4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Il Divo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

All right, but isn't your argument that no one is so competent, realistically, as to be able to keep everyone from dying?

My argument is that even the best, most competent, commanders lose people. Losing Garrus because there's nothing I can do to save him is very different than losing Garrus because I, as his commanding officer, made a very bad call. 

The first is an issue of helplessness; I'm responsible for Garrus only in so far as I'm his Commander, but something happens which I cannot prevent. The second is an issue of the player/character making a mistake, when a scenario existed for a good outcome.

Losing Garrus because you didn't buy the Thannix is a lot different from losing Alenko because of Virmire delimma.

[Xilizhra]

You're confusing him and me. My argument is that 'no one is so great that, even if they do everything right, they keep everyone from dying in a war.'

And while Shepard certainly stepped up space-Jesus vibes in ME2, it was certainly true in ME1 and in Arrival that Shepard's best didn't mean perfect.

Right. So if you don't want to be perfect, don't be perfect. I admit it's something of a sacrifice, but you seem to be losing less than we do if you had it all your way.

[Il Divo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You're confusing him and me. My argument is that 'no one is so great that, even if they do everything right, they keep everyone from dying in a war.'

What you just stated is pretty much my position as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Right. So if you don't want to be perfect, don't be perfect. I admit it's something of a sacrifice, but you seem to be losing less than we do if you had it all your way.

Xilizhra, why did you choose Samara, Morinth, or Jack as your biotic specialist?

[Il Divo]

Xilizhra wrote...

Right. So if you don't want to be perfect, don't be perfect. I admit it's something of a sacrifice, but you seem to be losing less than we do if you had it all your way.

That's the problem: either I'm an exceptional Commander and no one dies, which makes for a weaker story. Or I'm a not exceptional Commander and there are party member deaths, which weakens my Shepard's characterization. I want to be exceptional and have people die along the way for other reasons which aren't contingent upon a weaker protagonist.

[sorentoft]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If I were to design the suicide mission, not even metagaming would get you away scott-free. Like this person did.

That is stupid. I think we're all better off not having someone like that design the game.

On the contrary, that fits the model of a suicide mission to a t, and answers many of the common criticisms besides the 'I can't stand any death of anyone.'

Shepard survives and accomplishes the mission without resorting to being stupid to suffer any loss.

No individual in particular is required to die.

The characters who do are reasonable consequences of Shepard's choices, not chance or scripted: player agency is not denied.

No metagaming reduces the narrative buildup to 'the suicide mission.' The mission is neither soft-balled or oversold in the main story.

Character specialties are established more firmly in the pre-mission and early game, reflect character tendencies, and don't come out of the blue.

Post-ME2 plot, by its design, has to more firmly embrace the reluctant fact it's already taken in: all characters who can die can no longer be key companions, so knowing that a number will die forces more focus on the story afterwards.

To be honest I find that the Sucide Mission would be suicide if it was not Shepard doing it. But it is. And he fights better krogan and runs faster than a leopard. And I still disagree with forced deaths, unless it involves Thane.

Modifié par sorentoft, 20 octobre 2011 - 09:44 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

You're confusing him and me. My argument is that 'no one is so great that, even if they do everything right, they keep everyone from dying in a war.'

And while Shepard certainly stepped up space-Jesus vibes in ME2, it was certainly true in ME1 and in Arrival that Shepard's best didn't mean perfect.

Right. So if you don't want to be perfect, don't be perfect. I admit it's something of a sacrifice, but you seem to be losing less than we do if you had it all your way.

Or, alternatively:

If you play it my way, Xilizhra, you continue to play a franchise in which unavoidable costs is a part of life for Commander Shepard, but you do not have to be stupid, as established in Virmire and Arrival.

If people like me have to play it your way, not only do we have to be stupid, we have to undergo a genre shift as well to a new type of franchise which is no longer the overcoming-losses epic it claims, promises, and has been for most of its experience bar the suicide mission itself (which we can all agree was badly handled in treatment, characterization, and execution).

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 octobre 2011 - 09:45 .

[Xilizhra]

Xilizhra, why did you choose Samara, Morinth, or Jack as your biotic specialist?

