4309 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Il Divo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Personally, I feel it MUST be a squadmate. At least one..or two.

I definitely feel like the squad-mates make for a good target in Bioware games. Of course, I'm willing to consider other options depending on how creative/deep they want to get in emphasizing the sacrifice.

I'm not saying that just for the sake of drama mind you. It's also the dreaded "realism" and "believabilty" factors.

[TheRevanchist]

Dave of Canada wrote...

 I'm really curious how a few of you feel when playing other RPG games like Dragon Age, Witcher or Alpha Protocol.

I know I'm quoteing a very old post here. But I just got to this post and felt I had to finally comment after reading all the pages thus far. I have all three of those games. Where DAO is concerned. I prefer a hardened Alister marry Anora and make the Ultimate Sacrifice. I feel that is the best and most moraly justifyable outcome. DA2 I feel should have never been released as its so terrible in...well everything as far as I'm concerned. I could go on all day about DA, both good and bad.

Alpha Protocal I feel is a game that deserves FAR more love then it gets. I am not a huge fan of conspirecy stories, which is really my only complaint about the game. Even then I hate them mainly because I have a hard time trying to follow everything going on. But it's a good game with good decisions and accetable consequences given the context of the story. I however do not think "Bad **** Happens No Matter What You Do" is the only way to tell a good story, nor should it be.

As for The Witcher...I am prepared for the massive inferno I am going to create with this but I must say it. I am in Chapter 3 as of this moment, and I truly think The Witcher is one of the worst games I have ever played in my entire life. I am simpley not having fun in the slightest regarding any aspect of it. I feel nothing for any of the characters, I feel it's ridiciouls that everyone who walks the earth is a raceist and a ****** in one way or the other. It's so dark and angst it actually turns me off and makes me want to walk away just to remove the taste of bile from my mouth. As far as I'm concerned, The Witcher is nothing but tedious work surrounded by a world so unrealisticly dark and gloomy that all joy and fun is sucked away the moment it's discovered. That said, I'm in Chapter 3 so far and some of this may change later, but I have my doubts. 

As for the topic as a whole, as this should be no surprise given my (much hated I'm sure) opinion about The Witcher. I want the option for their to be a "happy-ish" ending. I do not want doom and gloom force fed down my throat at every possible oppertunity. i want to work hard and kick lots of ass in order to earn it as well, I don't want it spoon fed to me. At the same time, I can't help but shake my head at those who think it should be totaly impossible and good story telling is impossible without "drama" and tragety and gloom and doom and how every single choice MUST have a bad consequence when in truth sometimes things actually work out without bad reprocusions. Regardless of how rare such a situation really is. I agree with the OP heavily, I don't need more depression in my games. Their is still pleanty of that in real life that more then gives me my fill of it. Conversley, I understand it's a war story and losses are not totaly unavoidable. However, I for one actually cared about the colonists going missing in ME2. I cared about the lives lost aboard the Destiny Ascension I also cared about the human lives lost trying to save it. The fact that 3 million are dead after one week horrifys me, I don't NEED companion deaths to make me feel and respect the gravity of the situation. I don't need to see Garrus or Wrex or whoever getting blown to pieces to make me feel sorrow about the losses that have been suffered. For example...

 

Something like that...to me, is far more powerful then Garrus or Wrex going down in a blaze of glory and self sacrifice. There are many ways to elicite emotional responses from the audience without killing someone (ignoreing the metagame knowledge of knowing what happens to that kid latter <.<). Aside from that, not everything needs to be tragic or bittersweet in order to be enjoyable or considered good story telling. 

 

There is nothing bittersweet, or tragic about the conclusion of this outstanding situation, yet delivers powerful responses without death or tragety. He REFUSED to kill him, because he could not live with that. If anyone tries to say this show is not an excellent example of good story telling, or that this show is somehow for immature children who are emotionally unstable need to reevaluate your definition of good story where I'm concerned.

[TheRevanchist]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

You've likely played Dragon Age Origins, judging from your avatar.

Does the "Hero of Ferelden" ending invalidate the "Ultimate Sacrifice" ending in that game?

I'll give you a hint: No, it doesn't.  That much is clear by how many people are fans of that particular ending.  It is good that people that prefer that sort of story have their ending, and it is good that people he prefer the heroic ending also have theirs.

It would be a good move to have ME3's endings include similar possible outcomes.

Short answer: Yes, it does.

It may not within the game itself (as in Origins vanilla), but as soon as Awakening and subsequent DLC + sequel enter the picture, it becomes a whole 'nother story.

Yea...considering everything after Vanilla DAO basiclly dismisses the Ultimate Sacrifice as none canon...much to my dismay, the Devs made a perfectly good ending invalid through their lack of creativity.

