4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@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.

Fairness? I don't recall even using the word at all.

I have no idea what you're on about. You must be confusing me with someone.

[wildannie]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

nope, I'm happy for you to be able to have squad deaths and for others to be able to save them,  *you* are not happy to let others save them because it compromises the way that *you* want to achieve your 'realistic' story.  There is no compromise in your stance whatsoever.

[Soul Cool]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@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.

Yes, they are.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

Delicious irony.

That one especially.

Medhia Nox wrote...
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)

Hey, you sound just like me. Welcome to the "We Don't Care" club.

Modifié par Soul Cool, 21 octobre 2011 - 04:44 .

[Soul Cool]

wildannie wrote...
nnope, I'm happy for you to be able to have squad deaths and for others to be able to save them,  *you* are not happy to let others save them because it compromises the way that *you* want to achieve your 'realistic' story.  There is no compromise in your stance whatsoever.

Binary extremism does not allow for compromise. You want no mandatory character deaths, period. He wants mandatory character deaths, period. There can be no co-existance between either of your wants.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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?

Why should I spend my money on something that will just frustrate me? 

Games are my distraction, not my source of "character building".  (No pun intended.)

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 21 octobre 2011 - 04:50 .

[Someone With Mass]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Why should I spend my money on something that will just frustrate me? 

I dunno, but some people like doing that.

[wildannie]

Soul Cool wrote...

wildannie wrote...
nnope, I'm happy for you to be able to have squad deaths and for others to be able to save them,  *you* are not happy to let others save them because it compromises the way that *you* want to achieve your 'realistic' story.  There is no compromise in your stance whatsoever.

Binary extremism does not allow for compromise. You want no mandatory character deaths, period. He wants mandatory character deaths, period. There can be no co-existance between either of your wants.

I don't really mind if there are mandatory squad deaths so long as it's not set in stone who dies, it should be based on who is with you on missions etc.  I'm just happy for everyone to be able to get the ending they desire but draw the line when getting that ending isn't enough and they need to get it in a specific way that denies others their ending.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Actually, thousands of writers over thousands of years know better than your ivory tower postmodernist wankers ever will. 

Most writers just write.  When it comes to writing, those who can, do. 

Those who can't, ****** about it and come up with things like literary theory so they can enshrine their own preferences as supposedly universal standards. 

[Soul Cool]

wildannie wrote...
I don't really mind if there are mandatory squad deaths so long as it's not set in stone who dies, it should be based on who is with you on missions etc.

I agree. Death isn't picky.

wildannie wrote...
 I'm just happy for everyone to be able to get the ending they desire but draw the line when getting that ending isn't enough and they need to get it in a specific way that denies others their ending.

I don't know of anyone that has argued for specific character death, but I understand your point.

[Killjoy Cutter]

wildannie wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

nope, I'm happy for you to be able to have squad deaths and for others to be able to save them,  *you* are not happy to let others save them because it compromises the way that *you* want to achieve your 'realistic' story.  There is no compromise in your stance whatsoever.

This.

Of course, the problem is that they don't want it to be a preference or a choice. 

They want is for Shep to do everything possible and everything right, and still lose at least one squadmate on every playthrough because "that's just what happens".   As soon as it's at all possible to save all the squadmates, those who want "realistic" death are torn between the "good" story they want and the knowledge that they could have saved everyone. 


EDIT: typo

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 21 octobre 2011 - 05:20 .

[jeweledleah]

Estelindis wrote...

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.

no, he didn't. he was claiming that without mandatory squadmate death it was impossible to achieve something of bring down the sky's level.  that it woudln't be a good story if it was possible to save every squadmate becasue in his eyes, any drawback from saving the squadmate is completely nulified, esecialy if its something that might happen in a future rather then immediately (like Balak potentialy coming back and doing something terrible to another human colony later),unless its something ridiculous like traing destruction of a planet for a life of one squadmate.

that's the biggest problem with those who advocate mandatory deaths.  they cannot see any other way but their own.  for them - emotional impact in a way of sadness is not only required, it must come specificaly from a squadmate death.  and for them there's no such thing as several equaly valid choices.  collector base, geth decisions, Balak, etc?  in their eyes, there's always the "correct" choice and existance of the so-called "correct choice" invalidates all others in their eyes.  they refuse to listen to any and all reasoning backing up any other option, becasue they already decided on what they percieve as best.  and its sad really, but what are you going to do...

I'm especialy amused by assertions that we don't know what we need or want, we don't know what kind of story we would enjoy just because we're looking for a possibilty of a less bloody ending for our squad. being belittled by some self important windbag on the internet is cute.

