197 réponses à ce sujet

[von uber]

I agree they do, but I am looking at it from a me3 resource / storyline perspective. I think too many characters who could survive in me2 caused some of the issues in 3.

[grey_wind]

I agree they do, but I am looking at it from a me3 resource / storyline perspective. I think too many characters who could survive in me2 caused some of the issues in 3.

Ah, gotcha. I don't think too many characters would have been a problem if BioWare was actually more restrictive about how ME2 can be played. As much as I love the Suicide Mission, in hindsight it would have been a lot better had all the recruitment and loyalty missions been mandatory (this would have also forced BioWare to write them to be more relevant to the overarching plot) and the only outcomes for the Suicide Mission were all or nothing (either everybody survives, or nobody does).

[DoomsdayDevice]

What's most baffling about the Normandy evac is this...

 

Why not a shuttle? It's only two crew members that need to be picked up. There's shuttles everywhere in London. Why not Steve Cortez in the Kodiak? If they'd used a shuttle, the shuttle could have been small enough/Steve could be awesome enough to evade the laser shots. Why does it have to be the Normandy sitting right there in front of Harbinger's laser? Not only that, but somehow the Normandy makes it from the space battle to the heart of London in just a few seconds.

 

It boggles the mind.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

What's most baffling about the Normandy evac is this...

 

Why not a shuttle? It's only two crew members that need to be picked up. There's shuttles everywhere in London. Why not Steve Cortez in the Kodiak? If they'd used a shuttle, the shuttle could have been small enough/Steve could be awesome enough to evade the laser shots. Why does it have to be the Normandy sitting right there in front of Harbinger's laser? Not only that, but somehow the Normandy makes it from the space battle to the heart of London in just a few seconds.

 

It boggles the mind.

 

Because..... "Steeeeeeeeve!!!! Arrrrrrrrr!!!!! You Bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

Well, IMO that scene should have been cut.

 

And the Normandy makes from space to the heart of London using the Systems Alliance Emergency Pickup Maneuver #30 FTL jump into atmosphere.

[Bob from Accounting]

There are some things I agree with David on, but that is one area where we have differences of opinion. I'd rather there not be an option to save everyone on the squad. 

 

If it were up to me I would have had the final mission be a suicide mission with all hands on deck (surviving ME1, ME2, and ME3 characters) and where some casualties could not be avoided, and player choices or actions determined how many and who would die, Liara included. I liked the idea behind what Bioware originally had planned for Thessia, though I would have shifted any Virmire moments to the end run.

 

That sounds to me like it would just mean everyone overwhelmingly offs Jacob and anyone else they don't like. Probably also Javik since for many players he plans to die anyway and EDI since she can survive without her body.

 

Since everyone is just getting rid of people they don't particular care much for anyway, it seems to me such sacrifices would come off as a story-mandated hurdle instead of any kind of real dramatic moment.

 

It doesn't help that the number of combinations possible would mean that a personal acknowledgement of each dead squadmate would be unlikely. And even if it wasn't, I don't really think it's a smart idea to end the series for every player by focusing attention on their least liked squadmate.

[Han Shot First]

That sounds to me like it would just mean everyone overwhelmingly offs Jacob and anyone else they don't like. Probably also Javik since for many players he plans to die anyway and EDI since she can survive without her body.

 

Since everyone is just getting rid of people they don't particular care much for anyway, it seems to me such sacrifices would come off as a story-mandated hurdle instead of any kind of real dramatic moment.

 

It doesn't help that the number of combinations possible would mean that a personal acknowledgement of each dead squadmate would be unlikely. And even if it wasn't, I don't really think it's a smart idea to end the series for every player by focusing attention on their least liked squadmate.

 

That is only if it is it immediately obvious that you're choosing between two particular characters, like it was on Virmire. If Bioware were to introduce a similar moment in the next game, and I hope they do, I'd rather it was written so that a completely unspoiled player does not know that a squadmate is going to die until it happens. The protagonist is faced with a dilemma where there is more than one possible solution, and the variances in the plan results in different casualties. That is how I would have had it occur in ME3's finale.

