4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Aggie Punbot]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not the dirreference between "every little thing" and "nothing". Learn it.

I, uh...can't decipher your post. Rephrase, please? Perhaps with better spelling?

Modifié par TS2Aggie, 07 octobre 2011 - 11:41 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

I really cannot fathom why some people feel the need to expect that options be removed from a game entirely just because it's something they personally don't want. What, do they not have the will power to play in a manner that will ensure they get the outcome that they want?

Like I said, realism. I'd expect a perfect everyone survives ending in Final Fantasy. This is not a JRPG. It is supposed to harkin back to classic science fiction. A lot of that classic science fiction was dark. Yes, it was hopeful too and the ending should ultimately be upbeat. However it should still be costly.

Dave of Canada said it best.

Then for the Maker's sake, play it for realism. Why does the game having an outcome that you don't want matter to you so much? Just because you want it to be depressing and filled with doom and gloom doesn't mean everyone does.

As fellow gamers, why does your opinion matter more than other people (like, say, myself or AdmiralCheez)? Why should you get everything that you want that denies other players what they want? What makes your opinion so much more valid than other peoples'?

The difference between the two of us is that I have no problem with you having the options to get the endings you want in the game, whereas you actively want to deny me the mere possibility of the ending I want because you personally dont like it. You're being awfully selfish.

Nope. You fail to see that there is no middle ground.

The mere existence of a happy flowery ending undermines our wishes.

There is no difference between us. You're not a voice of reason preaching compromise - because what you suggest in't one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not the difference between "every little thing" and "nothing". Learn it.

I, uh...can't decipher your post. Rephrase, please? Perhaps with better spelling?

Speed typo. Shouldn't have been hard ot figure out.

Anyway, the idea that if EVERY SINGLE choice you made doesn't pan out how you want, the choices don't matter...it's absurd. Does Garrus dying affect any other choices? Nope, it does not.

Choices matter. You just don't have a choice in everything.

[GodWood]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Spoiler alert: Real life sucks.  Every day, we have to face how powerless we are, how often we screw up, how bad things will keep happening to good people no matter how hard we try to stop it.  Sure, we can contribute our hearts and souls to good causes, work until our backs break to make things better, and offer all the help and comfort to the ones we love, but ultimately, the happy endings don't last.  The bad guys stay in power, the good guys get shoved to the wayside, and we retreat into our religions and philosophies to try to make sense of it all and make it hurt less.

And this is what all forms of media (or at least those that are targetted at an adult audience) should follow.

[Siegdrifa]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

I really cannot fathom why some people feel the need to expect that options be removed from a game entirely just because it's something they personally don't want. What, do they not have the will power to play in a manner that will ensure they get the outcome that they want?

Like I said, realism. I'd expect a perfect everyone survives ending in Final Fantasy. This is not a JRPG. It is supposed to harkin back to classic science fiction. A lot of that classic science fiction was dark. Yes, it was hopeful too and the ending should ultimately be upbeat. However it should still be costly.

Dave of Canada said it best.

Then for the Maker's sake, play it for realism. Why does the game having an outcome that you don't want matter to you so much? Just because you want it to be depressing and filled with doom and gloom doesn't mean everyone does.

As fellow gamers, why does your opinion matter more than other people (like, say, myself or AdmiralCheez)? Why should you get everything that you want that denies other players what they want? What makes your opinion so much more valid than other peoples'?

The difference between the two of us is that I have no problem with you having the options to get the endings you want in the game, whereas you actively want to deny me the mere possibility of the ending I want because you personally dont like it. You're being awfully selfish.

I agree with TS2, while i played ME2 than ME1 i had never felt it was a dark gloomy game one bit.
While your vision for massacre and gloom shouldn't be denied (if it's whats please you as entertainement), vision of others too. When playing games like silent hill i'm not expecting happy  or satisfaying ending, when watching gloomy story and univers as in gilgamesh too. ME games from what i see, have not this gloomy or doomy atmosphere. Like i said, in video game you often save as far you can travel, the "galaxy threat" is as much "impossible task" as any other epic games / story.

