129 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

There's no fundamental difference. Shepard fights impossible odds. Bond fights impossible odds.

As for being a part of sequels, are you admitting that all Bond fiction is poorly written (or at least has a poorly written component) but you put up with it because it's necessary for the series to continue?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David7204 wrote...

James Bond does not have plot armor. Game of Thrones is not mature or better written for having lots of characters die.

 

Davey have you even read the books? Or played DA? Or done anything but drone endlessly about your own spectacularly narrow view on things?

I mean I love you to death for your smexy pig headedness but you might want to branch out a bit!

Who knows you might find things other than HEROISM and CHARACTERIZATION to drone about!

[BaladasDemnevanni]

David7204 wrote...

That's ridiculous. Supposedly bad writing is justified because a series makes lots of money? No. The comparison is perfectly valid.

No,  your comparison blows.

It has nothing to do with good or bad writing, it has to do with what can be expected to occur within the backroom of any product. Mass Effect is not about any central character. Garrus is not Mass Effect. Tali is not Mass Effect. James Vega is not Mass Effect. And this particular plotline and characters are done as of ME3. A character's life or death is irrelevant for ME4.

Killing James Bond is not bad writing, it can be perfectly good writing. Killing James Bond simply won't happen, because people have a certain expectation from a James Bond movie, which is to say that they will see James Bond. It's the same basic reason why Tony Stark will never get killed off in the Avengers, no matter how good the script might potentially be as a result. Assuming the Execs can get RDJ to keep making movies, no one will green light such a death.

You're confusing bad writing with practicality.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:24 .

[justafan]

David7204 wrote...

James Bond does not have plot armor. Game of Thrones is not mature or better written for having lots of characters die.

This all comes down to a completely crippled and backwards way of looking at why things exist in fiction.

Of course James Bond has plot armor.  The series is called "James Bond".  When he dies, the series ends, and he only has the potential to die in the final installment of the series (which is nowhere in sight).  ME3 was advertised as the final installment of the Shepard series, meaning Shepard, the main (or at the very least least "player controlled") character of the series, had the potential to die for real.  This James Bond comparison does not apply to any of the squadmates, because they are not the main character.  They are essential to the story, but their survival is not necessary to the continuation of the series.  Even so, ME3 supposedly being the ending gives the green light to potential permanent character death, main character or otherwise, if their death will improve the story, as the OP is arguing the potential for squad deaths would.

James Bond will not die in the next movie, nor the one after that.  He will not be killed unless they decide to end the series (or I guess if they decide to retcon Skyfall and support the "James Bond is a codename" theory).

As for Game of Thrones, I was merely stating that it is an example of a series to regularly kill off important recurring characters in a way that is both engrossing and makes you want to keep reading/watching, which is a somewhat rare phenomenon, and certainly not the norm in James Bond.

Modifié par justafan, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:26 .

[ShepnTali]

If logic dictates not doing loyalty missions gets people killed, than it's reasonably logical for low ems to get people killed. But that's Captain Obvious speaking.

[David7204]

I'm not hearing what I want to hear, and this is taking too long and becoming tedious. So I'll just spell things out.

If a James Bond movie came out like the one I described, audiences would be furious. They would be enraged and feel betrayed.

Why? Why is that?

It's perfectly realistic to get shot in the head and die during a gunfight.
It's perfectly realistic to get answers to none of your questions.
It's perfectly realistic for your actions and choices to count for utterly nothing.

So what is it? Are audiences just so stupid and simple minded that they can't handle a lack of 'plot armor'?

Modifié par David7204, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:29 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

And another classic Davey evasion!

Keep it up sexy, I love the way you bob and weave!:wub:

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:28 .

[adayaday]

No,ME 3 is bleak enough as it is.killing your squad mate for the sake of drama is little more then pouring salt on wounds.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

David7204 wrote...

I'm not hearing what I want to hear, and this is taking too long and becoming tedious. So I'll just spell things out.

If a James Bond movie came out like the one I described. Audiences would be furious. They would be enraged and feel betrayed.

Why?

