4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

jeweledleah wrote...

I'm sorry - Mass Effect is deep and heavy story now? since when? Mass Effect 1 and 2 are entertaining escapism with elements of chose your own adventure. you are looking for something that these games are not.

Funny, given that we are told ME3 is a dark war story.
In that context, looking for a perfect rainbows ending is looking for something in the wrong place, no?

Aslo, depth is not a binary thing. Some works have more, some have less. ME universe has more of it than most sci-fi.

[CaptainZaysh]

Lizardviking wrote...

Here is a hint. Thane is an assasin, a lone wolf. Thane has no buisness leading others into battle. He is better off being the distraction, not the distraction leader.

You're evidently wrong, because the diversion attack he led was a success.

Lizardviking wrote...
One question. Was Samara loyal?. If yes, then Shepard should have used the powerful Asari justicar who was 100% commited to the mission to hold the barrier, not the mental wreck.

Making decisions based on whether an NPC has her loyalty tag set to "1" or "0" is metagaming.  (The answer's "yes", and Jack wasn't, of course.)  I've also got to tell you that Jack wasn't a mental wreck.  Her experience in the Teltin facility really seemed to unlock something in her, help her move on.  I could never get her to get along with Miranda but, jeez, I'm a captain, not a therapist.

[CaptainZaysh]

Biotic Sage wrote...

You would have to be derp if you selected someone who had no small squad leadership experience for the fire teams,

Zaeed successfully led his team to the first RV, and Thane successfully led his team to the second RV after pulling off an effective diversion attack.  Who's to say anybody else would have succeeded?

Biotic Sage wrote...
no tech expertise for the vents,and if you selected someone who wasn't a biotic master for the biotic bubble.

Uh, that would be Kasumi and Jack you're talking about.

Biotic Sage wrote...
And you know loyalty is important.  Bioware tells you that loyalty is important.  In the game they make it clear that loyal squadmates will perform better; they get upgraded powers/abilities, they say they aren't distracted anymore, and they even put a convenient little red circle under them to beat the point over your head.

That's all metagaming.  This is my point: you can engineer the story where your Shepard does everything right but people stil die (and only by metagaming can you identify that the decisions were the less optimal ones).  Someone earlier in the thread was saying that's not possible, but it is.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Here is a hint. Thane is an assasin, a lone wolf. Thane has no buisness leading others into battle. He is better off being the distraction, not the distraction leader.

You're evidently wrong, because the diversion attack he led was a success.

The team got through. But giving the command to someone more qualified could have lead to a stronger and more succsesful team, perhaps someone who can lead under fire without getting killed (like Garrus?). So yeah, poor usage of resources given.

Making decisions based on whether an NPC has her loyalty tag set to "1" or "0" is metagaming.  (The answer's "yes", and Jack wasn't, of course.)  I've also got to tell you that Jack wasn't a mental wreck.  Her experience in the Teltin facility really seemed to unlock something in her, help her move on.  I could never get her to get along with Miranda but, jeez, I'm a captain, not a therapist.

The loyalty "flag" is gameplay. But it is translated into the game in how focused and dedicated to the mission they are. So no, not metagaming really. I withdraw my statement about Jack since you did complete the loyalty mission. But still it would be better to take the one who did not completely shut off after an arguement and who is always cool.

But really. All of this is completely irrelevant to the topic. All these deaths are meaningless from a storytelling perspective since they can be avoided.

Modifié par Lizardviking, 14 octobre 2011 - 01:34 .

[jamesp81]

Tyrium wrote...

Computer_God91 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Computer_God91 wrote...
Which is why I always do ultimate sacrifice. It's the "best" ending in my opinion.

Eh, it's not the "best," but it's better than letting someone else die in my place.  I think the principle behind it is more important than the theatrical effect.  Basically, I'd rather protect others than protect myself, and most of my Sheps, even the renegade ones, share that trait.

Warning to anyone who intend to beat DA:O Don't read this. Spoilers like mad.

Hence why I said in my opinion. This was my logic behind the choice and why I thought it was the best ending. All game I wanted revenge on Logain for the deaths King Cailan and Duncan two characters, although had very brief apperances in the game, I connected to really well. So at the landsmeet I refused to spare Logain, even though Riordan said we should put him through the joining (something I knew He'd survive thanks to those DLC gifts <_<) and let that decide his fate. I knew he'd survive so I killed him on the spot. Satisfied I went on with the game only to learn that one of us had to die in order to kill the Archdemon. Me and my hero complex wouldn't let Riordan or Alistiar do the sacrifice.

