4309 réponses à ce sujet

[xentar]

Il Divo wrote...

You call it sadistic, many would call it difficult. The point of my argument is quite simply the third choice makes difficult choices impossible, since it offers an "escape".

And what if everyone surviving left the world as a whole in a worse state post-game than it would be if someone died?

[Il Divo]

xentar wrote...

And what if everyone surviving left the world as a whole in a worse state post-game than it would be if someone died?

I really like this question. And I think it's a perfectly acceptable tactic to employ, since it's still in defiance of a perfect ending. Everyone's alive, but some other issues arise as a result for the galaxy as a whole. It's still in keeping with Trolleys, since they're not providing a "way out" to avoid consequences. Yes, I think that's an acceptable tactic.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 06:41 .

[jamesp81]

I'm going re-iterate it this, and I'm going to type real slow to make it easy to understand.

Most people do not buy games to be subjected to sadistic choices.

It is unreasonable to demand that your ending be in the game AND demand that mine isn't.  That is un-****ing-reasonable.

[Aumata]

xentar wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

You call it sadistic, many would call it difficult. The point of my argument is quite simply the third choice makes difficult choices impossible, since it offers an "escape".

And what if everyone surviving left the world as a whole in a worse state post-game than it would be if someone died?

That what it should be if bioware wants to do everyone survives that should be the result.  You are one person and trying to  be everywhere saving everyone and leaving out missions to go die when they need your help should be the result.  This gives people the chance to save everyone, and this makes where decisions aren't a wrong and right choice like the Suicide Mission.  Everybody wins.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

Yes, I've seen thought experiments like that before. It doesn't match what would be my preferred situation in the game. My third option wouldn't be a switch that would free everyone. It would be flip the switch to switch the tracks and then run as hard and as fast as I can to try and untie the one person still tied down. It would be hard, it would take skill and precision and the ability to keep a cool head under pressure on my part. Failing would be a very real danger, but there would be the slim chance of success. Does that make sense to you? That's what I've been advocating all through this thread.

What you're proposing right now is very tricky, but I will say it's better than the DA:O approach where saving Connor led to no consequences and didn't require the Warden to go out of his way to achieve anything. This at least has the player jumping through hurdles for his scenario.
 
Human Revolution spoilers incoming!

But there are still problems here. Deus Ex: HR follows a similar pattern. There's one segment of the game where your plane crashes and you're given the option to save your pilot, Faridah Malik, from a group of soldiers. It's more difficult, since it involves you taking out all the enemies in combat, but certainly not impossible by any stretch. In the case of ME3, what would harder gameplay mean exactly? Am I simply running through a few more hallways? Does the combat become significantly more difficult? Could I even potentially fail at saving both characters due to my desire to complete the mission? 

Compare that to something like Heavy Rain, where there were "good" and "bad" scenarios. However, the game's approach also made it more difficult/impossible for the player to reload. If person X dies at the end of one scene, you can't simply reload and try again until you get it right; you had to live with the immediate consequences of your actions, but in that case there were "good" and "bad" endings for each respective character.
 
The "best" ending really was earned, since you were allowed one shot at it total.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:03 .

[Athayniel]

Aumata wrote...

xentar wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

You call it sadistic, many would call it difficult. The point of my argument is quite simply the third choice makes difficult choices impossible, since it offers an "escape".

And what if everyone surviving left the world as a whole in a worse state post-game than it would be if someone died?

That what it should be if bioware wants to do everyone survives that should be the result.  You are one person and trying to  be everywhere saving everyone and leaving out missions to go die when they need your help should be the result.  This gives people the chance to save everyone, and this makes where decisions aren't a wrong and right choice like the Suicide Mission.  Everybody wins.

It's just more of the 'save your squaddie or save a planet' false dichotomy. If you make the consequences for the choice too onerous no one will take it and it becomes de facto forced squadmate death. That's the same thing Lotion Soronnar mistakenly accuses us of asking for, for us to play idiot!Shep. No thank you.

[Medhia Nox]

@EternalAmbiguity: "trundling" - good word.

[CptBomBom00]

So what did I miss?

[Lotion Soronarr]

jamesp81 wrote...

I'm going re-iterate it this, and I'm going to type real slow to make it easy to understand.

Most people do not buy games to be subjected to sadistic choices.

It is unreasonable to demand that your ending be in the game AND demand that mine isn't.  That is un-****ing-reasonable.

They're not sadistic.
They're expected..normal...logical. But not sadistic.

