4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Labrev]

 Lol @ this thread.


If anyone cares about the topic any more, I'd say that ME gave me a chance to learn about myself: how I'd handle things as a leader, what my values are. Mostly things that were not suprising to me, but things I didn't really know about myself nonetheless because I never thought of them. I thought different squadmates offer show you interesting perspectives and ideas.

To address the general discussion right now, I'd say just play the game to fit what you want. It's not hard to do. And, it's fruitless to tell other people how to play the game - live and let live. If you want casualties, it's easy to make it happen. If you think hard choices need be made, make them.

[Siegdrifa]

laecraft wrote...

Suffering is drama. Drama makes for a good story. Hard choices and painful dilemmas reveal the character, who otherwise remains undefined. Victories are only satisfying if the enemy is just as powerul as you are, or better yet, overwhelming. That power is shown by the heavy losses the hero suffers. There's no other way. If the enemy is so weak that you defeat it without any sacrificies that matter to you personally, then it's bambi meets godzilla.

The countless faceless deaths are not going to move you as much as a single death of a close companion. And if it were otherwise, as some people try to pretend, then they wouldn't struggle so violently against the very idea of their squadmates dying in the war. "Let millions die, that's already shows the sacrifices. But don't you touch those I care about!" Hah!

That's the difference between fanfiction wish-fulfilment and a solid, engaging story. In fanfiction, the hero prevails without any struggle over the most powerful enemy. Nobody important (read: close to you) ever dies. The hero never suffers. He's completely invulnerable. He's never threatened. There's a total sense of security. I understand that's exactly what you want. And that just shows that some fans do NOT know what they need for the story to be engaging. If you got exactly what you asked for, you'd be bored.

If there's a route where you can save everyone, then it would make the player feel like their Shepardi is sloppy, not caring, and worse yet, incapable leader for not taking it. Thus, everybody will take the "save everyone" route, and everybody gets cheated out of drama.

If there's to be a good story, you all will have to suffer. And Shepard, first and foremost. Brace yourself for it.

Drama is not a stamp to "good story" ... good story can exist without drama and all story with drama are not all good !, because you feels you need drama in story you like doesn't mean drama is needed for everybody, and futher more, what is a drama or suffer for you isn't for others, that's why it can miss the target.
Now i'm tired of hearing people "this works for me so make it mandatory for everybody else, if it doesn't work on them they just don't understand" and other bs as " And that just shows that some fans do NOT know what they need for the story to be engaging. If you got exactly what you asked for, you'd be bored", keep in mind that's your way of perceving things, may be next you can tell us for who we have to vote on the next election ? as you know what is good for us...

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 07 octobre 2011 - 02:18 .

[wright1978]

Completely agree with Laecraft. To tell an engaging story about a galactic war requires hard choices and painful dilemmas, otherwise it will just come off as cheap.

[Xilizhra]

The countless faceless deaths are not going to move you as much as a single death of a close companion.

Maybe if you're a callous ass.
If that was too glib, then I highly disagree that killing companions is somehow necessary to make you feel the losses of the galaxy. Especially for someone like you who's so in love with human dominance that any human negative demographic shift should heavily impact you.

And if it were otherwise, as some people try to pretend, then they wouldn't struggle so violently against the very idea of their squadmates dying in the war. "Let millions die, that's already shows the sacrifices. But don't you touch those I care about!" Hah!

I personally really, really hate cheap emotional manipulation. That's why I wasn't even sad at Leandra dying in DA2, I was just pissed off at how stupid that whole plot was. I'm not sure if I trust Bioware to make it not suck, and if it does suck and is unavoidable, then it really sucks.

If there's a route where you can save everyone, then it would make the player feel like their Shepardi is sloppy, not caring, and worse yet, incapable leader for not taking it.

Since you don't feel that it should be logically possible to save everyone, don't take the routes you think make Shepard unrealistically competent in being able to save everyone. Simple.

If there's to be a good story, you all will have to suffer. And Shepard, first and foremost. Brace yourself for it.

