194 réponses à ce sujet

[nitefyre410]

Il Divo wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

hmmm must be a glitch in the system there is a strange sense of Deja 'vu happenings reading this past page of the thread....

We could probably all save a buttload of time if we just copied/pasted all our responses from the other thread, especially since we just make the same points repeatedly.

 


yeah but how much fun would that be? 

[Il Divo]

Point taken.

[DiebytheSword]

Il Divo wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

Interesting then, that you should include one character who is impactful without being close to Shepard.

Ah, glad you caught that! But to fully understand what I mean, we need to break things down just a tad more. Impactful isn't really a yes or no affair, but closer to a scale. The point is that how impactful death may become is (in many ways) how close it is tied to your sense experiences.

If I tell you seven million people died, that might have an effect on you. If I told you that seven million people died where you live, that's probably going to have a substantially greater effect on you, because you can feel the impact more closely. That's why I distinguish between seeing a child die on screen vs. hearing about it second-hand (Ex: a soldier telling you a child died over the radio). The child's existence was made personal, since Shepard had an actual interaction with him. You saw the child, spoke to the child, heard his voice, etc. The child's death would be even more personal (that is particular to Shepard), if he had a substantial connection to the child, akin to your squad-mates, which comes with spending alot of time getting to know someone. 
 
In many ways, that's why a single death, depending on the person, can mean much more to someone than death on a large scale; you experience the consequences of one far more closely than the consequences of the other, if you're far removed from it. 

While this is absolutely true, and something we agree on, it is patently false to say that we have no impact from deaths outside of the close circle.  In the end it is empathy and identification that make the death impactful.  These things are obviously also needed for freindship; so you are inciting a trauma by killing off someone the observer has identified with and empathized with, through several struggles.  Through that same method, it is impossible to discount the inner child in each of us that might be hiding in that vent if 2km tall alien ships came to melt you into past or disintegrate you outright.  I can Identify because I was once his size.  I was once at the same scope of wonder, and terror, in the world.  I can empathize with him because he was obviously sans his parents during this.  This too creates more identity.  I can completely see how horrifying the current event is without, say, Garrus being incinerated on the ramp of the Normandy.  Yes I am extending a bit, but I am also pointing out that sometimes close deaths make no sense for the sake of the story.  For all the clamoring over how it makes sense to have death, we never hear about death that makes sense.  If the Character dies in a meaningful way, I might be satisfied with the emotional pull, but I also might be less apt to enjoy what follows.  Another good example might be Sirius Black in Harry Potter, my wife nearly dropped the series after the character died.  It seemed to snuff out the last bit of hope for Harry's happiness.  I felt the death was actually forced in that scene, there were plenty of other opportunities later on, in fact, ones that made far more sense defending Hogwarts, I'll omit the names for the sake of movie only people.  Those deaths were meaningful and impactful.

Modifié par DiebytheSword, 25 octobre 2011 - 09:39 .

[Gorosaur]

 The OP has essentially summed up what I've been saying about the Bioware fanbase for years. Thank you

[The Spamming Troll]

Il Divo wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

what happend when the person that dies IS THE MAIN CHARACTER?

sheaprd dies, is rebuilt......and nobody flinched.

"hey shepard, i heard you died. anyways help me with my daddy issues!"

Depends on the story. Jade Empire however would like a word with you if you really don't think resurrection can fuel plot development. This is all besides the point. What does this have to do with a writer's ability to use death correctly (or incorrectly) as a point of development?

Mercutio's death fuels the entire second half of Romeo and Juliet. Patroclus' death fuels Achilles' rage in the Illiad. Jason Todd's death serves as a huge source of internal turmoil for Batman and makes him actually consider killing the Joker. Death can have purpose, despite ME2 completely screwing up on that end. Or rather, the error was the resurrection, more than the death itself.

whats the point? the point is death means squat when your in the MEuniverse!

i think the death is more of the error, then the actual resurection. did shepard die in ME2 solely to reset our characterto zero? or was being killed and zombified something bioware had planned from the begining. im sure once bioware completed ME1, they thought "i cant wait to kill shepard in the first 5 minutes of ME2!!!"

also, im unfamiliar with every single reference you made.