/OPINION DISCLAIMER

[xentar]

Athayniel wrote...

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.

I was thinking along the less obvious lines. What if it's totally possible to save everyone and disable the Reapers but some people or groups are, well, more dangerous than expected and in the epiloge/post-game you find out they did a lot of murdering/sabotage irrelevant to the Reaper threat to make the world a less pleasant place.

PS: Being an escapist, I'm actually in favor of a reasonably achievable happy ending myself. Can be very picky about environment details but a lot less focused on plot 'realism'.

[CoffeeHolic93]

kylecouch wrote...


Yea...considering everything after Vanilla DAO basiclly dismisses the Ultimate Sacrifice as none canon...much to my dismay, the Devs made a perfectly good ending invalid through their lack of creativity.

/OPINION DISCLAIMER

The warden has gone missing, and Leliana is searching for him/her.  Did a bloodmage swoop down and reanimate my warden?

[TheRevanchist]

Mi-Chan wrote...

kylecouch wrote...


Yea...considering everything after Vanilla DAO basiclly dismisses the Ultimate Sacrifice as none canon...much to my dismay, the Devs made a perfectly good ending invalid through their lack of creativity.

/OPINION DISCLAIMER

The warden has gone missing, and Leliana is searching for him/her.  Did a bloodmage swoop down and reanimate my warden?

That's what I would like to know...I raged intesnly when I first heard that. Gaider responded with his usual glib smart a** response. "How do you know they aren't talking about Orlisan Warden hmmmm?" You wana know how I know that David? Because the Warden from Orlais don't do a damn thing to deserve that type of manhunt thats why. They do nothing of such earth shattering significence that warrents the Chantry launching a manhunt for them. Neaither does Hawke really...but thats a whole other beast.

[Lotion Soronarr]

xentar wrote...

I was thinking along the less obvious lines. What if it's totally possible to save everyone and disable the Reapers but some people or groups are, well, more dangerous than expected and in the epiloge/post-game you find out they did a lot of murdering/sabotage irrelevant to the Reaper threat to make the world a less pleasant place.

Where exactly is hte hard choice there? Even your examples are constructed to allivate guilt and responsiblity.

In other for a choice to be truly hard and meaningufull, the the consequences have to be immediate and pretty clear.

In your example, you can so easily justify savign the squaddie, that 99,9% would do it.
After all, "the group is more dangeroud than expected", so it wasn't obvious. It wasn't clear the bad thing would happen. that removes some of hte guilt from Shep.
The other aspect is that it hapens later - epilogue. This again lifts guilt from both Shep and player. For Shep, you can reason Shep let the people/group go because he planned to stop them later if they get out of line. As far as the player goes - the game didn't give you the chance to stop those people, so it's not really your faliure.

either way you put it, the scenario is hardly hard or provocative.

[Il Divo]

kylecouch wrote...



There is nothing bittersweet, or tragic about the conclusion of this outstanding situation, yet delivers powerful responses without death or tragety. He REFUSED to kill him, because he could not live with that. If anyone tries to say this show is not an excellent example of good story telling, or that this show is somehow for immature children who are emotionally unstable need to reevaluate your definition of good story where I'm concerned.

As a huge fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, I still consider Aang's decision/ability to spare Ozai one of the biggest ass pulls I've seen at the conclusion of a TV show and thought the writing behind it was terrible. And mind you, I still consider the Sozin's Comet finale to be spectacular.

Regardless of what you may think about the show's maturity, some of the decisions to spare or kill characters were not at the behest of the writers. The inability to show Jet's death in season 2 was a perfect demonstration of this, as Nickelodeon did not want their to be "death" broadcasted on their network.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 02:48 .

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

xentar wrote...

I was thinking along the less obvious lines. What if it's totally possible to save everyone and disable the Reapers but some people or groups are, well, more dangerous than expected and in the epiloge/post-game you find out they did a lot of murdering/sabotage irrelevant to the Reaper threat to make the world a less pleasant place.

Where exactly is hte hard choice there? Even your examples are constructed to allivate guilt and responsiblity.

In other for a choice to be truly hard and meaningufull, the the consequences have to be immediate and pretty clear.

In your example, you can so easily justify savign the squaddie, that 99,9% would do it.
After all, "the group is more dangeroud than expected", so it wasn't obvious. It wasn't clear the bad thing would happen. that removes some of hte guilt from Shep.
The other aspect is that it hapens later - epilogue. This again lifts guilt from both Shep and player. For Shep, you can reason Shep let the people/group go because he planned to stop them later if they get out of line. As far as the player goes - the game didn't give you the chance to stop those people, so it's not really your faliure.

either way you put it, the scenario is hardly hard or provocative.

