4309 réponses à ce sujet

[DiebytheSword]

Elessara wrote...

I just saw this thread and no I haven't even read most of it but a massive THIS to the OP.

Some people might find a happy ending cheap. Some might find it boring. Well good for you. I hope your preferred ending is included just as much as my preferred ending. But I really hope the options for BOTH the sob-fest and the happy ever after are possible.

I think that's the point AdmiralCheez was trying to make. 

Wanting the sobbing ending does not mean that we should not be able to achieve a rainbow and sunshine ending.  Many people ITT are complaining that the existence of sunshine and rainbows puts My Little Pony in their Aliens 3.

You know, rainbow and sunhine for all the people at Ferros, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Eden Prime, the Citadel and obviously now Earth.

That said, choice is paramount regardless of people being butthurt about someone else's playthrough.

[Golden Owl]

sg1fan75 wrote...

I like happy endings , as a kid I loved The Return of the Jedi (the original version). I like to save the day in my games, I was a Fire Fighter for 7 years you can not save them all but you never stop wanting to, so in Mass Effect 2 when I saved my team and the crew I was very happy. Realism is nice for people that have never seen the cold hard facts of life and death up close. I will take the joy of saving the day in a game keep reality in the real world thanks. If I can I will save as many as possible in ME3.

Perfectly made point sg...it is much easier to play out tragedies and disasters we are unable to relate to.

My kids are all in the SES (State Emergency Services) Cadets, they often get to partipate in Fire Fighter and Paramedic drills (as the victims) ...yes, its a game for the kids and they love it, but I have noticed by the same token that it certainly brings home to the kids how serious it is what our Emergency Servicemen and women do and give and aspects of what they are up against.

[AdmiralCheez]

Ughhh... Then HAVE your realism, Saph.

IN YOUR OWN DAMN PLAYTHROUGH.

How many times do I f*cking have to lajdgfs.fgs.fdg......

[Captain_Obvious]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I know plenty about the hard facts of life so sg1fan75 can go have intercourse with himself.

I find that the overly happy **** insults my intelligence. I know that is not the way the world works. It's just fantasy. I can't get involved in it. There's no immersion for me. I can accept space travel or magic or other races as long as the fundamental ways the universe interacts with itself and the way people behave is realistic. That's the kind of realism I like.

Which is just great for you.  I don't want realism where characters close to my main character die in a game.  That's the kind of realism I don't like. 

Which one of us is right? 

[DiebytheSword]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I know plenty about the hard facts of life so sg1fan75 can go have intercourse with himself.

I find that the overly happy **** insults my intelligence. I know that is not the way the world works. It's just fantasy. I can't get involved in it. There's no immersion for me. I can accept space travel or magic or other races as long as the fundamental ways the universe interacts with itself and the way people behave is realistic. That's the kind of realism I like.

Does it not stand to reason then that you will not always get what you like?  In your perfect world, our imaginary worlds should not be perfect so as to not insult your intelligence.  Thus, getting endings where you, Saphra Deden are personally pleased, should also insult your intelligence, should it not?

I'm not attacking you, I'm simply pointing out a curious point in your logic.  The existence of a perfect scenario insults you on a logical front, yet you insist on an outcome which favors only you to the detrement of others as a perfect solution to your tastes.  By all means, correct me if I'm misreading this.

[crimzontearz]

Seprha does not truly care for the ending. Sephra cares that the ending is summarily imposed. Well guess what Sephra, I know it may not be very realistic but it is my entertainment....an imposed tragic (or heavily bittersweet) ending shatters my entertainment ok? And devastates replayability. At least Sephra when I am given the chance to craft my own ending I get to enjoy it without some ridiculous hangup about the result beuing forced upon me preventing me to......and without claiming that the existence of endings where everyone dies makes my ending less meaningful


oh...you know what? the existence of renegade shepards marrs the very idea of my full paragon shepard.....I demand Paragon choices to be imposed on us all!l

[Killjoy Cutter]

Side A "We want the option for the game to end our way, or to end your way."

Side B "What you want sucks and should never happen, so I hope it's impossible. I feel like your way makes my way feel stupid, so your way is dumb."

[DiebytheSword]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Which one of us is right? 

I'm right, you're wrong.

"Many choices lay ahead, none of them easy."