So fast forward Alistair is to be King although he doesn't care to be, but I know he'd make a great one. Morrigan offers me the Dark Ritual and a way to survive. I reject it because I want 100% certainty that the blight is going to stop with the death of the Archdemon and I felt like I deserved to die for getting myself into this position (Alistair is going to be King so he can't die, I had a feeling Riordan would die, and Logain was murdered by me out of revenge). So I marched onward to victory and my own sacrifice to save Fereldan. The feelings I felt while I watched my warden die and the cutscenes after where so awesome that any other ending to me doesn't feel right. Like I feel like I should have been the one to die on that tower or I shouldn't be regarded as a hero for doing the Dark Ritual to selfishly save myself.

You can bet your ass if there is an ultimate sacrifice ending as powerful as DA:O's in ME3 I'll do it without hesitation. Sure I'd love nothing more then to ride into the sunset with Liara, as I wanted to with Leliana but I feel like I just have to be the one to die on that tower.

So anyway that's why I felt like that was the "Best" ending in DA:O.

I, on the other hand, think the "best" ending is Loghain dead, Anora on the throne, and my Cousland and Alistair off with the Wardens (that's right, I play a non queen Cousland). I like that it is possible to have that happy ending.

Choices are good though, different ways to play it make it appeal to a much wider audience. After all, what happens in one person's game is totally different to another person's game. Each Shepard (or warden, or Hawke) is an entirely new universe. That's what I love about these games.

Whereas I went with King Alistair / Warden Queen ending.  Just because it was all so patriotically Ferelden, although I see the advantage of the Queen Anora / Warden and Alistair riding off into the sunset to slay darkspawn like bosses.

[nelly21]

Personally, I just don't upgrade the ship.

Armor plating would take months to install as would the Thanix cannon and the shielding. I simply don't upgrade the ship then take the squad mates I want to live with me to fight Oculus.

The suicide mission does offer good roleplaying deaths tough. Zaeed has led men before. And if you're looking for a diversion, who would be better than a boderline invicible shotgun wielding krogan?

My only problem with the SM is that the deaths aren't based on circumstances outside of your control. For example, I would have loved for the game to adjust to deaths rather than turn to Game Over. If I don't save the tech specialist in time, he/she should die and then Shep has to find another way in. I still love the SM, but once you've played it as many times as I have, you become intimately aware of how simple it is.

[Athayniel]

Lizardviking wrote...

But really. All of this is completely irrelevant to the topic. All these deaths are meaningless from a storytelling perspective since they can be avoided.

And here it comes... so Wrex's death is meaningless from a storytelling perspective because it can be avoided? I call BS.

[jamesp81]

Suppose the writers make it so that there are multiple outcomes to various missions along the way, where the final deciding course of action is between two or three options that all seem like good ideas, or between two or three options that all suck but you've got to choose one. Let this come back and bite you in the ass later and get people killed.

This lets Shepard be a completionist and the people who insist on grimdark can still get it. For those that prefer other endings, we can metagame it or reload from a save.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Athayniel wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

But really. All of this is completely irrelevant to the topic. All these deaths are meaningless from a storytelling perspective since they can be avoided.

And here it comes... so Wrex's death is meaningless from a storytelling perspective because it can be avoided? I call BS.

Wrex did die on my first playthrough. While it shocked me, I replayed the game and saved him the next time. Thereby completely avoiding it thereby making his death as an important dramatic point moot.

So as a source of drama, yes Wrex dying is not really good. Because it is avoidable.

[Athayniel]

jamesp81 wrote...

Suppose the writers make it so that there are multiple outcomes to various missions along the way, where the final deciding course of action is between two or three options that all seem like good ideas, or between two or three options that all suck but you've got to choose one. Let this come back and bite you in the ass later and get people killed.

This lets Shepard be a completionist and the people who insist on grimdark can still get it. For those that prefer other endings, we can metagame it or reload from a save.

This sort of compromise has already been put forward and found unacceptable.

[jamesp81]

I want logic and reason to rule the reaper invasion.

Mass Effect is a heroic space opera.  Reason and logic are not the primary drivers and never were.  Space operas are usually about one or a group of merry badasses flying around the galaxy kicking the **** out of everything from the local tyrannical government overlord up to the worst eldritch abominations that they, logically, shouldn't be able to stand against.

You're in the wrong genre.

[Athayniel]

Lizardviking wrote...

Wrex did die on my first playthrough. While it shocked me, I replayed the game and saved him the next time. Thereby completely avoiding it thereby making his death as an important dramatic point moot.

So as a source of drama, yes Wrex dying is not really good. Because it is avoidable.

This displays such incredible hypocrisy on your part I find it almost unfathomable. It lacked in "drama" because you chose to divest it of the "drama" yourself. And yet you would deny others the same opportunity and belittle the experience of those who made the choice to stick with the story as it happened to them.

