4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Computer_God91]

139 pages and I bet everyone has had the same point of view since the first 10. The last 129 is everyone repeating themselves in several different ways. BSN, BSN never changes...

[sorentoft]

This is the Internet. What did you expect? Logic? Agreement? *smug laugh* Oh you so silly.

[wildannie]

jeweledleah wrote...

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.

nicely put 

[Almostfaceman]

Computer_God91 wrote...

139 pages and I bet everyone has had the same point of view since the first 10. The last 129 is everyone repeating themselves in several different ways. BSN, BSN never changes...

Yup.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

jeweledleah wrote...

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.

Murderer!

[Medhia Nox]

@Computer_God91: True - we should all move over to the NEW asari reproduction thread... cause "thinking" is what's going on over there!

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

So I want to RP a smart, caring Shepard who tries to save everyone he can....and yet I can't because he has to deliberately sabotage himself?

What qualifies as deliberate sabotage, though? Would you say that choosing Samara or Zaeed as a fireteam leader qualifies as sabotaging your mission?

If my Shep knows or thinks they are not best for the job? Yes.

[Lotion Soronarr]

wildannie wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

So I want to RP a smart, caring Shepard who tries to save everyone he can....and yet I can't because he has to deliberately sabotage himself?

I think this is the crux of your selfish argument Soronar,  you don't want your caring smart shepard to have to make a wrong choice.  You have no idea what these kind of choices might be, there doesn't have to be a stupid one.

There's nothing selfish about my argument . Nothing more selfish than your own at least.

Why should I force Shep to make choice he shouldn't (according to the kind of person I'm roleplaying him as)?

You are asking me why don't I roleplay him as less skilled/smart/caring? Why should I?
Why don't you roleplay yours as someone that doesn't care about deaht of X, so it doesn't affect him/you?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So I want to RP a smart, caring Shepard who tries to save everyone he can....and yet I can't because he has to deliberately sabotage himself?

And that's exactly the problem. The optional squad deaths doesn't allow this. If someone dies, it's because my Shepard didn't accurately assess the situation, not because the death was out of his hands.

So basically, you want nothing wrong to be your own doing? You want to have completely blameless tragedy? Is that really superior?

Obvious wrong? Nope. That is just stupidity. If it's obvious you'll loose X for doing Y, then doing Y is stupid.

Aslo, I find it funny you accuse me of wanting perfection, when you're the one who wants to save everyone.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That specific mision? None. How many Spec Ops team got trough an entire war campaign without casualties? None.

Oh, let's not forget that that same team died in a helicopter accident later. Not even in battle.

And le'ts also not forget that we're talking about soldiers with the best equipment and intel available going against a few guys with AK-47... not machine-cthulus and their army of advanced combat drones and brainwashed slaves.

Actually, 'Seal Team 6' isn't just a unit of like 20 guys. Any Seal that operates in that theatre is considered to be on 'Seal Team 6' and there are, in fact, at least over a hundred of them. I didn't follow up with that story but at the time they weren't telling whether anyone that actually went on that mission was involved in that crash. EDIT: Went snooping around and it turns out absolutely none of the dead were on the bin Laden team.

They were a different team, but it doesn't change the point at all. Commandos - the best of the best - die. Sometimes in banal situation. Sometimes in battle. No one is immunte to death.
Regardless how "badass" one is. And being on the front line, constantly in big danger, leads to death.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That specific mision? None. How many Spec Ops team got trough an entire war campaign without casualties? None.

Oh, let's not forget that that same team died in a helicopter accident later. Not even in battle.

And le'ts also not forget that we're talking about soldiers with the best equipment and intel available going against a few guys with AK-47... not machine-cthulus and their army of advanced combat drones and brainwashed slaves.

Actually, 'Seal Team 6' isn't just a unit of like 20 guys. Any Seal that operates in that theatre is considered to be on 'Seal Team 6' and there are, in fact, at least over a hundred of them. I didn't follow up with that story but at the time they weren't telling whether anyone that actually went on that mission was involved in that crash. EDIT: Went snooping around and it turns out absolutely none of the dead were on the bin Laden team.

They were a different team, but it doesn't change the point at all. Commandos - the best of the best - die. Sometimes in banal situation. Sometimes in battle. No one is immunte to death.
Regardless how "badass" one is. And being on the front line, constantly in big danger, leads to death.

Your argument is that because people die in war, someone on the team has to die?

That's just silly. Another thing that makes it funny is anything else is a sunshine and blah ablah blah type of game even if the squad is surrounded by the billions of dead innocents in their wake.


Do you ever get tired of being an unrelenting sycophant? Aren't you afraid your head will become so massive that it collapses on itself?

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 21 octobre 2011 - 07:24 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

They were a different team, but it doesn't change the point at all. Commandos - the best of the best - die. Sometimes in banal situation. Sometimes in battle. No one is immunte to death.
Regardless how "badass" one is. And being on the front line, constantly in big danger, leads to death.

Your argument is that because people die in war, someone on the team has to die?

That's just silly. Another thing that makes it funny is anything else is a sunshine and blah ablah blah type of game even if the squad is surrounded by the billions of dead innocents in their wake.


Do you ever get tired of being an unrelenting sycophant? Aren't you afraid your head will become so massive that it collapses on itself?

