4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

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.

Your unwillingness to let go of squadmates is precisely why some of them should die.

Awesome logic there....anywho... It isn't unwillingness to let them die, it is me not wanting to get bored to death of a scene I have seen a million times.

I am fine with some of them dying based on your choices, but to force a death of SM to fill the drama meter is just...bland.

[jeweledleah]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


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

Anders? didn't I kill you twice already.. you are like bad habit, just keep coming back >_>

Jokes aside, lets play the numbers game.  at its very basic.  if we assume 16 potential squadmates and lets say they are totaly interchangeable..

if they all have a chance to survive, and you must keep at least two alive in order for Shepard to survive as well (I'm going by suicide mission precedent) - you have 16 potential outcomes.

if one must always die?  you now have 15 potential outcomes.  if two must always die?  14... and the choice reduction becomes even more glaring, once instead of calling squadmates interchangeable, you start playing with variations and combinations of who lives and who dies.

furthermore.  lets say you have a situation where youmust pick a squadmate to die.  the choice turns into a popularity contest.  which squadmate will you have easiest time doing without.  now lets say - your choice instead of being squadmate vs squadmate becomes - save a life=lose future advantage, or let a criminal go (or even a reaper - like in my example from way back - chase down and destroy a wounded reaper ship at the cost of losing a crewof the entire ship, one or more of your squadmates included, or rescue the people on the shp that's about to blow up at the cost of letting that reaper go)  suddenly - the choice becomes less clear cut.  more interesting. but why give us interesting choices?  lets just kill of an arbitrary number of people, give us a few more popularity contests (those seems to be real popular on bsn with all those polls and rate your squadmate threads..)  after all - its not about an interesting engaging story.  its about pissing off people who actualy want some happy from their entertainment.

[Robuthad]

However your willingness to let squadmates die, brings a different question

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

If you too kbasic philospohy than you must suck - if your'e still arguing against his point.
Il Divo is right on the money here.

You lot are arguing for choice only when it suits you. You ingnore the pitfalls of your own arguments.

No game will ever allow you to make your own adventure fully. Non-interactive, non.choice parts wil always bete there - they have to be there in order to tell a story.
Your'e arguing that event X MUST be a choice...because you want it to. You've got nothing else ot back that up with except your desire. And by extention of that logic, EVERY vent should therefore be a choice, because someone, somewhere will want it.

As Il Divo put it - the kid in the vent. You can't save him. Where's the choice there? Why not be able to save him?
Where do you draw the line between what should be a choice and what shouldn't?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Awesome logic there...

I'm sure you didn't want Bambi or Littlefoot's mother to die, but their deaths served their respective films well. The affect it had on the audience is what made those films great.

I forgot who I was talking to for a moment.....you still aren't getting it.

[Robuthad]

Not trying to be dramatic no. I'm just an observer. Don't hate

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

:huh:..... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol::lol:

You're killing me!
I dont' know by what logic you're operating with, but death of people who are closer to you will always have more emotional impact than the death of other people. IF it works the other way around for you, then something is not right with your head.

As to other people you could kill - yes, you could kill a lot. But again, why NOT a squad memeber?

[Robuthad]

It's kind of like life. Sure if one of your parents dies it will def have more emotional impact than if say your dog died. But wouldn't you rather not have the people closer to you die? Who goes around looking to be sad.

I know it's a game but still, I'd rather have people live than have to be killed

[Lotion Soronarr]

jeweledleah wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


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

Anders? didn't I kill you twice already.. you are like bad habit, just keep coming back >_>

Jokes aside, lets play the numbers game.  at its very basic.  if we assume 16 potential squadmates and lets say they are totaly interchangeable..

if they all have a chance to survive, and you must keep at least two alive in order for Shepard to survive as well (I'm going by suicide mission precedent) - you have 16 potential outcomes.

if one must always die?  you now have 15 potential outcomes.  if two must always die?  14... and the choice reduction becomes even more glaring, once instead of calling squadmates interchangeable, you start playing with variations and combinations of who lives and who dies.

furthermore.  lets say you have a situation where youmust pick a squadmate to die.  the choice turns into a popularity contest.  which squadmate will you have easiest time doing without.  now lets say - your choice instead of being squadmate vs squadmate becomes - save a life=lose future advantage, or let a criminal go (or even a reaper - like in my example from way back - chase down and destroy a wounded reaper ship at the cost of losing a crewof the entire ship, one or more of your squadmates included, or rescue the people on the shp that's about to blow up at the cost of letting that reaper go)  suddenly - the choice becomes less clear cut.  more interesting. but why give us interesting choices?  lets just kill of an arbitrary number of people, give us a few more popularity contests (those seems to be real popular on bsn with all those polls and rate your squadmate threads..)  after all - its not about an interesting engaging story.  its about pissing off people who actualy want some happy from their entertainment.

