4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

You don't have to be a super derp, but you do have to be a derp haha.  The only people completionists should possibly lose in ME2 are the Normandy crew.  I understand losing squadmates if you make the decision to go after the crew before being completely prepared, but a completionist (by the inherent definition of his/her title: completionist) is always going to opt for preparedness.  I didn't like waiting to go after the Collectors when they took my crew in my first playthrough, but I waited anyway because the mission is the priority (needs of the many greater than the few) and because I'm a completionist: I want to be ready when I take on the Collectors.  

Anybody who loses a squadmate after going through the Omega 4 Relay with a fully upgraded Normandy and a fully prepared team is unavoidably a derp.  You have to really not be paying attention to not select the proper squadmates for all of the tasks with respect to their talents/abilities.  There is no real risk in the Suicide Mission, something like me choosing a tech specialist to go into the vents knowing full well that no matter how prepared they are there is a chance they could die.  If games always follow the rule of: do everything right = perfect ending, there is no suspense.

Now I'm fine with everybody being able to survive in ME2 because it's not the final chapter of Shepard's saga...But ME3 is, so Bioware damn well better take some risks and give us some real suspense, authentically hard decisions, and of course a hell of a good ride.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 08:09 .

[SandTrout]

@Biotic Sage,

While some of the decisions are relatively obvious ones, some are less so. My first time through the SM, I lost Mordin because I put him through the pipes. After the fact, I could look back and see "Ah, that is what they meant," but before knowing how how their jargon translated, it was not all that obvious.

[jeweledleah]

Biotic Sage wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

You don't have to be a super derp, but you do have to be a derp haha.  The only people completionists should possibly lose in ME2 are the Normandy crew.  I understand losing squadmates if you make the decision to go after the crew before being completely prepared, but a completionist (by the inherent definition of his/her title: completionist) is always going to opt for preparedness.  I didn't like waiting to go after the Collectors when they took my crew in my first playthrough, but I waited anyway because the mission is the priority (needs of the many greater than the few) and because I'm a completionist: I want to be ready when I take on the Collectors.  

Anybody who loses a squadmate after going through the Omega 4 Relay with a fully upgraded Normandy and a fully prepared team is unavoidably a derp.  You have to really not be paying attention to not select the proper squadmates for all of the tasks with respect to their talents/abilities.  There is no real risk in the Suicide Mission, something like me choosing a tech specialist to go into the vents knowing full well that no matter how prepared they are there is a chance they could die.  If games always follow the rule of: do everything right = perfect ending, there is no suspense.

Now I'm fine with everybody being able to survive in ME2 because it's not the final chapter of Shepard's saga...But ME3 is, so Bioware damn well better take some risks and give us some real suspense, authentically hard decisions, and of course a hell of a good ride.

I didn't lose Mordin mordin first time I did suicide mission (and I actualy looked up a few strategies, just to make sure - one of them being, don't go after reaper iff, untill after finishing all the loyalty missions) - was by sheer luck. specificaly I didn't have Kasumi yet.  if I had her?  he would have died to holding the line, because I didn't know anything about holding the line armor values and i wanted the strongest fighters with me, so I took Garrus and Zaeed to the reaper.  that was NOT a derp choice.

also - loyalty conflics. not everyone might end up with enough points to resolve them.  in fact - in my first playthrough? I did Jack's loyalty mission toolate and ended up not having enough paragon points to resolve it.  I had to look it up.. again, and finaly managed (after reloading) to get Miranda's loyalty back, by respecing my shepard power to 100% paragon boost.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 13 octobre 2011 - 08:23 .

[Biotic Sage]

SandTrout wrote...

@Biotic Sage,

While some of the decisions are relatively obvious ones, some are less so. My first time through the SM, I lost Mordin because I put him through the pipes. After the fact, I could look back and see "Ah, that is what they meant," but before knowing how how their jargon translated, it was not all that obvious.

