4309 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

You're trying to logically argue a point which is intrinsically irrational.

Nothing good will come of this.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Keep it civil. There's no need to take offense or attack a person directly because we don't share your opinion.
This thread is about discussing the pros and cons of squadmates dying, not about what you or I find to be good writing in an apocalyptic war against giant cuttlefish from space.
Our argument is that death shouldn't be required, and if it is - let it be a choice between the death of a squadmate or the destruction of a settlement or something similar.

Drama can come in many varieties, and stating that the death of squadmates is the only way to implement it is rather silly if you ask me. And random citizen #34 can be very compelling. (The Quarian mom's last log, Tali's father, the kid in ME3) 

Opinions are all well and good, but don't expect people to agree with yours and don't attack another person's opinons. Discuss the pros, cons and eventual flaws instead. 

/Opinion disclaimer. 

[CoffeeHolic93]

Em23 wrote...


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 

This could work. Look at the Sly-series for instance.
SPOILERS.

One of the main characters become permanently crippled at the end of the second game, and the guilt that his friends feel becomes a plot-point in the third game where the group disbanded (or at least one of the members did), There. Drama without unnecessarily killing anyone.

/SPOILERS

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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 demand half of hte game to be left out, because the rest 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.

Keep it civil. There's no need to take offense or attack a person directly because we don't share your opinion.
This thread is about discussing the pros and cons of squadmates dying, not about what you or I find to be good writing in an apocalyptic war against giant cuttlefish from space.
Our argument is that death shouldn't be required, and if it is - let it be a choice between the death of a squadmate or the destruction of a settlement or something similar.

Drama can come in many varieties, and stating that the death of squadmates is the only way to implement it is rather silly if you ask me. And random citizen #34 can be very compelling. (The Quarian mom's last log, Tali's father, the kid in ME3) 

Opinions are all well and good, but don't expect people to agree with yours and don't attack another person's opinons. Discuss the pros, cons and eventual flaws instead.

Don't tell me what to do or how to argue. (I wont' listen to you anyway, since you lost all credibiltiy the second you labled using the world bulls**** as being un-civil and directly attacking)
This thread is about what's discussed - the title is "let me save them". Nothing more.

I see people trying to evade answering questions that don't support their argument.

I aksed "If both random citized #34 and Garrus have the same emotional/drama impact, then why isn't anyone on this thread arguing against mandatory death of citizen #34?"

The only answer to this was some drivel about how "death of a squadmate is not necessary for drama"... Which doesn't answer my question at all. Because "death of random citizen #34 is also not necessary for drama". So again, why the citizen and not the squaddie?
Because they're not the same...despite some of you claming this obvious falshood.

So no. This has nothing to do with drama. Never had.
This has nothing to do with portraying galactic war properly or showing threat. Never was.

This whole thread is nothing more than a bunch of people desperately wanting to hold on to their dead squaddies, and fabricating other reasons as to why they're arguing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Almostfaceman wrote...
De gustibus non disputandum est

And you know who said that?
Someone who didn't want his tastes discussed - because they sucked.

Anything can be discussed. ANYTHING.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Don't tell me what to do or how to argue. (I wont' listen to you anyway, since you lost all credibiltiy the second you labled using the world bulls**** as being un-civil and directly attacking)
This thread is about what's discussed - the title is "let me save them". Nothing more.

I see people trying to evade answering questions that don't support their argument.

I aksed "If both random citized #34 and Garrus have the same emotional/drama impact, then why isn't anyone on this thread arguing against mandatory death of citizen #34?"

The only answer to this was some drivel about how "death of a squadmate is not necessary for drama"... Which doesn't answer my question at all. Because "death of random citizen #34 is also not necessary for drama". So again, why the citizen and not the squaddie?
Because they're not the same...despite some of you claming this obvious falshood.

So no. This has nothing to do with drama. Never had.
This has nothing to do with portraying galactic war properly or showing threat. Never was.

This whole thread is nothing more than a bunch of people desperately wanting to hold on to their dead squaddies, and fabricating other reasons as to why they're arguing.

I never said they had the SAME impact, but that they fill the same role - drama. If coming up with alternatives/justifications as to why squadmates could die is dodging the question, then I don't really know what you want us to do. Do you want us to share your opinion since it's the "correct" one? It may be to you. but not to us (Which it's why it's an opinion, and not a fact.)

And hey - if there's an option to save all squadmates at the cost of some major planets then let the people who want to keep their squadmates alive do their thing, while you can kill your squadmates off and feel good about that decision. The key part about this is choice. Forcing us to lose squadmates isn't a choice.

Look at the citadel council. Save them or not? If you save them, our fleet gets weaker but we're generally more accepted by the other race.
If you kill the council then humans are the top dogs on the block, but you've alienated the aliens. 

