428 réponses à ce sujet

[InvincibleHero]

jeweledleah wrote...

and what exactly makes your desires more valid then mine?  and what sort of realizm can we POSSIBLE speak of, war stories or otherwise, where you have gameplay/story segretation to a point where you can get a mission of outmost importance, leave it for absolute last, probably letting a month pass at least and when you finaly get to it, not only the target of your rescue is still alive, its STILL 4 days till reaper arrival? or assasination conveniently waits untill you have a chance to get to Citadel to stop it?  or transporting a family that has bad guy on its heels, and its supposed to be urgent and yet, you have all the time in a world to get it done?

since when specific people must die to make a good war story, and millions of people dying, while Shepard has to run off and tries to get help to save whoever is left don't matter?

I made no specific demand for my desires in fact i said i am fine with whatever BW decides as the IP owner. So you're mistaken. I would also likewise not place any more value on my pure opinions than anyone else. If I have verifiable proof to back it up then it is not opinion.

Never said the games are realistic either. In fact, mostly the opposite.  You could see almost any post I post in rebuttal to Miranda should have armor to know that. 

I am fine with the structure of games and missions that are on demand of the user. BW does impose limits once we have a set number of squaddies then Horizon happens and that's it. Maybe a few side missions could be scapped like an SOS from a ship or better changes from rescue to find the bodies so your inaction had a cost. It may or may not have been worth it.  So other than forcing players to lose for ignoring a higher priority mission how would you do it?

[Enmystic]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...
Mass Effect is made up of components that, while not strictly realistic, are realistic within the boundaries they've set for it.

This.  Real life realism and in-universe realism are two different things. 

I feel like script killing ("X" character dies no matter what) squad mates after having the ability to keep them alive in previous games is kind of in bad taste.  I don't like the idea at all really.  Stuff like Virmire and the Suicide Mission is preferable in my opinion.  You can lose characters, but it doesn't have to be the same characters each playthrough.

[Xilizhra]

I still find it amusing that the pro-death side wants to ensure that everyone's squadmates die, not just the ones in their own game.

[InvincibleHero]

Xilizhra wrote...

I still find it amusing that the pro-death side wants to ensure that everyone's squadmates die, not just the ones in their own game.

Well I'm fine either way, but there have to be some story decisions BW does to create the story. We need some shared experiences. What good is it if Thane dies in my playthough and instead in yours it is Tali. We cannot discuss the experience becasue ours are not the same as if it was pinned down to one of them. The game can be made stronger by making definitive choices rather than nebulous ones.

The suicide mission was a great experience, but I never lost anyone because i could not purposely fail. For people like me the decision needs to be taken out of my hands and be made to occur. I have no hate for when that happens. I cannot control much in my life and Shepard cannot either. Things happen all the time that we don't like.

If there is to be an everyone lives ending (again) then the reapers IMO were an unworthy foe. Everyone lives is as cliche as anything.   No mistakes or miscalculations and no cost during a war. When would that ever happen when they have reaped for eons. Shepard and co are always right. You can insert any of 1000s of games where that is done. I get people don't want to experience death of people close to their character fictional and as unreal as they are.

Besides nothing can stop you from imagining everyone lived.

[Nizzemancer]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I still find it amusing that the pro-death side wants to ensure that everyone's squadmates die, not just the ones in their own game.

Well I'm fine either way, but there have to be some story decisions BW does to create the story. We need some shared experiences. What good is it if Thane dies in my playthough and instead in yours it is Tali. We cannot discuss the experience becasue ours are not the same as if it was pinned down to one of them. The game can be made stronger by making definitive choices rather than nebulous ones.

The suicide mission was a great experience, but I never lost anyone because i could not purposely fail. For people like me the decision needs to be taken out of my hands and be made to occur. I have no hate for when that happens. I cannot control much in my life and Shepard cannot either. Things happen all the time that we don't like.

If there is to be an everyone lives ending (again) then the reapers IMO were an unworthy foe. Everyone lives is as cliche as anything.   No mistakes or miscalculations and no cost during a war. When would that ever happen when they have reaped for eons. Shepard and co are always right. You can insert any of 1000s of games where that is done. I get people don't want to experience death of people close to their character fictional and as unreal as they are.

