436 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

David7204 wrote...

themikefest wrote...

That is why the what-the-crap-evac scene is so stupid. Why do we need to say goodbye to a character a second time when it was done a short time ago? It added insult to injury for those of us who didn't romance an ME1 character.

Tsk. Tsk. Way to pretend you're against something because of some pseudo-logic only to clumsily reveal you're clearly angry out of spite. Very obvious sour grapes.

Foolish.

Get lost little man.

I am against the evac scene because it made no sense at all. How hard would it of been to have the two squadmates to stay behind cover then call for a shuttle when the area is clea and Shepard just keep running to the beam?

[eyezonlyii]

themikefest wrote...

David7204 wrote...

themikefest wrote...

That is why the what-the-crap-evac scene is so stupid. Why do we need to say goodbye to a character a second time when it was done a short time ago? It added insult to injury for those of us who didn't romance an ME1 character.

Tsk. Tsk. Way to pretend you're against something because of some pseudo-logic only to clumsily reveal you're clearly angry out of spite. Very obvious sour grapes.

Foolish.

Get lost little man.

I am against the evac scene because it made no sense at all. How hard would it of been to have the two squadmates to stay behind cover then call for a shuttle when the area is clea and Shepard just keep running to the beam?

I like the shuttle idea. That way, Steve can pilot and if he's LI, gets a final goodbye there. If not, then whoever is LI is on the shuttle to help with the evac and they get their final goodbye there as well. EVERYONE WINS!!!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

themikefest wrote...

David7204 wrote...

themikefest wrote...

That is why the what-the-crap-evac scene is so stupid. Why do we need to say goodbye to a character a second time when it was done a short time ago? It added insult to injury for those of us who didn't romance an ME1 character.

Tsk. Tsk. Way to pretend you're against something because of some pseudo-logic only to clumsily reveal you're clearly angry out of spite. Very obvious sour grapes.

Foolish.

Get lost little man.

I am against the evac scene because it made no sense at all. How hard would it of been to have the two squadmates to stay behind cover then call for a shuttle when the area is clea and Shepard just keep running to the beam?

Or have them be left behind or killed. I'm fine with squadmate deaths in the final battle, and them hinging on preparedness and decisions. And I'm fine if not every decision made is an easy decision. I'd like it to be harsh. I'd like the game to punish the player, to make them realize they screwed up if they did.

[David7204]

Please. People don't whine about 'insult to injuries' for issues they don't care about. You're upset because Liara and the other ME 1 romances get a nice goodbye scene...and your preferred characters don't. Which is a complaint I might respect, if it was honest.

[dreamgazer]

Eh, they were already dealing with charges of "grimdark", and they wanted fans to have an extra moment to say goodbye to their character. I'm sure more death wasn't in their playbook; at least, in higher-EMS situations.

[themikefest]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

themikefest wrote...

David7204 wrote...

themikefest wrote...

That is why the what-the-crap-evac scene is so stupid. Why do we need to say goodbye to a character a second time when it was done a short time ago? It added insult to injury for those of us who didn't romance an ME1 character.

Tsk. Tsk. Way to pretend you're against something because of some pseudo-logic only to clumsily reveal you're clearly angry out of spite. Very obvious sour grapes.

Foolish.

Get lost little man.

I am against the evac scene because it made no sense at all. How hard would it of been to have the two squadmates to stay behind cover then call for a shuttle when the area is clea and Shepard just keep running to the beam?

Or have them be left behind or killed. I'm fine with squadmate deaths in the final battle, and them hinging on preparedness and decisions. And I'm fine if not every decision made is an easy decision. I'd like it to be harsh. I'd like the game to punish the player, to make them realize they screwed up if they did.

I like that idea. Both would work based on decisions made in the game.

[KaiserShep]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Or have them be left behind or killed. I'm fine with squadmate deaths in the final battle, and them hinging on preparedness and decisions. And I'm fine if not every decision made is an easy decision. I'd like it to be harsh. I'd like the game to punish the player, to make them realize they screwed up if they did.

