4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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

But they'll still die. It's just wishful thinking to believe they won't.

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. 

I'm going to say two things here, and then let this be.

First, I think you're wrong. Life hurts, but we can make new friends and new happiness as well as new pains. You probably have formed more connections than you realize.

Second, if you ever wish to talk about it, feel free to contact myself or Captain Z. Consider it a standing offer.

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.

While that's certainly a good argument for avoiding their ME2 synonym roles, it isn't a good argument for not liking a survivor because someone else died.

[Soul Cool]

So, while contemplating posting in this thread, I realized that we're pretty much having the same argument as voiced vs. unvoiced protagonist. The only thing we have actually changed in this argument is the subject. The forms are the same. Why you do this to me, BSN? Why?

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

No.

Not if they're absolutely necessary for the story. 

A story is, by its nature, arbitrary and preconceived... and ALL pre-scripted things are equally arbitrary and replacable.

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.

Except they could also have written a story in which the King and Wardens don't die.

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. 

Death for the sake of emotional turmoil for the people who have established a relationship with the character, however, is neither motivation or the conclusion.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I also haven't played and am not really interested in playing B:AA.

But if I did play it, I'd know what sort of game it is going in, and not expect it to be something else. 

When a game says that I have choices and they matter, I don't expect it to take some of the most important choices and events completely out of my hands, or give me a choice between two bowls of crap.

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I also haven't played and am not really interested in playing B:AA.

But if I did play it, I'd know what sort of game it is going in, and not expect it to be something else. 

When a game says that I have choices and they matter, I don't expect it to take some of the most important choices and events completely out of my hands, or give me a choice between two bowls of crap.

Except you do, by virtue of playing a video game. There are plenty of major choices never presented to you (Why can't I leave Ferelden/Kirkwall?), and all choices that are are, by the nature of the medium, arbitrary choices of their selection.

Why do we have to choose what to do with the Rachni Queen RIGHT NOW, when it's stuck in a container it can't get out of? Why do we enter any conversation with Saren, or Sovereign? Why did we have to take Legion off the Reaper? Why do millions of Humans die while we were forced to save Joker?

Video game RPG's are always framed narratives that make many choices for you and out of your hands. You can't side with Teyrn Loghain. You can't refuse to follow your Master in Jade Empire. You can't surrender to the Reapers.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A story is, by its nature, arbitrary and preconceived... and ALL pre-scripted things are equally arbitrary and replacable.

...

Except they could also have written a story in which the King and Wardens don't die.

A story in which Cailen and the Wardens are alive is a very different story than DA:O. 

A story in which Shep doesn't get the databurst from the Eden Prime beacon is a very different story. 


A story in which both Kaiden and Ashley can be saved... is a story in which both Kaiden and Ashley can be saved.  Not much changes about ME1 if both are alive at the end. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A story is, by its nature, arbitrary and preconceived... and ALL pre-scripted things are equally arbitrary and replacable.

...

Except they could also have written a story in which the King and Wardens don't die.

A story in which Cailen and the Wardens are alive is a very different story than DA:O. 

A story in which Ashley is alive and the romance of a male Shepard is a very different story in which femShep sacrificed 'good kid Alenko' on Virmire because she hated his holier-than-thou attitude.

A story in which Shep doesn't get the databurst from the Eden Prime beacon is a very different story. 

Why couldn't 'opposite sex soldier' have gotten the vision rather than Shepard? A choice taken out of our hands.

A story in which both Kaiden and Ashley can be saved... is a story in which both Kaiden and Ashley can be saved.  Not much changes about ME1 if both are alive at the end. 

A lot changes, because the impact of having to lose one is different, the character motivations for continuing the fight against Saren are different, Ash and Kaiden don't nearly bite your head off for saving them at the cost of another...

To deny that 'loss' changes is a story is the same as claiming that any change doesn't change a story. Which is to say, it makes no sense.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 octobre 2011 - 03:39 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.

Yes. Because a player shouldn't be able to affect everything. Because a commander of a squad cannto save his man just by wishing hard enough.
Because personal loss is the strongest way to cement the atmosphere of war.

If you have such a hard time dealing with fictional loss, may you should play a Care Bears game.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I also haven't played and am not really interested in playing B:AA.

But if I did play it, I'd know what sort of game it is going in, and not expect it to be something else. 

When a game says that I have choices and they matter, I don't expect it to take some of the most important choices and events completely out of my hands, or give me a choice between two bowls of crap.

Except you do, by virtue of playing a video game. There are plenty of major choices never presented to you (Why can't I leave Ferelden/Kirkwall?), and all choices that are are, by the nature of the medium, arbitrary choices of their selection.

Why do we have to choose what to do with the Rachni Queen RIGHT NOW, when it's stuck in a container it can't get out of? Why do we enter any conversation with Saren, or Sovereign? Why did we have to take Legion off the Reaper? Why do millions of Humans die while we were forced to save Joker?

