Aller au contenu

Photo

Let me save them.


4309 réponses à ce sujet

#2126
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Not really.  I've just, you know, been lonely and depressed before, and I don't like it when other people are lonely and depressed.  There are times when I wished I had a shoulder try cry on, and I didn't.  So I provide that shoulder so fewer people feel like sh*t.  Because feeling like sh*t sucks.

People who help others just to feel good about themselves are kind of pricks, in my experience.


...but you are doing it to feel good about yourself. It gives you a warm feeling. It allievates the lingering pain from when you needed that support and didn't have it.

Do you seriously want to follow a narrative where the hero is invincible? Where they can't fail? Where they are never seriously challenged?

You see I want enemies who are genuinely threatening. They aren't genuinely threatening if they can't ever harm the hero or the people around him/her. All those minions, all that advanced technology, and the collectors can't ever land a fatal shot on one of Shepard's team?

#2127
Onyx Jaguar

Onyx Jaguar
  • Members
  • 13 003 messages
damnit! JeffZero is a man of my own tastes!

Barber shop in ME 3!

#2128
JeffZero

JeffZero
  • Members
  • 14 400 messages

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

damnit! JeffZero is a man of my own tastes!

Barber shop in ME 3!


I'll send a few tweets out to the higher-ups. I am confident they will recognize the unsung need and implement a barber shop posthaste.

#2129
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Not really.  I've just, you know, been lonely and depressed before, and I don't like it when other people are lonely and depressed.  There are times when I wished I had a shoulder try cry on, and I didn't.  So I provide that shoulder so fewer people feel like sh*t.  Because feeling like sh*t sucks.

People who help others just to feel good about themselves are kind of pricks, in my experience.


...but you are doing it to feel good about yourself. It gives you a warm feeling. It allievates the lingering pain from when you needed that support and didn't have it.

Do you seriously want to follow a narrative where the hero is invincible? Where they can't fail? Where they are never seriously challenged?

You see I want enemies who are genuinely threatening. They aren't genuinely threatening if they can't ever harm the hero or the people around him/her. All those minions, all that advanced technology, and the collectors can't ever land a fatal shot on one of Shepard's team?

The whole point of the game was calling in the best possible team. And I have been seriously challeneged in ME2; that's what the gameplay's for, and many of those enemy gauntlets would be hell to go through. Given that the hero and the people around them are the most competent people in the galaxy for things like this, logically they'd be the least prone to dying at a moment's notice.

I would personally enjoy keeping everyone alive, but the only way I'd actually be enraged is if there are mandatory Shepard or LI deaths, or making them only avoidable with ridiculous sacrifices.

#2130
Kaiser Shepard

Kaiser Shepard
  • Members
  • 7 890 messages

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Why? In the end you will eventually still die, and your companions... Everyone you know and love, everyone you've ever met... Don't you understand? You will all die!

That's the cool thing about fiction: the story ends before the spiral of suckage begins.

No, that's badly written fiction. Good writers are able to depict both periods in a realistic fashion.

#2131
Yvell

Yvell
  • Members
  • 87 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

-snip-


Sorry, I'm not buying it. You're there for them because you need to be. It gives you sense of self-worth. Oh sure, it can be frustrating, but it is a mutually needful relationship. Thus your statement about "when we all stand together". Which Care Bear were you?



Well, as said before, this isn't here to analyze someone's personality.  Let's stick to the topic at hand and discuss the views on whether this is a good idea, bad idea, etc. etc.  Keep it civil! :happy:

#2132
Golden Owl

Golden Owl
  • Members
  • 4 064 messages

onelifecrisis wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Still the question remains to those who want squaddies to die....How is BW to implement this?...Plot Deaths?...Player chooses who to sacrifice at each given moment?...How?


For me personally, it'd be fine if they just make it very, very difficult to get the perfect ending. And by difficult I do NOT mean planet scanning.

Suppose the player has to make four binary choices in the game. These are not paragon/renegade choices, they're just A or B choices. And suppose the player have to get all four of them "right" to get the perfect ending. Then provided the "right" answers are not discernable at the time you make them you have only a 1 in 16 chance of getting the perfect ending on your first playthrough. So chances are, people will die.

