4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

*waits for AP mention*

Nah, not this time, could've done so, though. Should've mentioned that ME would probably have been better if kept to just one game, though, or a series of completely standalone stories (á la Indy).

Sigh, guess I'll always still have - wait for it - Alpha Protocol. There, satisfied?

Edit. Bedtime for little Kaiser now, I'm hardly able to keep up with what I'm typing at the moment... Night, y'all!

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 10 octobre 2011 - 04:56 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

So, did you just hate the movies - or the books too? Or, did you not read the books?

Mostly just the movies, and hate might be too strong a word in my case. What I dislike most about them is how Jackson uses the Dead Men (ghost army) as a simple deus ex machina to clear the entirety of Minas Tirith in a mere 10 seconds, while they were originally just used to get the boats to get there.

And lets not forget that the Witch King never truly fought Gasndalf. And that only the 1st wall of Minas Tirith was breached.
I still love the moves, but the 2nd and epsecially third diverge from the book unnecesarrily (and dangerous situations into redicolously hopeless ones). Jackson has gone all extreeme there, and I don't really like that.

[KotorEffect3]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I did indeed hate LOTR (actually only the latter two films)

And up you go in my book.

*sigh* some people are just negative about everything.  And big suprise it is always the renegade players.

[KotorEffect3]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I did indeed hate LOTR (actually only the latter two films)

And up you go in my book.

*sigh* some people are just negative about everything.  And big suprise it is always the renegade players.

Now now, we've already been over this. Don't generalize, bad habit to get into.

I know, I know but sometimes it's just like argh need to vent.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

And here is where we hit our deadlock.

Yep.  It all comes down to a difference in opinion.  Things like "literary value" and "emotional impact" can neve be quantified objectively.  They are matters of taste.  It's equally useless debating which ice cream flavor is the best; the only difference is when you talk about professional storytelling, some intellectual nut has decided to make it a major field of study.

Not that they shouldn't; fiction is an important part of any culture.  But remember: ice cream.

I disagree.
Litaraly value and emotional impact are not fully subjective. Period.

If you feel sad when playing ME3 and losing a character that you care about. The only tihng I can I can recomend is a small dose of "Casper og Mandrilaftalen" !

Fffff I should know what language that is because I half-understand it.

But seriously, I maintain my position that it is better to have more options than less.  The player should focus on his or her individual experience, not someone else's, and they shouldn't try to dictate what is best for someone else's gameplay style.  Because, you know, it's a single-player game.  And because each experience is different from player to player, Bioware needs to account for what will best impress a wide variety of audiences.  That's what makes it so damn good, and that's why we keep coming back to discuss it.  Imagine how much appeal would be lost if everyone HAD to be a renegade default Sheploo soldier that killed Wrex and saved Ashley.  Imagine how little there would be to distinguish it from other games if the player couldn't influence the story being told.

I like being able to keep my squad alive, you like being kicked in the balls.  So let's have both.  Despite what you may think, it's possible.  We just have to avoid making an NOLB so damn easy to obtain this time around.

No, you can't have both. There is no middle ground to be had here. I wish there was, but there isn't.

I want to RP a capable Sheppard - one who think and plans carefully. I want to play that person and STILL not be able to save everyone.
According to you, the only way to do that would be to hand my Shep the idiot ball - which basicly means I can't RP my Shep.
This isnt' compromise.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
According to you, the only way to do that would be to hand my Shep the idiot ball - which basicly means I can't RP my Shep.

This isnt' compromise.

It is a matter of balancing risk and benefit, gain and loss.  Several people have presented multiple scenarios where doubling back to save your LI or whatever would result in serious consequences.

And if your Shepard considers himself competent, but can't keep half a dozen trained specialists alive, he kind of doesn't need to be handed the idiot bal, cuz he's holding it already.

[ZLurps]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

 I think the writers/devs are seriously getting too little credit here.

Powerless moments/failure for all Shepards:
-- Eden Prime mission going bad.
-- Getting stuck on Virmire.
-- Virmire scrippted death.
-- Udina lockdown on Normandy.
-- Councils dissupport of Shepard in ME2.
-- Alliance dissupport of Shepard in ME2..
-- Horizon, Shepard loses a friend. (Okay, not EVERYONE'S friend, but you know what I mean).
-- Horizon still half-abducted at the end of the mission.
-- Manipulation by TIM, and Shepard having to put up with it for having no other option.
-- Decision in Zaeed's LM: damned if you do (save workers, Vido got away) damned if you don't (kill Vido, workers die). All because Zaeed acted w/ no regard to your command.
-- Shadow Broker DLC. Shepard gets played like a DVD by Tela Vasir, almost sends mission to hell.
-- Arrival DLC. Mission success, but he's going to face charges for it.