Video game RPG's are always framed narratives that make many choices for you and out of your hands. You can't side with Teyrn Loghain. You can't refuse to follow your Master in Jade Empire. You can't surrender to the Reapers.

Surrendering to the Reapers means game over anyway.  

You should have the option to at least try negotiating with Loghain, probably at the cost of Alistair's presence in your team if you succeed.   Maybe Loghain betrays you again, but at least it would be a good addition to the game.  
 
The Rachni Queen might have died in the neutron pulse if you didn't let her out at that moment, not sure how that would have worked. 

You should have had the option to leave Legion on the Reaper and lose that part of the story completely. 

When did we sacrifice millions to save Joker? 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 octobre 2011 - 04:04 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.

Yes. Because a player shouldn't be able to affect everything. Because a commander of a squad cannto save his man just by wishing hard enough.
Because personal loss is the strongest way to cement the atmosphere of war.

If you have such a hard time dealing with fictional loss, may you should play a Care Bears game.

So if Bioware doesn't script an inevitable squad death, then ME3, with millions of dead on earth alone and the lives of many trillions and every spacefaring civilization's future on the line in the face of Lovecraftian machine-monsters from beyond the void, is a "care bare game"? 

Pardon me for a moment while I laugh at your bull$#!+, Soronar.  

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 octobre 2011 - 04:02 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Surrendering to the Reapers means game over anyway. 

Not going to either Ashley or Kaiden means game over as well.

Why for both? Because arbitrary story design infringment.

You should have the option to at least try negotiating with Loghain, probably at the cost of Alistair's presence in your team if you succeed. Maybe Loghain betrays you again, but at least it would be a good addition to the game. 

Except it would be a game over as well.

The Rachni Queen might have died in the neutron pulse if you didn't let her out at that moment, not sure how that would have worked. 

It's your choice to set off the neutron pulse as well.

Again, we're back to 'we have to make an arbitrary choice because the game took it out of our hands and made us.'

You should have had the option to leave Legion on the Reaper and lose that part of the story completely. 

On the other hand, we shouldn't. Too many choices too often ruins gameplay design.

When did we sacrifice millions to save Joker? 

I certainly wasn't saving the galaxy and building a team to take down the Collectors while my Shepard was dead. Was yours?

Thanks, Joker!

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes. Because a player shouldn't be able to affect everything. Because a commander of a squad cannto save his man just by wishing hard enough.
Because personal loss is the strongest way to cement the atmosphere of war.

If you have such a hard time dealing with fictional loss, may you should play a Care Bears game.

If the player has no influence on major decisions in Mass Effect, then there's no point in having them there in the first place.

Also, come up with something new than "you can't handle this, go play a kids game" 

It's getting old and it's not validating your point if that's what you think.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes. Because a player shouldn't be able to affect everything. Because a commander of a squad cannto save his man just by wishing hard enough.
Because personal loss is the strongest way to cement the atmosphere of war.

If you have such a hard time dealing with fictional loss, may you should play a Care Bears game.

If the player has no influence on major decisions in Mass Effect, then there's no point in having them there in the first place.

Also, come up with something new than "you can't handle this, go play a kids game" 

It's getting old and it's not validating your point if that's what you think.

Of course he thinks that insulting people "validates" his position -- check his posting history. 

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes. Because a player shouldn't be able to affect everything. Because a commander of a squad cannto save his man just by wishing hard enough.
Because personal loss is the strongest way to cement the atmosphere of war.

Exactly. Just as in real life, in ME you take the perspective of one character, who unfortunately is not God and is limited in his ability to affect how things play out. You need choice to emphasize that you are playing a role in an interactive story, but I don't see how it breaks suspension of disbelief for something to happen against your will, which is no different from reality. If the Reapers blow up a transport of civilians while I'm on the Normandy, the game did not violate some cardinal rule which says they cannot be killed without my consent; I was physically incapable of reaching them both.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 04:12 .

[Yezdigerd]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

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?

Kinda, some of the “realists” in this thread has argued that the ability to save everyone in the suicide mission invalidates their playing experience. That once they have become aware of the pitfalls that leads to squaddie death they feel stupid not to take advantage of their metaknowledge. Yet the problem isn't death due to a fatal, in hindsight easily avoidable mistake (the usual, very realistic reason for combat death) , but the unrealistic reload function that allows you to ignore it. If you can do the suicide mission an infinite amount of times a no death result becomes quite a realistic outcome.
Personally I find it it silly to talk about realism in that sense. It's like sometimes I play games with a no reload challenge. It can create quite a lot of immersion because I'm genuinely worried about dying. At the same time its less fun, because it rewards slow and careful play. A game is not reality and require suspense of disbelief.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 20 octobre 2011 - 04:08 .