I suspect you just want to bring everyone down with you because you already suffered from tying your cart to TIM's horse before it went over the cliff.

[Valdrane78]

AdmiralCheez wrote...



So if the fine folks at Bioware have squeezed in one little possible endgame scenario in which the crew makes it out alive again and I don't have to basically murder my space-BFFs to win, even if there's like a 10% chance of getting that ending, I'd be eternally grateful.  Too late to really impact the story at this point, sure, but if the tweets are to be believed, I'm going to spend half the game sobbing anyway, so is wanting to watch the credits roll with a stupid, satisfied grin on my face too much to ask?

Not even remotely too much to ask.  These games exist to entertain and give us options that we cannot find in real life.  When we can save the world, get the girl/guy and defy the villian at every turn we live out a fantasy that everyoen has had at one point or another in their life..............the life of a hero.  Fantasy and sci-fi are genres that let us deal with our darkest and lightest emotions and actions, as well as recognize them for what they are.  And the easiest way for people to do that is to disengage themselves from real life and  look at it from a perspective that isn't theirs.

I want my cake, i want to eat it as well, and it better have a damn scoop of ice cream on the side, because I cannot control everything that goes on around me in real life, but I have the chance to do just that in a game.

Modifié par Valdrane78, 07 octobre 2011 - 03:46 .

[JamieCOTC]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Undertone wrote...

To have everyone from your crew survive is absolutely immersion braking and will make the Reaper invasion like a joke.

Shepard came back from the dead.  There is a race of beautiful blue pansexual babes.

What immersion?

This.  ME2's reality immersion was broken from the getgo. 

[robarcool]

Well, a rainbow ending will probably be there, but I want that it should be somewhat hard to achieve. The suicide mission was like that, only the level of toughness wasn't good. I want that the game choices made throughout the playthrough matter and not that who you choose for what job in the last mission.

[Valdrane78]

JamieCOTC wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Undertone wrote...

To have everyone from your crew survive is absolutely immersion braking and will make the Reaper invasion like a joke.

Shepard came back from the dead.  There is a race of beautiful blue pansexual babes.

What immersion?

This.  ME2's reality immersion was broken from the getgo. 

Ok, I am beginnign to believe that a lot of you do not know the meaning of immersion.  Immersion is NOT having the game feel real and mimic real life.......Immersion as it pertains to video games is the state of consciousness where an immersant's awareness of physical self is diminished or lost by being surrounded in an engrossing total environment.

So, if the game were to suddenly referance Buffy the Vamipre Slayer outright, that would be immersion breaking.  However, havign Shep die and be rebuitl by Cerberu sis NOT immerson breaking.  Because it pertains directly to the game and how the game is played out.

Modifié par Valdrane78, 07 octobre 2011 - 03:56 .

[The Elder King]

JamieCOTC wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Undertone wrote...

To have everyone from your crew survive is absolutely immersion braking and will make the Reaper invasion like a joke.

Shepard came back from the dead.  There is a race of beautiful blue pansexual babes.

What immersion?

This.  ME2's reality immersion was broken from the getgo. 

Then I think that you have no problem if in ME3 we'll beat the Reapers thank to a "deus ex machina" event.

[Apollo Starflare]

The only thing I ask is that saving everyone and being a Big Goddamn Hero is actually difficult to achieve this time around. It was too easy in ME2.

Don't have a problem with a wide variety of endings being available however, including one where Shepard's crew survives etc.

[mango smoothie]

This is why I like my canon hes not a sinner nor a saint he is a person who makes choices he regrets and tries to keep his moral self while trying to do whats best for the galaxy. In fact all of my Shepards kind of like that I even have a paragon shep that hates Batarians and kills them without second thought. I can't play as a full renegade or full paragon as it just seems to unrealistic.

[Tonymac]

Personally, I want to see my squad be able to survive. I'm not sure if thats is too far fetched an idea. I did not like Virmire, but I did what I had to. I suppose I could do it again, but I prefer the ME2 style of lives being saved or not due to the efforts that I made in the game.

