1638 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Meh. The whole hero sacrifice thing is kinda done to death too. Heh...done to death.

who said anything about a "sacrifice"?



Meh....the whole untouchable hero saves the day and lives through the impossible to tell about it, is far more played out.

[von uber]

The import from game to game is what made the trilogy work. Without that it is diminished.

[KaiserShep]

who said anything about a "sacrifice"?



Meh....the whole untouchable hero saves the day and lives through the impossible to tell about it, is far more played out.

 

Wait, so if it's not a sacrifice, then why should I care to have the protagonist die in the first place? What would be the reason (or the point) for this death to occur if not in a situation in which it's to save someone else? Just to have the PC die? That seems like a waste of time to me. Thankfully, BioWare is not likely going to do this. Anyway, I don't really care to have my escapist fantasy ultimately feed into my cynicism.

[Farangbaa]

Wait, so if it's not a sacrifice, then why would I care to have the protagonist die in the first place? What would be the reason for this death to occur if not in a situation in which it's to save someone else? Just to have the PC die? That seems like a waste of time to me. Thankfully, BioWare is not likely going to do this.

 

In ME4's end you'd undoubtedly die.. for reasons (squadmate betrays you at the end of the game or whatever, tons of possibilies). Then in ME5 you'd play your kid or something. Not saying I want that btw. But I can understand why Mcfly would, for once, play a game where you don't necessarily end up as winner.

 

I for one would love it if they incorporated wrong choices in the game. That you make a decision somewhere in the game and hours later you die because of it. Or have to finish the game severely penalized, with half your crew in the hospital or dead. Or a decision that makes it impossible to win the game altogether, which you discover much later.

 

Like how low-EMS should've resulted in not being able to finish the beam run... or start it at all.

[KaiserShep]

Choice and meeting certain conditions are a different story. I prefer having as wide a variety of endings as possible. Having the PC's death be a fixed event no matter what you do greatly diminishes that for me.

[Mcfly616]

Plenty of ways to die other than sacrificing yourself for someone else.....who knew?

[KaiserShep]

I didn't say that there was no other way for the PC to die, but I am saying that doing so would be a waste of time. Again I ask, what's the point? Is it supposed to grab me emotionally, or am I supposed to be entertained, or both? It does nothing for me in either respect, since I've had my fill in lots of movies and even certain games already, so I don't see what good it does for the game, other than, perhaps, for the novelty of being "brave". Heck even the novelty might not go far, since it would not even be unique in having the protagonist's death be fixed.

[Mcfly616]

In ME4's end you'd undoubtedly die.. for reasons (squadmate betrays you at the end of the game or whatever, tons of possibilies). Then in ME5 you'd play your kid or something. Not saying I want that btw. But I can understand why Mcfly would, for once, play a game where you don't necessarily end up as winner.

I for one would love it if they incorporated wrong choices in the game. That you make a decision somewhere in the game and hours later you die because of it. Or have to finish the game severely penalized, with half your crew in the hospital or dead. Or a decision that makes it impossible to win the game altogether, which you discover much later.

Like how low-EMS should've resulted in not being able to finish the beam run... or start it at all.

they should make the consequences for some choices not so immediately apparent. Then later on in the game, "bam" it hits you. I have no problem with making a split second decision (like Virmire), but once in awhile they should try having consequences materialize down the road and have the narrative branch accordingly. (one thing that isn't overhyped about the Witcher 2. They nailed that aspect.)



The way most players play Mass Effect is if they don't like the consequences, they just reload. Which is such a joke. Not on the players....but the game.

[Mcfly616]

I didn't say that there was no other way for the PC to die, but I am saying that doing so would be a waste of time. Again I ask, what's the point? Is it supposed to grab me emotionally, or am I supposed to be entertained, or both? It does nothing for me in either respect, since I've had my fill in lots of movies and even certain games already, so I don't see what good it does for the game, other than, perhaps, for the novelty of being "brave". Heck even the novelty might not go far, since it would not even be unique in having the protagonist's death be fixed.

maybe they die in the pursuit of their goal, whatever it may be. I'm not sure what you're getting at on the whole 'unique' front. Is the alternative any more unique? Are you saying that since the protagonist dying is a 'waste of time' to you, that every game should have the protagonist live?

