4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
The difference between Mass Effect and your average work of fiction is that you are actually getting to know your teammates personally.  Unlike characters in a movie or book, you can talk to them, love them, protect them, guide them to find innner peace and do good in the world--gain their absolute loyalty, have them completely trust you--in some strange 30-hour (60-hour) heroic fantasy in space.  Because they count on you to see them through to the end, you start to care about them--they are your responsibility.

Being able to be more than human, to come to the rescue of the people you care about no matter what...  That's exactly the kind of escapism I need.  Call it pathetic if you want, but having that power, even if it's not real, feels better than the most well-crafted story you could ever tell.

Well then. The difference is obvious.

I want a well crafted, immersive story. You want wish-fulfillment escapism.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You are.
Because they are both NOT COMPATIBLE. How many times must I repeat that.

you have yet to demonstrate it is even possible for them to co-exist.

You can repeat until you die of asphyxiation.  Doesn't make it true.

Actually it does.
Because you have the gall of telling me what I want. You're telling me that your "solution" (which isn't one) will satisfy me, I'm telling you it will not....and you're telling me I'm wrong?
Without actually ever bothering to explain why...

From what planet do you hail fiend? Because it seems you have some very poor grasp of basic communication.

[Doug4130]

I don't get it, can't you just not do the loyalty mission if you want a character to die? I don't see what else Bioware could have done, they put in options for everyone

[wright1978]

Doug4130 wrote...

I don't get it, can't you just not do the loyalty mission if you want a character to die? I don't see what else Bioware could have done, they put in options for everyone

No, strangely enough people do want to roleplay as Shep and get a rewarding & compelling ending. They don't want to deliberately manipulate the plot to murder people.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well then. The difference is obvious.

I want a well crafted, immersive story. You want wish-fulfillment escapism.

It's a videogame--it's supposed to be escapism.  If well-crafted drama's that important to you, go watch the Green Mile or something.  Or, you know, take real life for a spin.

But seriously, if you get what you want, EVERYONE has to deal with it.  If I get what I want (no mandatory squad deaths), YOU can still get what you want if YOU don't metagame the hell out of everything.  Provided things aren't as obvious as the SM, you'll be fine.

And plus, the first two MEs were well-crafted and immersive enough, WHILE STILL BEING obvious escapism.  They aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm surprised you haven't confirmed/denied my suspicion that you've never dealt with serious heavy drama in real life, though.

[Dean_the_Young]

Let's not get holier-than-though about what sort of escapism we want, and how what we want is better for everyone.

That's not aimed at anyone in particular, mind you, even if it comes after Cheeze.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
It's a videogame--it's supposed to be escapism.  If well-crafted drama's that important to you, go watch the Green Mile or something.  Or, you know, take real life for a spin.

Maybe he wants well-crafted drama in video-game form?

But seriously, if you get what you want, EVERYONE has to deal with it.  If I get what I want (no mandatory squad deaths), YOU can still get what you want if YOU don't metagame the hell out of everything.  Provided things aren't as obvious as the SM, you'll be fine.

Already stated my opinion on this.

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Let's not get holier-than-though about what sort of escapism we want, and how what we want is better for everyone.

That's not aimed at anyone in particular, mind you, even if it comes after Cheeze.

Trying reeeeaaaallly hard, but he's a meaniepants :c

I don't like people who refuse to compromise and don't listen. :c

I'd like to find a solution that works for everyone. :c

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe he wants well-crafted drama in video-game form?

And he can still have it--you can, too!  Let's find a solution!  Under what parameters would you accept a No One Left Behind (other than the clearly ridiculous, like having to wipe out a civilization in order to save your LI)?

I've already said death is okay so long as it's well-done and I still have a bit of a say in the matter whether I'm conscious of it or not (meaning I could metagame and fix it later).

[Dean_the_Young]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I'd like to find a solution that works for everyone. :c

In this case, I don't believe it's possible.

Part of a 'overcoming bad things' story experience is that the bad things (character deaths, for example), can't be optional. When a character death is something you have to deliberatly choose, it isn't tragedy: it's failure. 'I didn't prepare enough,' or 'I had to not do as good', or even 'I had to screw up.'

