1638 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

I'm trying to sort that out myself. I think they're bad because the player can't avoid them by being awesome, or something like that.

ah yes.....'that'.

[Iakus]

I'm trying to sort that out myself. I think they're bad because the player can't avoid them by being awesome, or something like that.

 

Please stop trying to be provocative, Alan.  It's beneath you.  

 

At any rate, I think he's saying that in the end, the player is being punished no matter what action is taken.  Unless you happen to me romancing Ash or Kaidan, or clearly favor one over the other, the game is kicking you in the quad for the sake of "drama"

 

In the case of Virmire, I don't entirely agree with this.  The execution could have been better, but I think the one you leave behind does get a decent death, and Shepard does get to emote on what what happened, whether it be cold, regretful, p*ssed off, etc.  And of course, the decision affects only one person (and maybe some salarians)

 

But the ending to ME3 has none of this.  Shepard burns in all but one outcome, and that last one Shep's not in any condition to comment.  The unpleasant implications for the entire galaxy in all the endings are not addressed at all save in forced "Yippee!" monologues that sound more like a parent telling their child Fido the elderly family dog has gone to a much better place.

 

Tragedy for the sake of "Needs sadz for drama!" feels forced like the writer is grabbing the player by the scruff of the neck and saying "No, you're doing it wrong, this is how the story should go"

[Randy1012]

I don't hate the game--there's still a lot to be liked--but whenever I try to start it up now I just get this huge feeling of 'meh.' It's like I know where it all leads, and no matter how much I might enjoy bits and pieces along the way, when I stop and think about how there won't be any sense of accomplishment, or catharsis, after going through all of it, whatever interest I might have had in playing the game just kind of dies. Whereas I can replay both ME1 and ME2 over and over again and still enjoy the heck out of them both.

[CronoDragoon]

I don't savescum in first playthroughs (other than reloading after a critical mission failure or things like getting stuck when talking to Joker). Sure, I'm advocating a design that results in people wanting to savescum. So what? The alternative is to skip meaningful choice.

 

You seem to have a definition of meaningful that most players don't share. At the very least, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone argue that ethical choices aren't meaningful.

 

I don't understand why you don't see that any emotional impact is lessened if you're not the one responsible for the result.

 

Because it depends on the situation. Depending on the situation, I might prefer something to be scripted as opposed to me being offered a choice. Other times, I might prefer a choice. In either case, there's no overriding rule where a choice would always be better. For example, BW made the right call having Hawke's mother always die because of Hawke's negligence in DA2. This is because it contributes much better to the themes that DA2 was trying to establish with the Hawke character. Being able to save her would lessen the game.

 

I like hard choices but they're only hard choices if you're agonising over whether you're making the right one.

 

That is what ethical choices do, though. Doing what you believe to be the right answer, but seeing merit in both choices both before and after the fact. What you are advocating seems to be choices that are hard in the moment but retrospectively easy. And that's still boring comparatively. But mixing in a bit of both in your gaming (or even in a single game, again DA2) is probably the best system. It keeps the player constantly on their intellectual toes.

[AlanC9]

Please stop trying to be provocative, Alan.  It's beneath you.  

 

At any rate, I think he's saying that in the end, the player is being punished no matter what action is taken.  Unless you happen to me romancing Ash or Kaidan, or clearly favor one over the other, the game is kicking you in the quad for the sake of "drama"

 

In the case of Virmire, I don't entirely agree with this.  The execution could have been better, but I think the one you leave behind does get a decent death, and Shepard does get to emote on what what happened, whether it be cold, regretful, p*ssed off, etc.  And of course, the decision affects only one person (and maybe some salarians)

 

But the ending to ME3 has none of this.  Shepard burns in all but one outcome, and that last one Shep's not in any condition to comment.  The unpleasant implications for the entire galaxy in all the endings are not addressed at all save in forced "Yippee!" monologues that sound more like a parent telling their child Fido the elderly family dog has gone to a much better place.

 

Tragedy for the sake of "Needs sadz for drama!" feels forced like the writer is grabbing the player by the scruff of the neck and saying "No, you're doing it wrong, this is how the story should go"

 

I wasn't going for provocative there. Just not bothering to hide my irritation at Reorte's inability to articulate a clear principle..

 

"The player is being punished" strikes me as a strange way to frame the issue. Surely it's the character who's being punished, not the player. If "punished" is the correct concept for outcomes which weren't necessarily planned or desired by anyone in particular. Or is this a metagame perspective?

 

I suppose your last sentence is the key point here. Should a player think of himself as shaping the story? I think that's above my pay grade as a player. I'm in it to enter a story, not to create one. Regrettably, this is not a mere playstyle issue since it has design consequences.

