4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Undertone]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Undertone wrote...

I also find it hilarious how those of us that want "drama" are generalized as "wanna be tough guys". I'm looking at you Nyoka. It's really fun how you skip a lot of good arguments and make some poor excuse of psychological analysis. I didn't expect that from you. 

Did you notice that the same thing is being done to the people that don't agree with you? I've lost count of the number of times that pro-death people have tried to claim that the people who want a happy ending want 'sunshines, puppies and rainbows' when no one has asked for that at all. Ever.

Well the thread exploded so I haven't actually read all the answers (no patience to read 10 pages and reply to all). However the fact of the matter is - Shepard isn't god and can't control every variable. Saving every single squad mate is just hugely unrealistic because Shep can't be everywhere at all times and simply some battles will have to take priority over squad mates safety... I don't understand how people don't get that. 

[Undertone]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Why does a good story need to have the drama slathered on thick?  I see more stories that try to slather on the drama that actually stink, than not. 

This whole thing about suffering and drama seems to come out of the same lit-fic school of "rules" for writing that would have us believe that characters are defined and made worthwhile by their flaws. 

And to both notions, I say... whatever. 

I find it hilarious how those of us who want to skip the wailing and nashing of teeth, and who don't subsribe to the belief that suffering is necessary for a good story are generalized as super-sensitive, emotionally immature, bunny-and-rainbow fru-fru kiddies.

Laecraft explains it perfectly. It doesn't make any sense not to lose somebody on any level of thought and I explained it in my post above. You are fighting against overwhelming odds for god sake, something that has been happening for eons and nobody has ever stopped it. We've been lucky so far and had some help from the Protheans etc etc. but still regardless it's overwhelming odds for a bloody number of reasons. The Reapers don't need to hold anything or protect anything, we do. That already puts at disadvantage, let alone their technological superiority and yada yada. 

[KBomb]

Undertone wrote...

Well the thread exploded so I haven't actually read all the answers (no patience to read 10 pages and reply to all). However the fact of the matter is - Shepard isn't god and can't control every variable. Saving every single squad mate is just hugely unrealistic because Shep can't be everywhere at all times and simply some battles will have to take priority over squad mates safety... I don't understand how people don't get that. 

That anyone survives long enough to sustain a video game is hugely unrealistic. Hundreds of thousands of Reapers the size of Sovereign alone could wipe out most of the galaxy within hours. Shepard being brought back to life was hugely unrealistic. Shepard resorting to fisticuffs with the Yagh is hugely unrealistic. I could go on. Saving a handful of highly skilled and highly trained people out of billions doesn’t seem as hugely unrealistic as those things.

Modifié par KBomb, 08 octobre 2011 - 09:38 .

[Someone With Mass]

I think there should be a possibility to have both outcomes, not to make one part mandatory. Because that would take away the feel of having a choice for some people.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 08 octobre 2011 - 09:41 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Undertone wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Why does a good story need to have the drama slathered on thick?  I see more stories that try to slather on the drama that actually stink, than not. 

This whole thing about suffering and drama seems to come out of the same lit-fic school of "rules" for writing that would have us believe that characters are defined and made worthwhile by their flaws. 

And to both notions, I say... whatever. 

I find it hilarious how those of us who want to skip the wailing and nashing of teeth, and who don't subsribe to the belief that suffering is necessary for a good story are generalized as super-sensitive, emotionally immature, bunny-and-rainbow fru-fru kiddies.

Laecraft explains it perfectly. It doesn't make any sense not to lose somebody on any level of thought and I explained it in my post above. You are fighting against overwhelming odds for god sake, something that has been happening for eons and nobody has ever stopped it. We've been lucky so far and had some help from the Protheans etc etc. but still regardless it's overwhelming odds for a bloody number of reasons. The Reapers don't need to hold anything or protect anything, we do. That already puts at disadvantage, let alone their technological superiority and yada yada. 

