Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 08 octobre 2011 - 01:06 .
Let me save them.
Débuté par
AdmiralCheez
, oct. 07 2011 05:44
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
#451
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:00
Kusy
-
- Members
- 4 025 messages
I sure would love to see everyone survive. But as long as it's written well, I can live with some deaths.
Retour en haut
#452
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:10
DiebytheSword
-
- Members
- 4 109 messages
Kaiser Shepard wrote...
After a small correctly, Dieby's post is finally accurate.lightsnow13 wrote...
EternalAmbiguity wrote...
Prince Zeel wrote...
DiebytheSword wrote...
Prince Zeel wrote...
I've always been renegade. I don't even have a paragon playthrough.
It's for ******.
Agressive indeed, am I to assume then that Renegades have ****s? Not a personal assault, just an observation.
for "s.h. i t s"?
well, yeah. Damn. I guess my shepard reflects well on my character. I suppose I enjoy antagonizing to see results. I actually, never thought of it that way . Well, I'll be.
I thought he meant d*cks.
Me 2.
Sometimes its harder to walk the straighter path. To you I say I'd rather have a quad than be a cloaca.
Also, I would be much obliged if you shortened my name to Sword rather than Dieby.
#453
Guest_Nyoka_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:18
Guest_Nyoka_*
Guest_Nyoka_*
-
- Guests
I think people can't tell drama from cringeworthy tearjerking melodrama. I very much prefer that Godfather scene at the end when Michael calmly tells Kay he didn't kill anyone than that Godfather 3 scene when he sees his daughter dead and starts howling like a banshee. Also, "consequence" doesn't always mean "death". That's lack of imagination. Oh look another dead squadmate. Yay.
Consequences could involve balance of power in the galaxy. What you do about the genophage comes to mind. Or whether you side with the geth or with the quarians. Or the constant frictions with the Terminus systems. You can influence the way the galaxy's political spectrum is going to look like afterwards. That's a bigger consequence than a dead squadmate.
You could make LIs stop being so unconditional for a minute and make them pay attention to what Shepard actually does. Ashley is politically involved. Politics divides people. If you don't help the Alliance, maybe that could make Ashley change her mind about you and shut down the romance, or it could make Vega even ask for a transfer, leave the Normandy and go fight with the Alliance. These are consequences at the personal level as distinct from the big picture consequences above.
Consequences could involve balance of power in the galaxy. What you do about the genophage comes to mind. Or whether you side with the geth or with the quarians. Or the constant frictions with the Terminus systems. You can influence the way the galaxy's political spectrum is going to look like afterwards. That's a bigger consequence than a dead squadmate.
You could make LIs stop being so unconditional for a minute and make them pay attention to what Shepard actually does. Ashley is politically involved. Politics divides people. If you don't help the Alliance, maybe that could make Ashley change her mind about you and shut down the romance, or it could make Vega even ask for a transfer, leave the Normandy and go fight with the Alliance. These are consequences at the personal level as distinct from the big picture consequences above.
Modifié par Nyoka, 08 octobre 2011 - 01:20 .
#454
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:22
spirosz
-
- Members
- 16 356 messages
I think it really depends on how Bioware executes those situations: how well it's written, what's going on at the time, the outcome of the scenario, etc. There would be a lot of variables to consider, but we can only speculate at this point because we know next to nothing about what's going to happen.
Personally, I would love for everyone to survive, but I would be fine with someone dieing, as long as it's not just there for the sake of having a death scene. I still have a hard time deciding who to save on Virmire and that's all thanks to the great job Bioware did.
The only type of death scene I don't like is usual the LI involved ones and what I mean by that is, either save your LI or go after "x" amount of people. I usually find those type of scenes lame, but that's just me.
Personally, I would love for everyone to survive, but I would be fine with someone dieing, as long as it's not just there for the sake of having a death scene. I still have a hard time deciding who to save on Virmire and that's all thanks to the great job Bioware did.
The only type of death scene I don't like is usual the LI involved ones and what I mean by that is, either save your LI or go after "x" amount of people. I usually find those type of scenes lame, but that's just me.
#455
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:23
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
-
- Guests
Nyoka wrote...
I think people can't tell drama from cringeworthy tearjerking melodrama. I very much prefer that Godfather scene at the end when Michael calmly tells Kay he didn't kill anyone than that Godfather 3 scene when he sees his daughter dead and starts howling like a banshee. Also, "consequence" doesn't always mean "death". That's lack of imagination. Oh look another dead squadmate. Yay.
Consequences could involve balance of power in the galaxy. What you do about the genophage comes to mind. Or whether you side with the geth or with the quarians. Or the constant frictions with the Terminus systems. You can influence the way the galaxy's political spectrum is going to look like afterwards. That's a bigger consequence than a dead squadmate.