[jamesp81]

Biotic Sage wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Renegades: it is possible to sustain quite heavy casualties during the suicide mission without a derpy Shepard. In my canon run we lost Kasumi, Samara, Thane and Jack, and Shepard did everything right. It was just bad luck.

Nonsense. You obviously did not do everything right, otherwise they would have survived. There are no random character deaths.

I'm gonna have to agree with Marshy here...that is complete nonsense.  If you upgraded your ship and got everyone's loyalty, you should have no deaths.  Maybe ONE death on the last part since Bioware kind of got sneaky with making it matter how many assault rifles/what type of armor you left at the "hold the line."  But that one death is very unlikely.  I avoided it by luck.

I got it the first few times when I couldn't resolve Miranda and Jack's purse-swinging match, and I made some wrong choices on Holding the Line.  I probably could've figured it out, but for my 2nd playthrough, I went metagamey and used guides.

The stats on this we do have suggest that a great many players lost at least one or two the first time out.  The idea that very few lost anyone on the first playthrough is, in fact, wrong.

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...

Suppose the writers make it so that there are multiple outcomes to various missions along the way, where the final deciding course of action is between two or three options that all seem like good ideas, or between two or three options that all suck but you've got to choose one. Let this come back and bite you in the ass later and get people killed.

This lets Shepard be a completionist and the people who insist on grimdark can still get it. For those that prefer other endings, we can metagame it or reload from a save.

I'm pretty sure the issue is that the metagame is possible. If a decision is difficult for a character does not mean that the decision is difficult for the player. Limited win conditions are an example of the latter. The opportunity for a perfect scenario can itself invalidate the concept of a hard choice because there is always an "escape button" which makes everything better.

The point should be to illustrate that Paragons don't get the 100% everyone lives ending where the Galaxy comes out on top. For a decision to have meaning, it must have some realistic consequence. It doesn't, by necessity, have to involve a character's death, but things can't end "happy go lucky".

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 octobre 2011 - 01:56 .

[jamesp81]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Soul Cool wrote...

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?

The reason I play Mass Effect can be summed up in one sentence.

"You know what, reality? #$*% you. We're winning."

They are tweeting that you'll be sobbing because there is going to be loss.  I mean, this is an assumption, yes, but it's better than the other assumption: that it's possible to come away unscathed from a galactic war.  They aren't going to take away that emotional experience from the dedicated completionist fans, especially from the dedicated completionist fans.  I really think you need to look more at what's likely to happen in ME3, and less at what you want to happen.  For your own sake.

The tweet doesn't tell us anything though.  Are we going to be upset because the Reapers killed 2 billion people on Earth before we stopped them, or is it because there's no way to win against them at all?

If Bioware goes totally grimdark, I can always just not buy the game, which I absolutely won't if they make a poor product.  They probably don't want a lot of people going that route, seeing how DA2 apparently didn't do very well (though I liked it well enough).

[RocketManSR2]

It's okay Biotic Sage. Judging from what little BioWare has said about whether there will be scripted deaths or not, you'll get your wish, and I'll be selling my copy of ME3.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:01 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Athayniel wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Wrex did die on my first playthrough. While it shocked me, I replayed the game and saved him the next time. Thereby completely avoiding it thereby making his death as an important dramatic point moot.

So as a source of drama, yes Wrex dying is not really good. Because it is avoidable.

This displays such incredible hypocrisy on your part I find it almost unfathomable. It lacked in "drama" because you chose to divest it of the "drama" yourself. And yet you would deny others the same opportunity and belittle the experience of those who made the choice to stick with the story as it happened to them.

Maybe I am not explaining it good enough. But Dean_the_yYoung does a good job.

[Il Divo]

Lizardviking wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Wrex did die on my first playthrough. While it shocked me, I replayed the game and saved him the next time. Thereby completely avoiding it thereby making his death as an important dramatic point moot.

So as a source of drama, yes Wrex dying is not really good. Because it is avoidable.

This displays such incredible hypocrisy on your part I find it almost unfathomable. It lacked in "drama" because you chose to divest it of the "drama" yourself. And yet you would deny others the same opportunity and belittle the experience of those who made the choice to stick with the story as it happened to them.

Maybe I am not explaining it good enough. But Dean_the_yYoung does a good job.

Damn, great posts all around, especially that first bit.

[jamesp81]

Athayniel wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Suppose the writers make it so that there are multiple outcomes to various missions along the way, where the final deciding course of action is between two or three options that all seem like good ideas, or between two or three options that all suck but you've got to choose one. Let this come back and bite you in the ass later and get people killed.

This lets Shepard be a completionist and the people who insist on grimdark can still get it. For those that prefer other endings, we can metagame it or reload from a save.

This sort of compromise has already been put forward and found unacceptable.

