428 réponses à ce sujet

[Lunatic LK47]

InvincibleHero wrote...

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.

Uh, Band of Brothers would like to have a word with you (i.e. At least a good portion of Easy Company made it home from their battles alive during WWII despite the number of casualties they had.)

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 05 décembre 2011 - 08:10 .

[Lunatic LK47]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Say that part several times, and realize you're basically backing up our side (that there should be one or two deaths).

Uh, you took the words out of context. The majority of the veteran soldiers made it home alive while the other soldiers in the unit just got unlucky just because they got short end of the stick. What you're advocating for is some mandatory squad deaths "no matter what" without any chance of player influence. Games with decisions such as any of BioWare's RPGs is murky territory. If I want a game where nothing I do will ever make a damn difference, I'd play Fallout 3 again.