4309 réponses à ce sujet

[nitefyre410]

 "Authors using this trope should be warned that the Diabolus ex Machina, when used to make a Downer Ending, is a very common Pet Peeve Trope, even more so than Deus ex Machina being used for a Happy Ending."  

^Bioware  should be doing everything possible to avoid this 


When all I think everyone wants is a 

Earn your Happy Ending  

^note: that it this is  not done right it can equally as bad.   

Modifié par nitefyre410, 13 octobre 2011 - 12:38 .

[Medhia Nox]

What consequences existed in past games exactly?

Did Princess Toadstool die if Mario couldn't save her?
Did Dracula kill Simon Bellmont and rape and slaughter his way through Transylvania?
Did Sonic have to choose between losing Tails or another of his friends to the evil Doctor Robotnic?

How about The Gold Box games? Balder's Gate? Were NPCs killed off to show that "this **** is real"?

When was this mythical age of "serious loss" in video games? Yes - there are games that have done it - but it has never been a trend.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

nitefyre410 wrote...
Earn your Happy Ending  

^note: that it this is  not done right it can equally as bad.  

Yes I want a happy ending. Just not 100% happy as in everyone lives.

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

The exact same thing could be said of the squadmate. They're fictional too. No more real than the cities full of dead sentients destroyed by the reapers. Your argument is that we must lose a squadmate in order to feel loss. We're saying we don't need that in order to feel loss. I'm saying you're mistaking our level of empathy. Simple as that.

Lotion's argument is that the mere existence of our happy ending lessens his enjoyment and I have no time for his entitlement.

[Athayniel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I think the Arrival is proof that Bioware is afraid now to let their players suffer any loss in the game. Arrival is proof of that because rather than making the choice a difficult one that would pull at our heart strings, Bioware made sure the planet we were destroying was on occupied by a species that is known for slavery, piracy, and  general nastiness.

We didn't even get to see the people we were killing either. No great cities, no happy families.

It was a total copout.

I would have hit that button even if it had been a planetful of asari. And I can tell you my Shepard is suffering for that choice just as much now even though it's a planetful of batarians. Call it a cop-out for your Shepard if you wish. It wasn't for mine.

Modifié par Athayniel, 13 octobre 2011 - 12:47 .

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

The exact same thing could be said of the squadmate. They're fictional too. No more real than the cities full of dead sentients destroyed by the reapers. Your argument is that we must lose a squadmate in order to feel loss. We're saying we don't need that in order to feel loss. I'm saying you're mistaking our level of empathy. Simple as that.

Lotion's argument is that the mere existence of our happy ending lessens his enjoyment and I have no time for his entitlement.

You've met the fictional squadmate.  You haven't met the fictional people in the cities.  Your brain knows that it is a fictional narrative, so you don't feel real loss from the cities burning.  You need something from the fiction that you know to be affected in order to be emotionally moved.  You are talking about real life empathy, not empathy in the diegesis.  And I just started every sentence with "you."

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 12:45 .

[GodWood]

Athayniel wrote...
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.

So you're against companion deaths because they're the 'cheap lazy' choice and instead advocate for the far more common 'play-it-safe' approach where the protaganist and his buddies get through impossible odds unscathed?

[Athayniel]

GodWood wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
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.

So you're against companion deaths because they're the 'cheap lazy' choice and instead advocate for the far more common 'play-it-safe' approach where the protaganist and his buddies get through impossible odds unscathed?

No. I want to fight for their lives. I want a chance to save them not a guarantee. Forced death in an interactive story is the cheap and lazy option.

[GodWood]

Athayniel wrote...
No. I want to fight for their lives.

Even if they're deaths are inevitable you can still try 

I want a chance to save them not a guarantee. Forced death in an interactive story is the cheap and lazy option.

Why is it cheap/lazy and why isn't the death of any other character's cheap/lazy?
Why do you limit this to companions?

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

You've met the fictional squadmate.  You haven't met the fictional people in the cities.  Your brain knows that it is a fictional narrative, so you don't feel real loss from the cities burning.  You need something from the fiction that you know to be affected in order to be emotionally moved.  You are talking about real life empathy, not empathy in the diegesis.  And I just started every sentence with "you."