Besides nothing can stop you from imagining everyone lived.

Basicly what you're saying is that youwant to kill your characters but you don't want to do it yourself. So everyone should pay for it....

Nobody can stop you from imagining that everyone died either, but it's probably easier to purposefully kill a character yourself rather than pro-living players imagine them still being there, just saying...

[3Snap]

It's the last game in this series story line, it needs to go all out for a emotional rollercoaster ride with multiple endings that we won't ever forget. I like the idea of character deaths, with none being exempt all are able to die.

Here's what should happen.

Your commander sheppard it's your goal to free the galaxy of the reapers once and for all, and obviously all your squadmates have your back and believe in the cause [their races are in trouble too you know] to follow you into hell.

So the logical way to do the game is to offer in the simplest terms a choice for the whole game that you need to make over the course.

AKA -
1. Make sure all of my team makes it through this alive no matter the cost [the cost being the galaxy gets reaperfied or some other BAD ending.

2. Most if not all my team [including shep] dies but their persistence and desire to destroy the reapers saves the galaxy at the cost of 6-10 hero's.

3. Some of the team dies some live, and you need to work hard to save the galaxy more neutral end can turn out to be good or bad depending on how you play the rest of the game.

The way this should happen is probably something like loyalty missions from mass effect 2, just in the mere fact that there was 1 MANDATORY squadmate that you HAVE to bring. Obliviously at some point in the mission or multiple times you have to make them do or not, which boils down to they live or die.

Yea it sucks i'm a person that needs that ultimate ending with everyone winning, i usually google basic guides just to make sure i get the best ending. But this would complete the game for me.

This is the end of shep's story no more after this. The basic moral of the story is sacrifice of shep and his/her squad to save the galaxy and with how messed up some of the race's are towards each other, the most likely way of making them allies will be one of sheps squadmates of that race doing something dangerous that gets them killed and causes a ceasefire thus them becoming allies.

And it will make it more emotional because in the end your faced with, killing your teammates that you have enjoyed playing with over 2-3 games and saving the galaxy or saving them and destroying it. and the 3rd you might save some but destroy it anyway ect.

thats my 2c

P.S saying the virmire death from me1 wasn't emotional is right it wasn't because it happened early and you didn't really even know them. But after 2 to 3 games with your favorite characters having this sort of hard decision on your hands will truly make it a epic game.

[PsychoWARD23]

There should be them. In real life you can't save everyone, people should die no matter what.

[Lunatic LK47]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

There should be them. In real life you can't save everyone, people should die no matter what.

And tell the fans of certain characters "LOLZ, U Liekd wrong character. LOLOLOL"? That level of bull**** is what made me hate Bastila's removal from the party in KOTOR 1.

[PsychoWARD23]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

There should be them. In real life you can't save everyone, people should die no matter what.

And tell the fans of certain characters "LOLZ, U Liekd wrong character. LOLOLOL"? That level of bull**** is what made me hate Bastila's removal from the party in KOTOR 1.

Go read A Song of Ice and Fire.


And yes, forced deaths are just the way it is. For instance, if Vega gets shot in the head, you shouldn't be give the option to use your super Shepard powers to travel back in time to warn him. People die. No one complained about Jenkins, this is just on a larger scale.

[ChurchOfZod]

Eh. I think there should always be a way to save squadmates. My Shepard is full on Paragon. No one dies under his watch except for the bit on Virmire. Wrex, Aresh, Maeleon, Balak, Blake, Fist. They all lived. If the game's about choice(har har) let me choose to do things my way. I can go visit the graveyard if I want realism.

[FaWa]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

and what exactly makes your desires more valid then mine? 

The fact that they - if I am to include Ambi and Saph - have a better understanding of what makes a good story, simple as that.

I lol'd

[Lunatic LK47]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...



And yes, forced deaths are just the way it is. For instance, if Vega gets shot in the head, you shouldn't be give the option to use your super Shepard powers to travel back in time to warn him. People die. No one complained about Jenkins, this is just on a larger scale.

