238 réponses à ce sujet

[Obliviousmiss]

I would like it if they could die but it shouldn't be forced or absolute. They should be able to die if I make certain choices.

 

 

Exactly what I was going to say. 

[Killroy]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Squad mates/LIs allowed to die? That's a waste of the Word Budget don't you think? All that scripted and voiced dialogue (actor was paid) mostly for naught? Y

 

That is an exceedingly silly, illogical way to look at it. You might as well say the same thing about villains.

"You spent all this time and money designing, writing and developing this villain just to kill him off at the end? What a waste."

If the character serves a function within the game and their life and death can mean something to the player then how the hell is it a waste?

[Gothfather]

That is an exceedingly silly, illogical way to look at it. You might as well say the same thing about villains.

"You spent all this time and money designing, writing and developing this villain just to kill him off at the end? What a waste."

If the character serves a function within the game and their life and death can mean something to the player then how the hell is it a waste?

 

I think the issue is when you create all these proposed game play mechanics that might result in death or if you leave their death up to player choice. When the death isn't a planned event within the narrative but a possible event you have to invest a lot of the word budget to a character that could be dead in most/some playthroughs. Better to use that budget on character that will die or will live period not on the this character that might die.

 

This is why I am against player choice on death and let there be a path to total deathless success. Combat is bloody and it is expensive and we the player should not think that if I am smart enough, skilled enough or just so damn awesome enough I can navigate the game with no casualties. We should lose people important to us because war/combat isn't consequence free. Also casualties don't have to result in death but can result in them being OUT of the squad.

 

I'm okay with a virmire choice in principle but this should be the exception not the rule. Most deaths should be out of the hands of the player. The suicide mission was crap because all you have to do is pay attention on your first mission and the second run you know no one will die again unless you choose to make the idiot move because you just have to connect the dots to loyal and don't send people unskilled to do a job with a specific skill set. It's not rocket science and thus renders the suicide a pathetic cakewalk.

[Jedi Comedian]

I think the issue is when you create all these proposed game play mechanics that might result in death or if you leave their death up to player choice. When the death isn't a planned event within the narrative but a possible event you have to invest a lot of the word budget to a character that could be dead in most/some playthroughs. Better to use that budget on character that will die or will live period not on the this character that might die.

This is why I am against player choice on death and let there be a path to total deathless success. Combat is bloody and it is expensive and we the player should not think that if I am smart enough, skilled enough or just so damn awesome enough I can navigate the game with no casualties. We should lose people important to us because war/combat and combat isn't consequence free. Also casualties don't have to result in death but can result in them being OUT of the squad.

I'm okay with a virmire choice in principle but this should be the exception not the rule. Most deaths should be out of the hands of the player. The suicide mission was crap because all you have to do is play attention on your first mission and the second run you know no one will die again unless to choose to make the idiot move because you just have to connect the dots to loyal and don't send people unskilled to do a job with a specific skill set. It's not rocket science and thus renders the suicide a pathetic cakewalk.

What if there was a limited number of Loyalty Missions?

[mopotter]

I'm not a big fan of Scripted deaths.  I like making decisions and then having results that next time I play can be changed.  I like replaying games i care about over and over and over.  Scripted deaths reduce the fun.   

 

The first time I had to choose leaving  Kaidan or Ash behind was super hard and took quite a long time to make that decision because I actually like both characters.  But because it was my decision I knew next time I could make a different choice and play it out a little differently, I even romanced them a few times and then left them there because it was the right thing to do and Shepard was heartbroken.  To be perfect however, I would have loved a 3rd choice where both could have been saved under specific circumstances so that wold have given me another game option.  

 

I liked having the option of killing Wrex, even did it a couple of times; or not having Garrus or Wrex join my team.  I like choices, did I mention that?      One of the things I loved about ME2 were the many many choices I could make and just watch what happened.  Everyone survived once maybe twice but usually I made decisions based on qualifications and it was great fun.

 

I didn't mind Thane dying in ME3, I was prepared for that in ME2 with his illness and I enjoyed the romance with him, though the hospital scene if you romanced him could have been so much better, actually all of the ME2 romances in 3 could have been better, but back to topic.

 

I want my choices to make a difference each time I play.  DAO one of my warden died killing the arch demon; in another one Loghain died killing it and in another one everyone lived and the options go on and on.   Even in ME3 one of my Shepards died because of decisions I made, but another one lived and put up the plaque for Anderson because of decisions I made. (thank you Mod people)   

 

I would prefer not to have scripted deaths that happen in every game.

 

This is a video game.  Not real life.  I've lived life, most of us do, I don't need it force fed to me in a video game.   

[mopotter]

Sure. The only one I had a problem with was the first time in ME2 when I didn't have enough Paragon/Renegade points to solve the Jack/Miranda conflict in a good way and one of them died in de Suicide Mission. It should be an immediate consequence of something, not a cumulative of vagueness.

