130 réponses à ce sujet

[Exia001]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

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.

Agree this is war, after all. Would be a bummer if it was the same dude all the time. But people NEED to die in this game

[AdmiralCheez]

AwesomeName wrote...

Erm, no; did I ever say it was?  I used my brother-in-law's experience to make a simple point: many who have suffered tragedy in real life still value tragedy in stories.

And just as many are hurt.

And yes, unsurprisingly many WW2 vets can't watch a film like SPR, but obviously many can and have been moved by it and can see its value.  It's not like we shouldn't put tragedy in stories to accomodate the ones who can't handle it - afterall they don't have to watch.

Of course not.  But Mass Effect isn't a bloody tragedy, is it?  It's made to be fun.  This doesn't mean no death and no tragedy, but for f*ck's sake, don't make the player feel awful on purpose, and don't take away choice when you've promised and delivered it throughout the rest of the titles.

I understand how ME has been presented; it's actually one of the main reasons I think friends of Shepard should die no matter how well you do your mission.  It's just not realistic in ME-terms otherwise.

Suicide Mission.  Lazarus Project.  Cheesy-ass ME1 ending.

And I'm not saying they can't die, I just want a bloody say in who goes, a la Virmire.

And no one is death-worshipping; the whole reason it has the potential to be moving is because we don't want the people close to Shepard to die.  It does, however, have to be done well.

And this is the one thing I don't get about society.  But hey, I agree about the quality thing.

[wildannie]

MICHELLE7 wrote...

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.

Yup, DA2 had many flaws but it was being powerless to change outcomes that was the most damaging aspect to my enjoyment of subsequent playthroughs.

[Lord Issa]

I think we should be given a way to keep 1 character who was a companion at some point alive, against all odds, no matter who they are. Some people may call it a cop-out, but it adds to the depth of choice in my opinion, especially if every companion reacts when they find out who you've kept safe. I'd protect Legion every time, but that's just me. Thoughts?

Modifié par Lord Issa, 04 décembre 2011 - 01:52 .

[The Tookah]

I agree with the preference to save companions I am invested in. If a fav was off'd in a scripted death that Shepard could not alter, I would be p*ssed. Moreover, it would effect my replaying of the whole series.

I kill off the same squaddie on Virmire because I prefer the VS of my choice in my game. I suspect many people do the same. Because of this choice, we never invest in the squaddie who is doomed. As someone said up-thread, the death did not move the story forward. Except for the debrief, it is rarely mentioned again. Shepard probably has some pain for every team member s/he has lost during a tough career. But as a device to get me, the player, to feel that pain, it failed. Because the same choice happens every game and I cannot avoid it, I only feel the stress once.

If the choice was more random - sometimes I can avoid a death, but then the problem pops up in a later situation where I also have a slim chance of saving the character, then it would enhance my game. I want randomness. I repeated plot device is boring.

[jwalker]

The Tookah wrote...

I agree with the preference to save companions I am invested in. If a fav was off'd in a scripted death that Shepard could not alter, I would be p*ssed. Moreover, it would effect my replaying of the whole series.

I kill off the same squaddie on Virmire because I prefer the VS of my choice in my game. I suspect many people do the same. Because of this choice, we never invest in the squaddie who is doomed. As someone said up-thread, the death did not move the story forward. Except for the debrief, it is rarely mentioned again. Shepard probably has some pain for every team member s/he has lost during a tough career. But as a device to get me, the player, to feel that pain, it failed. Because the same choice happens every game and I cannot avoid it, I only feel the stress once.

If the choice was more random - sometimes I can avoid a death, but then the problem pops up in a later situation where I also have a slim chance of saving the character, then it would enhance my game. I want randomness. I repeated plot device is boring.

I agree with the first part but not the last one.
I don't like randomness. When I make a character and set up their game, it's like I'm the director of a movie. I know what is going to happen and I know what I have to do to get  certain result. That's the control I want.
A random squadmate death would be incredibly jarring. I fail to see how that would be a better narrative or a better game experience

[TomY90]

great piece of reading and you are right one why are another there will be causalities both sides and its virtually guaranteed that we will have some people die one way or another whether your favourite character, an LI or a character you hate, one way or another it will happen.

[Lord Issa]

To be honest, I like the fact that almost any character can die. The only thing I take issue with is the fact that certain characters MUST die. I honestly would say that's the only major flaw I found with the script, and if that's removed this is probably gonna be 2012's game of the year for me.

[manonyuf]

DuckSoup wrote...

I've been through a pretty rough time over the last 10 years. Some people would assume that because I have had a drug addiction that I wouldn't want to have those old feelings brought to the surface - that I'd steer clear of movies with drug abuse in, for example - but in fact it's completely the opposite. I find that I get more out of films that deal with the subject (or depression and heartbreak for that matter) because I've been there. I know how it feels to go through it and so I can completely empathise with the characters in the story. Some of my most pleasurable film experiences have been when I've sobbed my guts up; when I've walked away completely torn apart by it. These films have left a mark and will remain with me until I die.

So why would we not want such a thing in gaming? Those who have followed the Mass Effect series have, for the most part, invested a great deal of time into the story. They have, in some way or other, grown fond of the characters and to some degree 'close' to them. I understand the feeling people have of not wanting your Shep (or whoever) to die - nobody wants someone to die - but it's not in our control. Life gives us a rough deal sometimes and everyone dies. To truly get the most out of the game and the time you've dedicated to it, wouldn't it be right to have it as realistic as possible? You're fighting a war and in war people die. 

I don't see why any of them should definitely survive at all, but obviously it would all depend on the choices you make throughout the game. And even then, as with life, you can think you've made all the right choices but still have a tragedy on your hands. Things still don't always go exactly as you'd hoped.

I genuinely believe that you'd get more out of the experience and it would stay with you a lot longer than if it's a happy-hero-style cliche of an ending. To say that gaming is escapism and therefore should be void of any sadness is daft. Yes, we do play games to escape real life and enjoy ourselves, but we also watch films (or read books) for the same reasons. Even stories with happy endings have suffering somewhere in there. Wouldn't it be rubbish if all the films we watched were like 'Elf'? We'd soon be complaining. 

^This. Thank you for putting it into words.

[Lord Issa]

Not quite sure I get where you're coming from DuckSoup. If I'm correct, you're saying that every character should have a chance of surviving, but it should be realistic and the way to save them shouldn't be glaringly obvious-which all seems reasonable enough to me.

[jwalker]

DuckSoup wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

"I don't see why any of them should definitely survive at all, but obviously it would all depend on the choices you make throughout the game"

No, people are saying the same squadmate should always die regardless of what you do. No choice, no consequence. S/He's doomed from the beginning, that's it. And that's supposed to be moving.

People? And that's just silly. I don't agree with dooming someone to death from the beginning regardless. I think who survives and who doesn't should be decided on because of the choices you make. However, this needs to be realistic and sometimes things go wrong even if we think we've done things right.

I don't know how this could be done - I'm not a Dev - but that's what I would find most rewarding.  

So like you're going on a mission on some planet, you take the shuttle to land down there and ooops .... shuttle takes random artillery fire from the ground and someone inevitably dies ? I don't know how could that be rewarding... And of course, reload until someone I don't care about dies.....