4309 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanPWNS]

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. 

But the quote is pretty much true.

[WizenSlinky0]

Il Divo wrote...
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.

RPG's originate from tabletop games. If you treat your party like you would a team of players in a tabletop game...well the live or die scenario is usually always determined by the rolls of the dice (in this case the points towards certain objectives you're earning in the game) and the choices of the players.

So while there are now tons of specific subsets of RPG's...if you want to go with the general case, you're absolutely wrong. You do get to make any decision you'd like in an RPG. But that kind of stuff gets limited during the transfer between the mediums. It's really difficult to perfectly replicate the experience of an old school RPG in new media, at least with the methods they are using to do it.

A choose your own adventure book is a very apt anology for the growth of RPG's and how the players dictated where the story went. Sure, there's usually somebody who pushes the players along a general outline, but what happens within that outline is typically up to the player.

BatmanPWNS wrote...

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. 

But the quote is pretty much true.

Not really. There are more variables between knowing and not knowing someone. Like, are you just reading about it, or are you witnessing it?

I'd care about those 7 million people if I'm forced to watch news reports of them being massacured.

If someone is so desensitized to watching people die in emotionally engaging scenes and require what is essentially your characters best friend being shot in the head to give any sort of emotional engagement...there are bigger issues at work.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 19 octobre 2011 - 08:14 .

[Not the Droid]

I uhh wow

Well as stated in Ping Tzu's The big book of war (Sun Tzu's lesser know brother)

The whole idea of war is to kill the guys on the other side. Can not for the life of me see why
people want to off there own men.

U-R 0.o 4

[Almostfaceman]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

Well you can be a nice person and still not agree with someone. I like your original position. We all state here what we want and Bioware makes up their own minds about what to do - I'm fine with that. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

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. 

But the quote is pretty much true.

Maybe for some people.

[Il Divo]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...


So while there are now tons of specific subsets of RPG's...if you want to go with the general case, you're absolutely wrong. You do get to make any decision you'd like in an RPG. But that kind of stuff gets limited during the transfer between the mediums. It's really difficult to perfectly replicate the experience of an old school RPG in new media, at least with the methods they are using to do it.

 I specifically referenced WRPGs as a sub-set of the video game genre, not pen and paper. That's the only relevant factor. It's utterly impossible to replicate free-form role-playing.

And even in pen and paper, your DM, whose word is law, might not always allow you control of circumstances. Ex:  Play a murder mystery style adventure. You might not get to decide who lives or dies at the end.

A choose your own adventure book is a very apt anology for the growth of RPG's and how the players dictated where the story went. Sure, there's usually somebody who pushes the players along a general outline, but what happens within that outline is typically up to the player.

Not quite, because even in a choose your own adventure book, you're not making all the necessary plot distinctions. In an RPG, you get the perspective of one person, as in real-life. Because you get the perspective of one person, the game is not required to let anything important be dictated by you, especially if it occurs in a circumstance you can't control. 

The only thing your analogy to the adventure book tells us is that the game must allow choices, but not where those choices necessarily factor in. The comparison doesn't help in this argument.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:43 .

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...


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?

If you're going to appeal to the choose your own adventure aspect of games, then yes. You appealed to wanting to feel like a Hero, not I. Saving everyone is simply an extension of that.

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.

That's the problem. Choose your own adventures have passive moments as well. Your argument necessarily excludes squad-mates dying as a part of that passive experience, when there's no actual necessary connection between the two. These adventures don't operate under the assumption "Characters only die if you allow it". They operate under what rules they think will produce the best adventure, while still allowing interaction.

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.

I would not venture that what's happening in Dragon Age 2 is indicative of what's good for the RPG genre. In fact, if we apply your argument consistently, we should also have the option to stop Anders before he is able to blow up the Chantry.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 octobre 2011 - 09:43 .

[jeweledleah]

Il Divo wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...


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?

If you're going to appeal to the choose your own adventure aspect of games, then yes. You appealed to wanting to feel like a Hero, not I.

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.

That's the problem. Choose your own adventures have passive moments as well. Your argument necessarily excludes squad-mates dying as a part of that passive experience, when there's no actual necessary connection between the two. These adventures don't operate under the assumption "Characters only die if you allow it". They operate under what rules they think will produce the best adventure, while still allowing interaction.

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.

I would not venture that what's happening in Dragon Age 2 is indicative of what's good for the RPG genre. In fact, if we apply your argument consistently, we should also have the option to stop Anders before he is able to blow up the Chantry.

actualy - a lot of chose your own adventure stories do in fact let you save the characters and get happy endings, provided you make the choices that lead up to it.  but  and this is important so PLEASE pay attention for once.  YOU ARE NOT FORCED TO CHOSE THOSE OPTIONS.

