4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Athayniel]

Medhia Nox wrote...

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

It's not even a paragon/renegade issue.

[Athayniel]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I think the problem here is that most of the people who want mandatory deaths would be okay with it being possible to save them, if it wasn't a simple "play the game" choice like ME2 (like I've said about a dozen times). ME2 ruined any trust in BW on doing non-forced deaths that were legitimate. Thus, for the sake of truth (as opposed to realism, which is thrown around a lot) we want people to have to die, because we feel BW cannot adaquately do a non-forced death system.


And people are being awfully bull-headed here.

This doesn't seem to be the case. Many have said the mere existence of an 'Earn your happy ending' scenario would lessen their enjoyment.

[jamesp81]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

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

Stop generalizing man; I'm a Paragon and I want deaths.



I think the problem here is that most of the people who want mandatory deaths would be okay with it being possible to save them, if it wasn't a simple "play the game" choice like ME2 (like I've said about a dozen times). ME2 ruined any trust in BW on doing non-forced deaths that were legitimate. Thus, for the sake of truth (as opposed to realism, which is thrown around a lot) we want people to have to die, because we feel BW cannot adaquately do a non-forced death system.


And people are being awfully bull-headed here.

Bull-headed?  I've barely even gotten warmed up

[JeffZero]

Medhia Nox wrote...

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

I hope you're right. As a Paragon I want a few more squadmate deaths. Once again, however, I reiterate that I want everyone to get as close to the story they desire as possible, here.

[jamesp81]

JeffZero wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

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

I hope you're right. As a Paragon I want a few more squadmate deaths. Once again, however, I reiterate that I want everyone to get as close to the story they desire as possible, here.

That appears to be impossible.  A happy ending for those of us that prefer it apparently ruins the entire space-time continuum for some others.  I don't see any way to reconcile this.

Modifié par jamesp81, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:46 .

[jeweledleah]

@ Biotic Sage - this was few pages back, but I have to adress this. you are dismissing my offers of HOW the meaningful choice of saving the squadmate without it being IWIN button can be done and then keep calling me illogical and putting words in my mouth by claiming that what I want is a SM scenario where saving squadmate = doing everything.

but that's NOT what I'm saying. I keep bringing up examples from bioware games, examples that include missions from both ME1 and ME2, where bioware did exactly that - gave us a choice that is not a clearcut ultimate solution, but where depending on your personal priorities, you could in fact save someone at the cost ofcreating a more dangerous situation for the future. those choices do NOT contradict your desire for ultimate ending that involves squadmate deaths and my ultimate ending that doesn't. but you are completely dismissing it. one would think that with your writing degree and all - you'd me more open, more flexibility to the VARIEtY of the plot devises instead of stubbornly sticking to "squadmates must die or its not serious enough"

Modifié par jeweledleah, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:00 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Dean_The_Young: "When the death of a character is optional-failure like in the suicide mission, it really has less weight than an absolute-scripted death."

I'm the opposite here - if something "must" happen, then I am resolved to accept it.

Virmire I said: We'll, one of you have got to go - and since in my mind Kaidan and the bomb are more important than Ashley on a tower - I save Kaidan.

Arrival was a total waste on me. It was as deep as reading the prologue of a novel: "The world has burned - evil has won." OKay, big deal - now where are we going from here?

Oops: that was a typo. I did mean the opposite.

(Is embarrassed.)

What I said is quite acceptable for many people. That individual piece does not quite reflect my view... with a caveat.

My personal weighting of effect is that influencable mandatory deaths > mandatory deaths > 'fail' optional deaths.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...

I didn't feel guilty about Virmire, either.  In fact, I rolled my eyes at the plot being stupid.  It was jumping up and down all like HEY LOOK AT ME I'M DRAMATIC.  So I let it kill people so it would shut up and leave me alone.  Leaving Ash/Kaidan stung a little (mostly because of the damn music), but it was more forced and tedious than anything else.[/quote]Setup is important, I'll agree.

(And I suppose I should distinguish types of guilt. Survivor's guilt differs from 'got, I suck at playing' guilt.)

[quote]
You know what got me, though?  The conversation with Ashley afterwards.  When she says she should have been the one to die, when she talks about how useless she feels against the Reapers, when she expresses her guilt, then I feel it.[/quote]Shouldn't that be considered part of the event, though? I certainly consider it part of the Virmire delimma: not simply the immediate choice and three-minutes before, but also the handling after.
[quote]
That cinematic/Udina's speech pretty much foreshadowed the hell out of how things would suck more if you let them die.  And I really don't know how you can watch this cinematic and not feel like an ass.

