4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

marshalleck wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

@ biotic sage, I'm still not understanding how making the ending I want and the ending you want are mutually exclusive. I don't care how your game ends. Why do you care how mine does? Why do you have to create a false dichotomy of death=correct ending? I want to play the hero. I want everyone to make it out. Why do you not want me to be able to do that? It doesn't affect you at all.

The catch here is that Bioware keep playing at suggesting the game will be "dark" and involve "tough decisions."

If they disposed of that language, and simply stated the game will be a heroic war saga then there'd be no problem. 

I don't want anything like "hey you can save thane, or you can save a colony, why don't you choose"  I also don't want any uncontrolled squadmate deaths, or at least no warning as to i'm about to lose a squadmate. If I take vega, who is apparently a tanky character, into battle because he is tanky (and thus I am using him to survive) I don't want to lose him out of nowhere.

I

[nitefyre410]

and thus it continues... forever

[Computer_God91]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Yeah, I get it.

I get that you aren't going to understand where I'm coming from because you've apparently never seen unavoidable failure up-close.

I'm not saying that you're some sheltered, naive little cupcake or anything.  But I was clamoiring for the same stuff you are just a year ago.  I challenged Bioware to "make me cry" in ME3, to slap me in the face with "real" failure, to make me "feel" the gravity of the situation personally.

And then real life went into b*tch mode.  Opportunities were missed, people died, and it became disturbingly apparent that the person I love most in my life wasn't going to get better, in fact would only get worse, and I could do nothing but watch.

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.

So because your life sucks Mass Effect needs to have a "super happy, your the best person that ever lived, good job, you're a hero, nobody died that you liked" ending just to make you feel better? I'm sorry, but seriously nobodies life is perfect and you're not the only one to have sh!t hit the fan that you couldn't control and feel like crap over about. You need to learn to deal with those problems in your life and stop hidding behind games or whatever to make you feel better.

As for gaming is supposed to be escapism I don't agree with that. I don't play games to escape my life, I play them to enjoy superior story telling (vs. Movies and books) and have a good time. Which means that a game is allowed to emotionally gut punch me from time to time and I'll be fine and dandy. Shrug it off and move on. Stories aren't always going to be happy "sunshine and flowers" if you want that go back to kiddie books because this is a war story and people die in wars. You can't handle it gtfo.

GodWood wrote...
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.

THANK YOU. Christ.

[Il Divo]

Medhia Nox wrote...

But if you know there is a requisite "must die" moment - you all still feel emotionally charged by it?

I don't - I say: "Ahh, death of the week moment."

====

@Biotic Sage: Your prerogative of course. I'm sure you write wonderful technically appropriate material.

Sure, no different than a film. Death is funny like that because (much as I'd like to) I can't always control the outcome of who I want to see live. Video games can be used to demonstrate our helplessness as much as they can demonstrate our ability to be pro-active.

[Biotic Sage]

nitefyre410 wrote...

and thus it continues... forever

As an English major I cannot walk away haha.  I must champion what I believe to be good storytelling.  It is a compulsion.

[Biotic Sage]

Il Divo wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

But if you know there is a requisite "must die" moment - you all still feel emotionally charged by it?

I don't - I say: "Ahh, death of the week moment."

====

@Biotic Sage: Your prerogative of course. I'm sure you write wonderful technically appropriate material.

Sure, no different than a film. Death is funny like that because (much as I'd like to) I can't always control the outcome of who I want to see live. Video games can be used to demonstrate our helplessness as much as they can demonstrate our ability to be pro-active.

Well said.  If video games want to be a true storytelling medium, then can't just make the player god.  Of course they should empower the player more than movies/books, that's what the medium is for, that's what sets it apart, but there has to be more to it than that.

[Captain_Obvious]

@ Biotic Sage and Il Divo

Okay, so basically your sense of realism and authenticity says that no one can get a happy ending because wars just don't roll that way, yes? If you want the game to be authentic, you must make difficult decisions and people die because that's just the way life is. Okay, I get that.

