428 réponses à ce sujet

[Sajuro]

KingDan97 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

How about death being used to convey a sense of powerlessness on behalf of the main character to the player? It makes the villain stronger and if the player empathizes with the main character then it draws them further into the story.

Something like a battle with a villian, but the villian escapes while killing one of the squadies? Does that work?

Sure. There are a lot of ways it could be done.

They're running for cover when one of the squadmates is taken out by an enemy sniper?

Only if they set up the squaddie losing armor, because if snipers can't one shot the player normally on narrative difficulty than it breaks immersion for those players, and snipers normally can only do really significant damage in an NPC's hands when it's on Insanity.

Radiation blast from Reapers scorching a city maybe?
I know Shepard can tear through shields with the Widow on normal >.> so it could be a future boss, like we see Kai Leng running through a building in the interposing cut scenes, he sets up a sniper's nest and pops one of Shep's squaddies as they pass through the brief exposed area.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

I think it would be cool if a decision you made in ME1 or ME2 influenced a squadmate's death in ME3. That way it's not as easy as buying an upgrade to save a squadmate's life.

[KingDan97]

Uhh.. Jonah wrote...

I think it would be cool if a decision you made in ME1 or ME2 influenced a squadmate's death in ME3. That way it's not as easy as buying an upgrade to save a squadmate's life.

They could only really do that if the variable came up in the trial, or whatever they use for new players, which either means roughly 30 choices to be made or it doesn't happen unfortunately.

[Harmless Citizen]

It is that way, Jonah.

[Il Divo]

KingDan97 wrote...

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.

Well, to be blunt: I really don't care what you want. Sorry, but that's the brutal truth. I'm not paying for a $60 game for your entertainment, but for mine. You don't have to want it for me, since you're also paying for this game, but I'm not going to stop arguing for my desired product.

The entire point of games, movies, and books is to tell a story, not to satisfy an extremely narrow conception of escapsim. Some mediums allow for happy stories, and many others don't, which itself contradicts your "entire point" of games, movies, and books.

Your position on what Renegade constitutes is a perfect demonstration of how Bioware screwed up Mass Effect's morality system. Renegade was not supposed to be the "bad ending" vs. Paragon's "the good ending". It was meant to demonstrate two separate systems of morality, each with flaws and advantages. The existence of a perfect world scenario via Paragon actions is itself a negation of Renegade philosophy.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 novembre 2011 - 06:22 .

[KingDan97]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

1. In videogames, especially roleplaying games, you ARE the main character.  You don't need to empathize with the main character because that sh*t's happening to YOU.

I can't say I do this except with roleplaying games like ME, DA, Skyrim, or Alpha Protocol. That certainly doesn't hurt the emotional impact of the game--the few few games that have made me cry have made me cry about a character separate from myself, who usually is the main character--but your point isn't necessarily true.

2. You can make the player feel powerless in more ways than just killing off characters.  Take Amnesia, for example--it's scary as hell because you can't fight back against the bad guys; you can only run and hide.  Alternatively, an inevitable failure of any sort will work as well--no matter how many times you replay Mission X, no matter how many different ways you approach it, you cannot obtain Objective Y.  And everything attached to Objective Y (the war assets, the planets, the morale and trust of your crew and friends) will crumble.

Very true. But the thing about it is it needs to make sense, and what makes a lot of sense is all of that talk about this being a galactic war and being "dark" comes true in a very strong way. And death is quite poignant.

Yes, but you can make the death poignant by introducing a charismatic character of the day and then blowing up the building he is in(ala potential Kirrahe death).

[KingDan97]

Il Divo wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

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.

Well, to be blunt: I really don't care what you want. Sorry, but that's the brutal truth. I'm not paying for a $60 game for your entertainment, but for mine. You don't have to want it for me, since you're also paying for this game, but I'm not going to start arguing for my desired product.

The entire point of games, movies, and books is to tell a story, not to satisfy an extremely narrow conception of escapsim. Some mediums allow for happy stories, and many others don't, which itself contradicts your "entire point" of games, movies, and books.

Your position on what Renegade constitutes is a perfect demonstration of how Bioware screwed up Mass Effect's morality system. Renegade was not supposed to be the "bad ending" vs. Paragon's "the good ending". It was meant to demonstrate two separate systems of morality, each with flaws and advantages. The existence of a perfect world scenario via Paragon actions is itself a negation of Renegade philosophy.

