160 réponses à ce sujet

[Inprea]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Here however, you're starting a whole other argument about the writing... One which I will not participate in. You obviously simply wish your Shepard to be in control of everything all the time, which is totally unrealistic, and be totally invincible, which, from an RPGamers perspective might be desirable, but, from a story-telling perspective, is just... cheap... and idiotic to be perfectly honest. It doesnt cheapen the character to make him/her vulnerable. It actually deepens them, as hard as that may be for you to see.

Let's take Superman as an example. When he first started out, yes he was strong, ad yes he was fast... But he couldnt fly and he wasnt totally invulnerable. Over the years however, the writers changed him, making him almost god-like in his sheer power. He's impossible to take down without Kryptonite practically, REALLY fast, and EXTREMELY strong to a titan sort of level. In short.. he got boring... There was no personal danger to him going out and fighting crime. He went out, beat up bad guys, got kittens out of trees, etc... And nothing could touch him except for Kryptonite. Once again... boring...

If the character was totally invincible there would be no need to out manuver and occasstionally run from an atlas mech. You say that taking control of a character away from the player is good for the storyline however I say that taking control of a character away from the player is bad for the role playing experience. You claim that I want my Shepeard to be in control all the time but I have never once said that.

What I want is to be in control of my Shepeard at all the times and the choice to try to fight my way out of a situation if I so desire it. If I as a player lack the skill needed to overcome the enemy then so be it but do not rip control away from me.

Inprea wrote...

If Shepeard was going to have a mental break down I believe that it should have happened long ago. Perhaps while looking upon the pile of corpses in the collector ship or shortly after having to leave Kaiden or Ashly to die. To me it's very much a situation of, "If you're not dead by now then you're not going to die."

That and I believe such mental break downs should be the decision of the player not forced upon them. If this was a true role playing game I would say roll mind + cool + any self descipline related talents to resist pschosis due to stress. Then assuming a failure we'd need to do another roll to see what physchosis we get.

However, as we don't have a stat system I'd say it's best left up to the player.

Garrison2009 wrote...
You play a Renegade Shepard dont you?

Paragon. I don't have it in me to play a malevolent character unless in an actual role playing setting and I'm the dungeon master.

Modifié par Inprea, 26 octobre 2011 - 06:50 .

[Gabey5]

You cannot control your shepard at al times, in the games story just as in with real life you get a few curveballs, something unpredictable that completely takes you off balance.

Let us take the collector attack on the SR1, at the end of me1 we are baddasses, who saved the galaxy. Hell we may be thinking the reapers are not as big as we thought and Shepard gets some stability in his new command. Then Bam, a ship the can see the most powerful stealth ship in the galaxy and rip it shreds. That was unexpected, and shatters the illusion of power hubris the play of the character you are roleplaying may have had.

These are just the Reapers lowly minions, what will shepard be facing in ME3? So my prediction is in this game we will not be in control at all, the reapers will be chess masters and we pieces trying to avoid our fate while they are 10 moves ahead. That is what make sthis exciting storywise,a nd getting knocked out for instance in arrival reminds us that we are not in God Mode but can be taken down at any time. Just like with all being in the galaxy we can be snuffed out just like that.

[Alamar2078]

Garrison2009 wrote...

But once again, this scenario (That you just laid out) while plausible and a good idea, makes things... less interesting. Nothing is spontaneous or takes you by surprise. You decide what happens and you expect the outcome of that decision as a result. There's no moment where your jaw drops open from something that just happened, once again making Shepard another Italian Plumber-like character, because he/she is never truly in danger and nothing unexpected ever happens to him/her. You see it all coming miles away... Which equals boring...

A fair enough point of view in that this could be boring for some, many, or possibly most people.

In RPGs though I like to feel like I'm in control of the character [if not the events] and I want things to happen because of my choices and not "in spite of my choices".  I'm willing to live with the tradeoff.

For example in ME2 the Collector Ship is an obvious trap.  I'd hate for something similar to happen in ME3, Shep gets captured, then needs to be rescued.  I'd like the choice of not stumbling into the obvious trap or see if I could set my own trap instead of being surprised by "oh how could the Collector Ship be a trap" ...

[Inprea]

Gabey5 wrote...

You cannot control your shepard at al
times, in the games story just as in with real life you get a few
curveballs, something unpredictable that completely takes you off
balance.

Let us take the collector attack on the SR1, at the end
of me1 we are baddasses, who saved the galaxy. Hell we may be thinking
the reapers are not as big as we thought and Shepard gets some stability
in his new command. Then Bam, a ship the can see the most powerful
stealth ship in the galaxy and rip it shreds. That was unexpected, and
shatters the illusion of power hubris the play of the character you are
roleplaying may have had.

These are just the Reapers lowly  minions, what will shepard be facing in ME3? So my prediction is in this
game we will not be in control at all, the reapers will be chess
masters and we pieces trying to avoid our fate while they are 10 moves
ahead. That is what make sthis exciting storywise,a nd getting knocked
out for instance in arrival reminds us that we are not in God Mode but
can be taken down at any time. Just like with all being in the galaxy we
can be snuffed out just like that.

It might destroy your illusions of power it struck me more as bad story telling. The  same goes for the event in arrival. My sentinel Shepeard was able to  stand up to the blast from the incomplete reaper as well as several
other attacks. Yet this reaper artifact has enough power to shred that  shield? That makes no sense to me especially considering that after the blast the room itself is intact.