Accomplish the impossible is the every day life of main characters, realisme is not the main point. We spend our time in ME doing unreaslit things ... if it was "real" many people whould said "shove off" to Shepard, he is just one guy, if if didn't had the "hero cloth" given by Bioware, he couldn't have steped in the Afterlife club without getting killed by the batarian group, you play "bad ass" but if it was for realisme, you would have been dead long time ago without any respect and any care from other characters.

[Seboist]

A G-rated Disney rainbows and ponies ending where everyone lives? As if I needed another potential reason to consider ME3 non-canon...

[KBomb]

Seboist wrote...

A G-rated Disney rainbows and ponies ending where everyone lives? As if I needed another potential reason to consider ME3 non-canon...

Who is asking for that? I haven’t seen anyone ask that everyone lives, that no sacrifices are to be made, that no species or planets are to be sacrificed. That no secondary characters should be killed. That the lives of their teammates should be handed to them on a silver platter. The majority are simply asking for a chance to save their teammates.

This whole hyperbole Disney argument gets old. The entire game is going to be about death and destruction on every corner. We saw that much in the demo where Shepard leaves Earth. So I don’t think saving your crew is going to automatically cause a G-rated pony or rainbow come flying out of someone’s ass.

Modifié par KBomb, 07 octobre 2011 - 12:05 .

[Siegdrifa]

Seboist wrote...

A G-rated Disney rainbows and ponies ending where everyone lives? As if I needed another potential reason to consider ME3 non-canon...

Play again the games may be, exept the vermir mission on ME1, there is no unavoidable death on ME and Shep can suceed at everything he /she does.
So you can say that ME is already a disney ponies power rainbow flower in your bathroom.

I expect hughe casuality and sacrifice, but i don't want them forced and unavoidable on the main characters.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 07 octobre 2011 - 12:13 .

[Sgt Stryker]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Spoiler alert: Real life sucks.  Every day, we have to face how powerless we are, how often we screw up, how bad things will keep happening to good people no matter how hard we try to stop it.  Sure, we can contribute our hearts and souls to good causes, work until our backs break to make things better, and offer all the help and comfort to the ones we love, but ultimately, the happy endings don't last.  The bad guys stay in power, the good guys get shoved to the wayside, and we retreat into our religions and philosophies to try to make sense of it all and make it hurt less.  Pessimistic, I know.  I do try hard (and should try harder), but really, I can't get over how insignificant I am in the grand scheme of things.

Here's another spoiler alert: In real life, the distinction between "good" and "evil" isn't as clear-cut as in fiction. I was hoping that Mass Effect would reflect that.

As far as insignificance goes, all I have to do is to watch that one Carl Sagan video to convince myself that these "bad guys" you speak of are just as insignificant as I am, which is good enough for me.

[wright1978]

Virmire to me made Shepherd human IMO. He's a hero not a god or even a superhero. U make a tough decision & live with the consequences. Personally i feel the suicide mission would have been much better if at least one person you left to hold the line died. I want to be able to try and be the best Shep i can be but there to be situations where Shep has to make decisions as to who/what he will prioritise that will have consequences.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Thing is AdmiralCheez : spoiler alert : Life also sucks in the Mass Effect universe people also feel powerless and screw up there, The difference is that as Shepard you have a chance to "bend the trend" but the more you do it the more Shepard seem to not fit in the world he/she inhabits.

Shepard started of a marine among other marines - he/she had N7 training and is a capable gay/gal no doubt about that but still "Just a marine", But since then Shepard has moved more and more into superhero territory where he/she does the impossible just because he/she is "that cool".

I do think that having situations where Shepard can't "win" goes a long way to humanize him/her .. I'm okay with Shep winning the war but not every little battle or confrontation..so to speak.

[Siegdrifa]

wright1978 wrote...

Virmire to me made Shepherd human IMO. He's a hero not a god or even a superhero. U make a tough decision & live with the consequences. Personally i feel the suicide mission would have been much better if at least one person you left to hold the line died. I want to be able to try and be the best Shep i can be but there to be situations where Shep has to make decisions as to who/what he will prioritise that will have consequences.