That's why I said people shouldn't be labeled as "super" derps, only derps lol.  I completely understand the impulse to choose Mordin because he's a scientist; I had it myself but luckily I chose Tali even though I thought either one would work originally; I literally said to myself, both these guys could work but I guess I"ll go with Tali, it was like flipping a coin for me.  But what I'm saying is people who are truly paying attention would know that Mordin is an expert in biology, which doesn't really relate to the tech infiltration task.  Sure he would be better than Grunt, but obviously the optimal choices are Legion/Tali.

Plus, my main point/argument was that if there is a perfect where everyone lives in ME3, Bioware will be sticking with a conservative paradigm of "do everything right = perfect ending" instead of taking real risks as storytellers.  Bigger risks = the potential for bigger emotional payoffs.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 08:20 .

[Arppis]

Also, just saying. People who go with "defeatism" route and just say how everything is impossible will never be able to save everyone. There are a lot of amazing things people have pulled off in "real life", so I don't see how it's super impossible to be a nice guy and save everyone. Sure it's hard, but I don't think it's undoable.

That's why it's the "high path". Not the easy copout way.

[GreenSoda]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

I certainly appreciate the sentiment. My grandpa (R.I.P.) couldn't watch the first half hour of "Saving Privat Ryan". It was understandable, but that's simply not a valid argument against the implementation of said scene.

[Biotic Sage]

jeweledleah wrote...

I didn't lose Mordin mordin first time I did suicide mission (and I actualy looked up a few strategies, just to make sure - one of them being, don't go after reaper iff, untill after finishing all the loyalty missions) - was by sheer luck. specificaly I didn't have Kasumi yet.  if I had her?  he would have died to holding the line, because I didn't know anything about holding the line armor values and i wanted the strongest fighters with me, so I took Garrus and Zaeed to the reaper.  that was NOT a derp choice.

also - loyalty conflics. not everyone might end up with enough points to resolve them.  in fact - in my first playthrough? I did Jack's loyalty mission toolate and ended up not having enough paragon points to resolve it.  I had to look it up.. again, and finaly managed (after reloading) to get Miranda's loyalty back, by respecing my shepard power to 100% paragon boost.

Alright those aren't derp, those are cheap on Bioware's part and I think you'd agree.  So take away the cheap shots from the developer, and you are left with the rest of the real choices, the ones you actually know your making, not some veiled numbers game with armor: those come down to derp/not derp.

Also, again, this is not even related to my main point.  I will reiterate:

If a developer follows the paradigm of "Do everything right: get perfect ending/everyone lives," then there is inevitably no suspense in the game.  I should be able to do everything right and still feel suspense, still feel actually worried that Garrus might die if I choose him to lead a small team in a high-risk mission.  That's real immersion.  And nobody is going to feel worried about squadmates dying unless there is actually an example of somebody dying in the game.  ME1 had that Virmire thing, and while I get the criticisms, nobody can say they didn't think, "Holy crap, this sh*t just got real" after that mission.  You felt that nothing was sacred, even a permanent squad, so you were that much more immersed when you went on the final mission.  The feeling of real stakes isn't just going to come out of nowhere, this feeling needs to be crafted.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 08:36 .

[jeweledleah]

the suspense is trying to figure out what the right choice is. they do give hints, but its still possible to make wrong choices. listen to Miranda, for example, about biotic bubble. lose a squad mate to the swarms. or don't listen, and pick Jack, the strongest biotic to hold it - Jack that you didn't side with during loyalty conflict? lose a squadmate. lose Miranda's loyalty,let her be a first fire team leader since, you know - XO and a leader? lose your tech.

there are plenty of minor things that can go wrong. losing everyone does take effort, but saving everyone the very first time, without prior knowledge? that takes effort too. we know everything there is to know about suicide mission - all the variables, numbers, etc. so it seems easy now. in hindsight.