Shepeard could not have controlled how easily the collector ship cut the normandi apart however he/she could have handled their own survival far superior. The first thing of note would have been to take some medgel and cover up the leak in his/her suit. As it's already been established that the gel is a good binder and air tight. That or perhaps remember that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It would have been possible to use a weapon to serve as a propoellent or just toss the weapon to push Shepeard back into the damaged normandi. Following that I would suggest make his/her way to the mako in order to increase odds of survival. Given that we see from the normandia crash site the mako is
relatively intact after impact.

That or a biotic should have been able to use a biotic push on themselves to get back into the ship.

Now I'm not claiming that all of  this is logical but it's every bit as logical as, "You were recovered
free floating in space after several months and Cerberus spent the next several years piecing you back together."

That said the entire collector ship deal is bad storytelling as far as I'm concerned.

I can't disagree with the notion that one can't control their Shepeard at all times. As the writers take control of our characters numerous times. That said I can say that we should be able to control our Shepeard at all times.

Modifié par Inprea, 26 octobre 2011 - 07:23 .

[Xeranx]

Inprea wrote...

First about the being done right see my response to Garrison and explain how it could be done right taking
into consideration everything Shepeard has accomplished without suddenly dumbing the character down.

***Removed this line because I quote it below***

Actually doesn't your desire for the character to be rescued contradict your statement about coming out unscathed? The protagonist is in a dire situation unable to escape and entire helpless but oh look here comes their friends just in the nick of time to save them. How about those friends don't arrive in time or just in time? How about by the time they arrived Shepeard's right eye has been turn off, his/her legs sawed off oh and let's cut
out his/her tongue. That should give you the mental and physical anguish that you want to see.

When you say that you want the protagonist to be rescued you're not saying you want them to be
scathed or suffer. What you're saying is, “I want them to be saved from suffering by others.”

Your response to Garrison highlights the difference between gameplay and story.  Realistically, if you were able to cow 1000 people in combat 100 wouldn't present an issue.  In addition to that, one should be easier than stealing candy from a baby, but none of that is argued against.  Why should Shepard have issues with taking on Blue Sun, Eclipse, and/or Blood Pack mercs when he's already faced off against Geth Hoppers?  Those agile little creatures that are capable of diminishing your shields in mere seconds and killing you soon after who also have the  added ability of drawing your fire while others can reduce you to swiss cheese?  Shepard took on a Geth Armature on foot while Hoppers and regular Geth units fired on him and his crew.  What does any mercenary have on him after that?

"Being influenced mentally and coming out unscathed are not directly related to being rescued."

Being influenced mentally with regard to being rescued is directly related.  What you're talking about is the degree to which the protagonist is influenced mentally and that all depends on what happens in whichever scenario they find themselves in that requires a rescue being made on their behalf.  And, the resulting consequences of being in that position.  

Being stuck behind a wall with no dire threat to themselves and no threat to anyone else only inspires a sense of anguish at not being able to do anything.  Being stuck behind a wall with no dire threat to themselves while a threat to loved ones exists is going to influence something not all together different, but definitely more powerful than the former.  So a person being harmed physically and/or mentally is directly related to what was presented in any such situation(s) they're placed.

Going back to Spider-Man where he was losing his powers due to him losing faith in himself and he needed to regain that faith to continue.  It was a nice try, but it could have been better.  Rewind to the animated series where his powers were on the fritz some of the time and he learned that his condition was changing.  Now there's an unknown that appears to be more dangerous or could and did turn out to be more dangerous than what we saw in the movie.  He still had to continue doing everything he was doing (work to help himself and his aunt, keep his grades up, make time for friends, and saving people from themselves and others) as though nothing changed because his objective remained the same.  He made a promise to the memory of his uncle, and everything he was and what he represented to more than himself was potentially at risk.  He needed help to get back to normal though I don't remember how it went exactly.  

Still, keep in mind that he suffered as a result.  I'm sure some aspect of doubt exists as his condition isn't one he was born with.  It was introduced to him after he believed he had a handle on being human, but he keeps going.  One doesn't need to lose a limb, but one must be put through trying situations and have the where-with-all to still come out on top to recognize suffering.  Tony Stark doesn't suffer as Peter Parker does.  He has his own headaches, but his suffering - his trials - aren't comparable.  Bruce Wayne suffers and most of it is self-inflicted, and there's an aspect of him needing that self-inflicted suffering to contine doing what he's doing.  Superman, however, doesn't suffer.  It seems that what you're asking for is for Shepard to be Superman.

Again, the state of being rescued does not negate a point in which a person cannot be harmed nor does it mean they must be harmed.  Even after being removed from the point of anguish, the memory of the event lingers.

Modifié par Xeranx, 26 octobre 2011 - 07:38 .

[Inprea]

Xeranx wrote...

Inprea wrote...

First about the being done right see my response to Garrison and explain how it could be done right taking
into consideration everything Shepeard has accomplished without suddenly dumbing the character down.

***Removed this line because I quote it below***

Actually doesn't your desire for the character to be rescued contradict your statement about coming out unscathed? The protagonist is in a dire situation unable to escape and entire helpless but oh look here comes their friends just in the nick of time to save them. How about those friends don't arrive in time or just in time? How about by the time they arrived Shepeard's right eye has been turn off, his/her legs sawed off oh and let's cut
out his/her tongue. That should give you the mental and physical anguish that you want to see.