Meh...  maybe it's because I'm just not a religious person at all, but I never regarded the Reapers with that much dread and awe, as oh so godlike, and frankly ratcheting up the story in an attempt to force me to be scared would just ring hollow and heavy-handed. 

The whole Cthulu mythos just rings hallow and forced to me as well, especially the RPG, which was set up so that you either lost because you did not know enough, or lost because you learned too much and went crazy.  And the Reapers are machine-cthulu-in-space in some ways. 

[Undertone]

KBomb wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Well the thread exploded so I haven't actually read all the answers (no patience to read 10 pages and reply to all). However the fact of the matter is - Shepard isn't god and can't control every variable. Saving every single squad mate is just hugely unrealistic because Shep can't be everywhere at all times and simply some battles will have to take priority over squad mates safety... I don't understand how people don't get that. 

That anyone survives long enough to sustain a video game is hugely unrealistic. Hundreds of thousands of Reapers the size of Sovereign alone could wipe out most of the galaxy within hours. Shepard being brought back to life was hugely unrealistic. Shepard resorting to fisticuffs with the Yagh is hugely unrealistic. I could go on. Saving a handful of highly skilled and highly trained people out of billions doesn’t seem as hugely unrealistic as those things.

Exactly. No need to add even more to the already growing list of inconsistencies and immersion braking moments that ME2 introduced.

[Bekkael]

Shepard is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character by definition; most superheros are. Arguing for a dark ending to make it seem more realistic or deep seems laughable to me. But every person is entitled to their own preferences and opinions.

BioWare is certainly going to have darkness at the end of this tale, I think we would all agree that it's a given. The only question is whether it will be closer to pitch black, or a slightly lighter shade of grey. I hope for grey, but I will be emotionally prepared for black.

[KBomb]

Undertone wrote...

Exactly. No need to add even more to the already growing list of inconsistencies and immersion braking moments that ME2 introduced.

You won’t have to worry about that if it’s an option, now will you? You won’t have to experience it at all if you don’t wish to. And as far as not adding anymore to it, how convenient to exclude the “unrealistic” things that you don’t want.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Bekkael wrote...

Shepard is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character by definition; most superheros are.

I'm not sure how Shep qualifies as an author-self-insertion character -- and that element of author-wish-fulfilment is critical to making a character an actual Mary Sue, as opposed to a using "Mary Sue" as a derogatory term for "character I think is too competent". 

Never mind that Shep does make mistakes, does take losses, and does have vulnerabilities.

[Inquisitor Recon]

You know I just got to a point in Gears of War 3 where a certain character sacrifices himself for the squad. Now as much as people make fun of GoW3 for being the sort of game played by the unwashed masses, I was moved by it. I was actually saddened and wanted revenge. I wanted to just chainsaw every last one of those bastards. When a game can get you feeling that, even something rather light on story like GoW3, it has done its job. If that means you have to make some choices in ME3 that WILL result in some deaths on your squad, so be it.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 08 octobre 2011 - 11:37 .

[Chewin]

Bekkael wrote...

Shepard is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character by definition; most superheros are.

Nah, Liara is the Mary Sue.

[AdmiralCheez]

ReconTeam wrote...

You know I just got to a point in Gears of War 3 where a certain character sacrifices himself for the squad. Now as much as people make fun of GoW3 for being the sort of game played by the unwashed masses, I was moved by it. I was actually saddened and was looking for vengeance. I wanted to just chainsaw every last one of those bastards. When a game can get you feeling that, even something rather light on story like GoW3, it has done it's job. If that means you have to make some choices in ME3 that WILL result in some deaths on your squad, so be it.

Didn't the Gears folks have people vote whether Dom should live or die by buying T-Shirts?

[Undertone]

KBomb wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Exactly. No need to add even more to the already growing list of inconsistencies and immersion braking moments that ME2 introduced.

You won’t have to worry about that if it’s an option, now will you? You won’t have to experience it at all if you don’t wish to. And as far as not adding anymore to it, how convenient to exclude the “unrealistic” things that you don’t want.

