365 réponses à ce sujet

[Erez Kristal]

I would like to attract the attention to one of david's posts http://social.biowar...ndex/16756194/1
About cutscene defeat in video games.
David talked about how defeat is ok if its justified. I tend to agree with his claim up to a point.
In the begining of mass effect 2 you die. you were going on one of your typical cruises in the galaxy looking for intel on the geth.
and then all of a sudden you are ambushed by a much more powerful ship.
It was an extremely hard situation to avoid. death was acceptable.

In mass effect 3, you lost control over shepard. you start the game after being locked up in vancouver against your better judgement.
you are unable to keep cerberus in check and in turn they get indocterniated,
you are unable to find out what is going on in the batarians domain. which results in a greater reaper fighting force.

The geth and the quarrians- go to war when you stop to babysit them.

New technology from the collector base isnt distributed among the alliance navy, greatly hindering their preparations for the reapers invasion.

Usually if the personal price for writers creative vision is non-existent then you will feel fine with it.
But when they force your character and the characters around you to turn stupid, you will feel enraged, betrayed and cheated.

At least this is how i feel about mass effect 3.

A good ending wouldnt have meant that the story of me3 is good. but it would have made the consequences easier to swallow and we would have a better feeling, overall. 

Modifié par erezike, 06 juillet 2013 - 03:07 .

[ioannisdenton]

To be completely honest i always thought that shepard would eventually die or pay a big price.
It just did not add up that shepard could save the galaxy from the biggest thread in a videogame ever without a scratch.
I cannot tell however how i would feel if there was indeed a happy ending. Maybe i would feel better, or worse, can't really tell.

[Erez Kristal]

Killing someone just in order to kill them is a bad way to go.
In wars it usually the grunts and civilians who pay the prices.
The leaders and generals live to tell about it.

The main point of this thread was. since we werent the ones who fraked up with the decision making. we shouldnt be paying the price. because if we do, its feel like the other side is cheating.

Modifié par erezike, 06 juillet 2013 - 03:43 .

[AlanC9]

erezike wrote...

The main point of this thead was. since we werent the ones who fraked up with the decision making. we shouldnt be paying the price. because if we do, its feel like the other side is cheating.

Yep, people don't get what they deserve. Shepard's no exception.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

erezike wrote...

The main point of this thead was. since we werent the ones who fraked up with the decision making. we shouldnt be paying the price. because if we do, its feel like the other side is cheating.

Yep, people don't get what they deserve. Shepard's no exception.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a game, not real life.

At least I get told that whenever I complain about space magic

[Enhanced]

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

[Reorte]

Enhanced wrote...

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

Since Shepard is the point of connection to the player, then yes (well, unhappy more than bad, they're bad too for different reasons).

AlanC9 wrote...

erezike wrote...

The main
point of this thead was. since we werent the ones who fraked up with the
decision making. we shouldnt be paying the price. because if we do, its
feel like the other side is cheating.

Yep, people don't get what they deserve. Shepard's no exception.

Neither do they usually get pointlessly kicked. Besides, being a game with decisions in it the whole point of getting them right or wrong is to reward or kick the player. If that doesn't happen there's no point in putting them in there. And the impact of events is magnified if the player feels they're responsible about them. If something bad happens in a game and it's my fault I'll feel pretty bad about it, and that's a good thing. If it just happens anyway and there was nothing that could be done about it, particularly when choices are part of the game, then I just get annoyed at the writers.

Shepard dying is neither necessary nor convincing. Die and lose or win and live are the likely outcomes, or at least set enough in motion that if you  die then it's after you've done all your important work and at which point you just become as relevent as anyone else invovled.

Aiming for a "sacrifice yourself to save everyone" just makes it look like some bloody awful messiah obsession. It makes little sense storywise.

Modifié par Reorte, 06 juillet 2013 - 04:32 .

[Iakus]

Enhanced wrote...

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

In part.  But there's more

It's how Shepard defeats the Reapers as well.

[Steelcan]

Cutscene defeat is not acceptable to me. The confrontation with Kai Leng comes to mind. He is a pathetic excuse for a boss really and there is no sense of him being stronger than Shepard in the fight. He runs around like a retarded ballerina, loses his shields, then cowers in a corner until he is ready to lose them again. Then the cutscene.


HUGE DISCONNECT

He was losing twelve seconds ago, now he is capable of ending the fight on a whim. Had he opened with this I'd be less angry, but through the game we have seen that he is not Shepard's equal in any way, yet the cutscene treats him as such.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

I'm sorry, I thought this was a game, not real life.

