4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

It never ceases to amaze me how people can enjoy something so much, yet be so divided.

@Eternal: It may have been extreme, but that is how I feel on the subject. ME3 will be a complete fail in their eyes if everyone makes it through. Even if that ending is super hard to get that's still not good enough.

ME3 will be a fail if everyone can live.
ME3 will be a fail in if you can't save everyone.

Don't see much difference in extremism here.

You require that EVERYONE has to survive. If even 1 squad member can't be saved, game fails for you.
I require that SOMONE has to bite a bullet.

[chickenchasa]

Thanks for the compliment, Cheez. I try not to reset unless...you know, I die before getting to the ending...Heh.

But I also had the added advantage of never playing the first one, which sounds odd to say but without having the initial background from Mass Effect One, I wouldn't have found the same devotion I would have through ME2. If anything, I may have been a bit depressed about how the incident at Virmire was rather Holleywood-esque in my opinion, though not bad, whereas Jacob's death seemed useless and very well my fault.

...Though I lacked getting to interact with Wrex or the returning cast members, but that's just how my story goes, I suppose.

[jeweledleah]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

It never ceases to amaze me how people can enjoy something so much, yet be so divided.

@Eternal: It may have been extreme, but that is how I feel on the subject. ME3 will be a complete fail in their eyes if everyone makes it through. Even if that ending is super hard to get that's still not good enough.

ME3 will be a fail if everyone can live.
ME3 will be a fail in if you can't save everyone.

Don't see much difference in extremism here.

You require that EVERYONE has to survive. If even 1 squad member can't be saved, game fails for you.
I require that SOMONE has to bite a bullet.

except you CAN have someone bite the bullet if you so wish.  you can have what YOU want and we can have what WE want.  but with your requirement, only YOu get to have what you want, and those that want to save everyone - don't get that option.  and not not saving everyone doesn't make your Shepard an idiot, you are not obligated to get the happiest possible ending and your grim dark ending is NOT invalidated by someone else saving everyone in THIER game.

[Biotic Sage]

jeweledleah wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

It never ceases to amaze me how people can enjoy something so much, yet be so divided.

@Eternal: It may have been extreme, but that is how I feel on the subject. ME3 will be a complete fail in their eyes if everyone makes it through. Even if that ending is super hard to get that's still not good enough.

ME3 will be a fail if everyone can live.
ME3 will be a fail in if you can't save everyone.

Don't see much difference in extremism here.

You require that EVERYONE has to survive. If even 1 squad member can't be saved, game fails for you.
I require that SOMONE has to bite a bullet.

except you CAN have someone bite the bullet if you so wish.  you can have what YOU want and we can have what WE want.  but with your requirement, only YOu get to have what you want, and those that want to save everyone - don't get that option.  and not not saving everyone doesn't make your Shepard an idiot, you are not obligated to get the happiest possible ending and your grim dark ending is NOT invalidated by someone else saving everyone in THIER game.

I really don't know how you aren't understanding our side of the argument.  Are you reading the posts just to rush to your rebuttle, or are you actually reading and trying to comprehend the argument?  Your paradigm and our paradigm are mutually exclusive.  I've made this same post about a dozen times but here it is again: if the completionist playthrough gives you a perfect/everyone lives ending, then as a completionist I cannot experience what is my idea of a good story.  Please understand.

I want to be a completionist and do everything optimally, but I also want to experience sacrifice and loss.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:47 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I really don't know how you aren't understanding our side of the argument.  Are you reading the posts just to rush to your rebuttle, or are you actually reading and trying to comprehend the argument?  Your paradigm and our paradigm are mutually exclusive.  I've made this same post about a dozen times but here it is again: if the completionist playthrough gives you a perfect/everyone lives ending, then as a completionist I cannot experience what is my idea of a good story.  Please understand.

So the trick is to find some way to allow squaddie death while still being a completionist and not feeling stupid afterwards.

The "completely bungle an important mission to save a squadmate" thing that keeps getting put forward comes to mind...

[chickenchasa]

I believe the misunderstanding is that they believe the other wants it hardcoded into the game that someone dies or everyone lives.