[Biotic Sage]

jeweledleah wrote...

the suspense is trying to figure out what the right choice is. they do give hints, but its still possible to make wrong choices. listen to Miranda, for example, about biotic bubble. lose a squad mate to the swarms. or don't listen, and pick Jack, the strongest biotic to hold it - Jack that you didn't side with during loyalty conflict? lose a squadmate. lose Miranda's loyalty,let her be a first fire team leader since, you know - XO and a leader? lose your tech.

there are plenty of minor things that can go wrong. losing everyone does take effort, but saving everyone the very first time, without prior knowledge? that takes effort too. we know everything there is to know about suicide mission - all the variables, numbers, etc. so it seems easy now. in hindsight.

Again, the effort and difficulty of the decisions to reach the perfect ending is secondary to my main argument.  The main argument is this:

The very fact that a perfect/everyone lives ending exists at all, that is detrimental to suspense.  In a story like this, there has to be a death that happens during the middle act of the game that really hits close to home in order to craft the high stakes feeling that Bioware is going for in a GALACTIC war.  The war to end all wars.  I don't make the rules.  These are story-telling basics, proven to be effective and proven to be necessary for that particular end result.

I'm not saying that it has to be Liara that dies.  Or that it has to be Garrus.  I'm not singling anyone out.  I'm just saying that it has to be somebody.  It could be a different somebody depending on the playthrough, but somebody has to bite it in order to achieve that high-stakes suspenseful immersion.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 08:51 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

The reaper invasion is super-extra-hard.

And you don't get to tell me what I enjoy and do not enjoy. I enjoy a good, deep story. I enjoy a well, crafted, immersive world.

As for your own explanations and wishes, yes...yes he does.
AS I said before - I'm RP'ing a samrt and cargin Sheppard. He WILL try to save everyone. He will search for the best outcome. He will take his time (if he can)

If there is a sensible way to get the perfect ending, then yes, my Shepprd would be an idiot. Hence, not satisfying.

All that BS of "I'll have to work hard for it" is irrelevant. Because it's not a matter of "working hard". My Sheppard will work hard. And by that logic will get the same ending as you.

Don't you get it?

[Biotic Sage]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

The reaper invasion is super-extra-hard.

And you don't get to tell me what I enjoy and do not enjoy. I enjoy a good, deep story. I enjoy a well, crafted, immersive world.

As for your own explanations and wishes, yes...yes he does.
AS I said before - I'm RP'ing a samrt and cargin Sheppard. He WILL try to save everyone. He will search for the best outcome. He will take his time (if he can)

If there is a sensible way to get the perfect ending, then yes, my Shepprd would be an idiot. Hence, not satisfying.

All that BS of "I'll have to work hard for it" is irrelevant. Because it's not a matter of "working hard". My Sheppard will work hard. And by that logic will get the same ending as you.

Don't you get it?

Using rhetoric such as "Don't you get it?"  and "You don't get to tell me..." is counterproductive to your cause.  The person you're addressing is only going to see your condescension and not the content of your argument.  Don't you get it?

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 09:05 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

What's so rethorical about it? It's a valid question. Don't imprint meaning into a sentance that isn't there.

For several replies some people seem to be missing the point.

[Biotic Sage]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What's so rethorical about it? It's a valid question. Don't imprint meaning into a sentance that isn't there.

For several replies some people seem to be missing the point.

I meant rhetoric in the sense of "effective use of language."  I was just trying to point out something that I thought would help your cause, since I ultimately do agree with your assertions in this thread.  People tend to listen better when you approach arguments in a less abrasive fashion...you tend to be what some might consider to be: a bit harsh.

[jeweledleah]

Biotic Sage wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

the suspense is trying to figure out what the right choice is. they do give hints, but its still possible to make wrong choices. listen to Miranda, for example, about biotic bubble. lose a squad mate to the swarms. or don't listen, and pick Jack, the strongest biotic to hold it - Jack that you didn't side with during loyalty conflict? lose a squadmate. lose Miranda's loyalty,let her be a first fire team leader since, you know - XO and a leader? lose your tech.

there are plenty of minor things that can go wrong. losing everyone does take effort, but saving everyone the very first time, without prior knowledge? that takes effort too. we know everything there is to know about suicide mission - all the variables, numbers, etc. so it seems easy now. in hindsight.

