4309 réponses à ce sujet

[sorentoft]

Lizardviking wrote...

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?

None of those stories were written for an interactive media.

Modifié par sorentoft, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:38 .

[Yezdigerd]

Lizardviking wrote...

Liara had helluva alot more skills back in ME1. What? Did she get more dumb? What about those awesome powers Samara and Jack had in the cutscenes? Did they forget them too?

Don't use the squadmates skilltrees as a sign for what they can or cannot do.

Liara didn't become dumber then anyone else, in the transition between games. I never thought the power distribution in the game meant that it was the only tricks those biotics could do,(it obviously aint) just those that a certain squadmate excelled at. Like Jakob and his barrier, but if you have any source that raw biotic talent triumphs over practice and experience in every kind aspect of it's use I'd be very interested to read it.

[JeffZero]

sorentoft wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

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?

None of those stories were written for an interactive media.

But they're all well written -- just like Mass Effect. (Well to be fair I have little familiarity with Harry Potter. But otherwise.)

I don't see the relevance here. Talking to Kaidan despite him dying on a file of mine is the same as hearing Theoden and Vader speak with the same prior knowledge. I'm definitely with Lizardviking here.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

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.

And what I'm saying is that you may not always get that chance, and you shouldn't be able to save them every single time.  There should be times when a squadmate makes a decision, on their own, that puts the situation out of your control.  I know a lot of us gamers are control freaks, but a good story does not mesh with that paradigm; Mass Effect is aspiring to be a good story.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 octobre 2011 - 10:47 .

[JeffZero]

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?

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.

Yesss. Exactly.

We spend so much time "getting inside Shepard's head", penciling in his/her personality and thought processes. What's a bit more self-made constructive build-up? I always, always enjoy the dramatic tension of Virmire after having my Shepards become close with both Ashley and Kaidan.

[JeffZero]

AwesomeName wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

Wait, didn't you agree with this idea a few pages back? But yeah, pretty much (I was sort of taking the ******) .  Think about how people felt - people who want to do the best they can to save everyone, but from an audience standpoint also want characters to die for the sake of drama and realism - when the only way to get people to die in the SM was to contrive for it to happen, by deliberately playing poorly.

Yes, it's rather annoying. Like I said though, I have no problem stretching the level of intelligence behind various decisions a bit in order to orchestrate a few casualties. Zaeed as a fire team leader, for example, isn't so outlandish as, say, Jack.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

And what I'm saying is that you may not always get that chance, and you shouldn't be able to save them every single time.  There should be times when a squadmate makes a decision, on their own, that puts the situation out of your control.  I know a lot of us gamers are control freaks, but a good story does not mesh with that paradigm all of the time.  

*sighs* We're arguing in circles. My contention is that I don't want forced deaths in an interactive story, they very often fail at making the story better, Virmire being a case in point. You're counter is that sometimes forced deaths just happen for the sake of the story. Whereupon I counter by saying that as I previously said they often don't help the story. And you reiterate that stories need drama and forced deaths provide that.

Let's just stop. We're not going to change each other's minds. And it's not as if I even want to change your mind or not have you get the dramatic story you want. I just don't want to be forced to accept your story as my story.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

And what I'm saying is that you may not always get that chance, and you shouldn't be able to save them every single time.  There should be times when a squadmate makes a decision, on their own, that puts the situation out of your control.  I know a lot of us gamers are control freaks, but a good story does not mesh with that paradigm all of the time.  

*sighs* We're arguing in circles. My contention is that I don't want forced deaths in an interactive story, they very often fail at making the story better, Virmire being a case in point. You're counter is that sometimes forced deaths just happen for the sake of the story. Whereupon I counter by saying that as I previously said they often don't help the story. And you reiterate that stories need drama and forced deaths provide that.

Let's just stop. We're not going to change each other's minds. And it's not as if I even want to change your mind or not have you get the dramatic story you want. I just don't want to be forced to accept your story as my story.

Haha fair enough.  But you will be forced to accept Bioware's.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Yezdigerd wrote...
but if you have any source that raw biotic talent triumphs over practice and experience in every kind aspect of it's use I'd be very interested to read it.

No. But do you have anything to prove yours?

Given that Jacob is just a normal human biotic. It does not matter if he is good at it or not, He won't have the strenght to do it over longer time. Considering that we see Miranda, another good human biotic also fail at it. I think Jacob not being viable for the barrier is justified and not out of place.