I'd say there are plenty of them. And I'm not thinking too far out of the main-story, so there may well be others that I missed.

+ Bring Down the Sky (Balak live/dies) scenario
+ Fate of Admiral Kohaku.
+ Player can't save any colonists from Cerberus experiments on N7 missions.
+ Mercenary boss in Illium? (IIRC player can't but let her go?)

From the top of my head.

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
So with that, it's only fair Shepard at least has control over his own missions's success (afterall, he's routinely hyped up as a god-tier military leader anyway). And for that reason, squadmates, being as they are under your command, have pretty reasonable immunity to scripped death.

Something that bothers me is that there aren't necessarily many NPCs left for those who import their game. So there needs to be two survivors from SM (that's the mimimum possible) so the squad in ME3 would be:
SM survivor 1
SM survivor 2
Ash/Kaidan
Liara
James Vega

Then it's possible that SM survivors are Kasumi and Zaeed, characters that are said to make appearance in ME3 if player had them in ME2 but not confirmed as squadmates. So in ME3 there would be 3 squadmates to choose from. If one is killed then player is out of options regarding suadmates. If two would be killed there wouldn't be full squad. One mere squadmate death and Shepard is going solo.

Then we have been told that squadmates system is different in ME3 and in previous titles and temporary squadmates. I wonder how that is going to work in sceneario where SM survivors were Kasumi and Zaeed. Maybe we get someone like Aria as temporary squadmate (if her character survives in that upcoming comic).

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
The "squad death for emotional impact" has been done once already. Not sure it really delivered in that sense, but it worked OK for that time/place. At this point, it would be pointless.  ...snip...

My general feeling about this is that "character death outside of player control" card can be played only so many times before it loses effect and turns to something like "Look, the magic bullet came out from nowhere and killed on of your squaddies because we wanted to do that" which isn't good for immersion. Then, it's of course a matter of how it's implemented. I could buy scenario where in overwhelming situation Normandy drops Shepard on target and then makes suicide run for diversion, resulting death of crew and every squadmate that remained on board of Normandy. Hmm... or maybe Shepard could be on target and signaling to Normandy that they can withdraw to safe distance. Then Reaper jumps in and fries Normandy just before it's accelerating to lightspeed. Shepard hears from open com channel the panic on board, desperate (and futile) attemps to evade Reaper fire and sees how Normandy burst into ball of flames standing on some Reaper structrure or some barren world.

One scenario could be the opposite. Shepard and squadmates won't survive the final mission, but those who remain in Normandy would.

But then, doing Virmire again... no. There could be scenarios where Shepards squad needs to cover other squad from enemy waves (bit similar to Archangel mission) that does something... try to hack a door to open or disarm a bomb... and depending from player skill, other squad survives or some of them die. I would prefer something like that over Virmire redux.

Then again. This whole thing with temporary squadmates makes me very curious how BioWare is going to excecute things in ME3, especially in scenario where player imports a save from ME2 where surviving squadmates are Kasumi and Zaeed.

[Someone With Mass]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

It is a matter of balancing risk and benefit, gain and loss.  Several people have presented multiple scenarios where doubling back to save your LI or whatever would result in serious consequences.

And if your Shepard considers himself competent, but can't keep half a dozen trained specialists alive, he kind of doesn't need to be handed the idiot bal, cuz he's holding it already.

Taking the crazy pills too.

"I'mma lead this here fleet. My crew? Nah. They dead."

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

And here is where we hit our deadlock.

Yep.  It all comes down to a difference in opinion.  Things like "literary value" and "emotional impact" can neve be quantified objectively.  They are matters of taste.  It's equally useless debating which ice cream flavor is the best; the only difference is when you talk about professional storytelling, some intellectual nut has decided to make it a major field of study.

Not that they shouldn't; fiction is an important part of any culture.  But remember: ice cream.

I disagree.
Litaraly value and emotional impact are not fully subjective. Period.

Re:  Bold part -- LoL. 

If you feel sad when playing ME3 and losing a character that you care about. The only tihng I can I can recomend is a small dose of "Casper og Mandrilaftalen" !

Fffff I should know what language that is because I half-understand it.

