4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Aumata]

jamesp81 wrote...

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?

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.

Here's what I want.  The ability to:

1.  Save Earth
2.  Destroy the Reapers permanently
3.  Prevent any races from being completely exterminated
4.  Keep all my crew alive

Anyone who thinks I shouldn't be given a path of choices that results in this can go die in a huge ****ing fire:devil:

If you want that ending it should come with massive deaths, instability and several species ending up like the quarians.  Only fair to get that ending, as you got the chance of saving everybody but at a massive cost.  That should be a fair result.  That way the only ending that is a crap shoot is that everyone dies at the end.  Though I am in also in favor of that being as a result of choices also.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

sorentoft wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

So, agreement that SM-system >= VS-system?

Edit; I positively found the best smiley... ever.

Wait what?

No. Most definetly not. Okay to be able to save most of your squadmates, but not all.

Why?

Because Shepard being able to make a difference and being able to prevent certain bad things from happening makes sense. It also gives players the power of agency.

But Shepard is only human and is only able to do so much considering the enemy he is facing. In a story of choice, facing that one no-win scenario is alot more powerful given what the player is used to.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

But Shepard is only human and is only able to do so much considering the enemy he is facing. In a story of choice, facing that one no-win scenario is alot more powerful given what the player is used to.

Okay, you know what?  I'll accept the no-win scenario so long as the same squadmate doesn't die every frickin' time.

Seriously.  Close your eyes for a moment and imagine Liara getting Wilson'd.  After the initial chuckle at the irony and the raging of her fanbase, ask yourself what the f*cking point was?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

But Shepard is only human and is only able to do so much considering the enemy he is facing. In a story of choice, facing that one no-win scenario is alot more powerful given what the player is used to.

Okay, you know what?  I'll accept the no-win scenario so long as the same squadmate doesn't die every frickin' time.

Seriously.  Close your eyes for a moment and imagine Liara getting Wilson'd.  After the initial chuckle at the irony and the raging of her fanbase, ask yourself what the f*cking point was?

Wilson'd? No thanks.

Choice like Ash/Kaidan? Got potential.

Like Awesomename said. Just make the build-up and "pay-off" of such an event be good.

[sorentoft]

Lizardviking wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

But Shepard is only human and is only able to do so much considering the enemy he is facing. In a story of choice, facing that one no-win scenario is alot more powerful given what the player is used to.

Okay, you know what?  I'll accept the no-win scenario so long as the same squadmate doesn't die every frickin' time.

Seriously.  Close your eyes for a moment and imagine Liara getting Wilson'd.  After the initial chuckle at the irony and the raging of her fanbase, ask yourself what the f*cking point was?

Choice like Ash/Kaidan? Got potential.

Honestly, I just never geared, used or talked to Kaidan because I knew I was going to kill him later in the game. That is in all my ME1 playthroughs except the first. That's no fun.

Modifié par sorentoft, 11 octobre 2011 - 09:50 .

[Xilizhra]

I can't really see much of a choice between saving one squadmate and letting a bunch of other people die, since I seriously doubt anyone on your squad, even if they're an LI, would prefer to have that many other people die for them. So it's kind of a stupid choice, in my opinion; I'd actually prefer something like Virmire over that.

[Biotic Sage]

xentar wrote...

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.

Well let me put it this way: Bioware's vision of Mass Effect is one of an epic narrative of sacrifice and hard choices.  So a poll would be irrelevant.  That is the developer's vision, so that's what we are going to get.  I just happen to agree with their vision and share their opinion that great narratives have these elements.

[Aumata]

Getting everybody saved ending needs to come with major bad results as that type of ending nullifies the other endings all together. I don't want to see another SM mission where being a completionist results in the best ending of everybody being saved. Do it instead by choices in game and have consequences affect the game during and up to the end, this is also the case for all decisions in game but the everybody ending should come at a major price and not be this all happy result for everybody ending. So let them get that ending just make it so it doesn't nullifies the other endings.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

sorentoft wrote...
Honestly, I just never geared, used or talked to Kaidan because I knew I was going to kill him later in the game. That is in all my ME1 playthroughs except the first. That's no fun.

That is your loss. I still talk to Ashley in my playthroughs. Even through she is going to die. Does not mean I can't appreciate the character she has.

[Athayniel]

Lizardviking wrote...

Wilson'd? No thanks.

Choice like Ash/Kaidan? Got potential.

Like Awesomename said. Just make the build-up and "pay-off" of such an event be good.

