4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

The "other" problem many posters in this thread have - is the inability to accept Bioware's final decision on something.

Not only do you want punishments for the "other" decision (primarily - against Paragons) - but you want your choices (primarily Renegade) rewarded because in a your myopic little world - they're the only ones that make sense.

You want to play a Shepard that has to face "tough choices" - then maybe the gaming community should be ready to shut their mouths and let developers decide the outcomes of the provided decisions without thousands of gamers crying about "fairness" and "stupid, illogical, selfish" or whatever other name calling is leveled when a choice doesn't go your way.

There's more to "realistic" than just people dying - not always getting your way is realistic too.

If Bioware decides the Collector Base is a danger - it's not "illogical and stupid" - it was a fact, even if all the clues were not provided (and, after all - isn't that what you're asking for? Sometimes you don't have all the answers before making a decision.)

Same if they decide the Rachni were a red-herring threat that will endanger Shepard's chances of success.

Or any number of combinations of reward/punishment possibilities.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jeweledleah wrote...
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.

Except there aren't any consequences to Balak. You hard on the idea of getting a consequence somewhere in the future. Maybe.
As of right now, there aren't any.


Also, your fallacy about multiple endings is laughable. Since when does "unavoidable death of a squad member or two" equal "no multiple endings"?
By what insane logic?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The "other" problem many posters in this thread have - is the inability to accept Bioware's final decision on something.

Ironicly, Bio stated ME3 is the darket chapter yet, with many hard choices.

So who here isn't accepting their final decision?

Not only do you want punishments for the "other" decision (primarily - against Paragons) - but you want your choices (primarily Renegade) rewarded because in a your myopic little world - they're the only ones that make sense.

Punish? If "not getting everything I want" is punishment for you....then you must get "punished"  a lot over your entire life.
And since when does this have anything to do with Paragon/Renegade? Your insistance that is has tells more about you then abotu the people your targeting wit hyour post.

You want to play a Shepard that has to face "tough choices" - then maybe the gaming community should be ready to shut their mouths and let developers decide the outcomes of the provided decisions without thousands of gamers crying about "fairness" and "stupid, illogical, selfish" or whatever other name calling is leveled when a choice doesn't go your way.

Then why don't you?

There's more to "realistic" than just people dying - not always getting your way is realistic too.

Delicious irony.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 21 octobre 2011 - 12:23 .

[jeweledleah]

@ Medhia - hope springs eternal. as long as the game is not out, there's still sense of being able to influence things, to maybe change them for the better.

reality is - bioware by their own admission has finalized most if not all points of the story and majority of the dialog and is currently in a state of polishing things up. what we're doing here is basically having speculative arguments. for what purpose? to pass the time, I suppose.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

I'm glad the guy who wrote Renegade Reinterpretations doesn't work for BioWare.

I have a short list of people I'm so very glad do not work for Bioware. 

And thankfully, I'm on it!

(Could I use that as a reference in a few years? 'KC did not want me' would be a good recommendation.)

Actually, you aren't on that list.   You're a fairly reasonable and rational person as far as I can tell, even if we often disagree. 

It's short and limited to people like That Guy Who Does the Pathetic Criticism Videos, Moisturizure ASDIC, and the like. 

[Estelindis]

jeweledleah wrote...

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.  

Actually, I agree with you here.  I think that BDtS gives us one of the best paragon/renegade decisions of the whole franchise.  Possibly the very best.  Each choice has an advantages and a disadvantage.  But wasn't that exactly the sort of thing that Laecraft commended?  Benefit should be opposed to benefit, drawback to drawback.

[Killjoy Cutter]

So what some people want is to do everything as well as possible, make all the right choices, and... have one or more die anyway?   You want them to die so that you can feel like it was a "good" story, but you want Bioware to do the killing for you? 

[Estelindis]

Killjoy, who are you addressing?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So what some people want is to do everything as well as possible, make all the right choices, and... have one or more die anyway?   You want them to die so that you can feel like it was a "good" story, but you want Bioware to do the killing for you? 

While a writer shouldn't kill off character willy-nilly, he also shouldn't be afraid to off them.

War kills.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 21 octobre 2011 - 04:32 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Estelindis wrote...

Killjoy, who are you addressing?

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you. 

[Estelindis]

Thanks for clarifying! I didn't think you were speaking to me, but just wanted to make sure. :-)

Re. killing characters, it's important to be able to do it, but too many can weary a reader. I've kinda started to feel that way about GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire...

