4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There is a distinct difference between the events that are necessary to the story you want to tell, and events that are just included for cheap impact.

Subjective interpretation. You don't like Shepard to leave someone behind, therefore it wasn't necessary to the story.

Which, if 'the story' includes Shepard overcoming the loss of a comrade to save the galaxy, is as integral as any other part to be trown away and rewritten.

You don't like the story... but don't argue that it isn't part of it. Mass Effect is a universe in which people die even in victory: Virmire Diers, Alliance Fleets or Destiny Ascensions, and colonists (and mass relays) alike. All Shepards are, even in their backgrounds, characters who have overcome losses and hardships to get where they are.

Going back to DA:O... you can't tell the story of the last two Wardens in Ferelden, two of the newest and youngest, without their mentor / leader... if there are still dozens of Wardens in Ferelden, and the mentor / leader is still alive!  That's not arbitrary, that's necessary. 

And you can't tell the story of Shepard overcoming loss in order to claim galactic survival if he doesn't lose people. That's necessary for that type of story as well.

We could easily have a different story without the last two Wardens in Ferelden... just as we could have a different story if Mass Effect wasn't a universe in which Shepard's companions die.

The "Vermire Choice" is not necessary to the story of ME1.  It's just there for cheapo dramatic impact. 

Mass Effect would not be the story it is if it didn't have Virmire, anymore than DAO could be about the 2 Wardens if it didn't have just 2 wardens.

In what way does the plot or overarching story of ME1 change if both Kaiden and Ashley are alive? 

It doesn't.   Shep "overcoming the loss of a comrade" is just fluff. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 octobre 2011 - 05:06 .

[Someone With Mass]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In what way does the plot or overarching story of ME1 change if both Kaiden and Ashley are alive? 

It doesn't. 

To be burtally honest, I had forgot all about Virmire the first time when I was on the Citadel, trying to stop Saren and Sovereign.

So much for that.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

'Being upset' is the reaction the writers want. It shows them that the choice affected you. You being angry that they died, or you being sad, are equally acceptable.

It's the apathetic, or lack of, responses that are bad from the writer's perspective.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that many writers can't distinguish between the reader / viewer being upset within their involvement  in the story, and the reader / viewer just being pissed off at the writer for being a hack. 

You don't have an objective view of 'hack' anyway, so it's all good.

Nice dodge, Dean. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
There is a distinct difference between the events that are necessary to the story you want to tell, and events that are just included for cheap impact.

Going back to DA:O... you can't tell the story of the last two Wardens in Ferelden, two of the newest and youngest, without their mentor / leader... if there are still dozens of Wardens in Ferelden, and the mentor / leader is still alive!  That's not arbitrary, that's necessary. 

The "Vermire Choice" is not necessary to the story of ME1.  It's just there for cheapo dramatic impact. 

90% of choices in games aren't necessary.
Sparing that asari with the Thorian? No impact.
Letting Balak go? No impact.
etc, etc..

I fouy cout onyl things that have a huge impact on the main narrative, very little qualifies.

and Vimire WAS necessary. For hte plot to go on, the base ad to be destroyed. Someone had to stay behind.

You can say "they could have written it differently". And they could have. They also could have written EVERYTHING ELSE differently.

Your argument is not an argument.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

No, I just think exposing the stupidity and hypocrisy of poeple proves them wrong....and makes me feel good to boot.

So yeah, pretty much what I said.  You think insulting people proves them wrong.  You're deep in the ad hom falacy. 

The only thing that actually proves their point wrong, is proving their point wrong. 

'He's wrong because he's stupid" isn't proof of anything besides the fact that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. 

Big whoop.

If you talk smack, you demonstrate lack of critical thinking ability.
Same if you show hypocrisy.

And you've show both buddy.
Think of it as "insulting you" if you wish.....I see it as "stating the obvious":P

Not to mention that you're not doing your own argument a favor when you insult me. Or do you not apply your own criteria to yourself?

[Xilizhra]

I think it's an acceptable compromise if there's a choice in who dies and the stakes are equal on each side. I would enjoy the option to save everyone, but I won't revolt if it doesn't appear unless it feels like I'm being specifically targeted.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

No, I just think exposing the stupidity and hypocrisy of poeple proves them wrong....and makes me feel good to boot.

