DeinonSlayer wrote...
]Pretty much this. There's no replay value as it stands. I'm not going to start over again from a 200-hour ME1->2->3 completionist playthrough, make different decisions (to find them invalidated in ME3), romance a different character, make different promises... and not keep any of them.
<_<
Really? That's interesting, because when I played, those things you mention never gave me the idea that hurrying to the IFF was a tactically incorrect/inferior choice.EternalAmbiguity wrote...
Sgt Stryker wrote...
And no, the game does not "clearly tell you" to do the other quests before going after the IFF. Not to my knowledge, at least.
I dunno, stuff like Jacob's "gonna get stuff taken care of, first" and his whole line of dialog on whether people are actually ready, based on their loyalty status, in addition to the comments when you finish the Collector Ship mission ("we can head for the IFF now, or we can work on the team"--implying its either/or) make it pretty d*mn clear.
Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 12 mai 2012 - 05:36 .
jeweledleah wrote...
could someone please explain to me why do they feel.. what's the word I'm looking for "forced" to ONLY go for the most optimal setup every single time? the whole beauty of meta gaming for me is that it allows me to set up different outcomes. there are quite a few time where you can get an optimal result in DAO. that didn't stop me from having different Wardens who picked different things... like the Dalish who didn't even think twice about wiping out werewolves even though it was possible to keep both werewolves and elves. or when I played ME2 and set up multiple outcomes with multiple variations of who died and who lived, and how their loyalty missions went (or even if I did them at all)... for all the good that it did me :/
the whole pint in having variety of outcomes... is to have variety of outcomes.
P.S. to me deaths that I cannot prevent - lose all impact. I know that they will happen anyway no matter what i do. so I stop caring.
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
jeweledleah wrote...
could someone please explain to me why do they feel.. what's the word I'm looking for "forced" to ONLY go for the most optimal setup every single time? the whole beauty of meta gaming for me is that it allows me to set up different outcomes. there are quite a few time where you can get an optimal result in DAO. that didn't stop me from having different Wardens who picked different things... like the Dalish who didn't even think twice about wiping out werewolves even though it was possible to keep both werewolves and elves. or when I played ME2 and set up multiple outcomes with multiple variations of who died and who lived, and how their loyalty missions went (or even if I did them at all)... for all the good that it did me :/
the whole pint in having variety of outcomes... is to have variety of outcomes.
P.S. to me deaths that I cannot prevent - lose all impact. I know that they will happen anyway no matter what i do. so I stop caring.
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Sgt Stryker wrote...
Really? That's interesting, because when I played, those things you mention never gave me the idea that hurrying to the IFF was a tactically incorrect/inferior choice.
iakus wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.
You mean like the team mates that the players have come to know and love dying over the course of the game?
They don't count because they don't have a bunk on the Normandy this game?
Edit: For that matter, the only squadmates guaranteed to be alive by the end of ME3 are Liara, EDI, and James. All the others can die.
Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 12 mai 2012 - 05:49 .
EternalAmbiguity wrote...
The problem is that you're metagaming to do it. It's fake then.
Your wardens can pick different things, because you sat them up to have different goals. But here's one place where I feel it's a bit like what we're talking about for ME3:
Dwarven king. You've got Bhelen and Harrowmont.
Bhelen supports removal of castes and more interaction with the surface.
Harrowmont supports more segregation.
Now, try as I might, I can't make my human Wardens see things Harrowmont's way. In the future, I may play a Warden that dislikes the Dwarves, who will then be able to do it, but until then, there's pretty much nothing to make that option available.
So, metagaming should NOT be a part of it. It invalidates somewhat the conclusion.
3DandBeyond wrote...
iakus wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
Faceless billions dying do not have the same emotional impact on the player as Shepard or team mates the player has come to know and love dying.
You mean like the team mates that the players have come to know and love dying over the course of the game?
They don't count because they don't have a bunk on the Normandy this game?