When you say that you want the protagonist to be rescued you're not saying you want them to be
scathed or suffer. What you're saying is, “I want them to be saved from suffering by others.”

Your response to Garrison highlights the difference between gameplay and story.  Realistically, if you were able to cow 1000 people in combat 100 wouldn't present an issue.  In addition to that, one should be easier than stealing candy from a baby, but none of that is argued against.  Why should Shepard have issues with taking on Blue Sun, Eclipse, and/or Blood Pack mercs when he's already faced off against Geth Hoppers?  Those agile little creatures that are capable of diminishing your shields in mere seconds and killing you soon after who also have the  added ability of drawing your fire while others can reduce you to swiss cheese?  Shepard took on a Geth Armature on foot while Hoppers and regular Geth units fired on him and his crew.  What does any mercenary have on him after that?

"Being influenced mentally and coming out unscathed are not directly related to being rescued."

Being influenced mentally with regard to being rescued is directly related.  What you're talking about is the degree to which the protagonist is influenced mentally and that all depends on what happens in whichever scenario they find themselves in that requires a rescue being made on their behalf.  And, the resulting consequences of being in that position.  

Being stuck behind a wall with no dire threat to themselves and no threat to anyone else only inspires a sense of anguish at not being able to do anything.  Being stuck behind a wall with no dire threat to themselves while a threat to loved ones exists is going to influence something not all together different, but definitely more powerful than the former.  So a person being harmed physically and/or mentally is directly related to what was presented in such any situation(s) they're placed.

Going back to Spider-Man where he was losing his powers due to him losing faith in himself and he needed to regain that faith to continue.  It was a nice try, but it could have been better.  Rewind to the animated series where his powers were on the fritz some of the time and he learned that his condition was changing.  Now there's an unknown that appears to be more dangerous or could and did turn out to be more dangerous than what we saw in the movie.  He still had to continue doing everything he was doing (work to help himself and his aunt, keep his grades up, make time for friends, and saving people from themselves and others) as though nothing changed because his objective remained the same.  He made a promise to the memory of his uncle, and everything he was and what he represented to more than himself was potentially at risk.  He needed help to get back to normal though I don't remember how it went exactly.  

Still, keep in mind that he suffered as a result.  I'm sure some aspect of doubt exists as his condition isn't one he was born with.  It was introduced to him after he believed he had a handle on being human, but he keeps going.  One doesn't need to lose a limb, but one must be put through trying situations and have the where-with-all to still come out on top to recognize suffering.  Tony Stark doesn't suffer as Peter Parker does.  He has his own headaches, but his suffering - his trials - aren't comparable.  Bruce Wayne suffers and most of it is self-inflicted, and there's an aspect of him needing that self-inflicted suffering to contine doing what he's doing.  Superman, however, doesn't suffer.  It seems that what you're asking for is for Shepard to be Superman.

Again, the state of being rescued does not negate a point in which a person cannot be harmed nor does it mean they must be harmed.  Even after being removed from the point of anguish, the memory of the event lingers.

In a game where character choices are meant to have an impact on the storyline the gameplay and story should line up. If Shepeard is going to rip through hundreds of enemies then ten enemies should not be able to force a surrender.

When you talk about suffering you're getting away from the notion of being rescued. If you want trials for Shepeard just the burden of leadership is enough for that. Shepeard is ordering people into dangerous situations at times with limited amounts of knowledge. As their commanding officer their deaths are partly his responsibility and Shepeard has to deal with that.

Walking around the colony the collectors attack and realizing that they've already made off with half the collony is yet another trial Shepeard carries as there is the question of what would have happened if I'd arrive an hour sooner? Just being a military leader during a time of war carries trials and tribulations with it that there is no rescue from.

Rescue - to free or deliver from confinement, violence, danger, or evil.

What you're talking about isn't being rescued but rather being put through trials and tribulations. There can be plenty of those without being reduced to a helpless quivering state. Not all burdens mental or physical are things you can be rescued from.

Modifié par Inprea, 26 octobre 2011 - 07:48 .

[Garrison2009]

Inprea wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Inprea wrote...

First about the being done right see my response to Garrison and explain how it could be done right taking
into consideration everything Shepeard has accomplished without suddenly dumbing the character down.

***Removed this line because I quote it below***

Actually doesn't your desire for the character to be rescued contradict your statement about coming out unscathed? The protagonist is in a dire situation unable to escape and entire helpless but oh look here comes their friends just in the nick of time to save them. How about those friends don't arrive in time or just in time? How about by the time they arrived Shepeard's right eye has been turn off, his/her legs sawed off oh and let's cut
out his/her tongue. That should give you the mental and physical anguish that you want to see.

When you say that you want the protagonist to be rescued you're not saying you want them to be
scathed or suffer. What you're saying is, “I want them to be saved from suffering by others.”

Your response to Garrison highlights the difference between gameplay and story.  Realistically, if you were able to cow 1000 people in combat 100 wouldn't present an issue.  In addition to that, one should be easier than stealing candy from a baby, but none of that is argued against.  Why should Shepard have issues with taking on Blue Sun, Eclipse, and/or Blood Pack mercs when he's already faced off against Geth Hoppers?  Those agile little creatures that are capable of diminishing your shields in mere seconds and killing you soon after who also have the  added ability of drawing your fire while others can reduce you to swiss cheese?  Shepard took on a Geth Armature on foot while Hoppers and regular Geth units fired on him and his crew.  What does any mercenary have on him after that?