An important aspect is that when making the choices, the game needs to make it obvious that you are putting your team in jeapordy by making the choices. Simply having team members die in WTF moments is not what I want.

This would certainly help the game with replay value...an interesting idea...I wonder how something like that could be worked in or implemented...I wouldn't mind pondering your idea myself for awhile.

#2133
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Xilizhra wrote...

The whole point of the game was calling in the best possible team.


The best team possible to complete an impossible mission. Doing everything right should have been just enough to ensure your survival. However it should have still been hell and it should have required that Shepard choose which of these people who he has helped sort out their dilemmas and needs... will die to save the others.

#2134
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The whole point of the game was calling in the best possible team.


The best team possible to complete an impossible mission. Doing everything right should have been just enough to ensure your survival. However it should have still been hell and it should have required that Shepard choose which of these people who he has helped sort out their dilemmas and needs... will die to save the others.

Everyone assumed it was impossible because it was unknown. I actually think it's rather interesting how it did go; after the relay itself, the base's defenses were minimal. It's one of those things showing that the Reapers are extremely complacent, and not very adaptable. I think those psychological weaknesses will be the key to our victory in ME3.

#2135
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Xilizhra wrote...

Everyone assumed it was impossible because it was unknown.


I know, it turns out the suicide mission was hyped up for nothing. What a bummer, eh?

#2136
Sgt Stryker

Sgt Stryker
  • Members
  • 2 590 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Everyone assumed it was impossible because it was unknown.


I know, it turns out the suicide mission was hyped up for nothing. What a bummer, eh?


Bummer for us, not so much for Shepard and company. :lol:

#2137
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Everyone assumed it was impossible because it was unknown.


I know, it turns out the suicide mission was hyped up for nothing. What a bummer, eh?

I think it's for the best. If the Reapers were smarter, it'd be more likely that we'd have to rely on some sort of macguffin to accomplish anything. Using our strengths against their weaknesses will be more satisfying.

#2138
DiebytheSword

DiebytheSword
  • Members
  • 4 109 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

How many than would be enough to make your story realistic and having gravity enough to satiate your need for drama?  And which would you pick to die?


Let's say at least one, if it carries enough weight. I'm talking main characters, as in Shepard's squad and possibly Joker. Shepard's ME3 squad, that is.

Of the survivors of ME2 I don't think it would be fair to kill them. I mean, how many hoops do they need to jump through? Though personally I'd have both Thane and Mordin succumb to their mentality, but give them sort of a Yoda send-off. You know, impart some last minute wisdom/intel that will save lives. Or maybe Miranda, if she dies to save her sister. Life for a life.


Do you feel that death is the only way to achieve drama?  Or is it the way you would like it to transpire.  Trajedy is only one type of drama.  As for the fairness of ME2 characters dying, death is constant, and also never fair.  Death does not play favorites.  I appreciate that you wish for the death to have meaning, and I agree, a pointless death is death for death's sake.  It was one of my largest complaints about the last Matrix movie (of which there were many, mind you).  I felt that Trinity's death served no purpose other than to ensure that Neo would see the final battle alone.  If the choices are not always in our hands, then you can't favor the ME2 characters living over ME1 characters.  I realize that I asked for your choice regardless, but I'm illustrating the point that we all have connections to these characters, and that does not make we that want an option for everyone to live care bears.

AdmiralCheez wrote...


Saphra Deden wrote...

Sorry, I'm not buying it. You're there for them because you need to be. It gives you sense of self-worth. Oh sure, it can be frustrating, but it is a mutually needful relationship. Thus your statement about "when we all stand together". Which Care Bear were you?

Not really.  I've just, you know, been lonely and depressed before, and I don't like it when other people are lonely and depressed.  There are times when I wished I had a shoulder try cry on, and I didn't.  So I provide that shoulder so fewer people feel like sh*t.  Because feeling like sh*t sucks.

People who help others just to feel good about themselves are kind of pricks, in my experience.