[Killjoy Cutter]

jeweledleah wrote...

I'm especialy amused by assertions that we don't know what we need or want, we don't know what kind of story we would enjoy just because we're looking for a possibilty of a less bloody ending for our squad. being belittled by some self important windbag on the internet is cute.

Laughing at them is probably the healthiest response, yes.  I should try to go that way more often. 

[Labrev]

 Another reason why I like getting out of the SM with no causalties is because its one of few times I actually see Shepard living up to the reputation he has. Because he otherwise does tons of things that make me shake my head, especially for "best soldier in the galaxy" that at some point, I need to have him actually truly do something special for me to believe it.

[Estelindis]

jeweledleah wrote...

he was claiming that without mandatory squadmate death it was impossible to achieve something of bring down the sky's level.  

I more got the impression that Laecraft was in favour of genuine choice in general, but commented on squadmate death because that's what this thread is about.  The general principle that anyone, given the choice between good and bad, will always choose good, holds true in this area as in all others.   If one could get just as good a result while totally avoiding the death of beloved characters as one could while allowing them to die, then that's what most people would actually do, because anything else would be stupid and negligent.  That means it's not an actual choice.  Who wants to play a stupid, negligent Shepard?

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying Laecraft said, but I do agree that there are more ways to achieve dramatic, emotionally intense moments, and to convey the loss of war, than just squadmate deaths.  To say otherwise would restrict one's story palette to a ridiculous extent.

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

 Another reason why I like getting out of the SM with no causalties is because its one of few times I actually see Shepard living up to the reputation he has. Because he otherwise does tons of things that make me shake my head, especially for "best soldier in the galaxy" that at some point, I need to have him actually truly do something special for me to believe it.

I love getting out of the Suicide Mission with no casualties too.    I think that, as players, we're definitely supposed to feel that way.  We have invested emotionally in these characters; naturally, we want to protect them.  It's just that I feel the writers sometimes have to be more ruthless.  

Modifié par Estelindis, 21 octobre 2011 - 05:52 .

[Someone With Mass]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

 Another reason why I like getting out of the SM with no causalties is because its one of few times I actually see Shepard living up to the reputation he has. Because he otherwise does tons of things that make me shake my head, especially for "best soldier in the galaxy" that at some point, I need to have him actually truly do something special for me to believe it.

His team wouldn't be so good if they can't get out of a situation like that without getting like half of themselves killed regardless of their loyalty either.

Because then Shepard could've might as well recruited ordinary soldiers.

[Labrev]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

 Another reason why I like getting out of the SM with no causalties is because its one of few times I actually see Shepard living up to the reputation he has. Because he otherwise does tons of things that make me shake my head, especially for "best soldier in the galaxy" that at some point, I need to have him actually truly do something special for me to believe it.

His team wouldn't be so good if they can't get out of a situation like that without getting like half of themselves killed regardless of their loyalty either.

Because then Shepard could've might as well recruited ordinary soldiers.

Well their mission is to destroy the whole Collector race, that's a tall order no matter how good a team you have. The fact they weren't just ordinary soldiers makes it believeable that they could get that job done, but even they would need some direction.

[Someone With Mass]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Well their mission is to destroy the whole Collector race, that's a tall order no matter how good a team you have. The fact they weren't just ordinary soldiers makes it believeable that they could get that job done, but even they would need some direction.

True, but it isn't completely unbelievable that they were capable of getting themselves out in one piece.

All the talk about it not being an actual suicide mission is a little silly too, since it was so obviously done to make the player prepare for the worst and to hype things up a bit. 

It's almost like calling the geth Colossus a phony for not being an actual colossus.

[Cobra's_back]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

You miss the part where I said it was 1 and 1,000,000 to have a team like this. It is their attitude that makes them interesting. Just think if Eddy Eaton the famous sniper that fell from a helicopter 30 feet, injured and held off 30 Vietcong himself in the middle of the night. Should he have said “they out number me time to die”? Should the Tuskegee Airmen said, “I’m black and stupid I can’t possibly win”?
 
My point is that feel good stories may bring several of these types of people together and it is a joy for me at least to watch. I’m never interested in a game or movie that kills a character off just because they need a quota. I wouldn’t consider Shepard a hero if he told others they were going to die. Seeing the group do everything possible to win and losing Shepard looks heroic to me. Anyway it is a free market. Pick the game you think is entertaining.   
 

[Cobra's_back]

OOPs I meant to say, Should the Tuskegee Airmen said, “Whites think we are black and stupid can’t possibly win”? Never start out thinking you are going to lose.

[Labrev]

Someone With Mass wrote...

