4309 réponses à ce sujet

[McHoger]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, there is no real fear when you know you can always load your save and do it over again.

It's like dying in say... Oblivion or Fallout 3, or any modern game. There is no penalty, no fear. If you die you just start over from where you were a minute or two ago.

But there is also no real fear when nothing you do effects the outcome. There can't be any feeling of failure if there is no possiblity of success.

[EternalSea]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, there is no real fear when you know you can always load your save and do it over again.

It's like dying in say... Oblivion or Fallout 3, or any modern game. There is no penalty, no fear. If you die you just start over from where you were a minute or two ago.

There is a fear for how much of an impact it will have on you. If I replayed it knowingly to make the "right" choice, then I've lost the suspense compared to the first time where I do not know what will happen.
Well, that is if you're like me, if you want your first playthrough to be suspenseful without a reload.

Modifié par EternalSea, 13 octobre 2011 - 12:15 .

[Biotic Sage]

McHoger wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, there is no real fear when you know you can always load your save and do it over again.

It's like dying in say... Oblivion or Fallout 3, or any modern game. There is no penalty, no fear. If you die you just start over from where you were a minute or two ago.

But there is also no real fear when nothing you do effects the outcome. There can't be any feeling of failure if there is no possiblity of success.

Of course there should be a possiblity for success.  But success shouldn't be so fantastical as to break immersion.  Shepard and co. coming through completely unscathed is just not going to be impactful.  And I want my completionist playthrough to have impact damnit.

If everybody lives, that really trivializes a galactic war in which sentient life battles extinction.  I'll say, "Really?  That was the Reapers?  Pff."

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 12:13 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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

No, there is no real fear when you know you can always load your save and do it over again.

It's like dying in say... Oblivion or Fallout 3, or any modern game. There is no penalty, no fear. If you die you just start over from where you were a minute or two ago.

Why shouldn't I be able to?

If I don't feel that I'm happy with the result (who would have though that the game was made to entertain, right?) I can go back and redo it if I so feel like it.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

It is forced if the player cannot affect the outcome. And I understand the narrative theory behind it, I'm trying to explain that in an interactive story, the theory which applies to a book is not enough. Interactive stories shift the paradigm away from it being a single narrative set in stone to it being a plethora of narratives which flow in the same direction with different meandering paths.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Someone With Mass wrote...
Why shouldn't I be able to?

If I don't feel that I'm happy with the result (who would have though that the game was made to entertain, right?) I can go back and redo it if I so feel like it.

Entertaining is so much more than just feel-good when it comes to story.

I did not want Dumbledor or Sirius to die. But their deaths made the story stronger and the happy ending that much sweeter.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

It is forced if the player cannot affect the outcome. And I understand the narrative theory behind it, I'm trying to explain that in an interactive story, the theory which applies to a book is not enough. Interactive stories shift the paradigm away from it being a single narrative set in stone to it being a plethora of narratives which flow in the same direction with different meandering paths.

Agreed.  If it were Skyrim.  But that's not what Mass Effect has been, and that's not what ME3 will be.  You just described Skyrim.  Mass Effect's choices don't take you along different paths, they just add different flavorings to a single path.

[Athayniel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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

No, there is no real fear when you know you can always load your save and do it over again.

It's like dying in say... Oblivion or Fallout 3, or any modern game. There is no penalty, no fear. If you die you just start over from where you were a minute or two ago.

Oh please. It's almost as if you don't even play the games. The whole point is the feeling invoked in the moment. My hands were shaking on my mouse and keyboard the moment I got back into cover after saving Tali. It was a great gaming moment for me and it wasn't the only one. That's the beauty of these kinds of games. If the feeling invoked in the moment of a squadmate's death is just rage at the writers.... the writers have obviously failed.

[McHoger]

Lizardviking wrote...

Entertaining is so much more than just feel-good when it comes to story.

I did not want Dumbledor or Sirius to die. But their deaths made the story stronger and the happy ending that much sweeter.

I guess the point is that those deaths have more of an impact if your personal actions lead to those character's deaths. And you can't have that personal responsibility if it isn't possible for those characters to live.

