29 réponses à ce sujet

[J. Finley]

I loved the suicide mission in ME2, it's probably one of the most engaging sequences in the trilogy for me. Knowing that any of the assignments could lead to someone's death was exciting, and really sent the message that our choices did matter. However...

 

Making the entire cast of the second game determinant was probably a bad move, and along with there being so many of them the reason why they were handled pretty poorly in ME3. Assuming this is another trilogy (I hope it is), how would you guys like possible deaths to be dealt with? Should situations like Virmire be brought back, where we choose between saving 2 of the crew or having to take down someone standing up to us?

 

How about romances? I'm pretty sure nobody was happy with Thane's unavoidable treatment, should they just be off the table so nobody gets offended?

 

I'm hoping for something similar to Wrex or Zaeed in his loyalty mission. Having a friend point a gun at you because you're doing something bad in their eyes, or having the choice to leave someone behind/kill them because of their own questionable choices.

 

 

[aoibhealfae]

The fact that all of them optional die/recruit/loyalty has already damaged their narrative in ME3. Much of the content was spent on making alternate scenes on those conditions alone. 

 

The first thing Thane said to you was he's dying and in subsequent dialogues he revealed that he intended to die in his suicide mission against Nassana. It is inevitable, he was in pain and he wanted a quick honorable death rather than slowly dying. Not sure I like the idea of the only way for him to survive happily was for him to romance FemShep.

[Midnight Bliss]

If that avatar is you then you're really cute and I've lost my train of thought like three times posting in this thread.

 

Anyway...

 

 

I'm all for squadmate deaths provided they aren't remixed versions of old content (e.g. I don't want Virmire 2.0) or used to force drama, angst, sadness, or artificially move the emotional tenner of the other characters somewhere. I think when executed properly friend/loved one deaths they have the potential to be raw, heartbreaking and very relatable because most characters, most players probably have experienced loss at some point, but when executed poorly end up just being monumental eye roll moments, as was the case with the Hawke/Grey Warden decision in DAI.

 

I also love the idea of being able to kill squadmates so long as it isn't edgy. I wish it had been possible to kill Zaeed pre SM, I really think my Shep would have left him to die for trying to betray her had that been a thing.

[warlorejon]

Love interest dying would work.

[Original Mako]

One solution to your concern could be to have a smaller cast of characters. Less variables that way.

 

I don't think they should have a mission where a squad mate's survival depends on having done a previous "loyalty mission" for that squad mate. Unless time is a factor in the game and doing said missions is done at the expense of not doing other missions. The way it was, you wanted to do all the loyalty missions to earn XP, and if you were Blue/Red enough, nothing bad ever happened. Lame.

 

I did like that choosing the right specialist for the job (techie for the shaft, strong biotic for the barrier, good defence for the door) was important in preventing deaths  at the Collector Base though. I want more things like that. Requires you to know the strengths of your squad and assign them to appropriate tasks.

 

And for what it's worth, I liked how Thane's death was handled. He was classy 'til the end.

 

Virmine 2.0? No thanks. You should have been able to try to save both anyway.

 

Agree on leaving people behind - but I always felt Zaeed should have left YOU if you chose to save the workers.

[Scarlett]

Danger and probable deaths for squadmates, why not, if it's well done and have a real importance for the story, but only with the possibility to save them if you do the right things (like on ME2).

Gratuitous deaths just to give a trauma to the players...no.

Leaving people behind like Virmire... no. I didn't like Kaidan or Ashley, so it wasn't a big deal to me, but I don't agree with those kind of radical choices that bring nothing.

For Thane, the case is a little different, his story is written around his illness but you can see him during 2 games and he's so classy, really. It's well written, I just fell really sad for the femshep who romanced him. I wouldn't stand to lose my romance. Some decisions on  Bioware games are already difficult to pick so losing your romance in addition, no, it's just crual. Call me soft-hearted, I don't care, too much drama on a story kill the pleasure to play. Honestly, I would hate to see my favourite characters dying around me and have my hands tied ...

