4309 réponses à ce sujet

[onelifecrisis]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

A somewhat juvenile analogy of what onelifecrisis might be this:

Many kids have allowances. Many kids also just ask their parents for things, and their parents by them whatever they want. When this happens, the kids don't learn the value of what they have: they often trash their things, and discard them to have mummy and daddy give them something new in a few weeks. Having an allowance, possibly (wouldn't know myself as I never had one) might help this. Parents not giving their kids ANY money for sure helps this: My parents never gave me any money, and very rarely bought me what I "wanted." I had to scrounge for while to get the next computer game or whatever I wanted. Having to work, having to "give" a little (by working) to "get" a little, taught me the value of things.

The same way that having the player "give" a little (by losing squadmates) to "get" a little (win the war) could possibly have more meaning than having an easy ending given to you.

That's what I think he's saying, anyway.

Something like that, sort of.
Actually not really. Mmmm I really suck today lol

IRL you have to make sacrifices to achieve things.

Actually now I don't even know what I was trying to say. I give up. Maybe I'll come back later and try again. It's something to do with the story being an exaggeration of RL challenges and how RL challenges require sacrifices. Or something.

I need caffeine...

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:27 .

[chickenchasa]

That's the thing really, there's already been sacrifices, both in minor NPCs we've never even had the names of, to some generic NPCS, what have you...but that's not my point.

I still believe that to achieve this compromise between both camps, you need past actions to affect the presumed No-Win Scenarios that appear in Mass Effect Three, rather than it being choice to play the game 'badly'. I mean- both sides of Legion's Loyalty Mission had their merits and could be used to affect character deaths if any in the third, and you've completed it regardless of the outcome you reached.

So instead of play 'badly' just make your choices and hope that they go for what you want: Maybe your morally good choice was a tactically bad one during 'so-and-so' Mass Effect Two mission and Tali gets impaled by a giant railroad spike, or Garrus get's turreted in the face? Alright, fine.

Yet when it comes to sacrifice at the end of Mass Effect Three, part of me feels that Shepard will have to (or have the option to) make the Ultimate Sacrifice and inevitably give his/her life (again) for the Alliance and the Citadel, so how's that for a value in your victory? We can't say for sure what happens though because, well, we HAVEN'T finished it yet.

Maybe you can save your whole squad but you die in the process? Maybe your past actions lead to more squad mates dying AND dying yourself? Maybe you all ride off into the sunset over Tuchanka on robot unicorns, alive and well? Maybe in the end you all fail anyways and get turned into gooey paste to make more Reapers to repeat the cycle? Or maybe the Reapers all explode because Conrade Verner slips and falls on the secret kill switch? We don't know.

Just let the past come back and bite you in the butt or save you from destruction rather than have to play incomplete/badly or DEMAND a blood sacrifice, with the option still being there, even if it's yourself and not a squadmate. That's what Mass Effect is all about, isn't it? Choices and Consequences, and Mass Effect Three brings all of that back

Modifié par chickenchasa, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:33 .

[wright1978]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I was just trying to explain why I think some people would prefer to have sacrifice in the game. It gives weight to the achievement and shows that Shepard has been truly tested. I'm not insisting you like it, I'm just offering a way for you to understand it.

I suppose i'll use the dreaded virmire to explain why I like sacrifice. I lost Kaidan there and that was very distressing but that loss made my joy when the rest of the team survived the citadel attack that much sweeter. In ME2 the Suicide Mission felt cheap and tawdry because there was no such danger. That being said the mechanics of Virmire were clunky and not ideal. I just want Bioware to put in a situation where the rational choice is to sacrifice someone even if there is an emotional choice to save them that has consequences.

[jeweledleah]

...........

when I was a kid - I didn't have allowance. I had chores but no allowance. all I had was the lunch money for school lunch that I would end up saving and spending on things i actually wanted (soI stayed a little hungry through the day, it was a worthy tradeof in my eyes, then). when I got older, I had series of jobs, but instead of being able to spend the money I earned, I had to help to the family. I had a summer job as a councilor and every penny I earned went into paying for my sibling being able to be a camper. I went out with other councilors once. I thought I would just hang out and just chat, but it sucked so much. sucked not being able to play pull with them becasue I couldn't afford to pay my share, sucked not being able to get something to eat. instead of being rewarded for my hard work - I felt punished. becasue I STILL didn't have much, but now I also worked for the privilege on not having much. I didn't attempt to go out with them again - what's the point. not like I'd be able to enjoy it anyways.

