4309 réponses à ce sujet

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...


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.

Still, Character versus Character is still preferable to choosing one to die. At least in the character versus character choice you can save your favorite, and feel good about the decision. Sure, the other might die - but that can be justified easily by saying "it was for the mission" ESPECIALLY if you don't like the character. A win either way. Unless you dislike both 
And the character vs. mission is an interesting proposal. By not destroying the cloning facility you would fight more krogan during the game. The problem with this is that XP might come back for individual kills, and that will encourage metagaming and fewer dead squadmates. 

[Ultai]

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. 

Multiple choices to a scenario.  Make sure no choice is colored blue or red, aka the get out of jail free cards.  For some choices regarding paragon and renegade that irks me, is that the outcome is the same no matter which you choose, it's just how Shep speaks is different.

Choices in scenarios would have to be carefully worded and presented to show there is no right or wrong choice, but each one will lead to different outcomes.  And again, no Talk jutsu I WIN route to choose.  I'm showing my disdain for the binary morality system there.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...




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.

Death is a great way to add depth. Thane is on the verge of death, and he's trying to atone for his sins and help his son steering clear of the path that was forced upon him. A path filled to the brim with death. Some heavy stuff right there. The problem with heavy stuff is that it can get too heavy. To quote Cheez (again ), I don't like playing a story that makes my mood turn for the worse after a session. There's dark moments and then there's unnecessarily dark.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Ultai wrote...


Multiple choices to a scenario.  Make sure no choice is colored blue or red, aka the get out of jail free cards.  For some choices regarding paragon and renegade that irks me, is that the outcome is the same no matter which you choose, it's just how Shep speaks is different.

Choices in scenarios would have to be carefully worded and presented to show there is no right or wrong choice, but each one will lead to different outcomes.  And again, no Talk jutsu I WIN route to choose.  I'm showing my disdain for the binary morality system there.

To be fair sometimes you have other options that lead to the same result. Like the wounded merc on Korlus calling his squadmates. If you don't paragon or renegade him You can always just shoot him. The end result is the same. 

But I do agree that sacrificing shouldn't be neutered by Paragon/Renegade

[Iakus]

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

My idea of a middle ground would be to have Shep in situations where saving a squadmate (or someone else important to him/her) would provide a disadvantage in some other way.  Perhaps saving someone in ME3 requires Shepard to use up resources that would otherwise go to the war effort.  Or the person saved somehow goes on to cause complications later in the game, making an "optimal ending"  harder

Instead of forcing a death,. however emotional it might be, the game can force the player to ask "What are you willing to sacrifice to save them?"  That could be pretty emotional as well, balancing the head and the heart.

[CoffeeHolic93]

iakus wrote...


My idea of a middle ground would be to have Shep in situations where saving a squadmate (or someone else important to him/her) would provide a disadvantage in some other way.  Perhaps saving someone in ME3 requires Shepard to use up resources that would otherwise go to the war effort.  Or the person saved somehow goes on to cause complications later in the game, making an "optimal ending"  harder

Instead of forcing a death,. however emotional it might be, the game can force the player to ask "What are you willing to sacrifice to save them?"  That could be pretty emotional as well, balancing the head and the heart.

This is a preferable alternative to forcing a death. I could see a scenario where you could blow up a reaper base, but some of your squadmates are holding the line. Nuking the reaper base would kill a reaper, but one or more squaddies would die aswell. This is a great moral choice, thank you for sharing. 

[CoffeeHolic93]

laecraft wrote...

It's not about real world and fiction. It's about the difference between the writer and the reader. Come on, you really see no difference between the roles of the writer and the audience? We're speaking meta here, from the writer's perspective, obviously.

...Don't we?

Suddenly this explains why people seriously suggest that if we want drama, we should just willingly pick bad routes where people die. When I play a game, I want to experience it as an audience, not as a writer. I want to become the hero. This means that for scenes to be dramatic, they have to happen to me against my will. No hero would willingly choose failure and suffering.

However, people would suggest to us that we play the game as a writer, not as an audience. If we don't feel that Shepard's challenged enough by the Reapers, we should just not do upgrades. If we're starved for drama, we should make characters die on purpose.

