4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Hathur]

Soul Cool wrote...

Hathur wrote...

God-Emperor have mercy, Hathur is responding to me! 

I am made unclean.

/hates internetz. Never knows when people serious or kidding 

[Kaiser Shepard]

Ah, Hathur is back and the awkwardness continues. Coincidence? I think not. 

[Soul Cool]

Hathur wrote...
/hates internetz. Never knows when people serious or kidding 

Disregard what EternalAmbiguity is saying. I am not sane. That is why I post on BSN.

But.

I am joking.

[sedrikhcain]

It's hilarious to see people's desires shift from the real world to video games. Imagine a real-life military commander saying, "I want my crew members to die -- at least some of them. This is supposed to be a war d*mmit, if all my friends in my unit, people I love like closest family, make it out alive, it just kills my buzz." That commander would be stripped of duty immediately. Yet here people are actually UPSET over it -- to their point where they're proclaming that the game will be a farce if it's even possible to save all their friends.

We humans are a strange species.

[Golden Owl]

Hathur wrote...

Soul Cool wrote...

Hathur wrote...

God-Emperor have mercy, Hathur is responding to me! 

I am made unclean.

/hates internetz. Never knows when people serious or kidding 

(((((PARAGON ]HUGZ))))For Hathur....We all love you....

Modifié par Golden Owl, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:13 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

Hathur wrote...


/hates internetz. Never knows when people serious or kidding 

Eh, don't worry - You're a swell forumite. :happy:

[onelifecrisis]

sedrikhcain wrote...

It's hilarious to see people's desires shift from the real world to video games. Imagine a real-life military commander saying, "I want my crew members to die -- at least some of them. This is supposed to be a war d*mmit, if all my friends in my unit, people I love like closest family, make it out alive, it just kills my buzz." That commander would be stripped of duty immediately. Yet here people are actually UPSET over it -- to their point where they're proclaming that the game will be a farce if it's even possible to save all their friends.

We humans are a strange species.

That wins my Bizarre Post Of The Day Award. Which I just made up.

Do you think games should be like RL? Or people should treat them like RL? Or... what?

[Il Divo]

AdmiralCheez wrote...


Because it's no fun.  There needs to be hope, otherwise there's no reason to go forward.  There needs to be something there in the end that makes moving on and trying to recover worth it.  There needs to be a reason for me to come back and play again.

But why are you assuming that character death or tragedy is mutually exclusive with hope? That is not the case, as LotR demonstrates. A "happy/meaningful ending" can still result with a minimum of character deaths, but that is still very different from saying that Bioware should not be allowed to mandatory kill squad mates because person X is attached; that's precisely why death is meaningful, since I have no control over it. Even an interactive story cannot cater to all the emotional desires that a player wishes to impart.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:26 .

[Golden Owl]

onelifecrisis wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

It's hilarious to see people's desires shift from the real world to video games. Imagine a real-life military commander saying, "I want my crew members to die -- at least some of them. This is supposed to be a war d*mmit, if all my friends in my unit, people I love like closest family, make it out alive, it just kills my buzz." That commander would be stripped of duty immediately. Yet here people are actually UPSET over it -- to their point where they're proclaming that the game will be a farce if it's even possible to save all their friends.

We humans are a strange species.

That wins my Bizarre Post Of The Day Award. Which I just made up.

Do you think games should be like RL? Or people should treat them like RL? Or... what?

We all know 'Rainbows and Unicorns' are a rare event in real life....and Paragons often bite the dust with their generous naivity....I would like the game myself to have the Paragon not eat continuous dirt in ME....as for the losses, I am kinda torn....I don't want Squaddie A,B or C to be plot deathed either because their so popular or unpopular as the case maybe...I don't mind a couple of deaths really, but just can't see how BW can implement them...There is the possibiltiy of giving us a ranged enough choice where we can ultimately choose who dies and who lives, but the issue with that itself is also apparent....I really am quite torn over the whole thing.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:28 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...