 

 

 

 

but when executed poorly end up just being monumental eye roll moments, as was the case with the Hawke/Grey Warden decision in DAI.

 

Spoiled. Too bad, I just met my Hawke on DAI.

This is what happen when you play games after everybody and spend time on a Bioware forum, I know lol

But I feel so depressed now I know that...

[Geth Supremacy]

Not like Anders....what was that?  There needs to be a curb stomp.

[wright1978]

Like OP i adored the suicide mission. I think the aspect of your game choices and tactical choices mattering is something i'd definitely like repeated.

The free for all regarding squaddie death might need paring back if it's the first game in a trilogy rather than a standalone entry.

 

As for Virmire i thought Virmire was a good idea and am glad they didn't create cheap save both option. I think they should certainly look at creating a similar situation. Ideally they'll shake it up keeping players on their toes.

 

 

The Thane ME3 situation could have been handled a lot better even with his death being unavoidable. So i wouldn't be opposed to such a concept being used again though it shouldn't have mixed signals about where the romance is headed or a sense of failing to allow reflection of grief.

[Hair Serious Business]

I will just say this, no special snowflakes!

 

If only one of my crew mates can be killed in here....I say that rest deserve same treatment as well. Meaning no Liara and Varric case, no Leliana who came back from dead cases especially, no Isabela case(meaning you are pretty much forced to side with her, because if you don't qunari lose their tome and Arishok was spared for no reason because he gets killed either way)!

 

Everyone is game to be dead! If my PC who is the BOSS in here can be killed by creepy kid, blasted Archdemon or ~trolalalala~ thanks Solas for that thing on my arm that will kill me....then so can my stupid slaves as well.

[Onewomanarmy]

^ Yeah exactly, everyone should be able to die. I like the idea of having to be able to choose who I want to stay on my team or not and yes even punish them for betrayal. 

[MichaelN7]

The "Choose One, the Other dies" adds instant replayability, but it has to be done "right", like in ME1.

(I personally want to save everyone, so while I don't like this idea, I get it.)

 

I thought Thane's outcome was handled beautifully.

I'm a MaleShep, so I don't know much about the Thane romance, but I do know that it's very clear that he doesn't have long to live, that a cure is not available, and that they've been searching for a long time.  It hammers home the fact that for all of Shepard's "greatness", they're still just one person.

I think it makes for good storytelling, the only thing that must happen in that regard is that it can't be left ambiguous.

If a squadmate has only so long to live, make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that their time is limited; explain that it is not something that can be cured/avoided.

If you tease the player with their possible survival and then the player finds that no matter what, they die, then no one wins in that scenario.

 

The Wrex/Zaaed factor is also cool.

It pulls double-duty as both character development and a "measuring stick" of your characters morality.

The only thing to watch out for (and ME1/ME2 handled this well) is that you don't suddenly hit the character with it.

To be clear, with Wrex, you hear about the genophage and how there are those searching for a cure, so you know that there is an issue there.

When you reach Virmire, that issue comes to a head.  It's shocking, but not in a "way out of left field" kind of way.

The *POW* factor comes from a "Why didn't I see this coming earlier?", not a "What the heck just happened?"

 

Taking the above a step further, having a squadmate betray you, not just disagree.

To start, it would be neat to have two possible betrayals, based on your morality.

If you're Paragon: "You don't have the strength to do what needs to be done!"

If you're Renegade: "You heartless bastard, I won't let you hurt anyone else!"

It pulls double-duty in that it serves as character development for you and the squadmate in question, and also makes for an excellent plot device/advancement.

A key factor is to let the tension build, and the sense of timing needs to fit.  If you consistently oppose or antagonize the squadmate, then it would make sense that the betrayal happens sooner, and their dialogue could reflect that.  A sense of disgust and certainty that they're right.