So we go back to the same problem, if you want death matter to the player, you have to force it on his favorit characters, if you let the player choose who he will sacrifice, he will fil the role with character that he don't care much, if he don't care much, the impact on the death can be missed and not usefull.
That's why i think it's better to not focus like crazy on death it's not the only tool to shake the players emotion.
Making the death a possibility on every characters is a good way to make every people sweat a little.

Make it unavoidable and the player will :
1- nerde rage because it's his favorit character and he had no choice, after 3 whole game for tali and garus as exemple, the forum will be a flame festivale for weeks.
2- moved (objectif of death complet) ... may be
3- LOL good radiance i never liked you, just die already "**** you Shepard ! aarrgh !".

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:01 .

[Someone With Mass]

KBomb wrote...

Pretty much this. The death of your teammates, best friends and love interests dying has become so clichéd in the media. I think it cheapens the story just to have someone close to you die for the sake of making someone have sad face. Again, I don’t mind working for it. I just want my teammates to survive and I wouldn’t mind sacrificing a whole universe to do it.

I mean, isn’t Commander Shepard’s team suppose to be the best in the galaxy? I don’t see it being unrealistic or cheap that fourteen of the most elite team the galaxy has to offer can live through the war. Billions will die, we will see destruction on a massive scale throughout the game. I have no doubt we will see secondary characters die. All I ask for is the option to save my team.



And I would also like to say that you don’t need to lose teammates to feel an emotional impact of the situation. Deaths of NPC’s can make an emotional impact. Case in point: Gears of War 3 when walking through the city and all the people are mummified through ash. There were people clutching at each other, mothers holding their children them, people frozen in time as they tried to escape through car windshields, whole families huddled together in their last moments. I didn’t know these people, but I remember feeling a terrible sadness at seeing them. No, I don’t think you need to kill people you know in order to feel the weight of a situation.

I thought that was kind of the point with recruiting the best to help with the suicide mission. To make sure nobody dies.

I also think it's a little cheap when the the narrative resorts to killing off characters to provoke a an emotional response. It just tells me that the writers weren't good enough to write a scenario without resorting to the cliched death of a character. As if they can't do any better.

[Siegdrifa]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

I do think that having situations where Shepard can't "win" goes a long way to humanize him/her .. I'm okay with Shep winning the war but not every little battle or confrontation..so to speak.

Storys about wars are not restricted to win every battle.
Some mission can be reply mission, when you could try to hold off ennemy force and pulling back slowly until everything is packed at the main colony and ready for evacuation.

Meaning of winning battle doesn't imply kill ennemy you see.
Some mission could be done on gaining ressources and secure storage, asteroid of exploitable material for the war effort.

The potential of war story go beyond "go here, kill everything, go there kill everything".

[Anacronian Stryx]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

I do think that having situations where Shepard can't "win" goes a long way to humanize him/her .. I'm okay with Shep winning the war but not every little battle or confrontation..so to speak.

Storys about wars are not restricted to win every battle.
Some mission can be reply mission, when you could try to hold off ennemy force and pulling back slowly until everything is packed at the main colony and ready for evacuation.

Meaning of winning battle doesn't imply kill ennemy you see.
Some mission could be done on gaining ressources and secure storage, asteroid of exploitable material for the war effort.

The potential of war story go beyond "go here, kill everything, go there kill everything".

You're taking me to literary.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...
I thought that was kind of the point with recruiting the best to help with the suicide mission. To make sure nobody dies.

I also think it's a little cheap when the the narrative resorts to killing off characters to provoke a an emotional response. It just tells me that the writers weren't good enough to write a scenario without resorting to the cliched death of a character. As if they can't do any better.

You can't make sure of that. There are no guarantees in life. Especially not in suicide missions.

There is nothing cliched about dying (especially during an apocalypse)
Millions die during regular warfare - where all they faced were other humans. Commandos, experts and the best died too.
IIRC; there wasn't a single unit in WW2 that didn't have casualties. And WW2 is nothing comapred to this.

You say death is cliche?
I say avoiding death is for the weak.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:04 .