Edit: For that matter, the only squadmates guaranteed to be alive by the end of ME3 are Liara, EDI, and James. All the others can die.
But a great many of us worked hard to limit the deaths to those that were unavoidable. Mordin's, Legion's, and Thane's-maybe all dependent on how you played. And their deaths really hurt, at least they hurt me, even though they were flawed characters with dubious backgrounds. I came to care about them. Thane called me Siha. And when I played ME2 the first time through, I messed up one thing for the suicide mission and lost Garrus. I went back and made sure everyone survived before moving on.
They do count or should count in ME3, but instead we get to kiss some goodbye over the "phone". What many wanted or expected was to actually have some great final moments with the team they pulled together, fighting, defeating the reapers, and surviving.
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
iakus wrote...
That's interesting:
My noble and upright (and somewhat naive) human supported Behlen
My far more cynical mage supported Harrowmont
My duplicitous dalish played one side against the other until the very end, where I solved it with a coin flip (Harrowmont)
Was that metagaming or roleplaying?
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
iakus wrote...
Agree completely. Despite all that we do, there are deaths that are unavoidable. And they do hurt, and put faces on the tragedy that's engulfing the galaxy. And somehow, some people think that's not enough blood to spill in the name of bittersweet endings.
My "they don't count" line was entirely sarcastic.
*sigh* Simply saying the bolded words over and over again without addressing the reasons why it can't happen doesn't make it any more true.iakus wrote...
The Razman wrote...
You're right. After I'm done with this post, I'm going out to knock ice creams out of the hands of little children.<_<
Just because there's a technical barrier preventing a happy and a sad ending co-existing within the same narrative does not make every person who believes in it "out to make everyone unhappy".
There is no technical barrier. There is only your preference in what story is told.
To this day, plenty of people run through the Suicide Mission killing off select characters because they want to see how the story continues without that character.
Having a happy ending does not invalidate having a bittersweet ending, and vice versa.
But believing that is so means that you think people who want happy endings cannot have it because it somehow dimishes your own bittersweet ending.
And for that, I feel sorry for you
EternalAmbiguity wrote...
iakus wrote...
Agree completely. Despite all that we do, there are deaths that are unavoidable. And they do hurt, and put faces on the tragedy that's engulfing the galaxy. And somehow, some people think that's not enough blood to spill in the name of bittersweet endings.
My "they don't count" line was entirely sarcastic.
What deaths?
That's a serious question. The only one I can think of offhand is Pressly.
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
iakus wrote...
I thought we were referring to unavoidable deaths in ME3, of which I can think of several former squadmates who unavoidably die along with an important npc friend of Shepard's (no spoiler section)
These people put a sympathetic face on the tragedy that apparantly billions of civilians can't do...
Holy god, that's some misconception you've got there.Dan Dark wrote...
...really? Forgive me for being blunt, and report me if you must... but I've had it with this argument.
Are you people really so weak-willed that this would happen? Are you not able to think for yourselves? You obviously know what you want; you want the bittersweet ending, where the tragic hero sacrifices himself to save everyone else... so are you honestly trying to tell me, if you were presented the choice between getting exactly what you want, or the sickeningly sappy happy ending you despise the very thought of, you'd choose the "happy" one?
EternalAmbiguity wrote...
jeweledleah wrote...
could someone please explain to me why do they feel.. what's the word I'm looking for "forced" to ONLY go for the most optimal setup every single time? the whole beauty of meta gaming for me is that it allows me to set up different outcomes. there are quite a few time where you can get an optimal result in DAO. that didn't stop me from having different Wardens who picked different things... like the Dalish who didn't even think twice about wiping out werewolves even though it was possible to keep both werewolves and elves. or when I played ME2 and set up multiple outcomes with multiple variations of who died and who lived, and how their loyalty missions went (or even if I did them at all)... for all the good that it did me :/
the whole pint in having variety of outcomes... is to have variety of outcomes.