"Commander...  They've closed the channel..."

Me: FFFFUUUUU---

Should have been more 50/50, I agree.  There shouldn't have been a "better" solution.[/quote]I wouldn't even mind if there was... if the 'worse' had something meaningful to show for it (or rather, if it bothered to emphasize what it did). I don't demand 50/50: 70/30 can be well done.

If the Alliance was the one government to believe in the Reapers in ME2 regardless of choice, that alone would have re-defined the Council aftermath and ME2 setting (and not so poorly handled Udina). In a Paragon setting, we get what we have in canon with Anderson: one minority voice failing to convince the others. The weakeness to the Collectors is actual weakness (seen below).

In a Renegade Council, we get a setting in which the Council is actually trying to address the threat... but no one believes because Humans launched a coup. Other species think that, because the Humans are using the Reapers to justify their grip on power, that the Reapers are just human propoganda. We can still get division, and a net-zero gain in mobilization if you insist, but just the emphasis of an actual attempt would be at morale-victory. And if the advantage of the Renegade Council was that it did produce more war assets by pushing the galaxy to mobilize...

The Destiny Ascension being the 'most lives saved' really weakened the delimma, besides the absurdity of even one big ship having that many. Trading an entire Human fleet should have outweighed the immediate costs of the DA: maybe not the rest of the Council forces, but the DA. And Human forces should have been much heavier, to emphasize both that nigh-impotence against the Collectors isn't simply a matter of six cruisers, and to justify the 'weakened Alliance' argument.

[quote]

I dunno, Wrex's death was handled really well, and that one was optional...[/quote]Wrex's death was handled well, I agree, but a part of it was because it wasn't totally optional. If you don't have the exceptional extent of persuasion or find that well-buried loyalty quest (did you know you actually have to talk to him multiple times to get it?), he would die regardless of what else you did. The armor sidequest involves actually having to go out of your way.

Loyalty missions in ME2, however, were the bread and butter of the game. There was more emphasis on loyalty than the actual collector plot. Not doing Wrex's sidequest was missing out on a minor sidequest with unexpected consequences: loyalty missions were a major part of the game (and where most the Big Choices were).

Wrex's death is handled well in part because it was not handled like the Suicide Mission. 



[quote]
I think the SM's deaths were made to suck on purpose.  They wanted you to get everyone out alive, I think.  Even offered a big, shiny achievement.
[/quote]Which was part of the weakness. Hyping up a huge challenge throughout the game, and even before it comes out, and then making it such a soft pitch, is an utter anti-climax and undermines any grief and tragedy from deaths. Failing a perfect low-ball isn't tragic, it's pathetic: you can justify it well in-universe (like Captain Z did), but for the player it's trash.

[quote]
Poorly written reconciliation is better than poorly written plot death.
[/quote]But a decently written death is far easier than a decent reconciliation.
[quote]

[quote]I prefer my space operas like I prefer my Gundam anime: with lots of angst and a bloody victory in which only a few survive.

I might not be the best opinion.[/quote]
Argh, Gundam.  What a bunch of emo, melodramatic BS.  Needs more robot fights and less filler with whiny pretty-boys in-between.

FullMetal Alchemist?  That's some good anime right there.  Not Brotherhood, though (it's just not the same!).[/quote]Ah, you saw Seed and Destiny? A shme.

The good Gundam are about the Gundam protagonists getting over being emo, melodramatic little ****s. Often through people who died.





[quote]I support the Conrad Verner interrupt.

If the player presses the interrupt, Conrad Verner comes out, kicks ass, and makes explosions... and Shepard breaks the fourth wall to look at the camera and go 'wtf'?[/quote]
Press X to Conrad.  Yes.

[/quote]
You made that entirely dirty.

[SlottsMachine]

A question for those that what deaths to be mandatory. Do you guys consider the Wrex situation from ME1 to be a fail option death or to be a role playing tough choices death?

[Dean_the_Young]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Let me ask Biotic Sage, Saphra Deden, and Marshalleck - and your thought about Shepard letting himself die? I suppose you're against it? Is that not a double standard?