It's perfectly realistic to get shot in the head and die during a gunfight.
It's perfectly realistic to get answers to none of your questions.
It's perfectly realistic for your actions and choices to count for utterly nothing.

So what is it? Are audiences just so stupid and simple minded that they can't handle a lack of 'plot armor'?

No, you're just not getting it. Audiences go into any work with a very simple expectation that varies from movie to movie. If you make a movie about Transformers, people are going to want to see Transformers. If you make a movie about James Bond, people will want to see James Bond. If you make a movie about Harry Potter, then people want to see Harry Potter.

They will follow this very simple, very straightforward process until the bitter end. Nobody asked J.K. Rowling if Harry would die in Books 1-6, because they knew it wouldn't happen. The big question with the Seventh Book was: will he die? James Bond can't die until  either they finish with Daniel Craig and cast a new guy, because it will be the end of one arc/character and the start of another.

You're comparing the death of a companion character, none of whom on their own represents Mass Effect as a whole, to removing the central figure of a piece of entertainment, even if it's only in name (James Bond played by different actors differently). Call it a marketing ploy if you will, but it's how things tend to work.

Case in point: the Dark Knight Rises. This was the end of Bruce Wayne/Batman as a character. So Nolan had more freedom in terms of what they did with the character.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:34 .

[justafan]

David7204 wrote...

I'm not hearing what I want to hear, and this is taking too long and becoming tedious. So I'll just spell things out.

If a James Bond movie came out like the one I described. Audiences would be furious. They would be enraged and feel betrayed.

Why?

It's perfectly realistic to get shot in the head and die during a gunfight.
It's perfectly realistic to get answers to none of your questions.
It's perfectly realistic for your actions and choices to count for utterly nothing.

So what is it? Are audiences just so stupid and simple minded that they can't handle a lack of 'plot armor'?

In a sense, YES!

People have expectations when they go into movies.  They expect central plot or theme, and they expect it to be resolved.  Why do you think the original endings created such a backlash?  There was little to no resolution when eperience and modern media norms have caused people to expect their questions to be answered, and the central plot to be resolved.

When people see a Bond film, they expect several things 1. James Bond, 007  2.  A Bond Girl or Girls  3.  A supervillain with a dastardly plot, and 4.  Bond's ultimate victory, don't forget, every ending credits in the series has a variation of "James Bond will return".

It is a pattern that has been present in over 20 films.  People would be furious because it is against their perfecly reasonable and well established expectations for a Bond film.  ME is not like that, characters have died before thanks to poor player decision, it is in fact the pattern established in the previous games, and not a new phenomenon.  People would not be outraged, they would rather be expecting some sort of influence over their squad's lives.

Modifié par justafan, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:35 .

[ShepnTali]

It's like comparing Batman '66 with Nolan Batman. Different expectations based on common sense, really. Trying to compare them is fruitless.

Modifié par ShepnTali, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:35 .

[David7204]

For the love of God.

I do not care about marketers.
I do not care about sequels.
I do not care about any of that garbage. All of it is irrelevant. I'm talking about audience reactions.

This is a hypothetical scenario where a Bond film is released where he dies. Hypothetical! You can make up any stupid reason you want for why the producers would do that. Maybe they're insane. Maybe they're moronic. I don't give half a damn.

Modifié par David7204, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:37 .

[N7recruit]

David7204 wrote...

There's no fundamental difference. Shepard fights impossible odds. Bond fights impossible odds.

As for being a part of sequels, are you admitting that all Bond fiction is poorly written (or at least has a poorly written component) but you put up with it because it's necessary for the series to continue?

I'm not saying James Bond fiction sucks . They are different beasts. You can't kill just kill James Bond if you plan on making more 007 movies since they are all about James Bond.
Mass effect is Done with Shepard & Crew, it's moving forward to a new series of characters.
Therefore I felt that Priority Earth did not do a good job in showing the stakes & how brutal the final battle should have been IMO.
This is the series that Proudly beats its chest saying about how your Decisions will Matter, Victory will be achived through scarafice & they will be Dire consequences. I don't feel any of these promices were delivered or exicuted properyl.
Depending on your EMS/ Choices & in game performance I Feel that who lived & Died should have varied alot more than it did. Thats what I'm saying here.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Oh get angry David baby! I love it when you exclaim!