Uh, then why bother in investing in resources for Vega to be a love interest if he's just going to get offed without any player consent? Jenkins is a pretty bad example considering he got offed in THE FIRST TEN MINUTES OF THE GAME. I never gave a rat's ass about Trask Ulgo because he got offed in the same amount of time as well. I never even remotely cared about Sagacious Zu at all, and his death didn't affect me at all.

[InvincibleHero]

Nizzemancer wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I still find it amusing that the pro-death side wants to ensure that everyone's squadmates die, not just the ones in their own game.

Well I'm fine either way, but there have to be some story decisions BW does to create the story. We need some shared experiences. What good is it if Thane dies in my playthough and instead in yours it is Tali. We cannot discuss the experience becasue ours are not the same as if it was pinned down to one of them. The game can be made stronger by making definitive choices rather than nebulous ones.

The suicide mission was a great experience, but I never lost anyone because i could not purposely fail. For people like me the decision needs to be taken out of my hands and be made to occur. I have no hate for when that happens. I cannot control much in my life and Shepard cannot either. Things happen all the time that we don't like.

If there is to be an everyone lives ending (again) then the reapers IMO were an unworthy foe. Everyone lives is as cliche as anything.   No mistakes or miscalculations and no cost during a war. When would that ever happen when they have reaped for eons. Shepard and co are always right. You can insert any of 1000s of games where that is done. I get people don't want to experience death of people close to their character fictional and as unreal as they are.

Besides nothing can stop you from imagining everyone lived.

Basicly what you're saying is that youwant to kill your characters but you don't want to do it yourself. So everyone should pay for it....

Nobody can stop you from imagining that everyone died either, but it's probably easier to purposefully kill a character yourself rather than pro-living players imagine them still being there, just saying...

Once again no. I am saying player agency is not always well executed or should be involved to begin with. The choice is play stupid or everyone lives. Given for people to die you had to ignore many prompts in game get this upgrade Shepard (it costs peanuts BTW) and make sure everyone is loyal because we are not as ready as we could be are you sure Shepard we can't go back blah blah blah.. or make a tactical error which is hard to do given the dossiers and in game prompt to pick me pick me. If anyone was fooled by Jacob's offer to go into the tunnels, well I'll just be nice and go on. So Shepard has to be PFC Gomer Pyle to any experienced gamer to lose anyone on the SM and especially before it. There was so much handholding that it was a joke to me.

IMO it would have been better to remove the player agency. IF Jacob volunteered for the vents and bites it but does the job then he died a hero. That would have made me appreciate Jacob more and the story as well. However, it could not be done because well we have to save everyone even though Shepard is not a god and could not even prevent his own demise. Why should the player be beyond Shepard who is one man exceptional but not deific? He has a limited scope of what he can do and reacts to the rest. We have no control over most of the things that happen daily so what should we as players control everything up to an including death of charcters another person wrote?

[Lunatic LK47]

InvincibleHero wrote...
IMO it would have been better to remove the player agency. IF Jacob volunteered for the vents and bites it but does the job then he died a hero. That would have made me appreciate Jacob more and the story as well. However, it could not be done because well we have to save everyone even though Shepard is not a god and could not even prevent his own demise. Why should the player be beyond Shepard who is one man exceptional but not deific? He has a limited scope of what he can do and reacts to the rest. We have no control over most of the things that happen daily so what should we as players control everything up to an including death of charcters another person wrote?

Uh, what about players that actually did a romance path with Jacob? Are you going to just laugh in their face and tell them that "they romanced the wrong character?" If you want a game suiting your particular taste, Fallout 3 is in the other door behind you.

[Ryzaki]

Ugh.

Forced deaths = fail.

Unless forced death is TIM. Then by all means...

[InvincibleHero]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...
IMO it would have been better to remove the player agency. IF Jacob volunteered for the vents and bites it but does the job then he died a hero. That would have made me appreciate Jacob more and the story as well. However, it could not be done because well we have to save everyone even though Shepard is not a god and could not even prevent his own demise. Why should the player be beyond Shepard who is one man exceptional but not deific? He has a limited scope of what he can do and reacts to the rest. We have no control over most of the things that happen daily so what should we as players control everything up to an including death of charcters another person wrote?