I gotta agree with this. To be fair, there do exist "hard decisions" precisely because we cannot understand the full consequences of the actions at the time. On the other hand, the parameters of the decision should be laid out in full since if it is a "hard decision", I also want to fully consider the consequences. The Virmire decision again makes itself known. Save Ashley, Kaidan dies. Save Kaidan, Ashley dies.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 02:54 .

[crimzontearz]

Il Divo wrote...

kylecouch wrote...



There is nothing bittersweet, or tragic about the conclusion of this outstanding situation, yet delivers powerful responses without death or tragety. He REFUSED to kill him, because he could not live with that. If anyone tries to say this show is not an excellent example of good story telling, or that this show is somehow for immature children who are emotionally unstable need to reevaluate your definition of good story where I'm concerned.

As a huge fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, I still consider Aang's decision/ability to spare Ozai one of the biggest ass pulls I've seen at the conclusion of a TV show and thought the writing behind it was terrible. And mind you, I still consider the Sozin's Comet finale to be spectacular.

Regardless of what you may think about the show's maturity, some of the decisions to spare or kill characters were not at the behest of the writers. The inability to show Jet's death in season 2 was a perfect demonstration of this, as Nickelodeon did not want their to be "death" broadcasted on their network.

well technically there are 2 on screen deaths in Avatar: TLA....just saying

[Il Divo]

crimzontearz wrote...

well technically there are 2 on screen deaths in Avatar: TLA....just saying

Jet didn't die on screen. It wasn't even fully clear if he died, though that's a valid interpretation. If you ever saw the Ember Island Players Episode, they specifically reference that.

At one point Zuko, completely shocked, does ask, "Did Jet just die?" To which Sokka replies, "It was really unclear". The writers were purposely referencing the fact that Nickelodeon doesn't want death really tied into their shows.

But my primary point is that the manner in which Aang spares Ozai didn't strike me as being even remotely acceptable. The writers literally ass-pulled "Life Bending" and Aang's ability to re-enter the Avatar State simply by being hit in the back with a rock. The question of whether it was just to take Ozai's life wasn't even explored throughout the series, adding to the difficulty of accepting it as a halfway decent plot point.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm guessing the other death you are referring to is the Water Princess from the Siege of the North? 

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 03:20 .

[crimzontearz]

Il Divo wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

well technically there are 2 on screen deaths in Avatar: TLA....just saying

Jet didn't die on screen. It wasn't even fully clear if he died, though that's a valid interpretation. If you ever saw the Ember Island Players Episode, they specifically reference that.

At one point Zuko does ask, "Did Jet just die?" To which Sokka replies, "It was really unclear". The writers were purposely referencing the fact that Nickelodeon doesn't want death really tied into their shows.

But my primary point is that the manner in which Aang spares Ozai didn't strike me as being even remotely acceptable. The writers literally ass-pulled "Life Bending" and Aang's ability to re-enter the Avatar State simply by being hit in the back with a rock. The question of whether it was just to take Ozai's life wasn't even explored throughout the series, adding to the difficulty of accepting it as a halfway decent plot point.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm guessing the other death you are referring to is the Water Princess from the Siege of the North? 

ugh..the italian Censors REALLY translated "chi bending" as "life bending"? Would not be surprised after what they did to City Hunter way back when

anyways, Toph does underline the fact that he dies when she points that she could tell -as she often did Dare-devil style- whoever said "he will be ok" -referring to Jet- was lying. The Northen tribe princess dies on screen (sure she is alive within the spirit of the moon itself but she dies ultimately). The Explosive Man litterally blows up as well, but I understand your point. I doubt tho that Nickelodeon flat out Vetoed the on-screen death because if you think about it Avatar Roku and his dragon companion die on screen as well now that I think about it

As for the whole Ozai conundrumI am not 100% sure about how I feel about that, I mean I do find the idea of letting him live in shame for the rest of his life AND without bending far better than just killing his sorry  ***.

now, messing with someone's Bending is not really an *** pull. Tai lee (or whatever her name is) can chi-block people (ala Kenshiro) by pressing nerve clusters, it is nor unreasonable that there would be a more permanent  way of doing such

Modifié par crimzontearz, 16 octobre 2011 - 03:26 .

[Il Divo]

crimzontearz wrote...

ugh..the italian Censors REALLY translated "chi bending" as "life bending"? Would not be surprised after what they did to City Hunter way back when

Oh, my bad. I watched it in English, but everywhere online I have noticed it referred to as "life-bending", so I thought it was the universal description. 

anyways, Toph does underline the fact that he dies when she points that she could tell -as she often did Dare-devil style- whoever said "he will be ok" -referring to Jet- was lying.

