790 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Bleachrude wrote...

*snort*

Hazegurl, ME0730's scenario is NOT roleplaying AT ALL. It's a complete arbitary choice that doesn't depend on any of the actions that the player took before reaching that point.

Again, there's nothing wrong with a "save either teammate A or B" but I agree with David that in such a case, players will metagame their least favourite teammate.

Contrast this with Mordin.

You have the option to either save or kill Mordin but the game gives you the information beforehand...

Players metagame all the time

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Bleachrude wrote...

*snort*

Hazegurl, ME0730's scenario is NOT roleplaying AT ALL. It's a complete arbitary choice that doesn't depend on any of the actions that the player took before reaching that point.

Again, there's nothing wrong with a "save either teammate A or B" but I agree with David that in such a case, players will metagame their least favourite teammate.

Contrast this with Mordin.

You have the option to either save or kill Mordin but the game gives you the information beforehand...

And you don't have to kill the bloody teammates if you know how to save them. What, is a character supposed to live or die based on some asset I collected earlier? I cured the genophage, therefore it's a travesty that Liara dies because I hesitated in the last battle?

I know how to get the SM accomplished with no crew or squad deaths? Does that make my choice any less meaningful? Not in the least. 

[Ryzaki]

*shakes head*

I'm just still boggled as to how character interaction is an acceptable trade off in an rpg. Or is something that should happen more in the future.

Mass Effect 3 wasn't exactly some top tier RPG that all other RPGs can't hope to stand up too.

[Hazegurl]

Bleachrude wrote...

That seems VERY arbitary.

With virmire, even on the 1st playthrough, the game indicates what will happen to the person you don't go to...

This seems like a random "dice roll" where people will legitimately point out that there's no way to know beforehand....

imo, that's what makes it exciting. No debriefing etc, just something that hits you out of the blue and you have to think fast. Although I wouldn't want Anderson to save the other. I would want a high EMS, make that choice, and put their name on the wall in my MEHEM ending. But I like the overall concept.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Bleachrude wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

That seems VERY arbitary.

With virmire, even on the 1st playthrough, the game indicates what will happen to the person you don't go to...

This seems like a random "dice roll" where people will legitimately point out that there's no way to know beforehand....

And?

Nobody knew that Wrex dies if you sabotage the cure (if he survived through ME1) the first time they played, but it happened.

Except that as a player you should expect that Wrex will find out about the sabotage and that should be taken into your calculations.

That's a double standard if I ever saw one.

[David7204]

The suicide mission was not a coin toss. You can get the whole team through alive by making smart decisions, smart choices.

That  was not a coin toss. This is a coin toss. This is having your friends survive because you got lucky.

Not because you were a hero.
Not because you were smart.
Not because you were strong.
Not because you of willpower, or friendship, or unity, or love.
Not because of all the work you did, all the things you accomplished.
Not because you were pragmatic, or made sacrifices.

Nope. All of those things count for absolutely nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

Your friends live or die because of a coin toss. Because you were lucky enough to pick right instead of left. That's what matters. All those other things? They don't matter at all. What matters is the coin landing on heads.

Modifié par David7204, 18 mai 2013 - 11:48 .

[Bleachrude]

Let's try this from the top.

At the decision point to give the option to save the teammate, you want the renegade option to be the right one.

(I'll point out that ME3 actually has renegade being the first time in the series when it actually saved lives whereas paragon was the wrong option - Javik and Kelly).

However, in both these cases, the choice is based on the dialogue that a player can evaluate and thus the game gives you hints as to what the best choice is.

The current scenario seems like it is a quick time event more suited to something like God of War then ME (nowhere in the trilogy has quick time events been used to actually kill/save teammates and this ironically makes it closer to an action-adventure game).

re: Wrex and the sabotage
I actually was surprised that Wreav didn't check the cure itself. When the cure is released, I would've thought the first thing either Wrex or Wreav would do would to actually double check that the cure was working.

The fact that Wrex had actual conversation recordings were an actual surprise to me..

[Ymladdych]

o Ventus wrote...
"Should expect"?

At what point in the story was it ever even remotely to be expected that Wrex would find out something that he didn't witness?

That's not a story-dependent truth, it's a fact of life: when you lie, there's always a chance you'll get caught.

