428 réponses à ce sujet

[Harmless Citizen]

There is that possibility, LC.

[Il Divo]

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.  

The advantage of video games is that they can make use of both active and passive story-telling. The mistake of your argument is in assuming that if Bioware kills one character, that they won't let you actively save another. There's no rule that because video games are an active medium that you should have absolute control over all aspects of the story. Part of the advantage is not simply in making decisions, but experiencing the entire storyline from the point of view of one character.

What you are suggesting would take us into all kinds of dangerous waters: we should have had the option of saving Eden Prime, of joining Saren, of killing Saren then allowing the Reapers to purge the galaxy anyway, etc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 novembre 2011 - 05:50 .

[Someone With Mass]

It's a little dumb to say that your decisions matters and then show you that they don't, though.

[wildannie]

Il Divo wrote...

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.  

The advantage of video games is that they can make use of both active and passive story-telling. The mistake of your argument is in assuming that if Bioware kills one character, that they won't let you actively save another. There's no rule that because video games are an active medium that you should have absolute control over all aspects of the story. Part of the advantage is not simply in making decisions, but experiencing the entire storyline from the point of view of one character.

What you are suggesting would take us into all kinds of dangerous waters: we should have had the option of saving Eden Prime, of joining Saren, of killing Saren then allowing the Reapers to purge the galaxy anyway, etc.

I think you are misinterpreting my argument, all I'm really arguing for is that it is possible to save each of the LI squadmates, not in one playthrough, but that who dies can vary depending upon our choices.   I would be happy enough to extend this to all squadmates but I think it's important for all Sheps LIs to live on under certain circumstances.

[Il Divo]

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's a little dumb to say that your decisions matters and then show you that they don't, though.

Well, that is the corner Bioware pushed themselves into. Of course, we also need to consider that the ultimate consequences of the decision aren't really specified, when we make that decision.

What does saving Thane ultimately mean? It might keep him alive in the short term, and might allow him to play some useful function in ME3 before dying there as well. In that sense, you were still given a decision with consequences, including beneficial ones, just not immediately foreseeable (similar to the Rachni Queen's role). As of ME1, we really couldn't predict what role she would play in the story, if left alive or dead.

On the other hand, if you save Kaidan on Virmire, only for him to be shot in the head by a sniper not five minutes later, I think that would be a much better illustration of the game purposely kicking the player.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 novembre 2011 - 06:02 .

[Someone With Mass]

AwesomeName wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's a little dumb to say that your decisions matters and then show you that they don't, though.

So what are you saying here?  Decisions only matter if you have god-like influence over everything? 

What really matters is that you're able to control Shepard, make decisions through him/her and have a level of influence appropriate to that - but you also have to realise that the universe isn't going to bend over backwards just because s/he wants it to.

Okay, then let's make it like this and get that crap over with.

[Il Divo]

wildannie wrote...

I think you are misinterpreting my argument, all I'm really arguing for is that it is possible to save each of the LI squadmates, not in one playthrough, but that who dies can vary depending upon our choices.   I would be happy enough to extend this to all squadmates but I think it's important for all Sheps LIs to live on under certain circumstances.

I'm not completely against the idea, but in some cases I think it's works better/worse than others.

That's the issue I'm currently having with Thane as an LI. ME2 didn't indicate that there was a cure for his condition and (before the plot leak), there were rumors of a demo where you help Thane obtain a cure for his condition with the Hanaar. I think that would be the rough equivalent of obliterating his character, given that Thane spends so much time dealing with his own potential death.

Personally, if Bioware wanted to introduce the ability to cure Thane, I think the possibility should at least have been brought up in ME2 first.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 novembre 2011 - 06:09 .

[wildannie]

Il Divo wrote...

wildannie wrote...

I think you are misinterpreting my argument, all I'm really arguing for is that it is possible to save each of the LI squadmates, not in one playthrough, but that who dies can vary depending upon our choices.   I would be happy enough to extend this to all squadmates but I think it's important for all Sheps LIs to live on under certain circumstances.