this is what you all are proposing. you aren't proposing reward for hard work. you are proposing that people make an effort, all the effort they could possibly make and STILL get no reward for it, get punished for it - HAHA, you thought you could actually earn a better ending, well nope - you still don't.

its not us who are spoiled. its you who are apparently so bitter that you must have everyone suffer whether they deserve it or not.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:36 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

A somewhat juvenile analogy of what onelifecrisis might be this:

Many kids have allowances. Many kids also just ask their parents for things, and their parents by them whatever they want. When this happens, the kids don't learn the value of what they have: they often trash their things, and discard them to have mummy and daddy give them something new in a few weeks. Having an allowance, possibly (wouldn't know myself as I never had one) might help this. Parents not giving their kids ANY money for sure helps this: My parents never gave me any money, and very rarely bought me what I "wanted." I had to scrounge for while to get the next computer game or whatever I wanted. Having to work, having to "give" a little (by working) to "get" a little, taught me the value of things.

The same way that having the player "give" a little (by losing squadmates) to "get" a little (win the war) could possibly have more meaning than having an easy ending given to you.

That's what I think he's saying, anyway.

So, you're saying the ones wanting everyone to live were (are?) spoiled brats who always got everything, whereas the more realistic part of the fanbase has learnt the true value of things the hard way? Works for me, as most of these spineless Paragons lack any character anyway.

Now now, I wouldn't go so far as to call them all spoiled brats. I have a couple of cousins, for instance, that though they get pretty much everything they want, they're not "spoiled" really at all.

Or "bey-bey kids" for us black folk, lol. Sorry, I just wanted to put that:wizard:

And don't forget, I'm a Paragon.

Don't worry, it's not too late for you yet.

[jeweledleah]

wright1978 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I was just trying to explain why I think some people would prefer to have sacrifice in the game. It gives weight to the achievement and shows that Shepard has been truly tested. I'm not insisting you like it, I'm just offering a way for you to understand it.

I suppose i'll use the dreaded virmire to explain why I like sacrifice. I lost Kaidan there and that was very distressing but that loss made my joy when the rest of the team survived the citadel attack that much sweeter. In ME2 the Suicide Mission felt cheap and tawdry because there was no such danger. That being said the mechanics of Virmire were clunky and not ideal. I just want Bioware to put in a situation where the rational choice is to sacrifice someone even if there is an emotional choice to save them that has consequences.

I would be happy with that.

[onelifecrisis]

wright1978 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I was just trying to explain why I think some people would prefer to have sacrifice in the game. It gives weight to the achievement and shows that Shepard has been truly tested. I'm not insisting you like it, I'm just offering a way for you to understand it.

I suppose i'll use the dreaded virmire to explain why I like sacrifice. I lost Kaidan there and that was very distressing but that loss made my joy when the rest of the team survived the citadel attack that much sweeter. In ME2 the Suicide Mission felt cheap and tawdry because there was no such danger. That being said the mechanics of Virmire were clunky and not ideal. I just want Bioware to put in a situation where the rational choice is to sacrifice someone even if there is an emotional choice to save them that has consequences.

Right, exactly, the SM felt cheap because it wasn't a real challenge as evidenced by the fact that no sacrifice was necessary.

[onelifecrisis]

jeweledleah wrote...

its not us who are spoiled. its you who are apparently so bitter that you must have everyone suffer whether they deserve it or not.

chill

[jeweledleah]

onelifecrisis wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

its not us who are spoiled. its you who are apparently so bitter that you must have everyone suffer whether they deserve it or not.

chill

likewise

[onelifecrisis]

Something just clarified in my head.

@Cheez

You say you want escapism, therefore no sacrifice.

I say, guaranteed victory through sacrifice is escapism. IRL, making the necessary sacrifices does not guarantee success. Sometimes you end up with nothing to show for them.

[JeffZero]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Something just clarified in my head.

@Cheez

You say you want escapism, therefore no sacrifice.

I say, guaranteed victory through sacrifice is escapism. IRL, making the necessary sacrifices does not guarantee success. Sometimes you end up with nothing to show for them.

Interesting counterpoint.