Sorry but personally I don't see a "pay off" in such things. It's not something I need to enjoy my fiction.

[sorentoft]

Lizardviking wrote...

sorentoft wrote...
Honestly, I just never geared, used or talked to Kaidan because I knew I was going to kill him later in the game. That is in all my ME1 playthroughs except the first. That's no fun.

That is your loss. I still talk to Ashley in my playthroughs. Even through she is going to die. Does not mean I can't appreciate the character she has.

I don't see the point in it. He is going to blow up anyway.

[Someone With Mass]

Athayniel wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Wilson'd? No thanks.

Choice like Ash/Kaidan? Got potential.

Like Awesomename said. Just make the build-up and "pay-off" of such an event be good.

Sorry but personally I don't see a "pay off" in such things. It's not something I need to enjoy my fiction.

I would rather have the characters evolve as the game progresses instead of killing them for the sake of "drama"

[Yezdigerd]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

A more strange thing is why Samara with her 800 years of experience and immaculate integrity fails as a fire team leader but not Jacob.

Integrity doesn't have much place on the battlefield, IMO -- not if you want to win. Sure, okay, fine, don't torture people or shoot unarmed people, but past that? And she's too much of a lone wolf. All of the Asari are afraid of her, she works alone, she's not used to coordinating others. Add to that a flat affect, and she may not be that inspiring to people who are being shot at. As f'or Jacob... um... who's that?

Integrity isn't about good or evil, its about sticking to your principles. People who projects integrity creates trust. Trust is the base of leadership. Everyone has a limit, but I it's rather clear that Samara has a limit beyond any other squad member. Coupled with her competence and unparalled experience she should inspire confidence.
as for lone wolf, I never found her socially awkward just aloof.

[Biotic Sage]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Wilson'd? No thanks.

Choice like Ash/Kaidan? Got potential.

Like Awesomename said. Just make the build-up and "pay-off" of such an event be good.

Sorry but personally I don't see a "pay off" in such things. It's not something I need to enjoy my fiction.

I would rather have the characters evolve as the game progresses instead of killing them for the sake of "drama"

If there is a situation that comes up where Garrus could sacrifice himself, by his own choice, in order to save the rest of his squad, it would be out of character for him to do otherwise.  That isn't for the sake of "drama," but for the sake of a good story with consistent characterization.

EDIT* @ LizardViking
Haha your post below is spot on.  "Why should I care about anything that happens in ME1-ME3?  The game is going to end anyway!"

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:20 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

sorentoft wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

sorentoft wrote...
Honestly, I just never geared, used or talked to Kaidan because I knew I was going to kill him later in the game. That is in all my ME1 playthroughs except the first. That's no fun.

That is your loss. I still talk to Ashley in my playthroughs. Even through she is going to die. Does not mean I can't appreciate the character she has.

I don't see the point in it. He is going to blow up anyway.

Meh.... Why should I care about king Theodon. He's gonna die anyway.

Meh.... Why should I care about Sirius Black or Dumbledor. They are going to die anyway.

Meh.... Why should I care about Darth vader. He is going to die anyway.

Meh.... Why should I care about the story anway?

[AdmiralCheez]

AwesomeName wrote...

Believe me, I AM thinking about this from a Shepard who doesn't know the future like I do.  And I'm saying that to this Shepard, at the time that whole discussion amongst the squad is happening, *biotics* is being heavily emphasised regarding who should do the bubble job.  At the time of the discussion, Shepard knows who are the most powerful biotics and knows that any biotic would have to be stupid to not maintain the bubble in a station filled to the brim with enemies alerted to their presence.  Shepard knows at the time of that discussion that it's in the biotic's best interest to maintain the bubble no matter what while the others in the bubble keep look out for potential enemies.  Now in this version of events, as far as this Shepard, not mine, is concerned, Morinth's trustworthyness is a moot point since this[i] Shepard picked her over Samara - *I* don't understand it from my meta-gaming POV, but this is who this Shepard picked for whatever reason.  Now if you want to know what [i]my Shepard thinks, my Shepard doesn't think Morinth is trustworthy at all - hence she never picked her in the first place.

And you acted that way.  Good for you.  But not everyone reaches the same conclusions, and that's why some people came out of the SM on their first run with half their team pushing up daisies.

And for the record, I never lost anyone in my first playthrough of ME2 - I didnt read any spoilers or strategy guides and my mindset hasn't really changed since then.  E.g. I still refuse to pick Miranda as a fireteam leader because my Shepard, with what she knows, doesn't think it would work, even though *I* know for a fact it would.