That's not the kind of realism I want. Ergo, I want the happy ending that you don't think I deserve because that would make the game unrealistic for you. That about sum it up? You want realism in a game and I don't.

[Dave of Canada]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

@ biotic sage, I'm still not understanding how making the ending I want and the ending you want are mutually exclusive. I don't care how your game ends. Why do you care how mine does? Why do you have to create a false dichotomy of death=correct ending? I want to play the hero. I want everyone to make it out. Why do you not want me to be able to do that? It doesn't affect you at all.

You are able to make a choice.
> Sacrifice X, Y survives.
> Sacrifice Y, X survives.
> X and Y survive.

X and Y can be anything, from planet to Shepard's fish. A player who wants a happy ending is -never- going to pick the first two options, they'll always pick the X and Y survives option. Where's the hard choice there? Why advocate hard choices?

Those who want hard choices can pretend they are blind and don't see "X and Y survive." as an option, however it's sheer existances removes from the drama of having the character die. Do you feel like you truly failed Tali when she gets shot in the face on your third playthrough because you decided to make Grunt your team leader for forced drama or do you feel bored because you had to force yourself to do it?

Now let's temper the choice a bit:
> Sacrifice X, Y survives.
> Sacrifice Y, X survives.
> X and Y survive [IF Z WAS DONE BEFORE]

There, you've made the happier ending slightly harder to achieve on the first playthrough. The only difference is, most completionists will easily fill the criteria for Z (regardless of wanting drama or not) or it will become pretty standard quite quickly.

Dragon Age: Origins had fangirls crying their eyes out after Alistair sacrificed himself ontop of Fort Drakon or when Alistair dumped them post-Landsmeet because they weren't getting married and he was going to be king, it certainly created a memorable playthrough because it scarred most people (NOT ALL) into forever doing Female Cousland and Dark Ritual to make sure there's a "happy ending".

A tough choice isn't when you can point at a certain path and say "Oh hey, I did it". A tough choice is when you're uncomfortable with your decision or you agree with it completely but many others do not. When there's forum arguments about choices which usually doesn't dissolve into "just do the third option", you know you've got a winner.

[Medhia Nox]

Are their deaths important - or the lives that we experienced prior?

I'd suggest Bioware fix its narrative first - before it just starts adding sloppy deaths. But that's me.

----

And I'd still be more emotionally impacted by a crippled, blind, mauled, handicapped squad mate that survives - so I could see him/her every day.

And no - "seeing" the person isn't for the warm fuzzies - it's the reality that I can't just move on from this one.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:16 .

[Nashiktal]

marshalleck wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

There are better ways to make things "dark and gritty" than just killing people you care about.

Like killing a bunch of redshirts we don't know and don't care about, as per your suggestion?

If I roll my eyes any harder they might fall out of my head.

Redshirts? Reread my friend. I am only suggesting the same cheap death trick you are pushing. Jenkins and that tech dude from me2 were obvious redshirts yes, but have you played Dragon age awakening expansion? They had a nice character who they let you get plenty familiar with. You fought side by side, had conversations, saved the day together and then as things settled down and you were ready to explore more of her character... She dies a rather anticlimatic death from the taint, reminding us how dangerous it is being a warden.

Of course you probably can't read this right now, since you seem to be rolling your eyes at the moment. But hey we can't all have perfect vision.

[SandTrout]

Biotic Sage wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

I would be OK with being able to save your squad if it costs other things, like a group of civilians gets slaughtered by Cannibals or something.

I would be ok with that too, since no person truly role playing would choose that ridiculous option haha. 

Civilians: "Shepard!  Help us!"
Shepard: "Nah, that's too dangerous.  Good luck with that."

Even renegade Shepards wouldn't do that.  It goes against the parameters of Shep's character.

Not necessarily. One option has you sacrificing a dozen or so refugees to Cannibals, and the other option has you sacrificing Garrus to a Cerberus ambush.