In other words, we should bugger off and write our own games, and leave people to enjoy the game where they can save everyone.

Correct. Mass Effect is a hero's story. A hero that fights against insurmountable odds and (presumably) wins at the end despite the odds.
What Mass Effect does differently is that we can customize Shepard into our own image so we can "become the hero" of this story. It's certainly not for everyone, and it doesn't have to be devoid of drama - but keep in mind that Shepard's story is a hero's story.
If it's not your cup of tea, or there's not enough death and drama - I suggest playing games set in a darker tone.

[CoffeeHolic93]

laecraft wrote...

If nobody in your team dies, that means the odds aren't insurmountable. It means that the enemy isn't powerful and is incompetent. Defeating such an enemy doesn't require a hero. If pure escapism is your cup of tea, there's other media that would satisfy you.

If you look at some of my other posts I come with suggestions to how the death of a squadmate can be handled. I don't support "no deaths" to be the only possible solution, but forcing a death upon a squadmate isn't a preferable alternative. 
Killing someone for the sake of killing someone doesn't really add drama (I mean come on, who felt that the enemy was superior to us when Jenkins died after rushing in like a fool? ) 

Adding a choice of who or what to sacrifice is much better as it'll leave an impact and encourage replaying the game to see what the other outcome is. I fully expect the game to have a "the reapers win" ending much like ME2 had a "Shepard dies" ending. Doesn't mean it's mandatory, or that it and a "perfect" ending shouldn't exist. 

/Opinion disclaimer. 

[jeweledleah]

iakus wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

My idea of a middle ground would be to have Shep in situations where saving a squadmate (or someone else important to him/her) would provide a disadvantage in some other way.  Perhaps saving someone in ME3 requires Shepard to use up resources that would otherwise go to the war effort.  Or the person saved somehow goes on to cause complications later in the game, making an "optimal ending"  harder

Instead of forcing a death,. however emotional it might be, the game can force the player to ask "What are you willing to sacrifice to save them?"  That could be pretty emotional as well, balancing the head and the heart.

yes, and I offered an example of something similar pages upon pages ago, but either people just decided to ignore it in favore of "you are illogical" accusations or... I don't know.

sacrifice doesn't have to be centered around squadmates ONLY, to be meaningful.

[CoffeeHolic93]

jeweledleah wrote...

yes, and I offered an example of something similar pages upon pages ago, but either people just decided to ignore it in favore of "you are illogical" accusations or... I don't know.

sacrifice doesn't have to be centered around squadmates ONLY, to be meaningful.

Threads like these are great, aren't they? You get to repeat yourself ALL THE TIME. ...

[SlottsMachine]

You are illogical.


That is all.

[onelifecrisis]

Mi-Chan wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

yes, and I offered an example of something similar pages upon pages ago, but either people just decided to ignore it in favore of "you are illogical" accusations or... I don't know.

sacrifice doesn't have to be centered around squadmates ONLY, to be meaningful.

Threads like these are great, aren't they? You get to repeat yourself ALL THE TIME. ...

Didn't you say that 10 pages ago? 

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 15 octobre 2011 - 05:15 .

[SlottsMachine]

It was meant for jewel. Lets just forget this ever happened, okay.

[Iakus]

jeweledleah wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

My idea of a middle ground would be to have Shep in situations where saving a squadmate (or someone else important to him/her) would provide a disadvantage in some other way.  Perhaps saving someone in ME3 requires Shepard to use up resources that would otherwise go to the war effort.  Or the person saved somehow goes on to cause complications later in the game, making an "optimal ending"  harder

Instead of forcing a death,. however emotional it might be, the game can force the player to ask "What are you willing to sacrifice to save them?"  That could be pretty emotional as well, balancing the head and the heart.

yes, and I offered an example of something similar pages upon pages ago, but either people just decided to ignore it in favore of "you are illogical" accusations or... I don't know.

sacrifice doesn't have to be centered around squadmates ONLY, to be meaningful.

Well, then we're both illogical 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...
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.

It doesn't work that way. Specail forces are the best of the best - they die anyways. Badasness doesn't save you. It doens't increase your chances of survival either - because as Spec Ops, you'll be involved in more dangerous situation.
A Spec Ops soldier is MORE likely to die than a regular grunt.
The history of Spec Ops groups fully confirms this.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:12 .