But seriously, I maintain my position that it is better to have more options than less.  The player should focus on his or her individual experience, not someone else's, and they shouldn't try to dictate what is best for someone else's gameplay style.  Because, you know, it's a single-player game.  And because each experience is different from player to player, Bioware needs to account for what will best impress a wide variety of audiences.  That's what makes it so damn good, and that's why we keep coming back to discuss it.  Imagine how much appeal would be lost if everyone HAD to be a renegade default Sheploo soldier that killed Wrex and saved Ashley.  Imagine how little there would be to distinguish it from other games if the player couldn't influence the story being told.

I like being able to keep my squad alive, you like being kicked in the balls.  So let's have both.  Despite what you may think, it's possible.  We just have to avoid making an NOLB so damn easy to obtain this time around.

No, you can't have both. There is no middle ground to be had here. I wish there was, but there isn't.

I want to RP a capable Sheppard - one who think and plans carefully. I want to play that person and STILL not be able to save everyone.
According to you, the only way to do that would be to hand my Shep the idiot ball - which basicly means I can't RP my Shep.
This isnt' compromise.

If you want to be competent, plan carefully, do everything possible, and still fail, I have a game for you.  It's called real life. 

Personally, I don't need my distractions to feature more of the same. 

If you want your Shep to fail, that's up to you. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:10 .

[nitefyre410]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
According to you, the only way to do that would be to hand my Shep the idiot ball - which basicly means I can't RP my Shep.

This isnt' compromise.

It is a matter of balancing risk and benefit, gain and loss.  Several people have presented multiple scenarios where doubling back to save your LI or whatever would result in serious consequences.

And if your Shepard considers himself competent, but can't keep half a dozen trained specialists alive, he kind of doesn't need to be handed the idiot bal, cuz he's holding it already.

 


+10 for the Pic 

and  a bonus  + 5 for the bolded part 

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
And if your Shepard considers himself
competent, but can't keep half a dozen trained specialists alive, he
kind of doesn't need to be handed the idiot bal, cuz he's holding it
already.

Someone With Mass wrote...

Taking the crazy pills too.

"I'mma lead this here fleet. My crew? Nah. They dead."

Looks ike the point flew right beside you two.

[Wulfram]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

And if your Shepard considers himself competent, but can't keep half a dozen trained specialists alive, he kind of doesn't need to be handed the idiot bal, cuz he's holding it already.

If Shepard's not prepared to sacrifice one of his half a dozen trained specialists in a war to save the galaxy, then they're holding the idiot ball.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
According to you, the only way to do that would be to hand my Shep the idiot ball - which basicly means I can't RP my Shep.

This isnt' compromise.

It is a matter of balancing risk and benefit, gain and loss.  Several people have presented multiple scenarios where doubling back to save your LI or whatever would result in serious consequences.

And if your Shepard considers himself competent, but can't keep half a dozen trained specialists alive, he kind of doesn't need to be handed the idiot bal, cuz he's holding it already.

The only one holding the idiot ball (or in this case having it welded to himself) would be you.

Serious consequences are not serious. If you can save your buddeis AND the galaxy, then it's not serious enough.
And you also fail to explain WHY should Sheapprd be in position to save all of them. And how could he possibly be? He is just ONE man. He can't be at 10 places at once..and the reapers are strikign 10 places at once. And his team seems to be scattered in those paces.

It only stretches credibiltiy even more if not one of them dies.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, you can't have both. There is no middle ground to be had here. I wish there was, but there isn't.

I want to RP a capable Sheppard - one who think and plans carefully. I want to play that person and STILL not be able to save everyone.
According to you, the only way to do that would be to hand my Shep the idiot ball - which basicly means I can't RP my Shep.
This isnt' compromise.

If you want to be competent, plan carefully, do everything possible, and still fail, I have a game for you.  It's called real life. 

Personally, I don't need my distractions to feature more of the same. 

If you want your Shep to fail, that's up to you. 

Like I said - I want more realism, you don't. There can be no middle ground here. Telling me to not play the game like I want  or to deliberatly RP my character differently is NOT a compromise.  You're basicly telling me that you don't care, you want it your way and I should deal with it.

Well, I want it my way and you should deal with IT.

[Medhia Nox]

@Lotion Soronnar: I'm truly sorry about whatever happened in your real life that makes you believe that something always has to go wrong no matter how hard you plan - or try.

But the whole world isn't that way.

Perhaps if you were a little more interested in walking in someone elses shoes - instead of kicking everyone with your own - you might be able to accept that.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The only one holding the idiot ball (or in this case having it welded to himself) would be you.

Nah.  The ball is yours.  I have the paddle.