But that does not necessarily demand death as an alternative. Jet's actual response is "Don't worry, Katara. I'll be alright", at which point Toph says "He's lying". But the actual consequences of that are never made clear. Sokka pretty much informs us that he doesn't know whether Jet died, so (by necessity) how could the audience, aside from how we'd like to interpret events?

The Northen tribe princess dies on screen (sure she is alive within the spirit of the moon itself but she dies ultimately). The Explosive Man litterally blows up as well, but I understand your point. I doubt tho that Nickelodeon flat out Vetoed the on-screen death because if you think about it Avatar Roku and his dragon companion die on screen as well now that I think about it

Damn, you got me. Twice. I completely forgot about Exploding Man and Roku. Clearly I need to rewatch the series a few more times.

What I will give the Avatar writers is that even if their ability to portray explicit deaths (akin to Lord of the Rings) is limited, they still always manage to keep it emotional/mature. And for that, I give them major props.

As for the whole Ozai conundrumI am not 100% sure about how I feel about that, I mean I do find the idea of letting him live in shame for the rest of his life AND without bending far better than just killing his sorry  ***.

I have no problem with the story sparing Ozai. But the way in which it was handled was incredibly lazy, imo. Through out the series, all the characters emphasize that the Avatar must "defeat" the Firelord. No one told him/it never occurred to him that defeat might actually involve killing your enemy? Not even potentially before the day of Black Sun? It's only until five minutes into Sozin's Comet that it occurs to Zuko to use the word "kill".

Add on top of that, the Season 2 premier was entirely about how Aang should *not* rely on the Avatar State in order to master the elements/defeat Ozai and it's more problematic.

I think a better result would be simply never raise the question and let Aang defeat Ozai, and have him imprisoned. Same end result, really.  

now, messing with someone's Bending is not really an *** pull. Tai lee (or whatever her name is) can chi-block people (ala Kenshiro) by pressing nerve clusters, it is nor unreasonable that there would be a more permanent  way of doing such

Messing with someone's bending is acceptable. It also helps that Tai Lee is actively paralyzing each character as she hits their chi/pressure points, including non-benders (Sokka) and that Katara (kind of) explains what's going on in "The Drill" episode. If you can't use your body; how are you going to bend? Having a giant lion turtle teach Aang life-bending involves a presence which the audience has not been exposed to teaching an ability which we were never aware of and referencing an ancient people who apparently knew this technique before us. Those are my primary issues with life-bending. It was a "magic" which we'd never really seen before; Aang doesn't block the pressure points as Tai Lee does.  

And as usual, sorry for the rant.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 03:45 .

[Gorosaur]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Undertone wrote...

I also don't want to play like a retard to lose people.

So would you be okay with a zero squad death ending if it were basically impossible to achieve without an incredible attention to detail and sacrifices made in other areas?

Late to the game post.

Yes, I want this. 

I pretty much through my OCD for video games made it through the Suicide Mission first try with no character deaths. It was fun and relieving at first, but later on I felt like I had picked an ending that lacked realism and necessary drama. 

I want it to be damn hard to get everyone out alive, and when a character dies I want it to mean something.

[jamesp81]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I find it easier to just not kill of my important characters.

But I'll have you convinced they're dead meat about halfway through, though.

People die in real life. it's part of it. I personally strive to make my books seem as real as possible.

There's a quote I put a bunch of pages back from this book on writing that I have. i don't remember it exactly (I'm at work at the moment, can't look at it) but it says something like if your story doesn't have things like love, happiness, sadness, despair, and loss, it's a lie in the truest sense of the word.

Real life can go die in a fire in my entertainment.

[CptBomBom00]

Hell yeah **** real life.

[jamesp81]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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 same 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.

You've likely played Dragon Age Origins, judging from your avatar.

Does the "Hero of Ferelden" ending invalidate the "Ultimate Sacrifice" ending in that game?

I'll give you a hint: No, it doesn't.  That much is clear by how many people are fans of that particular ending.  It is good that people that prefer that sort of story have their ending, and it is good that people he prefer the heroic ending also have theirs.

Given that the other option was to leave the archdemons soul in tact, in the hands of an amoral and shifty witch...nope.
I have 0 regrets making the ultimate sacrifice. For me it was basicly a binary choice, as I saw no merit whatsoever in the Dark Ritual. Other people may have.

Either way you put it - people die or leave you - and you don't have a choice in all of it.
And DA:O isn't ME3. What works in A doesn't necessarily work as well in B.