Uh, what about players that actually did a romance path with Jacob? Are you going to just laugh in their face and tell them that "they romanced the wrong character?" If you want a game suiting your particular taste, Fallout 3 is in the other door behind you.

So it has a tragic ending. It might ruin the experience for some people, but not everyone. So in games no one we care about should be allowed to die? I disagree. They could simply not have Jacob be romanceable so how does that fix it for you? I wager still a waste of time just because he died period.

Where is this wrong character and laughing thing coming from? BW never forced you to pick said character and I doubt they are laughing at any misery people might feel at such occurances in their games. In fact, it is the opposite they try to hard to accomodate fan wishes to watering down the story. I haven't read the spoilers nor will I, but I would bet money on Thane lives when every indication was he would not survive.

If you started dating someone today and one month later he/she died of some horrific accident would getting to know them have been a waste of time?

Was knowing and spending time with a childhood friend that you don't know or associate with anymore as an adult wasted time? I'm serious I can't get the rationale you use.

[AwakenxBenihime]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

There should be them. In real life you can't save everyone, people should die no matter what.

I didn't know that Mass Effect is real life.


In real life you email people back. You can't in ME2.

[Lunatic LK47]

InvincibleHero wrote...
So it has a tragic ending. It might ruin the experience for some people, but not everyone. So in games no one we care about should be allowed to die? I disagree. They could simply not have Jacob be romanceable so how does that fix it for you? I wager still a waste of time just because he died period.

You're still basically saying "You're not allowed to like this character" and rubbing it in that fanbase's faces. As it is, I wouldn't even bother talking to Jacob after upgrading the Normandy if I knew he was going to die. I already didn't care that Jenkins died in ME1 just because we only had ten minutes of the game to spend with him before and during Eden Prime. Trask Ulgo dying? I never felt affected by it just because of the same amount of time. Spending hours of our lives trying to get to know the guy and befriend/romance Jacob? I'd at least do everything in my power to make sure he comes home alive. In the end, if I know that plot-dictated deaths are still going to occur regardless, I'm not going to bother using that person in my squad. 

Where is this wrong character and laughing thing coming from? BW never forced you to pick said character and I doubt they are laughing at any misery people might feel at such occurances in their games. In fact, it is the opposite they try to hard to accomodate fan wishes to watering down the story. I haven't read the spoilers nor will I, but I would bet money on Thane lives when every indication was he would not survive.

Uh, what you're suggesting implies otherwise. As it was, Virmire Survivor is saddled with a plot-dictated stupidity that may lead to their death with very little to no chance of saving him/her, depending on certain playthroughs. Those particular files in the leak do not show every possible outcome with the resolution, and last time I checked, there's still a massive ****storm out of this fracas. Translation, Virmire Survivor fans get screwed over if every part of that leak turns out to be true.

If you started dating someone today and one month later he/she died of some horrific accident would getting to know them have been a waste of time?

Depends on whether or not I know whether that tragic horrible accident was going to exactly happen in that exact timeframe. If it ends up in a premonition I can actually prevent in real life, I'd go out of my way to make sure it doesn't happen.

Was knowing and spending time with a childhood friend that you don't know or associate with anymore as an adult wasted time?

Depends on how far we drifted apart. Me, if I find myself as a fifth wheel that feels like I don't belong in the group anymore, I'll just go my own way unless I'm needed.

[InvincibleHero]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

You're still basically saying "You're not allowed to like this character" and rubbing it in that fanbase's faces. As it is, I wouldn't even bother talking to Jacob after upgrading the Normandy if I knew he was going to die. I already didn't care that Jenkins died in ME1 just because we only had ten minutes of the game to spend with him before and during Eden Prime. Trask Ulgo dying? I never felt affected by it just because of the same amount of time. Spending hours of our lives trying to get to know the guy and befriend/romance Jacob? I'd at least do everything in my power to make sure he comes home alive. In the end, if I know that plot-dictated deaths are still going to occur regardless, I'm not going to bother using that person in my squad. 