[Il Divo]

Someone With Mass wrote...

If the player has no influence on major decisions in Mass Effect, then there's no point in having them there in the first place.

But this criticism has been addressed multiple times. Where is the rule that says "game did not let you choose X", ergo you cannot choose Y"? Jade Empire invalidates this  by necessity. You had influence on major decisions, and you also had plot points forced on you, which is still in keeping with the interactive nature of video games.

If Mass Effect 3 auto-kills Garrus, it does not mean they won't give you the option to save Tali.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 octobre 2011 - 04:10 .

[Dean_the_Young]

And if ME3 makes you choose between Garrus and Tali, it doesn't mean Garrus and Tali were doomed to die.

It also doesn't invalidate any other choices you might make.

[Il Divo]

Agreed.

[Siegdrifa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Wut?

No, not every good story need a mix of everything. While writting you prepare and shape details to build for the reader what you think is intresting, but you don't always put everything in one work.

I don't know how you see it, but the range of tools that can be used in writting is pretty wide, mixing everything could go against what you want to achieve.

As exemple, one good way to make your readers feels X feelings, is by making him go through the opposed feelings before, the range between Happyness and sadness have more depth and impact than from normal to sadness.

If you write a story where you want the hero loosing a dear friend, you don't come here and say "and the guy who was in fact the best friend of the hero died"... impact... nealry none, first, he had a best friend? well i didn't know him well... Lot of preparation are required.
As other poster notified, when it's not well done they automaticly detect it as "character going to die for drama's sake".

Writters work on the setup a lot, they don't throw random situation in random place with random word and expecting "well that's a good work is't it ?"


Some themed story can do a good job only by doing an in depth and creative writting on few event without 15 diffrent feelings for love, joy, action, sadness, revenge, jealousy, drama ect.


For the same reason, a painter don't use all colors to make a good painting. As much as painting for painting with anycolor without thinking is what i consider a waste. You have to understand colors, and how to give them meaning in the painting AND purpuse.
If you wonder what's the point between writting and painting, i find it to be the same bases, In writting for fiction you use and mix word and ideas to accomplish it, judging the weight of each, in painting you mix different colors shade in different shape caring for the amount of each to accomplish a goal too.
Because sometimes, the only way to shad blue is by using green, or for painting the shadonw on a human face you use a blue shade for a greater impact, If i was using a blue for blue or grey for shadow it would have been the mark of my non-understanding of the tools i'm using.


When you say i'm out of topic, i desagree.
You always talk about good story's and what is making it, etc, i'm talking about what's behind and that what's impact you in story won't be the same impact on others because they made different choices or are not receptive as you for X situation, so what will be a good story or maximum impact is not mandatory in an interactive story like ME series is doing, and the more you allow different outcome, the harder it get to have a controle over how you want the player to feel in X or Y situation.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

But this criticism has been addressed multiple times. Where is the rule that says "game did not let you choose X", ergo you cannot choose Y"? Jade Empire invalidates this  by necessity. You had influence on major decisions, and you also had plot points forced on you, which is still in keeping with the interactive nature of video games.

If Mass Effect 3 auto-kills Garrus, it does not mean they won't give you the option to save Tali.

Sure, but some people will more than likely feel robbed something fierce if they went through all three games only to have the game auto-kill someone they kept alive through the games, like Garrus or Tali, with no way to affect the outcome.

That would provoke emotions, sure, but probably not the ones the designers had in mind.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Yes, if we applied that to real life, we'd all be sociopaths.

Video games are not real life.  And they do not approximate real life nearly so much as you apparently wish they did.

[Arppis]

Realism is overrated anyhows. People want to cherrypick their "realism" when it comes down to it.

[jamesp81]

Soul Cool wrote...

So, while contemplating posting in this thread, I realized that we're pretty much having the same argument as voiced vs. unvoiced protagonist. The only thing we have actually changed in this argument is the subject. The forms are the same. Why you do this to me, BSN? Why?

Why does the sun rise in the east?  Why do dogs bark?  Why do the birds sing?

[CptBomBom00]

Video games are not real?
so that's why I cannot open my dialogue wheel when I'm trying to talk.
just joking.

Yeah video games are just for our amusement only.

[Siegdrifa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Yes. Because a player shouldn't be able to affect everything. Because a commander of a squad cannto save his man just by wishing hard enough.
Because personal loss is the strongest way to cement the atmosphere of war.

If you have such a hard time dealing with fictional loss, may you should play a Care Bears game.

I agree on that, that's why i said i had no big problem with DA2 making me feels like a watcher, because they needed a better set up for what's going to come.

As much as Shepard destroy a system in arrival, being paragon or renegade, because Bioware need it for ME3.

Once in a while is fine if the tellers have good use for that. If the player could always controle what is to come, the game could be less spicy.