4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

So... one? Possibly, if you don't believe he was joking?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 octobre 2011 - 05:02 .

[CptBomBom00]

Maybe BioWare will do the same thing like with ME2,ur squad members will die if you don't prepare or something.

[Someone With Mass]

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

Garrus holding enemy forces at bay to make things easier for Shepard, Vega volunteering to take a hard boss head-on by himself while Shepard is running towards the objective after getting his ass kicked or Tali deciding that hacking a certain device which can be of great help later comes before her own safety.

With some choices leading up to these events, so they're not mandatory for everyone.

Could be something different.

Doing something like Virmire where the squadmate is forced to guard/attack something that they know is going to kill them when there are other options one can think of with ease, but conveniently aren't present and available regardless of my past choices is not something I'd like the game to depend on.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 22 octobre 2011 - 05:05 .

[Dean_the_Young]

ME2 has the worst sort of death system of them all, since it relies on not playing available and prevalent story content, ignoring major story ques, and becomes invalidated by metaknowledge after the first playthrough. About the only good mechanic in the game was the crew abduction.

[Gorosaur]

The issue really is that both sides really have their flaws.

Scripted deaths can be overly frustrated especially if you have no way of getting around them.

Deaths based on choice are good for player freedom, but in a way they have less emotion because the player if really upset could just go back and make a different decision. The reaction isn't normally: "I'm so sad I lost this character. May they rest in peace." But rather: "Dammit! Picked the wrong option! Let me load my last save."

Bioware did a good job with Virmire because again, death had player impact and it was unavoidable at the same time. Suicide Mission had moments of great tension, but all the deaths felt pretty impersonal.

Ultimately, I just want character deaths to mean something. If I make a decision that as a consequence causes Liara to die, I want to see something thats fitting to the character and have my Shep react to it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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

Garrus holding enemy forces at bay to make things easier for Shepard, Vega volunteering to take a hard boss head-on by himself while Shepard is running towards the objective after getting his ass kicked or Tali deciding that hacking a certain device which can be of great help later comes before her own safety.

With some choices leading up to these events, so they're not mandatory for everyone.

Could be something different.

So the team mate volunteering for a non-vital task with an obvious telegraphed consequence that Shepard could veto with little personal consequence is your idea of a superior situation?

Doing something like Virmire where the squadmate is forced to guard/attack something that they know is going to kill them when there are other options one can think of with ease, but conveniently aren't present and available regardless of my past choices is not something I'd like the game to depend on.

So just create a better Virmire context.

(Though I do wonder what you think the easy/obvious third option to Virmire was, when both groups were on the edge of being overrun.) 

[CptBomBom00]

Hell how about Everyone is killed by a Nuclear Strike on Earth, Because everyone is husked.
Just saying that always could be a one of bad endings.

[Someone With Mass]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
So the team mate volunteering for a non-vital task with an obvious telegraphed consequence that Shepard could veto with little personal consequence is your idea of a superior situation?

No, there could be combinations of the status of previous missions that determines the outcome of that assignment.

Almost like Tali's loyalty mission, where one can rally the crowd if Veetor and Kal are alive and well, but with some more options and variables.

[CptBomBom00]

HMMmmm intersting post.

[Dean_the_Young]

Gorosaur wrote...

The issue really is that both sides really have their flaws.

Scripted deaths can be overly frustrated especially if you have no way of getting around them.

Deaths based on choice are good for player freedom, but in a way they have less emotion because the player if really upset could just go back and make a different decision. The reaction isn't normally: "I'm so sad I lost this character. May they rest in peace." But rather: "Dammit! Picked the wrong option! Let me load my last save."

Bioware did a good job with Virmire because again, death had player impact and it was unavoidable at the same time. Suicide Mission had moments of great tension, but all the deaths felt pretty impersonal.

Ultimately, I just want character deaths to mean something. If I make a decision that as a consequence causes Liara to die, I want to see something thats fitting to the character and have my Shep react to it.