[onelifecrisis]

jeweledleah wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

its not us who are spoiled. its you who are apparently so bitter that you must have everyone suffer whether they deserve it or not.

chill

likewise

Huh? I wasn't the one calling people bitter and spoiled.

[Athayniel]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Right, exactly, the SM felt cheap because it wasn't a real challenge as evidenced by the fact that no sacrifice was necessary.

Right, because the hundreds of thousands of human colonists who died at the hands of Collectors wasn't a sacrifice.

Modifié par Athayniel, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:42 .

[onelifecrisis]

Athayniel wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Right, exactly, the SM felt cheap because it wasn't a real challenge as evidenced by the fact that no sacrifice was necessary.

Right, because the hundreds of thousands human colonists who died at the hands of Collectors wasn't a sacrifice.

Didn't we just have this conversation?

[chickenchasa]

Why must the sacrifice be just physical?

I mean- When playing as my (mostly) Paragon Shepard, I'd go over the line to drastic measures when I found it necessary, even IF it wasn't exactly something I felt morally right. My examples being impaling the gunship technician to make the battle easier, even though it was rather painful to watch/listen to. Along with this was where I figured letting the factory workers in Zaeed's Loyalty mission was a good idea if it meant stopping someone who would kill more people...and I felt bad hearing the people scream in the background.

I'm sure that not everyone here is Pure Paragon or Pure Renegade, and I'm sure some of you have had a point where you crossed your moral values for the good of others, ergo a Moral Sacrifice, which can still affect you personally without it being the lose of a close friend. Extending this further I still say that your past actions (thus allowing for a completionist to get varying endings) should affect how the No-Win scenarios play out to/against your advantage.

And if it's not in your favor- well if you have to make the decision again like at Vermire, I could understand where the decision would be (without the help of past actions) to let one/some squad members due for the success of the mission, or to sacrifice yourself instead to save them.

Modifié par chickenchasa, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:44 .

[Athayniel]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Didn't we just have this conversation?

Yes, so I wonder why you make the same points again as if we haven't.

[wright1978]

Athayniel wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Didn't we just have this conversation?

Yes, so I wonder why you make the same points again as if we haven't.

This thread is on a perpetual loop.

[AdmiralCheez]

onelifecrisis wrote...

You say you want escapism, therefore no sacrifice.

Not sacrifice-free.  Having friends be there with you as the galaxy crumbles and being able to stick together til the end is a nice angle to roleplay, is all.  When everything else is gone, when things seem hopeless, the people you care about are there with you so you don't bear the weight of the world alone.  It's still a sad story, a struggle, but in they end, the good guys pull through because they're not alone.  That's my favorite kind of story.

This post brought to you by FRIENDSHIP.

I say, guaranteed victory through sacrifice is escapism. IRL, making the necessary sacrifices does not guarantee success. Sometimes you end up with nothing to show for them.

You know what?

This whole "necessary sacrifce" thing is all Jesus's fault.  Stupid cultural subconscious.

[nitefyre410]

"Animal Man: What happens when the continuity changes? What happens to all of those lives? Who's responsible? They twist and they torture us. They kill us in our billions. For what? For entertainment."

[onelifecrisis]

Athayniel wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Didn't we just have this conversation?

Yes, so I wonder why you make the same points again as if we haven't.

You're missing my point, which I admit may be my fault for not being able to explain it well but I tried. Your point is not a counter to my point, and restating it won't change that.

[onelifecrisis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

You say you want escapism, therefore no sacrifice.

Not sacrifice-free.  Having friends be there with you as the galaxy crumbles and being able to stick together til the end is a nice angle to roleplay, is all.  When everything else is gone, when things seem hopeless, the people you care about are there with you so you don't bear the weight of the world alone.  It's still a sad story, a struggle, but in they end, the good guys pull through because they're not alone.  That's my favorite kind of story.

This post brought to you by FRIENDSHIP.

I say, guaranteed victory through sacrifice is escapism. IRL, making the necessary sacrifices does not guarantee success. Sometimes you end up with nothing to show for them.

You know what?

This whole "necessary sacrifce" thing is all Jesus's fault.  Stupid cultural subconscious.

Oh come on I made a good point. Jeff said so.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:54 .

[Mclouvins]

Not to troll, but this thread has become pointless after 80ish pages. It's an immovable force meets an unstoppable object scenario that isn't going anywhere.