So yeah, pretty much what I said.  You think insulting people proves them wrong.  You're deep in the ad hom falacy. 

The only thing that actually proves their point wrong, is proving their point wrong. 

'He's wrong because he's stupid" isn't proof of anything besides the fact that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. 

Big whoop.

If you talk smack, you demonstrate lack of critical thinking ability.
Same if you show hypocrisy.

And you've show both buddy.

I'm sorry, what was that about hypocricy? 

LoL.

[Labrev]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Here's the word that many of the anti-death arguments revolve around, if not mention:

'fairness'

How is unfair if a character dies? Since when are you entitled to their survival?

Captain Anderson is a poor candidate for any death, let alone a scripted death, because while he is a sympathetic character he isn't the a character the player has strong ties with. Whether scripted (Anderson always dies), or a trade-off (Anderson dies if you choose to save LI X instead), Anderson doesn't have the emotional bonds to be plucked for tragedy.

No players are entitled to anything, but the developers' job is to make a fun game. One that will both entertain, and ultimately sell. Getting rid of characters typically causes less entertainment and would undoubtedly cause them to lose fans. More people will have more fun if they can keep their friends around. Credit them for giving you the option to cause death anyway. It's not perfect, but it caters to both sides fairly well.

[Almostfaceman]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Let's keep the name-calling and insults out of the discussion, please.

[Someone With Mass]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think it's an acceptable compromise if there's a choice in who dies and the stakes are equal on each side. I would enjoy the option to save everyone, but I won't revolt if it doesn't appear unless it feels like I'm being specifically targeted.

Anything to avoid Halo Reach's way of killing characters. 

I.e, pop them in the head when they're least expecting it or make them do the heroic but stupid sacrifice.

[nitefyre410]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think it's an acceptable compromise if there's a choice in who dies and the stakes are equal on each side. I would enjoy the option to save everyone, but I won't revolt if it doesn't appear unless it feels like I'm being specifically targeted.

Anything to avoid Halo Reach's way of killing characters. 

I.e, pop them in the head when they're least expecting it or make them do the heroic but stupid sacrifice.

 


Death by Canon  it sucked for Noble team - of course there  stories very because there news there were those the survived the glassing of Reach
 

Thane is a interesting issue thoough becasue the miracle cure is meh but then  Miranda did  bring a man back  from the  dead. Not just  any kind of  dead.  Shepard died and  made planet fall there should have been nothing left of him or him or her

Modifié par nitefyre410, 20 octobre 2011 - 05:27 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In what way does the plot or overarching story of ME1 change if both Kaiden and Ashley are alive? 

It doesn't.   Shep "overcoming the loss of a comrade" is just fluff. 

In what way would the overarching story of DAO have changed if Alistair and the Warden were just the successful pair of Wardens who successfully went around completing the Treaty Quests while the rest of the Wardens and King Cailen fouch in the southern forests?

A cornerstone moment of the story experience would be removed, that's what. It easy to make near-infinite rewrites of scenario to keep most things the same but remove any key part of the story... but a key point of the story (as opposed the new, rewritten story) it remains.

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

'Being upset' is the reaction the writers want. It shows them that the choice affected you. You being angry that they died, or you being sad, are equally acceptable.

It's the apathetic, or lack of, responses that are bad from the writer's perspective.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that many writers can't distinguish between the reader / viewer being upset within their involvement  in the story, and the reader / viewer just being pissed off at the writer for being a hack. 

You don't have an objective view of 'hack' anyway, so it's all good.

Nice dodge, Dean. 

It's also true. You've freely admitted that you are part of a distinct minority of people who have trouble making any sort of new emotional relationship, real or fictional, when you know that someone even might die in the future. You aren't well-rounded enough to qualify as objective on what 'hack' drama is or not, because 'objective' is a social position you aren't part of.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 octobre 2011 - 05:28 .

[Xilizhra]

Although, there is something I have to wonder. If your problem with saving everyone is that it's unrealistic, wouldn't it imply that Shepard is unrealistically skilled in the way s/he saves everyone? So thus, not doing everything and not saving everyone would turn out to be more realistic, in both actions and outcome.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There is a distinct difference between the events that are necessary to the story you want to tell, and events that are just included for cheap impact.

Going back to DA:O... you can't tell the story of the last two Wardens in Ferelden, two of the newest and youngest, without their mentor / leader... if there are still dozens of Wardens in Ferelden, and the mentor / leader is still alive!  That's not arbitrary, that's necessary. 

