130 réponses à ce sujet

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Just trying to keep it light.  Obviously you have a great deal invested in this game, more than just your entertainment needs so I apologize for laughing.  And I have felt powerless in real life.  Any intelligent person feels powerless every day; the people who feel invincible are living in a grand delusion that will inevitably come crashing down sooner rather than later.  I guess the difference is I don't view myself as Shepard; I view Shepard as an external character I am rolling, whereas I am more like the director pulling the strings and fashioning Shepard into a hero I admire, so I would not be feeling powerless regardless of what happens in the game.

1. How powerless we talking?
2. And that's the problem.  You're viewing it as a movie or TV series you're helping to create, WHICH IS FINE, but it is is, ultimately, a ROLE-PLAYING GAME, designed with the INTENTIONS of coaxing the player into being fully immersed "as" the protagonist.  Think back to selecting your background.  Was it "Shepard was born on Midnoir?"  No.  "YOU were born on Midnoir."  Think of all the other yous and yours the game sprinkles in, the wording of commands ("move here" and not "move shepard here").  It's obvious you're supposed to take it personally and see Shepard as your avatar.  Hence, it's wrong to analyze a game the same way you'd analyze a book or movie; books and movies are about showing and telling, but games are about doing.

And hey, you brought up Dumbledore.  Also, "text" can mean any narrative work not just books so that's what I meant there.  "Text only" as in I don't analyze or judge based on author/director or any other external subtexts.  If the texts work in and of itself, then it's good with me.

So you never even bother to imagine beyond what the story presents?

I definitely take into account the interactivity, but interactivity doesn't necessarily mean superimposing yourself onto a character.  The "you" diction, the way I see it, is directed at Shepard who is engaging with reconstructing his profile, but the beauty of it is you can take it the way you do as well.  There is no "wrong" way to analyze something, except if you don't take into account all of the facets of its medium.  In my OP, I clearly took into account the interactivity, so I am not ignoring it by any means.  Even if we have no agency in terms of story (like in Zelda), we still are interfacing with and controlling the game via controller or mouse/keyboard, so that in itself is interactivity.  It doesn't need "plot decisions" of interactivity to be a game; it is a game the second the player interfaces with the video in any way.

And as for imagining what happens beyond the story, I never said that I didn't.  But something like Godfather Part 3 where Michael dies alone as an old man is poetic justice, it's too beautiful and perfect to not have that in the text.  And it's the same in any story.  In Breaking Bad, I didn't want Gus to die because he was a great character and fun to watch.  But the death was perfect, and anything else would have been a disservice to his character.

[Dave of Canada]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

But Mass Effect is different from a book, isn't it?  You have the power to change the narrative, to put yourself in the story, to have the kind of power real life will never give you.

Except that difference is what makes it key, you're more integrated and involved. When your friend you've developed dies, you don't feel sad for the protagonist, instead you feel sad for yourself. This is why video games hold a certain sway and interest with me, it allows the player to feel more emotion and be involved with what transpires.

This notion that video games should be escapism from real life and introduce every fantasy of the player irritates me, I don't see people complaining that The Notebook didn't end with a happy ending but when a game tries to do something similar it shouldn't matter because... the player is more deeply involved in the story?

Video games are a medium, if I wanted happy endings then I'd play something where the entire setting is about happy endings. Mass effect has built up this war with people who've exterminated the galaxy countless bajillions times, your friends should die and you should feel pain and be saddened.

[Biotic Sage]

Dave of Canada wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

But Mass Effect is different from a book, isn't it?  You have the power to change the narrative, to put yourself in the story, to have the kind of power real life will never give you.

Except that difference is what makes it key, you're more integrated and involved. When your friend you've developed dies, you don't feel sad for the protagonist, instead you feel sad for yourself. This is why video games hold a certain sway and interest with me, it allows the player to feel more emotion and be involved with what transpires.

This notion that video games should be escapism from real life and introduce every fantasy of the player irritates me, I don't see people complaining that The Notebook didn't end with a happy ending but when a game tries to do something similar it shouldn't matter because... the player is more deeply involved in the story?

