4309 réponses à ce sujet

[wildannie]

Lotion Soronnar 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.

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. 

:lol::lol:you're havin' a f***in' laugh right???

[Lotion Soronarr]

Let me give you a counter example...a "compromise".

Let's say you CAN save all squad members. BUT in order to do it, your Shepard has to strangle children, burn down an orphanage and kick puppies.
Now you get the ending you want. Isn't that compromise? Or does the fact that you can't get to it the way you want totally invalidate that?

See, if you don't consider this an acceptable compromise, then you should have no trouble understanding why we don't see what you suggest as a compromise.

[ReshyShira]

This is a fantasy, not real life.

[Lotion Soronarr]

^^Non-argument.^^

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 octobre 2011 - 09:03 .

[Notlikeyoucare]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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. 

Thats EXACTLY what this is. a story that can change somewhat from a few options that we can pick. The element of choice isn't being questioned here . Its the discussion of choice between different options, and some believe certain options should not be part of a choice. No-one is suggesting that characters get their heads blown off randomly in battle.

[xentar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

^^Non-argument.^^

For some people that's the sole reason to play immersive games: to temporarily live in a setting that is better than real life. So, I don't see what's invalid about that argument. Also note that Mass Effect hasn't always been a war story. I might not have considered it interesting if it were a standalone game.

[xentar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Let's say you CAN save all squad members. BUT in order to do it, your Shepard has to strangle children, burn down an orphanage and kick puppies.
 

I would take that.

[ReshyShira]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

^^Non-argument.^^

Repeatedly press A to toil your life away at a deadend job.




Fun.



The issue is of course a game doesn't need to be hyper realistic, just realistic enough to not estroy the willing suspension of disbelief.  Trying to make it more gritty and realistic never really worked well, it tends to turn into wangst or just simply comes off as forced.

[Lotion Soronarr]

xentar wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

^^Non-argument.^^

For some people that's the sole reason to play immersive games: to temporarily live in a setting that is better than real life. So, I don't see what's invalid about that argument. Also note that Mass Effect hasn't always been a war story. I might not have considered it interesting if it were a standalone game.

"It's fantasy" is a non-argument as it can be used to justify anything...ANYTHING.
Why do guns in ME need ammo or heat sinks? Why don't they run on the power of love? It's fantasy after all.
Why doesn't Shepard run rainbow? It's fantasy after all!
Why do we even need a FTL drive or mass relays? It's fantasy, no need to explain anything or try to make it credible!

[Arppis]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

xentar wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

^^Non-argument.^^

For some people that's the sole reason to play immersive games: to temporarily live in a setting that is better than real life. So, I don't see what's invalid about that argument. Also note that Mass Effect hasn't always been a war story. I might not have considered it interesting if it were a standalone game.

"It's fantasy" is a non-argument as it can be used to justify anything...ANYTHING.
Why do guns in ME need ammo or heat sinks? Why don't they run on the power of love? It's fantasy after all.
Why doesn't Shepard run rainbow? It's fantasy after all!
Why do we even need a FTL drive or mass relays? It's fantasy, no need to explain anything or try to make it credible!

Nope, no need to explain one damn thing. I don't mind it, it is FANTASY after all.

[xentar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

xentar wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

^^Non-argument.^^

For some people that's the sole reason to play immersive games: to temporarily live in a setting that is better than real life. So, I don't see what's invalid about that argument. Also note that Mass Effect hasn't always been a war story. I might not have considered it interesting if it were a standalone game.

"It's fantasy" is a non-argument as it can be used to justify anything...ANYTHING.
Why do guns in ME need ammo or heat sinks? Why don't they run on the power of love? It's fantasy after all.
Why doesn't Shepard run rainbow? It's fantasy after all!
Why do we even need a FTL drive or mass relays? It's fantasy, no need to explain anything or try to make it credible!

Don't mix up unrealistic stories with unrealistic settings. These are very different concepts.

[ReshyShira]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"It's fantasy" is a non-argument as it can be used to justify anything...ANYTHING.
Why do guns in ME need ammo or heat sinks? Why don't they run on the power of love? It's fantasy after all.
Why doesn't Shepard run rainbow? It's fantasy after all!
Why do we even need a FTL drive or mass relays? It's fantasy, no need to explain anything or try to make it credible!

Like reality unless otherwise noted.

Unfitting for setting, stop making strawmen to make yourself look more credible.

Because it's a core part of the setting.

[Notlikeyoucare]

James_Raynor wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"It's fantasy" is a non-argument as it can be used to justify anything...ANYTHING.
Why do guns in ME need ammo or heat sinks? Why don't they run on the power of love? It's fantasy after all.
Why doesn't Shepard run rainbow? It's fantasy after all!
Why do we even need a FTL drive or mass relays? It's fantasy, no need to explain anything or try to make it credible!

Like reality unless otherwise noted.

Unfitting for setting, stop making strawmen to make yourself look more credible.

Because it's a core part of the setting.

For starters its the wrong terminology. The word you're looking for is FICTION. There is plenty of fiction that is 100% rooted into the real world. Every work of fiction must be set out and defined. While Mass Effect contains many fictional elements of a space aventure work, it retains many real-world elements and consequences, but thats all moot.

The problem is you aren't even making an argument. You're just saying "fiction" and nothing else. What about this being fiction has anything to do with having/not having the option to save everybody?

