4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

Shepard is forced to be a competent soldier, not someone who wusses out at the hard decisions.  I see no reason this should change.

[nitefyre410]

You know what if we are kill people off ... Why just go for the prize... pull a "Tomino Kill 'em All", hit the Reset button and be done with it seriously. I could accept that more than some forced character for death for the sake of the "Fake emotion."


I having nothing against character death but to throw it in as if to meet some kinda of body count to reach proper maturity level is cheap in the worst ways and even worst that "Happy Ending" people seem to loath.

So go ahead lets see the galaxy burn cause Realistic speaking Shepard has not REAL chance in hell to stop the Reapers. They have been doing this for millions of years. Off the shear numbers that it took to stop Sovereign beating the Giant, Robotic, Talking Space Squids is highly unlikely.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 10 octobre 2011 - 02:49 .

[Medhia Nox]

I wonder - do the same people that hate "Everyone lives" also hate the vast majority of action movies?

And I'm pretty sure - it's the same group of people that doesn't want Shepard to die. They want Shepard to live - because it represents them - but others should die, to give their life meaning.

I've seen many people in real life act that way - they have "good life guilt".

[kreite]

One hundred percent agreement, that is all.

[Athayniel]

I just read a comment on the early pages where the poster bemoaned that they suffered no losses during the SM after they went to the trouble of upgrading the Normandy completely and doing everyone's LM and whereas AdmiralCheez would feel rewarded by this they felt unchallenged.

Scripted deaths are the exact opposite of challenging.

There is no challenge in an outcome which your efforts cannot change. Sure, perhaps hours spent mining was the wrong way to go about it, but that is an argument against a game mechanic, not one in favour of guaranteed deaths. Let me fight for every life I save. Let me put in the effort to make sure my people get through the mission. That way when I save them all I'll know I earned it. And if someone else lost a squaddie they'll know it is because they didn't fight hard enough, not because it was guaranteed to happen at the whims of the galactic overlords at BioWare.

Want to guarantee the emotional impact of a death in an interactive story is less than it should be? Write it in such a way that the player can do nothing about it. That works 100% of the time.

Modifié par Athayniel, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:19 .

[Sisterofshane]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I wonder - do the same people that hate "Everyone lives" also hate the vast majority of action movies?

And I'm pretty sure - it's the same group of people that doesn't want Shepard to die. They want Shepard to live - because it represents them - but others should die, to give their life meaning.

I've seen many people in real life act that way - they have "good life guilt".

I was wondering this the other day, but instead of action I was thinking of horror movies.
I for one cannot stand any plot in which everything is done correctly by the protaganist and the end result is still a fail.  Seems like a waste of time, not only for the characters but for me because I was the one that had to sit through the whole time rooting for them to win.  The movie that comes to mind is The Ring; "Look you discovered my horrible tragic death and gave me a chance for my soul to be at peace and guess what?  You're going to die anyway because I decided so."  It's so incredibly frustrating.

So if Bioware is going to force Death down our throats, it better be meaningful and it also better have purpose, apart from just being a tearjerker.  Make the death of the squaddies for something important, and relevent to the plot.  Because if it is just "Ah this character has to die right here for no reason!", and there is no way to prevent it, then I will be severely disappointed.

[Athayniel]

Ahh, they'll always give you a reason. It will all be for the sake of getting the macguffin. What they don't give you is a reason to believe you couldn't save them if you were given the chance.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Athayniel wrote...
Want to guarantee the emotional impact of a death in an interactive story is less than it should be? Write it in such a way that the player can do nothing about it. That works 100% of the time.

What a load of rubbish.

[Sisterofshane]

Lizardviking wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
Want to guarantee the emotional impact of a death in an interactive story is less than it should be? Write it in such a way that the player can do nothing about it. That works 100% of the time.

What a load of rubbish.

Not so much -- the impact will always be the greatest in the first playthrough, but in subsequent playthroughs there will be dramatically less impact on the player.