It could work the same way with squadmates too. Save Garrus or destroy a reaper facility. One will keep Garrus alive, the other will possibly save a planet or something (what do we know, we haven't played the game yet - this is all theorycrafting). If losing a specific squadmate, Bioware limits the amount of choice the player has. Give us expies of Virmire or the Suicide Mission instead where someone will die, but we can save others. Best of both worlds and everyone's happy. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Don't tell me what to do or how to argue. (I wont' listen to you anyway, since you lost all credibiltiy the second you labled using the world bulls**** as being un-civil and directly attacking)
This thread is about what's discussed - the title is "let me save them". Nothing more.

I see people trying to evade answering questions that don't support their argument.

I aksed "If both random citized #34 and Garrus have the same emotional/drama impact, then why isn't anyone on this thread arguing against mandatory death of citizen #34?"

The only answer to this was some drivel about how "death of a squadmate is not necessary for drama"... Which doesn't answer my question at all. Because "death of random citizen #34 is also not necessary for drama". So again, why the citizen and not the squaddie?
Because they're not the same...despite some of you claming this obvious falshood.

So no. This has nothing to do with drama. Never had.
This has nothing to do with portraying galactic war properly or showing threat. Never was.

This whole thread is nothing more than a bunch of people desperately wanting to hold on to their dead squaddies, and fabricating other reasons as to why they're arguing.

I never said they had the SAME impact, but that they fill the same role - drama. If coming up with alternatives/justifications as to why squadmates could die is dodging the question, then I don't really know what you want us to do. Do you want us to share your opinion since it's the "correct" one? It may be to you. but not to us (Which it's why it's an opinion, and not a fact.)

No, I just want to get an answer to that question - and I still haven't b.t.w.

And hey - if there's an option to save all squadmates at the cost of some major planets then let the people who want to keep their squadmates alive do their thing, while you can kill your squadmates off and feel good about that decision. The key part about this is choice. Forcing us to lose squadmates isn't a choice.

But would loosing planets be a happy ending?
Aslo, choice exists. But you want to narrow down the choice to just what you want.
Choosing between two squadmates ( or a squadmates and a planet) is a choice.

Half the things that happen to Shep are not choices. You don't get a choice to go to trail or not. You dont' get the choice to do many a things.
What makes this so special? Cause it ain't drama (unless you count what's going on here as drama)

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mi-Chan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Don't tell me what to do or how to argue. (I wont' listen to you anyway, since you lost all credibiltiy the second you labled using the world bulls**** as being un-civil and directly attacking)
This thread is about what's discussed - the title is "let me save them". Nothing more.

I see people trying to evade answering questions that don't support their argument.

I aksed "If both random citized #34 and Garrus have the same emotional/drama impact, then why isn't anyone on this thread arguing against mandatory death of citizen #34?"

The only answer to this was some drivel about how "death of a squadmate is not necessary for drama"... Which doesn't answer my question at all. Because "death of random citizen #34 is also not necessary for drama". So again, why the citizen and not the squaddie?
Because they're not the same...despite some of you claming this obvious falshood.

So no. This has nothing to do with drama. Never had.
This has nothing to do with portraying galactic war properly or showing threat. Never was.

This whole thread is nothing more than a bunch of people desperately wanting to hold on to their dead squaddies, and fabricating other reasons as to why they're arguing.

I never said they had the SAME impact, but that they fill the same role - drama. If coming up with alternatives/justifications as to why squadmates could die is dodging the question, then I don't really know what you want us to do. Do you want us to share your opinion since it's the "correct" one? It may be to you. but not to us (Which it's why it's an opinion, and not a fact.)

No, I just want to get an answer to that question - and I still haven't b.t.w.

And hey - if there's an option to save all squadmates at the cost of some major planets then let the people who want to keep their squadmates alive do their thing, while you can kill your squadmates off and feel good about that decision. The key part about this is choice. Forcing us to lose squadmates isn't a choice.

But would loosing planets be a happy ending?
Aslo, choice exists. But you want to narrow down the choice to just what you want.
Choosing between two squadmates ( or a squadmates and a planet) is a choice.

Half the things that happen to Shep are not choices. You don't get a choice to go to trail or not. You dont' get the choice to do many a things.
What makes this so special? Cause it ain't drama (unless you count what's going on here as drama)

What question?


And I'm not saying that this is what I want. Personally, I want the option to get a perfect ending with a minimum amount of bloodshed, but as you guys advocate the deaths of a squadmates I come with suggestions - and you're still unhappy.

[Nashiktal]

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 the odds were insurmountable, shep wouldnt be able to win at all, not determine whether or not someone lives.

No matter what the odds are not going to be insurmountable.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Nashiktal wrote...


If the odds were insurmountable, shep wouldnt be able to win at all, not determine whether or not someone lives.