[Reorte]

no, I'm all set. Plenty of movies do it. I want a game experience that does it. ME3 was close....but not enough. Hopefully they take the next step. Games can be 'rigid'.

Rigidity in a game is a negative mark. Some rigidity is necessary in order to be able to produce a game, but too much and you become shoved out of being a participant and become and observer. All fiction needs to maintain suspension of disbelief so we accept things that normally we simply wouldn't (such as flying around the galaxy), and if things go too far and break that then the story fails. Games in addition, at least RPGs, need to maintain an equivalent with the illusion of being a participant and not a spectator. Big character-impacting events like killing the protagonist no matter what destroy that, it's no better than forcing you to romance a particular character.

 

It's also being miserable merely for the sake of it.

[Reorte]

maybe they die in the pursuit of their goal, whatever it may be. I'm not sure what you're getting at on the whole 'unique' front. Is the alternative any more unique? Are you saying that since the protagonist dying is a 'waste of time' to you, that every game should have the protagonist live?

Being games, neither should be set in stone. However you've got to really twist and contrive things for a protagonist to survive all sorts of implausible events and then cop it right at the end.

[KaiserShep]

maybe they die in the pursuit of their goal, whatever it may be. I'm not sure what you're getting at on the whole 'unique' front. Is the alternative any more unique? Are you saying that since the protagonist dying is a 'waste of time' to you, that every game should have the protagonist live?

That doesn't sound much different from a hero sacrifice situation. The protagonist either gives his/her life to see the mission through, or dies before it can be accomplished. Anything else would be tantamount to the protagonist slipping on a bar of soap and dying in the shower. It will only serve to annoy most players and please the contrarians who really just want to see the PC die.

 

What I'm getting at with my comment on uniqueness is based off of your comment regarding BioWare having the balls to go through with an ending in which the PC dies no matter what the player chooses. You said that you want a game experience that provides that, implying that you've never played a game that did this before. Basically, you want something that's unique. What I'm saying is that this has already been done. I for one don't really place much value on the novelty, so I don't care if the alternative is unique or not. You can find uniqueness in all sorts of aspects of a game, like gameplay, the way the story is told, plot twists, etc.. The ultimate fate of the PC has been done both ways, so it's not like it's special either way.

 

And no, I didn't say that I think the protagonist should always live, but I do think that the player should be able to determine whether or not the protagonist dies.

[Farangbaa]

they should make the consequences for some choices not so immediately apparent. Then later on in the game, "bam" it hits you. I have no problem with making a split second decision (like Virmire), but once in awhile they should try having consequences materialize down the road and have the narrative branch accordingly. (one thing that isn't overhyped about the Witcher 2. They nailed that aspect.)



The way most players play Mass Effect is if they don't like the consequences, they just reload. Which is such a joke. Not on the players....but the game.

 

This is exactly what I want. 

 

Like in the SNES version of Crono Trigger... where if you don't get the Crono Doll at the start of the game, you can't get him back after he dies much much much much later in the game. And I mean MUCH later, like 20-40 hours of gameplay later.

 

Someone on here told me you could go back to the fair to get the doll later, but I don't think that was possible in the SNES version, only in the PlayStation version.

[Mcfly616]

Rigidity in a game is a negative mark.

says you....

[KaiserShep]

In a game that largely revolves around player choice, why would anyone prefer fewer outcomes? In Mass Effect, most options lead to death, and all options lead to the same if certain conditions were not met, yet somehow this isn't enough for whatever reason.