The Galactic Readiness meter probably means that its pointless to be you and right.  Sunshine and Bunnies if you keep Grunt, Garrus, Zaeed holding the line and send Mordin back with the crew it is.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

No plan survives contact with the enemy.
And if you looked outside the window, you'd see that in real life, most things are outside of your control - no matter how smart of good at planing you are. There are limits to what one can do.
Things don't always go wrong, but they sure as hell don't ALWAYS go right either.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

Actually, when you are trying to save 2 dozen people and the entire galaxy, it devides your attention. And is exceptionally contrieved that not one of your dear companions dies.
There isn't a single special forces squad that didn't face casualties, and they fight far lesss dangerous opponents than reapers.

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?

1. I'm not assuming anything. We already know the team is scattered.

2. No.

3. Man is man. I dont' care if you call yours Chuck Norris. He ain't a god and he's not supposed to be.

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.

F*uck your badassery, bullets don't give a damn what your name is and how big your ego is - they kill just the same.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

NO. WE. CAN'T.

We wan't mutually exclusive things.

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.

Good thing no one's asking for your allowance then,...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

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.

Disagree.

That's exactly the thing I dont want. I want to do my best and still not be able to get a 100% perfect happy ending (which in this case would be saving all the squadmates and the galaxy).
Deliberately skimping out, deliberately sabotaging Sheps efforts to get a satisfying ending is not a solution.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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. 

ME2 is supposed to darker.
So yes, in that context you are asking too much.

If you want perfect endings then there are games who's universe and atmosphere are tailor-made for that...

And Vimire is a good/bad choice. Good as the idea was good, but the execution could have been better, as the situation isn't portrayed seriously enough.
For one, the two locations are far too close to eachother, for antoher, the obvious "call in the Normandy" option was ignored. Because of that, it kinds felt forced, as it didn't feel really necessary.
In other words, first make sure other options are unviable in a Vimire scenario.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
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? 

Every last thing going right? No, that does not happen. If it does, we call it a miracle.

Saving the galaxy and some squad members alrleady IS overcoming the odds..by a huge margin. But you want to go into a even greater extreeme.

I know what realism is and I know what real life is. Saving the galaxy and everyone is fairytale fantasy and the robot unicorn attack is more believable than that.

You want escapist fantasy.  I want fantasy with a heavy does of immersion and versimilitude.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@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.

Only if they specififcly go after that option. They must deliberately GIMP shepard to get that ending. Which goes agaisnt RP'ing a caring and intelligent Sheappard.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...
You're right. But I think when you've built up characters to be bad ass, it is less contrived for them to survive against difficult odds than to throw them into the cliched no-win scenario.

Badassery has nothing to do with it.
"Badess" is nothing more than an impression of an individual. It doesn't stop bullets or 100 tons of crumbling building or an orbital death ray.

Have we not already discussed how Virmire was just a meaningless popularity contest which just made most people mad instead of sad?

Who is this "most people"?
And Virmire wasn't executed that well.

He's basically saying he wants to be able to blame "The Story" for squadmate's death rather than his Shepard. If there's no player agency in the decision then Shepard can't be found wanting, it wasn't because Shepard wasn't skilled enough or because he didn't care enough.

If a squadmate has to die "for the story" you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's worthwhile, because I think overcoming impossible odds always makes for a more fulfilling escapist story. Especially when I can contribute to the whole overcoming of impossible odds by playing a better Shepard.

Then let's have Sheppard fight alone against all the reapers. Without armor. And guns. Those are even more impossibel odds, right? So according ot you, ti would make an even more fulfilling story.
Heck, who needs arms and legs? Let's have Shep headbutt them all to death!

[Lotion Soronarr]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@sg1fan75: And the lives you helped save - that's the "drama". That's what people should want to know about. Instead - they all want to know about those who died in the fires. They've likely never experienced anything so "real" - so, they think that portraying it in a video game is "realism".

What they want - is a tragedy simulator. What I would suggest they need - is perspective (sadly, this usually only comes from experiencing real tragedy)

Kudos to you for putting yourself out there to help save lives.

Have you experienced anything so "real"?
I experienced war. What deep RL experience are you brining into this discussion?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...
As for your second point, that isn't a way to make a game replayable. If you feel one ending is as good as any other why would you ever replay it to get a different one? And different people have different definitions of what constitutes a 'good' ending as we have so ably demonstrated in this thread. The difference being I don't want to deprive you of your 'good' ending while you do wish to deprive me of mine.