[DiebytheSword]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

And what I'm saying is that you may not always get that chance, and you shouldn't be able to save them every single time.  There should be times when a squadmate makes a decision, on their own, that puts the situation out of your control.  I know a lot of us gamers are control freaks, but a good story does not mesh with that paradigm; Mass Effect is aspiring to be a good story.

The supreme irony being that the decision to make game design choices is out of all our control.  But one side of this argument sure seems set on making sure that only its version of events happen because it insults their intelligence/its not realistic/it puts carebear stare in my thanix cannon.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Haha fair enough.  But you will be forced to accept Bioware's.

Tell me about it. I'm sure I'll love it and hate it in equal measure. But I will save everyone I can. If I can save them all I'll play my fingers off to do it. I saved Mona Sax after all.

[Arcadian Legend]

Wow, this thread is still going? I guess it's one of those opinionated discussions that can only truly end when the game comes out. So long as there are decisions that actually make me pause and think about them, that's all I need.

[Captain_Obvious]

Biotic Sage wrote...

And what I'm saying is that you may not always get that chance, and you shouldn't be able to save them every single time.  There should be times when a squadmate makes a decision, on their own, that puts the situation out of your control.  I know a lot of us gamers are control freaks, but a good story does not mesh with that paradigm; Mass Effect is aspiring to be a good story.

Bioware did that in DA2 and got soundly hammered for it.   Anders does his thing?  Hawke can't stop it.  Orsino goes starkers?  Hawke can't stop it.  Sebastian leaves party?  Hawke can't stop it.  You're saying that Bioware is damned if they do, damned if they don't.  They can either give the player agency and ****** off the story/drama purists, or they can withhold agency from the player and ****** off the RPG purists. 

[Biotic Sage]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

And what I'm saying is that you may not always get that chance, and you shouldn't be able to save them every single time.  There should be times when a squadmate makes a decision, on their own, that puts the situation out of your control.  I know a lot of us gamers are control freaks, but a good story does not mesh with that paradigm; Mass Effect is aspiring to be a good story.

The supreme irony being that the decision to make game design choices is out of all our control.  But one side of this argument sure seems set on making sure that only its version of events happen because it insults their intelligence/its not realistic/it puts carebear stare in my thanix cannon.

Ah that would be my side.  Yes, because as a completionist, like most of the people on this forum, I am going to be doing every side mission, every loyalty quest, and be 100% ready for the Reapers.  And by the other argument's assertion, all of this should lead to roses and butterflies and everybody surviving, whereas I disagree.  So no, it's not a simple case of don't tread on me and I won't tread on you.

[Biotic Sage]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

And what I'm saying is that you may not always get that chance, and you shouldn't be able to save them every single time.  There should be times when a squadmate makes a decision, on their own, that puts the situation out of your control.  I know a lot of us gamers are control freaks, but a good story does not mesh with that paradigm; Mass Effect is aspiring to be a good story.

Bioware did that in DA2 and got soundly hammered for it.   Anders does his thing?  Hawke can't stop it.  Orsino goes starkers?  Hawke can't stop it.  Sebastian leaves party?  Hawke can't stop it.  You're saying that Bioware is damned if they do, damned if they don't.  They can either give the player agency and ****** off the story/drama purists, or they can withhold agency from the player and ****** off the RPG purists. 

Anders' extremist action was true to his character: an incarnation of the spirit of justice warped into vengeance.  So no, I wasn't pissed about that.  I thought that was a great, heavy-hitting climactic plot point.  Orsino going starkers was a bit out of nowhere; if there was more indication of his research into blood magic beforehand, that would have been better, but these things did not make me think "damn you Bioware!  you are taking away my fun!"  These parts of DA2 were not the problem.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:02 .

[Athayniel]

AwesomeName wrote...

Surely it depends on how it's done?  Virmire felt really flat sure, but if the story and characters are well written enough and the scene is well storyboarded and acted out, etc., it might actually be good.  And if a squaddie does die, I'm not sure the point of it would be to show how heroic they are; maybe part of it would be, but it may be more to do with showing how unsafe everyone is; that being a main character is not protection from death as it would in something like Star Trek.  Admittedely, the idea of a good, emotionally moving death scene in ME3 seems a long shot, but I think they should at least give it a good shot and look for good sources of inspiration.