[Ziggy]

Mi-Chan wrote...

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. 

Maybe one of the characters could get seriously injured or be captured (to be saved later) or something sufficiently unpleasant to add some drama but not be as final as death and still allow for a happy every-one-lives ending 

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You expect me to belive that?

If Garrus and a random bystander have the same worth and emotional impact to you, then why aren't you demanding no mandatory death for random citizen #56?

Because they don't. You know it's the truth.
It's not the same.

Clarification: the death of innocents is motivation enough, especially if it's all up in my face.  I don't need anything extra on top of that for the story to have weight.

"Oh, let's kill all your friends, too" is just frustrating and taking the fun out of the game.  There needs to be positive to balance the negative, little victories and broments to encourage the player to keep going.  Pissing them off and taking out the fun, happy stuff kills replayability.

No more bromance, no point in continuing, because it's what makes the game enjoyable for me.

Bulls****.

You've been exposed. It has nothing to do with plot or drama. The sole reason you and ppl like you are arguing is because you don't want your party members to die.
Everything else you throw out are just excuses to justify your clinginess to them.

Motivation enough? By your logic I can emand half of hte game to be left out, because the reast is "enough". Why should they even show anyone dying (including random citized #34)? Just hearing that reapers are breaking **** on the news would be enough, no?
And another Reductio Ad Absurdum by you. No happy/positive moments? Where do you get that?
apparently, the death of one or two squadmates in apocalypse war story is enough to completely dismiss everything else.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Em23 wrote...

Have all the sadness and tragedy you like during the beginning and middle of the story, just give it a happy ending.

Reminds me of a study I read in the paper years ago.... *google search*

Here it is:

"Forty-one per cent [of respondents] are overwhelmingly in favour of books with a happy ending, as against 2.2% who like it sad. Women were 13% more likely than men to say they want it all to end happily. Almost one fifth of men expressed a preference for books with ambiguous endings…

Young people were most likely to prefer books with a sad ending – 8.6% of under 16s. Those aged 41-65, however, a group with more personal experience of sadness, dislike sad endings, with only 1.1% preferring books that end this way."

ref: http://www.guardian....books.booksnews

There goes the "more maturity in the story" argument.

No it doesn't. another strawman from you.

First of all, loosing some of your squad members is not a sand ending - it's a bittersweet ending at worst.

Secondly, preference and maturity of the subject matter have no direct correlation. There's plenty of 60-year olds who love to watch Bugs Bunny.

Thirdly, a single study, in a single country is not viable to draw a global conclusion.

[Ziggy]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

First of all, loosing some of your squad members is not a sand ending - it's a bittersweet ending at worst.

Depends on which squad members you lose 

Bittersweet for some, utterly unbearably tragic for others, and a-ok for Jacob.

[Almostfaceman]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You expect me to belive that?

If Garrus and a random bystander have the same worth and emotional impact to you, then why aren't you demanding no mandatory death for random citizen #56?

Because they don't. You know it's the truth.
It's not the same.

Clarification: the death of innocents is motivation enough, especially if it's all up in my face.  I don't need anything extra on top of that for the story to have weight.

"Oh, let's kill all your friends, too" is just frustrating and taking the fun out of the game.  There needs to be positive to balance the negative, little victories and broments to encourage the player to keep going.  Pissing them off and taking out the fun, happy stuff kills replayability.

No more bromance, no point in continuing, because it's what makes the game enjoyable for me.

Bulls****.

You've been exposed. It has nothing to do with plot or drama. The sole reason you and ppl like you are arguing is because you don't want your party members to die.
Everything else you throw out are just excuses to justify your clinginess to them.

Motivation enough? By your logic I can emand half of hte game to be left out, because the reast is "enough". Why should they even show anyone dying (including random citized #34)? Just hearing that reapers are breaking **** on the news would be enough, no?
And another Reductio Ad Absurdum by you. No happy/positive moments? Where do you get that?
apparently, the death of one or two squadmates in apocalypse war story is enough to completely dismiss everything else.

Exposed? What are you, a hard-hitting news reporter exposing corruption? Lighten up, Francis. 

De gustibus non disputandum est