Comparison is always critical. Overcoming loss matters because it becomes a case of 'best of all possible worlds.' But when you know that the best of all possible worlds is that all the team gets through, everyone is fine, experiencing loss isn't tragic. It's pathetic.

I understand people who want to have an optimistic ending without losing people... but I disagree with that sort of story. And putting the option to mar it isn't a solution, it's a slap in the face about what the view is about.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe he wants well-crafted drama in video-game form?

And he can still have it--you can, too!  Let's find a solution!  Under what parameters would you accept a No One Left Behind (other than the clearly ridiculous, like having to wipe out a civilization in order to save your LI)?

I've already said death is okay so long as it's well-done and I still have a bit of a say in the matter whether I'm conscious of it or not (meaning I could metagame and fix it later).

Of all the squad members there must be a few where you can imagine death being an apropiate conclusion to their character arc. My personal picks would be Zaeed and Samara.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I'd like to find a solution that works for everyone. :c

In this case, I don't believe it's possible.

Part of a 'overcoming bad things' story experience is that the bad things (character deaths, for example), can't be optional. When a character death is something you have to deliberatly choose, it isn't tragedy: it's failure. 'I didn't prepare enough,' or 'I had to not do as good', or even 'I had to screw up.'

Comparison is always critical. Overcoming loss matters because it becomes a case of 'best of all possible worlds.' But when you know that the best of all possible worlds is that all the team gets through, everyone is fine, experiencing loss isn't tragic. It's pathetic.

I understand people who want to have an optimistic ending without losing people... but I disagree with that sort of story. And putting the option to mar it isn't a solution, it's a slap in the face about what the view is about.

Well stated.

[wright1978]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe he wants well-crafted drama in video-game form?

And he can still have it--you can, too!  Let's find a solution!  Under what parameters would you accept a No One Left Behind (other than the clearly ridiculous, like having to wipe out a civilization in order to save your LI)?

I've already said death is okay so long as it's well-done and I still have a bit of a say in the matter whether I'm conscious of it or not (meaning I could metagame and fix it later).

Well for me its got to be something that completionism won't invalidate ala ME2. Unexpected consequences of choices leading to death or consequences of choice to save someone(possibly loss of significant war asset which would damage the war effort). I don't necessarily have an issue with 'no one left behind' beyond that you had to be idiotic in ME2 to avoid it if you were prepared.

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In this case, I don't believe it's possible.

Part of a 'overcoming bad things' story experience is that the bad things (character deaths, for example), can't be optional. When a character death is something you have to deliberatly choose, it isn't tragedy: it's failure. 'I didn't prepare enough,' or 'I had to not do as good', or even 'I had to screw up.'

Failure in itself is a sort of tragedy in and of itself, since it factors in a whole new emotion: guilt.  And guilt, if you ask me, is the worst of the bunch.

Comparison is always critical. Overcoming loss matters because it becomes a case of 'best of all possible worlds.' But when you know that the best of all possible worlds is that all the team gets through, everyone is fine, experiencing loss isn't tragic. It's pathetic.

I never said you can't experience loss.  Even "faceless NPCs" can be characterized and presented well enough to evoke those sorts of emotions, especially if the non-faceless NPCs react accordingly.

Here's an example: Gettysburg.  General Pickett of the Confederacy was ordered to lead the charge against the Union.  It was a charge he knew would fail, and it did.  His entire division was wiped out, and the Union line did not break.  It was the day the Confederacy lost the battle, and due to the massive casualties endured, the day they pretty much lost the war.  Cheesy camera zooms aside, this is the most heartbreaking part of the whole damn movie.  And this movie, mind you, is pretty much three hours of people getting killed.  Note, in this scene, no one dies.  In fact, most of the named characters in this movie survived (and it's one of the most historically acurate war movies out there, hello realism).

Additionally, "alive" and "fine" are not the same thing.

I understand people who want to have an optimistic ending without losing people... but I disagree with that sort of story. And putting the option to mar it isn't a solution, it's a slap in the face about what the view is about.