"Being influenced mentally and coming out unscathed are not directly related to being rescued."

Being influenced mentally with regard to being rescued is directly related.  What you're talking about is the degree to which the protagonist is influenced mentally and that all depends on what happens in whichever scenario they find themselves in that requires a rescue being made on their behalf.  And, the resulting consequences of being in that position.  

Being stuck behind a wall with no dire threat to themselves and no threat to anyone else only inspires a sense of anguish at not being able to do anything.  Being stuck behind a wall with no dire threat to themselves while a threat to loved ones exists is going to influence something not all together different, but definitely more powerful than the former.  So a person being harmed physically and/or mentally is directly related to what was presented in such any situation(s) they're placed.

Going back to Spider-Man where he was losing his powers due to him losing faith in himself and he needed to regain that faith to continue.  It was a nice try, but it could have been better.  Rewind to the animated series where his powers were on the fritz some of the time and he learned that his condition was changing.  Now there's an unknown that appears to be more dangerous or could and did turn out to be more dangerous than what we saw in the movie.  He still had to continue doing everything he was doing (work to help himself and his aunt, keep his grades up, make time for friends, and saving people from themselves and others) as though nothing changed because his objective remained the same.  He made a promise to the memory of his uncle, and everything he was and what he represented to more than himself was potentially at risk.  He needed help to get back to normal though I don't remember how it went exactly.  

Still, keep in mind that he suffered as a result.  I'm sure some aspect of doubt exists as his condition isn't one he was born with.  It was introduced to him after he believed he had a handle on being human, but he keeps going.  One doesn't need to lose a limb, but one must be put through trying situations and have the where-with-all to still come out on top to recognize suffering.  Tony Stark doesn't suffer as Peter Parker does.  He has his own headaches, but his suffering - his trials - aren't comparable.  Bruce Wayne suffers and most of it is self-inflicted, and there's an aspect of him needing that self-inflicted suffering to contine doing what he's doing.  Superman, however, doesn't suffer.  It seems that what you're asking for is for Shepard to be Superman.

Again, the state of being rescued does not negate a point in which a person cannot be harmed nor does it mean they must be harmed.  Even after being removed from the point of anguish, the memory of the event lingers.

In a game where character choices are meant to have an impact on the storyline the gameplay and story should line up. If Shepeard is going to rip through hundreds of enemies then ten enemies should not be able to force a surrender.

When you talk about suffering you're getting away from the notion of being rescued. If you want trials for Shepeard just the burden of leadership is enough for that. Shepeard is ordering people into dangerous situations at times with limited amounts of knowledge. As their commanding officer their deaths are partly his responsibility and Shepeard has to deal with that.

Walking around the colony the collectors attack and realizing that they've already made off with half the collony is yet another trial Shepeard carries as there is the question of what would have happened if I'd arrive an hour sooner? Just being a military leader during a time of war carries trials and tribulations with it that there is no rescue from.

Rescue - to free or deliver from confinement, violence, danger, or evil.

What you're talking about isn't being rescued but rather being put through trials and tribulations. There can be plenty of those without being reduced to a helpless quivering state. Not all burdens mental or physical are things you can be rescued from.

Yet still you go on with the same old argument... The truth here is simple: Shepard is not a god.

Has he done some incredible things? Most definitely.

Is he still human (In the meta-physical sense)? Of course he is, or else he would not fall prey to the same urges that everyone else does (Love, lust, or hatred, or anything else).

Can humans be hurt? Duh... Of course they can.

And lastly... There is ALWAYS someone bigger and stronger... ALWAYS. Shepard has yet to meet his match but I have a feeling that in Mass Effect 3, he will.

Honestly it sounds as if your problems stem more from the script than from any prejiduces you seem to have. You simply dont like how Bioware has handled things in the past and you dont want more of it in future. Actually, it sounds as if the Oblivion series would be more in your line of things as far as gameplay mechanics go.

Ultimately, I think of Mass Effect less as an RPG and more as an interactive film. Story is first and foremost to me before gameplay or common mechanics...

[Inprea]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Yet still you go on with the same old argument... The truth here is simple: Shepard is not a god.

Has he done some incredible things? Most definitely.

Is he still human (In the meta-physical sense)? Of course he is, or else he would not fall prey to the same urges that everyone else does (Love, lust, or hatred, or anything else).

Can humans be hurt? Duh... Of course they can.

And lastly... There is ALWAYS someone bigger and stronger... ALWAYS. Shepard has yet to meet his match but I have a feeling that in Mass Effect 3, he will.

Honestly it sounds as if your problems stem more from the script than from any prejiduces you seem to have. You simply dont like how Bioware has handled things in the past and you dont want more of it in future. Actually, it sounds as if the Oblivion series would be more in your line of things as far as gameplay mechanics go.

Ultimately, I think of Mass Effect less as an RPG and more as an interactive film. Story is first and foremost to me before gameplay or common mechanics...

Not met his match? I don't recall fighting soverign one on one as I'm pretty sure soverign is well outside of Shepeards weight class. If I wanted to treat Shepeard as a god I would have argued that at no point she she/he be forced to retreat but should always be able to stand and fight even if the fight is difficult.

As for not liking how Bioware has handled cut seen defeats in the past I can honestly say, no I have not. While I've enjoyed several aspects of their games I despize such moments especially when handled poorly.

You said it yourself though. You're arguing from the view point that sees mass effect as more of a film then a role playing game. I on the other hand value the role playing elements more then the film elements.