I too try to help people as often as I can.  It is my religious outlook, and my self imposed morality that drives me to do so, not some misguided need to help myself.  Some people cannot accept that others do things without strings attached, those people are clearly illustrated in Jack's dialogue in ME2.  Its funny, but I've helped people out of many situations that Cheez is alluding to.

I have broken down, without a ride, thus I stop at disabled vehicles and offer help.
I have had heartbreak, and share my experience with others to help them decide their course of action.
I have had depression, and self loathing, and I am stronger for it than ever before, but I could not see where I am now from where I was then.  Some people need that perspective, and I offer it without condition or judgement.

I can identify strongly then, with Cheez's stance.

I do support everyone getting what they want in their game, however.  And I understand that the suicide mission could have been handled much better in as far as unintended casualties.

...but you are doing it to feel good about yourself. It gives you a warm feeling. It allievates the lingering pain from when you needed that support and didn't have it.


Ah yes, "lingering pain", we have already dismissed such claims.

In all seriousness, I have never done that to heal my own wounds, only out of the ability to see others and place myself in their shoes.  To see things from someone else's perspective and act in the most mutually beneficial way is not only to do something truly good for the world, but to do something that is the very cornerstone of our society.

Modifié par DiebytheSword, 15 octobre 2011 - 12:20 .


#2139
Golden Owl

Golden Owl
  • Members
  • 4 064 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Still the question remains to those who want squaddies to die....How is BW to implement this?...Plot Deaths?...Player chooses who to sacrifice at each given moment?...How?


Plot deaths, but which plots will take place is up to the player's decisions. Like Virmire, in essence. One will die, but it's up to you to choose who.


The only issue I have with plot deaths is who's kneck goes on the chopping block? I have to admit my aversion to it has a lot to do with all the BS on BSN, the constant "Let's strike at the hearts of those who love both Tali and Garrus!...Make them the next Virmire choice!"...But if I can push that aversion aside and just look at what your proposing without my aversion bias....I still wonder how BW could implement a variety of VS like situations...No 1: Without it looking over done (would take some very clever writing)...And No 2: How the choices are made and who?...I guess the 'who' of the latter point, instead of BW trying to cycle through all the squaddies (to keep it in fair spirit as such) the cycling would just centre on the squaddies with the largest roles?...How do you envision such a plot implemented?

#2140
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Xilizhra wrote...

I think it's for the best. If the Reapers were smarter, it'd be more likely that we'd have to rely on some sort of macguffin to accomplish anything. Using our strengths against their weaknesses will be more satisfying.


Uh huh, sure. I hope ME3 isn't as ****** easy as ME2 was.

#2141
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Golden Owl wrote...

The only issue I have with plot deaths is who's kneck goes on the chopping block?


Whomever you don't want to be on the block because then it will carry the most weight. If it carries a lot of weight then it wasn't just death for death's sake. It was to add something to the story.

Characters should die when it increases enjoyment and engagement with the narrative, when the narrative otherwise benefits from it, and when it benefits the character themselves.

#2142
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

...but you are doing it to feel good about yourself. It gives you a warm feeling. It allievates the lingering pain from when you needed that support and didn't have it.

I don't give two sh*ts about how I feel.  I have chocolate, entertainment, and medication for that.  Yeah, seeing someone I care about happy makes me happy as well, but that sort of thing is kind of required for a social species.  You know, like how sex, eating, and sleeping feels good?  The human race would be f*cked without it.

Look.  You are making it sound like people who care more about others than they care about themselves are somehow more selfish.  That is the precise opposite of the definition.  Having some sort of uncontrollable biological motivator does not change that.

Do you seriously want to follow a narrative where the hero is invincible? Where they can't fail? Where they are never seriously challenged?

But failure is possible, the hero is not invincible, and the challenge is astronomical.  This stuff is already present.

You see I want enemies who are genuinely threatening. They aren't genuinely threatening if they can't ever harm the hero or the people around him/her. All those minions, all that advanced technology, and the collectors can't ever land a fatal shot on one of Shepard's team?

Uh... they can.  They did.  Virmire.  The Suicide Mission.  They even killed Shepard.