[Mcfly616]

That doesn't sound much different from a hero sacrifice situation. The protagonist either gives his/her life to see the mission through, or dies before it can be accomplished. Anything else would be tantamount to the protagonist slipping on a bar of soap and dying in the shower. It will only serve to annoy most players and please the contrarians who really just want to see the PC die.
 
What I'm getting at with my comment on uniqueness is based off of your comment regarding BioWare having the balls to go through with an ending in which the PC dies no matter what the player chooses. You said that you want a game experience that provides that, implying that you've never played a game that did this before. Basically, you want something that's unique. What I'm saying is that this has already been done. I for one don't really place much value on the novelty, so I don't care if the alternative is unique or not. You can find uniqueness in all sorts of aspects of a game, like gameplay, the way the story is told, plot twists, etc.. The ultimate fate of the PC has been done both ways, so it's not like it's special either way.
 
And no, I didn't say that I think the protagonist should always live, but I do think that the player should be able to determine whether or not the protagonist dies.

if I were to die on my quest for revenge, I wouldn't consider it a sacrifice. Especially since I wasn't knowingly trying to get myself killed. If I fought my hardest and slayed my enemies, and I ended up mortally wounded in the process, that's not a "heroic sacrifice".

And we obviously differ on the "controlling whether or not the protagonist dies". As I find the whole concept of a mere human having complete control over their fate is as ridiculous as it gets. I'm all in favor of choices altering my journey and end destination. But being all-powerful and altering and shaping the universe in whatever way they see fit in order to cheat death as if it's a walk in the park making riding off in the sunset a foregone conclusion, is not my thing at all. I prefer my protagonist grounded in reality a bit more.

[Mcfly616]

In a game that largely revolves around player choice, why would anyone prefer fewer outcomes? In Mass Effect, most options lead to death, and all options lead to the same if certain conditions were not met, yet somehow this isn't enough for whatever reason.

who said anything about fewer outcomes?

[KaiserShep]

if I were to die on my quest for revenge, I wouldn't consider it a sacrifice. Especially since I wasn't knowingly trying to get myself killed. If I fought my hardest and slayed my enemies, and I ended up mortally wounded in the process, that's not a "heroic sacrifice".

 

Sure, and the same would be true if the next protagonist was simply a soldier of fortune fighting for credits, but is this something we can realistically expect for a game like Mass Effect? But anyway, I guess that's besides the point. The problem I have is simply with the idea that the character dies no matter what, but then that goes to this:

 

And we obviously differ on the "controlling whether or not the protagonist dies". As I find the whole concept of a mere human having complete control over their fate is as ridiculous as it gets. I'm all in favor of choices altering my journey and end destination. But being all-powerful and altering and shaping the universe in whatever way they see fit in order to cheat death as if it's a walk in the park making riding off in the sunset a foregone conclusion, is not my thing at all. I prefer my protagonist grounded in reality a bit more.

 

Being all-powerful and capable to alter the in-game universe are not necessarily connected to survival at all. I'm of the opinion that this concept of being more "grounded in reality" to be bogus, because what you want isn't actually reality; you simply want the character to die, because one can realistically survive certain situations. You merely don't want that situation to exist.

 

who said anything about fewer outcomes?

 

A fixed end for the protagonist is exactly what that means.

[Farangbaa]

A fixed end for the protagonist is exactly what that means.

 

No. There could be countless world-states at the moment the protagonist dies, and many different ways or even reasons the protagonist dies. There's fewer outcomes for the protagonist, but not for the game as a whole.

 

 

Not that this is what I want, though, but still.

[KaiserShep]

No. There could be countless world-states at the moment the protagonist dies, and many different ways or even reasons the protagonist dies. There's fewer outcomes for the protagonist, but not for the game as a whole.

 

 

Not that this is what I want, though, but still.

 

That still counts as fewer outcomes. I get the point about world states, but as for reasons the protagonist dies, I don't see the point of there being multiple reasons if the protagonist dies regardless.

[Mcfly616]

This is exactly what I want. 
 