At least I get told that whenever I complain about space magic

Well, my usual response to complaints about space magic is that ME was always crammed with space magic.

As for this context, my usual response is that games can be about different things. I'm OK with sometimes playing a guy who doesn't get what he deserves. 

Though I should put a disclaimer here; as a card-carrying member of the "Shepard obviously lives through high-EMS Destroy camp,"  maybe I ought to be attacking erezike's premises. Though I suppose we can say that there's still a moral cost in Destroy, which is as real as the physical cost in Control. And in Synthesis you pay both.

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

Cutscene defeat is not acceptable to me. The confrontation with Kai Leng comes to mind. He is a pathetic excuse for a boss really and there is no sense of him being stronger than Shepard in the fight. He runs around like a retarded ballerina, loses his shields, then cowers in a corner until he is ready to lose them again. Then the cutscene.


HUGE DISCONNECT

He was losing twelve seconds ago, now he is capable of ending the fight on a whim. Had he opened with this I'd be less angry, but through the game we have seen that he is not Shepard's equal in any way, yet the cutscene treats him as such.

It can be done but handled better - e.g. Saren, since that scene gave the impression that at least Saren managed to escape rather than win.

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

I'm sorry, I thought this was a game, not real life.

At least I get told that whenever I complain about space magic

Well, my usual response to complaints about space magic is that ME was always crammed with space magic.

Always felt like that's a cop-out repsonse; any space magic that isn't part of or a logical extension of exceptions to reality established as part of the universe setting is just crappy writing IMO.

As for this context, my usual response is that games can be about different things. I'm OK with sometimes playing a guy who doesn't get what he deserves.

Shouldn't that be a roleplaying option instead of compulsory? Whilst a lot in a game has to be inevitable for practical reasons it should try to at least feel like it isn't, particularly for the big events. "Not getting what he deserves" can fit in well enough when it comes to things like constantly being snubbed by the Council (although that is taken too far) but dying to achieve victory just goes way off the scale into Space Jesus territory.

Though I should put a disclaimer here; as a card-carrying member of the "Shepard obviously lives through high-EMS Destroy camp,"  maybe I ought to be attacking erezike's premises. Though I suppose we can say that there's still a moral cost in Destroy, which is as real as the physical cost in Control. And in Synthesis you pay both.

I believe he does too but just find the way it's shown incredibly stupid and unsatisfying. The cost isn't terribly convincing either, and the EC seems to completely gloss it over. Personally I'd have liked something a bit more believable - Destroy gives an edge over the Reapers and eventual but not instant victory, and we get to see millions more dead in the rest of the war, people being mulched and planets badly wrecked. Then Control could provide an instant Reaper Stop Button but leave very long-term questions. Neither require or even make much sense having a physical cost to Shepard.

[Bill Casey]

Enhanced wrote...

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

"If you adopt your enemies methods than you haven't really defeated them."
- Samara


We don't defeat the reapers...
We become them...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 06 juillet 2013 - 05:01 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...


Well, my usual response to complaints about space magic is that ME was always crammed with space magic.

As for this context, my usual response is that games can be about different things. I'm OK with sometimes playing a guy who doesn't get what he deserves. 

Though I should put a disclaimer here; as a card-carrying member of the "Shepard obviously lives through high-EMS Destroy camp,"  maybe I ought to be attacking erezike's premises. Though I suppose we can say that there's still a moral cost in Destroy, which is as real as the physical cost in Control. And in Synthesis you pay both.

Five years

Three games

Hundreds of dollars spent.

Only to be told "Gee, sometimes people don't get what they deserve"



You know, that's not the way to hold onto throngs of omniblade-waving fans.  That's not a good long-term business strategy at all.  If you're going to tell people "You guide the story" you better darn well allow for fans to be able to let their protagonist walk away (walk away, not lie gasping in rubble) because chances are a big segment of your fans want and expect this outcome.

And there's a moral cost to all of the choices.  Just because Bioware downplayed the negative repercussions doesn't alter moral cost of the acts.  Robbing a bank and getting away with it is not more moral than robbing a bank and getting caught.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Bill Casey wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

I don't understand. Shepard's goal was to defeat the Reapers. That happens. Just because Shepard dies in most of the endings, they are bad?

"If you adopt your enemies methods than you haven't really defeated them."
- Samara


We don't defeat the reapers...
We become them...

Always thought she was rather stupid and stubborn in her outlook...

