4309 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Okay, now that is pure crap right there. I've heard other people say this too, but you/they can't speak for me.

Sure, I may not stop and think about everyone around the world who is suffering, but when it is brought up I'm very much remorseful about it and sorrry that it has to happen. I can put it in perspective of people I care about without actually having to lose them to know what kind of hardship the families of the lost would be going through, and knowing they loved them like I love my own family/close friends.

Empathy - you don't have to know someone to have it for them.

Empathy's one thing (and it's great you feel it!) but knowing that someone has lost somebody they loved very much is not the same as losing that person.

[jamesp81]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

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

How come you didn't care about Kaiden or Ashley?  Both are brave, caring, tenacious and hot.  IRL being friends with either would be a privilege IMHO...

People will tend not to attach to doomed characters.  That's just the way it is.  It's also a reason why something like Virmire kills the story.  As people tend to not attach to mandatory death characters, their content often times gets wasted.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yezdigerd wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

No, in a fighting unit in constant combat somebody is definitely going to die.

And in my game Shep and his squaddies dies all the time. Then I hit reload, I guess your Shepard stays down when he takes a bullet in the head.

If NATO had a reload button there wouldn't be any casualites in Afganistan either.

Sure there would. If you pushed the reload button every time you lost a person in war, you'd never accomplish anything and still be on day 0.

You'd make no progress, and so never advance.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

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

How come you didn't care about Kaiden or Ashley?  Both are brave, caring, tenacious and hot.  IRL being friends with either would be a privilege IMHO...

People will tend not to attach to doomed characters. 

If we applied that to real life, we'd all be sociopaths. If we apply that to fiction, we only care about the characters until the game ends... which is about as sincere or enduring as saying you only care about your coworkers as people until you no longer work with them.

Everyone dies eventually. People part. Fact of life we can pretend to ignore, or accept.

That's just the way it is.  It's also a reason why something like Virmire kills the story.  As people tend to not attach to mandatory death characters, their content often times gets wasted.

Except that if you can effect who dies, then there is no character who is mandated to die. Your choice matters: in fact, their survival is you choice.

[Labrev]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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

Utter nonsense.  2,000 people will die of malaria tomorrow, and you won't lose a wink of sleep over it.  But if Mrs Killjoy Cutter were going to be executed at dawn you wouldn't get a wink of sleep.  There are some defensible positions on the other side of the argument, but this is not one of them.  Death of someone you know personally has infinitely more impact than the death of a stranger.

Okay, now that is pure crap right there. I've heard other people say this too, but you/they can't speak for me.

Sure, I may not stop and think about everyone around the world who is suffering, but when it is brought up I'm very much remorseful about it and sorrry that it has to happen. I can put it in perspective of people I care about without actually having to lose them to know what kind of hardship the families of the lost would be going through, and knowing they loved them like I love my own family/close friends.

Empathy - you don't have to know someone to have it for them.

How many close friends and family have you lost? Are you honestly going to claim that you feel as bad about the couple of hundred people who have died while you read this post, as you did if/when they died?

Like, two. So what? I may not stop and think about all the people that wil die today, but I can still know it happens and feel badly about it. Would I feel as badly as when it happened to the people I was close to? Probably not, but I can still empathize with it from some experience, and feel genuinely sorry.

Why do people ever contribute to charities, or research for cures to diseases? Admittedly, most don't until it has affected someone close to them, but it's because after it happens they realize what other people go through and similarly feel sorry. And they do something about it because they DO genuinely care about people dying, people that they'll never know.

[CaptainZaysh]

Yezdigerd wrote...

And in my game Shep and his squaddies dies all the time. Then I hit reload, I guess your Shepard stays down when he takes a bullet in the head.

If NATO had a reload button there wouldn't be any casualites in Afganistan either.

Sorry Yez, missed replying to this observation the first time around.  I guess you are pointing out that while I am arguing for realism I will tolerate unrealistic aspects (like the ability to reload from an earlier save point), so I shouldn't be demanding realistic elements like squad casualties?

I guess it's just a question of how sensitive each individual's bulls**t detector is.  If Shepard were suddenly able to shatter her enemies by singing opera at them you wouldn't think, "hmmm, well this is a bit weird but since I have accepted the save game feature I must also accept this in order to maintain a consistent position."  I guess I just draw the line before you do.  I balk at a war in which nobody important dies, you might balk at a gun that shoots rainbow coloured hearts that defeat the enemy using the power of love - same thing really.

[Dean_the_Young]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Would I feel as badly as when it happened to the people I was close to? Probably not, but I can still empathize with it from some experience, and feel genuinely sorry.

