649 réponses à ce sujet

[Sajji]

Why? Because effort that could have been spent on that was spent on multiplayer.

[The Razman]

iakus wrote...

It's a role playing game, you play the game to craft a story.

And the Final Fantasy games are what, exactly?

Countless examples I could've chosen, but we'll go with this one. Watching someone attempt to pigeonhole RPGs into restrictive boxes is always fun.

[The Razman]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

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?

Holy god, that's some misconception you've got there.

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?

Hmmm... sometimes RPG players talk like they're not so much interested in playing their character as they're interested in being a sort of writer/producer, assembling a narrative out of the components in the game. Hell, I do that myself after four or five playthroughs when I want to see the stuff my normal playthroughs haven't shown me.

Good for them.

Some people want to play a story instead of a Choose Your Own Adventure toy, though. Which is basically what that attitude reduces a game's story down to. If a gamemaker wants to make their game a playable story rather than a toy, there's zilch wrong with that.

[jeweledleah]

its funny. you guys keep talking about playing to win. well, I didn't feel like I won. I felt like I lost the game. which would have been fine, if I could then metagame my way to a win. except... there isn't one.

we got the game that we got. whether there are changes or not.. later down the road? is irrelevant. what's relevant here, IMO is this strange opinion that we shouldn't be allowed happy endings. that opinion persisted even before the game was released. you are entiteled to have it. but the game is not supposed to be made for you alone. its supposed to have ability to please a variety of people. you know.. due to its nature as a commercial release. and THAT is why we should have been able to have an option of a happy ending. "its cliche" is not a good answer. tragic endings are no less cliche.

as for playing a story?  well.. you could always play in an action mode and let the game chose the story for you.  action mode?  is set up for less optimal playtrhough.  very nice and renegade and you can still hit all the interupts you want.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 12 mai 2012 - 06:33 .

[DeinonSlayer]

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

*cough*

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?"

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.

Please, don't bring that kind of meaningless points without any critical thinking behind them in here. Think about how it's relevent before you post.

Of course, silly me. The first playthrough is the ONLY one that matters. Never mind if players view it as an experience not worth repeating, or expanding via DLC purchases.

Replay value is EVERYTHING.

[The Razman]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

*cough*

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?"

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.

Please, don't bring that kind of meaningless points without any critical thinking behind them in here. Think about how it's relevent before you post.

Of course, silly me. The first playthrough is the ONLY one that matters. Never mind if players view it as an experience not worth repeating, or expanding via DLC purchases.

Replay value is EVERYTHING.

Again, relevence? Nobody, on their first playthrough (which is the most important for the emotional impact of any story) is looking at your chart.

What point are you trying to make here?

[Iakus]

The Razman wrote...

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.

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.

So far, you really haven't provided anything to put you in the former category. I'd rather like you to if you're going to talk to me further.

And I can say that your own assertions have no more basis in fact than mine.  You say tragic and happy endings can't coexist, I say they can.  In the end, it depends on the player.  For evidence, I present our seperate asssertions.  

I also assert that t this is supposed to be a role playing game, where the player assembles his or her own story, which can be heroic or villainous, happy or sad or bittersweet.  This is not an action game or a shooter where your sole purpose is to navigate from one level to the next to unlock a story segment.  This is a game where the player is supposed to shape the outcome based on your chocies.  That is the beauty of role playing games.  You can assume a persona and play out the sotry and the ending that works best for you.  The game doesn't (or shouldn't) keep score and if you accumulate enough points you "win" It isn't a matter of right or wrong, but of choices and consequences

I also assert that bittersweet is a sliding scale, and what is bittersweet to one person is unbearably bitter to others.  Or "unicorns and rainbows" to another.  As we've seen in this very thread.  You may think the ending(s) are perfectly fine as far as bitter and sweet go.  I find them far, far too bitter for my taste and find they go very much against the trilogy as a whole.  This is where having more and more varied endings would have come in handy.  

Sorry if disagreeing you invalidates my opinion.  I shall endeavor to exist with less offense 

[jeweledleah]

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

*cough*

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?"

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.

Please, don't bring that kind of meaningless points without any critical thinking behind them in here. Think about how it's relevent before you post.

Of course, silly me. The first playthrough is the ONLY one that matters. Never mind if players view it as an experience not worth repeating, or expanding via DLC purchases.

Replay value is EVERYTHING.

Again, relevence? Nobody, on their first playthrough (which is the most important for the emotional impact of any story) is looking at your chart.