Again, the effort and difficulty of the decisions to reach the perfect ending is secondary to my main argument.  The main argument is this:

The very fact that a perfect/everyone lives ending exists at all, that is detrimental to suspense.  In a story like this, there has to be a death that happens during the middle act of the game that really hits close to home in order to craft the high stakes feeling that Bioware is going for in a GALACTIC war.  The war to end all wars.  I don't make the rules.  These are story-telling basics, proven to be effective and proven to be necessary for that particular end result.

I'm not saying that it has to be Liara that dies.  Or that it has to be Garrus.  I'm not singling anyone out.  I'm just saying that it has to be somebody.  It could be a different somebody depending on the playthrough, but somebody has to bite it in order to achieve that high-stakes suspenseful immersion.

why?  it still removes the suspence. either the death is random which ends up in a lot of redoing and reloading (and if that random death is determined early in a game - then that results in rage, negative reviews and reduced future sales) or the death is calculatable in whihc case - there's still no suspece as people will just decide which character they dont mind seeing dead/ want to see dead and set up their play through to reflect that.  it is NO different in tersm of difficulty and suspence from possibility of "everyone lives" ending. its just more annoying to those of us who would like to have a happy ending.

even if you know that everyone can survive - you don't know how.  its still possible to make mistakes.  even if you know that some people will die - you merely don't know how.  eventualy - everything gets dicected, strategies get posted and if you wish to have a darker ending - you can have it by setting it up and role playing it NOT to be derpy.  just because the option for happy ending is there - you DON'T have to take it.

[Biotic Sage]

jeweledleah wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

the suspense is trying to figure out what the right choice is. they do give hints, but its still possible to make wrong choices. listen to Miranda, for example, about biotic bubble. lose a squad mate to the swarms. or don't listen, and pick Jack, the strongest biotic to hold it - Jack that you didn't side with during loyalty conflict? lose a squadmate. lose Miranda's loyalty,let her be a first fire team leader since, you know - XO and a leader? lose your tech.

there are plenty of minor things that can go wrong. losing everyone does take effort, but saving everyone the very first time, without prior knowledge? that takes effort too. we know everything there is to know about suicide mission - all the variables, numbers, etc. so it seems easy now. in hindsight.

Again, the effort and difficulty of the decisions to reach the perfect ending is secondary to my main argument.  The main argument is this:

The very fact that a perfect/everyone lives ending exists at all, that is detrimental to suspense.  In a story like this, there has to be a death that happens during the middle act of the game that really hits close to home in order to craft the high stakes feeling that Bioware is going for in a GALACTIC war.  The war to end all wars.  I don't make the rules.  These are story-telling basics, proven to be effective and proven to be necessary for that particular end result.

I'm not saying that it has to be Liara that dies.  Or that it has to be Garrus.  I'm not singling anyone out.  I'm just saying that it has to be somebody.  It could be a different somebody depending on the playthrough, but somebody has to bite it in order to achieve that high-stakes suspenseful immersion.

why?  it still removes the suspence. either the death is random which ends up in a lot of redoing and reloading (and if that random death is determined early in a game - then that results in rage, negative reviews and reduced future sales) or the death is calculatable in whihc case - there's still no suspece as people will just decide which character they dont mind seeing dead/ want to see dead and set up their play through to reflect that.  it is NO different in tersm of difficulty and suspence from possibility of "everyone lives" ending. its just more annoying to those of us who would like to have a happy ending.

even if you know that everyone can survive - you don't know how.  its still possible to make mistakes.  even if you know that some people will die - you merely don't know how.  eventualy - everything gets dicected, strategies get posted and if you wish to have a darker ending - you can have it by setting it up and role playing it NOT to be derpy.  just because the option for happy ending is there - you DON'T have to take it.