P.S. to me deaths that I cannot prevent - lose all impact. I know that they will happen anyway no matter what i do. so I stop caring.
The problem is that you're metagaming to do it. It's fake then.
Your wardens can pick different things, because you sat them up to have different goals. But here's one place where I feel it's a bit like what we're talking about for ME3:
Dwarven king. You've got Bhelen and Harrowmont.
Bhelen supports removal of castes and more interaction with the surface.
Harrowmont supports more segregation.
Now, try as I might, I can't make my human Wardens see things Harrowmont's way. In the future, I may play a Warden that dislikes the Dwarves, who will then be able to do it, but until then, there's pretty much nothing to make that option available.
So, metagaming should NOT be a part of it. It invalidates somewhat the conclusion.
Modifié par jeweledleah, 12 mai 2012 - 06:12 .
The Razman wrote...
*sigh* Simply saying the bolded words over and over again without addressing the reasons why it can't happen doesn't make it any more true.iakus wrote...
The Razman wrote...
You're right. After I'm done with this post, I'm going out to knock ice creams out of the hands of little children.<_<
Just because there's a technical barrier preventing a happy and a sad ending co-existing within the same narrative does not make every person who believes in it "out to make everyone unhappy".
There is no technical barrier. There is only your preference in what story is told.
To this day, plenty of people run through the Suicide Mission killing off select characters because they want to see how the story continues without that character.
Having a happy ending does not invalidate having a bittersweet ending, and vice versa.
But believing that is so means that you think people who want happy endings cannot have it because it somehow dimishes your own bittersweet ending.
And for that, I feel sorry for you
It's nothing to do with my "preference". I have no preference. If they'd done a happy ending, good. They didn't. They did a tragic ending. And people saying "Well, they can still have the ending they wanted, just add another option in for a happy ending for us and everyone's happy" are wrong ... it can't work. You can't put in a happy ending without devaluing the emotional power of the unhappy one. You can't simply put an off-switch for the unhappiness in there, otherwise you may as well not put it in at all because it's not going to have the effect it needs to.
Please, stop with the barely veiled attempts to indicate that this is something to do with me. This is just how it is.
EternalAmbiguity wrote...
Sgt Stryker wrote...
Really? That's interesting, because when I played, those things you mention never gave me the idea that hurrying to the IFF was a tactically incorrect/inferior choice.
I find that hard to believe. Incontestable, though.
The Razman wrote...
Holy god, that's some misconception you've got there.Dan Dark wrote...
...really? Forgive me for being blunt, and report me if you must... but I've had it with this argument.
Are you people really so weak-willed that this would happen? Are you not able to think for yourselves? You obviously know what you want; you want the bittersweet ending, where the tragic hero sacrifices himself to save everyone else... so are you honestly trying to tell me, if you were presented the choice between getting exactly what you want, or the sickeningly sappy happy ending you despise the very thought of, you'd choose the "happy" one?
Who plays a game aiming to lose? Nobody does. If you're playing a game aiming to lose people, you're playing it wrong. And if the only way you can get the unhappy ending is because you want to have the unhappy ending ... then there's no emotional power in that either. Nobody wants tragedy to happen. Nobody wants the hero to die, for Romeo and Juliet to drink the poison, for Rose to let go. Tragedy is called tragedy because it happens without you having a choice in it. Otherwise it's just ... you killing people off because you screwed up, or were sadistic, or whatever. Tragedy is the thing you're screaming at your monitor not to happen, happening.
I don't see how you couldn't understand that?
*cough*The Razman wrote...
Holy god, that's some misconception you've got there.Dan Dark wrote...
...really? Forgive me for being blunt, and report me if you must... but I've had it with this argument.
Are you people really so weak-willed that this would happen? Are you not able to think for yourselves? You obviously know what you want; you want the bittersweet ending, where the tragic hero sacrifices himself to save everyone else... so are you honestly trying to tell me, if you were presented the choice between getting exactly what you want, or the sickeningly sappy happy ending you despise the very thought of, you'd choose the "happy" one?