[Il Divo]

DiebytheSword wrote...


While this is absolutely true, and something we agree on, it is patently false to say that we have no impact from deaths outside of the close circle. In the end it is empathy and identification that make the death impactful.

True enough, but I never stated that would have no impact, but the impact will always be less compared to actually experiencing seven million deaths. That's what the child in the vent is meant to represent; he is a particular instance of death/trauma intended to indicate to us what is actually happening across Earth. That is true with respect to real life. In the case of fiction, merely hearing that a person died is far less likely to provoke an emotional response since 1) it's not real and 2) we have had no connection to the event, aside from having heard that it happened. In that sense, the child in the vent is even more critical to illustrate the suffering, since this is a fictional tale and we need to breach that barrier.

There are all kinds of tragedies which occur in day to day life. It's always possible to feel empathy when we hear about these things on the news. What I find atypical is the idea that someone will experience an equal amount of pain/suffering at large-scale death they are far removed from compared to large-scale death close to home. In the first case, the only "reminder" of this is the news. In the second case, they experience the actual effects/consequences in their day to day life, as they witness people around them experiencing this tragedy.

  These things are obviously also needed for freindship; so you are inciting a trauma by killing off someone the observer has identified with and empathized with, through several struggles.  Through that same method, it is impossible to discount the inner child in each of us that might be hiding in that vent if 2km tall alien ships came to melt you into past or disintegrate you outright.  I can Identify because I was once his size.  I was once at the same scope of wonder, and terror, in the world.  I can empathize with him because he was obviously sans his parents during this.  This too creates more identity. 

All true, accepting the implication that seeing/speaking to the child makes that trauma even worse compared to simply hearing about it through a second party. That's my essential point: not that large-scale death cannot trigger emotion, but that tragedy is always made more severe when we are forced into physical contact with it.

 I can completely see how horrifying the current event is without, say, Garrus being incinerated on the ramp of the Normandy.  Yes I am extending a bit, but I am also pointing out that sometimes close deaths make no sense for the sake of the story.  For all the clamoring over how it makes sense to have death, we never hear about death that makes sense. 

Certainly depending on the story, death presents us more or less satisfaction, depending on how a character "goes out". What I (personally) am against, from a realist stand point, is the idea that a writer shouldn't even consider killing a character, particularly when they have chosen a war of galactic genocide as the backdrop against which the events of the story must occur. If they never wanted to consider character death (even as an option), they should not have chosen that as the setting of their story.

 If the Character dies in a meaningful way, I might be satisfied with the emotional pull, but I also might be less apt to enjoy what follows.  Another good example might be Sirius Black in Harry Potter, my wife nearly dropped the series after the character died.  It seemed to snuff out the last bit of hope for Harry's happiness.  I felt the death was actually forced in that scene, there were plenty of other opportunities later on, in fact, ones that made far more sense defending Hogwarts, I'll omit the names for the sake of movie only people.  Those deaths were meaningful and impactful.

In the case of Sirius, I would agree that his death certainly may not have felt satisfying for the reader, however I would argue that it was a very necessary element of character/plot development, given how it serves as a focal point for Harry to completely go crazy, as well as for Dumbledore to realize the necessity of explaining the prophecy, at long last. In a sense, Sirius' death isn't atypical in a coming of age story, where the protagonist is expected to overcome the loss of mentors/protectors who serve as a security blanket, similar to Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars or Gorion in Baldur's Gate.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 octobre 2011 - 11:48 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Il Divo wrote...

zin the case of Sirius, I would agree that his death certainly may not have felt satisfying for the reader, however I would argue that it was a very necessary element of character/plot development, given how it serves as a focal point for Harry to completely go crazy, as well as for Dumbledore to realize the necessity of explaining the prophecy, at long last. In a sense, Sirius' death isn't atypical in a coming of age story, where the protagonist is expected to overcome the loss of mentors/protectors who serve as a security blanket, similar to Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars or Gorion in Baldur's Gate.
 

Campbell's formulaic "hero's journey", in other words.

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Campbell's formulaic "hero's journey", in other words.

