4309 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Il Divo wrote...

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

Maybe you should ask jeweled why she thought you were wrong, hm?

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.

Uh.  What?

I have no idea what you are...  Wait, let me re-read that.

So you are saying that the position "the same squadmate dying every damn time is dumb and if I can't avoid squadmate death altogether then at least Virmire it" somehow means that "the same squadmate dying every damn time is a good idea and I want Bioware to kill squaddies arbitrarily?"

What?

[Killjoy Cutter]

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.

So... feeling sorrow or empathy in reaction to the suffering or death of a stranger somehow equates to... having large female reproductive organs? 

Huh? 

[Killjoy Cutter]

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?

Look at who you're quoting... 

[Gabriel S.]

jreezy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter 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.

So... feeling sorrow or empathy in reaction to the suffering or death of a stranger somehow equates to... having large female reproductive organs? 

Huh? 

Proven fact.

Ask yourselves how many times you've felt your heart breaking when watching car wrecks and blurred bodies that were butchered with wood axes on the evening news (or the morning news, as the habit is here in my country)?

[jeweledleah]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

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

Maybe you should ask jeweled why she thought you were wrong, hm?

I just got tired of him puting words in my mouth, Chez.  his logic reminds me of one of the first logical fallacies they introduce you to in school.  strawberries are red.  strawberries are fruit.  this is a red fruit. it must be a strawberry.

my solution is to keepwasting my time arguing or stop beating my head agaisnt the wall and do something more fun - like participating in your squadmate shuffle

P.S.  I don't want a game to break my heart.  I want a game to make me feel good once I'm done playing it.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 20 octobre 2011 - 01:29 .

[Il Divo]

AdmiralCheez wrote...


Maybe you should ask jeweled why she thought you were wrong, hm?

I did, she got offended because I didn't understand her logic. Amazing how that works on the internet, right?

I have no idea what you are...  Wait, let me re-read that.

So you are saying that the position "the same squadmate dying every damn time is dumb and if I can't avoid squadmate death altogether then at least Virmire it" somehow means that "the same squadmate dying every damn time is a good idea and I want Bioware to kill squaddies arbitrarily?"

No, please try to keep up.

Your method excludes Bioware mandatorily killing party members, which is fine on its own. But not when you argue from video games as an interactive medium, which implies that choice is always better than not choice. If that's the case, I can take any instance where Bioware forces something upon me the player and effectively argue that I have to be given a choice in that instance (Ex: Kid in the vent).

[AdmiralCheez]

Il Divo wrote...

I did, she got offended because I didn't understand her logic. Amazing how that works on the internet, right?

If you asked her in the same way you are addressing me, I can imagine why she'd get a touch pissed.

No, please try to keep up.

Jesus, act all superior, why doncha...

Your method excludes Bioware mandatorily killing party members, which is fine on its own. But not when you argue from video games as an interactive medium, which implies that choice is always better than not choice. If that's the case, I can take any instance where Bioware forces something upon me the player and effectively argue that I have to be given a choice in that instance (Ex: Kid in the vent).

I did not say "choice is always better than not choice," nor did I imply it.

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...


I just got tired of him puting words in my mouth, Chez.  his logic reminds me of one of the first logical fallacies they introduce you to in school.  strawberries are red.  strawberries are fruit.  this is a red fruit. it must be a strawberry.

I think you're just not aware of the logical fallacies you are committing.

1) In Video games, choices are better than not choices because they utilize the strength of the medium.
2) Ergo, Bioware should allow me to save my squad-mates because this would give me a choice.

Scenario: Bioware presents a non-choice to the player, such as as the child in the vent. If we accept 1) as true, then Bioware should not kill the child in the vent unless it's a choice given to the player.

Your strawberries are none of my concern.

[Gabriel S.]

Play nice kids. Don't break the playground.

[Il Divo]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Jesus, act all superior, why doncha...

After telling me that I'm wrong, without being able to effectively demonstrate why, you'll understand if I'm not going to be too accomodating.

I did not say "choice is always better than not choice," nor did I imply it.

No, but Jeweledleah did when she indicated that this is a game, a choose your own adventure book, where she should be able to act the part of the hero, which was the basis for our original discussion. If you were not aware of that, perhaps you should have hesitated before telling me I'm wrong. 

For your benefit:

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.

 

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 01:53 .

[AdmiralCheez]

@Il Divo: Uh...  Actually, I think jeweled is right on this one.  I know this looks bad because I already mostly agree with her, but you're kind of taking what she says out of context on purpose, pointlessly exaggerating her points to the Nth degree under the guise of "logic."

I know I was a dick a lot in this thread, but that doesn't mean you have to be one, too.  Now, I'm sorry for gettin' all snippy at you, but seriously, drop the attitude.

Look, I took basic philosophy too.  I might just pick this back up with you tomorrow after a full night's sleep or something to point out exactly where you messed up, but I am tired as hell so I'm going to not do any thinking for a while.

Seriously, when I'm this tired, I just sound like an ass.  As evident from my previous posts.  New rule: don't post sleepy.

[Il Divo]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Il Divo: Uh...  Actually, I think jeweled is right on this one.  I know this looks bad because I already mostly agree with her, but you're kind of taking what she says out of context on purpose, pointlessly exaggerating her points to the Nth degree under the guise of "logic."

I know I was a dick a lot in this thread, but that doesn't mean you have to be one, too.  Now, I'm sorry for gettin' all snippy at you, but seriously, drop the attitude.

Look, I took basic philosophy too.  I might just pick this back up with you tomorrow after a full night's sleep or something to point out exactly where you messed up, but I am tired as hell so I'm going to not do any thinking for a while.

Seriously, when I'm this tired, I just sound like an ass.  As evident from my previous posts.  New rule: don't post sleepy.

Fair enough. I could definitely sound less dickish too. Perhaps it's better if we just drop the argument.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

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?

Well, if you read my sig you will understand.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

How I choose to deal with a non-choice in a game does not count as a choice within the game itself.

SH*T TALKED TO LOTION AGAIN.

Must be a secret internet crush.

ERm...did you even bother to read what I wrote before replying?

Again - no loss of choice. You get as much choice in either version. The difference is what the choice is about.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

You can go two routes:

1) randomization. Who dies is random, determined at the very start of the game (so reload can't help you)

2) Partially player controlled - someone dies at point X. You cannot prevent that. But you can influence who bites the bullet.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mesina2 wrote...

Killing someone just for the sake of drama is lazy writing.

And avoiding to do so because one is too attached to a character is even lazier.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

What billions? Where those billions of friends Shep has? When where they introduced? Who are they?

Also, feeling numb is what loosing a friend often feels like.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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!

Seems to me you havn't been paying attention to this topic, as you dont' seem to grasp the actualy underlying problems.

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.

There can be no compromise on this matter. Because what you propose isn't a compromise (even tough you think it is).

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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!

Seems to me you havn't been paying attention to this topic, as you dont' seem to grasp the actualy underlying problems.

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.

There can be no compromise on this matter. Because what you propose isn't a compromise (even tough you think it is).

 It is though, no one, no one, has said there shouldn't be tons of death, but you fail to grasp another simple concept.


There are plenty of characters who could be killed in a very emotional and impactful way (TIM,Anderson,Udina,Joker,Aria) people who are important to the player and would be more meaningful than another Virmire situation.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 20 octobre 2011 - 06:38 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

Sez you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

Again with the "less choice" fallacy? There is no less choice. There is only different choice.
The resources for that chocie would be spent on another. Same amount of choices.