428 réponses à ce sujet

[Labrev]

GodWood wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
It's truly baffling how the one side that feels eternally cheated for not getting a pat-on-the-back for everything they do is the same one that gets right in these topics and rails on the game for lacking realism, tragedy, and loss..

It's baffling you still won't even attempt to understand the complaints and still continue to misrepresent what they're actually complaining about.

I understand them fine - they're stupid. Pretty convenient how no one can tell me what I do not understand about the complaints (as I procede to tear gaping holes into them), instead just continually repeat "you don't get it" like a broken record.

Lol.

But like Eternal said let's leave the PVR out of this thread.
If you can't fathom the want for 'some' paragon choices backfiring and some renegade choices come out as the better option (and vice versa) then that's your own stupid problem.

Wanting equal treatment with varying degrees of consequences and no clear cut winner between the two? MADNESS!

Just in time for the edit I made in that post. Actually yes, it IS madness. Worse than that, it is retarded and metagame-logic.

Leave PvR out? Funny, it's always the renegade die-hards coming and casting the first stone in these things. But now, we musn't speak of such things!

Whatever, I'm out of here anyway.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 28 novembre 2011 - 08:13 .

[GodWood]

So Eternal how do you feel about everyone dying?

Reapers win, galaxy is destroyed but the game ends with a hope that Shepard gives enough warning for future species to survive. Nothing better then a bitter ending with a glimmer of hope.

[GodWood]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
So Eternal how do you feel about everyone dying?

Reapers win, galaxy is destroyed but the game ends with a hope that Shepard gives enough warning for future species to survive. Nothing better then a bitter ending with a glimmer of hope.

I don't like that idea; it would make all the little things we do in the game (like who to kill or not) pointless, as everybody would die regardless.

Just like real life

I know it'll never happen but it's the dream.

[ZLurps]

GodWood wrote...

So Eternal how do you feel about everyone dying?

Reapers
win, galaxy is destroyed but the game ends with a hope that Shepard
gives enough warning for future species to survive. Nothing better then a
bitter ending with a glimmer of hope.

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I wouldn't mind an ending like that at all, since it would be the most realistic.

I haven't read the leaked script so I don't know how BioWare is going to solve the problem with very powerful enemy.
One realistic way to kill the whole crew of Normandy would be just write a cruiser or dreadnought that crew is very tired, crew, including officers are literally being awake for week or so with drugs and suffer from all kind of side effects.
Then here comes Normandy... something goes wrong with identification and Alliance ship blasts unsuspecting Normandy to ball of fire. Critical mission failure.

Don't know if many people would enjoy that kind of ending though.

[ZLurps]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

No matter what happens, plenty will be unhappy.

Plenty on of people on BSN maybe, that I guess is like 1% of customer base.
For the big crowds out there, it's another game, perhaps anticipated game but in the end, just another game. That crowd decides if product is going to be a commercial success or not.

Not to say that reading and discussing all kind of ideas isn't fun.

[sg1fan75]

Booooo

[Lotion Soronarr]

KingDan97 wrote...
But why that kid, that's my point. If it's a kid she sees a lot of herself in than introduce them earlier, make us see that she does care about the kid, make me care about her caring about the kid, and make it clear the kid wouldn't have survived if she hadn't died. Have her need to produce a biotic field so strong it fries her brain, a biotic field that only she could make because only she was willing to put enough of herself into it for that kid. Have her give last words, have me shed a tear because she finally learned to be so selfless from what she was when I picked her up in ME2.

Don't make it a bullet, or a distraction, make it something that only they can do, or only they care enough to do. That's what I'm saying, because at the end of the day it is the presentation, and spreading my team too thin(as originally suggested which is the idea I was really rejecting) is stupid, lazy and a cheap cop out just so that they don't have to say that they did kill off Jack, but that you chose it.

Everyone dying in a tragic/epic/unique way is just as much of a cop-out. It feels fake and forced 90% of the time.

I got nothing agaisnt people just dying. No heroic sacrifice. No deep last words. No meaningfull, longing glances.
BOOOM. headshot.

[AdmiralCheez]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Well, then I guess it's escapism, but not the same kind as yours. It can't be!

You like your fantasies to mimic real life to enhance their plausibility, strengthening the illusion so that you can enjoy them without constantly being reminded that, oh yeah, it's a fantasy.  You are in it for the exact same reasons I am (it's a stimulating and enjoyable alternate reality), but it requires a few different elements to keep you immersed.

I want it to be as real to life as possible within the defined medium.

Befriend a few really interesting and violent people, watch documentaries on space, and spend a few hours at the shooting range every week.