[cyrslash1974]

Randy1012, I am in the same boat. I try to replay the three games, and I enjoy to replay again and again ME1 and ME2. Now, I am replaying ME3 and... I don't know how to explain, a kind of bad taste in my mouth. I have a lot of difficulty to find motivation.

[Chardonney]

Randy1012, I am in the same boat. I try to replay the three games, and I enjoy to replay again and again ME1 and ME2. Now, I am replaying ME3 and... I don't know how to explain, a kind of bad taste in my mouth. I have a lot of difficulty to find motivation.

 

I felt exactly the same way and even though I really wanted to play ME3 again after the first time because it is an awesome game, I couldn't find the motivation to do so. Only after mehem I've been able to play again and again, since that is the ending which I originally wanted and which leaves me feeling good afterwards. Sorry. Don't mean to sound like a commercial. It's just what saved my game. 

[voteDC]

Personally speaking it is a combination of the MEHEM and The Citadel DLC (which I head-canon as post ending content) that keeps me playing Mass Effect 3.

I've been going through to see what the different romance options play out like. So far I've done Liara, Kaidan and Garrus. Next up Thane.

[mopotter]

I bought the Mass Effect Trilogy sometime in February and finished the series last week. I loved every damn minute. I'm not very critical of video games at all, and I had the Extended Cut to begin with, so I liked the ending and habor no negative feelings for the series. Hell, it's my favorite series ever.

And I pre-ordered ever one for my 360 and played it from the day I received it till I went through 3 1/2 games of ME3. That's about 5 years of playing the same series and games over and over.  My husband said I needed an intervention.    It is my favorite series and that is why I disliked the lack of a real survivor ending, one ending out of all of the options.  It is my favorite series, because I've purchased it on the PC just so I can add the MEHEM to it.  

 

I shouldn't have had to rely on a fan to fix the ending.  When they did the EC they could have shown a hospital room with a body covered in burn bandages, they could have had an e-mail sent to Joker, they could have done any number of things to fix it but they didn't.  And I suppose I will never forgive them totally.   

[mopotter]

Lakus,  I'm copying your signature thing and your link.    Adding it to mine.  Just so you know. (OK found one I liked more better Butters. Not that it matters.)

Also agree with this:  

"In the case of Virmire, I don't entirely agree with this.  The execution could have been better, but I think the one you leave behind does get a decent death, and Shepard does get to emote on what what happened, whether it be cold, regretful, p*ssed off, etc.  And of course, the decision affects only one person (and maybe some salarians)

 

But the ending to ME3 has none of this.  Shepard burns in all but one outcome, and that last one Shep's not in any condition to comment.  The unpleasant implications for the entire galaxy in all the endings are not addressed at all save in forced "Yippee!" monologues that sound more like a parent telling their child Fido the elderly family dog has gone to a much better place.

 

Tragedy for the sake of "Needs sadz for drama!" feels forced like the writer is grabbing the player by the scruff of the neck and saying "No, you're doing it wrong, this is how the story should go"

 

 

I didn't like the way they did Virmire, but at least I had a choice and I've worked that into my Shepard's history.  And, I do hate tragedy for the sake of drama.  I especially hate it at the end.  

[Iakus]

I wasn't going for provocative there. Just not bothering to hide my irritation at Reorte's inability to articulate a clear principle..

 

"The player is being punished" strikes me as a strange way to frame the issue. Surely it's the character who's being punished, not the player. If "punished" is the correct concept for outcomes which weren't necessarily planned or desired by anyone in particular. Or is this a metagame perspective?

 

I suppose your last sentence is the key point here. Should a player think of himself as shaping the story? I think that's above my pay grade as a player. I'm in it to enter a story, not to create one. Regrettably, this is not a mere playstyle issue since it has design consequences.

 

Yes, in this case, the player should think of themselves as shaping the story.  That was the big selling point to the series.  You make choices, they have lasting effects, even following Shepard into later games.  And it all leads up to an ending where there is massive divergence.

 

Not all games offer this.  And that's fine.  But if I want to play someone else's character in someone else's story, I'll play Assassin's Creed or something along those lines.  But if someone tells me "This is your character, and we're giving you a voice in the story" I expect a little more variety in my character's outcome.

 

Which is why I'm paying particular attention to DAI, given they're doing the whole "You are the Inquisitor, and this is your story"

[Han Shot First]

How are situations like Virmire "bad"?

 

They aren't. 

 

It was one of the very few moments in the series where the games actually lived up to this trailer.

[AlanC9]

They aren't.

It was one of the very few moments in the series where the games actually lived up to this trailer.

I've long suspected that Bio thinks that ME really is what that trailer implied it would be, even though the game they actually made is not like that.

[Han Shot First]

I've long suspected that Bio thinks that ME really is what that trailer implied it would be, even though the game they actually made is not like that.