What point are you trying to make here?

you might want to avoid absolutes.  not everyone plays a game on release.  not everyone plays blind.  some people play with strategy guide on hand.  EVEN for their first playthrough.

[Dan Dark]

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

*cough*

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?"

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.

Please, don't bring that kind of meaningless points without any critical thinking behind them in here. Think about how it's relevent before you post.

Of course, silly me. The first playthrough is the ONLY one that matters. Never mind if players view it as an experience not worth repeating, or expanding via DLC purchases.

Replay value is EVERYTHING.

Again, relevence? Nobody, on their first playthrough (which is the most important for the emotional impact of any story) is looking at your chart.

What point are you trying to make here?

I suppose them putting the "EVERYTHING" in "Replay value is EVERYTHING" in all caps didn't make it obvious enough what their point was? Well, allow me to reiterate - replay value is EVERYTHING. People have gone to that much trouble making charts and whatnot because they want to see what else can happen. Here, though? Most people have done one playthrough, felt thoroughly disappointed, and found themselves with no desire to attempt another playthrough.

In simplest terms: It's relevant because the ending here is so unsatisfying it kills replay value.

[Iakus]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

The Razman wrote...

And the Final Fantasy games are what, exactly?

Countless examples I could've chosen, but we'll go with this one. Watching someone attempt to pigeonhole RPGs into restrictive boxes is always fun.

FYI, there aren't many FF fans here. Your answer will probably be something along the lines of "interactive movie."

Good pont.  I haven't played a Final Fantasy game in a good fifteen years, I can't say what they are now.

I can say that the Mass Effect game was supposed to be a game about choice and consequences, and how chocies matter, even chocies made in previous installments of the series. The player is not simply along fro the ride.  

This is not supposed to be Mac Walters (or any other writer for that matter) reading us a story.

[The Razman]

iakus wrote...

And I can say that your own assertions have no more basis in fact than mine.  You say tragic and happy endings can't coexist, I say they can.  In the end, it depends on the player.  For evidence, I present our seperate asssertions.

... is that the level of reasoning you're at? Saying "Well I can just say you're wrong and since everything is an opinion and all opinions are equal that makes my opinion just as valid as yours so ha"? <_<

I also assert that t this is supposed to be a role playing game, where the player assembles his or her own story, which can be heroic or villainous, happy or sad or bittersweet.  This is not an action game or a shooter where your sole purpose is to navigate from one level to the next to unlock a story segment.

You're claiming that non-linearity is a necessity of the role-playing game genre. Do you really, and think about it carefully, want to make that claim?

Because I have quite a long list of role-playing games here which says otherwise.

I also assert that bittersweet is a sliding scale, and what is bittersweet to one person is unbearably bitter to others.  Or "unicorns and rainbows" to another.  As we've seen in this very thread.  You may think the ending(s) are perfectly fine as far as bitter and sweet go.  I find them far, far too bitter for my taste and find they go very much against the trilogy as a whole.  This is where having more and more varied endings would have come in handy. 

By that logic we should just stick a different ending on every movie, to suit everybody's tastes.

Having multiple endings is not a problem. Suggesting that having a happy ending wouldn't invalidate the unhappy one is. You've yet to actually say anything about that beyond "No it wouldn't." Speaking of which ...

Sorry if disagreeing you invalidates my opinion.

Not backing up your opinion with anything is what invalidates your opinion, not disagreeing with me. Our opinions are not equal here ... I'm offering reasoning, and you're offering denials. You need some counter-reasoning, or you're not offering anything of worth.

[Han Shot First]

iakus wrote...

If you want a tragic story, then make a tragic story.  Tragedy is when the protagonist is unable to overcome his or her character flaws, to their downfall and that of others.  So play Shepard that way!  Play Shepard as foolish or tempermental, or racist, or indecicive, whatever floats your boat!

Maybe some of us was want to roleplay a Shepard that is an outstanding combat leader rather than one that is a fool or indecisive. The sort that makes all the right tactical decisions, but it isn't enough to save everyone. Or maybe he loses people (or his own life) because he made the right tactical decisions.

In war people die even when a leader makes the right call, and sometimes because of it. He might even lose his own life because of it. In the US Marine Corps the responsibilities of leadership can summarized by two priorities:

1. Mission Accomplishment

2. Troop Welfare

While the welfare of the people serving under your command is one of your most important priorities, it is always secondary to mission accomplishment. While I'm using the US Marine Corps as example, those two priorities are no different for any Western military organization.  And it is a cold, grim reality that sometimes you have to lose people to achieve objectives.