And you're basicly demanding the smae thing. Sure, you say you aren't because "your ending is technicly there". The fact that it's made worthless and basicly unplayable - so it might as well nto be there in the firt place - escapes you.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

What you're proposing right now is very tricky, but I will say it's better than the DA:O approach where saving Connor led to no consequences and didn't require the Warden to go out of his way to achieve anything. This at least has the player jumping through hurdles for his scenario.
 
Human Revolution spoilers incoming!

But there are still problems here. Deus Ex: HR follows a similar pattern. There's one segment of the game where your plane crashes and you're given the option to save your pilot, Faridah Malik, from a group of soldiers. It's more difficult, since it involves you taking out all the enemies in combat, but certainly not impossible by any stretch. In the case of ME3, what would harder gameplay mean exactly? Am I simply running through a few more hallways? Does the combat become significantly more difficult? Could I even potentially fail at saving both characters due to my desire to complete the mission? 

Compare that to something like Heavy Rain, where there were "good" and "bad" scenarios. However, the game's approach also made it more difficult/impossible for the player to reload. If person X dies at the end of one scene, you can't simply reload and try again until you get it right; you had to live with the immediate consequences of your actions, but in that case there were "good" and "bad" endings for each respective character.
 
The "best" ending really was earned, since you were allowed one shot at it total.

I know it's tricky and highly dependent on tuning and balance, that's an implementation issue though, and this conversation is about conception. I think it is a design that would accomodate everyone's requirements and I haven't seen any other come as close. Just my opinion of course.

I won't comment on the Heavy Rain example because that is part of the design philosophy of Heavy Rain. The same isn't true of Mass Effect and I don't think there's a reason to change it. And honestly I don't see the problem with allowing those who want to work for it to have multiple shots at it.

Everyone is looking at ME only from a story point of view and I'm looking at it from a combined story and gameplay point of view. There is tension and drama inherent in the gameplay of this series and it's a mistake to overlook it in favour of just the story. Everyone in this thread brings up how they feel about the choices they made in the game, I'm the only person I can recall who brought up how a gameplay sequence made them feel. Maybe that just says something about me but I think it's a disservice to BioWare's game design to ignore it.

Anyway I'll finish by reiterating my central point. I don't care what kind of story anyone else wants to craft in ME3 except to hope that they get their story. I only ask for the same indulgent apathy in return.

Modifié par Athayniel, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:18 .

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


They're not sadistic.
They're expected..normal...logical. But not sadistic.

And you're basicly demanding the smae thing. Sure, you say you aren't because "your ending is technicly there". The fact that it's made worthless and basicly unplayable - so it might as well nto be there in the firt place - escapes you.

If anything, I think a better example of "sadistic" choices would be in sandbox games like Grand Theft Auto or TES, where the player has the option of murdering people for no other reason than their own personal pleasure. Even choice in games like KotOR are broken down along these lines, where light is good and dark is bad. With Paragon/Renegade, I thought we were supposed to get away from the idea of good and bad, instead being able to see advantages/disadvantages to each scenario.  

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...

Aumata wrote...

xentar wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

You call it sadistic, many would call it difficult. The point of my argument is quite simply the third choice makes difficult choices impossible, since it offers an "escape".

And what if everyone surviving left the world as a whole in a worse state post-game than it would be if someone died?

That what it should be if bioware wants to do everyone survives that should be the result.  You are one person and trying to  be everywhere saving everyone and leaving out missions to go die when they need your help should be the result.  This gives people the chance to save everyone, and this makes where decisions aren't a wrong and right choice like the Suicide Mission.  Everybody wins.

It's just more of the 'save your squaddie or save a planet' false dichotomy. If you make the consequences for the choice too onerous no one will take it and it becomes de facto forced squadmate death. That's the same thing Lotion Soronnar mistakenly accuses us of asking for, for us to play idiot!Shep. No thank you.

But your'e asking for us to do it!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. And that's what you want. You want to save all of the squad and feel perfectly good for doing it afterwards.

I want hard choices.
squadie vs. squade.
Squade vs. fleet.
fleet vs. fleet.
bob the baker nad his kids vs. Garrus
Tuchanaka vs Pavlen
etc, etc.

I don't want anything to be exempt from those choices.
Saving the Galaxy should be Sheps priority. Not saving the squad. Trying to save the whole squad SHOULD blow up in Sheps face.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:18 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But your'e asking for us to do it!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. And that's what you want. You want to save all of the squad and feel perfectly good for doing it afterwards.

