131 réponses à ce sujet

[fraggle]

The game should determine who your favourite companion is and just kill them without there being anything you can do to stop it.

 

(and the exact point it choses should be random each time you play through so gaming it is much harder)

 

Not in a game like ME. The game would punish the use/favouring of a certain squadmate? Don't really like the idea as I tend to build around a story between any of my Shep's and their favourite someone by taking them to every mission, to hear as much dialogue as possible etc.

Plus, some squad mates are used purely for game play reasons and to complement Shepard's/the protag's strengths and weaknesses.

I'd much prefer something like how they handled the VS during the coup. This was actually a scene where your previous choices played out depending on what you did or didn't do and how you treated the VS, so it was kinda your own fault if the VS dies in this scene. It's easy to avoid but if you're not careful, bye-bye.

 

I have nothing against companions dying if it's for story reasons (Thane's death was good imo because he would die anyway), but punishing the player by taking away a squadmate they favour would leave a bitter taste in my mouth.

 

I think they also learned from the Suicide Mission, even though I liked the replacements, or Grissom without Jack quite a lot. It also depends if we get another Trilogy or not. If it's only one game they're free to try out a lot in this regard. Then something Suicide Mission-like at the end would be quite awesome.

[PhroXenGold]

Fair enough, deliberately punishing the player is indeed a bit of a dick move. So instead, they should make the person who dies completely random instead of being dependant on your actions.

[Statichands]

Bioware should just let the community make the game for them...

[SnakeCode]

Games SHOULD "punish" players for their actions imo, the ability to lose, or to have things not go your way, is very powerful. Especially when it's not railroaded like Kai Leng. The possibility to lose people you care about is similarly powerful, that's why I love games like Fire Emblem, X-Com, and Valkyria Chronicles so much. I think a lot of games could benefit from a more systemic approach.

[DanishViking]

Bioware should just let the community make the game for them...

Yeaaah...... NOPE

[PhroXenGold]

Games SHOULD "punish" players for their actions imo, the ability to lose, or to have things not go your way, is very powerful. Especially when it's not railroaded like Kai Leng. The possibility to lose people you care about is similarly powerful, that's why I love games like Fire Emblem, X-Com, and Valkyria Chronicles so much. I think a lot of games could benefit from o more systemic approach.

 

I completely agree with this. However, I will add that not every "punishment" should be because of the player's actions. Things should happen that are beyond your control. People should, at times, die regardless of what you do. In a game like ME, you're playing one character, and what one person can do is limited. I'm not neccesarily talking about Kai-Leng-eqsue "he's just better than you" railroading, that you rightly dislike, but putting the player is impossible situations where nothing you can do will make a difference. Why? Beacuse thats how reality works. And thus having that kind of thing makes the game more believable and immersive.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

If I can't kill them, can I at least throw them off my ship/team?

[fraggle]

Fair enough, deliberately punishing the player is indeed a bit of a dick move. So instead, they should make the person who dies completely random instead of being dependant on your actions.

 

Huh, I think we would actually like the same in the end it seems I'd like to see more deaths depending on your actions. I was just strictly talking about killing off a companion because you favor him/her (meaning maybe you take them on all missions or so). So, what you said here:

 

I completely agree with this. However, I will add that not every "punishment" should be because of the player's actions. Things should happen that are beyond your control. People should, at times, die regardless of what you do. In a game like ME, you're playing one character, and what one person can do is limited. I'm not neccesarily talking about Kai-Leng-eqsue "he's just better than you" railroading, that you rightly dislike, but putting the player is impossible situations where nothing you can do will make a difference. Why? Beacuse thats how reality works. And thus having that kind of thing makes the game more believable and immersive.

 

I like that. There could be deaths that are completely avoidable if you take the appriopriate actions for it, but I also think it's nice to have deaths you can't avoid. I actually also think that it's more believable, especially with a story like ME.

