4309 réponses à ce sujet

[howl3d]

an amazing story placed in a futeristic enviroment

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

My first DA2 campaign I lost Fenris, Isabela and Anders.  I don't feel like I "played badly" I simply played as I thought my Hawke should be.  My second playthrough I lost Sebastian and Anders.  Again, I did not "play badly"  I played Hawke.  

While being able to "save" all squadmates would by definition exclude mandatory deaths, it does not exclude suboptimal endings.  I am reminded of one mission in Alpha Protocol, where a companion is being held by one of the villains, and you can either rescue her or defuse a bomb.  Allow one named character (potential LI even) to die, or allow the villain's plan to succeed.  Both have repercussions.  But which ones are you willing to accept?

This is why I'm not opposed to being able to save all squadmates.  I don't want a free pass for everyone Shepard can possibly be buddies with.  What I want is the element of choice and consequences.  I can save so-and-so, if I'm wlling to risk something else.  Or someone else.  or several someones else.

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.

Again, what is an ideal ending?  The one where you save the galaxy with minimal losses, or half the galaxy is destroyed but all your buddies survive?  I think it's one where you save the galaxy and all buddies survive.  But what if that's not possible?  What if you can save all your friends, but in doing so you must sacrifice at least part of the galaxy to the Reapers?  Is that still optimal?  Is that something people are willing to settle for?

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...

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.

That's great, but I don't care what "alot" of adventure stories do. I care about what they all do collectively. Your argument still doesn't let me posit as a general rule that all my adventure stories provide this, beyond your individual desire. As long as adventure stories make use of both active and passive elements in the narrative, you don't have backing for the "I should be allowed to save everyone" statement if you're going to try appealing to the nature of video games as an interactive medium.

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.

Irrelevant. By your logic of the freedom of choice, the game must provide me the opportunity to stop him. Address this. If this is a choose your own adventure, I should be able to choose that as an option, correct? 

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?

Are you trying to tell me that mandatory squad-mate deaths can't be used as major plot points?

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.

Death is grim. Death is real. Virmire demonstrates that, no different than the child in the vent's death. The point of a story, among other things, is to make you feel emotion, both happy and sad.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 12:09 .

[Il Divo]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...


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.

And there are any number of characters outside of your party who may die without your slightest input. Your DM doesn't give you absolute control over every element of the game, merely because the game is interactive. You are limited by what your character is capable of doing. If someone mysteriously shoots an NPC in the face with an arrow, you don't say to your DM "Hey, RPGs are interactive, I should have the option to stop that arrow!". You go along with it.

Games, unlike freeform role-playing, are not meant to give you the greatest amount of freedom, but emphasize that you are always experiencing the story from the perspective of a single character. You get to make decisions as your character is able to act. If ME3 provides an instance where Shepard is physically unable to stop a character from dying, your argument gets us nowhere, as you can't even argue that you would save him; the action is completely cut off from your abilities.

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.

See above. Your character governs his own actions, no one else's. If circumstances outside his control prevent his being able to save a squad-mate, and he is not physically capable of stopping it, your DM is not going to listen to an argument that says "Games are interactive. Let me save him."

What you are missing is that despite video games being an interactive medium, this does not mean they have to indulge your every desire for choice at every instance. Games make use of passive story-telling simply so a story-line can exist. Characters and events exist separately from Commander Shepard and despite what he wants, is not always going to be able to affect what characters do or what happens. Luckily, games can allow both to occur.

All the desire to save everyone tells me is that people really like their squad-mates and want them to live, which is fine (even if I disagree). But arguing to video games as active story-telling does not do anything to that end. Video games necessarily employ passive story-telling and only in some games, such as RPGs, allow active story-telling.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 12:10 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...


My first DA2 campaign I lost Fenris, Isabela and Anders.  I don't feel like I "played badly" I simply played as I thought my Hawke should be.  My second playthrough I lost Sebastian and Anders.  Again, I did not "play badly"  I played Hawke.  

A better example would be Mass Effect 2's suicide mission, since there the deaths aren't contingent on my character purposely choosing to kill someone, compared to executing Anders for eliminating the Chantry. But as an overarching goal, Shepard wants the best circumstances possible . That's why I say there is playing badly and playing well. If my Shepard's desire is to win this war with minimal casualties, I'm going for the best ending possible, but the best ending means no one dies. Saving the ME2 squad has a "right" and a "wrong" way. If they live, I played correctly. If they died, I played incorrectly.