But if you try to at least include them in the decision process or talk to them after disagreeing with them on things, the betrayal could happen later or not at all, and if it does, their dialogue could express trepidation.

"I always knew you were weak."

"I knew I had a bad feeling about you."

VS

"I thought you had it in you, but I guess I was wrong."

"It didn't have to be this way."

It also adds player choice, because while narrative-purposes would likely grant that you defeat them, you could have a choice:

- Execution (Renegade player, self-explanatory, alienation of other squadmates and crew but much easier negotiation now that everyone knows what you do to people who cross you.)

- Imprisonment (always available, can lead to their death because they were caught escaping or some such.)

- Redemption (Paragon player, self-explanatory, the squadmate "sees the error of their ways" and sacrifices themselves to save the ship when it comes under attack.)

 

-------------

 

Put simply, if a squadmate dies, it shouldn't be COMPLETELY your decision.  Your choices in-game should have an influence on the outcome, but it should also be on the squadmate themselves.

When handled properly, it adds drama, narrative focus/advancement, and can act as a rallying cry:
"For *insert name here*, and all they stand for!"

[Zarro Khai]

It's a very difficult thing to pull off character deaths in a game where choices are suppose to matter. On one hand, the choices of the player need to have an impact - having squamates die from certain decisions you make is an effective way to do this but when they want to bring that character back for the next game, it suddenly becomes confusing hence the smaller screentimes for characters that survived the suicide mission in ME2.

 

I think the best way to go about it would be to pull the Ash/Kaidan method. They both can't be saved but the one that can be saved becomes a major character in the sequels, while the one that dies has all their dialog and screentime given to the survivor. 

 

Another way would be to have the squadmates of the first game never appear in the sequels at all after the first game, and if they survived they are merely acknowledged by other characters as being alive and doing some other stuff. This makes for a poor narrative, especially if some of the comps are romance-interest. So, this way would be extremely unpopular. 

 

The easiest method would be to have only certain followers able to die, while the rest will survive no matter what. This makes choices in the game have less impact. 

 

I do hope that the game will force you to sacrifice a squadmate no matter how you play it, like in ME 1. I always found it illogical that all companions could survive the event of DA and ME 2 . They face ridiculous odds so there has to be casualties. 

[Guanxii]

It's a standalone game so I don't see why BioWare shouldn't add in more squad-member death possibilities to increase the tension - we've seen just how grippingly effective missions can be when the possibility for death is palpably felt. So long as every death is avoidable I don't see a problem with it or why it would hurt the narrative rather than enhance it and make your experience more personal.

 

There should be numerous more organically arising squad-mate death possibilities on key missions on higher difficulties and it should be entirely down to your choice of roster, allocation of specialists and choices of approach at critical junctures using the suicide mission as inspiration but don't spell it out for the player telling them they need a tech specialist for this and that and a biotic for that or someone with leadership skills here, etc.

 

For example if the enemy on a given-mission was collector-like with giant staggering sync-kill bosses and you bring a vanguard with you or send them on an objective that's a recipe for disaster. If you must have a vanguard with you in a situation like that have them on your fire-team so you can medi-gel them when they run into trouble. Only let the player revive... second fire-teams don't have unity on higher difficulties so be damn careful when planning your approach.

 

There should be certain situation where different squadmate-class rosters thrive and others are doomed. E.g. take your vanguard with you if the enemy is more cerberus-like (mid-tier) with tactics which generally involve cqc/flanking to take the heat off your casters. 

 

In any situation where enemies have lots of shielding and automated defences engineers will be essential. But engineers like adepts are generally flimsy and tactically naive and need protection of soldiers, vanguards (tanks) or sniper infiltrators at all time. Make it essential that the player pair casters appropriately by making them less effective in isolation / fire-teams with low synergy.

 

If you might need somebody to do objectives (particularly tech) without support take an Infiltrator. Additionally if you take an infiltrator they could scout ahead and provide additional recon to help you better plan your approach and avoid casualties later on.