I've expressed all of my arguments as well as I can, so if you still disagree there's nothing else I can say to convince you.   Just keep in mind that you are also disagreeing with what is accepted narrative theory; if you want to stick to your own thesis on narrative theory that is your prerogative.  Hell, you could even become a professor of narrative theory and create your own argument for why video-game storytelling should play by a different set of rules than conventional storytelling.  Video games are still developing as a medium so I would be happy to read your case.  What I'm hearing right now though is not convincing me that there should be different rules.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 09:33 .

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

The very fact that a perfect/everyone lives ending exists at all, that is detrimental to suspense.  In a story like this, there has to be a death that happens during the middle act of the game that really hits close to home in order to craft the high stakes feeling that Bioware is going for in a GALACTIC war.  The war to end all wars.  I don't make the rules.  These are story-telling basics, proven to be effective and proven to be necessary for that particular end result.

You know what hits really close to home for me? Seeing London burning with multiple reapers hovering overhead in the trailer. I'm sure the same can be said for every city being attacked by the reapers. I don't need a squadmate dying to drive that point home to me.

Modifié par Athayniel, 13 octobre 2011 - 09:33 .

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

The very fact that a perfect/everyone lives ending exists at all, that is detrimental to suspense.  In a story like this, there has to be a death that happens during the middle act of the game that really hits close to home in order to craft the high stakes feeling that Bioware is going for in a GALACTIC war.  The war to end all wars.  I don't make the rules.  These are story-telling basics, proven to be effective and proven to be necessary for that particular end result.

You know what hits really close to home for me? Seeing London in burning with multiple reapers hovering overhead in the trailer. I'm sure the same can be said for every city being attacked by the reapers. I don't need a squadmate dying to drive that point home to me.

Yes, but what should logically affect your emotions is not actually what does affect your emotions in narrative.  Storytelling differs from real life.  Characters in the story are what drives emotional response.  I'm not talking out of my ass here by the way.  I have a B.A. and master's in English.  This is accepted/proven theory.  I'm not saying you can't have a different view, but just putting it out there.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 09:36 .

[jeweledleah]

the difference between conventional story telling and an rpg is that in an rpg - you are the participant, rather then spectator. you are given an opportunity to tell your own story, using the parameters given by the creators of the world you are playing in. and becasue of that - yes, different narrative rules apply. and being able to SAVE the characters in a story, being able to actually FEEL like a hero - drives an emotional response.

not to mention - there is a reason why the best selling genres have guaranteed happy endings. literally elite might gush about senseless tragedies, but the public loves their sunshine and rainbows (after some strife and peril of course - sunshine and rainbows feel oh so much better when you had to fight for them).

becasue there are enough senseless tragedies in real life as it is. people want to escape somewhere where they feel powerful, capable, where they can be heroes and actually SAVE someone, unlike real life where often - you cannot.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 13 octobre 2011 - 09:50 .

[Biotic Sage]

jeweledleah wrote...

the difference between conventional story telling and an rpg is that in an rpg - you are the participant, rather then spectator. you are given an opportunity to tell your own story, using the parameters given by the creators of the world you are playing in. and becasue of that - yes, different narrative rules apply. and being able to SAVE the characters in a story, being able to actually FEEL like a hero - drives an emotional response.

not to mention - there is a reason why the best selling genres have guaranteed happy endings. literally elite might gush about senseless tragedies, but the public loves their sunshine and rainbows (after some strive and peril of course- sunshine and rainbows feel oh so much better when you had to fight for them).

becasue there are enough senseless tragedies in real life as it is. people want to escape somewhere where they feel powerful, capable, where they can be heroes and actually SAVE someone, unlike real life where often - you cannot.

