream topping.

But, if people want endings where the entire universe goes BOOM...then in theory that would be the only fair discorse, to include an ending like that. Yet what most people are asking for is just to let them have the option of saving the few people who have been following them. Doesn't seem like much in the long run!

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I have not joined the dark side.  I
still think squadmate death is dumb.  I just did that thing that so many
people here apparently don't know how to do--MADE A COMPROMISE.

And
that's why dicks get ahead in life while nice people have to deal with
crap.  Because the nice people get sick of the whining and say OKAY FINE
WE'LL DO IT SORT OF YOUR WAY BUT WITH A FEW BITS MY WAY ALL BETTER NOW?

EDIT: Wow, capital letters make stuff sound a lot more ragey than intended.  Hurrdurr.

Not really how it goes. Nice people say "Fine we'll compromise!" and then they go "No! It's my way!" and then nice people go "Fine, I'll compromise MORE!" and then they go "NO! MY WAY!" and flail their arms. And then nice people compromise until 95% of all of their key desires have been flushed down the toilet and...and...and...

Boo. That's what. Just boo.

[Medhia Nox]

*checks in*

Did we save them yet?

[Ender1221]

Just a random thought on the subject. (FYI, I'm in the "Have a difficult ending available in which you can save all squadmates" group)

It is possible to not play like an "idiot" and honor the story and still get a less than perfect ending in Mass Effect 2. I have one playthrough in which I didn't use my metagame knowledge and I went to pick up the Reaper IFF as soon as it was available. This felt "right" as my character had no idea this would eventually lead to the crew abduction. I was then left with a conundrum (very reminiscent of the ME1 Kaiden/Ashley choice) once my crew was abducted. I had to decide to either save my crew and risk being underprepared (squadmates dying) or make sure my squad was good to go and risk my crew already being dead. This was a very realistic and grisly choice and I loved that playthrough just as much as I loved my uber-heroic Nobody Left Behind playthrough, albeit in different ways.

My point is, if you're enough of a story purist to demand a more realistic outcome, there are plenty of choices that feel perfectly natural and can lead to tearjerker endings.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
By this argument I should then be able to argue that, since this is a choose your own adventure, all death should be optional in the end, which would logically derive from the "escape" argument. If my Shepard is the Hero, he should be able to act heroic, correct? Stopping the Reapers with zero casualties certainly sounds heroic. If we're sparing squad-mates, the argument should extent to any organic life by necessity if it makes my ending better. It can be argued that any mandatory death is necessarily subjective and if I want a war story without death, then I should be allowed to make it happen.

A slippery slope argument is not an actual argument. It is paranoia in a can, with just a daaaash of whipped cream topping.

But, if people want endings where the entire universe goes BOOM...then in theory that would be the only fair discorse, to include an ending like that. Yet what most people are asking for is just to let them have the option of saving the few people who have been following them. Doesn't seem like much in the long run!

I've been saying all along kill everyone around your squad it can be just as impactful, and it is less irritating, but apparently just wanting to save the loyal few= sunshine and rainbows and all the other bs they like to spew....

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:24 .

[Il Divo]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

A slippery slope argument is not an actual argument. It is paranoia in a can, with just a daaaash of whipped cream topping.

But, if people want endings where the entire universe goes BOOM...then in theory that would be the only fair discorse, to include an ending like that. Yet what most people are asking for is just to let them have the option of saving the few people who have been following them. Doesn't seem like much in the long run!

When the principle relied upon is backed by "It's a choose your own adventure book", then it becomes an argument. In RPGs, you don't get to make any decision you'd like. They're applying the principle because they don't want their squad-mates to die, which is fine, there is no necessary rule that says video games, or more specifically WRPGs, must let you save your favorite characters.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:33 .

[jeweledleah]

Il Divo wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

A slippery slope argument is not an actual argument. It is paranoia in a can, with just a daaaash of whipped cream topping.

But, if people want endings where the entire universe goes BOOM...then in theory that would be the only fair discorse, to include an ending like that. Yet what most people are asking for is just to let them have the option of saving the few people who have been following them. Doesn't seem like much in the long run!

When the principle relied upon is backed by "It's a choose your own adventure book", then it becomes an argument. In RPGs, you don't get to make any decision you'd like. They're applying the principle because they don't want their squad-mates to die, which is fine, there is no necessary rule that says video games, or more specifically WRPGs, must let you save your favorite characters.

aah, here's that slippery slope again.  because an option to save a few key people is the same as requiring no casualties during the war amirite?  or requiring ability to make any and all decisions?

no, there is not necessary rule that says squadmates must live.  but there is no necessary rule that says they must die either.  which is the whole point of alternate endings.

even the grim dark game like Dragon age 2 allows you to pull all your followers through.  play your cards right?  and they don't even leave you.  you can cause deaths (or worse)  for some of them if you so chose.  but you can also keep them all alive and realtively safe (if you so chose)  and guess what?  there's outright war happening in dragon age 2 as well.

[Killjoy Cutter]

So far, from what we know of ME3, it sounds like there's plenty of death no matter what you have done in the first two installments, or what you do going foward.

"Death only matters if it's someone you know" is a silly assertion and a silly concept. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:43 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So far, from what we know of ME3, it sounds like there's plenty of death no matter what you have done in the first two installments, or what you do going foward.

"Death only matters if it's someone you know" is a silly assertion and a silly concept. 

I like this human, he understands.