As mentioned in my very first post though this is most likely all futile. Bioware already has the script and they're just polishing the game at this point. It's a very safe assumption that at some point Shepeard will be reduced to a helpless state or even killed during a cut seen as it's a trend that has appeared in several of their games even recent ones.

DAO- being saved by flemeth, and Dunken
Awakening - Capture by the architect
DAO2 - Save by flemeth yet again but now captured in Mota.
Jade Empire - Killed by master Li then saved by the water dragon spirit.
Mass Effect 2 - The collector ship incident, the arrival event as well.

I am fully aware that such events will most likely repeat in Mass Effect 3 and continue to repeat in Bioware games afterwords. Yet as a paying customer I do believe I have the right to say I don't like such events just as other paying customers have the right to encourage such events.

Those who aren't paying should just keep quiet.

Modifié par Inprea, 26 octobre 2011 - 08:37 .

[Garrison2009]

Gabey5 wrote...

You cannot control your shepard at al times, in the games story just as in with real life you get a few curveballs, something unpredictable that completely takes you off balance.

Let us take the collector attack on the SR1, at the end of me1 we are baddasses, who saved the galaxy. Hell we may be thinking the reapers are not as big as we thought and Shepard gets some stability in his new command. Then Bam, a ship the can see the most powerful stealth ship in the galaxy and rip it shreds. That was unexpected, and shatters the illusion of power hubris the play of the character you are roleplaying may have had.

These are just the Reapers lowly minions, what will shepard be facing in ME3? So my prediction is in this game we will not be in control at all, the reapers will be chess masters and we pieces trying to avoid our fate while they are 10 moves ahead. That is what make sthis exciting storywise,a nd getting knocked out for instance in arrival reminds us that we are not in God Mode but can be taken down at any time. Just like with all being in the galaxy we can be snuffed out just like that.

^ This. This makes the perfect example of a story keeping you on the edge of your seat. Keeping you believing the whole time that your defeat is ultimately inevitable, as the Reapers have been telling you the whole time, and that you will eventually fail. THAT is good story-telling, as it keeps the characters in constant danger and makes you care about what happens to them. Of course our Shepards will all come out of it alright (We hope) but if we know that he's going to be alright from the beginning.. That 'edge of your seat' quality is lost and we're left with nothing but a few hours of shooting some guys and ultimately winning as we knew we would and... That's it.... boring...

[Garrison2009]

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

Yet still you go on with the same old argument... The truth here is simple: Shepard is not a god.

Has he done some incredible things? Most definitely.

Is he still human (In the meta-physical sense)? Of course he is, or else he would not fall prey to the same urges that everyone else does (Love, lust, or hatred, or anything else).

Can humans be hurt? Duh... Of course they can.

And lastly... There is ALWAYS someone bigger and stronger... ALWAYS. Shepard has yet to meet his match but I have a feeling that in Mass Effect 3, he will.

Honestly it sounds as if your problems stem more from the script than from any prejiduces you seem to have. You simply dont like how Bioware has handled things in the past and you dont want more of it in future. Actually, it sounds as if the Oblivion series would be more in your line of things as far as gameplay mechanics go.

Ultimately, I think of Mass Effect less as an RPG and more as an interactive film. Story is first and foremost to me before gameplay or common mechanics...

Not met his match? I don't recall fighting soverign one on one as I'm pretty sure soverign is well outside of Shepeards weight class. If I wanted to treat Shepeard as a god I would have argued that at no point she she/he be forced to retreat but should always be able to stand and fight even if the fight is difficult.

As for not liking how Bioware has handled cut seen defeats in the past I can honestly say, no I have not. While I've enjoyed several aspects of their games I despize such moments especially when handled poorly.

You said it yourself though. You're arguing from the view point that sees mass effect as more of a film then a role playing game. I on the other hand value the role playing elements more then the film elements.

Not the 'film elements' as you say, but the story elements. That is the reason I started playing Mass Effect in the first place and the reason I'll be playing Mass Effect 3 when it comes out. Shepard's journey is the whole point, emotionally and physically.

[CroGamer002]

I'm getting sick of rescuing everyone.

Someone rescue me for a change!

[Inprea]

Garrison2009 wrote...


^ This. This makes the perfect example of a story keeping you on the edge of your seat. Keeping you believing the whole time that your defeat is ultimately inevitable, as the Reapers have been telling you the whole time, and that you will eventually fail. THAT is good story-telling, as it keeps the characters in constant danger and makes you care about what happens to them. Of course our Shepards will all come out of it alright (We hope) but if we know that he's going to be alright from the beginning.. That 'edge of your seat' quality is lost and we're left with nothing but a few hours of shooting some guys and ultimately winning as we knew we would and... That's it.... boring...

Keeping you on the edge of your seat believing that whole time that you'll lose? Who are you kidding? It's a video game and a bioware game at that. How many bioware games can you list in which the protagonist doesn't come out alright so long as you're prudent in doing side quests and mini objectives?

You see the collector attack as good story telling I do not. I see that as a cheap excuse to change Shepeard's class and get him on Cerberus's side. A group who he/she would normally shoot rather then work with.

[Ananka]

I want to see Shepard rescued, preferrably by the LI. It is not realistic that one person is kick-ass in every situation possible. Besides, even if you're a great tactician, things can get messed up and you'll find yourself in a nasty situation that you may not be able to solve on your own. I don't want Shep to be perfect, I want him/her to be human. Human is more interesting.