They're the super-biotics, and everyone else is only a competent biotic. But before you go on, I'm not necessarily endorsing ME2; I'd prefer to just have everyone survive the mission regardless and for them to drop the "suicide" tag, because it was always sort of stupid.

That's the problem: either I'm an exceptional Commander and no one dies, which makes for a weaker story. Or I'm a not exceptional Commander and there are party member deaths, which weakens my Shepard's characterization. I want to be exceptional and have people die along the way for other reasons which aren't contingent upon a weaker protagonist.

You're still exceptional, just not exceptional to the point of being unrealistic by your own standards.

[Il Divo]

Xilizhra wrote...


You're still exceptional, just not exceptional to the point of being unrealistic by your own standards.

I personally wouldn't consider my Commander Shepard who couldn't figure out to buy extra plating, shields, or a thanix cannon for his ship to be exceptional.

[jeweledleah]

Il Divo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

All right, but isn't your argument that no one is so competent, realistically, as to be able to keep everyone from dying?

My argument is that even the best, most competent, commanders lose people. Losing Garrus because there's nothing I can do to save him is very different than losing Garrus because I, as his commanding officer, made a very bad call. 

The first is an issue of helplessness; I'm responsible for Garrus only in so far as I'm his Commander, but something happened which I cannot prevent. Ex: Virmire. I'm not fast enough to get to both Kaidan and Ashley. The second is an issue of the player/character making a mistake, when a scenario existed for a good outcome. Ex: Making Miranda the biotic expert when she wasn't the best choice.

I metagame like crazy, but I also understand the difference between role playing andtrying to metagame the "perfect" playthrough.  Miranda is a biotic.  geneticaly engineered one no less.  shes also a scientist.  honestly-fromin game perspective, she can be seen as the more likely prospect then Jack, since despite Jack's strength, she's chaotic and uncontrolled.  and maybe you bring Samara with you just in case, for backup. from in game perspective, that makes perfect sence.  and the way the swarm thing is done is that the squadmate stays back instead of pulling up to safety.  so it wasn't Shepard making the bad call - it was whichever squadmate disobeyed orders and didn't pull back when Shepard told them to.

Vent tech. Legion is unloyal, becasue you sided with Tali in their conflict.  he was after all stealing information from her.  however. legion is Geth.  arguably the fastest hacker on your team.  it makes sence to send him into the vents and he performs admirably.. except just as the doors arelocking, he gets caught by that last rocket.  Shepard didn't shoot that rocket.  Shepard picked the right specialist for the job.

any unloyal squadmate sent as escort.  you send them away preciely becasue youmay think they are distracted and its a perfect opportunity to send them away from the heat, all the while giving them something to do. 

holding the line.  you know you are going into the heart of the base.  you already faced some tough oposition.  the worst may yet to come.  you take your strongest fighters with you, becasue you may need them.  Mordin dies holding the line.

"insert squadmate here" is unloyal.  you take them with you to the final stretch, hoping to keep an eye on them, keep their mind of distractions, and maybe becasue despite their lack of loyalty - they are damn good fighters and you need their skills.  they get crushed by a falling debree.  you couldn't have stopped that from happening becasue hey - uncontious yourself.  you did catch them from falling though.

I could keep going.

metagaming might affect role playing but don't confuse one for the other.  and you can lose people in suicide mission while still role playing a caring, competent Shepard.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 20 octobre 2011 - 09:49 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Xilizhra, why did you choose Samara, Morinth, or Jack as your biotic specialist?

They're the super-biotics, and everyone else is only a competent biotic.

So why should my Shepard have to choose a different decision in the name of realism, when making a different choice itself is unrealistic?

We might as well demand that, in order for a paragon playstyle, paragons have to do repeated Renegade actions of kicking puppies and murdering orphans. There is no logical reason why one would justify the other result. Simply doing the antithetical action undermines the premise that we can achieve that other way.

But before you go on, I'm not necessarily endorsing ME2; I'd prefer to just have everyone survive the mission regardless and for them to drop the "suicide" tag, because it was always sort of stupid.