Er, this was the point you were objecting to. You're either contradicting yourself, at which point there's nothing I can say, or you didn't understand what you were objecting to. At which point there's nothing that needs to be said.

Why do people ever contribute to charities, or research for cures to diseases? Admittedly, most don't until it has affected someone close to them, but it's because after it happens they realize what other people go through and similarly feel sorry. And they do something about it because they DO genuinely care about people dying, people that they'll never know.

Which is rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand: whether team mate loss (personal loss) is heavier than the loss of strangers.

[Dean_the_Young]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

And in my game Shep and his squaddies dies all the time. Then I hit reload, I guess your Shepard stays down when he takes a bullet in the head.

If NATO had a reload button there wouldn't be any casualites in Afganistan either.

Sorry Yez, missed replying to this observation the first time around.  I guess you are pointing out that while I am arguing for realism I will tolerate unrealistic aspects (like the ability to reload from an earlier save point), so I shouldn't be demanding realistic elements like squad casualties?

I guess it's just a question of how sensitive each individual's bulls**t detector is.  If Shepard were suddenly able to shatter her enemies by singing opera at them you wouldn't think, "hmmm, well this is a bit weird but since I have accepted the save game feature I must also accept this in order to maintain a consistent position."  I guess I just draw the line before you do.  I balk at a war in which nobody important dies, you might balk at a gun that shoots rainbow coloured hearts that defeat the enemy using the power of love - same thing really.

We'll beat the Reapers with the power of love! Believe it!

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

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

How come you didn't care about Kaiden or Ashley?  Both are brave, caring, tenacious and hot.  IRL being friends with either would be a privilege IMHO...

Because I know when one of them is going to die, and where, and how, no matter what Shep does or how hard Shep tries. 

Man, I'd hate to be your relative if I was terminally ill.

The fact that they're fictional characters does make a difference, you know. 

The predetermined, unavoidable death ruins the level of immersion necessary to care about the fictional characters. 

[CaptainZaysh]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The predetermined, unavoidable death ruins the level of immersion necessary to care about the fictional characters. 

You might enjoy trying to roleplay a little more.  Like, make decisions based on what the character knows rather than what the player knows?

EDIT: I think this sounded snarky but it wasn't meant to.  :innocent:

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:39 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The fact that they're fictional characters does make a difference, you know. 

I'd hate to be a fictional character related to your own while being terminally ill.

The predetermined, unavoidable death ruins the level of immersion necessary to care about the fictional characters. 

Now that's silly.

The key word to ruin the level of immersion necessary to care about fictional characters should be that they're fictional. That the time of your relationship with them is less than the time of the entire game shouldn't matter: they're both artificially short and have a set ending. If we only cared about characters for as long as they continued to develop and play a role, we couldn't still care about living characters because they stop talking and doing any meaningful interaction with us. (Calibrations/engine cleaning/whatever.)

Nor are we even talking about unavoidable death for any character in particular, which makes it even more absurd.

How does (Character 's death on Virmire prevent you from being able to care about (Character A), who doesn't have a predetermined, unavoidable death?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:43 .

[Dean_the_Young]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
EDIT: I think this sounded snarky but it wasn't meant to.  :innocent:

It sounds snarkier for the edit, Z. <_<

[CaptainZaysh]

Hahaha!

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If we applied that to real life, we'd all be sociopaths. If we apply that to fiction, we only care about the characters until the game ends... which is about as sincere or enduring as saying you only care about your coworkers as people until you no longer work with them.

Everyone dies eventually. People part. Fact of life we can pretend to ignore, or accept.

In fiction, I don't get attached to doomed characters.  There was a book I simply stopped reading because it was obvious that my favorite character was going to die -- I checked the last chapter, and sure enough, the character had died about halfway through the book.  So I just returned the book to the store. 

In real life, that knowledge that everyone leaves or dies, and the impact it has, has pretty much stopped me from forming any new connections to people beyond the casual level. 

Except that if you can effect who dies, then there is no character who is mandated to die. Your choice matters: in fact, their survival is you choice.

One of the two is going to die. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:53 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In real life, that knowledge that everyone leaves or dies, and the impact it has, has pretty much stopped me from forming any new connections to people beyond the casual level. 

Jesus.  But doesn't that approach rob you of basically all meaningful human experiences?

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In fiction, I don't get attached to doomed characters.  There was a book I simply stopped reading because it was obvious that my favorite character was going to die -- I checked the last chapter, and sure enough, the character had died about halfway through the book.  So I just returned the book to the store. 

What do you think happens to the characters after the books in which they don't end win?

Do you only like immortal characters?