If that is the case, why not just agree that isn't of hardcoding it in, allow the option for them to die so that everyone may fulfill their exclusive story? If you want someone to die to add meaning to the story? You can do that. If you want to save everyone, you can save everyone. To each their own. I'm not sure how they'

...Besides, how would they do that? Would they "Pull a Virmire" and make you choose who dies, make it work like the Suicide Mission, or would the writers and developers squabble until a mutual agreement was reached as to who they would off? I can't think of a way for them to do this that'd allow everyone to be happy AND a completionist.

Modifié par chickenchasa, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:49 .

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I really don't know how you aren't understanding our side of the argument.  Are you reading the posts just to rush to your rebuttle, or are you actually reading and trying to comprehend the argument?  Your paradigm and our paradigm are mutually exclusive.  I've made this same post about a dozen times but here it is again: if the completionist playthrough gives you a perfect/everyone lives ending, then as a completionist I cannot experience what is my idea of a good story.  Please understand.

So the trick is to find some way to allow squaddie death while still being a completionist and not feeling stupid afterwards.

The "completely bungle an important mission to save a squadmate" thing that keeps getting put forward comes to mind...

Yeah and I've agreed that would be acceptable, because I would not even consider that a valid option: bungling a mission just to save a squadmate.  But some people still aren't understanding the argument about completionism and the perfect/everyone lives ending...and it just gets frustrating.

[jeweledleah]

Biotic Sage wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

It never ceases to amaze me how people can enjoy something so much, yet be so divided.

@Eternal: It may have been extreme, but that is how I feel on the subject. ME3 will be a complete fail in their eyes if everyone makes it through. Even if that ending is super hard to get that's still not good enough.

ME3 will be a fail if everyone can live.
ME3 will be a fail in if you can't save everyone.

Don't see much difference in extremism here.

You require that EVERYONE has to survive. If even 1 squad member can't be saved, game fails for you.
I require that SOMONE has to bite a bullet.

except you CAN have someone bite the bullet if you so wish.  you can have what YOU want and we can have what WE want.  but with your requirement, only YOu get to have what you want, and those that want to save everyone - don't get that option.  and not not saving everyone doesn't make your Shepard an idiot, you are not obligated to get the happiest possible ending and your grim dark ending is NOT invalidated by someone else saving everyone in THIER game.

I really don't know how you aren't understanding our side of the argument.  Are you reading the posts just to rush to your rebuttle, or are you actually reading and trying to comprehend the argument?  Your paradigm and our paradigm are mutually exclusive.  I've made this same post about a dozen times but here it is again: if the completionist playthrough gives you a perfect/everyone lives ending, then as a completionist I cannot experience what is my idea of a good story.  Please understand.

I want to be a completionist and do everything optimally, but I also want to experience sacrifice and loss.

except its not mutualy exclusive.  even withsuicide mission you can be a completionist and stilllose people first time you do it, without guides, without any spreadsheets, etc.  and with the examples that I gave before, not to mention example of the dark ritual - you CAN experience meaningfulloss if your soul desires.

I'm a completionist.  I also have playthroughs where people died.  and in context of role playing and reasoning for those Shepards? they did what they could and didn't manage to pull everyone through.

we want variety of endings.  you want another virmire.  and YOU are not willing to compromise.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
However, mandatorily not being able to romance stuff is also kind of stupid and forced.  I don't expect them to be okay with it, certainly, and an epic why-the-hell-would-you-do-something-so-stupid-never-let-how-you-feel-get-in-the-way-again sort of fight would be awesome, but there should be the option to make up over it later.  The Aliiance, however, could think you're a f*cktard no matter what, and the Very Important Plot Device will be guaranteed to f*ck everyone's sh*t up later, possibly meaning someone else dies and you may have no control over it (DELAYED STEALTH VIRMIRE).

I mean, come on, space operas need lovey-dovey, right?

Did you finally see reason?

Modifié par Lizardviking, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:55 .

[chickenchasa]

You know what I just thought of for those who want a Virmire and those that want to save everyone?

This is kind of going off something Lizardviking just said, and would allow for completionists to be able to still have better varying stories: Mission choices that affect the story more. Perhaps those from the first two games, maybe some from the third. The choices all add up from your past two games to conclude in the third that change how things work out. This is a war after all, and if you aren't prepared, you will have a lot more casualties.