While Mass Effect may be Sci Fi, I think the end run is one aspect where the story would suffer if it leaned too heavily towards 'Space Opera.' For the ending to have any emotional impact, victory should come with a price.

An ending that combines both a 100% survival rate among the Normandy's crew *and* the least possible destruction to the galaxy (Big Ben surviving?) automatically renders any ending with less than 100% survival rate a less desirable ending, precisely because people would only die when Shepard makes tactical blunders. I prefer Virmire to any of the ME2 death scenes, because it is a scenario where no matter what call Shepard makes he is going to lose someone. In ME2 in order to lose people Shepard has to make bad tactical decisions or fail to make proper strategic preparations.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 06:53 .

[The Razman]

jeweledleah wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

*cough*

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?"

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.

Please, don't bring that kind of meaningless points without any critical thinking behind them in here. Think about how it's relevent before you post.

Of course, silly me. The first playthrough is the ONLY one that matters. Never mind if players view it as an experience not worth repeating, or expanding via DLC purchases.

Replay value is EVERYTHING.

Again, relevence? Nobody, on their first playthrough (which is the most important for the emotional impact of any story) is looking at your chart.

What point are you trying to make here?

you might want to avoid absolutes.  not everyone plays a game on release.  not everyone plays blind.  some people play with strategy guide on hand.  EVEN for their first playthrough.

Which is effectively the same as watching a movie while reading the plot synopsis on Wikipedia. I doubt I'm going to come up against any resistence in saying that such people's views and opinions on the emotional impact which a story has on you is irrelevent, since they're not experiencing it in a way which allows the narrative to work.

[jeweledleah]

Han Shot First wrote...

iakus wrote...

If you want a tragic story, then make a tragic story.  Tragedy is when the protagonist is unable to overcome his or her character flaws, to their downfall and that of others.  So play Shepard that way!  Play Shepard as foolish or tempermental, or racist, or indecicive, whatever floats your boat!

Maybe some of us was want to roleplay a Shepard that is an outstanding combat leader rather than one that is a fool or indecisive. The sort that makes all the right tactical decisions, but it isn't enough to save everyone. Or maybe he loses people (or his own life) because he made the right tactical decisions.

In war people die even when a leader makes the right call, and sometimes because of it. He might even lose his own life because of it. In the US Marine Corps the responsibilities of leadership can summarized by two priorities:

1. Mission Accomplishment

2. Troop Welfare

While the welfare of the people serving under your command is one of your most important priorities, it is always secondary to mission accomplishment. While I'm using the US Marine Corps as example, those two priorities are no different for any Western military organization.  And it is a cold, grim reality that sometimes you have to lose people to achieve objectives.

While Mass Effect may be Sci Fi, I think the end run is one aspect where the story would suffer if it leaned too heavily towards 'Space Opera.' For the ending to have any emotional impact, victory should come with a price.

An ending that combines both a 100% survival rate among the Normandy's crew *and* the least possible destruction to the galaxy (Big Ben surviving?) automatically renders any ending with less than 100% survival rate a less desirable ending, precisely because people would only die when Shepard makes tactical blunders. I prefer Virmire to any of the ME2 death scenes, because it is a scenario where no matter what call Shepard makes he is going to lose someone. In ME2 in order to lose people Shepard has to make bad tactical decisions or fail to make proper strategic preparations.

wait... you want to play an outstanding commander... that still loses in the end?  well..  we all have our preferences, i suppose..

the issue I have is with your assertion that anything else is invalide.  that outstanding commander that WINS the day.. cheapens the story.  

to quote the dude, that's just like... your opinion, man.. t

[The Razman]

Dan Dark wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

*cough*

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?"

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.

Please, don't bring that kind of meaningless points without any critical thinking behind them in here. Think about how it's relevent before you post.

Of course, silly me. The first playthrough is the ONLY one that matters. Never mind if players view it as an experience not worth repeating, or expanding via DLC purchases.

Replay value is EVERYTHING.

Again, relevence? Nobody, on their first playthrough (which is the most important for the emotional impact of any story) is looking at your chart.

What point are you trying to make here?

I suppose them putting the "EVERYTHING" in "Replay value is EVERYTHING" in all caps didn't make it obvious enough what their point was? Well, allow me to reiterate - replay value is EVERYTHING. People have gone to that much trouble making charts and whatnot because they want to see what else can happen. Here, though? Most people have done one playthrough, felt thoroughly disappointed, and found themselves with no desire to attempt another playthrough.

