61 réponses à ce sujet

[Goldendroid]

First things first, I AM NOT, repeat: I AM NOT, saying you should not do it at all. 



What I believe, is that Shepard is a great soldier, and has led his/her team to victory no matter how he/she did it. But I always thought even if he/she was a ruthless killer, Shepard would still manage to save as many people as possible, but just not being so "I'm a hero" about it if you get me. Shepard would do it just to do it because it is right, you get me? 

EDIT: I get it that the game is about choice, and that we are Shepards, but I am not saying I hate the player for doing so, NOR AM I ASKING THEM TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS, I am asking why one would do something outside of metagaming or experimentation. 

Double EDIT: I am not saying the deaths caused by accidents are also bad, they are completely fine, because how were you supposed to know, right? But, what I am saying is once you get to the suicide mission, it is far too simple to not keep everyone alive without any form of metagaming involved in it. Even I have got a playthrough where I tried to kill everybody, even the crew. I only have 1 squad member left because Zaeed managed to survive and I got to kill him in his loyalty mission afterwards, for fun. 

BUT why in a proper blind playthrough would you do otherwise? 

TRIPLE EDIT: 

Shepard: I'm such a hero/badass! Look at how good I'm doing! The collectors are pinned back, we can follow them with the Reaper IFF, and we have duped Harbinger himself!

SM Shepard: HERPDERP Imma send you in the vents and you to distract them, even though a child can figure out you could never do the job. derrrrrr
 
I don't see it happening, the game still feeds you down that path, and in your canon playthrough I see no way you could do otherwise without a hatred for the character and no metagame involved. METAGAMING ISNT BAD PEOPLE, just on your first playthrough how could you possibly know killing people purposely is going to benefit/dramatically alter your ME3 playthrough?

Just saying it. I am already wearing the flame retardant and an additional anti-troll hat that I won from TF2 (not really just poking fun) 

Modifié par Goldendroid, 09 février 2012 - 10:00 .

[Descy_]

Well Thane started it. He made fun of my new shoes!

(Jk, I saved everyone)

Oh but: inb4lockcuzitaintme3related

Modifié par Descy_, 09 février 2012 - 09:08 .

[Berkilak]

Shepard isn't deliberately killing people. The player is. Stark difference.

[ItsFreakinJesus]

You're applying metagaming logic to it. In-universe, despite us deliberately killing characters off, they're things beyond Shepard's control. My last game, I purposely killed off Thane, Samara, and Zaeed. Despite me being pleased with it, Shepard still reacted negatively to these deaths.

Us playing God isn't Shepard killing off people, it's us tweaking the universe to get a certain desired outcome. Besides, not everyone wants to import 300 files into ME3 where everyone was alive. Considering the possible permutations in ME3, I want to see as many of them as humanly possible. Having characters dead is the only way that's going to happen.

[Arppis]

Berkilak wrote...

Shepard isn't deliberately killing people. The player is. Stark difference.

I wish there would be non-lethal way to take care of my foes. I'd do it all the time (Well maybe not vs husks and droids).

[Goldendroid]

Berkilak wrote...

Shepard isn't deliberately killing people. The player is. Stark difference.

That is my point, if you assume the role of a hardened veteran of the alliance shouldnt you be a bit more mature to say "these people are useful, and they need to be kept" rather than "I think this person is an annoying piece of doodee, I'll kill them when I get the chance"

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

You're applying metagaming logic to it. In-universe, despite us deliberately killing characters off, they're things beyond Shepard's control. My last game, I purposely killed off Thane, Samara, and Zaeed. Despite me being pleased with it, Shepard still reacted negatively to these deaths.

Us playing God isn't Shepard killing off people, it's us tweaking the universe to get a certain desired outcome. Besides, not everyone wants to import 300 files into ME3 where everyone was alive. Considering the possible permutations in ME3, I want to see as many of them as humanly possible. Having characters dead is the only way that's going to happen.

No metagaming is inside it, I am actually saying they are the metagamers. You are applying the metagaming, and yes for "experimental purposes" everybody will go and kill people off and see what happens. But, in an actual "canon" playthrough whereby you would play as how you want to play, to go "imma force sheps to make a stupid decision" when obviously you know and therefore Shepard knows there is a much better decision (apart from if you believe Jacob and Miranda at those points. I never trusted them from the start o my first playthrough, just bleurgh) to be made, is in my opinion kind of stupid.