Okay, to avoid the whole "I feel like I had to do poorly on purpose" issue, what if, in order to keep the squad alive, you had to do something wrong?

For example, say your LI is trapped somewhere under heavy fire.  At the moment, you are defending some Very Important Plot Device.  Now, even though your LI tells you that she's fine and that keeping the VIPD safe is more important, you have the option to take off and go rescue her anyway.  I mean, hell, there are plenty of other Alliance soldiers protecting the damn thing--they can handle it, right?  Well, apparently not, because while you're gone the soldiers are overwhelmed and the bad guys get the VIPD.  Congratulations, you just f*cked everything up.  Of course, your LI will bite it if you don't come to the rescue, but again, she said she could handle it...

Alternatively, and I know this one will tickle you pink, Dean, what about a paragon interrupt that backfires?  You know, like in how Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio pretty much dies because Romeo runs into the middle of a duel to go GUYS STOP FIGHTING and f*cks up Mercutio's concentration?

[nitefyre410]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe he wants well-crafted drama in video-game form?

And he can still have it--you can, too!  Let's find a solution!  Under what parameters would you accept a No One Left Behind (other than the clearly ridiculous, like having to wipe out a civilization in order to save your LI)?

I've already said death is okay so long as it's well-done and I still have a bit of a say in the matter whether I'm conscious of it or not (meaning I could metagame and fix it later).

 

here is the solution 

multiple endings based of the choices that players make through out the series.  

which is going to happen 

because the  what the entire premise of the game is built  around. 

Im expecting a sliding scale between Earn your happy ending and  good 'ole Mind Screw Tomino Kill em All ending. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 13 octobre 2011 - 10:11 .

[wright1978]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Okay, to avoid the whole "I feel like I had to do poorly on purpose" issue, what if, in order to keep the squad alive, you had to do something wrong?

For example, say your LI is trapped somewhere under heavy fire.  At the moment, you are defending some Very Important Plot Device.  Now, even though your LI tells you that she's fine and that keeping the VIPD safe is more important, you have the option to take off and go rescue her anyway.  I mean, hell, there are plenty of other Alliance soldiers protecting the damn thing--they can handle it, right?  Well, apparently not, because while you're gone the soldiers are overwhelmed and the bad guys get the VIPD.  Congratulations, you just f*cked everything up.  Of course, your LI will bite it if you don't come to the rescue, but again, she said she could handle it...

That scenario would be fine by me. It would really force my shep to choose between the emotional choice and the logical one.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

Of all the squad members there must be a few where you can imagine death being an apropiate conclusion to their character arc. My personal picks would be Zaeed and Samara.

Any and all heroic deaths can be considered "appropriate conclusions" in a war story.  HOWEVER, the same squadmate dying every single time is stupid.  Too railroady, bites replayability in the ass, and that character's fan club gets so pissed that we never hear the end of it.

It's one of those weird things where what works for a movie or book doesn't work quite as well for a game.  At least a game with player input on the plot, anyway.  Might work for JRPGs since they're basically movies with combat and an inventory.  No offense to JRPGs--I like 'em when I play 'em most of the time.

Let's do that again: SCRIPTED, UNAVOIDABLE DEATH OF THE SAME TEAM MEMBER*
IN EVERY PLAYTHROUGH WILL INEVITABLY CHEAPEN THE STORY QUALITY AND 
REPLAY VALUE OF A GAME IN WHICH PLAYER CHOICE INFLUENCES THE PLOT.**

*Especially when the player busted his or her ass to keep that team member alive in the last game(s).

**Jenkins and Wilson don't count due to the brevity of the player's relationship with them.

[Golden Owl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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 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.

Though I have no wish to bad mouth BW, I do understand exactly what Saphra is talking about in regards to Arrival...Lets for a moment imagine the Batarians weren't the ones on the firing line, instead the planets being inhabited by half the Quarian population (they had finally found a system they could settle in peace on)....or the majority of the fertile female Krogans or Salarians...or something along those lines....something that's going to make the majority of gamers sit back in real horror and say "Oh Sh*t No!"...something with very clear ramifications....As an over sensitive feeler myself, yes, the Batarian loss did impact heavily on me personally, but I am also acutely aware that my over softness isn't shared by everyone...I tear up and distinctly feel the pain and desperation when I hear of a cruel death on the news from the other side of the world....very hyper sensitive....So looking at it from that perspective, I think BW could have gone with a broader hit than the Batarians would have inspired for many.