Right on the money. The Hero's Journey has always been about the transformation of a protagonist. In Harry's case,  the death of his "protectors" is meant to symbolize his loss of innocence and the eventual responsibilities which come with adulthood.

[The Spamming Troll]

jreezy wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
 im sure once bioware completed ME1, they thought "i cant wait to kill shepard in the first 5 minutes of ME2!!!"

Riiiight...

wrong???

[Alamar2078]

I would say consumers of a product do have a right to make demands of a product. The producer of the product has the right to ignore the consumers if they so wish [as long as the product is legal / not harmful / etc.] ...

Claiming otherwise [IMHO] is dubious at best ....

[InvincibleHero]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Hell, I'm already on board for the Collector's Edition and the damn thing's mostly finished already, so at this point I'm just waiting to either be wowed or let down. Evidence so far points to wowage.

I'm no writer, nor a member of the dev team, but I can still talk about what I like and what I don't like. I don't expect BW to cater to me exclusively, and I'm pretty sure I will love ME3 regardless, but when I make a thread about "I would like X in ME3," it's just stating my opinion. I fully realize I have no control--it's just harmlessly throwing my tastes out there.

It's only a problem when certain pinheads come storming in and say my tastes are stupid.

I actually had this thread planned months ago, but I post so infrequently these days. It is applicable to many things I did not mention.

Sure I agree in getting your opinion out there and what you like or not especially feedback on games delivered already is what should be done. However, saying don't kill x character or no squaddie in an upcoming game is making a demand not registering an opinion. It could be quite easily said I would prefer this person not die or no team members die.  I wouldn't say harmless because word choice can cause much disharmony if posted in an antigonistic fashion. If someone keeps promoting the view endlessly and attacking every scrap of argument from the opposition then I think they are too invested in their opinion and it becomes my way or the highway type of deal. It creates great harm if insults are flying back and forth over some game issue.

Now now calling the other sides names does not promote proper discourse even if they did so first. It just creates more animosity not discussion. I don't think zero squad deaths is stupid as we can always hope for the best, but you have to admit that outcome is highly unlikely.

[InvincibleHero]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Um, yeah. People who buy the game, or MAY buy the game, SHOULD have some say in the final product.

Otherwise less people buy the game. Pretty simple concept. Don't create a product that people want, and people don't buy it.

Can you explain how much instituting a change may drop how many consumers from buying the product? Can you tell me what would make ME sell more units? It is conceit to think the changes we want would make a better game and also lead to more sales. If you like armor and the majority didn't care because face it less than 1% post here, and BW instituted the change and it sold less because more people liked a sexier Miranda, or because ME was less like any other shooter like GOW, but it's OK because you'd think it makes ME better? I am sure BW/EA does enough market research to know what they are doing. Have you?

BW has to work with their strengths and go with the design philosophy they want. I agree if you don't like then don't buy, but no one has a right to demand changes to IPs. Garrus is who he is because of BW. I think they ought to do what they will with the character as their right.

Companies that make products usually offer some options like color or better for more cost like cameras. You choose from what is offered in most cases.

ME is an intellectual property. They should be free to make it according to their goal. They know better than we because they are in the business of making games. Some fail some are hits, but for some that hate X game you can find someone that loves it.

[InvincibleHero]

Savber100 wrote...

Problem is that one can not speak for all and neither can 50 speak for a thousand. One might want something while the others might want something else entirely. In the end, the idea of devs listening to fans is nice but can only go so far as devs try to juggle the demands of thousands and the vocal minority. 

I agree entirely. I tend to think devs know what they are doing better than armchair gamers.

[InvincibleHero]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Then shut down the forum.

If this place isn't considered a representative sample and/or useful feedback for Bioware to consider, then what's the point of having it?

Yes, I acknowledge that there's some question on whether the feedback or posts that fans make here is represenatative of the overall Bioware fanbase. But what I disagree with is the general concept that Bioware should just create whatever the hell they want and not listen to feedback PERIOD.

Whether this forum is the "right" way to correct feedback is certainly debateable. Whether or not Bioware SHOULD listen to it seems somewhat LESS debateable.