Flawed logic. As  I said again . The loss of player choice at junction X in game, means he gains choice at junction Y in game. You dont' get to tchoose weather to save Z or not. But you get some other choice that impact the later storyline.
The number of outcomes stay constant.


Also, you keep saying popularity contest. I can't control how other people play, but it was never a contest for me. For Virmire, I always choose the most tactical/strategic option (save whomever I left with the bomb, since the bomb is mission-critical).

You also (falsly) assume that one squadmate dying precludes having that "interesting" choice you mention. I don't see how or by what logic.
Just because you loose Tali earlier in the game, you dont' get to to choose between savign a ship or not?


Also, your example with a wounded reaper is terrible, because it's a no-brainer.
On one side you can save a warship and valubale crew.
But if you do, a damaged reaper gets way. To be a threat in the future...in other words, you got no penalty/downside, it's only a POSSIBLE one.. IN THE FUTURE (so in-game penalty? Zero).
Not to mention that if the reapers are practicly defeated at this point, then letting a few escape means nothing.  If they couldn't defeat the races of hte galaxy when they were at the peak of their pwoer and numbering in thousands, what chance do a few reapers stand against a galaxy that is ready for them AND has all of their tech?

You're not really giving these "hard" choices enough thought.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 octobre 2011 - 07:09 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Robuthad wrote...

It's kind of like life. Sure if one of your parents dies it will def have more emotional impact than if say your dog died. But wouldn't you rather not have the people closer to you die? Who goes around looking to be sad.

I know it's a game but still, I'd rather have people live than have to be killed

Ah..but that's exactly the poitn. It's exaclty because you don't want people close to you to die that it has so much impact.
Just look how panicked some people already are at the very idea. That there is an emotional reaction - which is what any good writer is looking for. To jolt someone. To make him care.

In other words, it's exactly because I don't want Garrus to die that he should die.

[wildannie]

Any scripted specific squadmate death might have an impact once, but, for me, it would severely dent re-play value.
A Virmire like choice would be better in as it could play out differently in different games but it's not ideal.
Having situations where squadmates could die or could be saved (not in an easy or obvious way on first playthrough) would for me be the ideal.

Saving everyone is always going to end up being easy when you know how to save them, there's no way round that.

Of course death of people close to you has more of an impact, but it's not a good feeling and not one I look for in games.
If Tali dies no matter what I do in the game it wouldn't really bother me but it would ruin it for others. Thane always dying will majorly reduce my enjoyment while it will greatly please others.

I certainly hope that Bioware are going to try and accommodate those looking to have choice in this matter, rather than those who see the option to save characters as ruining their game. Not least because those calling for scripted deaths often sound incredibly selfish to me.

[Robuthad]

The writers may be trying to get emotional impact, but I don't like forced deaths. Sure, I'll care if Garrus dies, but I'm still gonna care just as much about Garrus if he lives. You don't need to kill characters for them to have an emotional impact

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I forgot who I was talking to for a moment.....you still aren't getting it.

You imply that there is some kind of underlying subtext to your post(s). However I know you aren't smart enough for that.

It is you who is "not getting getting it".

Sometimes it is to the benefit of the audience to give them what they don't realize they want. You want a good story, I guarantee it. However you clearly are not capable of judging what a good story is. If left up to you these games would suck because there would be no tension, no depth, no difficulties for the hero to overcome, no losses for him to suffer.

Still not getting it, not once have I ever said I wante dno one to die at all, but what you fail to understand is that while your squad mates are always there your interaction with them can be very minimal outside a few lines during a mission or a few lines of banter, but when you have someone like Anderson or TIM who is constantly interacting with you during the story giving you missions and such that persons death would be more impactful.


Someone dies in the SM, sure you might be bummed a little but you would probably end up saying...well ****.