And I'm saying that the squaddie is still fictional. Their fictional death would affect me in much the same way as the fictional deaths of those fictional people in those fictional cities. I don't have to fictionally meet them to empathise with them because I've fictionally met a lot of people who are just like them already. I was upset when I heard that Nelyna and Saphyria died on the Citadel for instance. Your contention is that the death of a squadmate is necessary to make me feel loss. I'm telling you that I will feel the loss just fine without it.

[Biotic Sage]

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

You've met the fictional squadmate.  You haven't met the fictional people in the cities.  Your brain knows that it is a fictional narrative, so you don't feel real loss from the cities burning.  You need something from the fiction that you know to be affected in order to be emotionally moved.  You are talking about real life empathy, not empathy in the diegesis.  And I just started every sentence with "you."

And I'm saying that the squaddie is still fictional. Their fictional death would affect me in much the same way as the fictional deaths of those fictional people in those fictional cities. I don't have to fictionally meet them to empathise with them because I've fictionally met a lot of people who are just like them already. I was upset when I heard that Nelyna and Saphyria died on the Citadel for instance. Your contention is that the death of a squadmate is necessary to make me feel loss. I'm telling you that I will feel the loss just fine without it.

I'm just stating what is necessary for people to feel emotional movement from a story based on cognitive research.  Maybe you are an outlier data point. 

May I ask why you are arguing so hard for squadmates surviving if you don't care about them any more than the cities?  You aren't arguing very hard for a softer blow on the cities and the ficitonal people you haven't gotten to know.  Why aren't you arguing this hard for Nelyna and Saphyria, or for Admiral Kohoku's men?  What about for that kid that dies at the beginning of ME3, why isn't that contrived?

Edit* I'm done beating my head against the wall for today.  I really need sleep.  I look forward to continuing this for the next 5 months

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 13 octobre 2011 - 01:09 .

[Athayniel]

GodWood wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
No. I want to fight for their lives.

Even if they're deaths are inevitable you can still try

That is laughable. If their death's are inevitable there's no point in trying.

GodWood wrote...

I want a chance to save them not a guarantee. Forced death in an interactive story is the cheap and lazy option.

Why is it cheap/lazy and why isn't the death of any other character's cheap/lazy?

Because they usually won't make a huge deal out of killing other characters. Not they way they would when killing a squaddie.

GodWood wrote...
Why do you limit this to companions?

Because the companion's are the only ones Shepard would have any particular chance of saving most of the time, and saving them would also be a mission priority because for every one they lose the mission would get harder.

[nitefyre410]

Lizardviking wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...
Earn your Happy Ending  

^note: that it this is  not done right it can equally as bad.  

Yes I want a happy ending. Just not 100% happy as in everyone lives.

 

Which makes it more of Bittersweet ending  which can  be achieved  without mandating the squadmembers die because of the Galactic war with  Reapers thats going to kill off billions, wreck and destory star systems  most likely destory galactic ecomony  and leave the Galaxy in chaos for years to come.  Also it results in  Squadmates seeing  there entire race  killed off to the point of extinction, homeworld wrecked,   family members and loved ones dead.   Simple the fact the war with Reapers has the potential for the galaxy to be in state where not matter  if Shepards wins the galaxy  and  life  is  doomed anyway simply  because the war  destoryed so much. 
 

[Athayniel]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

You've met the fictional squadmate.  You haven't met the fictional people in the cities.  Your brain knows that it is a fictional narrative, so you don't feel real loss from the cities burning.  You need something from the fiction that you know to be affected in order to be emotionally moved.  You are talking about real life empathy, not empathy in the diegesis.  And I just started every sentence with "you."

And I'm saying that the squaddie is still fictional. Their fictional death would affect me in much the same way as the fictional deaths of those fictional people in those fictional cities. I don't have to fictionally meet them to empathise with them because I've fictionally met a lot of people who are just like them already. I was upset when I heard that Nelyna and Saphyria died on the Citadel for instance. Your contention is that the death of a squadmate is necessary to make me feel loss. I'm telling you that I will feel the loss just fine without it.