Would you be for it if you could - somehow - continue the game with just the rest of the crew (not viable with the way this game is designed).

I wasn't thrown in that name list, but:

Any leader should be as willing to risk and spend themself as they are any of their soldiers. Being willing to do whatever you order your soldiers to do.

But at the same time, you do have to balance your own value as well. You are only as expendible as your are replaceable.

In so much that Shepard is irreplaceable as a leader and prime opponent to the Reapers, Shep isn't ependable and shouldn't sacrifice him or herself. That isn't a doublestandard by default: if someone else were just as critical, Shepard shouldn't be willing to sacrifice them either.

[Wulfram]

I don't think Shepard is valuable unless they sees themselves as expendable. I mean, basically everything they do is ludicrously dangerous.

Modifié par Wulfram, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:30 .

[Dean_the_Young]

GeneralSlotts193 wrote...

A question for those that what deaths to be mandatory. Do you guys consider the Wrex situation from ME1 to be a fail option death or to be a role playing tough choices death?

A 'fail', but better by magnitudes than the Suicide Mission. There was never an implicit standard of 'success is getting everyone out alive', nor was there a huge emphasis of 'people need to be emotionally catered to to stay alive, you didn't emotionally cater to them.'

Wrex is about as good as you can manage a 'failure' death since the means to save him are very specific, very reasonable, and not necessarily simple. Nor is his survival an implicit goal in the game or narrative.

It still sitcks with the problem that letting him die is absolutely a 'bad' route, since not only do you lose him, the Krogan are absolutely doomed to being barbarians and the 'bad' outcome for them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think Shepard is valuable unless they sees themselves as expendable. I mean, basically everything they do is ludicrously dangerous.

There are things of value you can be preprared to risk and lose, but would not simply lose.

[CamlTowPetttingZoo]

I remember that renegade quote to the reporter in ME2, "saving everyone only happens in vids, people will die." I want to save everyone that I can and if I have the opportunity let me save them, seeing as how this is a galactic war I don't see everyone coming out alive, especially garrus and at least 1 of the possible LI, but I'll do everything in my power to save them if I see them in harms way.

[nitefyre410]

Really all this back and forth( as entertaining as it may be) won't matter in the end because bioware is not going pull a Demon in the machine and start handing people not just the Idiot Ball but the complete ****** ball. For that matter Bioware is not going to go against their main game design for Oh I don't decade plus now railroading everyone into a Downer or a Kill'em All ending. What WE ARE GOING TO GET is a Ending A, Ending B , Ending C, Ending D dictated by the choose that the player(that would us) each ending having( I know a shock) different meaning. That is it... bottom line.


Also so trying to make Bad ass Space Marine more than bad ass space marine... it tends to make the story much worse rather than better.

[Dean_the_Young]

laecraft wrote...

I'll give you that, SM was completely backwards. You can't fail it. The only way to fail it was to lose people. So it became not about defeating the Collectors, but about saving the squad. And it makes no sense whatsoever, because the easiest way to save them would've been not to take them to SM in the first place. I don't want such a situation to ever happen again. I want to strive for the same things Shepard strives for - saving the galaxy, not the squad. Of course, you already know that you can win the war, and Shepard doesn't know that. We need to be in the same boat. Winning the war should be hard, not a given.

SM gave a wrong impression to a lot of people. Because player and Shepard were striving for different things, many people decided that ME2 was about creating a great team and keeping them alive to fight the Reapers in ME3 - and not about fighting the Collectors in ME2, which was the goal was. Shepard babysits the crew throughout the game, giving people the wrong impression that they're now some kind of one big family, and Shepard is in charge of keeping them alive. And of course, Paragon Shepard completes this confusion by saying "let's bring our people home," as if it's the real goal for going after Collectors, and not the human colonies and the galaxy itself.

Paragon Shepard clings to her crew too much. It's unhealthy for the war. They should be placed under someone else's command. They shouldn't be staying on her ship. The attachment should be to the Earth, not to the crew. To entire species. Otherwise, Shepard will start sacrificing worlds to save teammates. And who could blame her, since the emotional attachement was built to them, and not to entire nations? Her teammates should be taken away and placed on their worlds, and they should stay there (which the expection of maybe one teammate you get to pick personally).

And if you really wanna save them, you gotta save those homeworlds.

It'll help you stay focused on the mission.

lasdkimkg;kalkdmaflk;ajtlk;

That was me trying to coherently praise you for just how awesome that post was.