No matter what the odds are not going to be insurmountable.

Exactly. Apocalyptic stories makes it so that it SEEMS all hope is lost. 

[Yezdigerd]

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.

Nah, since no squaddies needs to die in mass effect 2 I'm quite satisfied, Since pure escapism isn't your cup of tea, maybe there are other games that would satisfy you.

[Nizzemancer]

ReconTeam wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...
One fantasy that Bioware has fulfilled for many people through the ME series is the Captain Kirk Fantasy. Bangin' the Blue Babes.

Honestly, who didn't want to be Captain Kirk when they were younger? It beats the jobs most of us have.

Speak for yourself, I wanted to be Luke Skywalker and fight my dad with a Lightsaber.

[Athayniel]

I know I said I was done with you but your rudeness is getting out of hand so I'll answer your question despite the fact that if you'd just read people's posts you'll see it has been answered already.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If both random citized #34 and Garrus have the same emotional/drama impact, then why isn't anyone on this thread arguing against mandatory death of citizen #34?

No one is saying that the death of citizen #34 and Garrus have the same emotional weight to the player. No. One. Is. Saying. That. What they are saying is that the deaths of citizens #34-#7000034 has enough emotional impact for us. The war isn't limited to Shepard and his squad. They aren't the only ones affected by it or the only ones fighting or the only ones under the threat of death. Millions have *already* died.

Now then. I'm done with you. Good day, sir.

Modifié par Athayniel, 15 octobre 2011 - 01:03 .

[Athayniel]

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.

You misunderstand what "no mandatory death" means then. It doesn't mean they are untouchable, it means there is a chance they will die and therefore a chance they won't.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Athayniel wrote...

I know I said I was done with you but your rudeness is getting out of hand so I'll answer your question despite the fact that if you'd just read people's posts you'll see it has been answered already.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If both random citized #34 and Garrus have the same emotional/drama impact, then why isn't anyone on this thread arguing against mandatory death of citizen #34?

No one is saying that the death of citizen #34 and Garrus have the same emotional weight to the player. No. One. Is. Saying. That. What they are saying is that the deaths of citizens #34-#7000034 has enough emotional impact for us. The war isn't limited to Shepard and his squad. They aren't the only ones affected by it or the only ones fighting or the only ones under the threat of death. Millions have *already* died.

Now then. I'm done with you. Good day, sir.

-

You misunderstand what "no mandatory death" means then. It doesn't mean they are untouchable, it means there is a chance they will die and therefore a chance they won't.

This. Instead of saying that we said something, read the thread instead and discuss the matter at hand rather than how you don't like what we like. We can have a discussion rather than an argument that way.

@Athayniel Sorry that I used your post to write this, but what you said pretty much sums it up.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

You misunderstand what "no mandatory death" means then. It doesn't mean they are untouchable, it means there is a chance they will die and therefore a chance they won't.

I'm already aware of this and have heard this possibility given several times. It's still at odds with the concept of hard choices if no sacrifice at any point is necessary. If you want the chance for a squadmate to live, that should come at the cost of something else, there by giving something for the player to heavily consider. Perhaps a better term than "mandatory death", but "mandatory sacrifice"  should be necessary, similar to the Virmire Survivor decision, though more than "Character A vs. Character B".

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 01:42 .

[Il Divo]

Mi-Chan wrote...


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. 

I wouldn't disagree that the nature of the choice was bad; it was probably amongst Bioware's most difficult/best. The problem is simply that the characters involved were my least favorites. Now, if I were required to choose between Morrigan and Alistair, now that would have me shedding tears.

[TobyHasEyes]

Am unsure why people are arguing so vehemently against people wanting all their squad-mates to survive..

Personally I would enjoy a few Virmire-esque situations, but that is just a preference for what I'd enjoy. If someone doesn't want that, well then that is their preference

[Il Divo]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Am unsure why people are arguing so vehemently against people wanting all their squad-mates to survive..

Personally I would enjoy a few Virmire-esque situations, but that is just a preference for what I'd enjoy. If someone doesn't want that, well then that is their preference

It's not about all squad-mates surviving, but about sacrifice. If you want everyone to survive, that's great. But this is war; something in some manner has to be sacrificed. It must not always be death; by the end of Lord of the Rings film, Frodo finds that he can't stay in Middle Earth any longer and chooses to leave. The sacrifice can be mental, physical, large scale, small scale, etc, but it must be there for a story to have value.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...


I wouldn't disagree that the nature of the choice was bad; it was probably amongst Bioware's most difficult/best. The problem is simply that the characters involved were my least favorites. Now, if I were required to choose between Morrigan and Alistair, now that would have me shedding tears.

