4309 réponses à ce sujet

[nitefyre410]

Athayniel wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

You're crazy!  Virmire was an awesome piece of story telling.  It showed the sacrifices Shepard was willing to make to stop Saren.  Leaving that planet without Wrex and Ash was like a punch in the soul to me.  I thought, okay, this is the lowest point in the hero's journey.  Thank god the Council has finally taken notice.  It's going to feel pretty amazing leading their fleet to Ilos.

It really wasn't. And in any event is the exact sort of thing we want to avoid in ME3.

 


Athayniel is right - it really was not 

[Athayniel]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Well, the fact you're arguing against squadmate deaths and not against a higher civilian body count on Thessia demonstrates that you care much more about your squadmates than about the damage being done in the background.  Therefore "squadmates dying" = more bad than "random NPCs dying".

Dean's position (I think) is that if, in the final and most epic part of the ME trilogy the writers don't make things as bad on Shepard as they possibly can then they're not really doing their job.  I kind of agree.  A war story in which nobody dies is sort of missing the point, no?

I've made my position clear earlier but to sum it up, I want to be able to have the chance to save them. To fight for it with skill and strategy and choices. What I don't want is scripted death of companions. It takes away from player agency in the game and is frankly unnecessary. I simply don't agree that it makes an interactive story better. The galaxy is already dark enough, forcing the death of squadmates just adds melodrama on top of that.

I am not asking for squaddies to be immune. Only that there exists the chance to save them.

[Athayniel]

Lizardviking wrote...

And we are arguing why not having to face any personal loses is bad for the story, and facing the no-win scenario and suffering personal loses is better storytelling than only losing squadmates through mistake.

And I disagree with your assertion. I do not believe it always makes the story better. Especially not an interactive story such as Mass Effect. I have also stated that I found the SM mechanics to be wanting, but that is an issue of implementation rather than one of conception.

[jamesp81]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

What you are truly asking for cannot be done unless everyone gets the same ending or close to it.  Virmire is an example of the ending being essentially the same no matter what choice you make.  Virmire also sucked as a story telling element, an element which I hope the writers are wise enough to avoid in ME3 as they did in ME2.

You're crazy!  Virmire was an awesome piece of story telling.  It showed the sacrifices Shepard was willing to make to stop Saren.  Leaving that planet without Wrex and Ash was like a punch in the soul to me.  I thought, okay, this is the lowest point in the hero's journey.  Thank god the Council has finally taken notice.  It's going to feel pretty amazing leading their fleet to Ilos.

Which I could've done without.  Although the effect wasn't as grand for me, either.  My first thought was "shame we didn't have any red uniforms for them to wear.  It would've made more sense that way."

It failed as a story element.  The writers knew that and avoided it in ME2.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

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.

Nope, you are.

The level of realism is not a 0/1. It varries.
And ME3 is said to be darker. A war story with hard choices.

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope, you are.

The level of realism is not a 0/1. It varries.
And ME3 is said to be darker. A war story with hard choices.

You're saying that as if the exact same thing wasn't said about Mass Effect 1 and 2.

[AdmiralCheez]

laecraft wrote...

Completely wrong. Fiction is not an escape from life. It is a search for life. It is life condensed into a few hours of intense emotional experience. It helps us make sense of things. It gives catharsis. It helps us define our reality. It shines light at the darkest corners of human soul. It helps us discover ourselves. Fiction leads us to life, not away from it.

Yeah, because I learned all about the human soul from watching Dexter's Laboratory.

At least, that's what the story is supposed to do. *stares*

Oh, come on.  When you go into a movie theatre, youn don't think "I wonder what sort of cathartic lesson about real life this movie is going to teach me," do you?

And no, you don't get immersion and engagement by making the story as unlife-like as possible. You provide familiar elements for the player to build connection, and then twist them into something novel enough so as not to be boring. You take sympathetic characters, and you make the audience worry about them. If there's no worry, there's no engagement.