It did not make my game feel more 'real' not having my Virmire non-Survivor with me. In fact, it kind of sucked. Suckness should not be a requisite of the game. Games are played to relieve the suckness of life, allowing us to have fun and whoop some butt without having to go to jail for disturbing the peace or murdering 305,000 Batarians.

I want my team to be with me and all of us to stand as one. No one gets left behind. If I have to leave entire systems and planets for the Reapers to eat while I build my forces, I can do that - but I want my team with me - we all live together, and we all die together if need be. That is the bond of comrades in arms.

I'm not sure of the devs see it this way or not. Honestly, I think it will be neat to see how they wrote the story, and fit our decisions into the plot.

Modifié par Tonymac, 07 octobre 2011 - 05:09 .

[jamesp81]

I agree 100% with the OP. Cheez, reading your post was therapeutic. It's proof someone else gets it the way I do and understands.

Entertainment is for entertaining me, not reminding me of the suck ass world we live in. Every now and then, we want the good guys to win.

[jamesp81]

laecraft wrote...

Suffering is drama. Drama makes for a good story. Hard choices and painful dilemmas reveal the character, who otherwise remains undefined. Victories are only satisfying if the enemy is just as powerul as you are, or better yet, overwhelming. That power is shown by the heavy losses the hero suffers. There's no other way. If the enemy is so weak that you defeat it without any sacrificies that matter to you personally, then it's bambi meets godzilla.

The countless faceless deaths are not going to move you as much as a single death of a close companion. And if it were otherwise, as some people try to pretend, then they wouldn't struggle so violently against the very idea of their squadmates dying in the war. "Let millions die, that's already shows the sacrifices. But don't you touch those I care about!" Hah!

That's the difference between fanfiction wish-fulfilment and a solid, engaging story. In fanfiction, the hero prevails without any struggle over the most powerful enemy. Nobody important (read: close to you) ever dies. The hero never suffers. He's completely invulnerable. He's never threatened. There's a total sense of security. I understand that's exactly what you want. And that just shows that some fans do NOT know what they need for the story to be engaging. If you got exactly what you asked for, you'd be bored.

If there's a route where you can save everyone, then it would make the player feel like their Shepardi is sloppy, not caring, and worse yet, incapable leader for not taking it. Thus, everybody will take the "save everyone" route, and everybody gets cheated out of drama.

If there's to be a good story, you all will have to suffer. And Shepard, first and foremost. Brace yourself for it.

Suffering is fine.  Unavoidable death of companions is not.  They are not the same.

Modifié par jamesp81, 07 octobre 2011 - 07:06 .

[JamieCOTC]

Valdrane78 wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Undertone wrote...

To have everyone from your crew survive is absolutely immersion braking and will make the Reaper invasion like a joke.

Shepard came back from the dead.  There is a race of beautiful blue pansexual babes.

What immersion?

This.  ME2's reality immersion was broken from the getgo. 

Ok, I am beginnign to believe that a lot of you do not know the meaning of immersion.  Immersion is NOT having the game feel real and mimic real life.......Immersion as it pertains to video games is the state of consciousness where an immersant's awareness of physical self is diminished or lost by being surrounded in an engrossing total environment.

So, if the game were to suddenly referance Buffy the Vamipre Slayer outright, that would be immersion breaking.  However, havign Shep die and be rebuitl by Cerberu sis NOT immerson breaking.  Because it pertains directly to the game and how the game is played out.

As weird as this sounds I was pulled out of the game by the sight of a male skeleton while importing a female Shepard in the ME2 intro. Also, it was a bit immersion breaking that Shepard wasn't even remotely curious how Cerberus brought him/her back toi life.  It's Cerberus after all.  It was for me, anyway.

[Valdrane78]

Sorry Jamie, but then you picked the wrong convo options, there are several opportunities for Shep to ask "why?" And even if you were not given those options, the answer is given to you before the game even starts with the cinematic between Miranda and TIM.

[Almostfaceman]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Well this is why Star Wars* kicks arse - because the little guy ends up beating the odds and kicking the powerful bad guy square in the bawls - in space.