Decisions like Virmire however mean that there isn't really right and wrong, merely differences in what our Shepard chose to sacrifice. Although I do agree that I'd like decisions which result in something more than a popularity contest. Ex: Save Kaidan vs. detonating the nuke, which (I think) presents a more intriguing scenario.

This is why I'm not opposed to being able to save all squadmates.  I don't want a free pass for everyone Shepard can possibly be buddies with.  What I want is the element of choice and consequences.  I can save so-and-so, if I'm wlling to risk something else.  Or someone else.  or several someones else.

But this is still a logical fallacy. We need only look to Jade Empire to illustrate why. Did Sagacious Zhu's death prevent choice from Jade Empire as a whole? There were plenty examples of the player being able to influence the main narrative, including other opportunities to save/kill your party members. Not having a choice in X does not mean you do not get a choice in Y. Unless you mean that Zhu's death should have also been made into a choice?

Again, what is an ideal ending?  The one where you save the galaxy with minimal losses, or half the galaxy is destroyed but all your buddies survive?  I think it's one where you save the galaxy and all buddies survive.  But what if that's not possible?  What if you can save all your friends, but in doing so you must sacrifice at least part of the galaxy to the Reapers?  Is that still optimal?  Is that something people are willing to settle for?

See the opening post. I'd find what you suggest, as an option, acceptable. But the OP's designation of being able to have everything work out necessarily prevents it; squad-mates alive, Reapers defeated, major factions intact, etc.

A better comparison here would be the ability to seek out the Mages to help Connor, which does result in the "best case scenario": Innocent Mages not executed, Connor/Isolde Alive, demon eliminated, Eamon revived, etc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 12:11 .

[jeweledleah]

Il Divo wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

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.

That's great, but I don't care what "alot" of adventure stories do. I care about what they all do collectively. Your argument still doesn't let me posit as a general rule that all my adventure stories provide this, beyond your individual desire. As long as adventure stories make use of both active and passive elements in the narrative, you don't have backing for the "I should be allowed to save everyone" statement if you're going to try appealing to the nature of video games as an interactive medium.

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.

Irrelevant. By your logic of the freedom of choice, the game must provide me the opportunity to stop him. Address this. If this is a choose your own adventure, I should be able to choose that as an option, correct? 

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?

Are you trying to tell me that mandatory squad-mate deaths can't be used as major plot points?

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.

Death is grim. Death is real. Virmire demonstrates that, no different than the child in the vent's death. The point of a story, among other things, is to make you feel emotion, both happy and sad.

you just keep going down that slippery slppe and making strawmen arguments.  oh well.  hopefuly, bioware will go with more choice rather then less choice that you are proposing.

[AdmiralCheez]

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.

NOW DUN U GIT ALL SEXIST UP IN HEEYUR GURLFRIEND

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...

you just keep going down that slippery slppe and making strawmen arguments.  oh well.  hopefuly, bioware will go with more choice rather then less choice that you are proposing.

I was hoping you were going to actually provide a counter-argument, but that's okay too.

Regardless, "interactive medium" does not equal "choice everywhere in the game".

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 12:20 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Il Divo wrote...

I was hoping you were going to actually provide a counter-argument, but that's okay too.

Yes, because someone pointing out you are braining wrong obviously means you are correct.

Guys.  Only I'm allowed to pick fights in this thread, guys.

Regardless, "interactive medium" does not equal "choice everywhere in the game".

Now, what was the ME trilogy's major selling point again? *scratches chin*

[Soul Cool]

So, after 127 pages, we have gotten precisely nowhere.

[Soul Cool]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Now, what was the ME trilogy's major selling point again? *scratches chin*

Blue women in space?

"Guys, your choice REALLY matters. REALLY." <-- That?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Soul Cool wrote...

So, after 127 pages, we have gotten precisely nowhere.

Like every thread BSN has ever spawned!

[GMagnum]

Okay, here comes my weird and creepy sleep-deprived wall of text of the week.

I was doing a little reflecting earlier about how I'm paragon like 75% of the time and no one ever dies in the Suicide Mission. I asked myself, "Why the hell do I keep doing this? It's unrealistic and stupid to save the galaxy by being a nice person, and coming out of a mission like that unscathed borders on ridiculous."

And then I realized, hey, it's because it's unrealistic that I do it in the first place.