I'm not completely against the idea, but in some cases I think it's works better/worse than others.

That's the issue I'm currently having with Thane as an LI. ME2 didn't indicate that there was a cure for his condition and (before the plot leak), there were rumors of a demo where you help Thane obtain a cure for his condition with the Hanaar. I think that would be the rough equivalent of obliterating his character, given that Thane spends so much time dealing with his own potential death.

Personally, if Bioware wanted to introduce the ability to cure Thane, I think the possibility should at least have been brought up in ME2 first.

Well, I am a Thane fan....  

It is clear from the LotSB dossier that he could get a transplant and there was a CDN report (13th July 2010) on some new technology (epulmos device) that was dubbed 'medigel for the lungs' which could feasibly prolong his life.   
If Bioware had flat out stated that Thane could be cured it would remove the tension from the story.  If it happens it's clearly only going to be under certain circumstances.

[Jaron Oberyn]

I think the OP hasn't read the leaked script, because if so this thread wouldn't exist...

-Polite

[bleetman]

Il Divo wrote...

I firmly disagree with this. What this really indicates is that unavoidable death works best the first time, but that goes for any narrative element, since the viewer is not fully aware of what is coming. Plot twists are plot twists, because the viewer was not aware of how the twist affects the story. That is an example of a narrative element which can only work the first time, because from then on the viewer always knows what to expect.

And yet, even knowing the full extent of everything that happens, I can happily replay Mass Effect any number of times as I care to. My favourite moments are still my favourite moments. I don't feel as though my repeated playthroughs are pointless by virtue of the fact I know what's coming, for the most part.

Except with Virmire. Virmire only bothered me once, and afterwards just became an annoyance. I didn't bother taking Kaidan anywhere anymore, or really talking with him. Of all the things that happened over the course of the game, it's the only part that I'm entirely apathetic about whenever I replay it.

Il Divo wrote...

However, I can think of several great examples from Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice and Fire, and beyond where a character death has still managed to hit hard. It's all in the writing.

I'd certainly agree with that for the first time I read/watch/etc whatever happens, sure. But I personally found A Song of Ice and Fire impossible to read through a second time. Hell, I haven't even finished the entire series a first time, because - as I mentioned in another post - once the cast started dropping like flies, I lost all interest. And why not? The backstory alone wasn't going to hold my interest by itself. Not that I expect ME3 to go down the George R.R. Martin approach of having virtually the entire cast murdered, but still.

I've a handful of favourites as far as the entire Mass Effect series goes, and a few 'auxileries'. If my favourites all/mostly perish, then no, I'm probably going to be a lot less interested in actually finishing the rest of the game, or playing it through more than once if I do. It'll go on my shelf, next to my copy of Serenity, and be equally mind-bleached away.

Modifié par bleetman, 27 novembre 2011 - 08:28 .

[Someone With Mass]

Yeah, they can leave the Wash death out. No loss there.

[bleetman]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

What? You don't like A Song of Ice and Fire or Serenity? *mind explodes*
btw, you couldn't have finished the entire series anyway, because there are still two books forthcoming.

I liked them both up until the point they started offing characters willy nilly, though the former is far more guilty of this than the latter.

And yes, fine, A Song of Ice and Fire isn't finished yet. You know what I meant.

Modifié par bleetman, 27 novembre 2011 - 08:21 .

[Il Divo]

bleetman wrote...

And yet, even knowing the full extent of everything that happens, I can happily replay Mass Effect any number of times as I care to. My favourite moments are still my favourite moments. I don't feel as though my repeated playthroughs are pointless by virtue of the fact I know what's coming, for the most part.

And that's fine. But judging by your post, I thought that you were implying that, as a general rule, it's only ever possible for any viewer to enjoy character death once. That was primarily what I was disagreeing with. The first time may always be the best, since there is that "new story" vibe, but even after the initial "blow", I find the death of many characters in fiction to remain tragic (Ex: Boromir).