No, my argument is that no single front-line squad has ever gotten out the war without casualties (when facing far, FAR less devastating opposition than the reapers). Never. If you can find one documented instance of it, prove me wrong. But you wont.

Tell you what - I'll stop calling you wanting a "care bare ending" if you stop with the "grimdark and misery" BS.


Also, I have no idea what a "sycophant" is. Maybe you were thinking sociopath. I n that case you only have to look in the mirror.

[Estelindis]

Assuming that you weren't being sarcastic about not knowing what it means, "sycophant" is a more elegant word for kiss-arse. Just FYI.

[Robuthad]

Nobody is ever going to change anyone's mind in any of the many pages of this thread. Constantly re-issuing their point with ever more fanciful wordings than their last argument. Ahh that's the BSN tho.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Estelindis wrote...

Assuming that you weren't being sarcastic about not knowing what it means, "sycophant" is a more elegant word for kiss-arse. Just FYI.

He is a shameless self promoter of his oppinion, I think an analogy would be helpful.


5% of the universe is made of matter, 20% is made of dark matter, and the other 75% is made of lotion's ego.

His opinion is always right because he says it is, maybe not the best choice of word I guess...

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 21 octobre 2011 - 08:39 .

[Athayniel]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.'

If you want the option to delay the choice on the Queen, then you could rewrite the details of Noveria so that you can go back and save her before setting off the pulse, then.  Not a big deal, and entirely beside the point.  Could always include the option to leave the rogue Rachni loose and hunting the staff at Peak 15, I guess.  

I just want to point out that the neutron pulse is limited to just the Hot Labs at the bottom of the glacier. It has no effect beyond that or Shepard and Co couldn't have gotten away from it with just an elevator ride. You can quite happily set it off before going to Benezia's lab and if you do so you actually have to fight your way through Captain Ventralis and his security team and when you get back to the main labs everyone is gone, most likely killed except for Han Olar whom you can save from a squad of asari commandoes.

Modifié par Athayniel, 21 octobre 2011 - 10:22 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

Assuming that you weren't being sarcastic about not knowing what it means, "sycophant" is a more elegant word for kiss-arse. Just FYI.

He is a shameless self promoter of his oppinion, I think an analogy would be helpful.


5% of the universe is made of matter, 20% is made of dark matter, and the other 75% is made of lotion's ego.

His opinion is always right because he says it is, maybe not the best choice of word I guess...

Again H_T? Really?
You keep reapeting yourself and it's damn boring. Where's your creativity? If you want to insult me, at least try to be more original.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Also, I have no idea what a "sycophant" is. Maybe you were thinking sociopath. I n that case you only have to look in the mirror.

A sycophant is someone who mindlessly agrees with and parrots the opinions of someone they consider to be their leader or moral superior. Which I don't think you are at all.

Your wrongness is entirely your own.

[Lotion Soronarr]

You my dear Athayniel, are a wrongularity from which no right can escape.

[Estelindis]

Athayniel wrote...

A sycophant is someone who mindlessly agrees with and parrots the opinions of someone they consider to be their leader or moral superior. Which I don't think you are at all.

Yes, I don't think it was a fair or accurate insult at all.

Anyway, in my opinion, the best and most decisive post of this whole thread came from Laecraft on page 111. Once that was made, I think everything that followed was just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But the community exists so that we can share our views rather than bludgeon each other into silence, so, by all means, let the discussion continue.  I'd prefer if it happened without people insulting each other, but we don't always get what we want.

Modifié par Estelindis, 21 octobre 2011 - 10:58 .

[Ultai]

Thank you for linking that, somehow I missed it. Found myself nodding in agreement to it.

[Estelindis]

You're welcome. :-)

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You my dear Athayniel, are a wrongularity from which no right can escape.

What? No Godfather quote at the end?

"Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in!"

[jeweledleah]

Estelindis wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

A sycophant is someone who mindlessly agrees with and parrots the opinions of someone they consider to be their leader or moral superior. Which I don't think you are at all.

Yes, I don't think it was a fair or accurate insult at all.

Anyway, in my opinion, the best and most decisive post of this whole thread came from Laecraft on page 111. Once that was made, I think everything that followed was just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But the community exists so that we can share our views rather than bludgeon each other into silence, so, by all means, let the discussion continue.  I'd prefer if it happened without people insulting each other, but we don't always get what we want.

I actualy disagree with that post a great deal.  its too maximalist and very deliberately phrased to imply that anything other then what he's proposing is not a good story.  reminded me of infamous Dr. Phil phrase: "do you want to be right?  or do you want to be happy?"

I'd like to be both, thank you very much and yes, it is perfectly possible, just takes  a bit more effort to accomplish.

the major issue with that post is that for some reason he refuses to concider alternatives, claiming that saving the squadmates will always be seen as the "best" choice, thus invalidating all other choices.  except bioware has already shown that yes, they are capable of giving us interesting choices that have no "best" decision where at least one of the choices is "save the people right now"  choice.  like Balak.  and before the cries of "but there are no consequences!"  may I remind you that we have yet to play ME3 so we don't know if there aren't any conseuquences, followed by that "you should have killed me when you had a chance"  scene that developers have been talking about?

its funny that in a game that's supposed to have multiple ending, it still comes down to the only possible ending to some people, dismissing any other option.