 

Have your soldier(s) be ideal candidates to lead second fire-teams to minimize risk of casualties and maximize chances of success. Have lots of potential for failure of secondary team objectives which not only lead to direct death possibilities but make further objectives harder.

 

Given the real possibility of squad-member death pile-up let the player re-start/try the mission at any point. If the player looses all but one squad-member why not let the player die in a cut-scene?

[KaiserShep]

I think that this sort of thing is best left to a major turning point in the game, perhaps the endgame itself. I don't think that we should have missions throughout the entire thing that determine the fates of our followers. But really, this depends on the story. If this is the start of a duology or trilogy with a carryover protagonist, I would much rather not have too much of the central cast be disposable. That will only make their writing suffer in later titles. 

[Original Mako]

There should be numerous more organically arising squad-mate death possibilities on key missions on higher difficulties and it should be entirely down to your choice of roster, allocation of specialists and choices of approach at critical junctures using the suicide mission as inspiration but don't spell it out for the player telling them they need a tech specialist for this and that and a biotic for that or someone with leadership skills here, etc.

 

^ Without some kind of heads up, it just becomes guess work (and later guide consulting). I think if you are going to have someone hack something, it should be a tech expert. In some sort of planning phase, you should know what is going on and that should influence your choice.

 

Even on Virmire, I think Kaiden says he is better suited at readying the bomb. Ultimately, it doesn't matter who you pick in that case, but it could have been made to matter.

 

And I said TRY to save both....not be able to save both. It would have been interesting if you could have split the squad at that moment.

 

Shep: OK! Tenticles-for-hair and Helmet-head, you rescue the bomb guy. Mandible-mouth, your're with me.

 

Then Liara and Tali would die with Kaiden. Got greedy Shep. Can't save everyone!

[Catastrophy]

Virmire treatment enable for all, not just Ashley.

[Obliviousmiss]

Violently.



Jk, fragile squadmate lives need to make a return in MEA. It's a big part of what made ME2 so immersive. My husband immediately started his 2nd playthrough after a suicide mission where he lost Miranda and Mordin. He was determined to save everyone!

[Sanunes]

If they want to have another Wrex/Zaeed, Virmire, or Suicide Mission I am all for it, but if a character has the chance to die I don't want to see them in the sequels for Mass Effect 3 proves that even with Kaiden/Ashley it hurts the future interactions with the characters because they have to plan for multiple characters filling the same roles.  To me that is why Liara also became the "BioWare's favorite" because she was the only squad member from the previous games that didn't have a mission where she could die.

[RoboArigatou]

What if they were just killed off like extras throughout the game? You get to know a character, understand their backstory, learn their personality. You love everyhting about them. You go on countless missions together, watch each others backs at all times. They become your favorite character. You get halfway through a romantic relationship with them. Then suddenly...

 

-BAM-

 

Swallowed by a man eating plant with exploring a planet. Oh no, you took to long to save them. Dead. Boom. Gone. Just like that. But you can't just give up... You run up to the plant, firing at it violently until your thermal clip overheats. After prying open the dead maneater, your lover's corpse flops out hilariously like a rag doll. You drop down on your knees by their body. With a last flicker of life, they pull you close and whisper:

 

"You did this to me."

 

As the words touch your ears, your heart drops. It drops so low it falls into your bowels and is digested. You die. The end.

 

Thank you.

[Revan Reborn]

While I liked the fact that any squadmate could die in ME2, it was handled poorly. The only way anyone would actually die was if you didn't do their loyalty mission or you didn't fully upgrade the Normandy. Otherwise, all of the companions made it to the Collector base without a hitch. Considering I like to be a completionist in these games, that's a horrible way to handle a companion's death when I would have to choose to not complete aspects of the game.