[Siegdrifa]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

I do think that having situations where Shepard can't "win" goes a long way to humanize him/her .. I'm okay with Shep winning the war but not every little battle or confrontation..so to speak.

Storys about wars are not restricted to win every battle.
Some mission can be reply mission, when you could try to hold off ennemy force and pulling back slowly until everything is packed at the main colony and ready for evacuation.

Meaning of winning battle doesn't imply kill ennemy you see.
Some mission could be done on gaining ressources and secure storage, asteroid of exploitable material for the war effort.

The potential of war story go beyond "go here, kill everything, go there kill everything".

You're taking me to literary.

Sorry, i didn't mean to offend, my first point was, even in loosing battle (a reply or evacuation) it could feels like a sucess for the player (sucesfull reply) while the win is for the other side.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:09 .

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You can't make sure of that. There are no guarantees in life. Especially not in suicide missions.

Tehre is nothing cliched about dying (especially during an apocalypse)
Millions dies during regular warfare - where all they faced were other humans. Commandos, experts and the best died too.
IIRC; there wasn't a dingle unit in WW2 that didn't have casualties. And WW2 is nothing comapred to this.

You say death is cliche?
I say avoiding death is for the weak.

Guess what.

I KNOW THAT!

I don't need the game to tell me that death is a bad thing, because I already know that. Nor do I need the game to kill off main characters just to point out that the situation is serious. I am fully capable of understanding that on my own. I tought it was rather obvious when this happened.

I don't need anyone in the game to say "Durrrrr, this is serious and I must point it out to you, or else you won't understand it", because I'm using my own mind, eyes and ears.

Also, people are dying by the millions, planets are burning, fleets are being destroyed and entire races are forced into a massive exodus. That's more than enough. I get it. There's a war going on. Move on to something that actually matters.

But wait. Now someone will say "you don't know those people, so they're just a statistic and they won't matter to you at all" and that must be the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life, because that's like saying that anyone that wasn't directly involved in the 9/11 attacks or the tsunami in Thailand won't care about the people that died there or recognize that there were two horrible events that forever changed people's lives.

Bottom line: I don't need to be told directly that something is important. That's the narrative's job, and if it can't do it, then the writers have done a pretty sloppy job.

Oh, and if avoiding death is for the weak, then by the same logic, YOU ARE WEAK. Throw yourself off a bridge and show everyone that you're so strong if that matters so much to you. Meanwhile, I'll actually try to save people instead of hanging on to some lame and very overused narrative device.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:27 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You can't make sure of that. There are no guarantees in life. Especially not in suicide missions.

Tehre is nothing cliched about dying (especially during an apocalypse)
Millions dies during regular warfare - where all they faced were other humans. Commandos, experts and the best died too.
IIRC; there wasn't a dingle unit in WW2 that didn't have casualties. And WW2 is nothing comapred to this.

You say death is cliche?
I say avoiding death is for the weak.

Guess what.

I KNOW THAT!

You do?

I thought that was kind of the point with recruiting the best to help with the suicide mission. To make sure nobody dies.

I don't need the game to tell me that death is a bad thing, because I already know that. Nor do I need the game to kill off main characters just to point out that the situation is serious. I am fully capable of understanding that on my own. I tought it was rather obvious when this happened.

I don't need anyone in the game to say "Durrrrr, this is serious and I must point it out to you, or else you won't understand it", because I'm using my own mind, eyes and ears.

Also, people are dying by the millions, planets are burning, fleets are being destroyed and entire races are forced into a massive exodus. That's more than enough. I get it. There's a war going on. Move on to something that actually matters.

But wait. Now someone will say "you don't know those people, so they're just a statistic and they won't matter to you at all" and that must be the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life, because that's like saying that anyone that wasn't directly involved in the 9/11 attacks or the tsunami in Thailand won't care about the people that died there or recognize that there were two horrible events that forever changed people's lives.

Bottom line: I don't need to be told directly that something is important. That's the narrative's job, and if it can't do it, then the writers have done a pretty sloppy job.

Personal loss. Recognizing bad things happening and suffering a personal loss are two different things.
It's not about saying "this is important".
Death works better for a story MNE3 is trying to be.