The "Vermire Choice" is not necessary to the story of ME1.  It's just there for cheapo dramatic impact. 

90% of choices in games aren't necessary.
Sparing that asari with the Thorian? No impact.
Letting Balak go? No impact.
etc, etc..

I fouy cout onyl things that have a huge impact on the main narrative, very little qualifies.

and Vimire WAS necessary. For hte plot to go on, the base ad to be destroyed. Someone had to stay behind.

You can say "they could have written it differently". And they could have. They also could have written EVERYTHING ELSE differently.

Seems like there are a lot of people on today who subscribe to that belief, and don't think that there's a difference between critical elements and secondary elements in a story. 

Oh well.

We don't know what eventual impact allowing Shiara go will eventually have, other than her added help for the colony. 
We don't know what eventual impact letting Balak go will have, other than saving the lives of the hostages. 

So far, the only impact we have from The Vermire Choice is "Shep is sad and angry". 

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Although, there is something I have to wonder. If your problem with saving everyone is that it's unrealistic, wouldn't it imply that Shepard is unrealistically skilled in the way s/he saves everyone? So thus, not doing everything and not saving everyone would turn out to be more realistic, in both actions and outcome.

Shepard being exceptionally skilled isn't unrealistic: exceptionally skilled people do exist, and Shepard was well established even in ME1 as being one of them. The top 1% does exist, and choosing from them for a game protagonist is reasonable for the genre and medium.

But even the top 1%, even the exceptionally skilled, suffer losses in war and combat. And while 'in combat' might not be available due to the medium (killing off anyone who died in a firefight), the overall story of a major high-intensity war-to-end-all-wars is.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

'Being upset' is the reaction the writers want. It shows them that the choice affected you. You being angry that they died, or you being sad, are equally acceptable.

It's the apathetic, or lack of, responses that are bad from the writer's perspective.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that many writers can't distinguish between the reader / viewer being upset within their involvement  in the story, and the reader / viewer just being pissed off at the writer for being a hack. 

You don't have an objective view of 'hack' anyway, so it's all good.

Nice dodge, Dean. 

It's also true. You've freely admitted that you are part of a distinct minority of people who have trouble making any sort of new emotional relationship, real or fictional, when you know that someone even might die in the future. You aren't well-rounded enough to qualify as objective on what 'hack' drama is or not, because 'objective' is a social position you aren't part of.

"Objective" isn't a social position at all. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

'Being upset' is the reaction the writers want. It shows them that the choice affected you. You being angry that they died, or you being sad, are equally acceptable.

It's the apathetic, or lack of, responses that are bad from the writer's perspective.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that many writers can't distinguish between the reader / viewer being upset within their involvement  in the story, and the reader / viewer just being pissed off at the writer for being a hack. 

You don't have an objective view of 'hack' anyway, so it's all good.

Nice dodge, Dean. 

It's also true. You've freely admitted that you are part of a distinct minority of people who have trouble making any sort of new emotional relationship, real or fictional, when you know that someone even might die in the future. You aren't well-rounded enough to qualify as objective on what 'hack' drama is or not, because 'objective' is a social position you aren't part of.

"Objective" isn't a social position at all. 

An objective viewpoint is a socially-determined one, however.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Although, there is something I have to wonder. If your problem with saving everyone is that it's unrealistic, wouldn't it imply that Shepard is unrealistically skilled in the way s/he saves everyone? So thus, not doing everything and not saving everyone would turn out to be more realistic, in both actions and outcome.

Shepard being exceptionally skilled isn't unrealistic: exceptionally skilled people do exist, and Shepard was well established even in ME1 as being one of them. The top 1% does exist, and choosing from them for a game protagonist is reasonable for the genre and medium.

But even the top 1%, even the exceptionally skilled, suffer losses in war and combat. And while 'in combat' might not be available due to the medium (killing off anyone who died in a firefight), the overall story of a major high-intensity war-to-end-all-wars is.

So if it's unrealistic for anyone to be good enough to save everyone, then those who want greater realism can just not do it. Or if they can't, I don't really know why.

[Siegdrifa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Wut?

*SNIP*

Again, I have no idea what you're on about or what it has to do with the topic.