 

Of course some players are going to go the reload/metagame route, but it is impossible to make a game metagame proof. And while some players will reload and replay to avoid or alter the consequences of certain decisions, that by itself shouldn't rule out those consequences being written into a game. 

[Bob from Accounting]

Does the player have any reasonable way of knowing at all who they're putting in danger? Is there any foreshadowing at all? Or is it just 'Surprise, the people you picked for positions #2, #3 and #5 are dead!'

[Han Shot First]

Not all character deaths in fiction need to be foreshadowed. That isn't to say that I'd want random character deaths, just that the player would be faced with a choice where the consequences of his or her choices aren't immediately clear. On Virmire you know before you have Shepard make that choice that whomever you don't choose is going to die. It was a great moment, but if something similar shows up in ME4 I hope it is approached a bit differently and without the immediate temptation to metagame it.

 

I'll use an example. 

 

Lets say in the next game that during the finale your ship sustains damage on its approach to your target that temporarily grounds it. Your engineering chief says that they can make field repairs, but it is going to take some time. The ships Marines (or their equivalent, if you're not military) form a perimeter to protect the engineering team while you are about to set out on foot with all of your squadmates for whatever the end objective is. You're faced with the decision of whether to continue forward as planned with your entire squad, or whether to assign a biotic squadmate to help beef up the rear guard and protect the engineering team repairing the ship. That decision comes into play later in the finale when you must divide your squad into two teams for different tasks, and both the team you aren't leading and the engineering team come under attack simultaneously. If no biotic was assigned to the engineers the Marines aren't enough to keep the attackers totally at bay, and the engineering chief is mortally wounded while completing his task. If a biotic was assigned to the engineering team, the loss is felt on the fireteam you aren't leading and instead it is the team leader that gets killed.

 

I'd like to see a Virmire situation approached in a somewhat similar fashion in a sequel.

[Bob from Accounting]

That really depends on the fiction. I'm sure such a thing is quite appropriate in fiction like Game of Thrones, but this is fiction where the developers have repeatedly promised (both explicitly and implicitly) and have an obligation to provide choices that matter.

 

I would probably be okay with such a scenario if there was a single squad leader and a single biotic automatically assigned to the tasks, and at least some dialogue discussing the imminent danger. But if the player chooses the people to preform the tasks? No.

 

All that does is scare players into keeping the squadmates they actually like on the ship or in camp or whatever and only assign characters they hate or are indifferent to on important tasks and missions. And that's terrible game design. It means the players who get the 'optimal' story are the ones who have the least amount of fun. Players should not be paranoid of using characters they like.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

You don't casually kill off a character in a story. It's cheap and isn't good writing. You don't do it to a character that has played a significant role. You can kill off a "red shirt" (the Star Trek TOS designation for "the one who dies" -- aka new actor you've never seen before) very casually but never a significant character.

 

Even in GoT you just knew something bad was going to happen to the person. The foreshadowing is in between the lines.... unless King Joffrey is involved of course. 

 

It's like the Suicide Mission -- if you had all loyal squad mates, but still wanted to get rid of some, there was an easy way of getting rid of two to four of them. Note that I'm not sure of the 4: side with either Jack or Miranda; side with either Tali or Legion; have the loser of the J/M hold the barrier and have the character you don't like in that group, and send the loser of Tali/Legion through the vent.

[Farangbaa]

Tbh I think deaths in me1 & 2 should be kept down (along with the numbers of squad mates) but in me3 everyone should be at risk , with low ems increasing the risk.
For example low ems up to thessia increases liaras chance of death on the mission.
This would reduce writing issues, allow more character development for the remaining squad and make their deaths in 3 have more impact.

 

While we're playing the should've game:

 

Low EMS should've resulted in 'victory not possible, game over'

[themikefest]

During the suicide mission you can have up to at least 6(if you count not having upgrades for the ship) dead if all are loyal. If not 3 can die, doing the vent, barrier and second fire team leader.