And you can worry about them without them actually dying.  Creating tension and the illusion of danger is sufficient.

[Athayniel]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

And you can worry about them without them actually dying.  Creating tension and the illusion of danger is sufficient.

The threat of death can even be 'real', as in it is possible that the squaddie will die permanently, as long as it is possible to save them from that fate.

[jamesp81]

Athayniel wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Well, the fact you're arguing against squadmate deaths and not against a higher civilian body count on Thessia demonstrates that you care much more about your squadmates than about the damage being done in the background.  Therefore "squadmates dying" = more bad than "random NPCs dying".

Dean's position (I think) is that if, in the final and most epic part of the ME trilogy the writers don't make things as bad on Shepard as they possibly can then they're not really doing their job.  I kind of agree.  A war story in which nobody dies is sort of missing the point, no?

I've made my position clear earlier but to sum it up, I want to be able to have the chance to save them. To fight for it with skill and strategy and choices. What I don't want is scripted death of companions. It takes away from player agency in the game and is frankly unnecessary. I simply don't agree that it makes an interactive story better. The galaxy is already dark enough, forcing the death of squadmates just adds melodrama on top of that.

I am not asking for squaddies to be immune. Only that there exists the chance to save them.

Dark, I agree, and it should be.  Melodrama can go die in a fire, though.  If I needed to be that depressed, I'd just start drinking heavily or something

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope, you are.

The level of realism is not a 0/1. It varries.
And ME3 is said to be darker. A war story with hard choices.

It was also told that ME3 will have more fun and lighter moments.

[jamesp81]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

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.

Nope, you are.

The level of realism is not a 0/1. It varries.
And ME3 is said to be darker. A war story with hard choices.

They also said the SM would be difficult.  They also said that your choices would have an enormous effect on the storyline.

A lot of what you're hearing is marketing.

But then again, maybe it will be a story with only craptastic grimdark endings.  There are other games I can spend my money on if they go that route.  I wouldn't count on it though, as BW never really has gone for extremely grim storytelling.  Even DA, which is supposed to be all about tragedy, doesn't go nearly to the lengths of grimness that the marketing suggests.


Edit:

Do you know what a heroic space opera is, by the way?

Modifié par jamesp81, 14 octobre 2011 - 03:56 .

[jamesp81]

Oh, come on.  When you go into a movie theatre, youn don't think
"I wonder what sort of cathartic lesson about real life this movie is
going to teach me," do you?

I don't get one part, here.  Why do people think that depressing story telling is cathartic?  It's the exact opposite.  It usually leaves me moody and in a foul mood which is why I tend to avoid it.  Kind of like really stupid slapstick comedy that's so stupid it's not funny; it leaves me wanting those 2 hours of my life back and angry that I can't get them back.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

This should be shouted from the rooftops on a daily basis.

You two seem to suffer from a severe lack of brain cells, because this has nothing to do with metagaming.

Let's recap:

You want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and save everyone.
We want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and not save everyone.

Notice the underlined.
If the decision to save the party member was inteligent, then my Shep would take it too - hence would get the same ending as you.
If it's not intelligent, then you can't RP your Shepard properly.
Vice-versa applies.

The only way to work would be to give both options equal gravitas - which means both have to have the same emotinal cost/impact. If you save Garrus, you loose something that you love or care for equally.

And that in itself would prevent your sunshine and puppies ending.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:05 .

[jamesp81]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

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.

This should be shouted from the rooftops on a daily basis.

You two seem to suffer from a severe lack of brain cells, because this has nothing to do with metagaming.

Let's recap:

You want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and save everyone.
We want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and not save everyone.

Notice the underlined.
If the decision to save the party member was inteligent, then my Shep would take it too - hence would get the same ending as you.
If it's not intelligent, then you can't RP your Shepard properly.
Vice-versa applies.

The only way to work would be to give both options equal gravitas - which means both have to have the same emotinal cost/impact. If you save Garrus, you loose something that you love or race for equally.

And that in itself would prevent your sunshine and puppies ending.