I'm talking about a good story having moments of happines and sadness (the whole range of sitations and emotions). A good story explores all of them - unless a very specific genre or atomsphere wants to be created.

What that has to do with choices in a game?
Other than you feel that X MUST be a choice for the player, otherwise the game sucks - which has been debunked already.

Okay, reread what i wrote or you are trolling me.

You, just now, are saying that you talk about what make a good story, i was just stating that good story is not mandatory to your ideas and that tools to build a good story isn't only about expressing happyness to sadness in the same work.

Second, i don't feel and didn't say that X MUST be a choice or it suck; too bad for you, i agreed that some part of the story, even in interactiv story, should be driven by the tellers for the benefit of the story set up for what is coming next.

Thrid, again, about talking with joy and sadness, i was just stating that when the game allow to impact the story from your choice, for the same event it can turn to be a sad or a happy outcome, meaning, the balance between happyness and sadness is totaly different from each playstyle, building by extended a more colofull or colorless experience, that's why your vision of the games can different from other but in no way mandatory, thanks to the possibility allowed by Bioware.

Ans this what this thread is about no? having a possibility to bypass death of some characters like Bioware usualy let us do, even if it's realy hard to get it. Or may be i misunderstood the OP.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

An objective viewpoint is a socially-determined one, however.

No. 

(So sick of postmodernism...)

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Although, there is something I have to wonder. If your problem with saving everyone is that it's unrealistic, wouldn't it imply that Shepard is unrealistically skilled in the way s/he saves everyone? So thus, not doing everything and not saving everyone would turn out to be more realistic, in both actions and outcome.

Skill has nothing to do with anything.
As I said before, commandos die just as often as regular grunts (if not more) and they are the most skilled fighters in any army.

Shep should be able to save SOME party memebrs...or people in general. If he's realisticly in position to do so.

SWM said he hated Halo Reach. I know only a little about it, but a person dying from a sniper bullet out of nowhere - there's nothing wrong with it. People die like that in war. If nything, it illustrates the danger of war and how frail and valubale life is.
You want the death of everyone you care for to be big, dramatic, heroic, larger than life. With sappy music and meaningfull speeches? That can work too, but don't tell me that THAT inst' cliche?

But when you get down to it, everything pretty much is.

[Xilizhra]

Skill has nothing to do with anything.
As I said before, commandos die just as often as regular grunts (if not more) and they are the most skilled fighters in any army.

Shep should be able to save SOME party memebrs...or people in general. If he's realisticly in position to do so.

So if you feel that the position from which Shepard can save someone is unrealistic, don't take it. Simple.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
90% of choices in games aren't necessary.
Sparing that asari with the Thorian? No impact.
Letting Balak go? No impact.
etc, etc..

I fouy cout onyl things that have a huge impact on the main narrative, very little qualifies.

and Vimire WAS necessary. For hte plot to go on, the base ad to be destroyed. Someone had to stay behind.

You can say "they could have written it differently". And they could have. They also could have written EVERYTHING ELSE differently.

Seems like there are a lot of people on today who subscribe to that belief, and don't think that there's a difference between critical elements and secondary elements in a story. 

Oh well.

We don't know what eventual impact allowing Shiara go will eventually have, other than her added help for the colony. 
We don't know what eventual impact letting Balak go will have, other than saving the lives of the hostages. 

So far, the only impact we have from The Vermire Choice is "Shep is sad and angry". 

Did those choices have any impact in ME1 or ME2? Nope. Yet you expect something big or important in ME3? Wake up.

Every single point of the game could be written differently. That doens't mean it should.
An event is part of the main narrative is the writer decides so...because he's the one that ultimatively decides what is important in his story and what he wants to show.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Shepard being exceptionally skilled isn't unrealistic: exceptionally skilled people do exist, and Shepard was well established even in ME1 as being one of them. The top 1% does exist, and choosing from them for a game protagonist is reasonable for the genre and medium.

But even the top 1%, even the exceptionally skilled, suffer losses in war and combat. And while 'in combat' might not be available due to the medium (killing off anyone who died in a firefight), the overall story of a major high-intensity war-to-end-all-wars is.

So if it's unrealistic for anyone to be good enough to save everyone, then those who want greater realism can just not do it. Or if they can't, I don't really know why.

So you mean I have to RP a Sheppard that I actually don't want to RP?