[David7204]

The sheer hypocrisy here is simply astounding. You complain left and right about not getting the happy ending you think you deserve, then you gleefully advocate success or failure based on a coin toss. It doesn't matter if it's a coin toss for the player or not - it's a coin toss for Shepard. You seriously do not grasp the problem here?

Modifié par David7204, 18 mai 2013 - 11:47 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

The suicide mission was not a coin toss. You can get the whole team through alive by making smart decisions, smart choices.

This is a coin toss. This is a coin toss. This is having your friends survive because you got lucky.

Not because you were a hero.
Not because you were smart.
Not because you were strong.
Not because you of willpower, or friendship, or unity, or love.
Not because of all the work you did, all the things you accomplished.
Not because you were pragmatic, or made sacrifices.

Nope. All of those things count for absolutely nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

Your friends live or die because of a coin toss. Because you were lucky enough to pick right instead of left. That's what matters. All those other things? They don't matter at all. What matters is the coin landing on heads.

As someone who really likes the Suicide Mission, those decisions were too easy

[Hazegurl]

Bleachrude wrote...

*snort*

Hazegurl, ME0730's scenario is NOT roleplaying AT ALL. It's a complete arbitary choice that doesn't depend on any of the actions that the player took before reaching that point.

Again, there's nothing wrong with a "save either teammate A or B" but I agree with David that in such a case, players will metagame their least favourite teammate.

Contrast this with Mordin.

You have the option to either save or kill Mordin but the game gives you the information beforehand...

It's not my scenario I just like it and I find it interesting that players would b*tch and moan over it simply because it's a scenario where a person could lose one or two squadmates they like.

If it is your first time playing the game and that choice pops up then how is that metagaming?? Please explain that to me.

And you guys act like coin toss decisions don't happen in wars. Do you think that you will have time for a debreifing on every single choice in a war where everything is predicted from start to finish? In a situation like battling a full scale galatic threat, how can you just expect to never be taken off guard and be forced into making a split second decision?

Modifié par Hazegurl, 18 mai 2013 - 11:53 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

The suicide mission was not a coin toss. You can get the whole team through alive by making smart decisions, smart choices.

This is a coin toss. This is a coin toss. This is having your friends survive because you got lucky.

Not because you were a hero.
Not because you were smart.
Not because you were strong.
Not because you of willpower, or friendship, or unity, or love.
Not because of all the work you did, all the things you accomplished.
Not because you were pragmatic, or made sacrifices.

Nope. All of those things count for absolutely nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

Your friends live or die because of a coin toss. Because you were lucky enough to pick right instead of left. That's what matters. All those other things? They don't matter at all.

No David, they don't count for everything in this choice. One choice. Boo-****ing-hoo. Reload the save if it bothers you.

Not every choice should be your envisioning of it. 

That's a load of Bull**** if I ever saw it. 

All my heroics, willpower, love, friendship, and pragmatism in the SM on my first time? I lost two squadmembers. Because I thought I was making the right choice with them, and turns out I didn't. They died. 

You know what I did? I picked up and carried on, finished the game, then restarted and saved them all.

You want choice? You have a choice. I told you what you're damn choice is to save the squadmates. It's not bloody luck at all. It's a mechanic to the game. Want to save all your squad? Have enough assets, broker enough treaties, be enough of a hero that people are there to back you up. Anderson has a clear run to the second squadmate. He can save that squadmate. Just go run and pick up the first. 

Ta-da. Ta-****ing-da. Your squadmates live. 

[David7204]

You lost two squadmates because your Shepard was stupid. It's his own fault. That had nothing to do with the coin landing on tails. Mine got everyone out alive. First time. Because my choices mattered. Not because a coin toss said so.

Modifié par David7204, 18 mai 2013 - 11:52 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

The sheer hypocrisy here is simply astounding. You complain left and right about not getting the happy ending you think you deserve, then you gleefully advocate success or failure based on a coin toss. It doesn't matter if it's a coin toss for the player or not - it's a coin toss for Shepard. You seriously do not grasp the problem here?

The problem is yours David. Not mine. I don't have that problem at all. I know everything in the trilogy, and Shepard knows nothing. That's perfectly fine. That's the point of drama. I'm roleplaying as Shepard. I'm making his story. I know the elements after the first try, and I know how to base my Shepard's story around what I want him to face, what I want him to feel, what I want him to be.