Maybe you made 'bad' tactical choices in the first two games? Maybe without the aid of the Destiny Ascension the Normandy gets hit in a space engagement and someone is killed in that area damaged? Or without the Reprogrammed Heretic Geth/Rachni you find yourself outnumbered in a battle and in the retreat, one of your squad dies. You still completed missions so there's no loss there, and you can still lose people because the choices you made had bad reprocussions, rather than the bad reprocussions being from inaction or deliberate action.

Instead of forcing a Virmire, your actions in the third and throughout the trilogy (for those who played it through that is.) could affect who lives/dies, even IF you are a completionist, without it being a 'choose the right person' ending that the Suicide Mission was...heck you could lose some of your squadmates BEFORE the end, so as Lizardviking said, implement "Stealth Virmire".

Modifié par chickenchasa, 14 octobre 2011 - 09:05 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

chickenchasa wrote...

You know what I just thought of for those who want a Virmire and those that want to save everyone?

This is kind of going off something Lizardviking just said, and would allow for completionists to be able to still have better varying stories: Mission choices that affect the story more. Perhaps those from the first two games, maybe some from the third. The choices all add up from your past two games to conclude in the third that change how things work out. This is a war after all, and if you aren't prepared, you will have a lot more casualties.

Maybe you made 'bad' tactical choices in the first two games? Maybe without the aid of the Destiny Ascension the Normandy gets hit in a space engagement and someone is killed in that area damaged? Or without the Reprogrammed Heretic Geth/Rachni you find yourself outnumbered in a battle and in the retreat, one of your squad dies. You still completed missions so there's no loss there, and you can still lose people because the choices you made had bad reprocussions, rather than the bad reprocussions being from inaction or deliberate action.

Instead of forcing a Virmire, your actions in the third and throughout the trilogy (for those who played it through that is.) could affect who lives/dies, even IF you are a completionist, without it being a 'choose the right person' ending that the Suicide Mission was...heck you could lose some of your squadmates BEFORE the end, so as Lizardviking said, implement "Stealth Virmire".

I could appreciate something like this as long as no matter what combination of choices you take, you will face the no-win scenario. When and where it will happen, is what your choices will decide.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

Did you finally see reason?

I've always supported cause-and-effect/no-win scenario/the-good-idea-was-a-bad-idea-after-all stuff.  And I said I'm okay with death SO LONG AS they player has a little control over it (even if it's metagamey) and it's well done.

The above is a compromise I'd be willing to make.  It's the level of face-slapping I'd consider appropriate, and there's no way in hell you'd know how to manipulate it on your first run without spoilers.  I'd still like to have an "out," some sort of secret trick that's counter-intuitive and you can't just accomplish by completionism, but if this happened, I'd be okay with it.

I have never been a fan of bad writing, ever.  I just don't have the same ideas of what's good and bad as you do.  A happy, slightly unbelievable ending can still be good if presented well.

And I still will not tolerate the same squadmate always dying no matter what.  The writers gave that up the moment they handed control to the player.  It's their own damn fault.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Biotic Sage wrote...
Those aren't at all the same to me.  You have all of the information up to the point where you decide whether or not to risk it with the Rachni and all of those examples.  In DA:O, you don't have all of the information regarding the Old God decision.  You don't even know if Old Gods are real, or what the actual history of corruption and all of that is.  You can't make an informed decision.  With the Rachni, I know that they waged war on the Galaxy, and I also know the Rachni Queen's side of the story; after taking all of the information into account I go from there.  It's an informed risk, not a blind one like in DA:O.

Technicly, you know her side of the story, but you don't know if any of it is true. Neither do you know if Morrigans story is true..
There's more unknowns with Morrigan tough..

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

I could appreciate something like this as long as no matter what combination of choices you take, you will face the no-win scenario. When and where it will happen, is what your choices will decide.

So long as the no-win scenario doesn't fall flat on its face like Arrival, I'm cool.

In any form of storytelling, presentation is everything.  You can basically have the story be whatever you want so long as you tell it well.  That's how standup comics make a living, after all.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
So long as the no-win scenario doesn't fall flat on its face like Arrival, I'm cool.

In any form of storytelling, presentation is everything.  You can basically have the story be whatever you want so long as you tell it well.  That's how standup comics make a living, after all.

This is of course something we both wish to avoid. Make no mistake about that, I would hate that to happen. I do not wish Deathly hallows to be repeated again, with characters just getting killed for the sake of it.

