4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorosaur]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

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.

Those aren't Renegade-specific choices, other than Wrex. Killing Samara is no different from killing Morinth; she counts just as much as her mother does. Going with "Renegade," a renegade would help Zaeed get Vito, not help the dock workers. And the whole "killing" him thing is related to it being AFTER the suicide mission, not realy with Shep being renegade.

You do get Paragon points for keeping Samar alive however. So technically, it's a renegade decision to kill her. Either way, I don't really have anything against Renegades. Their style is just typically much more violent than Paragon, and thus creates more death. 

[Gorosaur]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

I was more referring to the fact that you can actually shoot him.

[Someone With Mass]

I think Casey and the team have confirmed that there are situations triggered by your actions in which you might have to put down squadmates yourself.

[Gorosaur]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

I was more referring to the fact that you can actually shoot him.

Why does it matter who shoots him, if he dies either way? Paragon or Renegade, you're still a teammate down.

Yes, but deciding to shoot your squadmate is a Renegade decision. Again, I'm not trying to antagonize Renegades. I was just advocating that Paragons be punished for their idealism through character deaths etc.

[xentar]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Like I said before, you want games that are escapism. We want games based in realism.

That is an illusion of realism. In a truly realistic game we don't win where a 1000 previous civilizations failed.

[CptBomBom00]

Yes we don't.

[xentar]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

xentar wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Like I said before, you want games that are escapism. We want games based in realism.

That is an illusion of realism. In a truly realistic game we don't win where a 1000 previous civilizations failed.

A. Very true, but no one would play that game, so one must suspend SOME disbelief.

B. That fact that one must suspend SOME disbelief is never a reason for one to suspend ALL disbelief.

Just not sure how a few mandatory deaths can make a story more realistic. Feels all the same to me, perhaps even the other way around ("Oh look, that's a scripted death!"). I'm much more into scientific realism of the setting which is in a sad state right now but gets a few points for some general ideas (like a nicely descriptive codex and relatively few additions to current scientific knowledge and technological expertise when explaining things).

[Dean_the_Young]

xentar wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

xentar wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Like I said before, you want games that are escapism. We want games based in realism.

That is an illusion of realism. In a truly realistic game we don't win where a 1000 previous civilizations failed.

A. Very true, but no one would play that game, so one must suspend SOME disbelief.

B. That fact that one must suspend SOME disbelief is never a reason for one to suspend ALL disbelief.

Just not sure how a few mandatory deaths can make a story more realistic. Feels all the same to me, perhaps even the other way around ("Oh look, that's a scripted death!"). I'm much more into scientific realism of the setting which is in a sad state right now but gets a few points for some general ideas (like a nicely descriptive codex and relatively few additions to current scientific knowledge and technological expertise when explaining things).

How is a 'scripted' death (I assume you meant any death at all by the way you used it) different from a 'scripted' survival or victory in ruining your enjoyment?

[xentar]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
How is a 'scripted' death (I assume you meant any death at all by the way you used it) different from a 'scripted' survival or victory in ruining your enjoyment?

Not exactly. I meant unavoidable war casualties that you can't prevent and have to watch. Virmire, pretty much. Shandra's death in NWN2 also comes to mind.
As for the actual answer: I do indeed play games for escapism, among other things. I want my in game stories to be ones of success. Not without challenge by any means (on the contrary, I do tend to sometimes set gameplay difficulty a bit higher than comfortable for vanity reasons). For me realism is when the rotational gravity in the Citadel wards is consistent with its dimensions and rotation rate (which is not the case, in the first game, at least. In the second one they dropped this information from the codex).

Modifié par xentar, 22 octobre 2011 - 06:12 .

[Dean_the_Young]

And the end-game stops being a success if you lose someone beforehand?

[xentar]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And the end-game stops being a success if you lose someone beforehand?

A complete success. I have a rather negative attitude towards bittersweetness. Prefer complete successes or, alternatively, complete failures.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's got to be a textbook for 'unreasonable standards.'

Why is a war in which 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 3 deaths a complete success, but 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 4 deaths not?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's got to be a textbook for 'unreasonable standards.'

Why is a war in which 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 3 deaths a complete success, but 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 4 deaths not?

Oddly enough, I was thinking that it's odd that some are claiming that a war with 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 4 deaths makes for a realistic and moving story, but a war with 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 3 deaths makes for childish care-bear crap... 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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.

And yet that would be far more realistic than the prescripted formulaic pseudorealism that some want.

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's got to be a textbook for 'unreasonable standards.'

Why is a war in which 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 3 deaths a complete success, but 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 4 deaths not?

Oddly enough, I was thinking that it's odd that some are claiming that a war with 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 4 deaths makes for a realistic and moving story, but a war with 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 3 deaths makes for childish care-bear crap... 

I'm glad I never made such a ridiculous claim. And since I didn't, what does that have to do with me? Or were you speaking in generalities?


Though I will point out that Stalin had a pretty good point with 'one death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic.'

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 octobre 2011 - 07:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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.

And yet that would be far more realistic than the prescripted formulaic pseudorealism that some want.

Which itself would be more realistic than no teammates at all dying.

You're either contradicting your own position, or... actually, the only way that argument works is if you're contradicting your own position.

[Dean_the_Young]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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.

And yet that would be far more realistic than the prescripted formulaic pseudorealism that some want.

Which itself would be more realistic than no teammates at all dying.

You're either contradicting your own position, or... actually, the only way that argument works is if you're contradicting your own position.

I don't think he's so much arguing that as pointing out the perceived inconsistences in ours.

That a game that claims to a certain level or versimilitude should maintain such versimilitude without ignorring the fact that it is a game?

[Killjoy Cutter]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's got to be a textbook for 'unreasonable standards.'

Why is a war in which 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 3 deaths a complete success, but 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 4 deaths not?

Oddly enough, I was thinking that it's odd that some are claiming that a war with 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 4 deaths makes for a realistic and moving story, but a war with 5 billion, 328 million, 72 thousand, 4 hundred and 3 deaths makes for childish care-bear crap... 

STOP GENERALIZING. NO ONE that's still here is saying that.

Actually, they are.  There's all this talk about how people die in war... and yet for some reason, all the people dying in ME3 don't count.  Only the squadmates who "should" die count. 

And if think that the terms "realistic" and "care bear" weren't used by the pro-death side to describe this, then re-read the damn thread.

[Dean_the_Young]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Actually, they are.  There's all this talk about how people die in war... and yet for some reason, all the people dying in ME3 don't count.  Only the squadmates who "should" die count. 

Correction: only squadmates or people close to Shepard dying counts for tragedy of war.

Which, by your and pretty much every other objector's arguments and counter-proposals of 'what if other people died instead', is true.

And if think that the terms "realistic" and "care bear" weren't used by the pro-death side to describe this, then re-read the damn thread.

Perhaps you should re-read his (her?) post about the people still talking at this point...?