But if TIM would have died in ME2 you would have had a much more emotionally engaging reaction (even if that reaction is celebration) you keep this mindframe that everyone is asking your asinine assertion of a disney story and it simply isn't true, not a single person in here is asking for that you just want to throw your over inflated oppinions at everyone and try and assert surperiority through petty insults.

Have fun spinning my words around in a petty attempt to seem intelligent,it is quite humorous.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Robuthad wrote...

The writers may be trying to get emotional impact, but I don't like forced deaths. Sure, I'll care if Garrus dies, but I'm still gonna care just as much about Garrus if he lives. You don't need to kill characters for them to have an emotional impact

But that makes too much sense for the terrible two to understand, anything less than forced deaths of squadmates is sunshine and rainbows and bunnies and other stupid crap....

[Robuthad]

I'd much prefer it they all made it in Saving Private Ryan, yes. I'd still love that movie an prefer it that way, it'd still be an awesome movie. If Vader had lived, I'd have been just as excited to see how he redeemed himself I the galaxy's eyes. I'd love that ending. And I'd love an alternate ending where Mufasa pulls himself back up and whoops scars ass and the movie ends there.

Any of these sound good in their own ways and could enhance the medium too. Just in a different way.

[Undertone]

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.

Define the genre Science-Fiction then. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Robuthad wrote...

It's kind of like life. Sure if one of your parents dies it will def have more emotional impact than if say your dog died. But wouldn't you rather not have the people closer to you die? Who goes around looking to be sad.

I know it's a game but still, I'd rather have people live than have to be killed

I don't know if it's masochistic but there's a kind of film/media called tearjerkers and plenty of people enjoy.

wildannie wrote...

Any scripted specific squadmate death might have an impact once, but, for me, it would severely dent re-play value.
A Virmire like choice would be better in as it could play out differently in different games but it's not ideal.
Having situations where squadmates could die or could be saved (not in an easy or obvious way on first playthrough) would for me be the ideal.

Saving everyone is always going to end up being easy when you know how to save them, there's no way round that.

Of course death of people close to you has more of an impact, but it's not a good feeling and not one I look for in games.
If Tali dies no matter what I do in the game it wouldn't really bother me but it would ruin it for others. Thane always dying will majorly reduce my enjoyment while it will greatly please others.

I
certainly hope that Bioware are going to try and accommodate those
looking to have choice in this matter, rather than those who see the
option to save characters as ruining their game. Not least because
those calling for scripted deaths often sound incredibly selfish to me.

Great minds think alike. I am not for strictly forced deaths for no good reason. They should have at least given the option to try on Virmire. In fact the impact would be greater not knowing whether they would or wouldn't, and who would or wouldn't . With a random element it wouldn't hurt replay and might do the opposite. For realism one could make it extremely difficult for everyone to come out completely unscathed, but please don't tie my hands behind my back.

Saving everyone is always going to end up being easy when you know how to save them, there's no way round that.

Ah no I think there's a way around that, have it actually affected by gameplay like Kal reegar(bad example though). That way roleplayers can accept their deaths or stubborn people can reload and try and do better. Otherwise the way Saphra does it it and the suicide mission it feels like you're delibrately executing them.

Edit: jesus can we really critique each other's vaginas on these boards

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:12 .

[Siegdrifa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Also, your example with a wounded reaper is terrible, because it's a no-brainer.
On one side you can save a warship and valubale crew.
But if you do, a damaged reaper gets way. To be a threat in the future...in other words, you got no penalty/downside, it's only a POSSIBLE one.. IN THE FUTURE (so in-game penalty? Zero).
Not to mention that if the reapers are practicly defeated at this point, then letting a few escape means nothing.  If they couldn't defeat the races of hte galaxy when they were at the peak of their pwoer and numbering in thousands, what chance do a few reapers stand against a galaxy that is ready for them AND has all of their tech?

You're not really giving these "hard" choices enough thought.

Who told you it was reapers full force ? We don't know yet and you are assuming things, you don't have much more insight.
You said the exemple is terrible and nobrainer, if you understood what is story telling, then you would know Bioware could turn it like a decisive choice, why ? because this is a god damn fiction and it's easy to build a real purpuse for everything you have to do !

I think it could turn to be an intresting choice especialy for renegade shep, there is not much more difference between choosing to destroy an escaping reapers and let dies a war ship crew, and letting go away balack to save the hostages, or let vido leave for the same outcome, the only difference is the scale, but it's the same core choice and no penalty in game, may be in futur, but still, lot of people take the renegade choice because it make sens for them.