[Biotic Sage]

jeweledleah wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

It never ceases to amaze me how people can enjoy something so much, yet be so divided.

@Eternal: It may have been extreme, but that is how I feel on the subject. ME3 will be a complete fail in their eyes if everyone makes it through. Even if that ending is super hard to get that's still not good enough.

ME3 will be a fail if everyone can live.
ME3 will be a fail in if you can't save everyone.

Don't see much difference in extremism here.

You require that EVERYONE has to survive. If even 1 squad member can't be saved, game fails for you.
I require that SOMONE has to bite a bullet.

except you CAN have someone bite the bullet if you so wish.  you can have what YOU want and we can have what WE want.  but with your requirement, only YOu get to have what you want, and those that want to save everyone - don't get that option.  and not not saving everyone doesn't make your Shepard an idiot, you are not obligated to get the happiest possible ending and your grim dark ending is NOT invalidated by someone else saving everyone in THIER game.

I really don't know how you aren't understanding our side of the argument.  Are you reading the posts just to rush to your rebuttle, or are you actually reading and trying to comprehend the argument?  Your paradigm and our paradigm are mutually exclusive.  I've made this same post about a dozen times but here it is again: if the completionist playthrough gives you a perfect/everyone lives ending, then as a completionist I cannot experience what is my idea of a good story.  Please understand.

I want to be a completionist and do everything optimally, but I also want to experience sacrifice and loss.

except its not mutualy exclusive.  even withsuicide mission you can be a completionist and stilllose people first time you do it, without guides, without any spreadsheets, etc.  and with the examples that I gave before, not to mention example of the dark ritual - you CAN experience meaningfulloss if your soul desires.

I'm a completionist.  I also have playthroughs where people died.  and in context of role playing and reasoning for those Shepards? they did what they could and didn't manage to pull everyone through.

we want variety of endings.  you want another virmire.  and YOU are not willing to compromise.

Facepalm central.  I explained the logic, you can accept it or not.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jeweledleah wrote...
except its not mutualy exclusive.  even withsuicide mission you can be a completionist and stilllose people first time you do it, without guides, without any spreadsheets, etc.  and with the examples that I gave before, not to mention example of the dark ritual - you CAN experience meaningfulloss if your soul desires.

I'm a completionist.  I also have playthroughs where people died.  and in context of role playing and reasoning for those Shepards? they did what they could and didn't manage to pull everyone through.

we want variety of endings.  you want another virmire.  and YOU are not willing to compromise.

It is mutually exclusive.
I never read any walktroughs or anything, and I never lost anyone in the SM.
Not to mantion that SM is a very bad example, because the loyality mission mechanic made no sense at all.

I want to play a completionist, make smart, rational choices...and still not not be able to save everyone.

According to you, it's only possible if I specifcly try to doctor it (by RP-in a different sheppard that I want). This defeats the whole purpose and makes hte entire experience feel artificial.

You want compromise..how about this? - you can save your entire team - But you loose Earth, Hackket, Anderson and almost every other interesting NPC that's not a party member in the process.
No?

[chickenchasa]

If these no-win scenario's pop up, where either option seems to be a bad idea, my example being saving the council or not, I'd be fine with that. However people want to be "Big Goddamn Heroes" And save the squadmates they've come to love, so how about this for an idea?

I hope that when this No-Win scenario comes up, it will also be affected by past actions, so if both options seem bad, but you made a tactically sound choice (such as reprogramming the Heretic Geth) that action would be the saving grace that prevented that squad member from dying (although you could pick the other option and they might die then if you didn't do the corresponding action to save them that way). So while you still face that grim outcome, your past actions will affect what happens in it, maybe in your favor...or maybe not. Maybe what seems like a good enough (though still very bad) situation gets worse because you DIDN'T reprogram the heretic geth, and thus your squadmate gets overwhelmed? It's hard to say how this can be pulled off so everyone can have their story and immersion.

Modifié par chickenchasa, 14 octobre 2011 - 09:20 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

This is of course something we both wish to avoid. Make no mistake about that, I would hate that to happen. I do not wish Deathly hallows to be repeated again, with characters just getting killed for the sake of it.

Do not speak of that book.  It killed the series for me just like the last Animorphs book ruined everything.