Take the Virmire situation.  The first time it happened I think I had a mini-heart attack.  Everytime after, however, I didn't care at all.  I knew it was coming up and I didn't fret over my decision.  That specific death had no further impact on the story or characters.  It just seems normal now.  Same with DA2 and the quest "All that Remains".  It just ruins re-playability.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
Want to guarantee the emotional impact of a death in an interactive story is less than it should be? Write it in such a way that the player can do nothing about it. That works 100% of the time.

What a load of rubbish.

Not so much -- the impact will always be the greatest in the first playthrough, but in subsequent playthroughs there will be dramatically less impact on the player.

Take the Virmire situation.  The first time it happened I think I had a mini-heart attack.  Everytime after, however, I didn't care at all.  I knew it was coming up and I didn't fret over my decision.  That specific death had no further impact on the story or characters.  It just seems normal now.  Same with DA2 and the quest "All that Remains".  It just ruins re-playability.

The same happens with the suicide mission, the same happens with EVERY piece of art.

[Athayniel]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
Want to guarantee the emotional impact of a death in an interactive story is less than it should be? Write it in such a way that the player can do nothing about it. That works 100% of the time.

What a load of rubbish.

Not so much -- the impact will always be the greatest in the first playthrough, but in subsequent playthroughs there will be dramatically less impact on the player.

Take the Virmire situation.  The first time it happened I think I had a mini-heart attack.  Everytime after, however, I didn't care at all.  I knew it was coming up and I didn't fret over my decision.  That specific death had no further impact on the story or characters.  It just seems normal now.  Same with DA2 and the quest "All that Remains".  It just ruins re-playability.

I'm not even talking about it being a first playthrough vs subsequent playthroughs issue. If you're playing through a mission and your squaddie gets killed permanently and the only reason that is the case is because you weren't good enough to save them, that affects you a hell of a lot more than if they die no matter what you do.

[Sisterofshane]

Lizardviking wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
Want to guarantee the emotional impact of a death in an interactive story is less than it should be? Write it in such a way that the player can do nothing about it. That works 100% of the time.

What a load of rubbish.

Not so much -- the impact will always be the greatest in the first playthrough, but in subsequent playthroughs there will be dramatically less impact on the player.

Take the Virmire situation.  The first time it happened I think I had a mini-heart attack.  Everytime after, however, I didn't care at all.  I knew it was coming up and I didn't fret over my decision.  That specific death had no further impact on the story or characters.  It just seems normal now.  Same with DA2 and the quest "All that Remains".  It just ruins re-playability.

The same happens with the suicide mission, the same happens with EVERY piece of art.

The problem with the suicide mission is that it is nearly impossible to fail (although I 'm sure most people lost someone in the first run), not so much that you can't play it over again and get a different result by changing X,Y,Z.  It kind of cheapens the whole "we brought you back from the dead for this impossible task" plot.

And yes, it happens everytime we play a game and learn the specific mechanisms (or lack thereof, in some cases), and we learn to manipulate the system in such a manner to get the exact ending we desire.  But that doesn't make what Athayniel said above any less true.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Athayniel wrote...
I'm not even talking about it being a first playthrough vs subsequent playthroughs issue. If you're playing through a mission and your squaddie gets killed permanently and the only reason that is the case is because you weren't good enough to save them, that affects you a hell of a lot more than if they die no matter what you do.

Nope.

If they were killed and you could redo it over again. Then you could just replay it again or later and correct it. Thereby sucking everything that made that moment special out.

[Sisterofshane]

Athayniel wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
Want to guarantee the emotional impact of a death in an interactive story is less than it should be? Write it in such a way that the player can do nothing about it. That works 100% of the time.

What a load of rubbish.

Not so much -- the impact will always be the greatest in the first playthrough, but in subsequent playthroughs there will be dramatically less impact on the player.

Take the Virmire situation.  The first time it happened I think I had a mini-heart attack.  Everytime after, however, I didn't care at all.  I knew it was coming up and I didn't fret over my decision.  That specific death had no further impact on the story or characters.  It just seems normal now.  Same with DA2 and the quest "All that Remains".  It just ruins re-playability.