I definitely get what you're saying about player agency.  That is a distinctive attribute that only video games possess.  However, I think you are putting Mass Effect in a category that it does not belong in.  You are trying to place it in the category that Skyrim is in.  For games like Skyrim, that are truly about player agency, everything you are saying makes complete sense.  Mass Effect, however, wants to tell a very specific story, too specific to be completely about player agency.  Not every video game is created equal, and I think that's why the medium is so fascinating; there is more to take into consideration for storytelling than what one must consider for films or written works.

I love discussing this kind of thing haha

Edit* @Athayniel
I think this post addresses the points I would make in response to your post below.  Just letting you know I did read your post.  And (as much as I hate to say it, as much as it pains me to say it): I am ultimately in agreement with Lotion.  The mere existence of the sunshine ending is a problem, in my opinion, from a literary perspective.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 09:59 .

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Yes, but what should logically affect your emotions is not actually what does affect your emotions in narrative.  Storytelling differs from real life.  Characters in the story are what drives emotional response.  I'm not talking out of my ass here by the way.  I have a B.A. and master's in English.  This is accepted/proven theory.  I'm not saying you can't have a different view, but just putting it out there.

I'm not saying a squadmate death doesn't drive it home. I'm just saying not everyone needs that for it to be driven home. I wrote in an earlier response to someone that everyone has a different threshold of drama and going beyond it just makes things tiring and numbing. There's no pay-off beyond that point. Also your points are mostly in the context of static stories written for books or movies. In interactive fiction such as RPGs, the original author cedes some control to the consumer. It's why ME2 and DA:O had several different endings including those of the sunshine and rainbows variety.

From our discussions it doesn't seem to me as if you'd really be averse to the sunshine and rainbows ending as long as the choices and actions which took you to the sacrifice ending are good and solid and logical and didn't make Shepard look like and idiot. Lotion Soronnar on the other hand has made it quite clear the mere existence of a happier ending than the one he aspires to would give him agida. Your issue is one of implementation, his is of entitlement. I have no truck with entitlement.

*edit* @Biotic Sage: Moved it to it's own comment so you won't miss it

Modifié par Athayniel, 13 octobre 2011 - 10:16 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What's so rethorical about it? It's a valid question. Don't imprint meaning into a sentance that isn't there.

For several replies some people seem to be missing the point.

I meant rhetoric in the sense of "effective use of language."  I was just trying to point out something that I thought would help your cause, since I ultimately do agree with your assertions in this thread.  People tend to listen better when you approach arguments in a less abrasive fashion...you tend to be what some might consider to be: a bit harsh.

Guilty as charged:P, I admitt.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jeweledleah wrote...

why?  it still removes the suspence. either the death is random which ends up in a lot of redoing and reloading (and if that random death is determined early in a game - then that results in rage, negative reviews and reduced future sales) or the death is calculatable in whihc case - there's still no suspece as people will just decide which character they dont mind seeing dead/ want to see dead and set up their play through to reflect that.  it is NO different in tersm of difficulty and suspence from possibility of "everyone lives" ending. its just more annoying to those of us who would like to have a happy ending.

Characters have died since the begining of time and fans have whined since then. Remember Aerith?
Yes, I see how it DESTROYED sales.
Movies and games have gone down in flames becuase ofthat!
So really...this warnings/threats of doom for a company that does it are silly at best.

Also, jsut because you already know something might/will happen/not happen, doesn't remove the impact.
I knew how LOTR would go, cause gobbled the books. I still enjoyed the movies. I knew Boromir would die. Yet I still consider it one of the best scenes of the first movie.

even if you know that everyone can survive - you don't know how.  its still possible to make mistakes.  even if you know that some people will die - you merely don't know how.  eventualy - everything gets dicected, strategies get posted and if you wish to have a darker ending - you can have it by setting it up and role playing it NOT to be derpy.  just because the option for happy ending is there - you DON'T have to take it.