I don't want any of the "unrealistic" things that are mentioned not just specific things. Shepard coming back from the death was retarded etc. 

If it's an option then we come to the other problem - the SM being the perfect example. Basically I have to play as retard or role-play as a retard/ illogical psychopath that sends someone to die just cause they don't like them. A true renegade wouldn't do something like that because you want to maximize your chances of defeating the Reapers. 

By default people are completionist and will want to get their content worth of the money they paid for the game. Why should I do less content to get "drama"? Or restrict myself and do worse to get it? Naturally I will try to do as best as possible. 

[Inquisitor Recon]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Didn't the Gears folks have people vote whether Dom should live or die by buying T-Shirts?

Nah that was Carmine #3, but don't spoil anything for me because I'm still playing through it.

[AdmiralCheez]

ReconTeam wrote...

Nah that was Carmine #3, but don't spoil anything for me because I'm still playing through it.

*throws up hands* TOO MANY DOMS!

[KBomb]

ReconTeam wrote...

You know I just got to a point in Gears of War 3 where a certain character sacrifices himself for the squad. Now as much as people make fun of GoW3 for being the sort of game played by the unwashed masses, I was moved by it. I was actually saddened and was looking for vengeance. I wanted to just chainsaw every last one of those bastards. When a game can get you feeling that, even something rather light on story like GoW3, it has done it's job. If that means you have to make some choices in ME3 that WILL result in some deaths on your squad, so be it.

It was very well done. 
I’m not opposed to squad death as an optional ending. Unlike GoW, ME does allow some choice and consequence which makes the situation different.
I was more moved by the ash people. Proving that you can feel the emotion of the situation through seeing the death and destruction around you with NPC’s.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Forced bad outcomes and forced "no good choice" situations are probably the worst immersion breaker for me.

Take Zaeed's LM for example... it's all contrived around one choice. If you leave the workers to die, you can't screw up enough for Vido to get away, you'll always catch him. If you rescue the workers, you cannot fight hard enough, fast enough, well enough, to ever catch Vido -- you have no chance at all.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 08 octobre 2011 - 10:15 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Undertone wrote...

KBomb wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Exactly. No need to add even more to the already growing list of inconsistencies and immersion braking moments that ME2 introduced.

You won’t have to worry about that if it’s an option, now will you? You won’t have to experience it at all if you don’t wish to. And as far as not adding anymore to it, how convenient to exclude the “unrealistic” things that you don’t want.

I don't want any of the "unrealistic" things that are mentioned not just specific things. Shepard coming back from the death was retarded etc. 

If it's an option then we come to the other problem - the SM being the perfect example. Basically I have to play as retard or role-play as a retard/ illogical psychopath that sends someone to die just cause they don't like them. A true renegade wouldn't do something like that because you want to maximize your chances of defeating the Reapers. 

By default people are completionist and will want to get their content worth of the money they paid for the game. Why should I do less content to get "drama"? Or restrict myself and do worse to get it? Naturally I will try to do as best as possible. 

And a combat officer would consider accomplishing the mission and not losing any men to be the best possible outcome as well.  Huh. 

[KBomb]

Undertone wrote...

I don't want any of the "unrealistic" things that are mentioned not just specific things. Shepard coming back from the death was retarded etc. 

If it's an option then we come to the other problem - the SM being the perfect example. Basically I have to play as retard or role-play as a retard/ illogical psychopath that sends someone to die just cause they don't like them. A true renegade wouldn't do something like that because you want to maximize your chances of defeating the Reapers. 

By default people are completionist and will want to get their content worth of the money they paid for the game. Why should I do less content to get "drama"? Or restrict myself and do worse to get it? Naturally I will try to do as best as possible. 