As I said, not saying dont do it, I'm just perplexed as to why you would do it in a canon playthrough for petty reasons such as not liking them. 

To me, It is an RPG, to play my role, I will play the role of the smart commander of a ship.

Modifié par Goldendroid, 09 février 2012 - 09:17 .

[Unpleasant Implications]

Goldendroid wrote...

Berkilak wrote...

Shepard isn't deliberately killing people. The player is. Stark difference.

That is my point, if you assume the role of a hardened veteran of the alliance shouldnt you be a bit more mature to say "these people are useful, and they need to be kept" rather than "I think this person is an annoying piece of doodee, I'll kill them when I get the chance"

The second. Why? It's a freaking game about choice. Why not explore the story where annoying pieces of doody don't exist?

[BatmanPWNS]

This is a game and people can choose who they want in the next game and not. If someone wants most of their squad to be dead then let them. It ain't my save being effect.

[JeffZero]

I metagame the whole scenario, Goldendroid. It has nothing to do with what Shepard would do. I literally take myself out of the game to avoid the sunshine-and-rainbows ending where no one dies during the Suicide Mission because I hate it that much. I do my darndest to orchestrate squadmate deaths as naturally and potentially viably as possible, but at the end of the day it's meta.

I don't hate any squadmates. It seems like a lot of people assume that's the only explanation for someone choosing to do this. It isn't. While it's certainly the rationale behind many people, it's not mine. I do it because I want death, anguish and dramatic impact from the Suicide Mission. I don't like ridiculously happy scenarios in storytelling; it takes me out of the story more than any meta work on my part ever could.

It was a suicide mission. Someone should perish on the other end of that relay. I don't like Shepard being a deity.

[JeffZero]

Goldendroid wrote...

Berkilak wrote...

Shepard isn't deliberately killing people. The player is. Stark difference.

That is my point, if you assume the role of a hardened veteran of the alliance shouldnt you be a bit more mature to say "these people are useful, and they need to be kept" rather than "I think this person is an annoying piece of doodee, I'll kill them when I get the chance"

And for that, I really, really hope you read my post. That isn't what it is with me at all.

[Berkilak]

Goldendroid wrote...

Berkilak wrote...

Shepard isn't deliberately killing people. The player is. Stark difference.

That is my point, if you assume the role of a hardened veteran of the alliance shouldnt you be a bit more mature to say "these people are useful, and they need to be kept" rather than "I think this person is an annoying piece of doodee, I'll kill them when I get the chance"

You don't assume that role. You are not Shepard. Likewise, Shepard is not you. You are who you are, and if you decide, as a metagaming choice totally out of Shepard's hands, that someone should die, you can make it so. Shepard still does everything he can to have everyone survive, regardless of the actual outcome as determined by the player.

Modifié par Berkilak, 09 février 2012 - 09:17 .

[Niemack Saarinen]

Hey, jacob volunteered for the heat duct. was it a coincidence i wanted him dead? Maybe.. either way my conscience is clear.

[ddv.rsa]

JeffZero wrote...

I metagame the whole scenario, Goldendroid. It has nothing to do with what Shepard would do. I literally take myself out of the game to avoid the sunshine-and-rainbows ending where no one dies during the Suicide Mission because I hate it that much. I do my darndest to orchestrate squadmate deaths as naturally and potentially viably as possible, but at the end of the day it's meta.

I don't hate any squadmates. It seems like a lot of people assume that's the only explanation for someone choosing to do this. It isn't. While it's certainly the rationale behind many people, it's not mine. I do it because I want death, anguish and dramatic impact from the Suicide Mission. I don't like ridiculously happy scenarios in storytelling; it takes me out of the story more than any meta work on my part ever could.

It was a suicide mission. Someone should perish on the other end of that relay. I don't like Shepard being a deity.

Why not just fail to prepare? "We need to stop the collectors, there's no time to find Thane!"

[jcolt]

i just wanna see what happens.

[DayusMakhina]

I've gotta say this topic is almost as strange as some of the character threads at the moment. Seems somewhat like reality and fantasy are getting far too mixed up here.