But why are you assuming that character death or tragedy is mutually exclusive with hope? That is not the case, as LotR demonstrates. A "happy/meaningful ending" can still result with a minimum of character deaths, but that is still very different from saying that Bioware should not be allowed to mandatory kill squad mates because person X is attached; that's precisely why death is meaningful, since I have no control over it. Even an interactive story cannot cater to all the emotional desires that a player wishes to impart.

To repeat what has been said before. Don't make it a mandatory kill like "Garrus dies defending spaceport x in every playthrough". Make it an expy of Virmire or the suicide mission where the guy you send won't come back. People can complain that people will just send the guy/gal they're not emotionally attached to, but that argument can be used in reverse. Everyone's not attached to Garrus, so for some people Garrus dying will result in an overall "meh.". If they have control over who dies, it might be a more significant choice. 

Let's say that Virmire Survivor depended on your gender. Kaidan survived if you played femshep, and Ashley if you played dudeshep. Where's the significance in that? Choosing who survived and who died made Virmire great.

DISCLAIMER: This is an opinion and should be treated as such. I do not expect you to agree with me, but I offer a different point of view. 

Modifié par Mi-Chan, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:36 .

[Hathur]

Soul Cool wrote...

Hathur wrote...
/hates internetz. Never knows when people serious or kidding 

Disregard what EternalAmbiguity is saying. I am not sane. That is why I post on BSN.

But.

I am joking.

(sorry, bad at reading people's intent in text form... get confused easily).

[Il Divo]

Mi-Chan wrote...


To repeat what has been said before. Don't make it a mandatory kill like "Garrus dies defending spaceport x in every playthrough". Make it an expy of Virmire or the suicide mission where the guy you send won't come back. People can complain that people will just send the guy/gal they're not emotionally attached to, but that argument can be used in reverse. Everyone's not attached to Garrus, so for some people Garrus dying will result in an overall "meh.". If they have control over who dies, it might be a more significant choice. 

Let's say that Virmire Survivor depended on your gender. Kaidan survived if you played femshep, and Ashley if you played dudeshep. Where's the significance in that? The choice of choosing who survived and who died made Virmire great.

Great point, and I probably should have elaborated further. A mandatory character death wouldn't even constitute a "hard choice", since I had no role in the outcome. However, what you propose, is much better. It becomes an issue of consequences, since there does not seem to be an ideal scenario.

Really, we can think of this almost as a thought experiment, where each outcome has some cost associated with it, but the decision still has the potential to tell us about the player/character.

DISCLAIMER: This is an opinion and should be treated as such. I do not expect you to agree with me, but I offer a different point of view. 

Haha, you don't really think I'm going to curse you out over this? Not when you phrase your post so eloquently.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...

Haha, you don't really think I'm going to curse you out over this? Not when you phrase your post so eloquently.

 This is BSN, you never know when you accidentally fuel the flames. 

[Pockles]

sedrikhcain wrote...

It's hilarious to see people's desires shift from the real world to video games. Imagine a real-life military commander saying, "I want my crew members to die -- at least some of them. This is supposed to be a war d*mmit, if all my friends in my unit, people I love like closest family, make it out alive, it just kills my buzz." That commander would be stripped of duty immediately. Yet here people are actually UPSET over it -- to their point where they're proclaming that the game will be a farce if it's even possible to save all their friends.

We humans are a strange species.

I laughed.

[onelifecrisis]

Golden Owl wrote...

We all know 'Rainbows and Unicorns' are a rare event in real life....and Paragons often bite the dust with their generous naivity....I would like the game myself to have the Paragon not eat continuous dirt in ME....as for the losses, I am kinda torn....I don't want Squaddie A,B or C to be plot deathed either because their so popular or unpopular as the case maybe...I don't mind a couple of deaths really, but just can't see how BW can implement them...There is the possibiltiy of giving us a ranged enough choice where we can ultimately choose who dies and who lives, but the issue with that itself is also apparent....I really am quite torn over the whole thing.

Clue me in on the bold bit?

[Golden Owl]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

We all know 'Rainbows and Unicorns' are a rare event in real life....and Paragons often bite the dust with their generous naivity....I would like the game myself to have the Paragon not eat continuous dirt in ME....as for the losses, I am kinda torn....I don't want Squaddie A,B or C to be plot deathed either because their so popular or unpopular as the case maybe...I don't mind a couple of deaths really, but just can't see how BW can implement them...There is the possibiltiy of giving us a ranged enough choice where we can ultimately choose who dies and who lives, but the issue with that itself is also apparent....I really am quite torn over the whole thing.