BW has historically included positive endings in their games.  I suggest you find some other form of entertainment.

You are also missing something.  Saving your crew against all odds can have just as much gravitas as not being able to.  It's all in the presentation.  Mandatory companion death is not equal to gravitas.

And who said my Shepard was caring and intelligent?  Maybe he's angry as hell as the situation, and is determined to not only keep his friends alive, but to exact such a vengeance against his enemies that people will only speak of it in whispered tones for the next thousand years:devil:

Modifié par jamesp81, 14 octobre 2011 - 03:50 .

[Athayniel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You two seem to suffer from a severe lack of brain cells, because this has nothing to do with metagaming.

Let's recap:

You want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and save everyone.
We want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and not save everyone.

Notice the underlined.
If the decision to save the party member was inteligent, then my Shep would take it too - hence would get the same ending as you.
If it's not intelligent, then you can't RP your Shepard properly.
Vice-versa applies.

The only way to work would be to give both options equal gravitas - which means both have to have the same emotinal cost/impact. If you save Garrus, you loose something that you love or race for equally.

And that in itself would prevent your sunshine and puppies ending.

And I have described at least two different scenarios in which what we *both* want can be achieved. I understand your point of view and I have done my best to meet you half way but you still refuse to acknowledge the possibility of our positions not being mutually exclusive. So I'm done with you.

[BlahblahblahCOOKIES]

DreamerOfMakeBelieve wrote...

Honestly, I want it to be dark and emotional, with gut-wrenching decisions and plot twists that'll make your head spin. There should be decisions in the last hour of the game that can change the game completely. Seeing everybody I know and love die will be painful but isn't that what makes us feel connected to the game?

How could you possibly want that when you could have a happily ever after??? Death and destruction doesn't make me feel more connected to the game. It makes me wanna pick up the disk and fling it out the window.

[BatmanPWNS]

Threads like these make me wish the Reapers would just win the war already.

[jamesp81]

BlahblahblahCOOKIES wrote...

DreamerOfMakeBelieve wrote...

Honestly, I want it to be dark and emotional, with gut-wrenching decisions and plot twists that'll make your head spin. There should be decisions in the last hour of the game that can change the game completely. Seeing everybody I know and love die will be painful but isn't that what makes us feel connected to the game?

How could you possibly want that when you could have a happily ever after??? Death and destruction doesn't make me feel more connected to the game. It makes me wanna pick up the disk and fling it out the window.

That.

There's absolutely no logical reason, however, to not include all possible endings from "good guys save the day" to "zomg, everyone died horribly."  Except that some people get upset that those of us that prefer the good ending even have the option to get it.

By the way, there is not going to be a complete 'sunshine and bunnies' ending.  Millions, at a minimum, will be dead no matter what you do.

Modifié par jamesp81, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:03 .

[DreamerOfMakeBelieve]

BlahblahblahCOOKIES wrote...

DreamerOfMakeBelieve wrote...

Honestly, I want it to be dark and emotional, with gut-wrenching decisions and plot twists that'll make your head spin. There should be decisions in the last hour of the game that can change the game completely. Seeing everybody I know and love die will be painful but isn't that what makes us feel connected to the game?

How could you possibly want that when you could have a happily ever after??? Death and destruction doesn't make me feel more connected to the game. It makes me wanna pick up the disk and fling it out the window.

Hey, I'm not asking you to agree with me. That's just my opinion. ME3 is gonna be a lot darker than the last two games, we all know that. Which means there's most likely gonna be a lot of death and destruction. Besides, like I said before, there are multiple different endings, so there could be your happy ending somewhere in the mix.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You two seem to suffer from a severe lack of brain cells, because this has nothing to do with metagaming.

Let's recap:

You want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and save everyone.
We want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and not save everyone.

Notice the underlined.
If the decision to save the party member was inteligent, then my Shep would take it too - hence would get the same ending as you.
If it's not intelligent, then you can't RP your Shepard properly.
Vice-versa applies.