Spoiler alert: Real life sucks. Every day, we have to face how powerless we are, how often we screw up, how bad things will keep happening to good people no matter how hard we try to stop it. Sure, we can contribute our hearts and souls to good causes, work until our backs break to make things better, and offer all the help and comfort to the ones we love, but ultimately, the happy endings don't last. The bad guys stay in power, the good guys get shoved to the wayside, and we retreat into our religions and philosophies to try to make sense of it all and make it hurt less. Pessimistic, I know. I do try hard (and should try harder), but really, I can't get over how insignificant I am in the grand scheme of things.

So then this game comes along. It has cool aliens, good voice acting, and you get to shoot people. Awesome, sign me up. But then when I played it a certain way, I couldn't help but feel a little better about myself.

Basically, Mass Effect (2) offers an elaborate fantasy in which the player has the power to save the world in his or her own way. It gave me a mature, deep, and (despite the sci-fi thing) incredibly realistic environment in which I could take those kindergarten morals I'd never quite let go of and put them in the hands of an unstoppable and charismatic space marine.

Sure, I can't stop genocide or corporate corruption. I can't intervene when a close friend is about to get seriously hurt. I can't fight wars or sway entire populations or protect the innocent. But Shepard can.

And even though it's all just pretend, I can't help but think the experience has been a little therapeutic.

I know it's silly to think I can have sunshine and bunnies in the face of a galactic apocalypse, but I want 'em anyway. I want to keep playing pretend, to screw the rules and do the impossible, to protect the people I care about in a way I can't protect them in real life.

So if the fine folks at Bioware have squeezed in one little possible endgame scenario in which the crew makes it out alive again and I don't have to basically murder my space-BFFs to win, even if there's like a 10% chance of getting that ending, I'd be eternally grateful. Too late to really impact the story at this point, sure, but if the tweets are to be believed, I'm going to spend half the game sobbing anyway, so is wanting to watch the credits roll with a stupid, satisfied grin on my face too much to ask?

Because that's one of the reasons I keep playing these games: Shepard is the hero I wished I could be back in kindergarten, and both the kid and the adult in me would like to see hundreds of hours and dollars conclude with a happy ending. Granted, I'll get over it if it doesn't, but still, I'm more likely to play it again if it makes me feel good when I'm done, right?

And if you think this rant is weird, blame Bioware for making a game good enough for me to care this much. It's hard to get people to care this much about the fate of a few lumps of programming with voices attached. What strange voodoo are you crazy bastards practicing, anyway? I'll bet you can make a god damn plastic bottle that people would get emotionally attached to, sheesh...

Also, I'm a selfish, socially reclusive crybaby in desperate need of therapy. That could also attribute to any and all WTF-ness of this thread.

OVER TO YOU, MY LOVELIES: What weird, childish fantasies has Mass fulfilled for you, if any? Do you think happy endings and No One Left Behinds belong in a game like ME3? If not, why? Would you accept that sort of thing if it was optional/difficult to achieve? How do you want to feel when the credits roll?

EDIT: Bolded the point of the thread since some people think I want to avoid every single dark and gloomy aspect of a war story altogether. Nope, just no completely forced squad deaths.

[Il Divo]

AdmiralCheez wrote...


Yes, because someone pointing out you are braining wrong obviously means you are correct

Telling me I'm wrong without showing me how I'm wrong isn't the best means of convincing me.

Now, what was the ME trilogy's major selling point again? *scratches chin*

Again with the non-arguments. By that logic, I should be allowed to prevent all death since the game's selling point is choice. Western RPGs have demonstrated that they are willing to allow the player to:

1) have an impact at some points
2) not have an impact at some points

If ME3 kills Garrus, that does not mean you will not have an opportunity to save Tali.

I'm simply extending your argument to the farthest logical conclusion, which is choice>not choice in a video game. You simply don't like the implications of your argument because it is now being used against you.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 12:29 .

[Soul Cool]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Like every thread BSN has ever spawned!

The My Little Pony thread has gone places! And, well, that's about it. If we just had some more Power of Friendship types around here to balance out the axe-crazy ones like me.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Soul Cool wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Like every thread BSN has ever spawned!

The My Little Pony thread has gone places! And, well, that's about it. If we just had some more Power of Friendship types around here to balance out the axe-crazy ones like me.

Sounds like someone needs a party...
*calls Pinkie*

[Soul Cool]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Sounds like someone needs a party...
*calls Pinkie*

Partey-tiem!