I'd certainly agree with that for the first time I read/watch/etc whatever happens, sure. But I personally found A Song of Ice and Fire impossible to read through a second time. Hell, I haven't even finished the entire series a first time, because - as I mentioned in another post - once the cast started dropping like flies, I lost all interest. And why not? The backstory alone wasn't going to hold my interest by itself. Not that I expect ME3 to go down the George R.R. Martin approach of having virtually the entire cast murdered, but still. 

My point was actually dealing with how a death can potentially trigger emotion, even after experienced the first time. In this case, you lost interest in A Song of Ice and Fire because you feel that Martin killed off all your favorite characters, without replacing them with other interesting characters, who could still retain your interest. At least, I assume that was the problem judging by your statement that the backstory alone was all that was left.

For myself, that any character can die is precisely why I'm so interested in what happens. Plot armor, in my opinion, is one of the worst things to come to story-telling. The use of an ensemble cast, rather than a specific main character, means that A Song of Ice and Fire is saved from that restriction. But I'm not certain how we can derive the "don't kill cast members" rule from that. An author ultimately can't take into account the various characters his readers may or may not enjoy. But I don't think the solution should be to never kill characters, especially when the practice has been so well-established in fiction, for plot and character development purposes. The Hero's Journey, as an example.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 novembre 2011 - 08:42 .

[KingDan97]

So... you don't want an ending where everyone lives... because some people do want that? Schadenfreude at it's finest people. If you want to have squaddie deaths then just suck a little. It's not an all or nothing scenario, I mean a week after ME2 launched we had an entire comprehensive guide on how to kill any and all characters in the suicide mission, some people played their entire games just around the premise of one character dying(normally Tali based on a lot of the signatures around that time).

If you really want to have character deaths, make a few dumb decisions at pivotal moments, don't ask for everyone to lose the option of everyone living just because you want a Kobiyashi Maru.

[Il Divo]

KingDan97 wrote...

If you really want to have character deaths, make a few dumb decisions at pivotal moments, don't ask for everyone to lose the option of everyone living just because you want a Kobiyashi Maru.

But I don't want to make dumb decisions. I want to role-play a smart, capable Shepard who's still forced to confront certain harsh realities about the world. I shouldn't have to do that at the expense of playing a less capable Shepard, which is what the suicide mission forces on us.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 novembre 2011 - 09:41 .

[Zorziban the Great]

I see where your going with this. The deaths in Mass Effect 2 felt cheap because they could have been prevented. On my first playthrough of the suicide mission, Grunt died. So I went on the internet and found a walkthrough detailing how to survive the suicide mission. Therefore, Grunt's death wasn't emotional at all. I wasn't sad, just angry that I didn't prevent his death from happening. Therefore, I think a couple forced squad deaths would be acceptable.

[KingDan97]

Il Divo wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

If you really want to have character deaths, make a few dumb decisions at pivotal moments, don't ask for everyone to lose the option of everyone living just because you want a Kobiyashi Maru.

But I don't want to make dumb decisions. I want to role-play a smart, capable Shepard who's still forced to confront certain harsh realities about the world. I shouldn't have to do that at the expense of playing a less capable Shepard, which is what the suicide mission forces on us.  

Then why should my enjoyment of the game suffer when I want capability and smart thinking to be enough, you want to use the excuse that **** just happens sometimes but that's the entire point of video games, movies and books. Save the girl, save the world, save the day and then kick some back on the Citadel. That's what I want and my mood shouldn't need to be ruined because you're unwilling to falter on something that quite frankly flies in the face of the no casualty optimism of the Paragon choices I've made for the last two games. If you want death play a renegade, I'll be over here with all 15 past squaddies alive.


Edit: I feel it should be noted that I am not opposed to scripted deaths, I'm just opposed to scripted deaths for the sake of pissing off other players, and before someone claims it's not just to ****** off other players go back and see if you've made one post about linearity in Mass Effect, if it exists, then you're just pulling schaudenfreude.

Modifié par KingDan97, 27 novembre 2011 - 10:10 .

[Harmless Citizen]

Your opinion of a better story.

[KingDan97]

Random Nobody wrote...

Your opinion of a better story.

This pretty much describes this whole thread.