[Killjoy Cutter]

If it turns out that someone has to die, I'll just end up picking a character I don't care for and dumping them in that circumstance.

If it turns out that someone I give a damn about actually has to die, I just won't bother buying the game, because it won't be what I want in a game.

I don't play games to experience emotional catharsis or have a literary experience or some such crap.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Estelindis wrote...

Thanks for clarifying! I didn't think you were speaking to me, but just wanted to make sure. :-)

Re. killing characters, it's important to be able to do it, but too many can weary a reader. I've kinda started to feel that way about GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire...

A few of my friends rave about that series and keep telling me I need to read it... but reviews and notes make it pretty clear that it's largely just about which bastard will win out over which other bastards. 

[Estelindis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

A few of my friends rave about that series and keep telling me I need to read it... but reviews and notes make it pretty clear that it's largely just about which bastard will win out over which other bastards. 

Wait until it's finished before reading.  Right now, a lot of things do look fairly pessimistic, and I'd be reluctant to endorse it at this nadir of the emotional arc.

That's the thing.  The whole debate reminds me, frankly, of the end of DA:O.  I was so sad and angry at the end of my first playthrough.  Really, devastated.  And still, it's not possible for me to take my City Elf who loved Alistair through the game and get a totally happy ending, no matter what choice I make.  While I acknowledge that, in many ways, the strong emotions evoked in me by that experience are a testament to the writing of Bioware, in other ways I really would have just liked a happy ending.  Sometimes it's nice to be the hero and win the day.  Not at no cost whatsoever, as that would cheapen it...  But not at a cost that leaves your character as a shell of a person afterwards, wondering if she still has a reason to live.  There has to be some kind of balance between gritty realism and the satisfaction of escapism.  On the whole, I've liked the fact that the Mass Effect franchise has tended to appeal to our desire to be the victorious hero.  There's a time and a place for harrowing Dragon Age drama, but that's not the only kind of emotional experience that's worthwhile.

[Someone With Mass]

When a developed character that I like dies, I don't think the following emotions I get are in the fiction's favor (i.e: pissed off), because I mostly feel like the character was wasted potential. To become something more than drama bait. That's what I want to avoid in ME3.

If some people wants to see characters die, that's fine, but I don't think the integrity and flow of all the other players' playthroughs should be compromised because of it.

[Estelindis]

Honestly, I think people who "want character death" really want scenes with emotional impact and a realistic portrayal of an apocalyptic galactic war. If the death of a particular beloved character (please not Shep's LI, for heaven's sake, my poor heart meeps!) can be used to achieve these things, all well and good. If they can be achieved without that, it's also good. Deaths should be used to good effect, not cheaply.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So what some people want is to do everything as well as possible, make all the right choices, and... have one or more die anyway?   You want them to die so that you can feel like it was a "good" story, but you want Bioware to do the killing for you? 

While a writer should kill off character willy-nilly, he also shouldn't be afraid to off them.

War kills.

If that's where the story takes things.  Not because it's Time For A Character To Die To Make A Point, per The Accepted Postmodernist Literary Fiction Rules for Wriring.

[Cobra's_back]

I like an optional happy ending. Make it difficult but possible. There are and have been real missions where a hero made it against incredible odds. I would also like a mission where Shepard makes the sacrifice and the others live. History has had some of the strangest heroes. It is not easy for Bio Ware to show every aspect of being a hero. Does anyone remember Desmond Thomas Doss? I believe but not certain, Desmond Doss was the only man to win the Congressional Medal of Honor while serving under conscientious objector status.

Doss asked for non-combatant status when he was drafted in 1942, but he was told that he could only serve as a C.O. Doss trained as a military medic and proved himself a selfless hero during the fierce battle for Okinawa.

In the beginning, his convictions marked him as an immediate misfit in boot camp. He was ostracized by the officers and men in his unit. Trained as a medic and assigned to the 77th Infantry Division. Sent to the Pacific in 1944, Desmond Doss and his comrades battled on the island of Guam. Desmond became respected by the men in his unit when he treated the wounded in the heat of battle. Despite the enemy tactic of targeting medics, he repeatedly crawled forward through heavy enemy fire to care for his comrades. After two weeks of jungle fighting, Guam was secured and Desmond Doss was awarded the Bonze Star.