[Argolas]

During the suicide mission you can have up to at least 6(if you count not having upgrades for the ship) dead if all are loyal. If not 3 can die, doing the vent, barrier and second fire team leader.

The only thing about the SM I don't quite understand is who of those you left behind survives the final battle. I know a few things, like having Grunt there helps and Mordin is usually the first who dies if he's there but I couldn't tell you which combination of characters in that battle results in how many deaths and what role loyalty plays in there.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

That really depends on the fiction. I'm sure such a thing is quite appropriate in fiction like Game of Thrones, but this is fiction where the developers have repeatedly promised (both explicitly and implicitly) and have an obligation to provide choices that matter.

 

I would probably be okay with such a scenario if there was a single squad leader and a single biotic automatically assigned to the tasks, and at least some dialogue discussing the imminent danger. But if the player chooses the people to preform the tasks? No.

 

All that does is scare players into keeping the squadmates they actually like on the ship or in camp or whatever and only assign characters they hate or are indifferent to on important tasks and missions. And that's terrible game design. It means the players who get the 'optimal' story are the ones who have the least amount of fun. Players should not be paranoid of using characters they like.

 

This translates to "I don't want Liara to die." 

[von uber]

I think by the third gane liara should have a chance of dying (and not just the beam run), but then so should everybody.
But that requires substantial rewrites of mass effect so.. meh.
There are more important problems with the game than whether liara can die or not.

[themikefest]

The only thing about the SM I don't quite understand is who of those you left behind survives the final battle. I know a few things, like having Grunt there helps and Mordin is usually the first who dies if he's there but I couldn't tell you which combination of characters in that battle results in how many deaths and what role loyalty plays in there.

After I posted the comment I thought about how many could die. If we're able to count the three deaths from having no upgrades for the ship as part of the suicide mission it not's to hard to figure out. Since Garrus, Grunt and Zaeed are the three strongest I would let them die by having Garrus do the vent, Jacob does the barrier bringing Miranda and Grunt who dies from the seeker swarm and Zaeed dies as second fireteam leader. With Jack, Kasumi and Thane dead that is 6 dead. I would send Samara to escort the crew back and have Miranda and Jacob fight the human reaper. Which leaves Tali, Mordin, Legion to hold the line. Mordin will die and Tali might die. So with that you could have 7 or 8 dead if all loyal.

[CronoDragoon]

What's most baffling about the Normandy evac is this...

 

Why not a shuttle?

 

Because they started with a situation (squadmates end up on the Normandy and crash on the jungle planet) and had to work backwards from there with the EC. Ideally they just scrapped all that garbage and came up with a new cutscene for your squad, but it seems they had a lot of the assets in place for the evac scene anyway so it was cost-effective for EC purposes. At least the scene has well-written dialogue, so I can forgive it provided that and the fact that is mends an actual plothole by showing how your dudes and dudettes get back to Joker.

 

You don't casually kill off a character in a story. It's cheap and isn't good writing. You don't do it to a character that has played a significant role. You can kill off a "red shirt" (the Star Trek TOS designation for "the one who dies" -- aka new actor you've never seen before) very casually but never a significant character.

 

Killing without foreshadowing =/= casually killing. See Serenity.

[Barquiel]

I think the problem with "virmire choices" is that you get mutually exclusive companions/squadmates...and they usually don't have much content. Ashley and Kaidan have always been screwed since they became the Virmire Survivor. One can't waste too many resources on an occurrence or character that may not even show up in a great many people's game. The VS is essentially one character (story-wise), that requires two voice actors. Or look at Carver/Bethany, they're also gone for most of the game.