True, but it isn't completely unbelievable that they were capable of getting themselves out in one piece.

All the talk about it not being an actual suicide mission is a little silly too, since it was so obviously done to make the player prepare for the worst and to hype things up a bit. 

It's almost like calling the geth Colossus a phony for not being an actual colossus.

No doubt about that. In general, that has to be their most overused/misplaced tactic in general, hyping up story events.

The Shadow Broker was hyped up like crazy through LotSB and was ultimately a very underwhelming opponnent, pretty much just a glorified heavy-mech.

[Notlikeyoucare]

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.

Lol just lol. Nothing he has written has anything to do with post-modernism, its the exact OPPOSITE of post-modernism.

No-one in this thread is suggesting random character deaths; its that the choice of life or death be kept completely in the players hands and that the writers shouldn't be scared to kill off a character if they think it important to the story. Death is a very important part of storytelling and can add alot of character and plot depth, and in turn, emotional impact. When we are given a choice in the matter is what degrades the experience, because having it as a choice limits what the story can tell.because the whole "choices not making too much of a difference " thing.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

 Another reason why I like getting out of the SM with no causalties is because its one of few times I actually see Shepard living up to the reputation he has. Because he otherwise does tons of things that make me shake my head, especially for "best soldier in the galaxy" that at some point, I need to have him actually truly do something special for me to believe it.

His team wouldn't be so good if they can't get out of a situation like that without getting like half of themselves killed regardless of their loyalty either.

Because then Shepard could've might as well recruited ordinary soldiers.

People complain that the squadmates don't live up to their badass rep, and then want them to stumble into a bullet on missions... kinda conflicting, that. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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.

Lol just lol. Nothing he has written has anything to do with post-modernism, its the exact OPPOSITE of post-modernism.

No-one in this thread is suggesting random character deaths; its that the choice of life or death be kept completely in the players hands and that the writers shouldn't be scared to kill off a character if they think it important to the story. Death is a very important part of storytelling and can add alot of character and plot depth, and in turn, emotional impact. When we are given a choice in the matter is what degrades the experience, because having it as a choice limits what the story can tell.because the whole "choices not making too much of a difference " thing.

"Postmodernist" as it relates to our topic, in the statements made by a few participants in the discussion that all elements and events in a story are equally contrived and arbitrary, and that there is no distinction between those events and elements critical to a particular story, and those secondary. 


As for death being necessary and needing to be taken out of the player's hands?  Meh, whatever.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 21 octobre 2011 - 06:48 .

[Athayniel]

Estelindis wrote...

I more got the impression that Laecraft was in favour of genuine choice in general, but commented on squadmate death because that's what this thread is about.  The general principle that anyone, given the choice between good and bad, will always choose good, holds true in this area as in all others.   If one could get just as good a result while totally avoiding the death of beloved characters as one could while allowing them to die, then that's what most people would actually do, because anything else would be stupid and negligent.  That means it's not an actual choice.  Who wants to play a stupid, negligent Shepard?

The problem being that folks like Lotion don't want a compromise where it's possible for both sides to have exactly that. A Shepard who is able to either save or lose a squadmate depending on whatever factors you can imagine but who doesn't come off as stupid or negligent because of it.

Lotion has stated many times that he wants to play a Shepard who does everything right, makes no poor choices and fights as hard as he's able but *still* losses squadmates. That's what he wants, specifically for squadmates to die without the players being able to avoid it. It's not about choice for him. It's about his idea of what a good dramatic story is. That this is only his opinion and that others do not, cannot and will not share it, escapes him.

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying Laecraft said, but I do agree that there are more ways to achieve dramatic, emotionally intense moments, and to convey the loss of war, than just squadmate deaths.  To say otherwise would restrict one's story palette to a ridiculous extent.

Not according to Lotion. If it is possible for the squad makes it through ME3 without dying in one of the myriad possible endings then all other endings are rendered meaningless in his eyes, and moreover ME3 will be a care bear game. This is irrespective of any other deaths that will surely take place throughout the course of the game.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion has stated many times that he wants to play a Shepard who does everything right, makes no poor choices and fights as hard as he's able but *still* losses squadmates. That's what he wants, specifically for squadmates to die without the players being able to avoid it. It's not about choice for him. It's about his idea of what a good dramatic story is. That this is only his opinion and that others do not, cannot and will not share it, escapes him.

Some of us want a CRPG. 

Lotion and his ilk seem to want an interactive cinematic/story experience, in which we as the players are being taken through someone else's story as it's being told, and just contributing when allowed. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 21 octobre 2011 - 07:31 .