And then say "I should go" a lot and there you have it.

Every day I'm Mass Effectin'.

[ZLurps]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

You like your fantasies to mimic real life to enhance their plausibility, strengthening the illusion so that you can enjoy them without constantly being reminded that, oh yeah, it's a fantasy.  You are in it for the exact same reasons I am (it's a stimulating and enjoyable alternate reality), but it requires a few different elements to keep you immersed.

This I think pretty much is what comes to fans of story. We all look for some sort of fantasy but it's different elements that makes it work for us.

Just a side note. I think it would be interesting to know how devs analyse other reward systems and motivations that makes game a good experience. After all story is something that moves players around doing various things, being it reaction test, multitasking test or tower or Hanoi puzzle. However, story is not the big thing per se, but just something that flows somewhere back in their minds as they move from one sequence to sequence.

[Someone With Mass]

If Mass Effect was aiming to be realistic, I don't think the Normandy would've been able to land without attracting any attention from the Reapers and pick up Shepard on Earth. No, that would've pretty much been a repeat of ME2's intro, but with no way of coming back.

[Il Divo]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

And here is that refutement again, 5th-to-last post here: http://social.biowar...ndex/7800578/56

That's not metagaming. That's called a bad morality system.

People aren't arguing from the perspective of their characters why the PvR system is unfair, so it can't be metagaming.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 novembre 2011 - 03:06 .

[ZLurps]

Someone With Mass wrote...

If Mass Effect was aiming to be realistic, I don't think the Normandy would've been able to land without attracting any attention from the Reapers and pick up Shepard on Earth. No, that would've pretty much been a repeat of ME2's intro, but with no way of coming back.

I thought this was covered already, but like others have wrote earlier, different things make things plausible for different kind of people. It could also be said that people have different threshold for what they feel is realistic in given settings.
Games often are bout balancing between fantastic and realistic elements and game developers probably aim for the something where fantasy is realistic enough for MOST people to be plausible instead of ridiculous and irritating.

[xentar]

The PLC wrote...

So, here's another one of my excellent ideas.

Everyone dies, no matter what you do.

This has sadly been rejected as an option. This reminds me of sadomasochism: people can't be sufficiently stimulated without some pain but don't want it to be overwhelming.

On a side note: is there an otherwise non-spoilerific source of information on who exactly is likely to die no matter what? A simple search didn't help.

[Someone With Mass]

ZLurps wrote...

I thought this was covered already, but like others have wrote earlier, different things make things plausible for different kind of people. It could also be said that people have different threshold for what they feel is realistic in given settings.
Games often are bout balancing between fantastic and realistic elements and game developers probably aim for the something where fantasy is realistic enough for MOST people to be plausible instead of ridiculous and irritating.

True.

I think it's also important to know when realism is a tad ridiculous demand.

[Biotic Sage]

wildannie wrote...

Random Nobody wrote...

Strawmanning. A film and an interactive game are two different types of narrative.

This, I don't understand why those in favour of scripted deaths try and back up their arguments pointing to films and books which are not meant to be interactive.

Mass Effect is supposed to be interactive.  Specific character deaths of any of the ME2 squad in ME3 can't be crucial to the story as they can all be dead already which to my mind places their stories amongst the interactive parts rather than the tightly scripted parts.  

For Bioware to make a squad/crew death that is crucial to the story they are trying to tell they'd have to kill Liara or Joker or the VS (I'm not counting Vega as we don't know the character yet).

I'm pretty sure that isn't strawman.  However, what you are doing is slippery slope.  You are saying that if one single element is out of the player's control, then there is not interaction with the work.  That is completely untrue.

[ZLurps]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

I thought this was covered already, but like others have wrote earlier, different things make things plausible for different kind of people. It could also be said that people have different threshold for what they feel is realistic in given settings.
Games often are bout balancing between fantastic and realistic elements and game developers probably aim for the something where fantasy is realistic enough for MOST people to be plausible instead of ridiculous and irritating.

True.

I think it's also important to know when realism is a tad ridiculous demand.

We can tell what we feel ridiculous level of realism, but going beyond that... of course if we start demaning things that would take lot of resources from developers, well those just won't fly, but outside of that who am I to tell someone how to play the game?

Say this squad mate death... I would like to have an option to save everyone, well Thane is bit difficult because his sickness but scene where he sees his effort fighting against the Reapers haven't been worthless before dying would be good.
Anyway, what if there were squad mates deaths but in New Game+ mode you could save this squad mate. If it would be handled like squad mate would be wounded and out of duty instead of dying in New Game+ there wouldn't be necessarily much additional writing and voice work to do in comparison to path where character dies.
I guess everyone wouldn't be happy because of this and that and whatever, but I think it might balance the things out and give reward for players who care about NPC's and crowd that are completionists. Players who feel whole squad surviving would get what they want and keep that as their canon run.