Who plays a game aiming to lose? Nobody does. If you're playing a game aiming to lose people, you're playing it wrong. And if the only way you can get the unhappy ending is because you want to have the unhappy ending ... then there's no emotional power in that either. Nobody wants tragedy to happen. Nobody wants the hero to die, for Romeo and Juliet to drink the poison, for Rose to let go. Tragedy is called tragedy because it happens without you having a choice in it. Otherwise it's just ... you killing people off because you screwed up, or were sadistic, or whatever. Tragedy is the thing you're screaming at your monitor not to happen, happening.
I don't see how you couldn't understand that?
Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 12 mai 2012 - 06:20 .
EternalAmbiguity wrote...
Oh, I didn't even realize. What was the OP thinking?
So is virtually everything in life. The ability to support our opinions with a logical framework of reasoning is what separates opinions worth a damn and those that aren't.iakus wrote...
It has everything to do with you. And with me. And with everyone else who plays the game.
Again, saying that a happy ending devalues a tragic ending is opinion, not fact.
Modifié par The Razman, 12 mai 2012 - 06:21 .
The Razman wrote...
Holy god, that's some misconception you've got there.Dan Dark wrote...
...really? Forgive me for being blunt, and report me if you must... but I've had it with this argument.
Are you people really so weak-willed that this would happen? Are you not able to think for yourselves? You obviously know what you want; you want the bittersweet ending, where the tragic hero sacrifices himself to save everyone else... so are you honestly trying to tell me, if you were presented the choice between getting exactly what you want, or the sickeningly sappy happy ending you despise the very thought of, you'd choose the "happy" one?
Who plays a game aiming to lose? Nobody does. If you're playing a game aiming to lose people, you're playing it wrong. And if the only way you can get the unhappy ending is because you want to have the unhappy ending ... then there's no emotional power in that either. Nobody wants tragedy to happen. Nobody wants the hero to die, for Romeo and Juliet to drink the poison, for Rose to let go. Tragedy is called tragedy because it happens without you having a choice in it. Otherwise it's just ... you killing people off because you screwed up, or were sadistic, or whatever. Tragedy is the thing you're screaming at your monitor not to happen, happening.
I don't see how you couldn't understand that?
What people do on multiple playthroughs is really, really not relevent here, anymore than what people do on their second or third watches of a movie they've seen before. Nobody was using a chart in their first playthrough; they were trying to win on their first playthrough. I don't believe you didn't realise that before posting, no offence.DeinonSlayer wrote...
*cough*The Razman wrote...
Holy god, that's some misconception you've got there.Dan Dark wrote...
...really? Forgive me for being blunt, and report me if you must... but I've had it with this argument.
Are you people really so weak-willed that this would happen? Are you not able to think for yourselves? You obviously know what you want; you want the bittersweet ending, where the tragic hero sacrifices himself to save everyone else... so are you honestly trying to tell me, if you were presented the choice between getting exactly what you want, or the sickeningly sappy happy ending you despise the very thought of, you'd choose the "happy" one?
Who plays a game aiming to lose? Nobody does. If you're playing a game aiming to lose people, you're playing it wrong. And if the only way you can get the unhappy ending is because you want to have the unhappy ending ... then there's no emotional power in that either. Nobody wants tragedy to happen. Nobody wants the hero to die, for Romeo and Juliet to drink the poison, for Rose to let go. Tragedy is called tragedy because it happens without you having a choice in it. Otherwise it's just ... you killing people off because you screwed up, or were sadistic, or whatever. Tragedy is the thing you're screaming at your monitor not to happen, happening.
I don't see how you couldn't understand that?
If what you say is true, then why were people making so much use of this as to boil it down into a science? Because they wanted to see what happens. And who are you to judge if what someone else is doing in a single-player game is "wrong?"
Modifié par The Razman, 12 mai 2012 - 06:25 .
Retour en haut