Well, let's sort out the different kinds of deaths.


'Scripted deaths', ala Halo Reach, are deaths when a character dies no matter what. The end, no avoidance, no choice. Shepard's death is a scripted death.

'Conditional deaths' are when a character dies for a selected critereon, but not an explicit choice on the player's part. The ME2 suicide mission was basically conditional deaths alone, with the conditions being 'did you buy ship upgrades/do you have loyalty.' Wrex in ME1 was mostly this: the conditions for his survival were doing his personal quest or having the persuasion points.

'Optional deaths' are deaths in which choosing one choice means the death of the teammate, and choosing the other let's them live (possibly at the cost of some million strangers, an upgrade, money, whatever). In Fallout: Vegas, selling your companion Arcade into slavery for fourty silver is pretty much this. The other half of the suicide mission of ME2, the specialist selection, was also this: choosing 'right' kept them alive, choosing 'wrong' meant death.

'Zero-sum selection deaths' are where some death is unavoidable, but whose death is up to the player. The classic 'them or me' scenario. Virmire was the Mass Effect case.

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
So the team mate volunteering for a non-vital task with an obvious telegraphed consequence that Shepard could veto with little personal consequence is your idea of a superior situation?

No, there could be combinations of the status of previous missions that determines the outcome of that assignment.

Almost like Tali's loyalty mission, where one can rally the crowd if Veetor and Kal are alive and well, but with some more options and variables.

This I could get behind... but with better design than the Veetor/Kal survival.

Unless we have multiple cases, it should not be alignment-specific (or primarily alignment-specific), which the Tali 'third way' was.

[Gorosaur]

Essentially, my problem with Mass Effect and in Bioware games in general is that if you play nice and smart, it's pretty impossible to lose a squad mate.

It would be nice if us thoughtful Paragons could actually get punished for a change.

[CptBomBom00]

Good question.

[Gorosaur]

Not really my point. But it is far easier to lose squadmates playing Renegade.

You can shoot Wrex, kill Samara, kill Zaeed, and make numerous decisions to lose loyalty for squadmates thus leading to their possible deaths.

[CptBomBom00]

I always play Paragon because its not that I don't like Renegade is just that Para suits me better.

[xentar]

Gorosaur wrote...

The issue really is that both sides really have their flaws.

Scripted deaths can be overly frustrated especially if you have no way of getting around them.

Deaths based on choice are good for player freedom, but in a way they have less emotion because the player if really upset could just go back and make a different decision. The reaction isn't normally: "I'm so sad I lost this character. May they rest in peace." But rather: "Dammit! Picked the wrong option! Let me load my last save."

Bioware did a good job with Virmire because again, death had player impact and it was unavoidable at the same time. Suicide Mission had moments of great tension, but all the deaths felt pretty impersonal.

Ultimately, I just want character deaths to mean something. If I make a decision that as a consequence causes Liara to die, I want to see something thats fitting to the character and have my Shep react to it.

Well, my reaction to Virmire was "Bummer, a scripted death...".

[xentar]

Gorosaur wrote...

Essentially, my problem with Mass Effect and in Bioware games in general is that if you play nice and smart, it's pretty impossible to lose a squad mate.

Isn't that the point of playing games?

[CptBomBom00]

Zeed was paid to do the suicide mission with Shep and is simple like that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Gorosaur wrote...

Not really my point. But it is far easier to lose squadmates playing Renegade.

You can shoot Wrex, kill Samara, kill Zaeed, and make numerous decisions to lose loyalty for squadmates thus leading to their possible deaths.

To be clear...

Wrex isn't a P/R decision, because he'll die regardless if you don't do the persuasion check/armor quest option. Killing Zaeed requires a specific Paragon-choice prerequisite as well. Losing Thane's loyalty isn't a P/R option either, nor are the loyalty clashes.

There are three times when 'Renegade' alone looses loyalty/team member specifically: Samara (but gets Morinth, admittedly not equal in content or development), Tali (loyalty mission), and Legion (selling him).