Clue me in on the bold bit?

Then people would endlessly complain about how we just get to 'off' the characters we don't like, removing the horror and loss element.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:55 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

sedrikhcain wrote...

It's hilarious to see people's desires shift from the real world to video games. Imagine a real-life military commander saying, "I want my crew members to die -- at least some of them. This is supposed to be a war d*mmit, if all my friends in my unit, people I love like closest family, make it out alive, it just kills my buzz." That commander would be stripped of duty immediately. Yet here people are actually UPSET over it -- to their point where they're proclaming that the game will be a farce if it's even possible to save all their friends.

We humans are a strange species.

Eh. To be fair, the death of a squadmate/significant character will have impact and emotional depth which is often lacking in videogames. My issue lies in mandatory deaths. I have faith that Bioware can add emotional depth without killing anyone off. Like the kid in the ME3 footage we've seen, or the Quarian mom that Cheez mentioned.

Killing a squadmate for the sake of drama is as valid as no squadmate being capable of dying. We need to find a middleground. 

[onelifecrisis]

Golden Owl wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

We all know 'Rainbows and Unicorns' are a rare event in real life....and Paragons often bite the dust with their generous naivity....I would like the game myself to have the Paragon not eat continuous dirt in ME....as for the losses, I am kinda torn....I don't want Squaddie A,B or C to be plot deathed either because their so popular or unpopular as the case maybe...I don't mind a couple of deaths really, but just can't see how BW can implement them...There is the possibiltiy of giving us a ranged enough choice where we can ultimately choose who dies and who lives, but the issue with that itself is also apparent....I really am quite torn over the whole thing.

Clue me in on the bold bit?

Then people would endlessly complain about how we just get to 'off' the characters we don't like, removing the horror and loss element.

Gotcha.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Golden Owl wrote...
We all know 'Rainbows and Unicorns' are a rare event in real life....and Paragons often bite the dust with their generous naivity....I would like the game myself to have the Paragon not eat continuous dirt in ME....as for the losses, I am kinda torn....I don't want Squaddie A,B or C to be plot deathed either because their so popular or unpopular as the case maybe...I don't mind a couple of deaths really, but just can't see how BW can implement them...There is the possibiltiy of giving us a ranged enough choice where we can ultimately choose who dies and who lives, but the issue with that itself is also apparent....I really am quite torn over the whole thing.

Some people find Virmire to be an easy decision because they didn't like Kaidan or Ashley, and while that is a problem choice will always be a preferable alternative to mandatory deaths.

[Il Divo]

Mi-Chan wrote...


Killing a squadmate for the sake of drama is as valid as no squadmate being capable of dying. We need to find a middleground. 

As a general rule, my problem with the "no mandatory deaths" is that if I accept that, there is a less dramatic experience in knowing that character X is untouchable for the game. I personally would not say that in order for war to feel "heavy" close friends must die; there are other means of feeling the weight, such as psychological strain, doubt, etc. There shouldn't be any rules which say "this must or must not happen". By necessity, that would remove the impact since people are able to see it coming. Part of the appeal in A Song of Ice and Fire, for example, is that there is no certainty in knowing who may or may not die, which has a greater effect on the reader.

[Il Divo]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Some people find Virmire to be an easy decision because they didn't like Kaidan or Ashley, and while that is a problem choice will always be a preferable alternative to mandatory deaths.

Sorry to keep responding to you personally, but you keep bringing up some interesting points.

The Kaidan/Ashley Virmire decision was a great example of what you mean here; by orchestrating the scenario as character vs. character, it requires that you enjoy both Kaidan/Ashley for the decision to have impact. In this case, while I did not hate either character, they were not the best example of Bioware characters whom I would have trouble choosing between. A much more interesting scenario would be make the decision: character vs. mission. I can either save Kaidan/Ashley and the bomb is lost, or sacrifice them for the mission. But that's just me.