4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I'm convinced that there is something behind the reapers, and that ME3 will let us uncover it or part of it, if reapers are just killing machine without motives and valid reason for a greater scheme, i would be desapointed a little.

Well, Legion have said that they're harvesting the knowledge and minds of those billions of organics to make their own hive minds.

Could be one reason.

[Lotion Soronarr]

lovgreno wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

That does make sense. I still think it's already a bit overdone in the ME story though.

It makes perfect sense.
You're making the fallacy of assuming "I prefer X, therefore that makes for a good story/writing". That is practicely never the case. Also it's incredibly egoistical to think that.
I know that many of the thing I prefer would NOT make a good story/writing for a mayrad of reasons.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

This is why some people here try to explain "may be having it IRL is enough, we don't need it FORCED on our entertainement, also, if our entertainement is supposed to be full of **** we already have irl, it's not an entertainement anymore for some people, allowing a possibly like often in Bioware game is nice".

You also have happyness in RL. You don't need it in your entertaiment?
It's exactly because it exists in RL that I want it to be in the game too. It's adds to the legitimacy, the realism of the game.

And, why other explain, BECAUSE it works easly, it is a cheap way to do it. In depth and creative writing can achieve the same goal instead of this overused trick... "huuhh... how we make impact here, i have no idea .... well... let's kill some main characters .....  AWSOOOME !"...

Bollocks. Just because something is used often doesn't make it cheap. There's nothing cheap about it.

And again... this is not a novel, or a movie writting ! this is a rpg with multiple choice, meaning, the writing can't be one way directed.

Flawed argument. Yes...Yes it can. No matter what you choose, Shep always hits the same main points.
You dont' get to choose everything. You get to chosoe something.
Quit using hte silly "choice" fallacy.

[Siegdrifa]

Undertone wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

This is why some people here try to explain "may be having it IRL is enough, we don't need it FORCED on our entertainement, also, if our entertainement is supposed to be full of **** we already have irl, it's not an entertainement anymore for some people, allowing a possibly like often in Bioware game is nice".

And, why other explain, BECAUSE it works easly, it is a cheap way to do it. In depth and creative writing can achieve the same goal instead of this overused trick... "huuhh... how we make impact here, i have no idea .... well... let's kill some main characters .....  AWSOOOME !"...

And again... this is not a novel, or a movie writting ! this is a rpg with multiple choice, meaning, the writing can't be one way directed.

I have a very simple solution for you then - don't play a game that's science fiction if you don't want realism or logical executions / solutions of events. Especially when said game is based on a galactic war / military. 

How about Sims? 

Your point ? you don't agree with me, that's fine, you are looking for realism in unreal setting, i don't mind it either, now you just don't like that not everybody share the same vision as you on ME games and just try to diminish them because you can't express yourself in other way than "onesided biased point of view".

"Logical" and "solution" are blury in fictionnal setting, what make them legit is the quality of writting and story telling.

What i'm saying is "this is not ONLY like this or like that, part of it need to be, but it's not all about it, there is other ways, possibility, visions etc".

When you stat that all decision on ME2 were made the wrong way, i have no hope to have a civilised chat with someone like you, first picking on my bad spelling (that i admited and always will since it's a fact), especialy if it was my first language (well no, you would have been pleased if it was i guess, giving you more shot to pick on me instead of building argument).

I have nothing against people that take ME like a dark fiction leading to a galactic massacre with heavy cusuality and lot of sacrifice to be expected, it make sens in a way, but i don't think it can be resricted to that only, alowing more room for other vision as well, like ME1 and ME2 did.

As a result.... "you don't like my vision, then don't play "my" game and go play a game that i despise instead".
Funny hehehe.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 20 octobre 2011 - 01:24 .

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You also have happyness in RL. You don't need it in your entertaiment?
It's exactly because it exists in RL that I want it to be in the game too. It's adds to the legitimacy, the realism of the game.

This is my standpoint. With fiction, obviously there are some areas where I don't give a frack about realism, but the ability to replicate true human emotion imo is one of the most critical aspects of fiction and that kind of realism should always remain. I hope/expect to feel emotions, both happy and sad, when engaging in a story.  

[CaptainZaysh]

Saphra Deden wrote...

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.