Like in the SNES version of Crono Trigger... where if you don't get the Crono Doll at the start of the game, you can't get him back after he dies much much much much later in the game. And I mean MUCH later, like 20-40 hours of gameplay later.
 
Someone on here told me you could go back to the fair to get the doll later, but I don't think that was possible in the SNES version, only in the PlayStation version.

CHRONO TRIGGER!!


Ahhh the memories. What a name drop.

[Mcfly616]

Being all-powerful and capable to alter the in-game universe are not necessarily connected to survival at all. I'm of the opinion that this concept of being more "grounded in reality" to be bogus, because what you want isn't actually reality; you simply want the character to die, because one can realistically survive certain situations. You merely don't want that situation to exist.

people die when facing impossible odds. People die for no reason at all. It's not bogus in any way whatsoever. What is bogus is the idea that Shepard (for example) should have had any control over whether he lived or died in the situation he was put in, all based on his decisions. Complete and utter garbage. Maybe his choices changed the journey, maybe it could change the playing field, but to say that 'oh, he made this choice awhile back....therefore he is able to somehow avoid this completely unavoidable situation now'.....that's just stuuuuupid. About as stupid as these 'conventional victory was possible' arguments. Death is certain.


Contrary to whatever you believe, death isn't always avoidable. You however, would prefer that it was (who doesn't?). Wishful thinking it seems. I'm merely hoping that this simple fact of life is conveyed in the next game. That's all.

[Reorte]

people die when facing impossible odds. People die for no reason at all. It's not bogus in any way whatsoever. What is bogus is the idea that Shepard (for example) should have had any control over whether he lived or died in the situation he was put in, all based on his decisions. Complete and utter garbage. Maybe his choices changed the journey, maybe it could change the playing field, but to say that 'oh, he made this choice awhile back....therefore he is able to somehow avoid this completely unavoidable situation now'.....that's just stuuuuupid. About as stupid as these 'conventional victory was possible' arguments. Death is certain.


Contrary to whatever you believe, death isn't always avoidable. You however, would prefer that it was (who doesn't?). Wishful thinking it seems. I'm merely hoping that this simple fact of life is conveyed in the next game. That's all.

There might be situations which, once they reach a certain point, mean that death is inevitable. If you're talking realistic then that'll generally only be the case for the poor sods chucked in to the situation rather than anyone ultimately very significant. There is no completely unavoidable situation, and the idea that a significant figure can survive all sorts of things but ends up in a situation where their death is completely unavoidable, no matter what happened earlier, in order to finish the job is very far-fetched. At best it's one possible outcome out of many. The most probably outcome is that you die along the way of course, but when that happens people just reload the last save and carry on. If by some miracle you get to the point where you've achieved victory the odds are that you'll survive.

 

The first person up the ladder when trying to scale the castle walls will almost certainly die, but he's not likely to be the main mover and shaker in that war. The person who was leading him may be in the thick of the fighting when they take the castle and end the wall, so may well die as his troops finish the job, but it won't be inevitable or necessary.

[Mcfly616]

There might be situations which, once they reach a certain point, mean that death is inevitable. If you're talking realistic then that'll generally only be the case for the poor sods chucked in to the situation rather than anyone ultimately very significant. There is no completely unavoidable situation, and the idea that a significant figure can survive all sorts of things but ends up in a situation where their death is completely unavoidable, no matter what happened earlier, in order to finish the job is very far-fetched.

uhh no it's not. Like, not at all. But we could just agree to disagree. Yeah, we probably should.



On a side note, I'm really hoping the next protagonist isn't a "significant figure". I'd like to be an average citizen of the galaxy who eventually comes to do significant things.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

Nah. Never really did in the first place, plus the absurd hours I've logged in Multiplayer have completely dispelled any negative feelings I had about the game in the first place.

 

It's been two years. If you've had the game since 2012 and still hate the game/ending enough to complain about it, then I have bad news for you.