As for squad death, the big problem there is, who? Do we choose who dies or is it a plot death?...Plot death would suck, no matter what you do in every one of your games squad member A,B or C always dies, that would be a game killer for me....But if we get to engineer who dies, way to pick off who we don't like and the impact is lost....So what's the answer?

[AdmiralCheez]

The only problem with that, Golden Owl, is that blowing up a system that belonged to any other race would have INSTANTANEOUS PLOT RAMIFICATIONS, and probably wouldn't work for DLC.

I mean, seriously, if you went and blew up Tuchanka/the migrant fleet and Grunt/Tali didn't have anything to say about it? And no on seemed to notice? Yeah, weirdness.

Batarians were a pretty low-risk target when it came to the player's feelings, but for cheap DLC, I don't think they'd want to tackle anything bigger.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Any and all heroic deaths can be considered "appropriate conclusions" in a war story.  HOWEVER, the same squadmate dying every single time is stupid.  Too railroady, bites replayability in the ass, and that character's fan club gets so pissed that we never hear the end of it.

I disagree. Kaidan's death on Vimire is no where as effective compared to Ashley's. If Ashley dies the character recieves a sense of closure with her service being regonised and hopefully her family name cleared. If Kaidan dies.... He just dies.

It's one of those weird things where what works for a movie or book doesn't work quite as well for a game.  At least a game with player input on the plot, anyway.  Might work for JRPGs since they're basically movies with combat and an inventory.  No offense to JRPGs--I like 'em when I play 'em most of the time.

Let's do that again: SCRIPTED, UNAVOIDABLE DEATH OF THE SAME TEAM MEMBER*
IN EVERY PLAYTHROUGH WILL INEVITABLY CHEAPEN THE STORY QUALITY AND 
REPLAY VALUE OF A GAME IN WHICH PLAYER CHOICE INFLUENCES THE PLOT.**

*Especially when the player busted his or her ass to keep that team member alive in the last game(s)..

And in a game of where the player has control, having that one one moment where no matter what you do it is not going to end well is powerful. It is that moment of contrast. Like in a movie that uses music in almost all of it scenes to underline the story, it has that one scene where there is abseloutly no music.

Just because you give the player agency does not mean you should do it all the time. And who says it has to be one certain squadmate. Have one squadmate always die, but who dies is up to you.

[Golden Owl]

jreezy wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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 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.

Though I have no wish to bad mouth BW, I do understand exactly what Saphra is talking about in regards to Arrival...Lets for a moment imagine the Batarians weren't the ones on the firing line, instead the planets being inhabited by half the Quarian population (they had finally found a system they could settle in peace on)....or the majority of the fertile female Krogans or Salarians...or something along those lines....something that's going to make the majority of gamers sit back in real horror and say "Oh Sh*t No!"...something with very clear ramifications....As an over sensitive feeler myself, yes, the Batarian loss did impact heavily on me personally, but I am also acutely aware that my over softness isn't shared by everyone...I tear up and distinctly feel the pain and desperation when I hear of a cruel death on the news from the other side of the world....very hyper sensitive....So looking at it from that perspective, I think BW could have gone with a broader hit than the Batarians would have inspired for many.

As for squad death, the big problem there is, who? Do we choose who dies or is it a plot death?...Plot death would suck, no matter what you do in every one of your games squad member A,B or C always dies, that would be a game killer for me....But if we get to engineer who dies, way to pick off who we don't like and the impact is lost....So what's the answer?

Awww. Don't cry Golden Owl.

........Didn't know how much of that I should admit about myself...now I sound like an over used dish rag..........so you noticed.......

[Dean_the_Young]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In this case, I don't believe it's possible.