"If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." –Henry Ford

[WizenSlinky0]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It makes perfect sense.
You're making the fallacy of assuming "I prefer X, therefore that makes for a good story/writing". That is practicely never the case. Also it's incredibly egoistical to think that.
I know that many of the thing I prefer would NOT make a good story/writing for a mayrad of reasons.

Yeah...see, to make someone "Jolt" is not the point of all writing. It is the point of horror writing. To make someone care...well if you need to shoot someone in the head to make people care then they should be rethinking their career.

[CaptainZaysh]

Wizen, the reality of going to war is that either you or your friends are going to die. It's not bad writing to reflect that.

[Siegdrifa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You also have happyness in RL. You don't need it in your entertaiment?
It's exactly because it exists in RL that I want it to be in the game too. It's adds to the legitimacy, the realism of the game.

What's people are looking as entertainement is not universal, same want funny things, some wants dumb things, some wants serious, depend of the mood, peoples tast etc.

What you call "legitimacy", "realisme", i call it "possibility", because the quality of writting and story telling will legit it. If a highly possible real outcome is not well written and not well told, it can look out of place, being a character death or saving him don't matter at this point.
If you ask me "it's a story about war, you don't think no causuality is stupid in a way", i would say "yes, highly, or they better have a damn story telling to make it legit", or depending of my mood "yhea, but i don't care much, unless the product is labelled "what real war is about", if it was the case, i wouldn't complain".
But for ME1 and ME2 i personnaly don't find it that dark and i played it through the game without gloom at every corner.
Some month ago, i watched the japanese anime Gilgamesh, the gloom and doom was expected, not my kind stuff but i didn't complain or deny the intrest of this dark vision.
I actualy enjoy some read of dooming scenario for ME3, it's the "should be forced on everybody" that make me tickle.

Flawed argument. Yes...Yes it can. No matter what you choose, Shep always hits the same main points.
You dont' get to choose everything. You get to chosoe something.
Quit using hte silly "choice" fallacy.

I agree that rpg don't always use different outcome, nomatter your choice, it's hard and lot of work on the long run.
But, when writting story for RPG, you can't write in in one way.
For exemple, when they write the Shepard paragon outcome, they can't make it like any other choice were wrong, the renegade choice need to be as legit as paragon with a fiting outcome.

Like i said, doesn't mater my playthrough, my choices are in the other box, i would have hated to play a bunnys and sunshine Shep as much as i would hate a ruthless killer lolz. Still i'm not saying that they must be eradicated from the game, what's matter is that the players find a choice that make sens for them, and what make sens for them vary among people.

Writting story with no interactivity is more personnal, you show your vision, you prepare it carefully, you are timing what's happening to make sure the watcher will feel this, and that.
Bioware games are different, because for the same situation, depend of the choice, and the outcome, the feeling won't be the same. Some situation can turn into sad moment (let says killing the son's arl in DAO), or it could be a happy moment (you save him).

When it is not timed, builded, it's harder to control the players feelings, because sometimes, in order to make him feel "cold", you have to make sure he go through "hot" just before and here, the impact will be maximum, because it was possible to make the player realise the range between "hot" and "cold".
Lot of japanese rpg were doing that really well, because the "choice" was often fake or without impact for the main plot. It's a lot harder in Bioware game when you have actualy the freedom to choose where to start and not facing the same out come for the same situation.

So, i don't see why ME3 should ONLY be doom and gloom, unless the writters stat it because they want it to be like this "hi guys, prepare to face the threat of galaxy and be ready, because you are fighting a lost battle, so don't expect happy ending, survival will be ferocious and your choices will be hard".
No doubt some people would love the setting, not me, but i wouldn't complain latter "hey ! many people dies" though, because i can't argue that the dev were wrong to keep their promes.

As far as i know, nothing from Bioware was clear about "ME3 is doom and gloom, death at every corner on your side, you can't succeed against the reapers and stayng alive, you, you friend or you love".