#2143
Someone With Mass

Someone With Mass
  • Members
  • 38 561 messages

Xilizhra wrote...
I think it's for the best. If the Reapers were smarter, it'd be more likely that we'd have to rely on some sort of macguffin to accomplish anything. Using our strengths against their weaknesses will be more satisfying.


ME1's final battle was pretty much a walk in the park too.

#2144
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Someone With Mass wrote...

ME1's final battle was pretty much a walk in the park too.


Mm, I suppose so. All in all I found it was much more engaging than ME2's. Not that ME2' was bad. It was good, but in retrospect a let down.

ME1's ending was more powerful though. No matter how you slice it, Shepard is going to sacrifice something to achieve victory. He had to do the same on Virmire. Saren's possible redemption is powerful too.

#2145
Someone With Mass

Someone With Mass
  • Members
  • 38 561 messages

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Uh... they can.  They did.  Virmire.  The Suicide Mission.  They even killed Shepard.


And just because Shepard killed one of them, they got pissed off and decided to reduce his homeworld to rubble. Then throw the rubble into a furnace.

#2146
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages

Someone With Mass wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
I think it's for the best. If the Reapers were smarter, it'd be more likely that we'd have to rely on some sort of macguffin to accomplish anything. Using our strengths against their weaknesses will be more satisfying.


ME1's final battle was pretty much a walk in the park too.

That was because ME1 hadn't worked out how biotics should work quite yet and you could just float Sovereign around helplessly.

#2147
FeralEwok

FeralEwok
  • Members
  • 1 031 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

The only issue I have with plot deaths is who's kneck goes on the chopping block?


Whomever you don't want to be on the block because then it will carry the most weight. If it carries a lot of weight then it wasn't just death for death's sake. It was to add something to the story.

Characters should die when it increases enjoyment and engagement with the narrative, when the narrative otherwise benefits from it, and when it benefits the character themselves.




Is that not for death's sake because you like them? If Garrus died because I cared about him and not because of circumstances that put him in the right place and right time to die isn't that just for death's sake. I had thought death's sake was meant to add weight

#2148
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I don't give two sh*ts about how I feel.  I have chocolate, entertainment, and medication for that.


Obviously you do care if you are binging on chocolate, escaping into games/books/whathaveyou, and taking medication.

It's only natural to derrive pleasure from the pleasure of others and the opposite as well. You sound like a very social person, very empathetic.

AmdiralCheez wrote...

Look.  You are making it sound like people who care more about others than they care about themselves are somehow more selfish.


No, no, I never said that. I just said that you were getting something out of it. The point was that you needed to do it. Thus, that you were needy. It shapes the kind of story you want.

Telling that you'd think I was saying that though. Projecting much? You don't need to feel guilty for feeling good when you do good. As you said, it is necessary for human society.



The enemy may have "killed" Shepard but it didn't stick. Thus, the death had no weight. This is a core problem with ME2. It was just a gimmick. It was death for death's sake. It was a cheap thrill and nothing more.

#2149
Guest_Saphra Deden_*

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

FeralEwok wrote...

Is that not for death's sake because you like them? If Garrus died because I cared about him and not because of circumstances that put him in the right place and right time to die isn't that just for death's sake. I had thought death's sake was meant to add weight


Obviously his death should feel like a natural result of the plot. Remember, at the end of the day the plot can be anything. So if you want you can say that any death is just death for death's sake because the plot never HAD to go in that direction.

#2150
DiebytheSword

DiebytheSword
  • Members
  • 4 109 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

ME1's final battle was pretty much a walk in the park too.


Mm, I suppose so. All in all I found it was much more engaging than ME2's. Not that ME2' was bad. It was good, but in retrospect a let down.

ME1's ending was more powerful though. No matter how you slice it, Shepard is going to sacrifice something to achieve victory. He had to do the same on Virmire. Saren's possible redemption is powerful too.


I will agree here, but this is again poignant to the discussion, the character need not be Shepards crew, but must be something important and symbolic in the plot.  Fellow Alliance Marines or the Government of the Galaxy?  Saren's redemption was impressive, not because he died, but because he found the will to turn away from the fatalism that he had adopted through indoctrination, he had summoned the will, and courage, to finally fight back.  Death was only a vehicle of that fight.