Part of a 'overcoming bad things' story experience is that the bad things (character deaths, for example), can't be optional. When a character death is something you have to deliberatly choose, it isn't tragedy: it's failure. 'I didn't prepare enough,' or 'I had to not do as good', or even 'I had to screw up.'

Failure in itself is a sort of tragedy in and of itself, since it factors in a whole new emotion: guilt.  And guilt, if you ask me, is the worst of the bunch.

Failure that is unavoidable, and failure that is easily and obviously avoidable, are two different forms of tragedy.

Comparison is always critical. Overcoming loss matters because it becomes a case of 'best of all possible worlds.' But when you know that the best of all possible worlds is that all the team gets through, everyone is fine, experiencing loss isn't tragic. It's pathetic.

I never said you can't experience loss.  Even "faceless NPCs" can be characterized and presented well enough to evoke those sorts of emotions, especially if the non-faceless NPCs react accordingly.

Here's an example: Gettysburg.  General Pickett of the Confederacy was ordered to lead the charge against the Union.  It was a charge he knew would fail, and it did.  His entire division was wiped out, and the Union line did not break.  It was the day the Confederacy lost the battle, and due to the massive casualties endured, the day they pretty much lost the war.  Cheesy camera zooms aside, this is the most heartbreaking part of the whole damn movie.  And this movie, mind you, is pretty much three hours of people getting killed.  Note, in this scene, no one dies.  In fact, most of the named characters in this movie survived (and it's one of the most historically acurate war movies out there, hello realism).

In a Mass Effect context, however, the choice would be like this:

You can fight the battle and be wiped out and fail.

Or

You can fight the battle and be wiped out and be victorious.

These are not equally weighty alternatives when both are possible. Selective failure is not weighty.

Additionally, "alive" and "fine" are not the same thing.

Let's accept that I was using simplification to avoid obtuse verbosenessness.

I understand people who want to have an optimistic ending without losing people... but I disagree with that sort of story. And putting the option to mar it isn't a solution, it's a slap in the face about what the view is about.

Okay, to avoid the whole "I feel like I had to do poorly on purpose" issue, what if, in order to keep the squad alive, you had to do something wrong?

For example, say your LI is trapped somewhere under heavy fire.  At the moment, you are defending some Very Important Plot Device.  Now, even though your LI tells you that she's fine and that keeping the VIPD safe is more important, you have the option to take off and go rescue her anyway.  I mean, hell, there are plenty of other Alliance soldiers protecting the damn thing--they can handle it, right?  Well, apparently not, because while you're gone the soldiers are overwhelmed and the bad guys get the VIPD.  Congratulations, you just f*cked everything up.  Of course, your LI will bite it if you don't come to the rescue, but again, she said she could handle it...

This would be a good scenario... but then, this isn't the sort of survival most people protest either.

If keeping your love interest alive meant the love interest's enduring disgust and hate for you, that would be well done. Bioware almost, almost came this way with the Virmire Survivor: I would have loved had, if you saved the one you were romancing and then said you did it for them, they slapped you and broke the romance.

But what we're still getting here is loss. What's lost isn't the LI's life, but it is your connection and relationship with him/her. That's the sort of thing people like myself would enjoy. You aren't ****ing inconsequential things over and still getting the love.

Alternatively, and I know this one will tickle you pink, Dean, what about a paragon interrupt that backfires?  You know, like in how Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio pretty much dies because Romeo runs into the middle of a duel to go GUYS STOP FIGHTING and f*cks up Mercutio's concentration?

I thought you were going to say the paragon interrupt was to drink poison before Juliet wakes up.

[Golden Owl]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

The only problem with that, Golden Owl, is that blowing up a system that belonged to any other race would have INSTANTANEOUS PLOT RAMIFICATIONS, and probably wouldn't work for DLC.

I mean, seriously, if you went and blew up Tuchanka/the migrant fleet and Grunt/Tali didn't have anything to say about it? And no on seemed to notice? Yeah, weirdness.

Batarians were a pretty low-risk target when it came to the player's feelings, but for cheap DLC, I don't think they'd want to tackle anything bigger.

I understand what your saying Cheez....but I think still a point though.