The Civilians do not provide significant aid in the overall war effort, while Garrus is an experienced soldier that is worth at least a dozen untrained civilians. While you could save that dozen civilians now, you're also losing a soldier who could potentially save hundreds or thousands over the course of the war.

Just because the immediate moral math appears to favor one decission doesn't mean that the balance of the equation doesn't change depending on how far out you trust your estimations of probable results.

[Il Divo]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Well said.  If video games want to be a true storytelling medium, then can't just make the player god.  Of course they should empower the player more than movies/books, that's what the medium is for, that's what sets it apart, but there has to be more to it than that.

That actually is the great aspect about games; they can treat the player/character as both active and passive, depending on circumstances. Let's take Admiral Cheez's quote above, which Computer God quoted.

Why can't a video game involve a forced character death and (in a completely different scenario) let the player feel pro-active in saving/letting someone die? There's no rule which states that both cannot occur in the same game. However, I 100% disagree with the idea that the game should never force a character's death, merely because I want to feel like a bad ass and protect everyone. Most serious films/novels/plays don't get that privelege, why should we?

[Captain_Obvious]

@ Biotic Sage, oh I just saw you wrote you were an English major. Sorry, but I hated English. Narrative theory is irrelevant to me. History majors don't play well with English majors. :-)

[Biotic Sage]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

@ Biotic Sage and Il Divo

Okay, so basically your sense of realism and authenticity says that no one can get a happy ending because wars just don't roll that way, yes? If you want the game to be authentic, you must make difficult decisions and people die because that's just the way life is. Okay, I get that.

That's not the kind of realism I want. Ergo, I want the happy ending that you don't think I deserve because that would make the game unrealistic for you. That about sum it up? You want realism in a game and I don't.

What you want is fine.  I'm not denying you what you want, and I'm not looking down on you for wanting it.  However, in order to get what you want, you will have to play a different genre.  Mass Effect has a good dose of realism.  You want it to be something it's not.

[Biotic Sage]

SandTrout wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

I would be OK with being able to save your squad if it costs other things, like a group of civilians gets slaughtered by Cannibals or something.

I would be ok with that too, since no person truly role playing would choose that ridiculous option haha. 

Civilians: "Shepard!  Help us!"
Shepard: "Nah, that's too dangerous.  Good luck with that."

Even renegade Shepards wouldn't do that.  It goes against the parameters of Shep's character.

Not necessarily. One option has you sacrificing a dozen or so refugees to Cannibals, and the other option has you sacrificing Garrus to a Cerberus ambush.

The Civilians do not provide significant aid in the overall war effort, while Garrus is an experienced soldier that is worth at least a dozen untrained civilians. While you could save that dozen civilians now, you're also losing a soldier who could potentially save hundreds or thousands over the course of the war.

Just because the immediate moral math appears to favor one decission doesn't mean that the balance of the equation doesn't change depending on how far out you trust your estimations of probable results.

Pragmatic to the end, SandTrout.  It just doesn't seem like Garrus would make the decision to walk away, and I know my Shepard wouldn't and most other people's Shepards wouldn't either, regardless of pragmatism.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:21 .

[Biotic Sage]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

@ Biotic Sage, oh I just saw you wrote you were an English major. Sorry, but I hated English. Narrative theory is irrelevant to me. History majors don't play well with English majors. :-)

Obviously

[Il Divo]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

@ Biotic Sage and Il Divo

Okay, so basically your sense of realism and authenticity says that no one can get a happy ending because wars just don't roll that way, yes? If you want the game to be authentic, you must make difficult decisions and people die because that's just the way life is. Okay, I get that.

That's not the kind of realism I want. Ergo, I want the happy ending that you don't think I deserve because that would make the game unrealistic for you. That about sum it up? You want realism in a game and I don't.

It has nothing to do with what anyone "deserves". I'm paying for ME3 so that I might be entertained, much like you are doing for yourself.