I actually enjoyed these.  Tali/Legion and Jack/Miranda.  I had some Shepards who did get everyone working together and some who didn't.  

 

One of my favorite play throughs, and the one that changed the way I thought of Jack, was when Jack died protecting Miranda after I supported Miranda in their fight.  If I hadn't had this happen, not sure I would have wanted to know more about Jack.  

 

But the 1st time I played ME2 I forgot where I put Legion so he wasn't even in the last mission.  

[mopotter]

They should make you have to choose between your romance and yourself dying, without some cheapskate third "bang Morrigan to get away without issue" card.

And this is why I won't buy the game until it's out.  This would be a game I wouldn't bother buying or playing.   

 

Why would I want to play a game more than once if every time I play either I die or my significant other dies? No reason and I wouldn't.  I'm sure there are people who like watching their character die and if there are options, they can do that to their hearts content.

 

My warden did died so Alistair could live.  In another game Alistair died so my warden could live, in another game Loghain died, my elf ran off with Zev and Alistair was king, in another game, yes Alistair crawled up that stupid bed and "banged" Morrigan and my warden became Queen or my elf mage and Alistair are re-building the wardens; In another game …...I could go on and on but this is why I don't want deaths forced on me.  

[Suketchi]

If you don't like unavoidable deaths you're not gonna like real life much guys. It happens to everyone.

 

Actually, I think I can safely say that I don't like life much after losing people to unavoidable death lol

 

As far as games go, unavoidable death isn't so bad as long as it's meaningful, or ends a character's arc in a way that does them justice. I prefer it when a character's death is the consequence of player choices though (especially if the consequences of those choices aren't made apparent until further down the road). It gives your decisions weight, and gets you emotionally involved.

 

In the end, I'd say I could handle a squadmate dying as long as their story is handled well.

[SKAR]

Even though it hinged on Thane becoming a complete idiot? "I know, I'll run at the man with a sword even though I have the advantage of range. Hurr!"

He was gonna die anyway. Besides he was beating kai's @$$. If they have another antagonist like him then they need to use him or her to their full potential.

[ZipZap2000]

Actually, I think I can safely say that I don't like life much after losing people to unavoidable death lol.

Oblivion is the fate of all things young one.

But let us not grieve, instead let us allow ourselves to take solace in the prophecy foretold to us in the book of Genophage. The one that would come to pass in the book of Justicars chapter 3 verse 19 and I quote:



I am a biotic god!

Fear me lesser creatures!

For I am biotics made flesh!



In these words we see hope, in the least likeliest of places.

And so it was The Shepard braved death, to bring death to Wasea, that even the justicar Samara was forced to yield to the word his prophecy. That death may be no more.

So he should go.

[rapscallioness]

I'm totally good with scripted squaddie/important npc kill offs. Absolutely, yes. (I say that now until they kill off my LI, right? What a hypocrite I am ). But yeah. Or as someone said important npc scripted death.

 

But it can't be stupid and forced. If it is scripted death at least they will have the opportunity to make it really well...and something you don't see coming until it gets there.

 

Just because your character supposedly has choice in game does not mean they run everything. Or that your choices stand for all time. Things just don't work like that. You have your choices and ideas about things, but so do others.

 

For example, let's say your character decides to make an alliance with some alien group. Either that or you decide you can't stand them and don't want to ally with them. Your squaddie/importantnpc reacts to that choice by either not liking the new alien group and tries to confront them about some "things"--then end up getting themselves killed. Or you hate this alien group in question and the npc goes off to try and "build bridges" because they really believe, yada, yada, yada...and they get themselves killed. Either way, they're dead.

 

However they do it, I like the idea because it makes things more tension filled knowing that one of these characters could actually perma death on you.

 

It has to be good, though. Smart. I think it's okay to make the player occasionally feel powerless. Not too much because then it becomes frustrating. But you can't just throw rose petals at the player every time they take a dump, either.

 

For technical and gameplay reasons it might be more doable if it's an important npc that may die instead of a squaddie.

 

Anybody ever play that TellTale Game of Thrones? I played it a few months back. I really enjoyed it much more than I thought I would-I never even watched the tv show. But see the thing is..omg. Some things happened in that game that made me realize that they are not playing around with me. Some of the major stuff happened fairly early in the game, and it colored my entire perception of the rest of the game. It even affected some of my choices because I knew I wasn't Safe. Nobody was safe.  Or that's how it made me feel at least.

 

I think they went a little overboard with making the player/pc feel powerless--by the end I was just kind of frustrated with it all, but still a very good game.

 

It was a glorious tension, though. Everything had so much more weight precisely because you didn't feel safe. I would like that kind of emotional weight in the next BW games. It raises the stakes. And it's not about actually killing off a bunch of npc's. It's about giving me the Feeling that things are not safe--and sometimes that means an unexpected scripted death.