In real life, that knowledge that everyone leaves or dies, and the impact it has, has pretty much stopped me from forming any new connections to people beyond the casual level. 

And I do believe we've just firmly established you as an outlier, not the norm to be followed.

And why does it stop you from forming new relationships? It's not like your old ones are any more eternal. Families pass away. Old friends part. New ties aren't different.

Hedgehog delimma is something that can be overcome, you know.

One of them is going to die. 

And one of them won't. Why hate that one? Might as well hate Liara while you're at it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:56 .

[Labrev]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Would I feel as badly as when it happened to the people I was close to? Probably not, but I can still empathize with it from some experience, and feel genuinely sorry.

Er, this was the point you were objecting to. You're either contradicting yourself, at which point there's nothing I can say, or you didn't understand what you were objecting to. At which point there's nothing that needs to be said.

I'm objecting to the general disparity of it. I truly do not feel like it's THAT big of a difference between the two. Maybe it's just me though because I moved on from those things quickly.

Why do people ever contribute to charities, or research for cures to diseases? Admittedly, most don't until it has affected someone close to them, but it's because after it happens they realize what other people go through and similarly feel sorry. And they do something about it because they DO genuinely care about people dying, people that they'll never know.

Which is rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand: whether team mate loss (personal loss) is heavier than the loss of strangers.

Assumes that players approach the game close to as they do real-life. Look at what's being said in this thread: people metagame not socializing with Kaidan/Ashley because they know one is going to die. Then often times people deliberately kill-off squadmates they don't like in the suicide mission. Again, scripped death only works if people actually care about the guy who's going to die.

Even if you take a widely popular guy like Garrus to kick the bucket, there are still going to be loads of people who won't be broken up by that loss at all. Then, those that are upset are probably not even going to be upset within the game, they'll probably just get upset at BW for making it happen.

And THAT'S why this tactic is really not worth trying. It just backfires altogether in trying to create the intended effect.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:59 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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". 

And all the other pre-scripted things do not break immersion?

You sir, are full of fertilizer.
No one dying is the prime thing to break immersion, not the other way around.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In fiction, I don't get attached to doomed characters.  There was a book I simply stopped reading because it was obvious that my favorite character was going to die -- I checked the last chapter, and sure enough, the character had died about halfway through the book.  So I just returned the book to the store. 

What do you think happens to the characters after the books in which they don't end win?

Do you only like immortal characters?

It's enough if the character makes it through their story in one piece. 

In real life, that knowledge that everyone leaves or dies, and the impact it has, has pretty much stopped me from forming any new connections to people beyond the casual level. 

And I do believe we've just firmly established you as an outlier, not the norm to be followed.

And why does it stop you from forming new relationships? It's not like your old ones are any more eternal. Families pass away. Old friends part. New ties aren't different.

Hedgehog delimma is something that can be overcome, you know.

The things I've already lost are pain enough, thanks -- unlike most people, things don't fade over time for me, and memories of events often have the same impact as the events themselves.  And the people and things I still have are going to be more pain someday, but I'm not enough of a bastard to cut them all off. 

One of them is going to die. 

And one of them won't. Why hate that one? Might as well hate Liara while you're at it.

Because the other one is just the other side of the coin on the same contrivance.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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.

No, you and your friends RISK dying. 

Which is so high it's as good as guaranteed. I said again - no singe front line squad survived a large war wihout any casualties. It just doesn't happen.
If you can find a story or record somewhere of one squad that did, please, point me to it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And all the other pre-scripted things do not break immersion?

No.

Not if they're absolutely necessary for the story. 

Of the four Bioware games I've played, the only precripted deaths that were necessary to the story were at the beginning of DA:O, when the King and the Wardens die in circumstances beyond the the PC Warden's control. 

Death for the sake of cheap drama or sticking to a formula (this is a war story, someone has to die!) is just lazy writing. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 octobre 2011 - 03:20 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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.

No, you and your friends RISK dying. 

Which is so high it's as good as guaranteed. I said again - no singe front line squad survived a large war wihout any casualties. It just doesn't happen.

And so you want to make it happen in ME3 no matter what, come hell or high water, no matter what the player does. 

Whatever.  Go write a damn war novel if that's what you want, this is a game we're talking about, not one of your lit fic pieces of crap.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Siegdrifa wrote...
[quote]
I want it all.
If people want to reduce an entire universe to just some ascpt, then that's their problem.
[/quote]

The more you open a games toward different thing at the same time, the harder it get to force people on 1 outcome or one vision of the ending.[/quote]

No, not really. Having moments of happines doesn't stop you from making a drama, or vice-versa.
Just like real life, a good story has a mix of everything.