The only way to work would be to give both options equal gravitas - which means both have to have the same emotinal cost/impact. If you save Garrus, you loose something that you love or race for equally.

And that in itself would prevent your sunshine and puppies ending.

BW has historically included positive endings in their games.  I suggest you find some other form of entertainment.

You are also missing something.  Saving your crew against all odds can have just as much gravitas as not being able to.  It's all in the presentation.  Mandatory companion death is not equal to gravitas.

And who said my Shepard was caring and intelligent?  Maybe he's angry as hell as the situation, and is determined to not only keep his friends alive, but to exact such a vengeance against his enemies that people will only speak of it in whispered tones for the next thousand years:devil:

Postive DOES NOT equal sunshien and puppies. Big difference there.

Also, they said ME3 is a dark war story. So why don't you go and find some other form of entertainment?

And no. Saving your crew against all odds cannot have the same gravitas. It's not even the same kind of gravitas.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...
And I have described at least two different scenarios in which what we *both* want can be achieved. I understand your point of view and I have done my best to meet you half way but you still refuse to acknowledge the possibility of our positions not being mutually exclusive. So I'm done with you.

If you have, then I havn't seen them. Where are thos two mythcal scenarios?

And I have done my best to explian to you why our positions are mutually exclusive, but you cannot comprehend it apprenlty. So I'm glad if you're done with me. Spares me the trouble of having to explain simple concepts to you.

[jamesp81]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You two seem to suffer from a severe lack of brain cells, because this has nothing to do with metagaming.

Let's recap:

You want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and save everyone.
We want to play an intelligent, caring Shepard and not save everyone.

Notice the underlined.
If the decision to save the party member was inteligent, then my Shep would take it too - hence would get the same ending as you.
If it's not intelligent, then you can't RP your Shepard properly.
Vice-versa applies.

The only way to work would be to give both options equal gravitas - which means both have to have the same emotinal cost/impact. If you save Garrus, you loose something that you love or race for equally.

And that in itself would prevent your sunshine and puppies ending.

BW has historically included positive endings in their games.  I suggest you find some other form of entertainment.

You are also missing something.  Saving your crew against all odds can have just as much gravitas as not being able to.  It's all in the presentation.  Mandatory companion death is not equal to gravitas.

And who said my Shepard was caring and intelligent?  Maybe he's angry as hell as the situation, and is determined to not only keep his friends alive, but to exact such a vengeance against his enemies that people will only speak of it in whispered tones for the next thousand years:devil:

Postive DOES NOT equal sunshien and puppies. Big difference there.

Also, they said ME3 is a dark war story. So why don't you go and find some other form of entertainment?

And no. Saving your crew against all odds cannot have the same gravitas. It's not even the same kind of gravitas.

Again, they said the same about ME1, ME2, DAO, and DA2.  It's marketing.  There have always been happy endings in BW games, and there's almost no chance that ME3 won't follow the same successful template.

Saving your crew has gravitas if it's written properly.  Whether you believe that or not, it's the truth.

Modifié par jamesp81, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:14 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

WTF? Guys as far as I know we decide what the ending gonna be so I think there is no point of saying the good ending should be that and that and so on, we decide what happens and what happens to characters and those Damn choices camon , BioWare if my Paragon choices backfire then I just gonna shot my self.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Postive DOES NOT equal sunshien and puppies. Big difference there.

Also, they said ME3 is a dark war story. So why don't you go and find some other form of entertainment?

And no. Saving your crew against all odds cannot have the same gravitas. It's not even the same kind of gravitas.

Again, they said the same about ME1, ME2, DAO, and DA2.  It's marketing.  There have always been happy endings in BW games, and there's almost no chance that ME3 won't follow the same successful template.

Saving your crew has gravitas if it's written properly.  Whether you believe that or not, it's the truth.

You define happy as "saving the entire crew". I don't.

Also, no.

[Medhia Nox]

The best part of this fight - is that the Paragons will get their ending no matter how much some people rant like lunatics.