[Biotic Sage]

McHoger wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Entertaining is so much more than just feel-good when it comes to story.

I did not want Dumbledor or Sirius to die. But their deaths made the story stronger and the happy ending that much sweeter.

I guess the point is that those deaths have more of an impact if your personal actions lead to those character's deaths. And you can't have that personal responsibility if it isn't possible for those characters to live.

What if your personal actions did choose who lived?  But no matter what you did, somebody had to die?  In one playthrough it might be Miranda, in another it might be Garrus.  That way we could still get that close-to home death necessary for authentic stakes and real immersion in an epic war story.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

McHoger wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Entertaining is so much more than just feel-good when it comes to story.

I did not want Dumbledor or Sirius to die. But their deaths made the story stronger and the happy ending that much sweeter.

I guess the point is that those deaths have more of an impact if your personal actions lead to those character's deaths. And you can't have that personal responsibility if it isn't possible for those characters to live.

Nope.

If they can live, I will just reload and redo it. Thereby making what happend before completly null and void.

[GodWood]

Athayniel wrote...
If the feeling invoked in the moment of a squadmate's death is just rage at the writers.... the writers have obviously failed.

If you feel rage at the writers because the execution of the character's death was done poorly then yes the writers have failed.

If you feel rage at the writers simply because a character you liked died then you should **** off back to your kids stories.

[Medhia Nox]

I've been playing video games for about 25 years - and I've never felt fear from any of them.

Even games that only had three lives and then you had to start all over - you could still "start all over."

====

And - everyone isn't living just because 10 heroes survive. Pressly has died, Kaidan/Ashley has died, X amount of human colonists have died, 300,000 Batarians have died, a not insignificant number of indoctrinated individuals have died, for those that think machines are relevant - a whole faction of Geth might have died, not to mention that your entire team "could" have died in the last game.

Killing Shepard's friends is a stretch for a cheap emotion - having Shepard's choices lead to possible friend deaths is a much more interactive and intimate way to carry through with these things (but that must leave room for no deaths).

====

Godwood - the conclusion of your statement is not a fact. 

I could just as easily suggest that if you feel rage - then you should go write your own story or gain some perspective on what's important in life. "Rage" should not be wasted on a video game.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 13 octobre 2011 - 12:23 .

[Biotic Sage]

GodWood wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
If the feeling invoked in the moment of a squadmate's death is just rage at the writers.... the writers have obviously failed.

If you feel rage at the writers because the execution of the character's death was done poorly then yes the writers have failed.

If you feel rage at the writers simply because a character you liked died then you should **** off back to your kids stories.

Hahaha

[Someone With Mass]

Lizardviking wrote...

Entertaining is so much more than just feel-good when it comes to story.

I did not want Dumbledor or Sirius to die. But their deaths made the story stronger and the happy ending that much sweeter.

Sure, if it's done for the right reasons and it's not just a lame Virmire repeat.

[McHoger]

Biotic Sage wrote...

What if your personal actions did choose who lived?  But no matter what you did, somebody had to die?  In one playthrough it might be Miranda, in another it might be Garrus.  That way we could still get that close-to home death necessary for authentic stakes and real immersion in an epic war story.

We did this already in ME1. I found the Virmire decision to be largely devoid of emotion because someone had to die. It was made even worse because it came so close to the moment with Wrex, which was done so much better.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Of course there should be a possiblity for success.  But success shouldn't be so fantastical as to break immersion.  Shepard and co. coming through completely unscathed is just not going to be impactful.  And I want my completionist playthrough to have impact damnit.

If everybody lives, that really trivializes a galactic war in which sentient life battles extinction.  I'll say, "Really?  That was the Reapers?  Pff."

They only managed to kill billions of sentients and reduced dozens of cities and even planets to rubble. Pfft.

I think you're under the impression we as the player can't understand the loss unless it takes away something from us personally. I disagree with you. You may say that you have literary theory on your side and I'll just say it's a well established fact that people are capable of empathasing with the plight of others regardless of the personal effect on themselves and that it is unnecessary to force outcomes in an interactive story to achieve those ends.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Entertaining is so much more than just feel-good when it comes to story.