You could make LIs stop being so unconditional for a minute and make them pay attention to what Shepard actually does. Ashley is politically involved. Politics divides people. If you don't help the Alliance, maybe that could make Ashley change her mind about you and shut down the romance, or it could make Vega even ask for a transfer, leave the Normandy and go fight with the Alliance. These are consequences at the personal level as distinct from the big picture consequences above.
As I said before, it's very ignorant to generalize death in art/media/whatever as forced or, as you put it, "melodrama."
#457
Guest_Nyoka_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:28
Guest_Nyoka_*
Guest_Nyoka_*
-
- Guests
Good thing then I didn't do that.EternalAmbiguity wrote...
As I said before, it's very ignorant to generalize death in art/media/whatever as forced or, as you put it, "melodrama."
Can you address the things I did say?
#458
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:33
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
-
- Guests
Nyoka wrote...
Good thing then I didn't do that.EternalAmbiguity wrote...
As I said before, it's very ignorant to generalize death in art/media/whatever as forced or, as you put it, "melodrama."
Can you address the things I did say?
I don't mind what you said at all. It seemed quite valid and usable, except for that first sentence.
#459
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:42
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
AdmiralCheez wrote...
Furthermore, those that disagree tend to advocate realism over escapism, saying that engaging in a positive fantasy would be too unrealistic to keep their attention. To which I say this: MULTIPLE ENDINGS. STOP RAINING ON MY PARADE.
Why can you rain on my parade but I can't rain on yours?
#460
Guest_Nyoka_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:43
Guest_Nyoka_*
Guest_Nyoka_*
-
- Guests
Deaths have their place, but to have someone die for the sake of it so I can go to a forum and brag about how tough and dark and mature I am because I stoically deal with my computer friends dying is, frankly, laughable.
You can have good consequences, good drama and a good story without mandatory deaths. Once you accept this, it's clear that in a game in which player choice and replayability are such big feats, setting up a way to do things so all squadmates live is a very common sense possibility.
You can have good consequences, good drama and a good story without mandatory deaths. Once you accept this, it's clear that in a game in which player choice and replayability are such big feats, setting up a way to do things so all squadmates live is a very common sense possibility.
#461
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:52
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
Nyoka wrote...
Deaths have their place, but to have someone die for the sake of it so I can go to a forum and brag about how tough and dark and mature I am because I stoically deal with my computer friends dying is, frankly, laughable.
Let's not kill off characters for the sake of it. What we should do though is have difficult choices for our character and we, the players, to make.
"Sometimes you give your people an order knowing that they're going to die. That can't affect your decisions." - Shepard
Mass Effect was marketed on hard choices. Choices that had no easy solution. Choices which weren't going to be easy to make.
The Virmire choice was an excellent example. Sometimes everything will not go your way. This is war. It's always been a war. There are things which will always occur beyond Shepard's control and all he/she can do in that case is adapt and try to make the best of it.
It is also better story telling. Which is the better ending to ME? An upbeat ending where we've defeated the enemy unscathed and we have lots of support for the coming war. Or a bitter sweet ending where the enemy has been vanquished, but at a cost, and the future remains uncertain?
Which ending has you more interested in seeing how the trilogy ends?
Hint: if you prefer the upbeat ending then you've got ****ty taste and there's no reasoning with you.
#462
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:54
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
-
- Guests
Okay I'm on your side Saphra but that last sentence is just too much.
#463
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:56
Captain_Obvious
-
- Members
- 1 236 messages
I prefer the upbeat ending and there's no reasoning with me.
#464
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 01:58
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
-
- Guests
Riiight.Saphra Deden wrote...
Hint: if you prefer the upbeat ending then you've got ****ty taste and there's no reasoning with you.
#466
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:08
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
Always so needlessly d*ckish Saphra.Saphra Deden wrote...
Hint: if you prefer the upbeat ending then you've got ****ty taste and there's no reasoning with you.
Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 08 octobre 2011 - 02:08 .
#467
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:19
AdmiralCheez
-
- Members
- 12 990 messages
I don't really recall doing any parade-raining recently. I usually avoid replying to you for that reason.Saphra Deden wrote...
Why can you rain on my parade but I can't rain on yours?
If you are referring to making an upbeat ending available to those that want it, then I'm sorry, Saph, but wanting to control how EVERYONE plays is a might more prickish than wanting a say in how JUST YOU play.
#468
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:20
Aggie Punbot
-
- Members
- 2 736 messages
The BS-N does constantly remind me exactly why gamers have such a ****** poor reputation with non-gaming folk.
#469
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:23
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
AdmiralCheez wrote...
If you are referring to making an upbeat ending available to those that want it, then I'm sorry, Saph, but wanting to control how EVERYONE plays is a might more prickish than wanting a say in how JUST YOU play.
The narrative does not have any true depth if you can always save the day flawlessly. Like I said. Events should sometimes happen beyond Shepard's control where the only recourse is to adapt, take the hit, and move on.