We agree, actually. I'd rather have a 'final mission with no deaths' than the suicide mission as handled.

Of course, I'd rather have a real wringer of a suicide mission before either, but that's beside the point here.

You're still exceptional, just not exceptional to the point of being unrealistic by your own standards.

And you get a medal for participating, yes yes.

You're special! And you're special! And you're special for playing too!

Some people are just more special than others.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 octobre 2011 - 09:49 .

[Xilizhra]

So why should my Shepard have to choose a different decision in the name of realism, when making a different choice itself is unrealistic?

I was talking about ME3 the whole time, not ME2. One would hope that the decisions that lead to people dying in ME3 will be less obvious.

Of course, I'd rather have a real wringer of a suicide mission before either, but that's beside the point here.

I could at least accept that in ME3, but the middle of a trilogy strikes me as the worst place possible for it. In the first game, you can build up new people through the next two games, and in the third, everything's ending anyway, but in the second, you have very little time to build up replacements.

[Dean_the_Young]

jeweledleah wrote...

metagaming might affect role playing but don't confuse one for the other.  and you can lose people in suicide mission while still role playing a caring, competent Shepard.

This is a point, but only to a point. Games like Mass Effect, which emphasize variability and replayability, have to consider second playthroughs as well.

In some cases on the suicide mission, some choices are obvious and telegraphed more than others. The team leader position especially. But others are not: the point about Jack in the first place, after all, was the difference in capability of her biotics. The point about loyalty was as subtle as the anvil. In a lot of places, simply being genre-savvy, as opposed to metagaming, meant being able to read the narrative ques.

But Mass Effect isn't a game to be played once. It's a repeat-playing game so players can play different Sheps with different genders and different alignments to make different Big Decisions, and so delimmas need to be designed to consider that as well. And that means latent fore-knowledge when considering character deaths (or survival).

When survival is the stated goal (as it was in ME2), improvements in playing that improve the outcome of survival only emphasize that each death is a penalty, or a loss. When some sort of death can't be avoided entirely, it absolves the 'must play poorly afterwards after first time innocence' problem. In the Suicide Mission, survival is the goal and even gets an achievement, death is the penalty. On Virmire, the delimma is unavoidable and so no player has to deal with 'how do I avoid it' thinking... which actually helps avoid metagaming (because there is nothing in the setup to metagame).

Simply the latent knowledge of a future challenge colors expectations. This was one of the weaknesses of the ME2 P/R system for roleplayers, who knew about end-game loyalty conflicts on every playthrough afterwards. Hence the impetus to focus not on flexibility, but aligning to one faction bar.

Metaknowledge can't be erased from even good roleplayers.You have to design the system to consider replayers as well. Avoidable deaths by smart playing undermines this.

[Yezdigerd]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Actually, I don't like the suicide mission because it's so blatantly telegraphed in almost every respect but one (the team leader) that it's harder to screw up than not... and that the setting is a poor 'suicide mission' as well because itundermines its own attempts at drama and weight. That metagaming (or simply genre-savvy) is the difference between 'bad' and 'perfect' is a weakness of the design.

I agree that death checks should have been much harder even if you made all the right decisions. It would increase both replayabilty and tension. I disagree that you must be stupid to lose someone without metagaming. Most obviously it's quite a lot of carnage if you do the IFF when it becomes available, which is anything but stupid.

But what you can do to a individual process you can't do to an entire system of magnitudes greater scale. You aren't going to progress in a war if you demand perfection on every front... which, as a matter of course for all those involved, would get boring and mistakes from complacency would slip in. Not only would you have the chance to 'repeat', but eventually your enemies would as well and they'd get the same chance to 'repeat' as well. Gradually you'd just stall in time, as both sides learn to mix things up. Insurgents would learn to use RNG's that vary with the time loop (like, say, NATO signal routines) to determine their attacks.

No, we are talking about a situation like Mass effect. We are allowed to learn by our misstakes, the collectors are not. They are in the same place, with the same numbers, with the same strategy, every time, and everytime I do the suicide mission the squad will improve and learn counter whatever action that led to casualties at some point. “Oh I got shot in that corner at 15.32 last time lets try to stay behind that rubble over there this time, maybe thats better.” If you are allowed to apply the magic of reloading and metagaming, no casualties is quite a expected endresult and I cannot see how it invalidates in hindsight avoidable deaths of people running in the first time, like if it had been real life.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 20 octobre 2011 - 10:07 .