Yes its fiction, but its also a story, and that has to be taken into account when discussion whether or not we should be given the option.

Mass Effect 2 dropped the ball on this element and it smashed into many tiny fragments . I hope at very least Mass Effect 3 does not take the same direction.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Let me give you a counter example...a "compromise".

Let's say you CAN save all squad members. BUT in order to do it, your Shepard has to strangle children, burn down an orphanage and kick puppies.
Now you get the ending you want. Isn't that compromise? Or does the fact that you can't get to it the way you want totally invalidate that?

See, if you don't consider this an acceptable compromise, then you should have no trouble understanding why we don't see what you suggest as a compromise.

Except the compromise I presented to you is far far closer to what you want than the one you've just put forth. Of course I would never entertain the notion that you'd actually offer up a compromise solution in good faith. That's not your style. You much prefer railing against those who disagree with you than try to contribute to a discussion sensibly.

To answer your question though, I don't like your compromise. It means I can't roleplay a caring and competent Shepard.

[IndigoWolfe]

Has this thread suggested putting a toggle on the subject? If so, then it has probably run through all its ideas.

[hawat333]

If everyone were to survive, it would lose some of the dramatic strength.

[Aumata]

I get Lotion Soronnar position, basically he wants both making wrong decisions and having to make a choice through role playing to fit into both styles in Mass Effect 3. Not so much of mandatory deaths, but i having to choose between saving a squad mate or doing a mission that is also as important. Not only that but having the consequences for that action. Bioware did stated that there isn't really much of permanent squadmates as they tend to leave to do their own things and that means you might lose a squad mate because they are out doing their own thing and you might be half a galaxy way. With that being said said consequences might involved losing out on other missions, status, or even resources because you choose to do an pick one over the other.

So one of the drawbacks of constantly choosing you squadmates to not die or be indoctrinated is that you might make the war effort harder, or have massive deaths on extinction level because you might have picked a companion over a rescue mission, or that because of dwindling resources they can't save them. I think of it as fair option, for one who constantly pick in saving squadmates instead of having to pick the other option. Hell picking squadmates might even get some of them killed or have them against you because your decisions. It is a fair and balance way of doing things as both parties get what they want. The option to save squadmates and the option to lose them. It is far better than the crap that was the SM.

Modifié par Aumata, 22 octobre 2011 - 03:22 .

[Marionetten]

Let us save everyone but let there be a cost. If Shepard wants to prioritize his friends over the well being of the galaxy then by all means. Of course, I'm sure some of those friends wouldn't be too grateful. I'd imagine Ashley and Kaidan in particular would want to bite his head off for making such a selfish choice. This would make Shepard go from Space Jesus to a believable character so I'm all for it.

Athayniel wrote...

It means I can't roleplay a caring and competent Shepard.

Sure you can. You just can't metagame a Mary Sue who succeeds at everything. Problem?

Modifié par Marionetten, 22 octobre 2011 - 03:21 .

[LyndseyCousland]

hawat333 wrote...

If everyone were to survive, it would lose some of the dramatic strength.

What if I have to sacrifice Earth to save my team? Dramatic enough? Because I totally would.
UH. I mean-! LOOK THAT WAY *points off to the side* *runs away*

[Takio]

I do want there to be a Definitive and Golden ending like ME1's Paragon Ending, but make us work for it.

[Marionetten]

LyndseyCousland wrote...

What if I have to sacrifice Earth to save my team? Dramatic enough? Because I totally would.
UH. I mean-! LOOK THAT WAY *points off to the side* *runs away*

I love the way you think. That would be such an awesome choice to make.

I would too, by the way.

[Aumata]

I'm hoping we can blow earth up the way of sending a planetoids to the mass relay like arrival because that would be awesome. @Marionetten that was basically my point in a simple and clean way.

[LyndseyCousland]

Marionetten wrote...

LyndseyCousland wrote...

What if I have to sacrifice Earth to save my team? Dramatic enough? Because I totally would.
UH. I mean-! LOOK THAT WAY *points off to the side* *runs away*

I love the way you think. That would be such an awesome choice to make.

I would too, by the way.

The Eiffel Tower can kiss my ass if it thinks I'll choose it over Liara or Garrus. Or Joker, for that matter.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Let me give you a counter example...a "compromise".

Let's say you CAN save all squad members. BUT in order to do it, your Shepard has to strangle children, burn down an orphanage and kick puppies.
Now you get the ending you want. Isn't that compromise? Or does the fact that you can't get to it the way you want totally invalidate that?

See, if you don't consider this an acceptable compromise, then you should have no trouble understanding why we don't see what you suggest as a compromise.

Except the compromise I presented to you is far far closer to what you want than the one you've just put forth. Of course I would never entertain the notion that you'd actually offer up a compromise solution in good faith. That's not your style. You much prefer railing against those who disagree with you than try to contribute to a discussion sensibly.

To answer your question though, I don't like your compromise. It means I can't roleplay a caring and competent Shepard.

Only I can determine the underlined. Not you. You don't know what I want.

And this is exactly my point. You can't accept that compromise becuase to you, it's not a compromise. Same goes for us here. How would you act if I continued to call you stubborn, saying you refuse the compromise and you don't want to?
What you think as a compromise is not a compromise for us.

Even after all these posts you seem to not get it. There can be no compromise. Either a death is mandatory, or it is not. There is no in-between.