If they choose to do things forced for ME3 instead of choice in ME1 and ME2, i prefer to be warned, now that's just a game and i can live without it, but being the third adventure of the same characters of a great entertainement, yhea, i have some expectation (keeping the range of possibility is one of them).
For exemple, i had no expectation for DA2, not the same characters, not the same place, not the same plot (not about dark spawn mainly), and the dev warned us that the game was a kick to destroy the sand castle build by the ending OF DAO, so i enjoyed the game for what it is, i didn't liked being a "watcher" and having no real impact on the main story, but, Mike was faire enough to say they needed it to build a better setup for DA3. Once in a while, okay, getting things forced on me in a Bioware game is not sandard. At the end of DA2, i find that they have a great setting for DA3, so, i'm looking forward to it, but if forced gloomy outcome become mandatory Bioware new standart, it will be without me since it's not the kind of product that i like to purchase, but i'm not saying it would be bad, it's not my cup of tea but we don't all drink tea.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You also have happyness in RL. You don't need it in your entertaiment?
It's exactly because it exists in RL that I want it to be in the game too. It's adds to the legitimacy, the realism of the game.

What's people are looking as entertainement is not universal, same want funny things, some wants dumb things, some wants serious, depend of the mood, peoples tast etc.

I want it all.
If people want to reduce an entire universe to just some ascpt, then that's their problem.

I agree that rpg don't always use different outcome, nomatter your choice, it's hard and lot of work on the long run.
But, when writting story for RPG, you can't write in in one way.
For exemple, when they write the Shepard paragon outcome, they can't make it like any other choice were wrong, the renegade choice need to be as legit as paragon with a fiting outcome.

And what does that have to do wit hanything?

Choices exists and add to replay value (theorethical) regardless what the choice is about. Choocing between 2 squaddies or two civies - a a chocie is a choice.
Altouhg - also technicly - if people don't LIKE the choice they are presented with, they might never take it, thus limiting replay value - however, this is hte specific problem of the individual.

So, i don't see why ME3 should ONLY be doom and gloom, unless the writters stat it because they want it to be like this "hi guys, prepare to face the threat of galaxy and be ready, because you are fighting a lost battle, so don't expect happy ending, survival will be ferocious and your choices will be hard".

Who said it should ONLY be doom and gloom?
altough you had plenty of happy in ME1 and 2. ME3 seems to be the darkest part yet (and makes sense, given what's going on)

[Il Divo]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Yeah...see, to make someone "Jolt" is not the point of all writing. It is the point of horror writing.

 That would indicate that the only reason to kill a character is for a jolt, when numerous examples exist to the contrary. Epic poems, Shakespearean tragedy, war films, etc.

Killing a nameless face means nothing. The director/author rarely gives any time to contemplate the deaths of nameless characters. But killing a character you have grown to love? Well, you're probably going to feel something no matter how much you want to curse the author.  

To make someone care...well if you need to shoot someone in the head to make people care then they should be rethinking their career.

They're relying on basic human emotions. It's no different than Bioware killing 7 million humans, which demonstrates the danger of the present conflict. People are more emotional when what they care about is gone. Death is simply a reality which demonstrates this. I do not magically care about a character because he died; I care because I liked the character.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 01:38 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It makes perfect sense.
You're making the fallacy of assuming "I prefer X, therefore that makes for a good story/writing". That is practicely never the case. Also it's incredibly egoistical to think that.
I know that many of the thing I prefer would NOT make a good story/writing for a mayrad of reasons.

Yeah...see, to make someone "Jolt" is not the point of all writing. It is the point of horror writing. To make someone care...well if you need to shoot someone in the head to make people care then they should be rethinking their career.

And you're making another fallacy here, cause I never said "jolt".

Making a good story is not just about making people care about a cahacter (altough it is a big part). It's also how one paints everything else.
Death of a friend does far more than just "make someone care" (and not only because you'd have to care for that person beofre the death). It also shows the strength of the enemy, the horrors of war, the inevitabiltiy of loss, the tragedy, the helplensess of the protagonists., etc..

[Someone With Mass]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Yeah...see, to make someone "Jolt" is not the point of all writing. It is the point of horror writing. To make someone care...well if you need to shoot someone in the head to make people care then they should be rethinking their career.

And so far, the few charcters that have died in Mass Effect (both in the books, comics and games) that I cared about are countable on one hand. 

It might work maybe one or two times, but the integrity of the story shouldn't rely on character deaths, because that will get old, repetitive and lose the emotional strength fast.

Not to mention that most of the characters can actually be useful in battle and other fields instead.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 20 octobre 2011 - 01:40 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
 to force a death of SM to fill the drama meter is just...bland.

So true.

[Killjoy Cutter]

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.