[sorentoft]

This is a point, but only to a point. Games like Mass Effect, which emphasize variability and replayability, have to consider second playthroughs as well.

For that reason alone forced deaths are a terrible idea from a game perspective. Some characters will go unused due them dying for certain later on in a second playthrough. It is just not good game design. As a story element it is debatable.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

So why should my Shepard have to choose a different decision in the name of realism, when making a different choice itself is unrealistic?

I was talking about ME3 the whole time, not ME2. One would hope that the decisions that lead to people dying in ME3 will be less obvious.

Treat it as a metaphor then.\\\\

I could at least accept that in ME3, but the middle of a trilogy strikes me as the worst place possible for it. In the first game, you can build up new people through the next two games, and in the third, everything's ending anyway, but in the second, you have very little time to build up replacements.

Since we neither need nor necessarily desire another cast of 12, we only need a baseline of companions for ME3. ME1 worked well enough with six companions, as opposed to 12. We already have 2, and frankly there's more than enough galaxy to explore with new companions (Batarians, Volus non-conventional, Terminus species, independent Turians, Council disidents, etc.).

With a full team comback never in the cards in the first place, or even desirable from a world-building POV, a new cast isn't bad in and of itself, even in an 'everyone survives.' Personally, I would have preferred no Garrus and Tali in ME2 as it was: Tali didn't have the rep back in ME1, and Garrus was largely wasted. They would have made stronger ME3 characters than they did in ME2, whether story (Tali) or teammate (Specter Garrus?).

And as much as I loath the execution of the SM, the concept is something I agree with. Once you have killable characters, however, they can never be too important as individuals later on. Garrus and Tali were doomed to a nonimportant role in ME3 the moment they returned to ME2, whether they survived or not. Killing a number of team members isn't going to be that different from keeping them all alive, since by design necessity any role they have in ME3 must be something that can be serviced by a stand-in, or negligable in absence. Once you've diminished the value of even a full load of survivors, required minimal losses loses its primary draw back (less content).

[Medhia Nox]

I think I have more of a problem with how death is represented - than "that" death is represented at all.

I hate monologues where the dying character gets to tell you "It's okay." or "It was good."

If we "really" want to represent how people die in war - then I want a torso blown off and the character just dead - and Shepard has to complete the mission without some melodramatic reaction scene.

Just kill the character and move on - let Shepard react "later" - or better yet, keep the pace so intense that he/she can't react at all (not possible in a space exploration epic).

Having "dark gritty character deaths" - but also "melodramatic monologues" that give "depth" to the death - is cheating.  It is the most selfish version of wanting ones cake and wanting to eat it too.

A death doesn't come with a slow cam and deep pounding music.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 20 octobre 2011 - 10:09 .

[Xilizhra]

And as much as I loath the execution of the SM, the concept is something I agree with. Once you have killable characters, however, they can never be too important as individuals later on. Garrus and Tali were doomed to a nonimportant role in ME3 the moment they returned to ME2, whether they survived or not. Killing a number of team members isn't going to be that different from keeping them all alive, since by design necessity any role they have in ME3 must be something that can be serviced by a stand-in, or negligable in absence. Once you've diminished the value of even a full load of survivors, required minimal losses loses its primary draw back (less content).

Personally, I do hope that Garrus and Tali are important squadmates in ME3, and those who had them die will simply be SOL for their parts.

[Volus Warlord]

Xilizhra wrote...
Personally, I do hope that Garrus and Tali are important squadmates in ME3, and those who had them die will simply be SOL for their parts.

I thought the "SOL" thing was something we were trying to avoid.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yezdigerd wrote...

I agree that death checks should have been much harder even if you made all the right decisions. It would increase both replayabilty and tension. I disagree that you must be stupid to lose someone without metagaming. Most obviously it's quite a lot of carnage if you do the IFF when it becomes available, which is anything but stupid.