And yet you think I care what you want, that's cute. The thing is though, that it's Bioware's job to attempt to find a middle ground, or at least make a way we can both be happy. Ergo, go take a long walk off a short pier if you really have an issue with a good ending existing.

[Il Divo]

KingDan97 wrote...

And yet you think I care what you want, that's cute.

No, I don't. Try actually reading my posts.

 Ergo, go take a long walk off a short pier if you really have an issue with a good ending existing.

You are not required to respond to my posts or my arguments. Your lack of self-control is not my problem.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 novembre 2011 - 06:21 .

[Harmless Citizen]

I still don't get this argument. If there are scripted deaths with the possibility to avert them....why do you care? Don't like it, don't do it. Seems fair to me.

[KingDan97]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...
Yes, but you can make the death poignant by introducing a charismatic character of the day and then blowing up the building he is in(ala potential Kirrahe death).

What? Not sure what you're saying.

I agree, Il Divo, I keep saying it too. Mass Effect isn't about escapism. It's trying to be real in many ways. Yet many don't want it in this area.

What I'm saying is that death doesn't need to be a Mordin to be poignant, it could just as easily be a Benezia or a Kirrahe. It doesn't need to be someone you invested hours into in order to become invested in them, they only need to be memorable. That's what I'm saying.

[Han Shot First]

Let me work for it, double my game length, make me use the stupid scanning mechanic to find every stupid obnoxious N7 mission in the game, make me play through every single multiplayer scenario and reach 100% galactic readiness, but don't make it so that I have to suffer losses just because you feel unfulfilled by a happy ending.

The problem with having an ending where everyone lives, and having that outcome linked to how much content you've accessed, is that people only die when Shepard hasn't adequately prepared for battle. People die because Shepard hasn't gathered enough resources or hasn't adequately upgraded the Normandy's shields, engines, or weaponry. Those deaths come at the cost of Shepard being inept when it comes to strategy or logistics, thus undercutting his appeal as the protagonist and all about cancelling out whatever emotional impact those squad mate deaths would have otherwise had. In that scenario ME3's ending would suffer from the same problems as ME2's ending.

I also disagree with squad mate deaths somehow equalling an unhappy ending. ME1 had a happy ending even though Ashley or Kaidan died. ME3 will have a happy ending as well, no matter how many squad mates die along the way, so long as you manage to defeat the Reapers. Let's say for example that you beat ME3 but lose Garrus, Grunt, Thane, Jacob, and  Ashley. Yes, you've lost 5 members of your squad and maybe even your LI as well, but you've preserved galactic civilization and saved the lives of trillions. Whole species that would have otherwise been eradicated, including your own, continue to live and thrive. That is about as far from an unhappy ending as you can get, despite having to overcome tragedy to get there.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 28 novembre 2011 - 06:26 .

[GodWood]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...
I agree, Il Divo, I keep saying it too. Mass Effect isn't about escapism. It's trying to be real in many ways. Yet many don't want it in this area.

+ 1.

Such people are hurting the potential of videogames. It's a shame really.

[KingDan97]

Random Nobody wrote...

I still don't get this argument. If there are scripted deaths with the possibility to avert them....why do you care? Don't like it, don't do it. Seems fair to me.

Apparently that compromises something deep within him, that everything must suck for someone else in order to be good to him.

[Harmless Citizen]

Now that's a delicious argument.

[Il Divo]

Random Nobody wrote...

I still don't get this argument. If there are scripted deaths with the possibility to avert them....why do you care? Don't like it, don't do it. Seems fair to me.

Let me give you an example of  the ultimate conclusion we would reach if we followed your argument out. Consider the following thought experiment:

http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem.

A trolley (i.e. in British English a tram) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

Now, take the above scenario and pretend I offered you a magic button that would, by some miracle, save everyone about to be killed by the moving train. Does the trolley problem remain a moral dilemma if there exists a third option? That itself negates the concept of a hard decision because for a decision to remain difficult, there cannot be an "easy way out", so to speak.

Obviously, the better Bioware is at hiding the magic button, the more content I'll be, but they've never been very good at this in the past. Look at the Connor/Mages solution in Dragon Age: Origins, as a perfect demonstration of this.

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

[KingDan97]

Han Shot First wrote...