I never said it should be like the SM. It can be implemented where it could work for both options and hopefully they’ve learned from the SM on how to do just that. But on that same note: Why should I role play my Shepard in a way that disconnects me from him/her knowing that no matter what I do, I’m not going to be happy or satisfied with the ending. I am paying the same amount of money as you are. I am going to be investing as many hours in the game as you are. Why is your requests more important than mine? That is why I like options and multiple endings.

[Bekkael]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

Shepard is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character by definition; most superheros are.

I'm not sure how Shep qualifies as an author-self-insertion character -- and that element of author-wish-fulfilment is critical to making a character an actual Mary Sue, as opposed to a using "Mary Sue" as a derogatory term for "character I think is too competent". 

Never mind that Shep does make mistakes, does take losses, and does have vulnerabilities.

Are you saying those of us who play ME don't imagine ourselves as him/her? What else is fantasy roleplay but some level of self-insert and wish-fulfillment, whether we want to pretend to be evil or save the world? I think the difference is Shepard is well done with a milder case of Sue/Stu for the reasons you mentioned, and because the character still retains the sympathy of the audience, but shares many of the same elements of classic Sue/Stu type characters: Difficult childhood; always overcomes impossible odds and excels at *insert awesome thing here*; is attractive to everyone sexually; ultimately saves the day. It's really not terribly difficult to write a successful self-insert/wish-fulfillment character. You just have to make your readers (players) care for them enough to forgive or ignore the impossible or ridiculous.

[Bekkael]

Chewin3 wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

Shepard is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character by definition; most superheros are.

Nah, Liara is the Mary Sue.

So is half the cast. I still love them.

[Computer_God91]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Spoiler alert: Real life sucks.  Every day, we have to face how powerless we are, how often we screw up, how bad things will keep happening to good people no matter how hard we try to stop it.  Sure, we can contribute our hearts and souls to good causes, work until our backs break to make things better, and offer all the help and comfort to the ones we love, but ultimately, the happy endings don't last.  The bad guys stay in power, the good guys get shoved to the wayside, and we retreat into our religions and philosophies to try to make sense of it all and make it hurt less.  Pessimistic, I know.  I do try hard (and should try harder), but really, I can't get over how insignificant I am in the grand scheme of things.

Here is the end to your story. You die. So, yes, I've thought about everything you said above and believe most of it to be true. However, I am completely uneffected by this. It doesn't bother me not one bit. Why? I spent many of my teenage years in solitude just thinking and learning about various things and philosophies. What I learned is you only get one shot in life. Once it's done it's done. Life is about trying to be enjoy yourself as much as possible and spend as little time feeling like crap. So that's what I do.

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Basically, Mass Effect (2) offers an elaborate fantasy in which the player has the power to save the world in his or her own way.

Hate to break it to you but every game does this just in different ways. Some do it better then this game.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Shepard is the hero I wished I could be back in kindergarten, and both the kid and the adult in me would like to see hundreds of hours and dollars conclude with a happy ending.  Granted, I'll get over it if it doesn't, but still, I'm more likely to play it again if it makes me feel good when I'm done, right?

You are 100% guaranteed a happy ending that will happen 90% of the time. You have nothing to worry about. I do, though. I despise happy endings. Sure when I'm watching most of them I don't care but the vast majority are so ridiculously unrealistic and laced with a Deus Ex Machina that I just facepalm. They don't make me happy at all. They annoy me. I LOVE realistic hard faught endings, those make me very happy. a few examples are DA:O's Ultimate sacrifice, where the only way to save the world is to sacrifice yourself (I treat that as the "canon" ending), Red Dead's ending, and my ending for Heavy Rain (which is similar to Red Dead's, although I enjoyed the perfect ending as well). All this is sounding like I've said this before, I probably have (cursed with a bad memory). ME2's was lame to me because they built it up like it was going to be a hard suicide mission and I didn't lose a single person. Which is lame because that ending happens 99% of the time and is the easiest to get, unless you're a total moron. It should have been flipped. 99% of the time either lots of people die or you fail, 1% you kick ass.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
And if you think this rant is weird, blame Bioware for making a game good enough for me to care this much.  It's hard to get people to care this much about the fate of a few lumps of programming with voices attached.