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...
Neither do they usually get pointlessly kicked. Besides, being a game with decisions in it the whole point of getting them right or wrong is to reward or kick the player. If that doesn't happen there's no point in putting them in there. And the impact of events is magnified if the player feels they're responsible about them. If something bad happens in a game and it's my fault I'll feel pretty bad about it, and that's a good thing. If it just happens anyway and there was nothing that could be done about it, particularly when choices are part of the game, then I just get annoyed at the writers.

"Reward or kick" strikes me as a weird way to approach the concept of consequences. I don't see why decisions should necessarily have a "right" and a "wrong" either.

[Erez Kristal]

Steelcan wrote...

Cutscene defeat is not acceptable to me. The confrontation with Kai Leng comes to mind. He is a pathetic excuse for a boss really and there is no sense of him being stronger than Shepard in the fight. He runs around like a retarded ballerina, loses his shields, then cowers in a corner until he is ready to lose them again. Then the cutscene.


HUGE DISCONNECT

He was losing twelve seconds ago, now he is capable of ending the fight on a whim. Had he opened with this I'd be less angry, but through the game we have seen that he is not Shepard's equal in any way, yet the cutscene treats him as such.

Steelcan i agree with your vent on kai leng. but that isnt why i opened this thread.
I refered to the cutscene feeling of being cheated. because it felt much like the ending.
On both cases plot-choices and losing the fight to kai leng the control from shepard was taken away from us and replace by an incompetent shepard and galactic allies.

an incompetent shepard because of being captured by the alliance/turning himself in without a backup plan.
Incompetetnt allies- because of geth-quarrian, losing track of the batarians. cerberus-alliance relations.

I can accept incompetent allies, but not in a case where shepard also becomes incompetetnt. thats just cheating on bioware part.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

You know, that's not the way to hold onto throngs of omniblade-waving fans.  That's not a good long-term business strategy at all.  If you're going to tell people "You guide the story" you better darn well allow for fans to be able to let their protagonist walk away (walk away, not lie gasping in rubble) because chances are a big segment of your fans want and expect this outcome.

Conceivably true. But not my problem. Bio's got a pretty good record of trying to deliver the stuff I've been asking for in the ME series, though execution's been a little off. But I don't think there's any causal relationship there.

[aznjoez]

ioannisdenton wrote...

To be completely honest i always thought that shepard would eventually die or pay a big price.
It just did not add up that shepard could save the galaxy from the biggest thread in a videogame ever without a scratch.
I cannot tell however how i would feel if there was indeed a happy ending. Maybe i would feel better, or worse, can't really tell.

This. You go up against something as powerful as the reapers and expect a happy ending? If he survived I would have felt this trilogy would just be a futuristic sci-fi rambo. Something better would have been "closure" for your LI, such as mourning and rememberance, but it would mean confirming Shepard's death which they don't exactly want to since they want us to keep "guessing".

He didn't really die in the beginning of ME2, while he says he did and so do a few other people in the story, if  you look up what cerebus talked about when bringing shepard back and the comic Redemption, Shepard still had important brain functions still intact, so they "cryo'd" him to keep his brain alive. They just reconstructed his body and other organs and put his brain back in. While the "clone" from the citadel DLC didn't fit well lore wise with this.

He didn't "die" (like some characters do in other stories, movies, tv shows), as he was brought back seconds after that scene.

He did make many decisions, ultimately the most important for the galaxy, but in reality he was a soldier with special privledges that any normal soldier does not have (spectre status, etc.). He was not a general, admiral or councilor. Those people are usually old, or barely seen combat really to make a difference in combat, but they can make the best decisions since they are not in the heat of battle and usually are more unbiased, while those that can fight, fight. Shepard in my eyes was the exception, a perfect solider and a leader, someone smart enough to make decisions and someone strong enough to partake in those decisions as well.

Also everyone doesn't have to follow the same template and forumula for creating "happy endings", a death in a story, or whatever story mechanic. Sometimes people should try something new.

Modifié par aznjoez, 06 juillet 2013 - 05:17 .

[AlanC9]

erezike wrote...


an incompetent shepard because of being captured by the alliance/turning himself in without a backup plan.

What's incompetent about that? It helps out the Alliance and doesn't harm the struggle against the Reapers in any way can see.

[Erez Kristal]

as shepard you have plenty of opportunities to die throughout the triology, ever tried to play the game from mass effect 1 untill the end of 3 without dying once? Thats the way to deal with sacrifice.