Roleplay it not to be derpy? You mean ignore the game, narrative and characters to basicly invent my own? Why would I do that?
Unless you missed it, I RP a Shep that tries to get to that happy ending. So why why would he NOT take it?

Give me an example of such a character death/rescuse decision, where Shep won't either come off derpy or stupid and uncaring..and I'll conciede the point.

[Athayniel]

@Biotic Sage: Ah well, I think at the end of the day we're coming at this from different perspectives. I embrace the new media interactivity of the game and all it's myriad possible endings. I see each playthrough as its own distinct story and I'm not weighed down by the meta-knowledge of the other possibilities available. The Shepard of any particular playthrough makes the choices their character compels them to make and the story goes where those choices takes it. I love books and movies don't get me wrong. But they are a fundamentally different medium than games and though some might deplore the current state of game stories I will point to the things that games can do that books and movies can't do as well which is allow the consumer to drive the story in an organic and immersive way and to at times create the story themselves within the constraints of what is possible. You may believe that applying the same formulas that work for a book is the way forward. I say that game storytelling will create its own formulas and the most important of those is that the end isn't the only end.

[fainmaca]

The POINT of the Mass Effect series is that you're meant to make your own ending, for good or for bad. Some players agonise for ages over choices they've made that don't have immediately obvious consequences, and try to make the most strategically sensible decision with the facts available. If you put that much effort into winning the war with no/as few as possible losses on your part, you want to be able to achieve what you set out to do.
 
Mass Effect is supposed to give us a wild spectrum of outcomes, so why can't there be an almost perfect ending as well as a worst case scenario ending?

I favour an incredibly difficult 'good' ending with minimal losses. I'm talking about an achievement that requires careful consideration of choices rather than 'top right, top right, top right' thinking in all conversations. Sure, real life can suck at times and bad things happen to good people, but the point of a game is to escape from real life. In a time of great struggle and hardship, Shepard (and through him, the players) would need to, from time to time, say every one playthrough in ten, get an ending where, just this once, EVERYBODY LIVES!

And yes, the first time through the SM, I lost people. I'd been a completionist, doing everything before the derelict reaper, but I lost people when I chose Thane as my vents guy and thought Miranda would do a good job of the bubble (she said she could do it!). Lost Mordin in holding the line, but everyone else came through. Played through again and got everyone out safe. I never looked at a guide, but now, even the knowledge that I can get them out safely still doesn't ruin the tension of the mission.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

@Biotic Sage: Ah well, I think at the end of the day we're coming at this from different perspectives. I embrace the new media interactivity of the game and all it's myriad possible endings. I see each playthrough as its own distinct story and I'm not weighed down by the meta-knowledge of the other possibilities available. The Shepard of any particular playthrough makes the choices their character compels them to make and the story goes where those choices takes it. I love books and movies don't get me wrong. But they are a fundamentally different medium than games and though some might deplore the current state of game stories I will point to the things that games can do that books and movies can't do as well which is allow the consumer to drive the story in an organic and immersive way and to at times create the story themselves within the constraints of what is possible. You may believe that applying the same formulas that work for a book is the way forward. I say that game storytelling will create its own formulas and the most important of those is that the end isn't the only end.

Interactivity doesn't necessarily mean complete control of the narrative.  Games like Skyrim are much less linear than Mass Effect.  A single set of rules can't be set for the entire video-game medium. 

Also, Lotion makes a good point in his post above about how role-playing for an optimum ending should still include good storytelling, and once again, my definition of good-storytelling in this genre is conflict/loss.  Of course the definition of good storytelling in another genre (such as romantic comedy, for example) would be different.  I would think a romantic comedy fails in its storytelling if it had death as a major theme (of course there are always exceptions, but that is a tangential discussion), but by the same token I would think a war epic fails in its storytelling if it didn't have death as a major theme.

Certainly, there can be an "optimal" ending that doesn't have nearly as much deaths/loss, but there still has to be deaths/loss.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 10:29 .