I don't see how there would be way to play game "wrong" anymore than it's right or wrong to play paragon or renegade character.

[KingDan97]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...
But why that kid, that's my point. If it's a kid she sees a lot of herself in than introduce them earlier, make us see that she does care about the kid, make me care about her caring about the kid, and make it clear the kid wouldn't have survived if she hadn't died. Have her need to produce a biotic field so strong it fries her brain, a biotic field that only she could make because only she was willing to put enough of herself into it for that kid. Have her give last words, have me shed a tear because she finally learned to be so selfless from what she was when I picked her up in ME2.

Don't make it a bullet, or a distraction, make it something that only they can do, or only they care enough to do. That's what I'm saying, because at the end of the day it is the presentation, and spreading my team too thin(as originally suggested which is the idea I was really rejecting) is stupid, lazy and a cheap cop out just so that they don't have to say that they did kill off Jack, but that you chose it.

Everyone dying in a tragic/epic/unique way is just as much of a cop-out. It feels fake and forced 90% of the time.

I got nothing agaisnt people just dying. No heroic sacrifice. No deep last words. No meaningfull, longing glances.
BOOOM. headshot.

Woah woah woah, when did we start talking about everyone dying? I'm saying the 1, maybe 2 forced squaddies deaths shouldn't be generic. I don't care how many Kirrahe's or Benezia's we kill off, and as far as I'm concerned go ahead and just blow their heads off. All I'm saying is that in scenarios where I can't avert the death of a squadmate make it because it's them who is needed, not because "Hey shepard, who do you want to guard the long corridor near the glass door being assaulted by husks with the bulkhead with no override?"

I'm not saying if there's another death run, another SM type scenario then they have the option to die without any true service, but only if they can make me feel like this mission isn't just another base, and they can't pull it for every homeworld either.

The way I see it, they have 3 scenario types that they can only use once each for squadmate death possibility. A scripted death, a Virmire Survivor type binary choice, and a suicide mission style runthrough. But if there's more SM style deaths than like the SM there should be a way that I can get everyone out, because unlike a VS or a scripted death I would feel more like it's something I did based on past franchise experience.

[Someone With Mass]

ZLurps wrote...

We can tell what we feel ridiculous level of realism, but going beyond that... of course if we start demaning things that would take lot of resources from developers, well those just won't fly, but outside of that who am I to tell someone how to play the game?

Say this squad mate death... I would like to have an option to save everyone, well Thane is bit difficult because his sickness but scene where he sees his effort fighting against the Reapers haven't been worthless before dying would be good.
Anyway, what if there were squad mates deaths but in New Game+ mode you could save this squad mate. If it would be handled like squad mate would be wounded and out of duty instead of dying in New Game+ there wouldn't be necessarily much additional writing and voice work to do in comparison to path where character dies.
I guess everyone wouldn't be happy because of this and that and whatever, but I think it might balance the things out and give reward for players who care about NPC's and crowd that are completionists. Players who feel whole squad surviving would get what they want and keep that as their canon run.

I don't see how there would be way to play game "wrong" anymore than it's right or wrong to play paragon or renegade character.

I don't know. Seems a little too demanding for people with different Shepards to force them to play through the game twice to be able to save some characters. This would definitely be a problem for those who don't know how to save those characters/that the option even exists or if those characters' moments appear late in the game. 

[KingDan97]

wildannie wrote...

Random Nobody wrote...

Strawmanning. A film and an interactive game are two different types of narrative.

This, I don't understand why those in favour of scripted deaths try and back up their arguments pointing to films and books which are not meant to be interactive.

Mass Effect is supposed to be interactive.  Specific character deaths of any of the ME2 squad in ME3 can't be crucial to the story as they can all be dead already which to my mind places their stories amongst the interactive parts rather than the tightly scripted parts.  

For Bioware to make a squad/crew death that is crucial to the story they are trying to tell they'd have to kill Liara or Joker or the VS (I'm not counting Vega as we don't know the character yet).

You assume that a scripted death needs to be scripted for everyone in exactly the same way. Your interactions with a character previously could have shifted what they are and aren't willing to die for, that's why I'm saying it shouldn't be a base or a group of civvies or a prothean artifact, it needs to be something that would matter more to them than anyone else. An inert but reparable dyson sphere, a genophage cure, Rannoch. Something that makes their sacrifice personal but not intregral to the universe surviving.