Other than that incredibly insightful comment... this sums it up:

JeffZero wrote...

I metagame the whole scenario, Goldendroid. It has nothing to do with what Shepard would do. I literally take myself out of the game to avoid the sunshine-and-rainbows ending where no one dies during the Suicide Mission because I hate it that much. I do my darndest to orchestrate squadmate deaths as naturally and potentially viably as possible, but at the end of the day it's meta.

I don't hate any squadmates. It seems like a lot of people assume that's the only explanation for someone choosing to do this. It isn't. While it's certainly the rationale behind many people, it's not mine. I do it because I want death, anguish and dramatic impact from the Suicide Mission. I don't like ridiculously happy scenarios in storytelling; it takes me out of the story more than any meta work on my part ever could.

It was a suicide mission. Someone should perish on the other end of that relay. I don't like Shepard being a deity.

[JeffZero]

ddv.rsa wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I metagame the whole scenario, Goldendroid. It has nothing to do with what Shepard would do. I literally take myself out of the game to avoid the sunshine-and-rainbows ending where no one dies during the Suicide Mission because I hate it that much. I do my darndest to orchestrate squadmate deaths as naturally and potentially viably as possible, but at the end of the day it's meta.

I don't hate any squadmates. It seems like a lot of people assume that's the only explanation for someone choosing to do this. It isn't. While it's certainly the rationale behind many people, it's not mine. I do it because I want death, anguish and dramatic impact from the Suicide Mission. I don't like ridiculously happy scenarios in storytelling; it takes me out of the story more than any meta work on my part ever could.

It was a suicide mission. Someone should perish on the other end of that relay. I don't like Shepard being a deity.

Why not just fail to prepare? "We need to stop the collectors, there's no time to find Thane!"

Because on top of all that, I'm also a completionist who is obsessed with doing everything possible... as soon as it's possible.

Let's just say it's a damn good thing my girlfriend plays too, or she'd never see that achievement for completing the majority of ME1 with "the asari squadmate", as the description states.

[Heraxion]

JeffZero wrote...

. I literally take myself out of the game to avoid the sunshine-and-rainbows ending where no one dies during the Suicide Mission because I hate it that much.

It was a suicide mission. Someone should perish on the other end of that relay. I don't like Shepard being a deity.

This. Any epic story becomes better when there is some loss and sacrifice.

[Aimi]

Arcian wrote...

Let's trade.

Down with the Mannconomy! Down with SPUFers! Peace, Land, and Bread! 

[ODST 3]

Berkilak wrote...

Shepard isn't deliberately killing people. The player is. Stark difference.

Quite right. Sometimes we add a little drama to our Shepard's lives without them asking for it.

[Heraxion]

ODST 3 wrote...
 Quite right. Sometimes we add a little drama to our Shepard's lives without them asking for it.

Like how i romance Liara in ME1 and then Tali in ME2. BRING ON THE DRAMA IN ME3!

[JeffZero]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Well, we shouldn't need to, but since the "suicide" mission is that by name only, it is virtually impossible to have any varying results without deliberately playing dumb/killing off people.

As any other will tell you, I do it for variables (and roleplay, though that's a minor one). See what comes with ME3 and then go with it.

Also this, yes.

[Goldendroid]

DayusMakhina wrote...

I've gotta say this topic is almost as strange as some of the character threads at the moment. Seems somewhat like reality and fantasy are getting far too mixed up here.

Strange? I am simply questioning the motives of people who kill off their characters intentionally WITHOUT metagaming and experimentation in the thought process. You will learn that people will die before you go in there, it's pretty obvious, but how they will die remains a mystery in your first playthrough correct? Once one finds out you can kill someone by simply giving them the role you know they can't fulfil i.e. Miranda in the vents or Grunt leading the distraction team. WHY would you kill them off for the sake of killing them off. 

If by accident you do manage to lose someone, then so be it. but knowing you can kill them upon realisation of how simple it was to lose someone is ridiculous in my eyes.

IMO, instead of being straight "yes or no" situations, there should be a success percentage hidden from us, Mirands and Garrus getting 100% then from there, other characters getting a chance to lead without casualties, but still having a higher chance to not make it.