 

Also, on a side note, how companion deaths were handled in ME2 negatively affected their presence in ME3. If you recall, almost none of the companions in ME2 had any meaningful role in ME3 (besides Garrus and Tali who were BioWare's favorites). This was because BioWare didn't know if players kept certain companions alive or not, so most of these companions were relegated to minor roles with barely any presence in ME3. If there were to be a scenario in which any companion could die again, I'd probably be in favor of it happening at the end of the trilogy rather than the middle where it renders many companions useless because of player choice.

 

At the same time, deaths being entirely out of your control isn't exactly preferable either. I think the best way to make companion deaths work is if it's tied to the main story. For example, parts of your crew - regardless of how you lead - will not be happy with the decisions you are making. This can eventually build into a climax where you are either forced to kill them, or risk them trying to take over your crew. Of course, the other risk that BioWare would need to account for is not decreasing noticeably the amount of companions players have at their disposal.

 

I'll be honest though. I typically always used the same two companions over and over and largely ignored the rest in terms of combat. Besides being conversation pieces, most of the other companions never had much of a role in my playthrough. For my purposes, I could see those companions being expendable and it could lead to some interesting storytelling. The problem is that if any companion is capable of dying, it leads to the ME2 issue of BioWare having to account for everyone. Whereas they could take the ME1 Wrex route and just have two companions, perhaps, who value two different styles of leadership and how you lead will determine if they betray you or not.

 

It's a difficult system and not easy to balance. I doubt BioWare likes killing off companions, especially in a trilogy format, as it can undermine character development severely. Of course, there will always be new companions, so it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons.

[Master Warder Z_]

My idea of doing this probably wouldn't be very popular but I'd do it randomly. I'd generate variables for a random number generator to basically code in the sequence for a few specific missions. So basically it would all be up to chance, you can improve these odds by doing specific things before hand, to add variables into your favor but you can also do things that will decrease success chance. Ultimately the mission can still succeed despite these deaths so a total fail state isn't required. So for example lets say you can your squad are holding the line against a incoming hostile force, you are all pinned down and awaiting evac in cover-but the enemy has you heavily outnumbered and is attempting to flank you. Let's say if you fail this roll the squadmate on the flank they are trying to breach will have a lesser chance of actually surviving the push and leaving you to contend with a new front to fight on.

 

Obviously these wouldn't be able to be mitigated by medi-gel as the person would suffer fatal injury before you can reach them and would in all likelihood die. Not to say there couldn't be some tear jerking post battle scene as you walk off a desolate battlefield with one comrade short then you went in with, I think it would cement the whole random chance of the battlefield. No one is invincible, for example let's say you have a Krogan guarding your left flank, the enemy advances with flamethrowers and basically torches the section of the bunker he was within before he can stop their advance, and since they managed to get past him to fight you, you have to write the character off as dead.

 

This would never be feasible really in a game setting due to sheer unpopularity, but to me was the best thing about table top RPG's, you can get saving rolls, you can increase your chance of surviving even fatal attacks on the party, but at the end of the day? You are ruled by luck of the dice, same for war in real life.

[J. Finley]

A lot of awesome ideas here, thanks guys! And for what it's worth I'm with you guys on Thane, he was destined to die and I think they handled him well. I just recall a lot of people calling out for a cure back in the day.

[Revan Reborn]

My idea of doing this probably wouldn't be very popular but I'd do it randomly. I'd generate variables for a random number generator to basically code in the sequence for a few specific missions. So basically it would all be up to chance, you can improve these odds by doing specific things before hand, to add variables into your favor but you can also do things that will decrease success chance. Ultimately the mission can still succeed despite these deaths so a total fail state isn't required. So for example lets say you can your squad are holding the line against a incoming hostile force, you are all pinned down and awaiting evac in cover-but the enemy has you heavily outnumbered and is attempting to flank you. Let's say if you fail this roll the squadmate on the flank they are trying to breach will have a lesser chance of actually surviving the push and leaving you to contend with a new front to fight on.