[SnakeCode]

I completely agree with this. However, I will add that not every "punishment" should be because of the player's actions. Things should happen that are beyond your control. People should, at times, die regardless of what you do. In a game like ME, you're playing one character, and what one person can do is limited. I'm not neccesarily talking about Kai-Leng-eqsue "he's just better than you" railroading, that you rightly dislike, but putting the player is impossible situations where nothing you can do will make a difference. Why? Beacuse thats how reality works. And thus having that kind of thing makes the game more believable and immersive.

 

Completely agree. It's not the railroading itself with Kai Leng that's annoying, it's that you can totally destroy him in the fight just before, either have him be too difficult to defeat in game, or just have the whole fight play out in a cut scene. Don't allow the player to best someone in gameplay only to have them lose in the following cut scene.

[KaiserShep]

I'm leaning toward random companion death as a bad idea, but to really sell it I'd have to see a scenario in which this even happens. Just having Random X die for sake of random death isn't compelling in and of itself. The death of a central cast member has to happen for a good reason. This is why the "favorite" mechanic is a definite no-no. Basing the fate of a character on the invisible counter of how many times X went on a mission or who has the highest approval or romanced with the PC is no bueno. Reality is not entirely relevant there, because people die for all sorts of reasons that aren't very dramatic or meaningful, but on top of that, the PC cannot randomly die in a cut scene, when by all rights they should be no less susceptible to sudden death as the other characters. 

[themikefest]

I'd much prefer something like how they handled the VS during the coup. This was actually a scene where your previous choices played out depending on what you did or didn't do and how you treated the VS, so it was kinda your own fault if the VS dies in this scene.

The problem with that scene is your squadmates suffer from cat-got-your-tongue syndrome. Why couldn't they speak up when Udina shows the vid of Shepard shooting the salarian councilor? Or when he says Shepard is working with Cerberus? Had they spoken up, its possible Ashley/Kaidan may lower their weapon. If Garrus was recruited in ME1 and brought to Horizon in ME2, he says something to Ashley. Why couldn't he do that during the coup?
 

or Grissom without Jack quite a lot.

Grissom is another example. Without Jack, Prangley is killed. Why can't the squadmates provide cover fire for Shepard while she/he is helping Rodriquez get to the shuttle? Had that happened, Prangley most likely would live.
 

[PhroXenGold]

The one death I think is done pretty well is the other Virmire one: Wrex. I do feel that it is far too easy to avoid having to kill him (a dialogue skill check or doing his quest), but if you haven't met those criteria, it's a interesting situation. You can completely understand why he opposes you, and you have mutiple ways to work through the confrontation, even if the outcome is the same. Ash shooting him if you don't is spot on.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                                     <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

If ME:A is a stand alone game, who cares? The main character lives and others will die. End of Story.

 

On the other Hand.

A game duology or trilogy does require a forward looking storyline. To avoid entanglements from key decision /results plot points in the next game,  killable characters need to be eliminated from all choices. Alternatively, game #2 can resolve character live/die choices in game #1  by having them retire.  Thus you can have a "clean" slate with new companions and keep some old ones if they were not "in the possible kill list".

[KaiserShep]

The one death I think is done pretty well is the other Virmire one: Wrex. I do feel that it is far too easy to avoid having to kill him (a dialogue skill check or doing his quest), but if you haven't met those criteria, it's a interesting situation. You can completely understand why he opposes you, and you have mutiple ways to work through the confrontation, even if the outcome is the same. Ash shooting him if you don't is spot on.

That's a good example of a character having a good reason to die in the story, and it's even sensible that he might be reasoned with, given the circumstances. After all, why should Wrex entirely trust an insidious turian working with the geth to really benefit the krogan? The Virmire one I'm not totally sold on, because I'm not really convinced that Kirrahe needs Kaidan or Ashley specifically. When Kirrahe asked for one of them I knew one of them wasn't leaving that planet alive.

[Mr.House]

Bioware should just let the community make the game for them...

You know how crappy that would be?

