4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravensword]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

@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.

No, it is a choice. You just dont' like the choice and don't want to make it. That's a big difference.

No, it's the false dichotomy. It's the trope where you're given two choices and told there are no other options. It's bad storytelling because there is always a third choice.

Yeah, and if tha third choice sucks just as much as the other two you've got a false trichotomy then.

[sorentoft]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Considering how hard the Reapers are trying to kill Shepard and his squad you'd think that they'd succeed more often.

To be fair I did lose Tali in ME2, so the reapers got that one.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

@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.

No, it is a choice. You just dont' like the choice and don't want to make it. That's a big difference.

No, it's the false dichotomy. It's the trope where you're given two choices and told there are no other options. It's bad storytelling because there is always a third choice.

Not always. Just when the parameters of the situation aren't sufficiently elaborated upon to narrow it down to two obvious choices, then it becomes hard to accept.

Leaving other possibilities open is bad storytelling, not the choice itself.

Edit: Of course, this is sometimes done deliberately to highlight a character weakness. (ie. the character is too rash, doesn't consider all options, so makes a black-and-white decision without considering other alternatives).

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 12 octobre 2011 - 09:25 .

[Someone With Mass]

Athayniel wrote...

Except they're not a front-line squad. They're running around the galaxy gathering support and pursuing the MacGuffin. The front-line is the reapers. Shepard's squad going up against the reapers is suicide. No Commander would do it. I've said this before. It's *not* Shepard's job to fight the reapers. Shepard's job is to defeat them.

And even they are running into Reapers, their best option would be to run, because I doubt there's any point in fighting the thing on foot.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Except they're not a front-line squad. They're running around the galaxy gathering support and pursuing the MacGuffin. The front-line is the reapers. Shepard's squad going up against the reapers is suicide. No Commander would do it. I've said this before. It's *not* Shepard's job to fight the reapers. Shepard's job is to defeat them.

And even they are running into Reapers, their best option would be to run, because I doubt there's any point in fighting the thing on foot.

Even without Reapers... it's still pretty unbelievable.

[Someone With Mass]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
Even without Reapers... it's still pretty unbelievable.

So is the fact that Shepard is able to rally the forces of the galaxy to fight the Reapers.

[Wulfram]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Discounting the sibling getting killed by the ogre right off the start, I got through both DA games without anyone getting killed. Why should ME be any different?

Bonking Morrigan can't solve everything, alas.

[Athayniel]

It should though, shouldn't it?

[sorentoft]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Considering how hard the Reapers are trying to kill Shepard and his squad you'd think that they'd succeed more often.

To be fair I did lose Tali in ME2, so the reapers got that one.

That wasn't the Reapers succeeding; that was you failing.

Virmire was not the Reapers succeeding; it was you failing. And if Shepard died on the Citadel in ME1: It was not the Reapers succeeding; it was Saren.

[jamesp81]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
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:

That's what I don't want. Anyone who thinks this should be possible can go die in an even bigger fire.

Fortunately for me, Bioware has a history of allowing a 'best possible' scenario ending for most of their games.

Most of the human population likes heroic stories where the hero rescues the girl, kills the badguy, and saves the world.  It makes for damned good storytelling, a fact that Bioware is likely quite well aware of.

The fact that you not only don't want a full heroic ending, but want to deny others the same, smacks strongly of a large sense of entitlement where your fellow gamers are concerned.

Modifié par jamesp81, 12 octobre 2011 - 06:36 .

[PauseforEffect]

It's not really that unreasonable to want the best outcome imaginable because it IS possible to attain, even in real life. Yes life is difficult, full of bitterness, pain and loss. Yes, we must grow and learn to accept defeats so that we can fight for victory. But if we just accepted that something was impossible to do, would we ever be able to surpass our liimits? Would we have gotten as far as our ancestors took us if there was no challenge to what was acceptable to the majority?
I want to fight for a better outcome than to just accept the losses we expect in war. I want to at least TRY to get everyone out alive instead of convincing myself to cut my losses and somehow miss an opportunity. Better to make us struggle for that perfect ending than to shut out any way to achieve it.