I'm not even talking about it being a first playthrough vs subsequent playthroughs issue. If you're playing through a mission and your squaddie gets killed permanently and the only reason that is the case is because you weren't good enough to save them, that affects you a hell of a lot more than if they die no matter what you do.

I totally agree with this, it cheapens the story and the character development as a whole.  But that is why I picked Virmire as a prime example of a  forced death that was done right -- within a given circumstance, you HAD to pick which squaddie to sacrifice.  Many people would say that there were other alternatives that could have been explored, but I think that the whole situation was very artfully crafted in terms of a game.  The only other game I think made such a meaningful choice was in Deus Ex: Human Revolution and the ending decision.  It allows you to make a choice within the character development and plot line that sets the tone you want for the playthrough.

[Captain_Obvious]

Lizardviking wrote...

Nope.

If they were killed and you could redo it over again. Then you could just replay it again or later and correct it. Thereby sucking everything that made that moment special out.

I don't consider Virmire special.  It makes me mad every single time I play it.  It doesn't make me sad, it doesn't give me an insight into the human condition, and it doesn't make me say "wow, that game has depth."  It just makes me mad that I have to lose someone to give the illusion of "tough choices, life sucks."  I always leave it to be the absolute last mission I do before the end of ME1 because I think it's a cheap way to force meta-gaming on the player.  No offense to anyone who likes it that way, but "tough choices, life sucks" is what I do every fracking day in real life.  Is it really too much to ask that I can fracking save all of my squad members in a fracking video game?  I don't think so. 

[Athayniel]

Lizardviking wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
I'm not even talking about it being a first playthrough vs subsequent playthroughs issue. If you're playing through a mission and your squaddie gets killed permanently and the only reason that is the case is because you weren't good enough to save them, that affects you a hell of a lot more than if they die no matter what you do.

Nope.

If they were killed and you could redo it over again. Then you could just replay it again or later and correct it. Thereby sucking everything that made that moment special out.

Ahh, but I think of it as making me work hard for my successes, making me earn my triumph. I consider it to be a better interactive storytelling philosophy to give me an emotional high as a reward for my success as opposed to an emotional kick in the balls just because you decided to take something away. It's not as if it's a punishment for failure. There is no failure without a chance of success.

Even on Virmire. I didn't fail to save Kaidan. I chose to save Ashley. His death was cheap because the only thing that went in to the decision was that I prefered Ashley. I liked him well enough, he was a good guy, but there was nothing about the decision itself that was anything other than him coming second in a two-horse popularity race.

So yeah, if Tali had died in those pipes during the SM without causing a critical mission failure I would replay the level until I saved her. That does not lessen the impact of her dying, it only increases the achievement of her survival.

[Medhia Nox]

Virmir fails - because you don't cause it.

If, through a series of decisions - you had caused Virmire, then I think it would be far more valuable.

Yes - afterward you could go change it, but that type of player isn't playing for the RP experience anyway (puts up shields). For those that stick with their choices however... I think Virmire would have depth if you caused it.

The options should have been:

Everyone Lives 10%
Ashley OR Kaidan dies 80%
Both Die 10%

[Athayniel]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Virmir fails - because you don't cause it.

If, through a series of decisions - you had caused Virmire, then I think it would be far more valuable.

Yes - afterward you could go change it, but that type of player isn't playing for the RP experience anyway (puts up shields). For those that stick with their choices however... I think Virmire would have depth if you caused it.

The options should have been:

Everyone Lives 10%
Ashley OR Kaidan dies 80%
Both Die 10%

And I would work tirelessly to succeed at that 10% chance of Everyone Lives. Because at the end of the day this is a game. It's a story as well, but it's a story I help shape, and I want to be able to shape it through my efforts, not just have it shaped for me through executive fiat.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Athayniel wrote...
Ahh, but I think of it as making me work hard for my successes, making me earn my triumph. I consider it to be a better interactive storytelling philosophy to give me an emotional high as a reward for my success as opposed to an emotional kick in the balls just because you decided to take something away. It's not as if it's a punishment for failure. There is no failure without a chance of success.

Then don't consider it failure. Consider it a sacrifice necessary to stop the Reapers.