Every story has already been told.  There are no original stories.  Saying that A won't work in B is among the most non-sensical things one can believe where literature is concerned.  This is especially true since it's quite possible that A=B, just with different names and faces.

[jamesp81]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

In any case, it's not up for debate AFAIC.  If the grim people get a grim ending, it's perfectly reasonable for those of us that prefer a happier ending to get one.  That's not a negotiating position, that's a condition of me purchasing the game.

I love it how people get all uppity and throw around threats how they will not buy a game if it doesn't have X.
So fickle...

In a free market economy, purchasing or not purchasing a product is the most effective way the consumer has for expressing approval or disapproval of the product.

I love how you don't get that.

OK, that was mean.  I'll stop.

Modifié par jamesp81, 16 octobre 2011 - 04:50 .

[jamesp81]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

You've likely played Dragon Age Origins, judging from your avatar.

Does the "Hero of Ferelden" ending invalidate the "Ultimate Sacrifice" ending in that game?

I'll give you a hint: No, it doesn't.  That much is clear by how many people are fans of that particular ending.  It is good that people that prefer that sort of story have their ending, and it is good that people he prefer the heroic ending also have theirs.

It would be a good move to have ME3's endings include similar possible outcomes.

Short answer: Yes, it does.

It may not within the game itself (as in Origins vanilla), but as soon as Awakening and subsequent DLC + sequel enter the picture, it becomes a whole 'nother story.

And yet, so many people still prefer the ultimate sacrifice ending.  This would suggest your supposition isn't correct, given the popularity of the other conclusions.

I'm pretty certain ME3 will operate in a similar manner.  DAO was a very successful game, as was every other BW game that had 'happy' endings.  They're not going to change a winning formula.

Modifié par jamesp81, 16 octobre 2011 - 04:54 .

[jamesp81]

Undertone wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

4.  Complete the campaign without losing any squad members, or at least long time ones from previous games.

My particular beef is with this in particular. Giving squad members, especially fan favorite squad members plot armos is ****ing retarded. Nobody should be safe and everyone should have equal oppurtunity to die. 

Seriously if no one dies by the end of ME3 from my squad then the Reaper invasion has been a ****ing joke. 

Everyone does have equal opporunity to die in most BW games.  It's just generally not mandatory, except in the VS case.

[CoffeeHolic93]

jamesp81 wrote...


In a free market economy, purchasing or not purchasing a product is the most effective way the consumer has for expressing approval or disapproval of the product.

I love how you don't get that.

Keep it civil people.  And you don't know if you'll like or dislike a product until you've tried it out yourself. So unless you rent everything before buying that's a moot point.

And even if people review games online, and you can find a review of any game anywhere at any given time that doesn't mean the review will be valid to someone else.

Modern Warfare and Battlefield are loved by many for instance, and they get great review...I can't get into them however.

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon got overall...Bad...Reviews yet it's one of my favorite games as I adore dungeon crawlers and I found the lighthearted plot to be endearing.

There's no way to know if you'll like a game or not if you haven't tried it.

Keep in mind that this is my opinion, and you don't have to agree. 

[jamesp81]

As for The Witcher...I am prepared for the massive inferno I am going to
create with this but I must say it. I am in Chapter 3 as of this
moment, and I truly think The Witcher is one of the worst games I have
ever played in my entire life.

Don't worry, I only got past the attack on the fortress before I decided it was made of epic fail.  I might go back and play it some day, and play the biggest jerkass character possible, entirely for the lulz, but I am utterly incapable of taking this game seriously.

[CptBomBom00]

I bet that survival of all your squad members will depend on your actions, heh Karma is a ****.

[jamesp81]

Mi-Chan wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


In a free market economy, purchasing or not purchasing a product is the most effective way the consumer has for expressing approval or disapproval of the product.

I love how you don't get that.

Keep it civil people.  And you don't know if you'll like or dislike a product until you've tried it out yourself. So unless you rent everything before buying that's a moot point.

And even if people review games online, and you can find a review of any game anywhere at any given time that doesn't mean the review will be valid to someone else.

Modern Warfare and Battlefield are loved by many for instance, and they get great review...I can't get into them however.

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon got overall...Bad...Reviews yet it's one of my favorite games as I adore dungeon crawlers and I found the lighthearted plot to be endearing.

There's no way to know if you'll like a game or not if you haven't tried it.

Keep in mind that this is my opinion, and you don't have to agree. 

I have the BSN, with known posters who see things the way I do, where I can find out before purchase if it's something I will enjoy.  I certainly will not spend the money on it if I'm not sure it's any good.  I've never done that with anything I've bought, come to think of it.