4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Estelindis]

Athayniel wrote...

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.

Well, Lotion and I are never going to agree on this, so I purposefully didn't mention what I thought of his arguments at all.  By all means, feel free to expound on that yourself, but I'm not going to get into a conversation about it personally.  No offence intended.  I just don't think I'd be able to get anywhere with it.  :-)

[Estelindis]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You fools don't know what compromise is.

Would you care to elaborate?

[CptBomBom00]

So what is going on guys?

[Undertone]

Medhia Nox wrote...

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.

It's funny considering the majority people on your side ( the ones supporting no squad mates deaths) argue exactly the opposite - that it is their story and their decision whether somebody should die or not (squad mate-wise). 

Then you target the Renegades in specific - those of us that are level-headed (and I'll be the first to say there are retards on both side of the camp) have brought up specific arguments that cannot be ignored. The fact of the matter is so far the majority or the most important renegade decisions have turned out to be a detriment to Shepard. The paragon decisions allows you to keep your moral "high ground" and at the same time get the best possible result. Examples of this have been brought up thousands of time - Zaeed, the Council (you would think Shepard should get support from Humanity if not the aliens if sacrificed) or the general lack of content. You can argue cameos are not important but it's still content. Renegade results in the lack of content or even lack of acknowledgement anywhere in some of the choices that you have made. When you provide two possible paths to achieve things, you should make them even. Not in the results that you get, but at least in acknowledgement of your actions.

You argue that those of us that want tough choices should let the developers do their job. How is that not applicable for those that want all their squad mates to survive? 

"There's more to "realistic" than just people dying - not always getting your way is realistic too." - exactly my point. If it was up for the majority on these forums (at least) nobody would die in the war. 

It would be okay if the Collector Base ends up being a threat in the end. That I can agree with. What I can't agree is the majority of renegade choices always ending up for worse (so far). Again why provide alternative path when you consistently portray the first one as the correct, better and so on. The fact of the matter is I will always play predominantly renegade. Because it makes sense to me, it is the logical path. Paragon is incredibly wish-ful thinking and blind stupidism at times. That's my opinion. I don't deny that Paragon seems the better way for others. What does annoy me is the inequality between those two options. 

And to come back to the original topic tough choices equal better fullfillment and satisfaction after all is said and done. Tough choices that are personal to Shepard, choices that he/she has to make as a commander - weight the lifes of his/her crew versus something else or versus one another. Something that any commander in the military has to do at one point of their career. 

Even a kid show like Naruto does this correctly. And Mass Effect is supposed to be targeted to adults? 

Modifié par Undertone, 21 octobre 2011 - 09:54 .

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You fools don't know what compromise is.

. . .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Estelindis wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

Well, Lotion and I are never going to agree on this, so I purposefully didn't mention what I thought of his arguments at all.  By all means, feel free to expound on that yourself, but I'm not going to get into a conversation about it personally.  No offence intended.  I just don't think I'd be able to get anywhere with it.  :-)

Except you're yet to put forth a good example of that system in action...AND, it's not a compromise, not really. you get what you want, I don't get what  Iwant. How is that a compromise?

Note tough, that unlike some of you, this isn't that big a deal for me. I'd buy and play the game regardless if it has this or not.

[Captain_Obvious]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

So what is going on guys?

It's sort of like arguing about what would happen when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.  I'm still in the "I want them all to survive" brigade, and that's not going to change, but at least this makes for an interesting discussion. 

Viva la BSN!

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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. 

I take it you can prove that assine theory of yours? You can't?...a pitty.

You know what's funny? If that "literary theory" supported your argument, you would embrace it like a bible, and beat people on the head with it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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'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.

As long as someone dies and it's done well....it's all good.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

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.   
 

So..what exactly is hte problem with fighting til lthe end, or agaisnt insourmantable odds?
Again, I dont' whant what you're driving at, since I've never asked that Shep and squad members should give up and die.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

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.

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.

Nothing escapes me. What escapes you isthat you are wrong on so many levels,  Icna't even begin to count. Maybe you should quit putting words in my mouth or use ReductionAdAbsurdum? no? Well, I suspected logic and civil discussion might be too muhc to ask fro myou.

Either way, what your'e suggesting isn't a compromise. You again and again fail to relise that.
And oyu again and again fail to relise that your wishes are jsut as narrow and selfish as mine are - you just like to think yourself better. Live in your dillusional fantasy if you want. But leave me out of it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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. 

Which is how all CRPGs actually work.:lol::lol:
This is gaming 101 really.

[Estelindis]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nothing escapes me. 

Creepy.   ...  

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Estelindis wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nothing escapes me. 

Creepy.   ...  

Except spelling that is...

[Captain_Obvious]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nothing escapes me. 

Creepy.   ...  

Except spelling that is...

And the definition of hubris, it seems...

[Mr Arg]

What is this thread about? I get the feeling that too many tangents have taken place over 143 pages...

and yeah, creepy.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Mr Arg wrote...

What is this thread about? I get the feeling that too many tangents have taken place over 143 pages...

and yeah, creepy.

As a general rule, any thread that is longer than 100 pages is either a question thread, or it a repetition of the first 20-25 pages.

[Estelindis]

The thread is about whether or not it should be possible to have all squadmates / crewmembers survive ME3, or whether this would compromise the dramatic quality of the story.

[Cobra's_back]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

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.   
 

So..what exactly is hte problem with fighting til lthe end, or agaisnt insourmantable odds?
Again, I dont' whant what you're driving at, since I've never asked that Shep and squad members should give up and die.

I'm sorry. Please except my apology. My point is that “feel good”, against all odds” stories are entertaining. Shepard dying is great. Shepard asking others to die while he lives is not so great. Shepard saving the crew and dying is hot. This is fantasy land for me. I don’t see much reality in these games. It is really hard for me to take any of these stories seriously. Remember Mass Effect 2 has a female possible love interest with two aliens. I totally find that funny.

[Cobra's_back]

OOPS I'm sorry. Please accept my apology. I thought the main question was about a choice to save the crew.

[Soul Cool]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You fools don't know what compromise is.

Please explain how one can compromise on a binary extreme.

[Almostfaceman]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

So..........it's nighttime again. Time to get back off-topic!

The freaks come out at night?