 

Obviously these wouldn't be able to be mitigated by medi-gel as the person would suffer fatal injury before you can reach them and would in all likelihood die. Not to say there couldn't be some tear jerking post battle scene as you walk off a desolate battlefield with one comrade short then you went in with, I think it would cement the whole random chance of the battlefield. No one is invincible, for example let's say you have a Krogan guarding your left flank, the enemy advances with flamethrowers and basically torches the section of the bunker he was within before he can stop their advance, and since they managed to get past him to fight you, you have to write the character off as dead.

 

This would never be feasible really in a game setting due to sheer unpopularity, but to me was the best thing about table top RPG's, you can get saving rolls, you can increase your chance of surviving even fatal attacks on the party, but at the end of the day? You are ruled by luck of the dice, same for war in real life.

Never going to happen. It would be a bigger controversy than the ME3 ending if somebody's love interest was randomly killed because of "bad luck." The inherent problem with wanting to kill companions is the fact that they are the most important aspect of a BioWare game. Most folks, I imagine, probably talk to all of them and get to know every single one. That's not to say they like all of them, but I don't believe many would want the chance of some of their favorites dying just because "war is hell."

 

This kind of system might make more sense in a game where companions aren't as crucial and aren't nearly as developed as they are in a BioWare game. But again, as was the issue with ME2, when you make companion deaths optional it makes them worthless later in the trilogy. BioWare doesn't know which companions are alive in dead in everybody's personal world state, so they are forced to relegate all those companions to minor roles because they don't have the money to invest in giving them larger roles when they could be dead for many. That is, of course, unless BioWare wants to retcon deaths, like Leliana in DAO. That, however, isn't popular either.

 

Death is a tricky thing when BioWare invests a lot of their resources into companion development. It might be more feasible to just kill off crew members than actual companions.

[Master Warder Z_]

Never going to happen.

 

Didn't I say that?

 

I think I did.

[UpUpAway]

I think they did pretty well in the Mass Effect trilogy balancing "important" deaths with largely inconsequential ones (e.g. Toombs, Fist, Blake, Kirrahe, Balak in ME1)... and then using of those inconsequential ones in ME2 and ME3 in ways where you'd notice, but it didn't make or break the game.  I had no issue with the Virmire decision other than, if Shep had tried to romance the individual they eventually sacrificed, there was no emotional acknowledgment by the remaining crew as to the depth of loss that Shep should have been feeling.  In ME3, such a traumatic loss (i.e. the shooting of a previously romanced Ashley and the death of a romanced Miranda) was handled much better, although it could have been handled even better still if it re-opened the other romance options in the game.  The weakness of not being able to open a new romance post death was particularly notable for Femsheps - who potentially could have lost both romantic partners during a single event (i.e. by having to shoot a previously romanced Kaidan and Thane dying at the hands of Kai Leng).  Additionally, a continued romance with Jacob was never offered as an option regardless; whereas BroShep could rekindle relationships with any of his previous LIs.  It would have been a much better story if Garrus could have stepped in to console Femshep after the Citadel coup and eventually become her new romantic partner by the end of the game even if he wasn't romanced in ME2 (and I think BroShep should have also had an option of starting a new relationship with Tali even if they didn't have one with her in ME2).

 

As for unromanced characters in ME2 who may or may not have died, I think the biggest issue was that there were simply too many of them and they still wanted to add a few new characters in ME3.  Even though some of the new characters could be LIs, most of them just felt incomplete to me and their deaths just didn't have the same emotional impact as the death of a character from a previous game (e.g. Steve). 

 

I hope they treat romance a little differently, enabling any gender PC to romance any squadmate regardless of gender (programming to the squadmate to respond to or reject advances made by either gender of Shepard as circumstances in the game might deem appropriate).  As a result, there should be a circumstance for each of them similar to Miranda's or the Virmire Survivor's where doing the right things can save the character but doing something wrong (or intentionally omitting something once it's known what the factor are) can result in the death of that character... allowing the PC to experience appropriate grief cogent to whatever relationship the PC had with that character.