Their overthrowing of the Empire left them unprepared for an invasion, which was the entire reason why the Death Stars were being created, leaving the invaders to effortlessly destroy half the galaxy and kill bajillions of people.

Consequences of their decisions, it's not all happy.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Oh wait, you're probably referencing an inane Star Wars book. I'm just talking about the movie experience.

[lazuli]

Whatever, I just don't want endings left to chance. If someone has to die, fine. But don't make me reload endlessly to get the ending I want. Careful players should be able to engineer the ending they want, within reason, much like the Suicide Mission of ME2.

I'm fine with decisions having unforeseen consequences, I just don't want my squadmates' fates left up to a dice roll or something.

[lovgreno]

I do agree with the well written original post. Give me my happy ending please, and if I have to work hard for it will make it a even better end of Shepards story. Some cheesy ending with Shepard creating peace and prosperity and getting the hot alien boy/girl would of course make Shepard even more marysueish than he/she already is but what the heck, this is goddamn space opera so I have a high tolerance for that sort of sillyness in this case.

It is human nature to take fictional stories, even space opera, a bit personal. What we have experienced in real life do affect how we experience a story. This is why TIMmy have a scheduled meeting with Shepards fist in ME3 if I get what I want. I never backed away from those supremacist losers back in shool so I find it hard to do it in games as well.

[Someone With Mass]

lazuli wrote...

Whatever, I just don't want endings left to chance. If someone has to die, fine. But don't make me reload endlessly to get the ending I want. Careful players should be able to engineer the ending they want, within reason, much like the Suicide Mission of ME2.

I'm fine with decisions having unforeseen consequences, I just don't want my squadmates' fates left up to a dice roll or something.

Especially if those squadmates are really useful in battle.

[AdmiralCheez]

So I read all the new posts and it seems that quite a few people think I'm a big sissy who wants everything to be perfect with Care Bears and sh*t.

You people. Learn how to goddamn read.

Furthermore, those that disagree tend to advocate realism over escapism, saying that engaging in a positive fantasy would be too unrealistic to keep their attention. To which I say this: MULTIPLE ENDINGS. STOP RAINING ON MY PARADE.

I think the problem here is that most of you would try to save everyone if you knew it was possible, and since you are operating under the assumption that the most powerful way for a story to move you is to make you feel grief, you don't want that option to be available to you since your tendency towards perfectionism is at odds with your tastes in literature. This can be balanced by having both positive and negative consequences to your actions. For example, doubling back to rescue Liara would mean leaving a certain point undefended. Reaper forces capture that point, and you lose a lot of soldiers and a strategic stronghold. Or have the factors that prevent/trigger a death be subtle and hard to predict: befriending a batarian squadmate shows him that the fight is worth fighting after all, and later in the game he sacrifices himself to defend the team. Be a dick to him/don't talk to him, and he's more interested in saving himself, thus he takes off and you're short a squadmate for the rest of the mission.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 07 octobre 2011 - 05:15 .

[Zeleck]

Lame. Why don't you stop over thinking. I know, funny, right?

[Valdrane78]

Zeleck wrote...

Lame. Why don't you stop over thinking. I know, funny, right?

Hello troll, couldn't start a flame war in the other threads, so tried to start your own thread, onyl to have it locked 2 minutes after you posted it.

Skedattle little troll.

[Nashiktal]

Someone With Mass wrote...

lazuli wrote...

Whatever, I just don't want endings left to chance. If someone has to die, fine. But don't make me reload endlessly to get the ending I want. Careful players should be able to engineer the ending they want, within reason, much like the Suicide Mission of ME2.

I'm fine with decisions having unforeseen consequences, I just don't want my squadmates' fates left up to a dice roll or something.

Especially if those squadmates are really useful in battle.

Ugh the suicide mission hold the line with its invisible math scores... Or the Paragon and Renegade decisions using the wierd math percentages. Without direct knowledge (which is by digging in the game files) its all chance for the most part.