Incorrect. If I have to RP an idiot Sheppard to get the ending I deem acceptable, then the whole experience in itself is ruined.
In other words, there IS no ending I want in that scenario. So yes, you do want to deprive me of my "good" ending.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I know plenty about the hard facts of life so sg1fan75 can go have intercourse with himself.

I find that the overly happy **** insults my intelligence. I know that is not the way the world works. It's just fantasy. I can't get involved in it. There's no immersion for me. I can accept space travel or magic or other races as long as the fundamental ways the universe interacts with itself and the way people behave is realistic. That's the kind of realism I like.

Which is just great for you.  I don't want realism where characters close to my main character die in a game.  That's the kind of realism I don't like. 

Which one of us is right? 

Neither. But the game can't follow 2 design principles at the same time. It has to pick one.

ME3 is said to be darker and more serious. And the whole atosphere of a more serious/mature universe kinda goes against you wishes.

[Athayniel]

@Lotion Soronnar: Did you miss all the parts where I say the outcomes should be coupled to player skill and decisions and not be simply storytelling fiat? Where I say you accomplish the ending your good enough to accomplish not the ending laid down from on high? I suppose you did, because you don't want there to be an 'everyone lives' ending and you insist on ranking all endings objectively from a meta-perspective instead of subjectively from the point of view of your individual playthrough.

If you prefer an ending where you lose squaddies then I'm all in favour of you getting that ending, as long as you don't prevent me from getting mine if I'm willing to put the effort and time into it. I don't even want your ending to only be achievable by doing something 'wrong' or 'stupid' or by deliberately gimping your Shepard.

As for your 'why don't you go fight reapers unarmed and unarmoured if you like overcoming impossible odds' thing. Nice strawman. The reapers, at least the truly large ones, aren't the sort of enemy you fight head on. No squad commander worth their salt would put their unit in the direct line of fire of such an enemy because it would be suicide. If my Shepard's fight against the reapers never brought my squad against one of them face to face then I'd be all for it because that sort of enemy is fought by different means.

The job of Shepard's squad isn't to fight reapers. It's to defeat them. That means finding out what it takes to kill them and then passing that information on to the fleets and armies waiting for it. That will likely not require facing off against one of the larger ones at all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

@Lotion Soronnar: Did you miss all the parts where I say the outcomes should be coupled to player skill and decisions and not be simply storytelling fiat? Where I say you accomplish the ending your good enough to accomplish not the ending laid down from on high? I suppose you did, because you don't want there to be an 'everyone lives' ending and you insist on ranking all endings objectively from a meta-perspective instead of subjectively from the point of view of your individual playthrough.

Nope, I didn't miss anything. You are the one missing my point tough.
Player skill and choices mattering? Yes. Some randomization? Why not.

Heck, I would mind if squadmate revival is turned off in some missions( he goes down in fight, he stays dead..not a cuscene death, but in-game, ganmepay death). Doubt other people would like it.

How about this, you can save all squadmates, but end up f*** up the universe in the process..No?

Ultimatively what you and I want is not compatible, barring some miracle.

If you prefer an ending where you lose squaddies then I'm all in favour of you getting that ending, as long as you don't prevent me from getting mine if I'm willing to put the effort and time into it. I don't even want your ending to only be achievable by doing something 'wrong' or 'stupid' or by deliberately gimping your Shepard.

Then how? If playing a caring and intelligent Shepards means you save everyone, then HOW?
If playing smart means you get the perfect ending, then I CAN'T - by definition - RP my Sheaprds and get the ending I feel is right.

If you have some brilliant idea on how that fabled middle-ground can be reached, I'm all ears.

As for your 'why don't you go fight reapers unarmed and unarmoured if you like overcoming impossible odds' thing. Nice strawman.

Not really. If you like impossible odds, those are impossible. "But those are too impossible" you say?
Well the odds of saving everyone are too impossible for me.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:21 .

[Biotic Sage]

Lotion you are obnoxious and condescending as hell. But on this one rare occassion I agree with your assertion: verisimillitude and catharsis are necessary for every engaging and immersive narrative. 100% perfect ending for ME3 in ANY scenario, even if people do everything "right" and cover all their bases, should not be achievable. I'm not sure why this is a debate. Bioware has a vision of Mass Effect as a legitimate, epic/romantic war story in a sci-fi universe with a HEAVY dose of verisimillitude; people who want something else just aren't going to get it.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:31 .