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

According to whom? In any case, Shepard may care about all the faceless masses dying and cry about it but I guarantee you the audience isn't.

Why is it always so that one of you assume that your opinion reflects the opinion of everyone?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Soul Cool wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Sounds like someone needs a party...
*calls Pinkie*

Partey-tiem!

That's the most scary thing I've seen since "OH NOES I IZ GUNNA BE LATE!!!" Twilight.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

According to whom? In any case, Shepard may care about all the faceless masses dying and cry about it but I guarantee you the audience isn't.

Why is it always so that one of you assume that your opinion reflects the opinion of everyone?

Ego?

Douchebaggery?

Both?

[Soul Cool]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
That's the most scary thing I've seen since "OH NOES I IZ GUNNA BE LATE!!!" Twilight.

The show/manga it is from takes "mind warped" to a new level.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Soul Cool wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
That's the most scary thing I've seen since "OH NOES I IZ GUNNA BE LATE!!!" Twilight.

The show/manga it is from takes "mind warped" to a new level.

I see.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

A better example would be Mass Effect 2's suicide mission, since there the deaths aren't contingent on my character purposely choosing to kill someone, compared to executing Anders for eliminating the Chantry. But as an overarching goal, Shepard wants the best circumstances possible . That's why I say there is playing badly and playing well. If my Shepard's desire is to win this war with minimal casualties, I'm going for the best ending possible, but the best ending means no one dies. Saving the ME2 squad has a "right" and a "wrong" way. If they live, I played correctly. If they died, I played incorrectly.

Decisions like Virmire however mean that there isn't really right and wrong, merely differences in what our Shepard chose to sacrifice. Although I do agree that I'd like decisions which result in something more than a popularity contest. Ex: Save Kaidan vs. detonating the nuke, which (I think) presents a more intriguing scenario.

Actually, in my second playthrough, I didn't execute Anders.  We had a...falling out...over our definitions of "best possible outcome" :innocent:

And for all the other characters, My Hawke didn't choose to kill or abandon them, they did so as a result of my Hawke's actions.  They were the consequences of my choices, spread across the game.  I could have saved them if I did things differently, but chose not to.

The Suicide Mission in ME2, otoh, is a far more binary equation:  Did you do x's personal mission y/n?  Are you giving them a job they're particularly suited for y/n? Get them both right, you win!  No downside!  In that sense, it's far more a right/wrong or a popularity contest.  What I'm suggesting is more of a balancing act than that.

But this is still a logical fallacy. We need only look to Jade Empire to illustrate why. Did Sagacious Zhu's death prevent choice from Jade Empire as a whole? There were plenty examples of the player being able to influence the main narrative, including other opportunities to save/kill your party members. Not having a choice in X does not mean you do not get a choice in Y. Unless you mean that Zhu's death should have also been made into a choice?

Not as a whole, but in regards to saving him, yes.  Not having a choice in X means not having a choice in X.  For good or for ill.  I'm not saying that was a bad move for Bioware to make in that case.  I agree that sometimes it just fits the story.  But at the same time, Jade Empire was not the end of a trilogy with characters have spent years developing a fan base.  

See the opening post. I'd find what you suggest, as an option, acceptable. But the OP's designation of being able to have everything work out necessarily prevents it; squad-mates alive, Reapers defeated, major factions intact, etc.

A better comparison here would be the ability to seek out the Mages to help Connor, which does result in the "best case scenario": Innocent Mages not executed, Connor/Isolde Alive, demon eliminated, Eamon revived, etc.

I've never said I was arguing for the "rainbows and fluffy bunnies" ending.  I don't think the OP was either.  I actually don't think we'll get such an ending in any case.  I mean. Earth is invaded.  I believe Palaven is too.  And other worlds.  There will be death and destruction no matter what.  NPCs we've come to know and love (or loathe) will likely die.  But I think what the OP wanted was the possibility to keep favorite squadmates alive through the game if you make the right choices.  IMO, I see nothing wrong with that, as long as there's a price tag attatched.

[Soul Cool]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Soul Cool wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
That's the most scary thing I've seen since "OH NOES I IZ GUNNA BE LATE!!!" Twilight.

The show/manga it is from takes "mind warped" to a new level.

I see.

Trollception, we're about to be four levels deep, y'all.

Modifié par Soul Cool, 20 octobre 2011 - 12:52 .