Actually I find it easy to care about characters in a story be it movie/game/book it just needs to be a well written movie/game/book otherwise I think it's total crap. Oh hi ME2 I didn't see you there.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Do you think happy endings and No One Left Behinds belong in a game like ME3?  If not, why?  Would you accept that sort of thing if it was optional/difficult to achieve?  How do you want to feel when the credits roll?

Like I said before 100% happy endings ****** me off. No they don't belong in ME3 because they've built this game up as we're fighting ancient machine genocidists that have been killing off advanced aliens for longer then we can imagine. So that means to me that damn near EVERYONE should be dying, dead, or close to it in ME3. If a 100% happy ending was say difficult to the point where only 5% of the players their first run through got it due to making all the right choices throughout the series then yes, otherwise no. When the credits roll I want to feel satisfied with the series and that ME3 wasn't another massive disappointment like ME2 and that it redeemed the series to me and that MAYBE it could actually de-throne ME1 in terms of awesomeness.

Severe boredom caused this large ass post. So thank it for this wall of china.

[Killjoy Cutter]

KBomb wrote...

Undertone wrote...

I don't want any of the "unrealistic" things that are mentioned not just specific things. Shepard coming back from the death was retarded etc. 

If it's an option then we come to the other problem - the SM being the perfect example. Basically I have to play as retard or role-play as a retard/ illogical psychopath that sends someone to die just cause they don't like them. A true renegade wouldn't do something like that because you want to maximize your chances of defeating the Reapers. 

By default people are completionist and will want to get their content worth of the money they paid for the game. Why should I do less content to get "drama"? Or restrict myself and do worse to get it? Naturally I will try to do as best as possible. 

I never said it should be like the SM. It can be implemented where it could work for both options and hopefully they’ve learned from the SM on how to do just that. But on that same note: Why should I role play my Shepard in a way that disconnects me from him/her knowing that no matter what I do, I’m not going to be happy or satisfied with the ending. I am paying the same amount of money as you are. I am going to be investing as many hours in the game as you are. Why is your requests more important than mine? That is why I like options and multiple endings.

This discussion and the possibilities is raises are making me more certain to wait until after ME3 is out and thoroughly reviewed before buying it (along with finding out whether Origin is required in any way).  If the other side gets its way, the game is likely to play out like a long series of Zaeed's LM over and over, and I'd rather spend my money on something that feels frustrating, hollow, forced, and contrived. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Bekkael wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

Shepard is a Mary Sue/Gary Stu character by definition; most superheros are.

I'm not sure how Shep qualifies as an author-self-insertion character -- and that element of author-wish-fulfilment is critical to making a character an actual Mary Sue, as opposed to a using "Mary Sue" as a derogatory term for "character I think is too competent". 

Never mind that Shep does make mistakes, does take losses, and does have vulnerabilities.

Are you saying those of us who play ME don't imagine ourselves as him/her? What else is fantasy roleplay but some level of self-insert and wish-fulfillment, whether we want to pretend to be evil or save the world? I think the difference is Shepard is well done with a milder case of Sue/Stu for the reasons you mentioned, and because the character still retains the sympathy of the audience, but shares many of the same elements of classic Sue/Stu type characters: Difficult childhood; always overcomes impossible odds and excels at *insert awesome thing here*; is attractive to everyone sexually; ultimately saves the day. It's really not terribly difficult to write a successful self-insert/wish-fulfillment character. You just have to make your readers (players) care for them enough to forgive or ignore the impossible or ridiculous.

If Shep is a mary sue, then almost every RPG character, table-top and computer, is a mary sue.  Let's not dilute the term to meaninglessness. 


EDIT:  And personally, I don't view my RPG characters as self-insertion or wish-fulfilment. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 08 octobre 2011 - 10:34 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

But Zaeed's mission is badass awesome because its got Zaeed in it, so you know its good