Serious consequences are not serious. If you can save your buddeis AND the galaxy, then it's not serious enough.

However, the safety of the galaxy does not depend on that one hot chick you slept with.  It's possible to save the galaxy AND keep an eye on her.  You're making it sound like they're mutually exclusive.  Now THAT would be a forced and unbelievable slap to my immersion, let me tell you.

And you also fail to explain WHY should Sheapprd be in position to save all of them. And how could he possibly be? He is just ONE man. He can't be at 10 places at once..and the reapers are strikign 10 places at once. And his team seems to be scattered in those paces.

1. You are assuming the team gets scattered and that Shep is dumb enough to expect his gunmen to handle an entire front alone.  Oh yeah, let's leave Kaidan to defend Earth by himself, yep, nothing could possibly go wrong...

2. Commander Shepard came back from the dead, defeated Saren and by extension Sovereign almost singlehandedly, wiped out the Collectors solely with the help of one ship and her crew, and has saved dozens of colonies, settlements, and other collections of innocents.  And, since ME3 will probably be "winnable," it looks like the Reapers, an army of robo-Cthulus that are pretty much invincible, are going to be defeated as well, largely due to the actions of one lousy human being.  Compared to all that, keeping a small collection of pretty badass dudes from biting it is a piece of cake.

3. Man?  Wait... what?  Oh, you mean your Shepard.  I get it.  Your Shep isn't as OP and Mary-Suely as mine.  Boy, there's no way we could possibly play the game differently, is there?

It only stretches credibiltiy even more if not one of them dies.

F*ck credibility, I'm Commander Shepard, and my team of badass sons of b*tches know how to handle themselves.

[AdmiralCheez]

Wulfram wrote...

If Shepard's not prepared to sacrifice one of his half a dozen trained specialists in a war to save the galaxy, then they're holding the idiot ball.

NOT.  MUTUALLY.  EXCLUSIVE.

It's like saying the only way to stop all traffic accidents from ever happening again is to not eat cake.

Willing is one thing.  Being FORCED to do it is not.

[Golden Owl]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

F*ck credibility, I'm Commander Shepard, and my team of badass sons of b*tches know how to handle themselves.

Eloquently and perfectly said....

Can't see myself how killing off characters would improve the game...Especially Plot Deaths....Plot death would completely wreck the game for me.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Like I said - I want more realism, you don't. There can be no middle ground here. Telling me to not play the game like I want  or to deliberatly RP my character differently is NOT a compromise.  You're basicly telling me that you don't care, you want it your way and I should deal with it.

With the appropriate in-game context, we can both get what we want.  This has been put forward several times in this thread, even by people WHO SHARE YOUR POSITION.

Well, I want it my way and you should deal with IT.

Tell you what.  I'll allow forced squad deaths if you allow all romances to be exclusively same-sex, with every single playthrough requiring that romance.

[jamesp81]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Lotion Soronnar: I'm truly sorry about whatever happened in your real life that makes you believe that something always has to go wrong no matter how hard you plan - or try.

But the whole world isn't that way.

Perhaps if you were a little more interested in walking in someone elses shoes - instead of kicking everyone with your own - you might be able to accept that.

My personal experience is that everything always does go wrong for me.  The point of my entertainment diversions is to get away from that paradigm.

So scripted deaths and depressing ends can all go die in a huge ****ing fire.

[jamesp81]

Golden Owl wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

F*ck credibility, I'm Commander Shepard, and my team of badass sons of b*tches know how to handle themselves.

Eloquently and perfectly said....

Can't see myself how killing off characters would improve the game...Especially Plot Deaths....Plot death would completely wreck the game for me.

+10 to you both:)

[Hathur]

I think it would certainly be a nice option to allow / enable players to make it through ME3 without a forced casualty (i.e. Virmire victim).

However, unlike ME2 I would like it to be considerably more difficult to avoid a zero casualty scenario (let's face it you have to screw up / not pay attention at all in ME2 to get a squad mate killed at the end).

Perhaps the player has to make a series of convoluted, complex decisions, choices & actions to ensure that everyone gets home alive.

I'm personally not a fan of a forced scripted death in the game as we saw in ME1 (not that it was bad in ME1.. but it's been done already).. I'd like to feel as if my Shepard can truly make an impact on the fate of individual characters. Having the ability to influence who in your team survives is a big part of that.

Just make sure it's a LOT more difficulty to do in ME3 is all.

Modifié par Hathur, 10 octobre 2011 - 02:27 .