[nitefyre410]

its not shepard getting rescued its was all part of the plan to get captured to get on the inside... >.>

[Garrison2009]

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...


^ This. This makes the perfect example of a story keeping you on the edge of your seat. Keeping you believing the whole time that your defeat is ultimately inevitable, as the Reapers have been telling you the whole time, and that you will eventually fail. THAT is good story-telling, as it keeps the characters in constant danger and makes you care about what happens to them. Of course our Shepards will all come out of it alright (We hope) but if we know that he's going to be alright from the beginning.. That 'edge of your seat' quality is lost and we're left with nothing but a few hours of shooting some guys and ultimately winning as we knew we would and... That's it.... boring...

Keeping you on the edge of your seat believing that whole time that you'll lose? Who are you kidding? It's a video game and a bioware game at that. How many bioware games can you list in which the protagonist doesn't come out alright so long as you're prudent in doing side quests and mini objectives?

You see the collector attack as good story telling I do not. I see that as a cheap excuse to change Shepeard's class and get him on Cerberus's side. A group who he/she would normally shoot rather then work with.

Granted. The Collector attack wasnt the best story-telling technique and I never said it was. However, once again you're looking at it from a more gameplay mechanics side, and actually... from that side it isnt too bad. It gives a more plausible excuse as to how his class and stats might change.

Mass Effect 2 all-in-all will probably end up being my least favorite of the series, not because of any short-comings of its own, but merely because I prefer the story in the first and it looks like I will also prefer the story in the last. As I've stated, gameplay and all that, while important, is secondary to story and character to me, both of which in the Mass Effect series have been top-notch thus far. I simply dont want it turning into an Oblivion empty sort of RPG where, yes the game is fun, but you care very little about the characters or are rarely impressed or shocked at anything past the first hour of playing.

[Inprea]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Not the 'film elements' as you say, but the story elements. That is the reason I started playing Mass Effect in the first place and the reason I'll be playing Mass Effect 3 when it comes out. Shepard's journey is the whole point, emotionally and physically.

You said it yourself. You see mass effect as an interactive film.

That may be what got you playing but what got me playing is the prospect of making decisions in the video game world and they actually influence the outcome. We are looking at it from to different view points. As someone who's more into the role playing elements of course I'm going to hate it whenever control of the character I'm meant to be guiding is taken away and any previous decision I made invalidated.

Modifié par Inprea, 26 octobre 2011 - 08:52 .

[Garrison2009]

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

Not the 'film elements' as you say, but the story elements. That is the reason I started playing Mass Effect in the first place and the reason I'll be playing Mass Effect 3 when it comes out. Shepard's journey is the whole point, emotionally and physically.

You said it yourself. You see mass effect as an interactive film.

That may be what got you playing but what got me playing is the prospect of making decisions in the video game world and they actually influence the outcome. We are looking at it from to different view points. As someone who's more into the role playing elements of course I'm going to hate it whenever control of the character I'm meant to be guiding is taken away and any previous decision I made invalidated.

Then I can definitely respect your argument if I do not necessarily agree with you. You never know, Bioware might manage to give both of us what we want .

[Inprea]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...


^ This. This makes the perfect example of a story keeping you on the edge of your seat. Keeping you believing the whole time that your defeat is ultimately inevitable, as the Reapers have been telling you the whole time, and that you will eventually fail. THAT is good story-telling, as it keeps the characters in constant danger and makes you care about what happens to them. Of course our Shepards will all come out of it alright (We hope) but if we know that he's going to be alright from the beginning.. That 'edge of your seat' quality is lost and we're left with nothing but a few hours of shooting some guys and ultimately winning as we knew we would and... That's it.... boring...

Keeping you on the edge of your seat believing that whole time that you'll lose? Who are you kidding? It's a video game and a bioware game at that. How many bioware games can you list in which the protagonist doesn't come out alright so long as you're prudent in doing side quests and mini objectives?

You see the collector attack as good story telling I do not. I see that as a cheap excuse to change Shepeard's class and get him on Cerberus's side. A group who he/she would normally shoot rather then work with.

Granted. The Collector attack wasnt the best story-telling technique and I never said it was. However, once again you're looking at it from a more gameplay mechanics side, and actually... from that side it isnt too bad. It gives a more plausible excuse as to how his class and stats might change.

Mass Effect 2 all-in-all will probably end up being my least favorite of the series, not because of any short-comings of its own, but merely because I prefer the story in the first and it looks like I will also prefer the story in the last. As I've stated, gameplay and all that, while important, is secondary to story and character to me, both of which in the Mass Effect series have been top-notch thus far. I simply dont want it turning into an Oblivion empty sort of RPG where, yes the game is fun, but you care very little about the characters or are rarely impressed or shocked at anything past the first hour of playing.

You say that after first saying  "This makes the perfect example of a story keeping you on the edge of your seat." Now you change it to, "Granted. The Collector attack wasnt the best story-telling technique and I never said it was."

You may want to rethink what makes a perfect example.

[Inprea]

Garrison2009 wrote...

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

Not the 'film elements' as you say, but the story elements. That is the reason I started playing Mass Effect in the first place and the reason I'll be playing Mass Effect 3 when it comes out. Shepard's journey is the whole point, emotionally and physically.

You said it yourself. You see mass effect as an interactive film.

That may be what got you playing but what got me playing is the prospect of making decisions in the video game world and they actually influence the outcome. We are looking at it from to different view points. As someone who's more into the role playing elements of course I'm going to hate it whenever control of the character I'm meant to be guiding is taken away and any previous decision I made invalidated.