[Aumata]

Most of us who are saying to screw the save them all ending is asking for it because the SM was to damn easy and the only way to get tension from the mission is to shoot yourself in the foot. I say if you want that I save everyone ending it should come at a cost of instability of other areas seeing how your squad are more than likely going to leave and do other stuff in the course of the game and having to choose over saving them or leave them behind and do another mission that is in need of your help. So either bioware either make it heavy cost or they don't put it in.

[CptBomBom00]

What I think they could do if any character is suppose to die, let them die in really glorious fight like for example garrus fighting off waves of cerberus troops by him self and killing everyone of them but to die he could be stabbed by some **** and in return he could shot him, with line like"If I'm going down I could use your company", or some other funny lines, this is just my idea and I would appreciate if no one would comment anything offensive.
Thank you.

[CptBomBom00]

Wulfram wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Discounting the sibling getting killed by the ogre right off the start, I got through both DA games without anyone getting killed. Why should ME be any different?

Bonking Morrigan can't solve everything, alas.

This happend because Hawk or what his/her name was? anyway it happend because he/she could only earn for him and his other sibling and mother. 

[Ravensword]

Wulfram wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Discounting the sibling getting killed by the ogre right off the start, I got through both DA games without anyone getting killed. Why should ME be any different?

Bonking Morrigan can't solve everything, alas.

Context please.

[nitefyre410]

Ravensword wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Discounting the sibling getting killed by the ogre right off the start, I got through both DA games without anyone getting killed. Why should ME be any different?

Bonking Morrigan can't solve everything, alas.

Context please.

  

Reference  to   having sex with Morrigan gets the Warden and Allistar out having to make a Heroic Sacrific  at the DA:O  which may be the only thing saved me going to a near rage at  end of  that game but alas to speak ill of DA:O is akin to  teason. 

[Ravensword]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Discounting the sibling getting killed by the ogre right off the start, I got through both DA games without anyone getting killed. Why should ME be any different?

Bonking Morrigan can't solve everything, alas.

Context please.

  

Reference  to   having sex with Morrigan gets the Warden and Allistar out having to make a Heroic Sacrific  at the DA:O  which may be the only thing saved me going to a near rage at  end of  that game but alas to speak ill of DA:O is akin to  teason. 

Oh, I see. Yeah, unfortunately there isn't a squadmate that you can nail in ME2 that'll autmatically save everyone at the end of the SM if you failed to do someone's loyalty mission. Then again, anytime I get the chance to blow some mook's head off is a good thing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar 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.

It's not realistic because there isn't a single front-line squad I know of that did't have casualties..in any war.. Ever.

Except they're not a front-line squad. They're running around the galaxy gathering support and pursuing the MacGuffin. The front-line is the reapers. Shepard's squad going up against the reapers is suicide. No Commander would do it. I've said this before. It's *not* Shepard's job to fight the reapers. Shepard's job is to defeat them.

Yes, they are a front-line squad.
They are constatnly involved in fighting. Constantly facing danger.

That's what a front-line squad is - one who is fighting, not standing in the rear guarding a depot, not seeing an enemy for the entire duration of the war.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
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:

That's what I don't want. Anyone who thinks this should be possible can go die in an even bigger fire.

Fortunately for me, Bioware has a history of allowing a 'best possible' scenario ending for most of their games.

Most of the human population likes heroic stories where the hero rescues the girl, kills the badguy, and saves the world.  It makes for damned good storytelling, a fact that Bioware is likely quite well aware of.

The fact that you not only don't want a full heroic ending, but want to deny others the same, smacks strongly of a large sense of entitlement where your fellow gamers are concerned.

Wait..

And you denying me my ending is NOT a large sense of entiltement?
Do explain to me how that works...
Because wating the cake and eaiting it too, does sound very self-entilted from where I'm sitting.

Not to mention that I never said you can't kill the bad guy, kiss the girl and save the wrold. I just said that you can't save everyone you like. But I guess anything less that perfection is not heroic enough for you?