I did not want Dumbledor or Sirius to die. But their deaths made the story stronger and the happy ending that much sweeter.

Sure, if it's done for the right reasons and it's not just a lame Virmire repeat.

Good. Then lets hope Bioware wont just do it for the sake of redoing Vimire.

[wright1978]

Suspense dissipates when there is no moment of pain to counterbalance the joy. I clearly remember getting to point in the suicide mission where i had to choose a squad to go forward and the rest were going to hold the line. It seemed clear to me that how i'd managed to breeze through so far was to build up for the pain on hold the line. I picked the buds to go forward with me. Said goodbye to my bud Garrus who i left to command the rest to soak up collector damage wondering how many i would come back to. Except that no one died and that felt extremely hollow.

[Biotic Sage]

McHoger wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

What if your personal actions did choose who lived?  But no matter what you did, somebody had to die?  In one playthrough it might be Miranda, in another it might be Garrus.  That way we could still get that close-to home death necessary for authentic stakes and real immersion in an epic war story.

We did this already in ME1. I found the Virmire decision to be largely devoid of emotion because someone had to die. It was made even worse because it came so close to the moment with Wrex, which was done so much better.

I don't understand how Virmire could result in no emotional reaction from you.  I understand the criticisms about Virmire, but the essence of it, having to make a difficult choice regarding two people close to you, what in the hell is wrong with that?  We aren't on the same page if Virmire really had no effect on you.  Virmire let you know that this sh*t was real, and that as a commander fighting against a powerful force you were going to have to make some Sophie's choice decisions and be put in tough situations.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Of course there should be a possiblity for success.  But success shouldn't be so fantastical as to break immersion.  Shepard and co. coming through completely unscathed is just not going to be impactful.  And I want my completionist playthrough to have impact damnit.

If everybody lives, that really trivializes a galactic war in which sentient life battles extinction.  I'll say, "Really?  That was the Reapers?  Pff."

They only managed to kill billions of sentients and reduced dozens of cities and even planets to rubble. Pfft.

I think you're under the impression we as the player can't understand the loss unless it takes away something from us personally. I disagree with you. You may say that you have literary theory on your side and I'll just say it's a well established fact that people are capable of empathasing with the plight of others regardless of the personal effect on themselves and that it is unnecessary to force outcomes in an interactive story to achieve those ends.

Sigh* If you honestly believe you will be as impacted by a bunch of fictional cities burning full of people you have never met as you would be from a character you have grown to know over the course of two games dying in an intense scenario, then I will rest my case.  It would be different if Reapers were attacking in real life.  Of course you wouldn't need someone close to you to die in order to feel the sense of loss in the world.  But this is a fictional narrative.  Of course we can understand the loss, but there needs to be a literary device to make us feel the loss.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 12:31 .

[McHoger]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I don't understand how Virmire could result in no emotional reaction from you.  I understand the criticisms about Virmire, but the essence of it, having to make a difficult choice regarding two people close to you, what in the hell is wrong with that?  We aren't on the same page if Virmire really had no effect on you.  Virmire let you know that this sh*t was real, and that as a commander fighting against a powerful force you were going to have to make some Sophie's choice decisions and be put in tough situations.

Because it was contrived. It was essentially an "Act of God". I was cleared of any responsiblity. Yes it was a bummer that a character died, but it was nowhere near what I would have felt if I could have saved that character but had failed to do so.

My point is really that I don't want a perfect ending myself, but there needs to be a perfect ending to give weight to the non-perfect ones.

[Athayniel]

GodWood wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
If the feeling invoked in the moment of a squadmate's death is just rage at the writers.... the writers have obviously failed.

If you feel rage at the writers because the execution of the character's death was done poorly then yes the writers have failed.

If you feel rage at the writers simply because a character you liked died then you should **** off back to your kids stories.

I could just as easily say that death is the easiest way to illicit an emotional response and that stories which use it for solely that purpose are the lazy choice. It's nice to see your penchant for ad hominem continues no matter what thread your in.