So yeah, if Tali had died in those pipes during the SM without causing a critical mission failure I would replay the level until I saved her. That does not lessen the impact of her dying, it only increases the achievement of her survival.

No. If Tali died, you would just later redo the suicide mission, have her survive and go "Oh. I guess she made it through now." then promtly move on.

[Athayniel]

Lizardviking wrote...

Then don't consider it failure. Consider it a sacrifice necessary to stop the Reapers.

That is very easy to wrtie poorly. Stupidly easy in fact. And entirely cliche on top of that. It takes extremely good writiing to make a sacrifice worthwhile, as we've already shown with the failure that was Virmire. Which is why I prefer the 'earn your happy ending' approach.

No. If Tali died, you would just later redo the suicide mission, have her survive and go "Oh. I guess she made it through now." then promtly move on.

Which is why I've always felt that mining out planets and doing LMs are a poor substitute for player skill. If she dies because you're not fast enough or skilled enough, it means a lot more than if she dies because the story demands a death at this point.

[Medhia Nox]

@Athayneil - and that would be your prerogative. The goal would be "Options" - for those who want to sculpt a specific story, a strategy guide (or youtube) would tell you how to get the 10% everyone lives.

For those who want to experience the consequences to their choices - the option exists.

And for the "grim darks" the option to kill everyone and sit on a throne of skulls is there too.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

The truth is that you PRESUME or have a SUBJECTIVE BELIEF that squadmate death, or choosing between squadmate death or the deaths of many others, is "realism".    The fact is that you want a game in which the player is forced to make "hard choices" along those lines, and has no chance of overcoming the long odds. 

Sometimes, even in real life, everything does go right, because the best you can do is actually enough to pull it off.  Why should that possibility be scripted out of the game?  Because you want your Shep to always come up short no matter what? 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 10 octobre 2011 - 04:38 .

[Athayniel]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

No, you PRESUME or have a SUBJECTIVE BELIEF that squadmate death, or choosing between squadmate death or the deaths of many others, is "realism".

A lot of times it's not even effective storytelling.

[Tonymac]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Nope.

If they were killed and you could redo it over again. Then you could just replay it again or later and correct it. Thereby sucking everything that made that moment special out.

I don't consider Virmire special.  It makes me mad every single time I play it.  It doesn't make me sad, it doesn't give me an insight into the human condition, and it doesn't make me say "wow, that game has depth."  It just makes me mad that I have to lose someone to give the illusion of "tough choices, life sucks."  I always leave it to be the absolute last mission I do before the end of ME1 because I think it's a cheap way to force meta-gaming on the player.  No offense to anyone who likes it that way, but "tough choices, life sucks" is what I do every fracking day in real life.  Is it really too much to ask that I can fracking save all of my squad members in a fracking video game?  I don't think so. 

I agree.  I like to play the hero.  Real life has enough monotony, enough of that 'pay your taxes and shut up' mentality.  I play the game to be the hero, to have all who stand with me survive and flourish - to fight for the lost and save the galaxy.  I think it sucks to have to sacrafice people - unless of course they are batarians....

[Golden Owl]

Tonymac wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Nope.

If they were killed and you could redo it over again. Then you could just replay it again or later and correct it. Thereby sucking everything that made that moment special out.

I don't consider Virmire special.  It makes me mad every single time I play it.  It doesn't make me sad, it doesn't give me an insight into the human condition, and it doesn't make me say "wow, that game has depth."  It just makes me mad that I have to lose someone to give the illusion of "tough choices, life sucks."  I always leave it to be the absolute last mission I do before the end of ME1 because I think it's a cheap way to force meta-gaming on the player.  No offense to anyone who likes it that way, but "tough choices, life sucks" is what I do every fracking day in real life.  Is it really too much to ask that I can fracking save all of my squad members in a fracking video game?  I don't think so. 

I agree.  I like to play the hero.  Real life has enough monotony, enough of that 'pay your taxes and shut up' mentality.  I play the game to be the hero, to have all who stand with me survive and flourish - to fight for the lost and save the galaxy.  I think it sucks to have to sacrafice people - unless of course they are batarians....

300, 000 wasn't enough?....