Anders may blow up the chantry no matter what, but YOU chose whether you help him with it and YOU chose whether you let him live (and leave or stay), or kill him.

reapers attack the earth no matter what as well.  Shepard goes on trial no matter what as well.  but you are trying to tell me that mandatory squadmate deaths are on par with huge plot points that are necessary to progress the story in certain direction?

sad thing is - neither Ashley nor Kaidan had to die on Virmire in order to progress the story.  it was an arbitrary death for arbitrary dramaz.

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

<_<

[jeweledleah]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

www.youtube.com/watch

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

www.youtube.com/watch

I don't watch nameless videos people link me. You need to tell me what it's about first.

It's about your inflated ego and warped sense of reality. No sarcasm here I am completely serious.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:16 .

[Halo Quea]

Saphra Deden wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

www.youtube.com/watch

I don't watch nameless videos people link me. You need to tell me what it's about first.

Same here.  I don't follow them.  Uh btw, you're gettin off track here people.

Modifié par Halo Quea, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:17 .

[jeweledleah]

Saphra Deden wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

www.youtube.com/watch

I don't watch nameless videos people link me. You need to tell me what it's about first.

>_>  fine.

"I regect your reality and substitute my own"
Adam Savage.

I felt the quote was fitting, concidering the subject matter of this thread and the fact that we are talking about a video game with multiple possible endings.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

It's about your inflated ego and warped sense of reality. No sarcasm here I am completely serious.

Well I'm flattered I was important enough for someone to make a video about it.

Sometimes there just aren't words for you, that or there are simply too many and a video is easier.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

Sci-fi video games aren't about realistic enviroments and stories.

[GMagnum]

sumtimes wen no1 is around i dance 2 hips dont lie by shakira get it gurl

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

Sci-fi video games aren't about realistic enviroments and stories.

They are apparently about sunshine and rainbows if 14 out of a quintillion people live....

[LyndseyCousland]

The original post of this thread: I so relate. D:
That's all I have because I'm tired right now.

[Someone With Mass]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
They are apparently about sunshine and rainbows if 14 out of a quintillion people live....

A middle ground between saving all or sacrificing some is apparently impossible to achieve too, because that would give people the freedom of choice and we can't have that.

[WizenSlinky0]

Il Divo wrote...

 I specifically referenced WRPGs as a sub-set of the video game genre, not pen and paper. That's the only relevant factor. It's utterly impossible to replicate free-form role-playing.

And even in pen and paper, your DM, whose word is law, might not always allow you control of circumstances. Ex:  Play a murder mystery style adventure. You might not get to decide who lives or dies at the end.

Not quite, because even in a choose your own adventure book, you're not making all the necessary plot distinctions. In an RPG, you get the perspective of one person, as in real-life. Because you get the perspective of one person, the game is not required to let anything important be dictated by you, especially if it occurs in a circumstance you can't control. 

The only thing your analogy to the adventure book tells us is that the game must allow choices, but not where those choices necessarily factor in. The comparison doesn't help in this argument.  

You referenced WRPG's late in your post, thereby regulating its importance to the back burner to your original RPG assertion. RPG's even now continually attempt to work as many aspects of free-form role-playing in as possible. Yes, it is impossible to completely replicate it without AI, but that doesn't stop games from pulling as much as possible from them. Mass Effect included is heavily influenced by traditional tabletop gaming much like KOTOR before it.

A DM is still normally working on a general story outline that is overall dictated by the players. The best stories come out of allowing players to shape as much of the events as possible and only offer the proper catalysts to keep the story on track.. If you make the comparison between a tabletop party and your game party, your party members are thereby considered the other "players" of the game...whose life and death is usually entirely dictated by the events of the game.

Therefore, it is entirely apt that one should have the option of saving all of the player characters (in this case the player party) by good dice rolls (in this case the point system within the game). Not that it should be easy. But it is entirely fair to kind of expect the option, especially with the direction ME2 took it.

Insisting on killing off a single character, with no choice to choose between more than one options, and with absolutely no effect on it being offered by the players choices just seems entirely against the games origins, what its done already, and the so-called spirit of the game.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

Sci-fi video games aren't about realistic enviroments and stories.

Then tell me, what should they be about?

[Barquiel]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, it's called reality. That or you have the biggest vagina on Earth.

Sci-fi video games aren't about realistic enviroments and stories.

Then tell me, what should they be about?

- Shooting space zombies
- Shooting space terrorists
- Romance a hot alien babe

Modifié par Barquiel, 19 octobre 2011 - 10:45 .