4309 réponses à ce sujet

[JamieCOTC]

Valdrane78 wrote...

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.

D'oh!     Sorry, not why, but how.  I know we get a brief description of "biosynthetic fusion" in the begining, but specifically how?  Reaper tech?  Lots of ezo?  Magic elves from a tree?  Is Shepard magically delicious? 

Anyway, as to the topic at hand, I think we are guaranteed at least one Virmire style encounter.  Something big does happen on Kahje.

[AdmiralCheez]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Anyway, as to the topic at hand, I think we are guaranteed at least one Virmire style encounter.  Something big does happen on Kahje.

Actually, I think Weekes was just goofing off.  He does that.

[lazuli]

Nashiktal wrote...

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.

I guess I can see what you're saying, but most of the decisions were obvious enough for me to make it through, zero casualties, on my first go.  You only really screw yourself on Hold the Line if you take characters with you that suck against Collectors.  And why would you do that?  Why would you take Garrus, Zaeed, or Grunt?

Story reasons, I'm sure.

[Cheesy Blue]

"Selfish, socially reclusive crybaby"? I think you and me can be BFFs!

[KBomb]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

This, this and more this. It’s really odd that people pick and choose what to understand. They throw around “Disney”, “Ponies and rainbows” and “fuzzy bunnies” not to get their point across, but to try to make some sort of statement about weakness. It would be like me saying it’s emo of them and if they want a “Cry me a river” ending maybe they should go listen to My Chemical Romance and paint their nails black. I wouldn’t do that, though. Because I understand what they want and I am fine with having an ending that reflects their need for death and dreariness. I never kill anyone in the Suicide Mission and knowing that I can doesn’t ruin my ending at all. I am all for options, I am all for working to get them. I think most are. I think it’s selfish to say, “I want it this way, and only this way and those who don’t are weak.”

Modifié par KBomb, 07 octobre 2011 - 05:52 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Actually, Grunt and Zaeed are pretty good at wrecking the Collectors' sh*t, provided you are capable of taking down barriers yourself.

[Nashiktal]

lazuli wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

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.

I guess I can see what you're saying, but most of the decisions were obvious enough for me to make it through, zero casualties, on my first go.  You only really screw yourself on Hold the Line if you take characters with you that suck against Collectors.  And why would you do that?  Why would you take Garrus, Zaeed, or Grunt?

Story reasons, I'm sure.

Because I like those characters? I did perfectly fine the entire suicide mission and lost no one up to that point, but because I like using zaeed, grunt or garrus I am penalized for it? Hell I was given NO INDICATION that by taking them I would be punished. All I was told was that those I don't take would stay behind and hold the collectors. That is something that IS DONE IN EVERY BIOWARE GAME. The guys you don't take with you hold off the enemy while you go fight the big bad.

I lost both tali and mording because I sent thane to escort the crew back (he had no use up to that point, and I don't use him much) and brought zaeed and garrus with me because they are among my favorites. There was literally no way to know everyone had some INVISIBLE math score that affected ANOTHER INVISIBLE MATH SCORE that there would be casualties.. This was before there was a suicide missiong guide and we knew all the factors involved.

How did YOU know that you were screwing yourself if you brought zaeed or garrus with you during hold the line hm? They didn't tell you, and bioware does that in all of their games. Did you read a guide? Did you look in the game files? Pray tell how did you know?

Modifié par Nashiktal, 07 octobre 2011 - 05:53 .

[Valdrane78]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Valdrane78 wrote...

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.

D'oh!     Sorry, not why, but how.  I know we get a brief description of "biosynthetic fusion" in the begining, but specifically how?  Reaper tech?  Lots of ezo?  Magic elves from a tree?  Is Shepard magically delicious? 

That is actually a fairly good question, one I think will come up in the 3rd game....................hopefully.  Reaper tech is the most logical answer because we know that Cerberus has mucked about with Reaper tech before, and to some seriously dire consequences.

Anyways, pertaining to the OP's thread.............

Cheez and others are not the only ones to want the perfect happy ending.  I don't play ME for the realism, if Iw anted that I woudl play simulation games.  I play ME to live vicariously through the character I build, shaping events as best as I possibly can to get the outcome I desire.  The outcome I desire being, everyone lives, I get the girl and destroy the Reapers once and for all.  As I said before, I want my cake, I want toeat it and it damn well bette rhave a side of ice cream togo along with it.

Once I get the ending I want, I will do other play throughs that have different outcomes just to explore everythign the game has to offer.  But I still want that one play through to be perfect.