That makes absolutely no sense. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Robuthad wrote...

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

Are you trying to be dramatic?

Probably not, but evidently you want faux drama through contrived formulaic writing. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 octobre 2011 - 01:42 .

[Yezdigerd]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Wizen, the reality of going to war is that either you or your friends are going to die.

In the reality of war you cannot reload and keep yourself and others alive through cumulative knowledge of the encounter either.

[CaptainZaysh]

Killjoy, it's ironic that your sig links to a definition of verisimilitude when you're advocating a war story in which none of the regular cast die.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

It might work maybe one or two times, but the integrity of the story shouldn't rely on character deaths, because that will get old, repetitive and lose the emotional strength fast.

Exactly. 

How many times can you play through a game, knowing that character X is going to die no matter what you do, before it becomes part of the background scenery and you just drive on by? 

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

That makes absolutely no sense. 

Not if we extrapolate from his/her statement. Killing characters whom you dislike or have no interest in accomplishes very little from a narrative perspective. If the logic is that people like their companions and want to save them, that would be a potential (not necessarily actual) motivation for a writer to kill them. Much like real life, you don't want the people around you to suffer and die. But because it happens in real life, that is where a writer can draw inspiration.

When characters die on screen, I'm not meant to be jumping for joy; I am experiencing grief. But there is a certain beauty in knowing that a writer was able to effectively create that kind of reaction from me which makes death such a wonderful narrative option.  

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

It might work maybe one or two times, but the integrity of the story shouldn't rely on character deaths, because that will get old, repetitive and lose the emotional strength fast.

Exactly. 

How many times can you play through a game, knowing that character X is going to die no matter what you do, before it becomes part of the background scenery and you just drive on by? 

How many times can it happen in a film? Or any other medium, for that matter? How many times can you play through ME1's plot points, knowing that the same thing happens every time? Nihlus dies, Shepard gets hit with the beacon, investigating Saren, etc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 01:51 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Probably not, but evidently you want faux drama through contrived formulaic writing. 

131 pages of this thread says that the loss of a squadmate is not "faux" drama.  People are clearly incredibly emotionally engaged by the prospect of it.

Can you explain to me why you think it is "contrived" for people in a front line squad to die during a high intensity war?  Surely explaining why there have been no casualties would feel like the contrived approach.

[Killjoy Cutter]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Killjoy, it's ironic that your sig links to a definition of verisimilitude when you're advocating a war story in which none of the regular cast die.

It's a game, not a movie.  The player's choices and actions have to mean something.  If they don't, you get DA2, where you can't save the Orgrebait sibling, ever, at all, for any reason, and which one dies is based on something as unrelated as which class you chose.  And no matter what, you can never save Leandra -- you're never given the option of following up on the serial killer, and you never find out Leandra was taken until it's too late. 

If I do a playthrough of DA2 now, I look at the sibling, and think "You're going to die soon".  I look at Leandra and say "you're going to die in the middle of Act 2."  I look at Anders and think "Why am I even helping you?  I can't change the downward spiral you're on and you're going to do something terrible no matter what I do." 

If I do a playthrough of ME1, I never get attached to Kaiden or Ashley, because I know Vermire is coming.  They just sit there in the background and rarely go on missions with me. 

[Someone With Mass]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Exactly. 

How many times can you play through a game, knowing that character X is going to die no matter what you do, before it becomes part of the background scenery and you just drive on by? 

It's even worse if the player doesn't care about the character at all.

Like me and Virmire.

I just went with saving Kaidan because he's a biotic and Ashley is that military tough chick stereotype with a troubled past, which I don't like at all, so she guarded the nuke.

[Killjoy Cutter]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Probably not, but evidently you want faux drama through contrived formulaic writing. 

131 pages of this thread says that the loss of a squadmate is not "faux" drama.  People are clearly incredibly emotionally engaged by the prospect of it.

Can you explain to me why you think it is "contrived" for people in a front line squad to die during a high intensity war?  Surely explaining why there have been no casualties would feel like the contrived approach.

It's contrived if it's prescripted and preprogrammed to happen. 

The risk of squadmate death is one thing, but making it happen no matter what, for the sake of it happening, breaks immersion and reminds the player that they're just along for the ride on the story that someone else is telling. 

It's the difference between RPG and "interactive cinematic experience".