And that's the problem/brilliance of it. Some people ADORE the VS (they have fan-threads) so to them the choice is heartbreaking. To me it's a tough choice since I like both of them (though not to the extent of say, Mordin) but not something I'd cry over. Bioware can't please everyone, and that's something worth noting. 

Imagine if they made us choose between the two fan-favorites Garrus and Tali. The forums would EXPLODE. 

[TobyHasEyes]

Il Divo wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Am unsure why people are arguing so vehemently against people wanting all their squad-mates to survive..

Personally I would enjoy a few Virmire-esque situations, but that is just a preference for what I'd enjoy. If someone doesn't want that, well then that is their preference

It's not about all squad-mates surviving, but about sacrifice. If you want everyone to survive, that's great. But this is war; something in some manner has to be sacrificed. It must not always be death; by the end of Lord of the Rings film, Frodo finds that he can't stay in Middle Earth any longer and chooses to leave. The sacrifice can be mental, physical, large scale, small scale, etc, but it must be there for a story to have value.

 But it is all essentially personal preference. You value a story which emphasises sacrifice, as do I, whereas some people value a story which emphasises 'escapism' and unbelievable triumph against the odds

 Which to me then doesn't seem like something that needs to be argued about.. it would be like literally arguing about whether 'character x' is physically attractive

[Il Divo]

Mi-Chan wrote...

And that's the problem/brilliance of it. Some people ADORE the VS (they have fan-threads) so to them the choice is heartbreaking. To me it's a tough choice since I like both of them (though not to the extent of say, Mordin) but not something I'd cry over. Bioware can't please everyone, and that's something worth noting. 

Imagine if they made us choose between the two fan-favorites Garrus and Tali. The forums would EXPLODE. 

Haha, that's fair and I don't fault Bioware too hard for it. And I'm pretty sure the world would explode if they pitted Garrus against Tali.

[Il Divo]

TobyHasEyes wrote...


But it is all essentially personal preference. You value a story which emphasises sacrifice, as do I, whereas some people value a story which emphasises 'escapism' and unbelievable triumph against the odds

 Which to me then doesn't seem like something that needs to be argued about.. it would be like literally arguing about whether 'character x' is physically attractive

It is about preference; essentially, I want a Bittersweet ending (such as LotR), others want a perfect ending. But if Bioware is to support the concept of "hard choices" (Ex: Virmire), there cannot be a perfect ending where Shepard is not forced to sacrifice something. And personally, I value hard choices more than perfection.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 01:55 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Am unsure why people are arguing so vehemently against people wanting all their squad-mates to survive..

Personally I would enjoy a few Virmire-esque situations, but that is just a preference for what I'd enjoy. If someone doesn't want that, well then that is their preference

It's not about all squad-mates surviving, but about sacrifice. If you want everyone to survive, that's great. But this is war; something in some manner has to be sacrificed. It must not always be death; by the end of Lord of the Rings film, Frodo finds that he can't stay in Middle Earth any longer and chooses to leave. The sacrifice can be mental, physical, large scale, small scale, etc, but it must be there for a story to have value.

This. I'm not sure why people need a squadmate to die in order to get their drama fix. The story is already quite dark as it is, and they've already promised us that ME3 will be darker by directly stating that it will make us cry (although that might be marketing...Eh) 

Personally I'd be happy to see something like this. (I feel like I'm beating a dead horse by now. )

Say you have to choose between a squadmate and a spacestation and choose the squadmate. Now if it's just a fiery explosion most people might forget that there's people dying. (Arrival lacked emotional impact since the Relay exploding was pretty, and Batarians aren't portrayed as nice by any stretch of the imagination)

But...What if some guy - just a regular guy comes running, and tries to stop you while crying and shouting that his family's in there? That guy will hate Shepard forever, and the story has drama since we see the repercussions of our choice without a squadmate dying.

There. Drama without the death of a squadmate. You might not like this kind of writing, but hey - it's an alternative 

[TobyHasEyes]

Il Divo wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...


But it is all essentially personal preference. You value a story which emphasises sacrifice, as do I, whereas some people value a story which emphasises 'escapism' and unbelievable triumph against the odds

 Which to me then doesn't seem like something that needs to be argued about.. it would be like literally arguing about whether 'character x' is physically attractive

It is about preference; essentially, I want a Bittersweet ending (such as LotR), others want a perfect ending. But if Bioware is to support the concept of "hard choices" (Ex: Virmire), there cannot be a perfect ending where Shepard is not forced to sacrifice something. And personally, I value hard choices more than perfection.

 No definately, I do share your preferences in that respect

 My post was not necessarily directed towards you personally.. but in my eyes fierce debate doesn't really work when what is being discussed is matters of preference rather than matter of fact

 In other words, it seems bogus to have people attacking others for valuing escapism as though they are incorrect or have done something wrong