[Nashiktal]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Actually, Grunt and Zaeed are pretty good at wrecking the Collectors' sh*t, provided you are capable of taking down barriers yourself.

Who knew that working as a team could help eliminate weaknesses as a whole? <_<

[JeffZero]

While I don't necessarily agree with you in full this time, Cheez, (as in, I've only escaped the finale completely unscathed once -- for the trophy -- and otherwise I ensure that at least one squadmate kicks the bucket every time) you have of course constructed a most compelling argument.

Myself, yeah, real world sucks and all that but I'll take some drama in my drama. Never been too into overly happy productions, which you know, you can say a lot of things about my psyche with that but that's just how it is. I wanted even more deaths in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's and BSG's finales because I saw the situation the characters were in and it seemed most reasonable. Not because death is the only source of grit I understand but because it felt a natural extension of the circumstances.

I'm not like some, though -- I won't condemn those who want the happy, cherry-on-top series finale for this great video game trilogy. It should be there for you.

[wright1978]

KBomb wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

This, this and more this. It’s really odd that people pick and choose what to understand. They throw around “Disney”, “Ponies and rainbows” and “fuzzy bunnies” not to get their point across, but to try to make some sort of statement about weakness. It would be like me saying it’s emo of them and if they want a “Cry me a river” ending maybe they should go listen to My Chemical Romance and paint their nails black. I wouldn’t do that, though. Because I understand what they want and I am fine with having an ending that reflects their need for death and dreariness. I never kill anyone in the Suicide Mission and knowing that I can doesn’t ruin my ending at all. I am all for options, I am all for working to get them. I think most are. I think it’s selfish to say, “I want it this way, and only this way and those who don’t are weak.”

Sorry you seem to be the struggling to understand. Most people who want consequences also want to be able to play the game with the aim of getting the best possible ending(as Admiral Cheez seems to get). The all positive ending therefore is a problem. I'm fine for people to have a way to save their squadmates as long as there proper consequences for making those choices.

[lazuli]

Yeah, I'd take Grunt against husks. But by that point in the game, I knew that if I was going to be facing Collectors, I'd probably want a steady supply of Warp on my team. I'm fine with the math being hidden. I'm fine with an imperfect playthrough based on a lack of knowledge of the game. I just don't want squadmates' fates left up to chance.

The Suicide Mission can be manipulated by the player. It's not pure chance.

[Nashiktal]

JeffZero wrote...

While I don't necessarily agree with you in full this time, Cheez, (as in, I've only escaped the finale completely unscathed once -- for the trophy -- and otherwise I ensure that at least one squadmate kicks the bucket every time) you have of course constructed a most compelling argument.

Myself, yeah, real world sucks and all that but I'll take some drama in my drama. Never been too into overly happy productions, which you know, you can say a lot of things about my psyche with that but that's just how it is. I wanted even more deaths in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's and BSG's finales because I saw the situation the characters were in and it seemed most reasonable. Not because death is the only source of grit I understand but because it felt a natural extension of the circumstances.

I'm not like some, though -- I won't condemn those who want the happy, cherry-on-top series finale for this great video game trilogy. It should be there for you.

I do have some saves where I purposely let some people die for story reasons, one time I even killed MY LI for the drama after bioware confirmed they would akcnowledge that in the third game.

However for my main shep, everyone lives. No one gets left behind dammit. Entire species might take casualties, the war is going to be damn grim, but let me keep my squadmates will ya? If you want someone to die just stick with the "jenkins" character at the start of the game. They will give you the grim tone you want dammit.

[Nashiktal]

lazuli wrote...

Yeah, I'd take Grunt against husks. But by that point in the game, I knew that if I was going to be facing Collectors, I'd probably want a steady supply of Warp on my team. I'm fine with the math being hidden. I'm fine with an imperfect playthrough based on a lack of knowledge of the game. I just don't want squadmates' fates left up to chance.

The Suicide Mission can be manipulated by the player. It's not pure chance.

Without knowledge it is up to chance. Even if you have full knowledge you can still lose people sometimes. Even after following the suicide guide to the letter, I sometimes still lose Tali if I don't take her along.

[Cypher0020]

Thank you AdmiralCheez I feel the same way about being all paragon-y....the world is a cruel enough place, and my little escapes int othe fictional realm of Mass Effect can allow me to do a little bit of good, I'll take it everytime

I personally will never lose anyone on the SM, I got no one left behind first time out, and I intend to keep it that way

[Nashiktal]

Cypher0020 wrote...