 

As much as I love Mass Effect 2's Suicide Mission, I always felt it was a mistake to have it so that the mission could be completed with no casualties. I could have been better IMO if it had been a little more like Virmire, where some casualties could not be avoided, and the player's choices or actions throughout the mission or the game determined how many and who was lost.

[AlanC9]

Same here. My preferred ME2 playstyle is to do Reaper IFF the moment it's available; I believe a dev suggested this in a thread here. I'm sure you can see the consequences.

[ImaginaryMatter]

As much as I love Mass Effect 2's Suicide Mission, I always felt it was a mistake to have it so that the mission could be completed with no casualties. I could have been better IMO if it had been a little more like Virmire, where some casualties could not be avoided, and the player's choices or actions throughout the mission or the game determined how many and who was lost.

 

I think they should have done it where the Reaper IFF and SM had to be done ASAP or you were only given a 1 or 2 mission delay.

 

Then again with the DLC it is very much possible to have every one survive, even if you do things ASAP.

[Iakus]

Same here. My preferred ME2 playstyle is to do Reaper IFF the moment it's available; I believe a dev suggested this in a thread here. I'm sure you can see the consequences.

 

Still wouldn't work.  Collector Ship mission triggers once you have eight squadmates.  With some judicious metagaming (which you seem to think is inevitable) you can easily arrange things to have almost all your recruited squad loyal at that point.  One nonloyal squadmate's easy to keep alive.  You can then do everyone else's recruitment/loyalty mission postgame, unless you want to make that impossible.

 

that's aside from having two railroaded missions in a row.  I was already sick of them at that point.

[wright1978]

As much as I love Mass Effect 2's Suicide Mission, I always felt it was a mistake to have it so that the mission could be completed with no casualties. I could have been better IMO if it had been a little more like Virmire, where some casualties could not be avoided, and the player's choices or actions throughout the mission or the game determined how many and who was lost.

I've always felt someone should die on hold the line segment regardless. First time I played I was sure I wasn't going to see all of them again and was rather shocked when they all came through fine.

Equally I think the default state for me3 should have been more positive and loyal.

[Reorte]

Wait a second. Who is it doing the going back here? A single person? Are you really saying that it's impossible for an individual to be put into a tragic situation because of other people's choices? I'll certainly agree that if we run the universe far enough back and get everybody to do the right thing any dilemma can be undone, but I don't see how this holds true if we only have control over one person's actions.

No, not at all, but any tragic situation someone ends up in is a result of their own actions as well as the actions of others, whether by luck or design (Shepard didn't have to join the Alliance...) However I would claim that any event that results in very serious personal tragedy is never inevitable until very close to the time (even if it's getting very likely before then), particularly for anyone who's ever fallen in war. The larger the scope and the less personal the events the further back you need to go to avoid them. For example, an almost inevitable war that kills millions might require things changing years before to be avoided, but the factors that influence exactly which people those millions are won't be known until not long before they die.

 

As for the rest of your post..... so you've got a design principle that situations like Virmire are bad, but if the writing's good enough you're willing to overlook that principle? Have I got that right?

Yes, because as much as we'd like to be able to we don't have the ability to craft a completely free world game that's engaging and exciting throughout. A good game at least tries to let the player maintain that illusion though (a very similar concept to willing suspension of disbelief).

 

They are arguing that the PC should be placed in negative, tragic situations sometimes, though. Are you really saying that players should always be able to avoid negative situations?

In my ideal game, yes. Practical issues may make that impossible though (if the circumstances that would be required to avoid it are so difficult and unlikely there may be justification for the unavoidable tragedy).

I wasn't going for provocative there. Just not bothering to hide my irritation at Reorte's inability to articulate a clear principle..

I've got a clear ideal but acknowledge that it's tempered by what's achievable in reality, so for an overall good game sometimes the ideal has to be put aside for a necessary evil. You seem to be wanting me to say "This is always good, this is always bad." Things aren't that simple and your irritation appears to be based around the fact that I accept that.

[Reorte]

As much as I love Mass Effect 2's Suicide Mission, I always felt it was a mistake to have it so that the mission could be completed with no casualties. I could have been better IMO if it had been a little more like Virmire, where some casualties could not be avoided, and the player's choices or actions throughout the mission or the game determined how many and who was lost.

I'd prefer it if it was really, really difficult to avoid casualties (to the point where the chances of anyone succeding on a first playthrough were as close to zero as makes no difference). Try playing a difficult mission in an RTS game without losing a single unit, that sort of level.

[Randy1012]

I felt exactly the same way and even though I really wanted to play ME3 again after the first time because it is an awesome game, I couldn't find the motivation to do so. Only after mehem I've been able to play again and again, since that is the ending which I originally wanted and which leaves me feeling good afterwards. Sorry. Don't mean to sound like a commercial. It's just what saved my game. 