You misunderstand I didn't say no feedback which has a proper place. I addressed the people that want their tastes catered to regardless of whether the end product is better or what BW wanted or some other fans. BW should make what they want after all it lives and dies because of their work. Their jobs are on the line if they are not profitable.

It is more they should not let a vocal minority dictate what others have to also play. I am saying BW should stick to the plan. They can do much more if they do not cater to fans overmuch. Some say make it like ME  with a new story. Meh no thanks I'll just play ME  then. They have to make changes to make the experience fresh. If they listened to the fans ME 2 would not be as highly rated by critics and fans alike yet you still have dissenters saying ME2 is a puddle of poo because it is not more like ME.

[InvincibleHero]

Esbatty wrote...

What about the days where there wasn't an online? When game developers made whatever the hell they wanted/higher ups wanted? Ya know, the games we/parents bought because it looked fun or interesting?

There certainly was more variety of games and styles back then. Devs really made some unique offerings. M.U.L.E. was really fun back in the day. Today they cost so much to make you expect some standardization like building off of existing genres and hit games.

[InvincibleHero]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

The Suicide Mission was stupidly easy to pull through with no casualties; I would have cared more about who I put in harm's way if there had actually been consequences for even the best decisions. I'd rather have a few memorable deaths than a lot of crappy goodbyes at the end of the epiloge.

Thanks. Yeah made it through my first time and every time without casualties without knowing anything about it. BW really hit you over the head with get these upgrades and mentioned we could be better or more ready hint hint.  Yeah if whomever got sent in the tubes was a goner then it becomes a momentous decision for most people. I know some people kill who they dislike so disregard them. It would have seemed a better accomplishment if it was harder to get everyone through. Blame Hollywood for creating the happy ending myth.

[InvincibleHero]

Estelindis wrote...

In general, I agree with the OP. That said, the ending I got for DA:O (forced self-sacrifice by Alistair, although I'd intended my Warden to sacrifice herself) was about as fun as being repeatedly punched in the face. I was left miserable and angry. I can't say I want the same sort of thing from the ending of ME3. Frankly, Mass Effect games have always left me feeling elated and triumphant. I'm hoping to feel the same way when the credits of the third installment roll.

[Note: I'm not saying DA:O's ending wasn't effective.  It was probably the most effective ending of any game I've played.  It just wasn't something I enjoyed.]

Well the clues were there in the game that which warden strikes the finishing blow would die. You could have also resumed from an earlier save to get your preferred ending. I love the choices at the end there are 4 to explore if you want.

[InvincibleHero]

Bostur wrote...

I don't think it's reasonable to use to word 'right' about this. Legally I suppose it's EA that owns the characters and they can do whatever they like with them. But if some EA board of directors decide that Garrus should have a sex change operation because that suits the market segment better, I might start raging about it. I don't have any rights to decide anything, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But artistic vision and integrity, absolutely those are important qualities. Good stories can't be made out of some sense of misunderstood democracy or focus group. The person(s) in charge of the overall story plot should of course decide on their own and use whatever external ressources they deem useful. Then in turn I will reserve my judgement until I see the final result :-)
It can probably be intimidating to work on a series with a big fan base, I imagine some distance is needed to keep the priorities right.


On a similar note, I think it would be nice to sometimes see a more personal touch or edge in game development. When big teams are needed to create something, the artistic vision can easily be lost. One person with enough artistic weight to sometimes cut through the noise and say "We do it my way" may sometimes add more personality.

I doubt they would ever do something so bad as that. I agree if you don't like something then go ahead and say something but hopefully respectfully.

Yeah I think single creator visions turn out best. They have more consistency in everything. too many cooks do spoil the borth to use a cliche. The more people have to communicate and get answers wastes time and money instead of having clear directives from a largely singular vision that leads to more work accomplished. It's a mess if each person can autonomously make changes. Stopping and making changes that some fans want may upset other fans as well as derail the game.

Yeah Kojima games have a definite personality as well as Molyneux games. I may not like them all, but they stand out from the pack.

[Inquisitor Recon]

I strongly believe in the old school ideal of a developer making what THEY want to make, everybody else be damned, and if it is good, people will buy it.

That was what was best about the earlier days of the industry.