The problem (as explained) is that "happy ending" and "hard decisions" are mutually exclusive. I am not making a hard decision if I realize that a solution exists where I get the best case scenario of the other two decisions. The Kaidan/Ashley problem rears its head again. If a scenario exists where both characters live, I have a method of cheating the decision, which removes its value.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Biotic Sage: What about Mass Effect is "real" to you? And no - I don't mean biotics, Asari, and Reapers.

I see this more as a Greek epic than I do anything so sober as an historical war epic.

[Il Divo]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Biotic Sage: What about Mass Effect is "real" to you? And no - I don't mean biotics, Asari, and Reapers.

I see this more as a Greek epic than I do anything so sober as an historical war epic.

Just so you know, even in Greek epics, most of the characters are dead by the end. At least, as demonstrated by the Homeric Cycle.

[jeweledleah]

it doesn't have to be the best scenario. it could always be bring down the sky. save the hostages and let the criminal go to possibly cause more deaths in a future? or kill him now and lose the hostages.

THAT decision was tough. and no matter how many times I played through it? it remained tough. Virmire turned into "lets see - which character survives this playthrough? its lost all its gravity and all its meaning.

and Mass Effect is not a greek tragedy.  even dragon age is not a greek tragedy.  Mass Effect is a space Opera, its Star Wars.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:26 .

[Nashiktal]

Biotic Sage wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

I would be OK with being able to save your squad if it costs other things, like a group of civilians gets slaughtered by Cannibals or something.

I would be ok with that too, since no person truly role playing would choose that ridiculous option haha. 

Civilians: "Shepard!  Help us!"
Shepard: "Nah, that's too dangerous.  Good luck with that."

Even renegade Shepards wouldn't do that.  It goes against the parameters of Shep's character.

Not necessarily. One option has you sacrificing a dozen or so refugees to Cannibals, and the other option has you sacrificing Garrus to a Cerberus ambush.

The Civilians do not provide significant aid in the overall war effort, while Garrus is an experienced soldier that is worth at least a dozen untrained civilians. While you could save that dozen civilians now, you're also losing a soldier who could potentially save hundreds or thousands over the course of the war.

Just because the immediate moral math appears to favor one decission doesn't mean that the balance of the equation doesn't change depending on how far out you trust your estimations of probable results.

Pragmatic to the end, SandTrout.  It just doesn't seem like Garrus would make the decision to walk away, and I know my Shepard wouldn't and most other people's Shepards wouldn't either, regardless of pragmatism.

I don't think any of the squadmates would choose to save those civilians actually. They know what needs to be done.

[Dave of Canada]

Never mind.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:27 .

[Biotic Sage]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Biotic Sage: What about Mass Effect is "real" to you? And no - I don't mean biotics, Asari, and Reapers.

I see this more as a Greek epic than I do anything so sober as an historical war epic.

I said it has a dose of realism.  As in more than Star Wars.  There are different degrees of realism, it's not a black and white, this or that issue.

@JewledLeah

Mass Effect is DEFINITELY not Star Wars.  Star Wars is fantasy, it just happens to take place in a setting that is usually found in sci fi.  Mass Effect is sci-fi.  It's not hard sci fi, of course, but it is sci-fi.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:29 .

[Golden Owl]

marshalleck wrote...

The namby-pamby paragon ending would undermine their rhetoric about "hard decisions" but then that's nothing new for either Mass Effect or just Bioware games in general. They almost always provide an easy out which I think does a great disservice to the aspects of decision-making they try so hard to implement.

I mean, I think if you really want a player to explore what it means to be virtuous, then it should be done in such a way that being virtuous may come with a heavy cost. Because isn't that what virtue is supposed to be about? Remaining true to ones' values even through adversity? 

Not this "miraculous third option" which always seems to present itself at the last moment and allow best possible outcome for all parties involved. Connor and the Circle Mages in DAO is one of the most explicit examples.

Actually that is a good point....As a pretty much pure paragon myself, I DO NOT want my Paragon to be deliberately punished just for being a Paragon....but I do want him to face decisions that will challenge him and his moral stance....Have to face himself as such.