Why does Shepard have to know everything? That would make the game boring and predictable as hell.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

You lost two squadmates because your Shepard was stupid. It's his own fault. That had nothing to do with the coin landing on tails. Mine got everyone out alive. First time. Because my choices mattered. Not because a coin toss said so.

Yes, it is his own fault. Yes he was stupid. He's human. He makes mistakes. It was never a coin toss. It had everything to do with his decisions. His choices did matter. They mattered enough that two people died because of them.

And random events happen too. He didn't expect the blast that separated him from the squadmates. He didn't expect Harbinger to shoot Garrus as he ran to save James. That's beyond his control. But he knows that it was better he saved someone rather than have them both die. Not that he really had time to react. Harbinger shoots faster than he can run. That's why when he started running to Liara, Harbinger vaporized her. When he reached Tali, she was already dead.

His choice didn't matter because I didn't let it matter.

You're being a dick for the sake of being a dick now.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 19 mai 2013 - 12:03 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

You lost two squadmates because your Shepard was stupid. It's his own fault. That had nothing to do with the coin landing on tails. Mine got everyone out alive. First time. Because my choices mattered. Not because a coin toss said so.

Ok and?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You lost two squadmates because your Shepard was stupid. It's his own fault. That had nothing to do with the coin landing on tails. Mine got everyone out alive. First time. Because my choices mattered. Not because a coin toss said so.

Ok and?

Now he's just trying to stir up ****.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Isn't David just the cutest thing!

He's so damn cuddly!

[Seifer006]

wow

this thread has hit 22 pages so far...

reminds me of my other liara threads...Thumbs up to Mdoggy1214

[David7204]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You lost two squadmates because your Shepard was stupid. It's his own fault. That had nothing to do with the coin landing on tails. Mine got everyone out alive. First time. Because my choices mattered. Not because a coin toss said so.

Ok and?

And Shepard should succeed because s/he's Shepard. Because s/he's a hero. Not because s/he happened to pick the side the coin would land on. That isn't heroism. That isn't anything.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You lost two squadmates because your Shepard was stupid. It's his own fault. That had nothing to do with the coin landing on tails. Mine got everyone out alive. First time. Because my choices mattered. Not because a coin toss said so.

Ok and?

And Shepard should succeed because s/he's Shepard. Because s/he's a hero. Not because s/he happened to pick the side the coin would land on. That isn't heroism. That isn't anything.

Shepard still succeeds even if some of the squad dies, and you make it seem like Shepard literally flips a coin

Modifié par AresKeith, 19 mai 2013 - 01:47 .

[David7204]

For all intents and purposes, Shepard flips a coin. Left or right. No reason to think one is better than the other. One leads to survival, the other to death. It's a coin flip.

It doesn't matter if Shepard succeeds overall or not. A squadmate living or dying is a huge consequence that should never depend so heavily on luck and absolutely nothing else.

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

The more freedom the player has to kill or dismiss companions as the please, the less impact those companions can have on the story and on each other. Companions you can dismiss at any time means companions that have zero impact on the story. Simple as that.

And how is that a bad thing? Some of us dislike this or that NPC so much we'd welcome it. Besides, being able to dismiss them at any time doesn't necessarily mean they'll have zero story impact. In DA:O if you dismiss Morrigan, she'll still show up near the end to offer an optional sidequest, and this doesn't affect the "Witch Hunt" DLC either.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

For all intents and purposes, Shepard flips a coin. Left or right. No reason to think one is better than the other. One leads to survival, the other to death. It's a coin flip.

It doesn't matter if Shepard succeeds overall or not. A squadmate living or dying is a huge consequence that should never depend so heavily on luck and absolutely nothing else.

Killing or sparing Wrex is heavily depended on luck

cure or sabotaging the genophage is heavily depended on luck

rewriting or destroying the Geth Heretics is heavily depended on luck

making peace with Geth and Quarians is heavily depended on luck

[David7204]

None of those consequences are dependent on luck. A through, smart, reasonable, prepared player is guaranteed to be able to spare or kill Wrex, cure or sabotage the genophage, rewrite or destroy the geth, and make peace with the geth and quarians. I got all of the 'best' outcomes for those scenarios my very first playthough.

Modifié par David7204, 19 mai 2013 - 02:06 .