Good job, then.  Me, I have a best friend that hates Zaeed forever for getting Legion killed.

I think that's my only complaint for the SM: complete success could easily be achieved so long as you didn't skip content and paid attention.  I hope ME3 is a bit more subtle when something involves taking a "correct" action.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

If there is a situation that comes up where Garrus could sacrifice himself, by his own choice, in order to save the rest of his squad, it would be out of character for him to do otherwise.  That isn't for the sake of "drama," but for the sake of a good story with consistent characterization.

Such a situation would only come about for the sake of "Drama!" Any situation with a forced death is written specifically for dramatic purposes. They don't get written by accident.

[Someone With Mass]

Athayniel wrote...

Such a situation would only come about for the sake of "Drama!" Any situation with a forced death is written specifically for dramatic purposes. They don't get written by accident.

That. 

Have Shepard take the hit/risk for once instead. Would make up for the squadmate that caught half a table with his/her face in LotSB.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

If there is a situation that comes up where Garrus could sacrifice himself, by his own choice, in order to save the rest of his squad, it would be out of character for him to do otherwise.  That isn't for the sake of "drama," but for the sake of a good story with consistent characterization.

Such a situation would only come about for the sake of "Drama!" Any situation with a forced death is written specifically for dramatic purposes. They don't get written by accident.

Yes.  Drama and story.  Sorry I mispoke.  It IS for the sake of drama.  Drama is present in any good story.  Your squadmates aren't even characters if they don't have their own free wills and act in ways true to their characterization.  You want them to be cardboard cutouts or pieces in a chess game that you/Shepard is playing.  Thankfully Bioware doesn't share this viewpoint.

Any English/Creative Writing/Narrative course would tell you the same thing.  If you really aren't convinced by the basic elements of what constitutes an engaging narrative, I really can't say anything that will change your (stubborn) viewpoint that is archaic and outdated in story-driven games.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:27 .

[Someone With Mass]

AwesomeName wrote...

Can't we have both sometimes and have it work?  Sometimes when a character dies it actually is dramatic and not flat like Virmire.  *Personally I think it would be flipping awesome if someone like Grunt went out in a mega-blaze of glory, sort of like Asuka in End of Evangelion.*

Sure, but if there are other options I can think of with ease (like on Virmire where the rest of the team just twiddled their thumbs while Kaidan/Ashley got their asses kicked), I don't want the heroic sacrifice because then it'd feel so pointless.

[AdmiralCheez]

AwesomeName wrote...

You know what would be really great?  Not an Ash/Kaidan thing but a choice between a squadmate and saving an entire population.  There.  Give people the option of an ending where the entire squad lives, but not without having a heavy price .  That way people who want to play as well as possible to save everyone but who also, from a meta-standpoint want dramatic squadmate deaths, can still get what they want without having to deliberately play poorly.

"Boy, Shepard, do you want to save Grunt or the entire human race?"

That is even more contrived than Virmire.  Now it'll just make the "save the squad" people look like idiots, and that's not solving anything apart from some twisted lust for revenge you may or may not be carrying.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Yes.  Drama and story.  Sorry I mispoke.  It IS for the sake of drama.  Drama is present in any good story.  Your squadmates aren't even characters if they don't have their own free wills and act in ways true to their characterization.  You want them to be cardboard cutouts or pieces in a chess game that you/Shepard is playing.  Thankfully Bioware doesn't share this viewpoint.

Any English/Creative Writing/Narrative course would tell you the same thing.  If you really aren't convinced by the basic elements of what constitutes an engaging narrative, I really can't say anything that will change your (stubborn) viewpoint that is archaic and outdated in story-driven games.

Where have I said I didn't want them to act in character? I don't believe I've ever done so. In fact I've already admitted repeatedly that if forced into such a situation, as ridiculously contrived as it would be, I would choose to sacrifice the squaddie to preserve a species. All I've ever asked for is the chance to save them. To fight to make sure they live through the mission.

A story like Mass Effect is already bringing plenty of drama. Millions of people are already dead. The galaxy is in flames. I don't need to be bludgeoned with a squaddie's death to get that point. It's not something I'm insensible to. I don't need it to 'hit close to home' to tell me things are serious. It's drama for drama's sake and I would prefer it if there was an actual purpose behind it besides saying 'isn't your squaddie so heroic?' It's cheap storytelling.