I want hard choices.
squadie vs. squade.
Squade vs. fleet.
fleet vs. fleet.
bob the baker nad his kids vs. Garrus
Tuchanaka vs Pavlen
etc, etc.

I don't want anything to be exempt from those choices.
Saving the Galaxy should be Sheps priority. Not saving the squad. Trying to save the whole squad SHOULD blow up in Sheps face.

 Bob the baker made me laugh more than it should. But I agree that this is more plausible than a perfect ending. I don't like it, but it is how it is.

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

If anything, I think a better example of "sadistic" choices would be in sandbox games like Grand Theft Auto or TES, where the player has the option of murdering people for no other reason than their own personal pleasure. Even choice in games like KotOR are broken down along these lines, where light is good and dark is bad. With Paragon/Renegade, I thought we were supposed to get away from the idea of good and bad, instead being able to see advantages/disadvantages to each scenario.  

When we say 'sadistic choice' we mean that there is no good outcome to the choice. Both sides of the coin are bad. It is not a reflection or comment on the character of the person making the choice.

[Athayniel]

Mi-Chan wrote...

 Bob the baker made me laugh more than it should. But I agree that this is more plausible than a perfect ending. I don't like it, but it is how it is.

But as you can see he continues to either not read, misinterpret or misrepresent the arguments of those he's debating, which is why I don't engage with him anymore. He keeps repeating the same things without acknowledging that the only difference between our positions is that he wants to impose his ending on us.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

When we say 'sadistic choice' we mean that there is no good outcome to the choice. Both sides of the coin are bad. It is not a reflection or comment on the character of the person making the choice.

I'd still argue that colors the issue. Why is that choice sadistic? Hard/difficult covers that distinction well enough because there's not third option. There is nothing necessarily sadistic about it.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Athayniel wrote...


When we say 'sadistic choice' we mean that there is no good outcome to the choice. Both sides of the coin are bad. It is not a reflection or comment on the character of the person making the choice.

Spoilers ahoy.

At the end of GTA IV you can choose to get revenge or to put your grudge behind you. Taking revenge gets your girlfriend killed, putting it behind you gets your cousin killed. The story ends on a sour note. THAT is a sadistic choice, and one of the many reasons I won't replay the game.

[Undertone]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


But your'e asking for us to do it!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. And that's what you want. You want to save all of the squad and feel perfectly good for doing it afterwards.

I want hard choices.
squadie vs. squade.
Squade vs. fleet.
fleet vs. fleet.
bob the baker nad his kids vs. Garrus
Tuchanaka vs Pavlen
etc, etc.

I don't want anything to be exempt from those choices.
Saving the Galaxy should be Sheps priority. Not saving the squad. Trying to save the whole squad SHOULD blow up in Sheps face.

The voice of truth. All for hard choices and dilemmas. 

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

I'd still argue that colors the issue. Why is that choice sadistic? Hard/difficult covers that distinction well enough because there's not third option. There is nothing necessarily sadistic about it.

It's called 'sadistic' because it is a reflection and a comment on the character of the writer who came up with the choice. Perhaps I should have added that to my earlier comment.

[Athayniel]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Spoilers ahoy.

At the end of GTA IV you can choose to get revenge or to put your grudge behind you. Taking revenge gets your girlfriend killed, putting it behind you gets your cousin killed. The story ends on a sour note. THAT is a sadistic choice, and one of the many reasons I won't replay the game.

Exactly.

[Il Divo]

Athayniel wrote...

It's called 'sadistic' because it is a reflection and a comment on the character of the writer who came up with the choice. Perhaps I should have added that to my earlier comment.

That doesn't make it any better. The writer isn't necessarily sadistic, he's attempting to explore some aspect of the human mind. Should I start calling the Perfect ending lobbyists the "Disney movie crowd"? I don't think the implication is anything even remotely acceptable.

Sadistic implies that the writer sat there and intends to take savage pleasure in the difficulty if someone's struggle or conflict.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 07:33 .

[BatmanPWNS]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Athayniel wrote...


When we say 'sadistic choice' we mean that there is no good outcome to the choice. Both sides of the coin are bad. It is not a reflection or comment on the character of the person making the choice.

Spoilers ahoy.

At the end of GTA IV you can choose to get revenge or to put your grudge behind you. Taking revenge gets your girlfriend killed, putting it behind you gets your cousin killed. The story ends on a sour note. THAT is a sadistic choice, and one of the many reasons I won't replay the game.

Speak for yourself. I loved it because it showed the danger of getting involved with gangs. That doing something can't always work out for you and that not everything is perfect.