4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Athayniel]

@Lotion Soronnar: You're right, what each of us want isn't compatible. In the same playthrough. But nowhere am I advocating you be denied the ending you want in your playthrough.

I'd be all in favour of turning off squad respawn on certain missions and them being dead for good if they fall. It would make me play smarter. You seem to be under the impression that I am against squadmate deaths. I'm not. I'm against 'enforced' squadmate deaths. I want the chance to fight for their lives, because I don't think the story of a small squad of elite troops essentially fighting against mooks and lieutenants while in search of "The Deicide Code" requires enforced death for catharsis or verisimilitude.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

@Lotion Soronnar: You're right, what each of us want isn't compatible. In the same playthrough. But nowhere am I advocating you be denied the ending you want in your playthrough.

I'd be all in favour of turning off squad respawn on certain missions and them being dead for good if they fall. It would make me play smarter. You seem to be under the impression that I am against squadmate deaths. I'm not. I'm against 'enforced' squadmate deaths. I want the chance to fight for their lives, because I don't think the story of a small squad of elite troops essentially fighting against mooks and lieutenants while in search of "The Deicide Code" requires enforced death for catharsis or verisimilitude.

The Enterprise handled things as well as they could in Star Trek II, but Spock still died.  Sometimes you do everything right and you still have to make decisions that will sacrifice your life or your squadmates'; that's verisimillitude, and that's emotionally engaging.  Shepard is not an omnipotent overlord playing a real time strategy game, and they shouldn't allow him to be one.

[nightcobra]

i just want a happy ending to be possible as a choice in this series. Is that too much to ask in this age where everything has to be dark,grey and edgy? Is it too much to ask for our story conducted by our choices throughout 3 games to have the right to even exist? Is it too much to ask for all that effort to not be in vain?

[Biotic Sage]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i just want a happy ending to be possible as a choice in this series. Is that too much to ask in this age where everything has to be dark,grey and edgy? Is it too much to ask for our story conducted by our choices throughout 3 games to have the right to even exist? Is it too much to ask for all that effort to not be in vain?

Yes because like most people on this forum, I am going to be a completionist.  I'm going to do my best at everything and complete every single side mission.  But I also want to experience a great narrative full of catharsis, sacrifice, joy and tears.  Most people want that.  So yeah, it is too much to ask for in a series like Mass Effect that centers itself around hard choices and sacrifice.  Every good story has conflict and loss.

Of course there should be varying degrees of sacrifice and loss depending on choices you've made, and of course there should be varying degrees of happiness in different endings that hinge upon your decisions, but a "perfect" happy ending should not be on a table for a great sci-fi war story.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:34 .

[Siegdrifa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


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.

Doing the impossible is the everyday day life of a hero ...
A hero by definition is a character that can accomplish impossible task that others (normal) people can't do.

And just as a reminder, it's not you who fight repears, it's Shepard. Shepard is famous and respected / feared / hated over the galaxy, because Bioware grant him this impact, you, you are nothing, when you act like a bad ass through Shepard, the other characters are impressed and convinced that you are one, thanks to Bioware story telling, if it was real and realist, Shep wouldn't convice he / she is a bad ass and he / she would have been gunned down like a mad dog for barking so much before eden prime ...

While i'm not saying a hero must be a god, i don't like hero spending their time failling especialy when the faillure is forced on me no matter my choices and skills, and a too "human" hero is not a hero anymore, especialy if it turn to be a crybaby or another "whell... that' was impossible to accomplish, i'm merly a human after all" ...
My real life is actualy a better challenge and more satisfyng as i actualy suceed on my tasks, i won't bother play a game telling the advanture of Shepard the human looser that have no option to win a fictionnal story.

Op stated that life is full of **** and that entertainement should give him a possibility for a happy ending. I concure, if this is for his entertainement, ME1 and ME2 hallow happy ending, there is no reason to force a sad end and spoile his fun for the last game.
But also, as i enjoy my profession and my life (and my sweet love), i won't waste it on some forced gloomy entertainement for drama's sake.
So, damn ! i'm really lucky since i can live whithout a video game to shine my day ! : )

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:18 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

@Lotion Soronnar: You're right, what each of us want isn't compatible. In the same playthrough. But nowhere am I advocating you be denied the ending you want in your playthrough.

No, it's not compatible AT ALL.
Regardless of playtrough.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


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.

Doing the impossible is the everyday day life of a hero ...
A hero by definition is a character that can accomplish impossible task that others (normal) people can't do.

A hero accomplishes unlikely things. If htey were impossible, then no one could do them.