Video games are a medium, if I wanted happy endings then I'd play something where the entire setting is about happy endings. Mass effect has built up this war with people who've exterminated the galaxy countless bajillions times, your friends should die and you should feel pain and be saddened.

Right, video games aren't a genre, they are a medium.  The Mass Effect genre will have conflict and loss.

[Yezdigerd]

ReconTeam wrote...

How was Virmire bad storytelling? Because somebody had to die?

No, because the choice have no consequences, its never shown to have taught Shepard anything about himself or the struggle. (and no some random perfunctonary mentions later doesn't qualify). It doesn't drive the plot forward. You simply dismiss the character you like least. You could have sent Kaidan home and had the same "impact".

[xentar]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Using the Zelda example, we the player are role-playing as Link, but the role-playing parameters are completely pre-defined.  We can still enjoy playing the role without needing to mold the character to our individual tastes.  Also, Link must go down a particular path, through a particular chain of narrative events with hardly any deviation.

As far as I know, Zelda is an action-adventure, not an RPG.

Biotic Sage wrote...

And of final note: To those who would be upset if X character dies in ME3, do you really want a galactic war to maintain the status quo?

Well, yes.

[Yezdigerd]

AwesomeName wrote...

So in a story where you're fighting a war against the Reapers - well, actually, from what we've seen so far, it looks less like a war and more like a systematic extermination of your entire civilisation - you think all your friends should survive?

Nope but that's not the point. It's a game with some features that allows it to run smoother. Like how you can reload if Shepard dies even though realism suffers with this feature. and if you can buy that, its easy enough to buy for squadmates too. In fact I'm sure you do since they dies all the time on missions in my playthrough only to revive out of combat.
I'm not against scripted deaths but you really need to tie it into the story to justify making the enviroment less interesting by removing a npc you have an extensive relationship to.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 04 décembre 2011 - 11:28 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Yezdigerd wrote...
No, because the choice have no consequences, its never shown to have taught Shepard anything about himself or the struggle. (and no some random perfunctonary mentions later doesn't qualify). It doesn't drive the plot forward. You simply dismiss the character you like least. You could have sent Kaidan home and had the same "impact".

Shepard's supposed to be a hardened marine, you see him pissed-off by the lockers of the Normandy afterwards, but he (or she)e understands that the mission still needs to get done. Grieving over Kaidan won't do a thing. Perhaps it didn't drive the plot foward, but it doesn't need to. He could have been shot in the head by a sniper out of nowhere and it wouldn't have been bad storytelling. That's war. There is no guarantee how you've live or die. Deaths are inevitable; you can't save everyone.

[xentar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

This notion that video games should be escapism from real life and introduce every fantasy of the player irritates me, I don't see people complaining that The Notebook didn't end with a happy ending but when a game tries to do something similar it shouldn't matter because... the player is more deeply involved in the story?

It's always escapism. The only difference is what kind of world different people want to escape to.

[AdmiralCheez]

AwesomeName wrote...

Sorry to hear that, but you're not the only one who's lost people in real life.  And for many people that have, stories still have to have a degree of believability in them to be moving at all.   My brother in law once told us about being at a showing of Saving Private Ryan in a room full of old geezers - by the end of the film they stood up in silence and saluted during the credits.  They were that moved by it.  How do you think they would have felt if SPR portrayed a story where all the men survived by the end like it was some sort of Indiana Jones adventure where they all had plot armor?

Was SPR ever presented as an escapist fantasy where you got to fly around in your own ship and save the galaxy?

Also, on a whim I googled SPR and WW2 vets, and... well...

"Following the release of the film
“ Saving Private Ryan,” telephone calls from World War II veterans flooded the suicide toll-free
phone banks at the NVF, revealing that the first few minutes of the film brought back horrific
memories of their previous combat experiences (Shad Meshad interview 2008)." Source, see page 12.

It seems like lots of WW2 vets had serious resurgences of PTSD while watching SPR.  PTSD awareness article.  Article warning about how SPR could trigger PTSD.  A forum conversation where a few people point out how several combat vets had trouble stomaching the movie.

I'm going to go to bed before I say something really petty, but seriously you guys, quit this death-worship.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 04 décembre 2011 - 12:04 .