[Pasquale1234]

I completely agree with this. However, I will add that not every "punishment" should be because of the player's actions. Things should happen that are beyond your control. People should, at times, die regardless of what you do. In a game like ME, you're playing one character, and what one person can do is limited. I'm not neccesarily talking about Kai-Leng-eqsue "he's just better than you" railroading, that you rightly dislike, but putting the player is impossible situations where nothing you can do will make a difference. Why? Beacuse thats how reality works. And thus having that kind of thing makes the game more believable and immersive.

It depends on how it's done.

If anything, DA2's Leandra Hawke death only made the game less believable and immersive, and Hawke feel like a powerless dolt. There are a couple of primary reasons for this:

-- When I met the Templar (Emeric?) investigating the missing women in Act 1, I figured something would come of it - but the game did not allow me to pursue it. Even if the trail had gone cold, there's still something Hawke could have done - retrace the Templar's steps, talk to anyone who knew the missing women, talk to merchants and shopkeepers, etc. But it was dealt with like a nothing side-quest and dropped.

-- After Mom was killed, there was no apparent reason for Hawke to remain in that hole called Kirkwall. Hawke really never had any other goals or motivations that I could suss out - and the game actively denied any that I tried to assign to the character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Character death, when it happens, should be the result of gameplay, and not something the writers scripted.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The one death I think is done pretty well is the other Virmire one: Wrex. I do feel that it is far too easy to avoid having to kill him (a dialogue skill check or doing his quest), but if you haven't met those criteria, it's a interesting situation. You can completely understand why he opposes you, and you have mutiple ways to work through the confrontation, even if the outcome is the same. Ash shooting him if you don't is spot on.

What I didn't understand was why I had to oppose him.

That game hadn't given me any reason to want to destory Saren's genophage cure.

[Mr.House]

All companions must die.

[KaiserShep]

Character death, when it happens, should be the result of gameplay, and not something the writers scripted.

Dialogue sequences are also gameplay, but if you can get a character killed as a result of an option you chose, then that death is technically scripted. If characters only die in the middle of combat, that doesn't make for a particularly interesting story. It'll just result in people reloading to try harder to avoid it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dialogue sequences are also gameplay, but if you can get a character killed as a result of an option you chose, then that death is technically scripted.

I suppose it is.

I would accept this if the dialogue option lead to an NPC taking action that killed the companion.

If characters only die in the middle of combat, that doesn't make for a particularly interesting story.

I disagree. It makes the combat more a part of the story. It adds drama.

It'll just result in people reloading to try harder to avoid it.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Lady Artifice]

Should-be-dead Leliana's situation ending up making perfect in context. They provided an explanation, most players with that world state were just filled with too much frothing indignation at her re-appearance to wait for it. 

[AresKeith]

That's a good example of a character having a good reason to die in the story, and it's even sensible that he might be reasoned with, given the circumstances. After all, why should Wrex entirely trust an insidious turian working with the geth to really benefit the krogan? The Virmire one I'm not totally sold on, because I'm not really convinced that Kirrahe needs Kaidan or Ashley specifically. When Kirrahe asked for one of them I knew one of them wasn't leaving that planet alive.

Makes even less sense when you can get Kirrahe back alive

[Beerfish]

They for sure do have to be careful about this and hopefully they have learned their lesson.  What often happens is that they have planned out who they will or won't let die and then after the game realize that a character they potentially let die is very very popular.

[KaiserShep]

I suppose it is.
I would accept this if the dialogue option lead to an NPC taking action that killed the companion.
I disagree. It makes the combat more a part of the story. It adds drama.
Nothing wrong with that.

My concern is that BioWare would also compensate by creating more companions with content spread thin between the lot of them. Just look at ME3's treatment of the bulk of ME2's disposable ragtags. It then necessitates interchangeable stand-ins or simply having no meaningful role in the plot. Imagine if Cassandra could die right in DA:I's prologue. She now has no solid role for the game as a result. Man, and then there's Solas. Being what he is and how important he is, death in combat permanently is not an option.