Also, Shep being that super-duper Mary Sue wish-fulfillment perfect guy is repulsive to me. MAybe your definition of hero and mine are different.
A hero is someone who does his best and fights for a good cause, regardless of odds. I've yet to see a definition of a hero that implies that a her MUST suceed perfectly at everything.

While i'm not saying a hero must be a god, i don't like hero spending their time failling especialy when the faillure is forced on me no matter my choices and skills, and a too "human" hero is not a hero anymore, especialy if it turn to be a crybaby or another "whell... that' was impossible to accomplish, i'm merly a human after all" ...
My real life is actualy a better challenge and more satisfyng as i actualy suceed on my tasks, i won't bother play a game telling the advanture of Shepard the human looser that have no option to win a fictionnal story.

so saving the universe is not a victory? Unless hte victory is 100% perfect, then it's not a victory? Sheppard fails?

Bah...

Op stated that life is full of **** and that entertainement should give him a possibility for a happy ending. I concure, if this is for his entertainement, ME1 and ME2 hallow happy ending, there is no reason to force a sad end and spoile his fun for the last game.

Saving the galaxy is a happy ending.
Saving the galaxy, saving everyone you hold dear and pulling off everything perfeclty is vommit-enducing happywonderland.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Saving the galaxy is a happy ending.
Saving the galaxy, saving everyone you hold dear and pulling off everything perfeclty is vommit-enducing happywonderland.

Why?  What makes it so? 

And if Shep pulled off everything perfectly, the Reapers wouldn't have killed anyone this cycle.  Hell, back in ME1, Saren would have been captured on Eden Prime at the beginning of ME1 if Shep pulled off everything perfectly. 

[nitefyre410]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

*walks in to check on things*

*sees some new supporters, some new non-supporters, and the usual suspects arguing over some sorta bullsh*t i don't even*

*hands paddle to EternalAmbiguity, walks out*

 


OMG  I LOVE YOU... this sums it all perfectly 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Things don't always go wrong,

Huh. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Yes, you wanting to force your special kind of ending on everyone else happens to be mutually exclusive with any and all endings you don't want.  Big shock.

[Someone With Mass]

Different endings for different people. How about that?

I don't care if it's not realistic or not, because guess what. THE MASS EFFECT GAMES HAVE NEVER BEEN REALISTIC, NOR WILL THEY EVER BE SO.

Also, stop pretending that you know everything about how a war is done just because you've seen a few war movies on TV.

[Someone With Mass]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Why?  What makes it so? 

And if Shep pulled off everything perfectly, the Reapers wouldn't have killed anyone this cycle.  Hell, back in ME1, Saren would have been captured on Eden Prime at the beginning of ME1 if Shep pulled off everything perfectly. 

This. There's no such thing as a 100% happy ending by default.

People are dying by the millions, cities are being demolished and  some people are even turned into mutant freaks.

That can't set up for a completely happy ending.

[Wulfram]

A genuine choice of endings is good. Choosing between Humanity triumphant and the Galaxy being united under the council is good. Choosing what you think is most important to save and what you're prepared to sacrifice is good.

Just letting you skip all the tough decisions and get an ending which is clearly superior to other "options" is not a choice.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 octobre 2011 - 01:47 .

[Athayniel]

The only thing being asked for is the chance to save squadmates. Not to prevent the deaths of millions, not to prevent the genocide of entire species or the loss of planets or fleets. Only giving Shepard the chance of keeping his squad alive. How does that take away hard choices?

Choosing between any squadmate and an entire species is a meaningless choice. There is no choice. There is no catharsis, there is no lesson to be learned, there is no realism either. It is not realistic to pit the fate of an entire species on the choice of whether a single person is saved or not. To do so is just monumentally bad writing.

So tell me, how is being given the chance to keep the squad intact while the galaxy as a whole is already burning not 'realistic'? Especially since the more squadmates Shepard loses, the harder the missions will inevitably become. And emember, Shepard confronting reapers on foot is entirely unrealistic. Shepard's mission is not to fight the reapers, but to defeat them.

[xentar]

Biotic Sage wrote...
[...]experience a great narrative full of catharsis, sacrifice, joy and tears.  Most people want that.  

I would question that statement. Perhaps, we need a poll.

[Wulfram]

Whether the story is better or worse with squadmate death is mostly a matter of taste. As I've said, I like it because it allows the squadmate in question to show of their heroism.

What I object to is the suggestion that allowing the squadmate to die if you choose is a compromise. It's not. Playing deliberately poorly sucks. I want to care about squadmates, not orchestrate their deaths.

[Tasha vas Nar Rayya]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Different endings for different people. How about that?