Virmire is a good example. There's nothing Shepard can do to avoid having to make the call to leave one of his men behind without having a time machine.
Another great example from another game is Tenpenny Tower in Fallout 3. You can help the ghouls kill everyone, kill the ghouls yourself, or convince them all to live in peace. However if you take the third option then once you leave the ghouls will kill everyone anyway. It is beyond your ability to control and it gives that quest more depth than almost anything in Mass Effect so far.
It's more realistic, more engaging, more memorable.
#470
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:28
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
Actually you can convince them to live in peace and then stealth kill the ghoul leader.Saphra Deden wrote...
AdmiralCheez wrote...
If you are referring to making an upbeat ending available to those that want it, then I'm sorry, Saph, but wanting to control how EVERYONE plays is a might more prickish than wanting a say in how JUST YOU play.
The narrative does not have any true depth if you can always save the day flawlessly. Like I said. Events should sometimes happen beyond Shepard's control where the only recourse is to adapt, take the hit, and move on.
Virmire is a good example. There's nothing Shepard can do to avoid having to make the call to leave one of his men behind without having a time machine.
Another great example from another game is Tenpenny Tower in Fallout 3. You can help the ghouls kill everyone, kill the ghouls yourself, or convince them all to live in peace. However if you take the third option then once you leave the ghouls will kill everyone anyway. It is beyond your ability to control and it gives that quest more depth than almost anything in Mass Effect so far.
It's more realistic, more engaging, more memorable.
Then they actually do live in peace.
#471
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:31
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Actually you can convince them to live in peace and then stealth kill the ghoul leader.
Then they actually do live in peace.
Two things:
1.) That's meta-gaming
2.) It doesn't work anyway since the Tenpenny residents are scripted to die regardless of whether or not Roy is alive
I had a feeling you'd try and weasel your way out of that decision though. It's your nature.
Take the Pitt. You can choose to violently free the slaves and kill an infant's loving parents, or you can keep the slaves oppressed and spare the infant life as an orphan.
There's no "happy" path that leads to everyone winning and coming to an understanding. Some things can't be reconciled. (again, more depth here than anywhere in Mass Effect)
#472
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:31
jamesp81
-
- Members
- 4 051 messages
wright1978 wrote...
jamesp81 wrote...
+1 to the bolded.
The best stories are the ones that leave you thinking "there's no way in hell the goodguys are getting out of this one" but they still do anyway. Lord of the Rings did this masterfully.
Not sure i agree. Lord of Rings has several deaths(Boromir/Theoden) and consequences in the fact Frodo suffered continual pain from the witch king's wound. I'd argue the opposite the best films are often the ones that have a hard hitting death to drive home the seriousness of the situation. Wrath of Khan is a classic because of Spock's death. In Serenity, Wash's death was needed to highlight how crazy bringing an army of Reavers was.
Boromir and Theoden were minor characters that the audience did not have time to get overly attached to.
#473
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:33
AdmiralCheez
-
- Members
- 12 990 messages
Note that I didn't ask for a flawless victory, just a limit on how much gloomdark is forced on the player. I'd like to be able to save most if not all of my squad. In the event that I can't, I'd like to be able to at least have a little control over who makes it and who doesn't. You know, like on...Saphra Deden wrote...
The narrative does not have any true depth if you can always save the day flawlessly. Like I said. Events should sometimes happen beyond Shepard's control where the only recourse is to adapt, take the hit, and move on.
... Virmire. A good example of an acceptable compromise. My only problem with this is that I don't want the writers to pull the same stunt twice. Something with a little more depth and creativity, something where maybe the consequences aren't immediately clear.Virmire is a good example. There's nothing Shepard can do to avoid having to make the call to leave one of his men behind without having a time machine.
Unfortunately, I don't like open-world, random-questing games so much, so I never really got into Fallout. However, that sounds like an interesting quest, and I wouldn't mind seeing something a bit similar in ME3. Not a direct rip-off, mind you, but a point where idealism will kind of bite you in the butt and things don't work out as you thought they would.Another great example from another game is Tenpenny Tower in Fallout 3. You can help the ghouls kill everyone, kill the ghouls yourself, or convince them all to live in peace. However if you take the third option then once you leave the ghouls will kill everyone anyway. It is beyond your ability to control and it gives that quest more depth than almost anything in Mass Effect so far.
For you, maybe. For me, it's the highs that make a game worth playing again, not the lows.It's more realistic, more engaging, more memorable.
#474
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:33
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
The LOTR films sucked.
#475
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 02:34
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
AdmiralCheez wrote...
Note that I didn't ask for a flawless victory, just a limit on how much gloomdark is forced on the player. I'd like to be able to save most if not all of my squad. In the event that I can't, I'd like to be able to at least have a little control over who makes it and who doesn't. You know, like on...
Then you've missed my entire point.
EVENTS CAN AND SHOULD HAPPEN BEYOND YOUR CONTROL