Unfortunately I'm stuck with playing the games on my Xbox until I get a PC that's capable of running all three games comfortably. I'm pretty sure I could do ME1 and maybe ME2 (my PC's a few years old), but probably not ME3. When I do, though, I might replay them all on my PC just so I can experience the MEHEM for myself, with my own Shepard. There are still a couple of issues I have with the MEHEM here and there (mostly music-related), but for the most part they've done a tremendous job giving fans a more palatable ending.

[Chardonney]

If it's only two years old, then it can probably handle ME3. Depends of the the parts, really. At one point there was few voices during the Shep's retrieval that didn't sound quite right, almost there but bit out of place. But mehem has improved a lot since then. I actually have Xbox, as well, but most of the time it just gathers dust because I still haven't learned to like the controller or gotten used to it. I think the last time I used it, was to play Alan Wake.

[AlanC9]

I don't think ME3 is much more demanding than ME2. ME1 requires something less from the vidcard; I was able to play ME1 on a x1300, but that rig only gave me 8 FPS with ME2

[von uber]

I ran ME2 fine on a 460ti (which was about 4 years old); on my 760GTX it doesn't even notice ME2 or ME3. They are not very demanding graphically (even if you force stuff through the control panel).

[BaladasDemnevanni]

1) Anyone who's ever died tragically might well not have done had it been possible to go back in time and replay some event, often not requiring much change. Nothing is fated, no-one is ever doomed to die. Tragedy generally boils down to plain bad luck at some point.

 

2) Different tragedies is only one possible outcome, and certainly not an inevitable one.

 

3) No, of course not, and claiming so is a sever over-simplification of my point. ME2's Collector Base mission's failing is due to it being too easy to get a perfect outcome (although it would be interesting to know how many did without any metagaming), and too hard to fail without deliberately trying to do so. Just because the approach was better doesn't mean that there still can't be flaws in the implementation.

 

I agree that the Witcher 2 handles it much better, although largely with the events that are part of what the protagonist is moving in instead of being in control of. It'll be interesting to see if it manages to stay on the rails.

 

4) I'm sorry if you think I'm contradicting myself simply by accepting the obvious that it isn't a complete black-and-white, one way is always perfect, the other always bad situation. Avoiding crappy writing makes the undesirable but sometimes necessary forced scenes work, a necessary evil (and consider about whether they work because of or in spite of various factors). My arguments for the gaming medium are simply that there's scope for greater emotional impact when the events are the result of player agency, and with that possibility exists the opposite, that any forced on the player have less impact than they might otherwise (and that works for both good and bad ones), and possibly even resentment. I'm struggling to see how you and Alan can even have an issue with that concept.

 

The events of Virmire flow much better from what's going on in the story to that point, so work at least on a first playthrough. On later ones they seem to fall under the practicality limits of what's achievable, and are limited to secondary characters at least.

 

1) Shepard isn't a time traveler.  A solution to any problem is a combination of time, energy, and resources. Solving one problem means another problem doesn't get solved. Indeed, that's the entire basis for certain morally grey scenarios, since the player can't achieve all possible positive outcomes.

 

Add on top of that, many tragedies are orchestrated long before anyone can feasibly predict its happening. Go tell any one individual person to prevent World War II, during that time period. Or to cure cancer, once discovering a loved one was just diagnosed with it. You'd be laughed at.

 

2) If you are capable of making all tragedies simultaneously preventable, then I'd say you should be made Emperor of the World. Unfortunately, most individuals recognize that not all tragedy is preventable, at least not given any technology or resources we currently have available.

 

3) No, I completely understand your point, it's just very weak. You think that right and wrong solutions are superior, because player agency makes tragedy more tragic and happy endings more happy. Unfortunately, you're ignoring the fact that in scenarios where the player is choosing simply between tragedies, he is still demonstrating player agency (see Kaidan or Ashley). The player can still be made to feel all those exact same emotions, only without the metagame disappointment that Bioware tends to write cop-outs into many of their morally ambiguous scenarios, depriving them of any intellectual consideration. It's like pointing to the trolleys thought experiment, toss the person an easy-mode solution, and then claim it still has the same intellectual integrity.

 

4) Sorry, but you're doing a bad job of stating whatever it is you think you're stating. If for some reason, you think good and bad outcomes make your tragedies more tragic, it's not place to tell you what to enjoy. But your point seems to go beyond that. Apparently, all those players who do enjoy morally grey territory and moral philosophy, which by the way is an entire subject in itself, are doing it wrong, merely because Reorte has a different emotional reaction to a video game.

 

As I've stated several times, you have an extremely limited understanding of the potential for the gaming medium, whose strengths are simultaneously to make a player feel powerful or powerless, in addition to other functions. What you're suggesting is more akin to saying that films shouldn't implement music, because it's a different medium, which most would say is ridiculous.