[Yezdigerd]

ReconTeam wrote...
 He could have been shot in the head by a sniper out of nowhere and it wouldn't have been bad storytelling. That's war. There is no guarantee how you've live or die.

You describe the mundanity of war which is bad(as in are unable to hold the consumers attention) storytelling in general. The war stories that are told through the ages are the freak ones, triumph against all odds. No one tells the story about those who randomly died for no reason, because it just isn't interesting.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Dave of Canada, ReconTeam, AwesomeName and DuckSoup have the right Idea.
I won this thread!

[manonyuf]

@AdmiralCheez Everyone surviving is simply unrealistic. And that's my problem with that version. "Death-worship" is the wrong term to use, in my opinion. There is no war without loss, sacrifice, death. Even Shepard cannot save everyone, maybe even s/he will die. Who knows? But there is no such thing as a "perfect" happy ending with war.

[sriv99]

ReconTeam wrote...

How was Virmire bad storytelling? Because somebody had to die? It happens. Even for a squad of ultimate badasses there are going to be casualties.

yeah... but in the Virmire mission Shepard can choose who to let die and who to save. thats the reason why virmire mission was one of the coolest missions in M.E.

[wildannie]

 I agree with AdmiralCheez on this

Also, having the same characters die at the same point in every playthrough would get very old very quickly.  

All ME2 characters can be dead already so the death of any of these characters during ME3 is not going to be a crucial element of any mission although their absence may make things harder.

It seems to me that  to create a scipted death which is crucial to the story Bioware will have to kill off a squadmate that has thus far been protected.  

Not everyone is going to survive, but who dies should be the product of player choice not scripted.

[AdmiralCheez]

manonyuf wrote...

@AdmiralCheez Everyone surviving is simply unrealistic. And that's my problem with that version. "Death-worship" is the wrong term to use, in my opinion. There is no war without loss, sacrifice, death. Even Shepard cannot save everyone, maybe even s/he will die. Who knows? But there is no such thing as a "perfect" happy ending with war.

You are missing the point.  I'm not asking for a "perfect" happy ending, I'm not asking for everyone to survive.  All I want is enough control to not have the same squadmate die in every single playthrough.  I really don't care if that means Shepard has to die, even, or which party member (of the ME3 squad) would be biting it all the time.

I was actually fine with Virmire in principle--it was the execution that was BS.  And I'm okay with (well done) deaths in static media, where the story is always the same.  But not here.

X can die if you're not careful?  Fine.

Either X or Y will die, and you must choose one?  Fine.

X always dies in every single playthrough no matter what, despite the investments you've made in the character and multitude of times you've made sure that character survives?  Bullsh*t.

I don't want to relive the worst moment in my life, and I don't ever want to feel that feeling of absolute powerlessness as I watch somebody that I care about deteriorate in front of me again, especially not while doing something that is supposed to be fun.

[The Elder King]

sriv99 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

How was Virmire bad storytelling? Because somebody had to die? It happens. Even for a squad of ultimate badasses there are going to be casualties.

yeah... but in the Virmire mission Shepard can choose who to let die and who to save. thats the reason why virmire mission was one of the coolest missions in M.E.

Agreed.

[BatmanPWNS]

At least one person should be able to die. You can't save everyone and not everything should be up to Space Jesus (Shepard) to decide.

[MICHELLE7]

wildannie wrote...

 I agree with AdmiralCheez on this

Also, having the same characters die at the same point in every playthrough would get very old very quickly.  

All ME2 characters can be dead already so the death of any of these characters during ME3 is not going to be a crucial element of any mission although their absence may make things harder.

It seems to me that  to create a scipted death which is crucial to the story Bioware will have to kill off a squadmate that has thus far been protected.  

Not everyone is going to survive, but who dies should be the product of player choice not scripted.

completely agree...the scripted thing doesn't always work...(It's not a death) but I didn't like the fact that in DA2 you couldn't stop Anders from blowing up the chantry no matter what you did and you couldn't really help him if you wanted too either. You just had to go with the script and pick up the pieces afterwards as best you could.