On May 5th, Desmond Doss’ unit was ordered to attack a steep cliff four hundred feet high; called the Maeda Escarpment. Under a barrage of artillery, mortar and machine gun fire, the enemy counterattacked. Dozens of American soldiers fell dead or wounded. The able-bodied survivors of that terrible onslaught retreated. Left at the top of the cliff were scores of wounded, the advancing Japanese and Desmond Doss. Under constant fire, often from just yards away, he tended the wounded, then dragged them, one by one, to the edge of the escarpment and lowered them to safety, using an improvised sling. By nightfall, he had rescued many badly injured GI’s. When told of Desmond Doss’ accomplishment, the commanding general of the 77th Division ordered preparation of the paperwork necessary to support a Medal of Honor recommendation. The Army estimated that the pacifist who had almost been declared unfit for military service had saved 100 lives. Some sources said he saved 75.

The point is that from time to time something special happens. This guy saved more people than anyone thought possible and lived. It is okay to see the world as a cruel place, but there are a few that will just not acquiesce to its cruelness. They make history. I would say because of this guy and others like him, some “not all” like to see a “Yes I can” happen. After all, Doss a Corporal and medic wasn’t even a fighter or master strategist. He was just a fearless, determined and selfless hero. What can happen if you have a master strategist, fighters and medics with this guy’s selfless determination? Yes, odds are greater than 1 in 1,000,000, but this is a game designed to entertain. This is just my opinion. You don’t have to share it.

[wildannie]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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?

Personally I'm okay with some squad deaths in ME3 so long as *who* dies is not set in stone but I'm very happy for there to be the opportunity to save everyone, because that's going to make some people enjoy the game more.
What I think is selfish is your uncompromising position that would take away the option of the ending some players want so that you could achieve the ending that *you* want in the way that *you* want it.  Let's face it, there are going to be plenty of scenarios where it will be possible to lose a squadmates but that's not enough for you, you would make everyone share in your idea of what is good... Selfish?  yes I think so.

[BatmanPWNS]

I like this thread more than the multiplayer threads.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If it turns out that someone has to die, I'll just end up picking a character I don't care for and dumping them in that circumstance.

If it turns out that someone I give a damn about actually has to die, I just won't bother buying the game, because it won't be what I want in a game.

I don't play games to experience emotional catharsis or have a literary experience or some such crap.

If you willing to throw a game away just because a character dies, then I can't help you.
I'm sorry, that's a utterly idiotic positon. Are you so incapable of enjoing anything that deviates even a bit from your preferences?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So what some people want is to do everything as well as possible, make all the right choices, and... have one or more die anyway?   You want them to die so that you can feel like it was a "good" story, but you want Bioware to do the killing for you? 

While a writer should kill off character willy-nilly, he also shouldn't be afraid to off them.

War kills.

If that's where the story takes things.  Not because it's Time For A Character To Die To Make A Point, per The Accepted Postmodernist Literary Fiction Rules for Wriring.

You can rant against Literary theory all you want. It changes nothing.
You oppinion on it's validity is irrelevant.
Thousands of writers over thousands of years of writing know better than you ever will.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

I like an optional happy ending. Make it difficult but possible. There are and have been real missions where a hero made it against incredible odds. I would also like a mission where Shepard makes the sacrifice and the others live. History has had some of the strangest heroes. It is not easy for Bio Ware to show every aspect of being a hero. Does anyone remember Desmond Thomas Doss? I believe but not certain, Desmond Doss was the only man to win the Congressional Medal of Honor while serving under conscientious objector status.
*SNIP*

Yes, that was ONE man. Not an entire team.  There are single missions where people survive against incredible odds. But not an entire series of such missions in which no one dies.

[Medhia Nox]

@Lotion Soronnar: Your two examples of irony - are not, in fact, ironic. Also, please - if you're going to be belligerent - at least speak properly.

And I have no problem with character deaths - I have no connection with the NPCs created by Bioware, so NPC deaths aren't very relevant to me. I would sacrifice everyone on the Normandy without making a single "hard" choice. I have very little empathy for what I perceive to be poorly fleshed out sycophants (the NPCs)

But if you want to act like you're hardened - then be willing to accept the choices Bioware makes with the game without crying like a petulant child about "fairness". It's amazing how people so well versed in "real tough life" - cry so much for fairness.

[Lotion Soronarr]

wildannie wrote...
What I think is selfish is your uncompromising position that would take away the option of the ending some players want so that you could achieve the ending that *you* want in the way that *you* want it.  Let's face it, there are going to be plenty of scenarios where it will be possible to lose a squadmates but that's not enough for you, you would make everyone share in your idea of what is good... Selfish?  yes I think so.

You're doing the exact same thing, only you don't even bother to relise it.