Thank you AdmiralCheez I feel the same way about being all paragon-y....the world is a cruel enough place, and my little escapes int othe fictional realm of Mass Effect can allow me to do a little bit of good, I'll take it everytime

I personally will never lose anyone on the SM, I got no one left behind first time out, and I intend to keep it that way

You don't have to be paragon to want to save everyone.

[Wulfram]

Does Shepard have to survive for this to count?

I want to have real choices which ask you what you're prepared to sacrifice, not just allowing you to save everything if you pick right. But Shepard sacrificing himself to allow his team to survive would be great. And I wouldn't have a problem if you're allowed to say "F*** everyone else, I'm going to save my squad", even if I probably wouldn't pick that option.

[Reever]

I love Happy Endings, but if done well, I can face both options (having squadmates die or all survive).
I think it should be bound by different factors which have to do with the war and you have to decide what´s more important to you (with possible future consequences, like not sacrificing Garrus for a mission now -> later you can have him help in another mission, but you´re hated by a certain faction/ have difficulties with whatever you want to do...).

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
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.

Jugding by ME2. Multiple ending are anything but a compromise.

[JeffZero]

Nashiktal wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

While I don't necessarily agree with you in full this time, Cheez, (as in, I've only escaped the finale completely unscathed once -- for the trophy -- and otherwise I ensure that at least one squadmate kicks the bucket every time) you have of course constructed a most compelling argument.

Myself, yeah, real world sucks and all that but I'll take some drama in my drama. Never been too into overly happy productions, which you know, you can say a lot of things about my psyche with that but that's just how it is. I wanted even more deaths in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's and BSG's finales because I saw the situation the characters were in and it seemed most reasonable. Not because death is the only source of grit I understand but because it felt a natural extension of the circumstances.

I'm not like some, though -- I won't condemn those who want the happy, cherry-on-top series finale for this great video game trilogy. It should be there for you.

I do have some saves where I purposely let some people die for story reasons, one time I even killed MY LI for the drama after bioware confirmed they would akcnowledge that in the third game.

However for my main shep, everyone lives. No one gets left behind dammit. Entire species might take casualties, the war is going to be damn grim, but let me keep my squadmates will ya? If you want someone to die just stick with the "jenkins" character at the start of the game. They will give you the grim tone you want dammit.

Yeah, I've killed my LI on two of those runs. I also killed her on Virmire once. Plenty of storyline paths are a great thing to have. That's why I have no qualm with those who prefer the happiest of endings -- it's another path. One I'll rarely go down but I'm glad it's there because so many fans enjoy it.

[KBomb]

wright1978 wrote...

Sorry you seem to be the struggling to understand. Most people who want consequences also want to be able to play the game with the aim of getting the best possible ending(as Admiral Cheez seems to get). The all positive ending therefore is a problem. I'm fine for people to have a way to save their squadmates as long as there proper consequences for making those choices.

You are the one who seems to have the struggle in understanding. If you read my reply and the rest of my posts, you would see that I agreed with the OP 100%. You obviously have not read the part where I said I would be willing to sacrifice and work hard to save my teammates. I have always said I am willing to face consequences for those teammates living. Not anywhere have I said I want an all positive ending. Not sure where you’re picking this up frankly. Odd.

[lazuli]

Nashiktal wrote...

lazuli wrote...

Yeah, I'd take Grunt against husks. But by that point in the game, I knew that if I was going to be facing Collectors, I'd probably want a steady supply of Warp on my team. I'm fine with the math being hidden. I'm fine with an imperfect playthrough based on a lack of knowledge of the game. I just don't want squadmates' fates left up to chance.

The Suicide Mission can be manipulated by the player. It's not pure chance.

Without knowledge it is up to chance. Even if you have full knowledge you can still lose people sometimes. Even after following the suicide guide to the letter, I sometimes still lose Tali if I don't take her along.

That's my point.  It's fine if it feels like chance because you don't know what's going on.

Send (loyal) Tali or Mordin back with the crew.  I've never lost either of these fragile folks in Hold the Line.

I just don't want to be forced to reload constantly, doing the same thing every time, just to get a different result based on unmitigated chance.

[wright1978]

KBomb wrote...

You are the one who seems to have the struggle in understanding. If you read my reply and the rest of my posts, you would see that I agreed with the OP 100%. You obviously have not read the part where I said I would be willing to sacrifice and work hard to save my teammates. I have always said I am willing to face consequences for those teammates living. Not anywhere have I said I want an all positive ending. Not sure where you’re picking this up frankly. Odd.

Apologies Kbomb. I misconstrued your point as i thought your talk about options referring to the Suicide Mission meant you wanted a repeat the zero consequences in it for saving everyone.