Well... let's look at an example that lizardviking brought up. King Theoden. Don't get me wrong, his death was poignant and well written and beautifully acted and directed in the movie. What actual narrative purpose did it serve beyond telling us that the Witch King is bad news? Something we already knew as we watched him mow down knights with ridiculous ease. The only other purpose it could serve was to be a symbolic passing of the torch from Theoden to his daughter Eowyn but it's not as if she took up the crown of Rohan, that went to her brother. So what exactly did his death do except add more drama to an already dramatic situation?

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

AwesomeName wrote...

Surely it depends on how it's done?  Virmire felt really flat sure, but if the story and characters are well written enough and the scene is well storyboarded and acted out, etc., it might actually be good.  And if a squaddie does die, I'm not sure the point of it would be to show how heroic they are; maybe part of it would be, but it may be more to do with showing how unsafe everyone is; that being a main character is not protection from death as it would in something like Star Trek.  Admittedely, the idea of a good, emotionally moving death scene in ME3 seems a long shot, but I think they should at least give it a good shot and look for good sources of inspiration.

Well... let's look at an example that lizardviking brought up. King Theoden. Don't get me wrong, his death was poignant and well written and beautifully acted and directed in the movie. What actual narrative purpose did it serve beyond telling us that the Witch King is bad news? Something we already knew as we watched him mow down knights with ridiculous ease. The only other purpose it could serve was to be a symbolic passing of the torch from Theoden to his daughter Eowyn but it's not as if she took up the crown of Rohan, that went to her brother. So what exactly did his death do except add more drama to an already dramatic situation?

Really?  As a romantic epic, Lord of the Rings gives all of its heroes/good guys their just deserts.  King Theoden wanted to redeem himself and die in glory on the battlefield, so he got what he wanted.  Simple as that.  Same thing with Boromir.  This doesn't really apply to Mass Effect though, since its universe does have more verisimillitude that Middle Earth.

Sorry for arguing with you again :innocent:

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 11 octobre 2011 - 11:06 .

[DiebytheSword]

Biotic Sage wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

And what I'm saying is that you may not always get that chance, and you shouldn't be able to save them every single time.  There should be times when a squadmate makes a decision, on their own, that puts the situation out of your control.  I know a lot of us gamers are control freaks, but a good story does not mesh with that paradigm; Mass Effect is aspiring to be a good story.

The supreme irony being that the decision to make game design choices is out of all our control.  But one side of this argument sure seems set on making sure that only its version of events happen because it insults their intelligence/its not realistic/it puts carebear stare in my thanix cannon.

Ah that would be my side.  Yes, because as a completionist, like most of the people on this forum, I am going to be doing every side mission, every loyalty quest, and be 100% ready for the Reapers.  And by the other argument's assertion, all of this should lead to roses and butterflies and everybody surviving, whereas I disagree.  So no, it's not a simple case of don't tread on me and I won't tread on you.

Everyone survived Horizon, Freedom's Progress, the battle of the Citadel, Ferros, Eden Prime and the trailer for Mass Effect 3?  Damn, my Shep was better than I thought.

[Captain_Obvious]

Saphra Deden wrote...

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.

Yeah, fancy That. Drama in a narrative. You know, that thing that makes stories fun?

I hate drama.  I want all my squadmembers alive.  I really don't care what dramatic stuff happens to yours. 

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

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.

Yeah, fancy That. Drama in a narrative. You know, that thing that makes stories fun?

That's, like, your opinion, man.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Ah that would be my side.  Yes, because as a completionist, like most of the people on this forum, I am going to be doing every side mission, every loyalty quest, and be 100% ready for the Reapers.  And by the other argument's assertion, all of this should lead to roses and butterflies and everybody surviving, whereas I disagree.  So no, it's not a simple case of don't tread on me and I won't tread on you.

Yup, and at least I have voiced my own opinon that the mechanincs behind the SM were flawed. That achieving the 'everyone lives' ending only required, as you've pointed out, a completionist mindset, and that making the choices involved in the outcome of the mission should have been tied in to the action taking place at the time just as much as your squad choices. One example I gave being Tali dying in the ducts because Shepard couldn't open the valves quickly enough. I believe in the original mission it causes a critical mission failure if she dies, but what if it didn't? What if Tali just died because Shepard wasn't good enough?

I don't advocate completionism to be the solution to all problems. I want skill and strategy to be involved.