Uh, what you're suggesting implies otherwise. As it was, Virmire Survivor is saddled with a plot-dictated stupidity that may lead to their death with very little to no chance of saving him/her, depending on certain playthroughs. Those particular files in the leak do not show every possible outcome with the resolution, and last time I checked, there's still a massive ****storm out of this fracas. Translation, Virmire Survivor fans get screwed over if every part of that leak turns out to be true.


Depends on whether or not I know whether that tragic horrible accident was going to exactly happen in that exact timeframe. If it ends up in a premonition I can actually prevent in real life, I'd go out of my way to make sure it doesn't happen.


Depends on how far we drifted apart. Me, if I find myself as a fifth wheel that feels like I don't belong in the group anymore, I'll just go my own way unless I'm needed.

See on first playthrough everything matters. Just because a second or more playthrough what you know beforehand is always going to spoil the game. Everyone plays it differently after that. True Jenkins was given no build-up , but his death is still tragic and served a purpose. I don't feel much emotion from games or movies either. I know it isn't real so don't get too deeply immersed into them. Oh sure a great game I can and have played for 48 hours straight with quick breaks to answer the call of nature and eat quick bites but never once did I think it was a waste of time if the ending sucked or that I was the all powerful main chaarcter and all must bend to my every whim.  

Yeah Virmire was a no win situation as far as someone dies but the overall objective and a chance at victory was maintained. Now imagine if it was a pyrrhic victory in truth where it mattered not one whit and they died in vain. People would have howled a storm ,but sometimes things like that do happen. It could have been a ruse by Saren to trap Shepard and costs dearly.

Well if I don't like how it VS turns out in ME3 that's just my opinion. I do have fem Shep with Kaiden and Male Shep renegade with Ashley. I merely hope the story is at least interesting.

Things is we can't change things and it is my personal belief that things we do now have meaning right now and should never be invalidated and felt like it was a waste of time if things change in the future. Sure it might hurt to lose someone but I would not say waste of time. We only get so many experiences in this lifetime and most are precious.

[trackboy186]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Nizzemancer wrote...

Basicly what you're saying is that youwant to kill your characters but you don't want to do it yourself. So everyone should pay for it....

Nobody can stop you from imagining that everyone died either, but it's probably easier to purposefully kill a character yourself rather than pro-living players imagine them still being there, just saying...

No. That is not it.

If I want to have an interesting Suicide Mission I have to roleplay my Shepard deliberately not preparing his squad well and not making good decisions with which tasks he assigns. This hurts my roleplaying.

Why can't the SM just be interesting by default?

To me, this would not have made it more interesting. I almost took the game and sold it because I thought the squad deaths were so uninteresting. Then I found out I could avoid them and the game and story were vastly more interesting to me.

However, I think there is a vastly different "play style" at work here. Some like the escapism where they get to do things like save everyone and be the big hero. Some like a bit more realism to their entertainment. I think it best that people just agree to disagree and move on.

[InvincibleHero]

trackboy186 wrote...

To me, this would not have made it more interesting. I almost took the game and sold it because I thought the squad deaths were so uninteresting. Then I found out I could avoid them and the game and story were vastly more interesting to me.

However, I think there is a vastly different "play style" at work here. Some like the escapism where they get to do things like save everyone and be the big hero. Some like a bit more realism to their entertainment. I think it best that people just agree to disagree and move on.

So do you believe that all devs have to accomodate both parties/views in every game they make?

My opinion is they should make the game they want and people should buy accordingly by their own preferences. If deaths bother you in a military shooter game set in the future then ME might not be the game for you. you know guns kill and explosions too. Why should people around your character not die while everyone else may. Let me kill thousands of mercs and even simple guards and bouncers who might have families, but if Garrus (or insert any ME squad) dies this game sux because I should be able to save him/her? How does that sound? They should not make it insulate people from real wartime experiences purely to satisfy a vocal fanbase. Mario games never have death and you can be the hero. There are hundreds of games being made and to each their own.