Then I can definitely respect your argument if I do not necessarily agree with you. You never know, Bioware might manage to give both of us what we want .

Oh great. Now you respond polightly and I am left feeling like a jerk for some of my more aggressive statements.

If we look at the thread though it's clear I'm in the minority. If there isn't a rescue seen I'll be shocked and amazed.

[Xeranx]

Inprea wrote...

In a game where character choices are meant to have an impact on the storyline the gameplay and story should line up. If Shepeard is going to rip through hundreds of enemies then ten enemies should not be able to force a surrender.

That's exactly what I said, but because there's a disconnect between gameplay and story to make the game more fun it comes with the territory.  There needs to be allowances to allow gameplay to exist while story takes five.  There's no in-line reason for biotics to be able to perform as they do in game, but that's done for gameplay purposes.  There's also no in-line reason for biotics to not have an effect on armor, but restrictions exist in gameplay to make combat more interesting or more difficult.  There's no in-line reason for Shepard to not be able to use any weapon as they are Special Forces, but there are distinctions made as to which type of Shepard is able to do what.

When you talk about suffering you're getting away from the notion of being rescued. If you want trials for Shepeard just the burden of leadership is enough for that. Shepeard is ordering people into dangerous situations at times with limited amounts of knowledge. As their commanding officer their deaths are partly his responsibility and Shepeard has to deal with that.

Walking around the colony the collectors attack and realizing that they've already made off with half the collony is yet another trial Shepeard carries as there is the question of what would have happened if I'd arrive an hour sooner? Just being a military leader during a time of war carries trials and tribulations with it that there is no rescue from.

Rescue - to free or deliver from confinement, violence, danger, or evil.

What you're talking about isn't being rescued but rather being put through trials and tribulations. There can be plenty of those without being reduced to a helpless quivering state. Not all burdens mental or physical are things you can be rescued from.

Suffering and the notion of being rescued aren't exclusive in all circumstances however.  They can exist as part of the same issue.  I'm a poor man.  Currently I'm in confinement.  I'm restricted from what I am able to do.  I'm having trouble getting the things I need which means my ability to get the things I want is sorely lacking.   I am suffering because I have to work to get the things I need.  Should I make it to the point that I am able to get most of what I need without worrying about how, it then becomes a trial I've passed.  I don't need rescue or need to be rescued, but I most certainly can be.  Winning the lottery can be a rescue of sorts because it pulls me out of my current troubles and makes me free of them.  Of course there are other troubles that come with that, but that's not the conversation at hand.

And not all situations where anguish is induced reduces the protagonist to 'a helpless quivering state'.  If you get frustrated when someone holds you up in a line you're experiencing a state of anguish.  Plain and simple.  It's not going to make you cry and curl into a ball.  It can ****** you off, however.  The scenario I posited before goes to that.  If a protagonist is cut off from being able to move and a loved one is in danger, they are in need of being rescued to continue with their intended goal.  They don't have to become a sobbing mess at that point in time and being rescued from that predicament doesn't have to leave them full of doubt.  It's just good when things happen that show the writers are attempting to get you into the protagonist's head and feel what they're feeling.

[Garrison2009]

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...


^ This. This makes the perfect example of a story keeping you on the edge of your seat. Keeping you believing the whole time that your defeat is ultimately inevitable, as the Reapers have been telling you the whole time, and that you will eventually fail. THAT is good story-telling, as it keeps the characters in constant danger and makes you care about what happens to them. Of course our Shepards will all come out of it alright (We hope) but if we know that he's going to be alright from the beginning.. That 'edge of your seat' quality is lost and we're left with nothing but a few hours of shooting some guys and ultimately winning as we knew we would and... That's it.... boring...

Keeping you on the edge of your seat believing that whole time that you'll lose? Who are you kidding? It's a video game and a bioware game at that. How many bioware games can you list in which the protagonist doesn't come out alright so long as you're prudent in doing side quests and mini objectives?

You see the collector attack as good story telling I do not. I see that as a cheap excuse to change Shepeard's class and get him on Cerberus's side. A group who he/she would normally shoot rather then work with.

Granted. The Collector attack wasnt the best story-telling technique and I never said it was. However, once again you're looking at it from a more gameplay mechanics side, and actually... from that side it isnt too bad. It gives a more plausible excuse as to how his class and stats might change.

Mass Effect 2 all-in-all will probably end up being my least favorite of the series, not because of any short-comings of its own, but merely because I prefer the story in the first and it looks like I will also prefer the story in the last. As I've stated, gameplay and all that, while important, is secondary to story and character to me, both of which in the Mass Effect series have been top-notch thus far. I simply dont want it turning into an Oblivion empty sort of RPG where, yes the game is fun, but you care very little about the characters or are rarely impressed or shocked at anything past the first hour of playing.

You say that after first saying  "This makes the perfect example of a story keeping you on the edge of your seat." Now you change it to, "Granted. The Collector attack wasnt the best story-telling technique and I never said it was."

You may want to rethink what makes a perfect example.

I was saying that his example as to how ME3, with the Reapers being chess-masters (being 10 moves ahead at all times), is a perfect example...

[Garrison2009]

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

Inprea wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

Not the 'film elements' as you say, but the story elements. That is the reason I started playing Mass Effect in the first place and the reason I'll be playing Mass Effect 3 when it comes out. Shepard's journey is the whole point, emotionally and physically.