I'm surprise how you talk so much about realisme and yet you ignore that one single reaper is more dangerous than a mere space ship, it can endoctrinate, getting followers for his scheme, impacting galactic peace (sovereign) on his sole action, is this worth taking the risk for 1 war ship ? It took much more to destroy sovereign, i'm sure lot of renegade would say "not taking any chances".

You spend your whole time arguing "my favorit color is red", while other prefer green, you denie every argument only because it's not red color related (it's not possible to tell someone you are wrong to personnaly prefer red color, well still YOU try...), you waste your time sayng how great red his and other answered how green is better for them (yet some people here try to say "no, green is not better for you!". The real worry is not about wich color must win, it's about how to make both a possibility and credible at the same time.
Red color is not better than anyother, only for those who prefer red, but they don't have more right to be here than other, especialy because ME1 and ME2 are not only red color directed.

[Undertone]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Also, your example with a wounded reaper is terrible, because it's a no-brainer.
On one side you can save a warship and valubale crew.
But if you do, a damaged reaper gets way. To be a threat in the future...in other words, you got no penalty/downside, it's only a POSSIBLE one.. IN THE FUTURE (so in-game penalty? Zero).
Not to mention that if the reapers are practicly defeated at this point, then letting a few escape means nothing.  If they couldn't defeat the races of hte galaxy when they were at the peak of their pwoer and numbering in thousands, what chance do a few reapers stand against a galaxy that is ready for them AND has all of their tech?

You're not really giving these "hard" choices enough thought.

Who told you it was reapers full force ? We don't know yet and you are assuming things, you don't have much more insight.
You said the exemple is terrible and nobrainer, if you understood what is story telling, then you would know Bioware could turn it like a decisive choice, why ? because this is a god damn fiction and it's easy to build a real purpuse for everything you have to do !

I think it could turn to be an intresting choice especialy for renegade shep, there is not much more difference between choosing to destroy an escaping reapers and let dies a war ship crew, and letting go away balack to save the hostages, or let vido leave for the same outcome, the only difference is the scale, but it's the same core choice and no penalty in game, may be in futur, but still, lot of people take the renegade choice because it make sens for them.

I'm surprise how you talk so much about realisme and yet you ignore that one single reaper is more dangerous than a mere space ship, it can endoctrinate, getting followers for his scheme, impacting galactic peace (sovereign) on his sole action, is this worth taking the risk for 1 war ship ? It took much more to destroy sovereign, i'm sure lot of renegade would say "not taking any chances".

You spend your whole time arguing "my favorit color is red", while other prefer green, you denie every argument only because it's not red color related (it's not possible to tell someone you are wrong to personnaly prefer red color, well still YOU try...), you waste your time sayng how great red his and other answered how green is better for them (yet some people here try to say "no, green is not better for you!". The real worry is not about wich color must win, it's about how to make both a possibility and credible at the same time.
Red color is not better than anyother, only for those who prefer red, but they don't have more right to be here than other, especialy because ME1 and ME2 are not only red color directed.

First you need to learn to spell, especially if English is your first language. Second this isn't about renegade or paragon (it is to an extent but largely because renegade decisions are devaluated). 

Third is that all paragon decisions have no face value - the majority of them are completely short-sighted yet that never comes into effect. You are never punished for letting Balak escape, Fist never seeks revenge and the same is valid for just about any criminal you let go. Such wishful thinking that always turns out right deevaluates all the other choices. 

That's why it's a no-brainer. And I sure hope popularity choices vs. squad usefulness choices result in punishment in another aspect. Because logically on Virmire it is better to pick Kaidan who is a biotic then a simple soldier based on squad usefulness. 

EDIT: Actually ME 2 got all the decision making completely wrong. The "darker" path is supposed to yield greater rewards at the expense of morality and guilt in the player plus ****tier yet respectable (in a degree) reputation. The "lighter" path is supposed to yield smaller or no reward but giving the satisfaction of standing on a moral highground and the delight of those around you, giving you benevolent yet perhaps a little dubious (in a degree) reputation. 

As it stands you have a blue-win button which lets you have the "higher" moral ground and eat your cake too. This reflects on the whole situation of "save them all". You already have a magic button, saving them all would be like the cherry on top. 

Modifié par Undertone, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:40 .