I don't care if it's not realistic or not, because guess what. THE MASS EFFECT GAMES HAVE NEVER BEEN REALISTIC, NOR WILL THEY EVER BE SO.

Also, stop pretending that you know everything about how a war is done just because you've seen a few war movies on TV.

Exactly. I also don't understand it when people rage on about the plotline, weapons, and sci fi elements and how they aren't realistic.

I mean, I don't play a game for realism, I play a game to get out of real life.

And definately different endings. I would really like an epilogue for Mass Effect 3, kind of like what Fallout New Vegas had. A little snippet telling about how Shepard's action affected the various races and individuals whose lives we affected throughout the series.

[IndigoWolfe]

Athayniel wrote...

The only thing being asked for is the chance to save squadmates. Not to prevent the deaths of millions, not to prevent the genocide of entire species or the loss of planets or fleets. Only giving Shepard the chance of keeping his squad alive. How does that take away hard choices?

Because if on Virmire, had I been choosing between two squads of Salarians to save, I would not have cared half as much. Granted, the horse is a different color when you're talking about entire planets and species, but there's a bond I've been forging between myself and my squadmates that is not there for the ambiguous masses of a species.

[AdmiralCheez]

Wulfram wrote...

What I object to is the suggestion that allowing the squadmate to die if you choose is a compromise. It's not. Playing deliberately poorly sucks. I want to care about squadmates, not orchestrate their deaths.

Let's say you had to choose between running back to save your buddy or helping defend an Alliance stronghold or dreadnought or something.

And let's say the way it's presented in-game, you have no idea that choosing one will sacrifice the other.

Squadmate: "Don't worry about me, Shepard!  We're handling it fine on this end!" *gunfire, squadmate grunts and swears--they've been hit* "Making sure nothing happens to the Kilimanjaro while she's down for repairs is more important!"

Hackett: "We can use all the help we can get on this end, but my marines are no pushovers.  If you want to go back and bail out the strike team, it's your call."

And whichever one you choose to help, as soon as you get there the other is overrun by Reaper forces.  You rush back to find it's too late--either your squadmate and the soldiers accompanying them are wiped out, or the already weakened Kilimanjaro is torn to shreds, along with Admiral Hackett.

So it's like a stealth Virmire, only it's between the leader of the Fifth Fleet and one of her mightiest ships or someone obviously less strategically important in the grand scheme of things, but much closer to you personally.

[Athayniel]

@IndigoWolfe: Virmire wasn't a choice. It was a popularity contest. Pitting a squaddie against an entire species is also not a choice. I would never argue in favour of not sacrificing the squaddie. That doesn't change the fact that it's a non-choice. There is no player agency in that except to paint your Shepard as an utterly heartless creature. That's not interesting or compelling narrative.

@Wulfram: Arguing that a squadmate dying is somehow letting them appear heroic is just crass. They're already heroes for everything they've done, they don't need to die to prove it.

[Wulfram]

@AdmiralCheez That scenario sounds OK.  Personally I generally prefer the consequences of choices to be clear when you make them, though.  Particularly if I'm replaying the game - it might be a "stealth Virmire" on the first playthrough but not on subsequent ones, and the difference between my knowledge and Shepard's knowledge is distracting.

(In practice, I found Virmire to be a stealth Virmire, since to me going to help the Salarians is the obvious choice.  So the decision which determined which would survive was the earlier decision about who would go with them)

Athayniel wrote...

@Wulfram: Arguing that a squadmate dying is somehow letting them appear heroic is just crass. They're already heroes for everything they've done, they don't need to die to prove it.

They're mostly heroic sidekicks for what they've done.  Their death scene is one occasion where they can step out of the PC's shadow.

There's no scene for Alistair in DA:O that shows his heroism in such stark relief as the one where he decides that if someone is going to die to stop the blight then it's going to be him and not the woman he loves.

[jamesp81]

Wulfram wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

only if the game points out to you that you were dumb for doing it and only IF you regret doing it ...which you won't if that was really the ending you wanted.

do NOT impose endings on people, it's the best way to kill replayability

The best way to kill replayability is to have one clearly superior perfect ending. 

One way to encourage replayability is to have real choices, without a clear right or wrong answer.

That is never going to happen.  In fact, it has never happened in any game Bioware has made to date, despite all efforts to do so.  It's unreasonable and unlikely.

[Killjoy Cutter]

LoL @ "NPCs have to die to not be Shep's 'sidekick'".

Whatever.

[Someone With Mass]

I hope they can come up with something better than squadmate VS race, because that will get old. Not to mention that I find it very unbelievable if I have to make such a choice. That they're just doing it to annoy me.