I'm just stating what is necessary for people to feel emotional movement from a story based on cognitive research.  Maybe you are an outlier data point. 

May I ask why you are arguing so hard for squadmates surviving if you don't care about them any more than the cities?  You aren't arguing very hard for a softer blow on the cities and the ficitonal people you haven't gotten to know.  Why aren't you arguing this hard for Nelyna and Saphyria, or for Admiral Kohoku's men?  What about for that kid that dies at the beginning of ME3, why isn't that contrived?

I'm not saying I won't feel Ashley's death more than I did Nelyna's. I'm saying that how I feel about Nelyna's is enough to meet your requirements, and considering the amount of support in the thread I'm not the only one.

Because it is something that I can affect in the story that also affects my character. I want as much control over Shepard's choices and actions as I can get because I want to be able to immerse myself in the character as much as possible. Which is why things like the way femShep speaks to Jacob annoy the sh*t out of me.

Again, I'm not arguing against my squadmates dying. I'm arguing against it being done without my ability to affect it. I'm not asking for plot armour. I'm asking to have the chance to save them through my skill and my choices and my strategy. Because this is my story as much as it is BioWare's. A stance they readily agree with.

[sorentoft]

GodWood wrote...

Athayniel wrote...
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.

So you're against companion deaths because they're the 'cheap lazy' choice and instead advocate for the far more common 'play-it-safe' approach where the protaganist and his buddies get through impossible odds unscathed?

The Virmire solution is lazier simply because it requires less to make. Pick a point in the story where you want people to choose between x and y, done. Incorporating a constant feel of the Suicide Mission solution not only requires more effort but makes the game + story more dynamic as a whole. The first has two outcomes, the second has more than double of that.

[GodWood]

Athayniel wrote...
That is laughable. If their death's are inevitable there's no point in trying.

You wouldn't know their deaths are inevitable until they're dead.

Because they usually won't make a huge deal out of killing other characters. Not they way they would when killing a squaddie.

How is this at all a bad thing?
Would you prefer they never mention it again?

Because the companion's are the only ones Shepard would have any particular chance of saving most of the time,

And being unable to save them would humanise Shepard.
It'd show how he can still fail.
It'd show just how tough the war is.
It'd show that he cant always 'win'.

[Athayniel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

It was a cop-out for the audience. Minus you, I guess. You must be a huge wuss. Or more likely you're just saying that to disagree with me.

If the decision had been handled well everyone on the forums (well all the Paragons anyway) would be constantly decrying how they had no choice to save the colony.

Again with the personal attack. Is it that hard to come up with a counterpoint to my argument? Really?

I bet there were a lot of Paragon Shep players who were upset with their inability to save the colony. Most were likely assuaged by the fact that Shep made the attempt at a warning. but even so, this point isn't germane to the discussion at hand which is the chance to save squadmates. You want to hold the deaths of billions over our head as if it makes our desire to fight for a score somehow unworthy. Nice strawman.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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.

ST has as much in common witch science and realism as dungeouns and dragons. (or less)

I get what you want to say, but if you might to put up a proper example of a hard(er) sci-fi. Not really an issue or anything, but it just kinda jumped out at me.

[Athayniel]

GodWood wrote...

And being unable to save them would humanise Shepard.
It'd show how he can still fail.
It'd show just how tough the war is.
It'd show that he cant always 'win'.

Like many others before you in this thread you seem convinced that the OP and the proponents of 'Earning Your Happy Ending' are asking for squadmates to gain plot armour. This is not the case. We are asking for them to not be issued red shirts, if you will.

[nitefyre410]

Athayniel wrote...

GodWood wrote...

And being unable to save them would humanise Shepard.
It'd show how he can still fail.
It'd show just how tough the war is.
It'd show that he cant always 'win'.

Like many others before you in this thread you seem convinced that the OP and the proponents of 'Earning Your Happy Ending' are asking for squadmates to gain plot armour. This is not the case. We are asking for them to not be issued red shirts, if you will.

 

or the Idot ball and the Forgot your Powers  for the sake of the being a red shirt