Have the story cheat against shepard, claiming he have to die no matter what. is a frustrating and poor gameplay mechanic in a rpg. They could have had a choice of sacrifice vs choosing life. saving ten millions and dying or saving shepard skin. then you would have your heroism and some would have their lives. a bitter sweet ending for all sides.

AlanC9 wrote...


What's incompetent about that? It helps out the Alliance and doesn't harm the struggle against the Reapers in any way can see.

There is more than one way to prevent a war, 
Having shepard stay free could have helped bolstering the alliance fleets with reaper tech gathered from the collector base. shepard could have struck peach between the geth and the quarrian and both sides would have been better prepared for the reaper invasion. 
The batarians wouldnt have all turned into reaper canibals. and swarming earth.
The batarians could have ressisted the reapers.

Turian, salarians suspicous of human behavour would have bolstered their military prowess. and so forth.


take a look at the dragon age treatment-
1) Sacrifice yourself
2) make a demon child that will hunt everyone in a few years
3) let someone else sacrifice himself.

Now thats choice.

Modifié par erezike, 06 juillet 2013 - 05:27 .

[Bill Casey]

Why does Shepard have to be a monster in every ending?

[Iakus]

aznjoez wrote...

This. You go up against something as powerful as the reapers and expect a happy ending? If he survived I would have felt this trilogy would just be a futuristic sci-fi rambo. Something better would have been "closure" for your LI, such as mourning and rememberance, but it would mean confirming Shepard's death which they don't exactly want to since they want us to keep "guessing".

I've played RPGs where the protagonist fights demons, gods, eldritch abominations, and sith lords.  And managed to walk away.  So yeah, a "happy ending" (if by that you mean "Shepard lives and gets to spend the rest of his.her life helping to rebuild the galaxy) yeah, that should have been on the table.  

There was never going to be a "happy ending" as such.  Hundreds of millions, perhaps upwards of a billion people are dead on Earth alone.  Whole colonies have died.  Palaven and Thessia are rapidly starting to look like Earth.  Whole species may have died out.  Several of Shepard's friends unavoidably die even in the best imports.  

No matter how quickly the relays get up and running agian (and in Destroy it could take decades, if not centuries) the galaxy will never be the same again.

So yeah, all these endings are just an extra kick to the player.

He didn't really die in the beginning of ME2, while he says he did and so do a few other people in the story, if  you look up what cerebus talked about when bringing shepard back and the comic Redemption, Shepard still had important brain functions still intact, so they "cryo'd" him to keep his brain alive. They just reconstructed his body and other organs and put his brain back in. While the "clone" from the citadel DLC didn't fit well lore wise with this.

He didn't "die" (like some characters do in other stories, movies, tv shows), as he was brought back seconds after that scene.

You did see that video about the Lazarus Project at Kronos Base, right?  Shepard was dead.  No brain activity.  

Also everyone doesn't have to follow the same template and forumula for creating "happy endings", a death in a story, or whatever story mechanic. Sometimes people should try something new.

This is called "railroading" and it doesn't sit well with chocie-based rpgs.  If I want to be told a story, I'll play Assassin's Creed, Alan Wake, or The Last of Us.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Conceivably true. But not my problem. Bio's got a pretty good record of trying to deliver the stuff I've been asking for in the ME series, though execution's been a little off. But I don't think there's any causal relationship there.

You're right.  It's Bioware's problem.  Some people might be fine with being railroaded into a grim outcome, but others are now suspicious and cynical of what Bioware considers "art"  People are going to be afraid of getting sucker-punched agian.

[MegaSovereign]

In mass effect 3, you lost control over shepard. you start the game after being locked up in vancouver against your better judgement.

I don't quite understand your expectation here. If each of the ME games have anything in common it's that all their intros have the "wrong place, wrong time" vibe.

you are unable to keep cerberus in check and in turn they get indocterniated,

Shepard never had any control over Cerberus. In fact, it's revealed that TIM manipulated Shepard into believing that Cerberus is more moderate than it actually is.

you are unable to find out what is going on in the batarians domain. which results in a greater reaper fighting force.

Why would he go to Batarian space? The Batarians were screwed with or without Shepard. Human-Batarian relations are even more strained after the events of Arrival.

The geth and the quarrians- go to war when you stop to babysit them.

Up until ME3, Shepard had NO influence on this conflict. In ME2 you can warn them not to go to war but they do anyway.

New technology from the collector base isnt distributed among the alliance navy, greatly hindering their preparations for the reapers invasion.

You didn't give the Collector Base to the Alliance. You gave it to TIM.