[quote][quote]
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.
[/quote]
[/quote]

 Because many people, unlike novel or movie, will interact with the world and story in different ways that could make sens for them, so the writter can't adopt one way of writting, it must be written for x y and z people and all must feel legit carying the outcome they were expecting.

Novel or movie story writting is a one way street, X hero of movie have a personnality already choosen and he must act toward this personnality logicaly. You can't write a story about a hero that is supposed to be a defender of bunnys and sunshines , make him see a child killed in front of him and say "well, life his hard those days for the youngsters" and walk away like that.
In video games like ME, different kind of personnality have to be treated with the same quality to make them legit and make sens in the way you play the story.[/quote]

Again, what does this have to do wiht the topic at hand?
You're going off a tanget.



[quote]
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)
[/quote]
[/quote]
As long as "good ending" of other match with your vision, and being against others "good ending possibility"  because you think your good ending is more legit, no need fo...[/quote]

Wut?

[Dean_the_Young]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

I'm objecting to the general disparity of it. I truly do not feel like it's THAT big of a difference between the two. Maybe it's just me though because I moved on from those things quickly.

It's you.

The vast majority of people put family, loved ones, and close friends as far, far above everyone else.

Assumes that players approach the game close to as they do real-life. Look at what's being said in this thread: people metagame not socializing with Kaidan/Ashley because they know one is going to die. Then often times people deliberately kill-off squadmates they don't like in the suicide mission. Again, scripped death only works if people actually care about the guy who's going to die.

Even if you take a widely popular guy like Garrus to kick the bucket, there are still going to be loads of people who won't be broken up by that loss at all. Then, those that are upset are probably not even going to be upset within the game, they'll probably just get upset at BW for making it happen.

And THAT'S why this tactic is really not worth trying. It just backfires altogether in trying to create the intended effect.

Except you haven't given a backfiring. You've just given that not all people care about all characters. Which is perfectly normal, and not reason against any character death in general. It's the same sort of 'not everything appeals to everyone' that makes different fangroups exist: not everyone likes Jacob, or Thane, or Tali.

When you have a problem that no one particular character is going to elict a response, you have three different solution-conlusions.

1) That while not everyone will care, enough will. Universal response isn't possible, or even desired. A delimma in which enough people respond favorably is satisfactory. While not everyone likes both Ashley and Kaiden, enough do that, while they may favor one or the other, Virmire draws weight from most of the audience.

This is the 'good enough' approach. Enough people appreciate something to justify it.

2) Broaden the scope of effect to include more characters to reach a better target audience. Not everyone cares about Ashley or Kaiden... but almost everyone cares about Ashley or Kaiden or Garrus or Tali. Reworking delimmas (expanding individual ones, or adding new ones) so that everyone has an investment in the mix. You may not care about a particular character on one occassion, but you would another on a different occassion.

This is what the Suicide Mission tried but failed to be by tying individual characters to their potential death. Not everyone cares about the potential vent specialists, but almost everyone cared about someone who could be one of the specialists.

3) Choose characters most likely to affect the audience. Similar to 1, but rather than see if one character has an effect, look to audience polls to see which ones are most popular. If Virmire mk2 in ME3 were between, oh, Tali and Garrus, two of the most popular characters in the franchies, you would certainly have an effect. Not everyone would care... but  most would.

4) Let players indirectly indicate the choices they would care about. This is a screening system in which the players, aware or not, indicate who they do care about. In a game like Dragon Age, the amount of approval/rivalry points awarded (indicating both strength of connection and time spent in party: people keep their favorite characters in-party most often and avoid least favorite, and so get more points). In Mass Effect, love interests would be an obvious mechanic of connection, and secondary might be a hidden tracker of 'who is your most common squadmate.'

When the player screens the potential cast by their own actions and trends, you have a better chance of choosing a character they care about. This is why the Alistair self-sacrifice in DA:O worked: Alistair would sacrifice himself for you at the endgame if you had not done the Dark Ritual, but only if you romanced him. Generally the only people who would bother to romance Alistair and bring him along are, well, the people who particularly care for him.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote..
We're not filming a movie or writing a novel. 

In those media, you're right, it's passive -- you know going in that you are engaged in taking in the story that someone else is telling. 

In an RPG, the character is the player's character, not the storyteller's.  As much choice and control as is practical needs to be left to the player. 

That depends on the developers, type of game, and the story they want to tell.
Tell me, what impact did you have on the story of Batman: Arkham Assylum? None. Does that make it a bad game? Not at all.
Do you HAVE to have drect control of event X? No.