Actually, I think it would've been kind of cool if Cortez' fate affected whether or not there was someone to pick up the squad.

[David7204]

KaiserShep wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Or have them be left behind or killed. I'm fine with squadmate deaths in the final battle, and them hinging on preparedness and decisions. And I'm fine if not every decision made is an easy decision. I'd like it to be harsh. I'd like the game to punish the player, to make them realize they screwed up if they did.

Actually, I think it would've been kind of cool if Cortez' fate affected whether or not there was someone to pick up the squad.

I doubt it. That's a pretty steep double jeopardy. Punished once with Cortez dying, punished again when your squad dies because Cortez is dead.

[KaiserShep]

Fine with me.

[David7204]

Not particularly fine with me. Having the player's two favorite squadmates and likely love interest die as well as Cortez as 'punishment' for not talking to Cortez enough is way too steep. Consequences need to be roughly proportional to the choices behind them, and this clearly isn't. Some people might just not like Cortez.

Cortez dying is enough.

Modifié par David7204, 24 décembre 2013 - 07:10 .

[KaiserShep]

This is simply a matter of preference.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 24 décembre 2013 - 07:14 .

[David7204]

It's a matter of good design.

You'd be pretty unwise not to care, since what other people like and don't like is going to dictate the product you have access to.

Modifié par David7204, 24 décembre 2013 - 07:15 .

[Jorji Costava]

Going all the way back to ME2, I was never really a fan of having whether or not a given NPC lives or dies depend upon how many times they've spoken with Shepard in the first place, so I wouldn't want to have whether or not my whole squad lives depend upon how many times I've talked to an NPC who isn't part of that squad.

[spirosz]

David7204 wrote...

It's a matter of good design.

You'd be pretty unwise not to care, since what other people like and don't like is going to dictate the product you have access to.

Jacob. 

[AlanC9]

It would need to be made a bit more transparent to the player. The ME2 loyalty mechanic was pretty obvious, but Cortez' survival is far less so.

[David7204]

The same could be said about pretty much every choice. They all involve 'useful assets.'

Consequences need to be roughly proportional, and they should also be fairly well related. For example, you shouldn't have Garrus live or die in ME 3 based on whether you saved the Rachni or not in ME 1. This wouldn't be quite that bad, but it would still be bad.

Modifié par David7204, 24 décembre 2013 - 07:32 .

[dreamgazer]

I'll be honest: I didn't even know that Cortez could die until long after ME3 was released.

[spirosz]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The same could be said about pretty much every choice. They all involve 'useful assets.'

Consequences need to be roughly proportional, and they should also be fairly well related. For example, you shouldn't have Garrus live or die in ME 3 based on whether you saved the Rachni or not in ME 1. This wouldn't be quite that bad, but it would still be bad.

And a pilot dying wouldn't have anything to do with a pilot doing a pick up during a mission? 

Obviously not, hahahahahah. 

[SlottsMachine]

StreetMagic wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Please. People don't whine about 'insult to injuries' for issues they don't care about. You're upset because Liara and the other ME 1 romances get a nice goodbye scene...and your preferred characters don't. Which is a complaint I might respect, if it was honest.

I would say it. But I don't want your respect either way. You're nasty.

Haha. 

[David7204]

It makes no difference.

I could very easily write a scenario in which Garrus lives or dies depending on whether the Rachni live or die. It would be completely logically consistent within the story.

I could very easily write a scenario in which the entire war depends on a trivial choice. Such as say, killing Fist or not. Fist survives, so he affects something, which affects something else, which affects something else. And through a series of butterfly effects affects something huge which effects the entire story. And it would be perfectly logical within the story.

It makes no difference. It's not narratively appropriate.

Modifié par David7204, 24 décembre 2013 - 07:43 .

[dreamgazer]

How did this female romance thread turn into a discussion about the gay male romance option living or dying?