[Valdrane78]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
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:

That's what I don't want. Anyone who thinks this should be possible can go die in an even bigger fire.

Fortunately for me, Bioware has a history of allowing a 'best possible' scenario ending for most of their games.

Most of the human population likes heroic stories where the hero rescues the girl, kills the badguy, and saves the world.  It makes for damned good storytelling, a fact that Bioware is likely quite well aware of.

The fact that you not only don't want a full heroic ending, but want to deny others the same, smacks strongly of a large sense of entitlement where your fellow gamers are concerned.

Wait..

And you denying me my ending is NOT a large sense of entiltement?
Do explain to me how that works...
Because wating the cake and eaiting it too, does sound very self-entilted from where I'm sitting.

Not to mention that I never said you can't kill the bad guy, kiss the girl and save the wrold. I just said that you can't save everyone you like. But I guess anything less that perfection is not heroic enough for you?

I don't think anyoen ever said you can't have your ending as well.  But most people don't want there to be a perfect ending.

I want my cake, I want to eat it, and it better frelling have a scoop of ice cream on it as well...............atleast for one of my play throughs.

But from the way it sounds, there are several type sof endings, and everyoen will get what they want....................as long as they work for it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Valdrane78 wrote...
I don't think anyoen ever said you can't have your ending as well.  But most people don't want there to be a perfect ending.

I want my cake, I want to eat it, and it better frelling have a scoop of ice cream on it as well...............atleast for one of my play throughs.

But from the way it sounds, there are several type sof endings, and everyoen will get what they want....................as long as they work for it.

Yes, they did say that. Like I said, what we want is NOT compatible. One cannot integrate both.

I can't get my ending and the gaming experience I want if your ending exists.

I don't want to RP a moron shep who doesn't care for his teammates. I want to try to same them all and fail. You want to try and save them all and suceed.

How the hell is the compatible? The only way for me to get my ending would be to metagame and NOT RP my Shep the way I want to. Which is not what I want.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion, have you ever failed at something super-hard in real life?

Like, have you ever tried your hardest to stop something bad from happening to someone you cared about, but it happened anyway?

And do you have to face the fact that you are completely helpless to make things better for this someone every damn day of your life?

If you have, okay, I'll lay off and cut the drama. But in my personal experience, and in the experience of those that PMed me privately about this topic (there were more than one), that sort of thing isn't something one enjoys reliving. Even in a game. Especially in a game.

Your Shepard does not have to be a super-derp to fail or screw up. In fact, it's fairly easy to lose people in the SM even if you are a completionist... so long as you don't look at a guide beforehand and develop a bias as to what the "correct" solution is.

[Valdrane78]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Valdrane78 wrote...
I don't think anyoen ever said you can't have your ending as well.  But most people don't want there to be a perfect ending.

I want my cake, I want to eat it, and it better frelling have a scoop of ice cream on it as well...............atleast for one of my play throughs.

But from the way it sounds, there are several type sof endings, and everyoen will get what they want....................as long as they work for it.

Yes, they did say that. Like I said, what we want is NOT compatible. One cannot integrate both.

I can't get my ending and the gaming experience I want if your ending exists.

I don't want to RP a moron shep who doesn't care for his teammates. I want to try to same them all and fail. You want to try and save them all and suceed.

How the hell is the compatible? The only way for me to get my ending would be to metagame and NOT RP my Shep the way I want to. Which is not what I want.

You are bound to miss things and fail, despite your best efforts.  What will seperate me from you during our first play through is this.........  I am going to take my ime and do EVERYTHING I possibly can to make sure I get my ending the first time.  Because that is the ending I want.   That's the only thing we can hope to do,who knows maybe I will miss stuff and despite my best efforts miss things and fail, maybe th eopposite will happen.

The point is, that ending is there.  The difference being, me and others like me will have to work twice as hard to get what we want.

Modifié par Valdrane78, 13 octobre 2011 - 07:49 .