4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...
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.

Saving the Galaxy with you LI is a happy ending. Garrus alive? Even happier. Earth in one peice? Even happeier. Etc, etc...
How much happiness is enough? Because you can always have more..
How about an ending in which no one dies (not even background NPC's). At all? Isn't it even more happy? What if I demanded that ending?

So exactly where do you draw the line?

As far as the implementation issue goes, you still have failed to show me that it can even be done.
An example would be nice.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Saving the Galaxy with you LI is a happy ending. Garrus alive? Even happier. Earth in one peice? Even happeier. Etc, etc...
How much happiness is enough? Because you can always have more..
How about an ending in which no one dies (not even background NPC's). At all? Isn't it even more happy? What if I demanded that ending?

So exactly where do you draw the line?

As far as the implementation issue goes, you still have failed to show me that it can even be done.
An example would be nice.

You haven't really been reading my posts or those of others or you'd already know my position on everything you just asked me.

[nitefyre410]

Did...wait

but...

you know what... nevermind

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be death. We just disagree on where the death is/needs to be to make a good story. Look at the first Star Wars trilogy, pulpy space opera in much the same vein as ME, though ME skews a bit less towards pulp. Apart from Obi Wan's fairly pointless death in the first film where Lucas was absolutely following a formula, none of the major characters died and I don't think the story was any poorer for it. They were also in the middle of a galactic war facing overwhelming odds.

And by interactivity I mean that there are set events which have to occur, the outcomes of which are determined by the player's choices and actions as contrained by what is possible, Shepard must go on the SM, it is a fixed part of the story. The outcome of the SM beyond the defeat of the Collectors is left up to the player's choices. Now we both agree that the constraints and choices which governed the outcomes of the SM could have been implemented better, but the spirit of the SM is very much that of a create-your-own-ending interactive story. As is the final battle in DA:O where three of the four possible endings lead to someone sacrificing themselves and the consequences of each ending are quite different vis a vis the characters.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Saving the Galaxy with you LI is a happy ending. Garrus alive? Even happier. Earth in one peice? Even happeier. Etc, etc...
How much happiness is enough? Because you can always have more..
How about an ending in which no one dies (not even background NPC's). At all? Isn't it even more happy? What if I demanded that ending?

So exactly where do you draw the line?

As far as the implementation issue goes, you still have failed to show me that it can even be done.
An example would be nice.

You haven't really been reading my posts or those of others or you'd already know my position on everything you just asked me.

I have been reading your post, and no, your position is not clear on that.
What you're doing is evasion, trying to pass the ball back to me.

Provide an example of how it can be done.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be death. We just disagree on where the death is/needs to be to make a good story. Look at the first Star Wars trilogy, pulpy space opera in much the same vein as ME, though ME skews a bit less towards pulp. Apart from Obi Wan's fairly pointless death in the first film where Lucas was absolutely following a formula, none of the major characters died and I don't think the story was any poorer for it. They were also in the middle of a galactic war facing overwhelming odds.

And by interactivity I mean that there are set events which have to occur, the outcomes of which are determined by the player's choices and actions as contrained by what is possible, Shepard must go on the SM, it is a fixed part of the story. The outcome of the SM beyond the defeat of the Collectors is left up to the player's choices. Now we both agree that the constraints and choices which governed the outcomes of the SM could have been implemented better, but the spirit of the SM is very much that of a create-your-own-ending interactive story. As is the final battle in DA:O where three of the four possible endings lead to someone sacrificing themselves and the consequences of each ending are quite different vis a vis the characters.

No no no see this is where our perceptions of Mass Effect's identity differ.  Star Wars is a completely different genre for me than Mass Effect.  While Mass Effect isn't hard sci-fi, it certainly isn't Star Wars.  It strikes a perfect balance of romanticism and realism.  Star Wars is devoid of realism so to me that analogy really doesn't apply.  I like to think of Mass Effect as a perfect compromise between Star Wars and Star Trek.

For your second point, we differ in perception here as well.  I look at Mass Effect as a much more linear-inclined story than you do.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see Bioware's true vision of the trilogy.  I think we can both agree that March 6th can't come soon enough!

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 11:15 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...
Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be death. We just disagree on where the death is/needs to be to make a good story. Look at the first Star Wars trilogy, pulpy space opera in much the same vein as ME, though ME skews a bit less towards pulp. Apart from Obi Wan's fairly pointless death in the first film where Lucas was absolutely following a formula, none of the major characters died and I don't think the story was any poorer for it. They were also in the middle of a galactic war facing overwhelming odds.

And SW is really not a good example of great writing OR a really consistent and believable universe...especially given the first 3 episodes.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Biotic Sage wrote...
No no no see this is where our perceptions of Mass Effect's identity differ.  Star Wars is a completely different genre for me than Mass Effect.  While Mass Effect isn't hard sci-fi, it certainly isn't Star Wars.  It strikes a perfect balance of romanticism and realism.  Star Wars is devoid of realism so to me that analogy really doesn't apply.  I like to think of Mass Effect as a perfect comprimise between Star Wars and Star Trek.

:blink::blink::huh:

Wut???

[Biotic Sage]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
No no no see this is where our perceptions of Mass Effect's identity differ.  Star Wars is a completely different genre for me than Mass Effect.  While Mass Effect isn't hard sci-fi, it certainly isn't Star Wars.  It strikes a perfect balance of romanticism and realism.  Star Wars is devoid of realism so to me that analogy really doesn't apply.  I like to think of Mass Effect as a perfect comprimise between Star Wars and Star Trek.

