4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Aumata wrote...

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.

Hmm...s long as trying to save all your squaddies results in REALLY bad consequences. That might actually work.

[IndigoWolfe]

To put forward my two cents, I think I would be in favor of someone dying unavoidably. It doesn't have to be a specific someone who always dies, but I think Shepard should have to make a choice knowing someone would die because of it.

There is a fine line between reality and fiction, and we frequently use fiction to escape the stress of reality. But in order to open a portal, as it were, into the narrative and keep us rooted there, there simply must be a grounding tether of realism and truth.

Here's the reality, Shepard and the crew of the Normandy are the best of the best, and they will be continually going into the most hostile war zones and the most high-risk operations during a galactic war. There will be casualties. Preferably, any deaths could be given specific meaning instead of just being victims of the chaos of the battlefield. For instance, a choice between who to save with the last transport out of a planet falling to the Reapers, picking someone or someones to defend a vital position against impossible enemy numbers and all sorts of things like that.

Now, you could argue that the same drama could be reached with non-squadmates involved. But judging from past experience with Mass Effect; no, not really.

Take the N7 mission in ME2 when you took back a missle silo from batarian terrorists and had to pick which part of the colony to save. I picked my choice and was pretty much unmoved by the consequence, regardless of the fact that there was loss of life and tremendous damage done, and that there would have been no matter which option I picked. I didn't really think about it afterwards, either.

It brings to mind a phrase, "out of sight, out of mind." No matter how you present Colony 1 and Colony 2, I will not feel as personally invested in choosing the fate of these colonies as I would choosing between the fate of two of my people, like I was on Virmire.

I think I can say that, objectively, the Virmire style of choice is the stronger of the two.

The fate of Colony 1 or 2 might be unpleasant when it occurs, but once you leave, that's it. There's no visible consequence outside the mission itself and perhaps some differences in a place I pass through at a later date.

Now, after Virmire, I saw and felt the absence of one of my crew every single time I went aboard the Normandy. To their open chair in the briefing room, to their empty space, to their silhouette in the character selection screen. I carried the consequences of that choice with me. Even if it were a character I didn't care for, I'd still see definite consequences.

Granted, I'm not precluding the scenario where Shepard could save the someone who is in danger, but with consequences. Such as sacrificing the inhabitants of a city in the path of a Reaper attack to take the Normandy to where one of your crew, who warned you the attack was coming, is pinned down. And the consequences of that choice would be the character you saved burdened with the massive survivor's guilt, and other characters questioning your ability to lead the resistance effectively.

I suppose what I want isn't death per se, more like it's consequence that I want. Real, tangible consequence. Consequence that changes the way I interact with the game and how the game interacts with me. And the method of saving everybody via either the Suicide Mission routine, the magical third option or just not putting them in jeopardy in the first place is, in my eyes, shrugging off consequence.


Sorry for the wall of text.

Modifié par IndigoWolfe, 22 octobre 2011 - 03:34 .

[Athayniel]

Marionetten wrote...

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?

You didn't get the joke I was making.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

If you don't tell people what you want we can only infer it from what you've posted. If you enter into discussions and arguments without articulating your desires you can hardly be said to be participating in good faith either. So until you actually say what it is you want I'm going to go by what I can discern from your admittedly haphazard postings.

Tell me how what I've stated previously, that I want you to get a story where Shepard is professional, competent, smart and caring and still loses squadmates through no fault of their own while at the same time in my story, my Shepard is able to save squadmates through the use of tactics and skill, is not a compromise? Remember, I'm not saying that our paths through the story are the same, so the things which lead my Shep to being able to save squadmates may not come up or be an issue in your story.

The only reason you can't compromise on that is that you want *everyone* playing ME3 to lose squadmates because you can't concieve of the possibility that a game containing multiple routes and a story with multiple branching paths could allow for two playthroughs to be so different as to have options and choices available in one playthrough not be present in another.

So either tell us what you want or I'll decide what you want for you. How's that for compromise.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Aumata wrote...

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.

Hmm...s long as trying to save all your squaddies results in REALLY bad consequences. That might actually work.

Why should the player be given bad consequences for doing something that most people probably would do?

For that matter, come up with something better than "squadmate or this object of huge importance" that actually makes sense from a narrative perspective.

Because I doubt anyone can get themselves in such a bad situation that they're compromising the safety of entire civilizations or factions on their own without actively and consciously trying to sabotage the player's work.

[Aumata]

What are you talking about I made it pretty generic in terms of missions, and I pretty much stated that trying to do nothing but save your squadmates every time they are in trouble should result in drastic consequences just as if you choose to let them die every time they are in trouble. I should have probably said it in my post but your squadmate will more than likely being doing something of importance also, such as obtaining resources, saving a planet, or launching an assault.