This thread could be summed up as

"Waaah! I love Garrus (or isnert squadmate ehre). He can't die! If he does, I'm goan throw a temper tantrum! WAAAAAH!"

[Xilizhra]

Millions have already died on Earth alone. The trailer has already made my Shepard feel extremely angry and saddened at the whole Reaper thing. I don't need spite casualties.

Sacrificing the human lives to save the Council in ME1, for example...
does it at all compare to sacrificing either Ashley or Kaidan?

Yes, but it doesn't compare to sacrificing the ten thousand on the Destiny Ascension.

Personal loss. Recognizing bad things happening and suffering a personal loss are two different things.

That message being "I can't care about people I don't know?"

Modifié par Xilizhra, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:27 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
I thought that was kind of the point with recruiting the best to help with the suicide mission. To make sure nobody dies.

I also think it's a little cheap when the the narrative resorts to killing off characters to provoke a an emotional response. It just tells me that the writers weren't good enough to write a scenario without resorting to the cliched death of a character. As if they can't do any better.

You can't make sure of that. There are no guarantees in life. Especially not in suicide missions.

There is nothing cliched about dying (especially during an apocalypse)
Millions die during regular warfare - where all they faced were other humans. Commandos, experts and the best died too.
IIRC; there wasn't a single unit in WW2 that didn't have casualties. And WW2 is nothing comapred to this.

You say death is cliche?
I say avoiding death is for the weak.

Avoiding death isn't 'for the weak', just because you expect losses does not mean you should ACCEPT losses. What I admire and what I got out of the suicide mission despite everyone complaining about how easy it was, is how putting time and preparation into a mission can give you an optimal result. Putting all that extra time and energy into sorting out the crew and prepping the ship instead of just running in blind is a show of competence, not weakness.

That's the sort of joy I'd like out of ME3, not people getting bridges dropped on them for no other reason than to illicit a response. I didn't view the suicide mission as cheap because everyone lived (Horizon colonists sure didn't, or any of the other thousands of colonists that were abducted), because I prepared. It is a matter of professionalism, actually knowing what the hell you are doing, rather than blundering from one scenario to the next where your actions ultimately don't matter.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:30 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

I think it would be awesome if the game set up choices where you can only chose one or the other like.

Example : Planet X is under attack from the reapers 50.000 lives on planet X that will be killed if you don't help them Vs. Tali is in a bad situation on the citadel and will probably die if you don't help her - there you have your choice .. try to help the planet or try to save Tali - chose one.

Now that may seen like an obvious choice - help the planet..but on the other hand Tali might be instrumental in gaining help from the quarians and so on and if she dies it might end up costing a whole lot more lives.
(not saying that every choice should be like this or should involve former team mates it's just an example)

It would also play pretty well with this Situation first described in ME 1

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:29 .

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Personal loss. Recognizing bad things happening and suffering a personal loss are two different things.
It's not about saying "this is important".
Death works better for a story MNE3 is trying to be.

This thread could be summed up as

"Waaah! I love Garrus (or isnert squadmate ehre). He can't die! If he does, I'm goan throw a temper tantrum! WAAAAAH!"

How does death of main characters work for a better story, exactly? 

I just think it's a horrible cliche the writers are resorting to when they are incapable of describing the scenario with their own words and/or environments.

And for the love of God, invest in a spellchecker already.

By the way, there's nothing that says that important missions or battles must have main character deaths. If one can prevent it, then why not prevent it? It sound so meaningless to waste a character for the sake of death.

Because death is apparently so important in order to tell a good story. Nevermind that the writer needs to write interesting scenarios in the first place. Nope, death will fix it all. /sarcasm

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:47 .

[Siegdrifa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


This thread could be summed up as

"Waaah! I love Garrus (or isnert squadmate ehre). He can't die! If he does, I'm goan throw a temper tantrum! WAAAAAH!"

Yhea so some people will love it (the garrus haters), wome people will hate it (te garus lover) some people will "mhe... don't care much", so an unavoidable death have more chance to miss his purpose than succeed, because not all the same character matters in the same way, so what ? kill everybody as canon ?