:blink::blink::huh:

Wut???

Not completely intellectual/hard sci-fi, but also not completely romanticized/fantasy.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I have been reading your post, and no, your position is not clear on that.
What you're doing is evasion, trying to pass the ball back to me.

Provide an example of how it can be done.

You obviously haven't or you would have read where I say the only thing I am asking for is a chance to fight for my squadmates, I'm not asking to prevent the millions of deaths that will occur, or to negate the loss of planets or fleets. Only to have the chance to keep my squaddies alive.

And I have also posted earlier an example of how the SM could have been made different in which Tali would die in the ducts if Shepard could not fight his/her way to the next valve in time, but instead of her death being a critical mission failure it was just her death. That would be an example of fighting for her survival and player skill and choices being the factors going into that.

So no. You haven't been reading my posts.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

No no no see this is where our perceptions of Mass Effect's identity differ.  Star Wars is a completely different genre for me than Mass Effect.  While Mass Effect isn't hard sci-fi, it certainly isn't Star Wars.  It strikes a perfect balance of romanticism and realism.  Star Wars is devoid of realism so to me that analogy really doesn't apply.  I like to think of Mass Effect as a perfect compromise between Star Wars and Star Trek.

For your second point, we differ in perception here as well.  I look at Mass Effect as a much more linear-inclined story than you do.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see Bioware's true vision of the trilogy.  I think we can both agree that March 6th can't come soon enough!

Ah well then we'll have to agree to disagree. To me Mass Effect is definitely space opera first and foremost. And although the 'fixed points' I mentioned are linear, the outcomes and consequences of them aren't. Not everyone will have the rachni on side against the reapers for instance, not everyone has a full complement of ME2 squaddies alive either. Wrex isn't the leader of the krogan for everyone. These are all divergent paths which lead to the same fixed points but every one of those fixed points has multiple outcomes. It was possible for instance to complete Samara's loyalty mission without her being loyal, the same could happen with Tali. Mass effect isn't just one story. It's not a book. That's the point.

Modifié par Athayniel, 13 octobre 2011 - 11:41 .

[Athayniel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

People like you have no love for suspense.

Is that supposed to make me feel bad or something? Not that it's even accurate so what are you trying to accomplish with that?

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

People like you have no love for suspense.

Squadmates dying for no good reason beyond drama is not what I would call a good suspense.

[Athayniel]

The most suspenseful moment of ME2 for me was actually Tali burning up in the ducts and screaming in pain over the radio while Shepard was pinned down by collector fire. Shepard rushed out of cover towards the next valve and opened it while under heavy fire, getting back into cover with only a sliver of health.

By contrast the choice on Virmire had no suspense at all.

Threat of death is suspenseful. Death itself... that's just death.

*edit* and I loved that moment.

Modifié par Athayniel, 13 octobre 2011 - 11:55 .

[EternalSea]

@Saphra Deden Well it's down to preference in the end.
Personally, loved the suicide mission and everyone living through it. Could of been harder, but it never stopped me getting tingly, or keep second guessing if I made the right choice, or who is ok.

However I doubt we'll have anything like it in ME3.

[wright1978]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

People like you have no love for suspense.

Is that supposed to make me feel bad or something? Not that it's even accurate so what are you trying to accomplish with that?

It's just an observation.

What's important is how it makes me feel, and it makes me feel let-down. The suicide mission was a huge  disappointment. I thought being well prepared would just enable me to live through it. It was a suicide mission! Being as prepared as possible should have made it survivable, but still a ride through hell that anyone was lucky to live through. Instead it was a breez.

If ME3 is anything like ME2 there will be no tension at all. No suspense. No drama.

That's what ME2 taught me. It was reflected in the suicide mission and in the way decisions carried over.

The suicide mission was a piece of cake that and which I can only see turn deadly with careful planning (should be the opposite, don't you think?).

No decisions I made had any real impact, good or bad, though the story flavoring for them as Paragon = happiness and Renegade = not-happiness.

I don't want to have so much confidence that Shepard will succeed in ME3. I want things to be dire. The harder the victory is to achieve the more satisfying it will be.

Completely agree.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

The most suspenseful moment of ME2 for me was actually Tali burning up in the ducts and screaming in pain over the radio while Shepard was pinned down by collector fire. Shepard rushed out of cover towards the next valve and opened it while under heavy fire, getting back into cover with only a sliver of health.

By contrast the choice on Virmire had no suspense at all.

Threat of death is suspenseful. Death itself... that's just death.

*edit* and I loved that moment.

But it CREATED suspense for later!  You saw that there COULD be death for squadmates!  Threat of death!  

Let's debate this until the end of time!

[Biotic Sage]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yes, there is suspense the first time, but only the first time. After that it is apparent just how harmless it is. As well as how arbitrary the deaths if you arrange to have them.

It should have been impossible to save everyone. It should still be impossible. You only have so much time, so many forces, so many tools.

If you try and save both you save neither. Make a choice. This is Mass Effect and it was sold on the importance and the weight of choices!

Many decisions lie ahead.  None of them easy.

You see that?  Sacrifice, loss, decisions with real opportunity cost.  That is what Mass Effect was aspiring to be.  And that is what ME3 should be.

[Athayniel]

They can create the threat of death without it being forced. You're making my points for me! =P

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

They can create the threat of death without it being forced. You're making my points for me! =P

It's not forced, it's an essential narrative element used to craft the suspense.  Round and round we go.  I've already explained the narrative theory behind it, that's all I can do.