Heh.  Animorphs.  I can't 90s child any harder than that, can I?

[Biotic Sage]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...
except its not mutualy exclusive.  even withsuicide mission you can be a completionist and stilllose people first time you do it, without guides, without any spreadsheets, etc.  and with the examples that I gave before, not to mention example of the dark ritual - you CAN experience meaningfulloss if your soul desires.

I'm a completionist.  I also have playthroughs where people died.  and in context of role playing and reasoning for those Shepards? they did what they could and didn't manage to pull everyone through.

we want variety of endings.  you want another virmire.  and YOU are not willing to compromise.

It is mutually exclusive.
I never read any walktroughs or anything, and I never lost anyone in the SM.
Not to mantion that SM is a very bad example, because the loyality mission mechanic made no sense at all.

I want to play a completionist, make smart, rational choices...and still not not be able to save everyone.

According to you, it's only possible if I specifcly try to doctor it (by RP-in a different sheppard that I want). This defeats the whole purpose and makes hte entire experience feel artificial.

You want compromise..how about this? - you can save your entire team - But you loose Earth, Hackket, Anderson and almost every other interesting NPC that's not a party member in the process.
No?

Only JeweledLeah thinks they aren't mutually exclusive.  The logic behind them being mutually exclusive is sound, while the logic behind her idea of them not being mutually exclusive isn't.  That part isn't up for debate.  She can certainly argue her side in terms of how she thinks the game should be.  But being illogical is just a no no.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

This is of course something we both wish to avoid. Make no mistake about that, I would hate that to happen. I do not wish Deathly hallows to be repeated again, with characters just getting killed for the sake of it.

Do not speak of that book.  It killed the series for me just like the last Animorphs book ruined everything.

Heh.  Animorphs.  I can't 90s child any harder than that, can I?

I could tolerate Madeye's death, and I appreciated Dobby's sacrifice. It is just those near the end that bothers me because they just sorta goes "And then he got hit by avada kedrava".

"EDIT"

Still liked the book despite these flaws. Most of it was good and parts of the ending where still quite worthwhile IMO.

But book 5 is still the best.

Modifié par Lizardviking, 14 octobre 2011 - 09:27 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It is mutually exclusive.
I never read any walktroughs or anything, and I never lost anyone in the SM.
Not to mantion that SM is a very bad example, because the loyality mission mechanic made no sense at all.

It made sense from a game design standpoint, if a bit redundant.

I want to play a completionist, make smart, rational choices...and still not not be able to save everyone.

I understand the need for loss and drama, but I still find this standpoint to be a bit silly.  "I want to do everything as well as I possibly can and not be rewarded for it."  Eh... what?

According to you, it's only possible if I specifcly try to doctor it (by RP-in a different sheppard that I want). This defeats the whole purpose and makes hte entire experience feel artificial.

It's going to feel a little artifical regardless.  It's a game.  Besides, it's impossible to account for everyone's perception of what they want Shep to be.  A few angles will be missed.

Also, SHEPARD'S NAME.  HOW MANY TIMES IS THE LETTER P IN THERE?

You want compromise..how about this? - you can save your entire team - But you loose Earth, Hackket, Anderson and almost every other interesting NPC that's not a party member in the process.

No.  That's dumb.  Overkill, even worse writing, needless punishment for liking the characters, which is what Bioware wants you to do.  Writer suicide.

No?

No.  Quit being a dick about your opinion.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

But book 5 is still the best.

Book 5 was my least favorite.  Too much wangst and teenage hormones.

Books 2 and 4 were my faves.  2 had awesome snakes, 4 just... flowed well.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

But book 5 is still the best.

Book 5 was my least favorite.  Too much wangst and teenage hormones.

Books 2 and 4 were my faves.  2 had awesome snakes, 4 just... flowed well.

Hmm. Never considered that, I was younger when I read it. Could be the reason!

Book 4 is second best. I also like book 2, but I really just view 1-2-3 as a prologue to book 4.

Worst is book 3. Because giving time travel to a young pupil is just so dumb......

[chickenchasa]

I never read the Harry Potter Books myself, nor did I watch the movies (because I was lazy, or something.), though from what I heard about the second It seemed good, though not my type of story...and the last ten or so Animorph books were Ghost Written and filled with Angst.

...wait? Weren't we talking about something involving aliens?