Yes, but that also becomes a matter of balancing lives, which favors my position.

After you did learn how it worked, how often did you take the IFF before you were 'ready'? 

The IFF is a good example of a pressure mechanic that only works without metaknowledge.

(Personally, I would have made a story mission that served as a proto-suicide mission: specialists, team leader, specialists... but NOT all of the team. This would be that mission Shepard takes the Kodiak shuttle for. Anyone who isn't selected in advance is left on the Normandy when the Collectors attack, and get abducted as well. They, not Kelly, are the first to die for dealys... and might die regardless if unloyal.)

No, we are talking about a situation like Mass effect. We are allowed to learn by our misstakes, the collectors are not. They are in the same place, with the same numbers, with the same strategy, every time, and everytime I do the suicide mission the squad will improve and learn counter whatever action that led to casualties at some point. “Oh I got shot in that corner at 15.32 last time lets try to stay behind that rubble over there this time, maybe thats better.” If you are allowed to apply the magic of reloading and metagaming, no casualties is quite a expected endresult and I cannot see how it invalidates in hindsight avoidable deaths of people running in the first time, like if it had been real life.

I think we're taking your analogy in different directions here. Do you want to continue, or drop this thread of argument without continuing it? Your choice, and I'll let you have the last word if you'd like.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 octobre 2011 - 10:19 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Personally, I do hope that Garrus and Tali are important squadmates in ME3, and those who had them die will simply be SOL for their parts.

Garrus could be a squadmate, but he's thrown away his claims to being important once he dropped his ME1 development and became Shepard's attack dog.

Tali's importance in ME2 was tied to her loyalty conflict with Legion (more for the effect it could have on Legion), and if the Quarians think of her as Admiral behavior (if you persuaded her to innocence). Since the later isn't even part of the Big Decision that nominally makes her quest, and the former is decided before the loyalty mission, she won't amount to much.

[Dean_the_Young]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I think I have more of a problem with how death is represented - than "that" death is represented at all.

I hate monologues where the dying character gets to tell you "It's okay." or "It was good."

If we "really" want to represent how people die in war - then I want a torso blown off and the character just dead - and Shepard has to complete the mission without some melodramatic reaction scene.

Just kill the character and move on - let Shepard react "later" - or better yet, keep the pace so intense that he/she can't react at all (not possible in a space exploration epic).

Having "dark gritty character deaths" - but also "melodramatic monologues" that give "depth" to the death - is cheating.  It is the most selfish version of wanting ones cake and wanting to eat it too.

A death doesn't come with a slow cam and deep pounding music.

Agree 1, Agree 2, Agree 3, Agree 4, Agree 5, and Agree 6.

That's, what, 7 more seals till the apocolypse?

A post-mission reflection would be welcome, especially if the reflection allows Shepard to be something other than grief-consumed. Death with monologue has never been my cup of tea, though it should be a good ending to the character (which is not to say 'character should be show X death flags beforehand).

[Dean_the_Young]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And as much as I loath the execution of the SM, the concept is something I agree with. Once you have killable characters, however, they can never be too important as individuals later on. Garrus and Tali were doomed to a nonimportant role in ME3 the moment they returned to ME2, whether they survived or not. Killing a number of team members isn't going to be that different from keeping them all alive, since by design necessity any role they have in ME3 must be something that can be serviced by a stand-in, or negligable in absence. Once you've diminished the value of even a full load of survivors, required minimal losses loses its primary draw back (less content).

Personally, I do hope that Garrus and Tali are important squadmates in ME3, and those who had them die will simply be SOL for their parts.

I agree. If you couldn't handle the suicide mission properly, then you should have to deal with the consequences. Characters shouldn't get sidelined because some other idiot killed them off (unfortunately this is what happened to Wrex).

What in Wrex's ME1 story made you think he wanted to be side-kick to Shepard forever?

Wrex and Wreave probably have the most natural development from ME1 to ME2 of all the cast bar, possibly, the VS and Joker.

[Medhia Nox]

@Cthulhu42: I disagree about Wrex. I think he's much better in his role on Tuchanka. It's a natural evolution of the character.