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:38 .

[David7204]

justafan wrote...

When people see a Bond film, they expect several things 1. James Bond, 007  2.  A Bond Girl or Girls  3.  A supervillain with a dastardly plot, and 4.  Bond's ultimate victory, don't forget, every ending credits in the series has a variation of "James Bond will return".

It is a pattern that has been present in over 20 films.  People would be furious because it is against their perfecly reasonable and well established expectations for a Bond film.  ME is not like that, characters have died before thanks to poor player decision, it is in fact the pattern established in the previous games, and not a new phenomenon.  People would not be outraged, they would rather be expecting some sort of influence over their squad's lives.

No, they're not.

Players would be perfectly fine with squadmates dying due to poor decisions. And indeed they are, since every squadmate can be killed as it is.

Players would not be fine for a moment with a character dying because you brought them on the wrong mission with no foreshadowing. They would be outraged.

[David7204]

N7recruit wrote...

Depending on your EMS/ Choices & in game performance I Feel that who lived & Died should have varied alot more than it did. Thats what I'm saying here.

You can already have every single squadmate dying for making poor decisions. That doesn't qualify?

[justafan]

David7204 wrote...

justafan wrote...

When people see a Bond film, they expect several things 1. James Bond, 007  2.  A Bond Girl or Girls  3.  A supervillain with a dastardly plot, and 4.  Bond's ultimate victory, don't forget, every ending credits in the series has a variation of "James Bond will return".

It is a pattern that has been present in over 20 films.  People would be furious because it is against their perfecly reasonable and well established expectations for a Bond film.  ME is not like that, characters have died before thanks to poor player decision, it is in fact the pattern established in the previous games, and not a new phenomenon.  People would not be outraged, they would rather be expecting some sort of influence over their squad's lives.

No, they're not.

Players would be perfectly fine with squadmates dying due to poor decisions. And indeed they are, since every squadmate can be killed as it is.

Players would not be fine for a moment with a character dying because you brought them on the wrong mission with no foreshadowing. They would be outraged.

And nobody is suggesting that a character should die if they are chosen for a mission with no foreshadowing.

Problem solved.

[wolfhowwl]

How would your squadmates sacrificing themselves to ensure your success in the final battle not be a "meaningful death?"

[David7204]

When are you suggesting characters die?

Modifié par David7204, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:43 .

[David7204]

wolfhowwl wrote...

How would your squadmates sacrificing themselves to ensure your success in the final battle not be a "meaningful death?"

The player should never be punished for bringing the characters they like on missions unless there is very significant foreshadowing.

Modifié par David7204, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:44 .

[KENNY4753]

well it would make more sense than them randomly returning to the Normandy...

we should have been in radio contact with the rest of our squad/WarAssets and have had scenerios where we try to help them or let them die.

[justafan]

David7204 wrote...

When are you suggesting characters die?

I believe most people are reffering to a suicide mission style of character survival.  Where there are clearly laid out choices with some having the potential for success and others being certain failures.  A choice in which players who paid attention throughout the game would have no trouble in deducing the correct choice, but one that also takes into account choices made throughout the game (eg, genophage cure and Rannoch decisions may influence who could survive a certain task, etc.).

Nobody is suggesting that liara should be cutscene bansheed outa nowhere on Prioity Earth just because you picked her second in squad selection.

Modifié par justafan, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:49 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David7204 wrote...

When are you suggesting characters die?

Because he hates your HEROISM!

[David7204]

That would be perfectly fine. So long as a reasonably intelligent and through player can achieve the best outcome the first time through.

[N7recruit]

David7204 wrote...

N7recruit wrote...

Depending on your EMS/ Choices & in game performance I Feel that who lived & Died should have varied alot more than it did. Thats what I'm saying here.

You can already have every single squadmate dying for making poor decisions. That doesn't qualify?

 OK maybe I've worded it poorly, I would like to have designated  high quality scenes for each individual death/ ingury that would possibly occur. Basicially more than the Stupid beam run scene where Harby just kills them abruptly