But choosing to do nothing but save them or choosing to not save them all the time should have the equal results. You can't be everywhere at once, so at some point, or points you are gonna have to lose something in order to gain. It is pretty much a compromise situation where you have to make a choice in order to advance in the war effort.

[CptBomBom00]

If they decided to kill of my squad by Hazards or unexpected event, I will be angry.

[CptBomBom00]

I kind of agree, but killing off squad mates is pretty bad and Imagine if Garrus, LIara, Tali,Kadian/Ashley, would die!
That would be so lame.
Just Shepo, camon it would be bad that kind of thing.^

[Someone With Mass]

Because saying that any sort of forced BS plot twist is justifiable just because there's a war going on isn't good.

It's bad writing.

Making someone do something incomprehensibly stupid (like TIM constantly attacking Shepard with his private army after reviving him and telling Shep that he's pretty much humanity's last hope) just because the game says so and wants a new enemy to fight won't exactly do good for the overall story.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 22 octobre 2011 - 04:35 .

[CptBomBom00]

Games should be more realistic but they should also give you room to breath, if you know what I mean.
Peace

[Someone With Mass]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Someone dying is in no way bad writing. That's just absurd.

You may mean:
"Taking into account all of ME's hype on choice, someone dying is bad writing."

That makes a little more sense, but not very much, considering how little our "choices" have meant, how many of them have resulted in the same outcome.

It depends on the way and reason they're dying. Killing them off a la Halo Reach just to create some sort of emotion that was pretty hard to feel because everyone already knew that everyone in the game was going to die is in no way good writing.

I'm not saying that I'm against anyone dying. I'm just against them being killed for no good reason.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 22 octobre 2011 - 04:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Why should everything go and work out perfectly as anticipated? Why shouldn't shouldn't you be unable to prevent some deaths no matter how much you try, and have to make sacrifices no matter how much you may not want to, in the worst and most devastating war humanity has ever faced?

The problem is for some it's escapism, and for others they want realism. Some people want to play the game to be the hero who can do everything, who's superhuman. Some of us, you and I included (I'll bet THAT'S a shocker, huh?) play the game desiring realism, desiring that things be like they are in real life, that we aren't superhuman, that we CAN'T do everything.

..and yet still overcome the odds of overall defeat anyway.

You can't forget that no one is asking for a sad ending.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 octobre 2011 - 04:50 .

[Marionetten]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

The problem is for some it's escapism, and for others they want realism. Some people want to play the game to be the hero who can do everything, who's superhuman. Some of us, you and I included (I'll bet THAT'S a shocker, huh?) play the game desiring realism, desiring that things be like they are in real life, that we aren't superhuman, that we CAN'T do everything.

For me it's more about Shepard being a character I can actually relate to on some level instead of this untouchable Space Jesus. It'd be nice to see Shepard break down just once.

[CptBomBom00]

If some of my squad are to be killed I would prefer them to go out fighting like hell and not blowing them self up because that's lame, hence GoW3 where Don blown his won ass to hell just to save marcus and other and I can't imagine Garrus or other doing that in ME3.

[xentar]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Why should everything go and work out perfectly as anticipated? Why shouldn't shouldn't you be unable to prevent some deaths no matter how much you try, and have to make sacrifices no matter how much you may not want to, in the worst and most devastating war humanity has ever faced?

The problem is for some it's escapism, and for others they want realism. Some people want to play the game to be the hero who can do everything, who's superhuman. Some of us, you and I included (I'll bet THAT'S a shocker, huh?) play the game desiring realism, desiring that things be like they are in real life, that we aren't superhuman, that we CAN'T do everything.

If things in Mass Effect were like they are in real life, the reapers would succeed instead of trying to taunt Shepard into oblivion.

Modifié par xentar, 22 octobre 2011 - 04:51 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

It depends on the way and reason they're dying. Killing them off a la Halo Reach just to create some sort of emotion that was pretty hard to feel because everyone already knew that everyone in the game was going to die is in no way good writing.

Just how many people in this thread, let alone the last ten pages, have argued in favor of a Halo Reach style scripted death for certain characters in particular?

I'm not saying that I'm against anyone dying. I'm just against them being killed for no good reason.

What would you consider a good reason for someone dying in a galactic war story?

[CptBomBom00]

Stopping or slowing down whole legions of husks.

[CptBomBom00]

Maybe we shouldn't mine this subject so much?
Just saying.

[Xilizhra]

Just how many people in this thread, let alone the last ten pages, have argued in favor of a Halo Reach style scripted death for certain characters in particular?

Well, Kaiser did, aiming at the LI first and foremost.