The only exception I can think of is the Mira/Hanharr thing in Kotor2. They both had a lot of content...probably because Hanharr only makes Wookie noises and didn't need much voice acting.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I think the problem with "virmire choices" is that you get mutually exclusive companions/squadmates...and they usually don't have much content. Ashley and Kaidan have always been screwed since they became the Virmire Survivor. One can't waste too many resources on an occurrence or character that may not even show up in a great many people's game. The VS is essentially one character (story-wise), that requires two voice actors. Or look at Carver/Bethany, they're also gone for most of the game.

The only exception I can think of is the Mira/Hanharr thing in Kotor2. They both had a lot of content...probably because Hanharr only makes Wookie noises and didn't need much voice acting.

 

Said choices are at or near the end of the game and series. It would be arguable that the negative consequences then would be limited. I do agree on a general level though.

[AlanC9]

Killing without foreshadowing =/= casually killing. See Serenity.

Or Lost?

[Perpetual Nirvana]

I can't answer the others but Harbinger leaving actually makes sense.

 

When Shepard wakes up and sees Harbinger leaving, you can also hear Coates saying that all of Hammer has been wiped out. In this case it makes tactical sense for to Harbinger to return to the space battle, having assumed that he's succeeded in killing all of Hammer.

[Argolas]

I can't answer the others but Harbinger leaving actually makes sense.

 

When Shepard wakes up and sees Harbinger leaving, you can also hear Coates saying that all of Hammer has been wiped out. In this case it makes tactical sense for to Harbinger to return to the space battle, having assumed that he's succeeded in killing all of Hammer.

 

There were multiple people still alive down there, including Shepard, Anderson and some other guys. Harbinger was obviously not in the position to see if everyone had been killed, thus it is far too dangerous to leave the beam unguarded. The Reapers were winning the spacebattle anyway so returning was not a necessity.

[Jukaga]

While we're at it, what exactly is a "thanix missile?"

"Our thanix missiles do a f*ckload of damage!"
"But I thought Thanix systems fired a stream of molten metal at relativistic-"
"SHUT UP!!!"

 

The way they were presented in the cutscene was stupid, but the idea is not. Have you ever heard of bomb-pumped lasers? Now I know a Thanix isn't strictly a laser but the weapon principle is the same. Basically it would be a one-shot capacitor in the missile head instead of a traditional warhead. This way the whole destructive force is focused into a beam, not a splash blast. A bomb pumped warhead literally detonates a nuclear bomb in a powerful magnetic field and directs the xrays through an aperture. They are a staple of hardcore military sci-fi and have real life (theoretical) analogues. Bomb-pumped laser missiles will likely be in space navy arsenals, if we ever have space navies that is.
 

[CronoDragoon]

There were multiple people still alive down there, including Shepard, Anderson and some other guys. Harbinger was obviously not in the position to see if everyone had been killed, thus it is far too dangerous to leave the beam unguarded. The Reapers were winning the spacebattle anyway so returning was not a necessity.

 

 

Shepard doesn't even start to get up until after Harbinger starts leaving. If I'm a colossus looking at a bunch of friend ants and they aren't moving, then it makes sense.

 

Of course, the question of why wouldn't he just stay and guard the beam brings up why they wouldn't just shut the beam down once the opponent revealed their hand with Hammer's actions. But then I remember that it doesn't really matter and ME has never bothered with intelligent strategy.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Because they started with a situation (squadmates end up on the Normandy and crash on the jungle planet) and had to work backwards from there with the EC. Ideally they just scrapped all that garbage and came up with a new cutscene for your squad, but it seems they had a lot of the assets in place for the evac scene anyway so it was cost-effective for EC purposes. At least the scene has well-written dialogue, so I can forgive it provided that and the fact that is mends an actual plothole by showing how your dudes and dudettes get back to Joker.

 

 

Killing without foreshadowing =/= casually killing. See Serenity.

 

On this we agree. I've done it myself. I said casually. The situation warranted it. Serenity was also a movie, not a video game. My fan fiction novel is just that: a novel. It is not a video game. You can do things in movies and novels and in linear shooters that you can't do in a game like Mass Effect where you allow choices, unless you have the full squad involved and make the deaths random so that the player cannot meta-game the situation.