Let me work for it, double my game length, make me use the stupid scanning mechanic to find every stupid obnoxious N7 mission in the game, make me play through every single multiplayer scenario and reach 100% galactic readiness, but don't make it so that I have to suffer losses just because you feel unfulfilled by a happy ending.

The problem with having an ending where everyone lives, and having that outcome linked to how much content you've accessed, is that people only die when Shepard hasn't adequately prepared for battle. People die because Shepard hasn't gathered enough resources or hasn't adequately upgraded the Normandy's shields, engines, or weaponry. Those deaths come at the cost of Shepard being inept when it comes to strategy or logistics, thus undercutting his appeal as the protagonist and all about cancelling out whatever emotional impact those squad mate deaths would have otherwise had. In that scenario ME3's ending would suffer from the same problems as ME2's ending.

I also disagree with squad mate deaths somehow equalling an unhappy ending. ME1 had a happy ending even though Ashley or Kaidan died. ME3 will have a happy ending as well, no matter how many squad mates die along the way, so long as you manage to defeat the Reapers. Let's say for example that you beat ME3 but lose Garrus, Grunt, Thane, Jacob, and  Ashley. Yes, you've lost 5 members of your squad and maybe even your LI as well, but you've preserved galactic civilization and saved the lives of trillions. Whole species that would have otherwise been eradicated, including your own, continue to live and thrive. That isn't an unhappy ending despite some tragedy on the path to victory.

Then don't rub their faces in it, I'm not saying have another set of "Hope those new shields hold up, oh good they did now let's try out that gun we convieniently upgraded, oh good it worked, darn we didn't upgrade the plating and now grunt is dead." I'm saying make it indirect. Making it less obvious exactly what caused it holds the poignancy while at the same time giving it an internal logic to work on.

I'm also feeling the need to note that I don't have an issue with deaths(yet again) I have an issue with pointless death just for the sake of having a death.

[AdmiralCheez]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I can't say I do this except with roleplaying games like ME, DA, Skyrim, or Alpha Protocol. That certainly doesn't hurt the emotional impact of the game--the few few games that have made me cry have made me cry about a character separate from myself, who usually is the main character--but your point isn't necessarily true.

Oh, you must have been playing a really long movie with combat thrown in for sh*ts and giggles JRPG.

There are, naturally, exceptions to every rule, but I think the bleed-over into novel/film territory is a result of gaming's youth as an entertainment medium.  That and, you know, it's easier to borrow something you know will work well than it is to experiment with the road less traveled.

Very true. But the thing about it is it needs to make sense, and what makes a lot of sense is all of that talk about this being a galactic war and being "dark" comes true in a very strong way. And death is quite poignant.

Death is also cliche.  80% of the time, it's either a cheap shot for the heartstrings or a sign that somebody's out of ideas.

Not completely against death, but it's not necessary for a strong, emotional story, and it should never be present for JUST shock/drama.

[marstor05]

its war and people die - thats the plan..

[KingDan97]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...
What I'm saying is that death doesn't need to be a Mordin to be poignant, it could just as easily be a Benezia or a Kirrahe. It doesn't need to be someone you invested hours into in order to become invested in them, they only need to be memorable. That's what I'm saying.

Memorable does not equal invested. It doesn't equal actually caring about them. THAT seems more to me like a "cheap" death.

Really, a random character dying is somehow more cheap than sacrificing a person I'd actually give half a turd about for the same pointless base that in the end I will NEVER visit again? Sorry, but that's counterintuitive.

[KingDan97]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I can't say I do this except with roleplaying games like ME, DA, Skyrim, or Alpha Protocol. That certainly doesn't hurt the emotional impact of the game--the few few games that have made me cry have made me cry about a character separate from myself, who usually is the main character--but your point isn't necessarily true.

Oh, you must have been playing a really long movie with combat thrown in for sh*ts and giggles JRPG.

There are, naturally, exceptions to every rule, but I think the bleed-over into novel/film territory is a result of gaming's youth as an entertainment medium.  That and, you know, it's easier to borrow something you know will work well than it is to experiment with the road less traveled.

Very true. But the thing about it is it needs to make sense, and what makes a lot of sense is all of that talk about this being a galactic war and being "dark" comes true in a very strong way. And death is quite poignant.

Death is also cliche.  80% of the time, it's either a cheap shot for the heartstrings or a sign that somebody's out of ideas.

Not completely against death, but it's not necessary for a strong, emotional story, and it should never be present for JUST shock/drama.

I like this human, she understands.