You said it yourself. You see mass effect as an interactive film.

That may be what got you playing but what got me playing is the prospect of making decisions in the video game world and they actually influence the outcome. We are looking at it from to different view points. As someone who's more into the role playing elements of course I'm going to hate it whenever control of the character I'm meant to be guiding is taken away and any previous decision I made invalidated.

Then I can definitely respect your argument if I do not necessarily agree with you. You never know, Bioware might manage to give both of us what we want .

Oh great. Now you respond polightly and I am left feeling like a jerk for some of my more aggressive statements.

If we look at the thread though it's clear I'm in the minority. If there isn't a rescue seen I'll be shocked and amazed.

lol, and dont feel like a jerk. Debate and argument are what these forums are all about. You put forward your points very well.

[lovgreno]

A rescue probably fits some Shepard better than others. A Shepard who belives in cooperation would not have any problem with swallong his pride and accept help. A Shepard who follows TIMmys agenda of supremacism and imperialism on the other hand may find his ego hurt if he have to accept being weak for once.

[Inprea]

Xeranx wrote...

Inprea wrote...

In a game where character choices are meant to have an impact on the storyline the gameplay and story should line up. If Shepeard is going to rip through hundreds of enemies then ten enemies should not be able to force a surrender.

That's exactly what I said, but because there's a disconnect between gameplay and story to make the game more fun it comes with the territory.  There needs to be allowances to allow gameplay to exist while story takes five.  There's no in-line reason for biotics to be able to perform as they do in game, but that's done for gameplay purposes.  There's also no in-line reason for biotics to not have an effect on armor, but restrictions exist in gameplay to make combat more interesting or more difficult.  There's no in-line reason for Shepard to not be able to use any weapon as they are Special Forces, but there are distinctions made as to which type of Shepard is able to do what.

When you talk about suffering you're getting away from the notion of being rescued. If you want trials for Shepeard just the burden of leadership is enough for that. Shepeard is ordering people into dangerous situations at times with limited amounts of knowledge. As their commanding officer their deaths are partly his responsibility and Shepeard has to deal with that.

Walking around the colony the collectors attack and realizing that they've already made off with half the collony is yet another trial Shepeard carries as there is the question of what would have happened if I'd arrive an hour sooner? Just being a military leader during a time of war carries trials and tribulations with it that there is no rescue from.

Rescue - to free or deliver from confinement, violence, danger, or evil.

What you're talking about isn't being rescued but rather being put through trials and tribulations. There can be plenty of those without being reduced to a helpless quivering state. Not all burdens mental or physical are things you can be rescued from.

Suffering and the notion of being rescued aren't exclusive in all circumstances however.  They can exist as part of the same issue.  I'm a poor man.  Currently I'm in confinement.  I'm restricted from what I am able to do.  I'm having trouble getting the things I need which means my ability to get the things I want is sorely lacking.   I am suffering because I have to work to get the things I need.  Should I make it to the point that I am able to get most of what I need without worrying about how, it then becomes a trial I've passed.  I don't need rescue or need to be rescued, but I most certainly can be.  Winning the lottery can be a rescue of sorts because it pulls me out of my current troubles and makes me free of them.  Of course there are other troubles that come with that, but that's not the conversation at hand.

And not all situations where anguish is induced reduces the protagonist to 'a helpless quivering state'.  If you get frustrated when someone holds you up in a line you're experiencing a state of anguish.  Plain and simple.  It's not going to make you cry and curl into a ball.  It can ****** you off, however.  The scenario I posited before goes to that.  If a protagonist is cut off from being able to move and a loved one is in danger, they are in need of being rescued to continue with their intended goal.  They don't have to become a sobbing mess at that point in time and being rescued from that predicament doesn't have to leave them full of doubt.  It's just good when things happen that show the writers are attempting to get you into the protagonist's head and feel what they're feeling.

If you want that then why even have a rescue situation? It could be given easily enough. A quick scenario. Shepeard is currently in rout to the Krogan homeworld when a message comes through. An Asari transport is currently under Cerberus or worse yet reaper attack. Making the situation still worse Liara is on that ship or Samara. Not as much of a concern if Samara is on the ship though given that she's a big girl and can take care of herself.

Now Shepeard has two major issues. His/her friends are in danger but she's too far away to help them as it would take hours if not days to get to their location. Shepeard is also faced with the problem that if they rush to the aid fo the asari their dealings on the Krogan homeworld will be delayed which could bring up even more issues.

There can be situation where you're powerless to intervene without actually being captured or in need of someone else to rescue you.

Though in the same scenario where something like the immigrant fleet or the geth (assume they are allies) show up and give the asari ship support then it might be said that Shepeard was rescued from having to make such a tough decision or such a powerless state. You don't have to rip control of Shepeard away from the player in order to put them in a bad situation.

Then later Samara or Liara can ask, "So what would you have done if Legion/Tali hadn't shown up?"

Hopefully one of the choices would then be, "I guess we'll never know."

Modifié par Inprea, 26 octobre 2011 - 09:18 .

[King Minos]

The only thing I saw in this page was someone mentioning Spider-man, damn you selective reading. Shepard isn't invincible, Shepard being captured shows that he or show is capable of ****ing up just like anyone else is. So yeah I want Shepard to be captured, hand-cuffed, gagged and wear leather then liara comes bursting in to save Shepard only to join 5 mins later much to Shepards dismay.