I am willing to metagame my own game while they get to to completely RP it, and it's still not good enough?

The sense of entitlement around here is strong.

I will spoil myself in generalities when the game comes out as to whether I can achieve the ending I prefer.  If I can, I'll buy it, and figure it out.  If I can't, I'll not buy it and find something else to play.  That simple.

[CaptainZaysh]

Lizardviking wrote...

The team got through. But giving the command to someone more qualified could have lead to a stronger and more succsesful team, perhaps someone who can lead under fire without getting killed (like Garrus?). So yeah, poor usage of resources given.

Could have done.  But giving the command to someone else could have led to a less imaginative and convincing diversion attack.  Ultimately, without metagaming, you're arguing about what might have worked against what did actually work.

Lizardviking wrote...
The loyalty "flag" is gameplay. But it is translated into the game in how focused and dedicated to the mission they are. So no, not metagaming really. I withdraw my statement about Jack since you did complete the loyalty mission. But still it would be better to take the one who did not completely shut off after an arguement and who is always cool.

I disagree.  An assault rifle is a better suppression weapon than a shotgun.  Samara held them off, Jack might have been over-run.  Again without metagaming would you seriously argue I should make life or death decisions about biotic fields and weapon employments based on an argument one of them had with Miranda?

Lizardviking wrote...
But really. All of this is completely irrelevant to the topic. All these deaths are meaningless from a storytelling perspective since they can be avoided.

They can be avoided.  Like Wrex's.  But I've never, ever talked Wrex down on Virmire because to me the story is so much stronger when Shepard has to kill his BFF to complete the mission.

[jamesp81]

Il Divo wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Suppose the writers make it so that there are multiple outcomes to various missions along the way, where the final deciding course of action is between two or three options that all seem like good ideas, or between two or three options that all suck but you've got to choose one. Let this come back and bite you in the ass later and get people killed.

This lets Shepard be a completionist and the people who insist on grimdark can still get it. For those that prefer other endings, we can metagame it or reload from a save.

I'm pretty sure the issue is that the metagame is possible. If a decision is difficult for a character does not mean that the decision is difficult for the player. Limited win conditions are an example of the latter. The opportunity for a perfect scenario can itself invalidate the concept of a hard choice because there is always an "escape button" which makes everything better.

The point should be to illustrate that Paragons don't get the 100% everyone lives ending where the Galaxy comes out on top. For a decision to have meaning, it must have some realistic consequence. It doesn't, by necessity, have to involve a character's death, but things can't end "happy go lucky".

You people need to get the metagame = bad stick out of your asses.  THE GAME WILL BE METAGAMED.  IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.  DEAL WITH IT.

The game should include an optimal ending as I detailed well back in the thread, even if it makes the grimdark people moan and whine in great discontent.  It is extraordinarily self centered for them to want their ending to be in there, but deny having my ending in there.

Yes, that means metagaming is implicit.  It always was and always will be.  Get over it.

[Athayniel]

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe I am not explaining it good enough. But Dean_the_yYoung does a good job.

He shifted the goal posts of the argument and you fell for it. We are using a different definition of "bad thing" which needs to be overcome. Dean specifically equates the "bad thing" with character death, when we've all been using "bad thing" and "impossible odds" to mean the reapers and the galactic war. Our entire premise is not having character deaths which need to be overcome.

Modifié par Athayniel, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:14 .

[Il Divo]

jamesp81 wrote...

You people need to get the metagame = bad stick out of your asses.  THE GAME WILL BE METAGAMED.  IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.  DEAL WITH IT.

The game should include an optimal ending as I detailed well back in the thread, even if it makes the grimdark people moan and whine in great discontent.  It is extraordinarily self centered for them to want their ending to be in there, but deny having my ending in there.

Yes, that means metagaming is implicit.  It always was and always will be.  Get over it.

For my ending to have meaning, you can't have your ending. The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. The metagame is the exact reason why the notion of "hard decisions" is impossible if I can have a Disney-style happy ending. In any film or novel, you don't get to choose whether your favorite characters live or die; that's why it's tragic. Tragedy demands a sacrifice, otherwise it's hollow, akin to being able to save both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

For my ending to have meaning, you can't have your ending.

And this right here is entitlement writ large. Any given ending has the meaning you choose to put into it. The fact you cannot divest yourself of the meta-knowledge that other endings exist is your cross to bear and not one which you should foist on the rest of the playerbase.

[Someone With Mass]

I think it'll be a good way for them to show that they actually create tension without resorting to killing teammates that are actually useful.

If the endings are diverse enough, and there's one that brings everyone back alive, then I'm happy.

And saying that two different people with two different viewpoints, morals and attitudes will get the exact same ending is just stupid, because they'll obviously make different choices.