In simplest terms: It's relevant because the ending here is so unsatisfying it kills replay value.

... have you mistaken this thread for a different one?

What on earth are you talking about the ending affecting replay value for in this thread? What does that have to do with anything we've been talking about?

[jeweledleah]

The Razman wrote...

Which is effectively the same as watching a movie while reading the plot synopsis on Wikipedia. I doubt I'm going to come up against any resistence in saying that such people's views and opinions on the emotional impact which a story has on you is irrelevent, since they're not experiencing it in a way which allows the narrative to work.

how kind of you to tell me that i and people like me are irrelevant.  and that our emotions somehow are not real.  thank you.  so much.  

[The Razman]

jeweledleah wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Which is effectively the same as watching a movie while reading the plot synopsis on Wikipedia. I doubt I'm going to come up against any resistence in saying that such people's views and opinions on the emotional impact which a story has on you is irrelevent, since they're not experiencing it in a way which allows the narrative to work.

how kind of you to tell me that i and people like me are irrelevant.  and that our emotions somehow are not real.  thank you.  so much.  

You're welcome.

[Dan Dark]

The Razman wrote...

Dan Dark wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

*cough*

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?"

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.

Please, don't bring that kind of meaningless points without any critical thinking behind them in here. Think about how it's relevent before you post.

Of course, silly me. The first playthrough is the ONLY one that matters. Never mind if players view it as an experience not worth repeating, or expanding via DLC purchases.

Replay value is EVERYTHING.

Again, relevence? Nobody, on their first playthrough (which is the most important for the emotional impact of any story) is looking at your chart.

What point are you trying to make here?

I suppose them putting the "EVERYTHING" in "Replay value is EVERYTHING" in all caps didn't make it obvious enough what their point was? Well, allow me to reiterate - replay value is EVERYTHING. People have gone to that much trouble making charts and whatnot because they want to see what else can happen. Here, though? Most people have done one playthrough, felt thoroughly disappointed, and found themselves with no desire to attempt another playthrough.

In simplest terms: It's relevant because the ending here is so unsatisfying it kills replay value.

... have you mistaken this thread for a different one?

What on earth are you talking about the ending affecting replay value for in this thread? What does that have to do with anything we've been talking about?

Gee, I don't know... maybe it was a direct response to the message I quoted?

[The Master Chief]

kbct wrote...

What if a happy ending caused Mass Effect 3 to sell twice as many copies?

Hahahahaha... this guy. I like you. No ******.

[jeweledleah]

in case you got a mistaken impression? I was being sarcastic.

emotional response is still an emotional response, no matter how you get it or in how many playthroughs. its like having sex. first time maybe memorable, because hey - first time. but its doesn't mean all the other times are irrelevant. and most of the time? they are actually better.

[DeinonSlayer]

jeweledleah wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Which is effectively the same as watching a movie while reading the plot synopsis on Wikipedia. I doubt I'm going to come up against any resistence in saying that such people's views and opinions on the emotional impact which a story has on you is irrelevent, since they're not experiencing it in a way which allows the narrative to work.

how kind of you to tell me that i and people like me are irrelevant.  and that our emotions somehow are not real.  thank you.  so much.  

That does appear to be what his argument boils down to. If you're not doing it the way he described, you're doing it "wrong," and your opinions can be safely dismissed as "unreasonable."

Was Fight Club a lesser film the second time you watched it, (spoiler: even knowing that Jack and Tyler Durden were the same person)? Was Mass Effect 2 a lesser game the second time you played it? If the narrative didn't "work" outside of the first viewing, people wouldn't watch movies or play games with branching plots more than once.

[slimgrin]

The Razman wrote...

The nature of a game, or at least how we play games at present, is that we will always try to "win". 

Nope, not in a worthy RPG. And your post just goes downhill from here. 'Winning' in an RPG...Really?

[Han Shot First]

jeweledleah wrote...


wait... you want to play an outstanding commander... that still loses in the end? well.. we all have our preferences, i suppose..

Some Allied KIA figures for World War Two:

United Kingdom: 383,800

United States: 416,000

Soviet Union: 8,800,000 to 10,700,000

Canada: 45,400

Australia: 39,800

China: 3,000,000 to 4,000,000


Did the Allies lose World War Two?

Sorry, but a few casualties on Shepard's team (or Shepard dying himself) does not equal a loss.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 mai 2012 - 07:07 .