Let's establish a connection to groups, and not just individuals. How amazing would that be to see?

[SlottsMachine]

That's what I've noticed in my admittedly limited experience with rpg's. That a game either establishes an attachment to various factions while the characters are treated as filler, or as is the case with Bioware games the characters are the story and the factions are the filler. It sure would be nice if they could give us the best of both.

[Dean_the_Young]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I do think that ME1 was a better story for Virmire. Somebody - I think it was Dean - once suggested a neat method to ensure that at least one character died on the Suicide Mission (you can choose to send somebody on a sniping mission. If you do, he dies. If you don't, somebody holding the line dies.)

I think that might have been a good theme for BioWare to adopt for the series: it's a war, somebody is definitely going to die. You can influence casualties, but you can't eliminate them.

I've tied with that idea a lot. One of the important parts of player-effected deaths is determining an approriate cause-and-effect between the choice that will get someone killed, and the death. The suicide mission largely failed at this because, well, the difference between a loyal and non-loyal tech first team leader was that in one universe a Collector had a rocket launcher. Why the tech specialist should die for a bad first team leader never quite connected.


The idea of an assassin specialist is an opportunity to kill the Collector General and thus block Harbinger. Useful, right?

It would be a certain-death assignment, but optional, and the player might think 'Harbinger isn't too much of a challenge: I won't kill my person.'

Then at the end of the Human Reaper fight, when Shepard is trying to grab the hand of that teammate to save them... Harbinger would come and snatch them away from Shepard, killing them.

What we have is death that is player-influenced (does our assassin or our Shepard-picked teammate die), connected (not killing the Collector general is an obvious lead-in to Harbinger still being around and dangerous), but also appropriate within the context of the story (Harbinger is supposed to be dangerous, and killing a teammate is not unreasonable).

[JeffZero]

jamesp81 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

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

I hope you're right. As a Paragon I want a few more squadmate deaths. Once again, however, I reiterate that I want everyone to get as close to the story they desire as possible, here.

That appears to be impossible.  A happy ending for those of us that prefer it apparently ruins the entire space-time continuum for some others.  I don't see any way to reconcile this.

Heh. 

[Dean_the_Young]

And let me say, having people talk about a post of mine (and even defending it) nearly a dozen pages later is quite flattering.

[JeffZero]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I do think that ME1 was a better story for Virmire. Somebody - I think it was Dean - once suggested a neat method to ensure that at least one character died on the Suicide Mission (you can choose to send somebody on a sniping mission. If you do, he dies. If you don't, somebody holding the line dies.)

I think that might have been a good theme for BioWare to adopt for the series: it's a war, somebody is definitely going to die. You can influence casualties, but you can't eliminate them.

I've tied with that idea a lot. One of the important parts of player-effected deaths is determining an approriate cause-and-effect between the choice that will get someone killed, and the death. The suicide mission largely failed at this because, well, the difference between a loyal and non-loyal tech first team leader was that in one universe a Collector had a rocket launcher. Why the tech specialist should die for a bad first team leader never quite connected.


The idea of an assassin specialist is an opportunity to kill the Collector General and thus block Harbinger. Useful, right?

It would be a certain-death assignment, but optional, and the player might think 'Harbinger isn't too much of a challenge: I won't kill my person.'

Then at the end of the Human Reaper fight, when Shepard is trying to grab the hand of that teammate to save them... Harbinger would come and snatch them away from Shepard, killing them.

What we have is death that is player-influenced (does our assassin or our Shepard-picked teammate die), connected (not killing the Collector general is an obvious lead-in to Harbinger still being around and dangerous), but also appropriate within the context of the story (Harbinger is supposed to be dangerous, and killing a teammate is not unreasonable).

I like it.

[JeffZero]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And let me say, having people talk about a post of mine (and even defending it) nearly a dozen pages later is quite flattering.

For providing me with another fairly reasonable avenue for my discussed-to-death motivation for getting a couple of squadmates offed in the Suicide Mission pretty routinely, you totally deserve the praise.

[Dean_the_Young]

The thing about Wrex is that you have to avoid the left-side of the dialogue wheel, where the 'persuade Wrex' options are.

If you stick to the right-hand side, he dies. If you go left, he lives. It's not actually Paragon/Renegade, though many people think it is.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 14 octobre 2011 - 06:38 .