 

But then you better let me have my triumph in the end. Deliver wrath with the hammer of justice. Do not rob me of that. At the end of a stand alone, or a trilogy. At the end of the story. Don't tickle the putay, get it all worked up, and then just bail. All this beautiful tension built up towards the metaphorical "Great Gaming 'Gasm" , and then you jump ship? No.

 

So, I vote Yea. Give us a tough time through the game. Don;t make it easy. Don;t make it safe. Balance it, though, with some needed levity and/or small wins, but when we get to the end let me have my triumph.

[Quarian Master Race]

Only if its scripted or in the last installment of the story arc. Characters that can just randomly die can't remain plot relevant, and this makes it more likely that we'll end up playing Space Jesus among a galaxy full of incompetent retards, which I hate.

There were literally 3 (maybe 4, if you consider Lazarus) plot relevant squadmates in the entire ME trilogy, and for two of them (Mordin, Tali) it was only for one game. Almost everyone should serve a purpose in driving the narrative, instead of being pointless, replaceable banter generators that are only around to hero worship the all important PC.

[Battlebloodmage]

No, Kaidan and Ashley lost their personality and are pretty much the same person with the same exact storyline in ME3, almost all the dead characters get replaced by an understudy. There is no point if they would just replace the character with a stand in. There is no real purpose if they're just gonna still be presented but just with a different color or model. 

[Pee Jae]

Here's a novel idea: How about we go against the grimdark and have nobody die in this one?

 

Except, ya know, all the mooks we're shooting at. 

[KaiserShep]

No, Kaidan and Ashley lost their personality and are pretty much the same person with the same exact storyline in ME3, almost all the dead characters get replaced by an understudy. There is no point if they would just replace the character with a stand in. There is no real purpose if they're just gonna still be presented but just with a different color or model. 

 

 

Eh, I thought there were some pretty decent substitutes. Padok Wiks is very distinctive from Mordin, Wreav is a huge departure from Wrex, and while Geth VI does use a similar model to Legion, its dialogue is also much different. I don't really remember the krogan that takes Grunt's place, but I doubt he's anything like our tank baby. 

[Lady Artifice]

Here's a novel idea: How about we go against the grimdark and have nobody die in this one?

 

Except, ya know, all the mooks we're shooting at. 

 

I don't think character death in itself qualifies as grimdark. That seems like an overly liberal application of the term. 

 

Grimdark sort of implies an element of excess for it's own sake. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Here's a novel idea: How about we go against the grimdark and have nobody die in this one?

 

Except, ya know, all the mooks we're shooting at. 

I'd still love if there was say an ammo type that didn't kill enemies but just incapacitates them, and maybe the game react to that. 

[Pee Jae]

I don't think character death in itself qualifies as grimdark. That seems like an overly liberal application of the term. 

 

Grimdark sort of implies an element of excess for it's own sake. 

 

Okay, maybe I am exaggerating a bit, but it seems like every AAA title these days has to have some grim things happen to make the story "dark." Including the deaths of major characters. Gravitas, weight, drama... oh, my tragedy. I know,  conflict = story. But, sometimes, I'd like to see the opposite approach.

 

I'd still love if there was say an ammo type that didn't kill enemies but just incapacitates them, and maybe the game react to that. 

 

That's definitely interesting. I don't know how an engine would handle it, though. I mean typically with bodies disappearing for memory's sake.

[Gileadan]

I'd still love if there was say an ammo type that didn't kill enemies but just incapacitates them, and maybe the game react to that. 

The original Deus Ex let you play pretty much the entire game without killing anyone if you stuck to sleep darts and gas grenades. I remember doing the game's first mission without killing anyone, and upon returning to HQ the UNATCO troops made fun of me for it. "Well, it isn't Mahatma Gandhi himself..."

If, on the other hand, you left a lot of dead bodies behind, they'd approve of it and say something like "You really showed them, huh? You will be working with Anna Navarre next... she's going to like your style."   Good times.

 

That's definitely interesting. I don't know how an engine would handle it, though. I mean typically with bodies disappearing for memory's sake.

The above mentioned Deus Ex left every body around, whether unconscious or dead. And said bodies alerted enemies if they found them, so dragging them off was important.

[themikefest]

 I don't really remember the krogan that takes Grunt's place, but I doubt he's anything like our tank baby. 

I like Dagg. Too bad he dies.

[straykat]

The original Deus Ex let you play pretty much the entire game without killing anyone if you stuck to sleep darts and gas grenades. I remember doing the game's first mission without killing anyone, and upon returning to HQ the UNATCO troops made fun of me for it. "Well, it isn't Mahatma Gandhi himself..."

 

That's hilarious.. I didn't do that/don't remember that line.

 

I don't remember what I did, but I'm pretty sure I steamrolled through and played it like a shooter.

[Mcfly616]

Duh

[Obliviousmiss]

Here's a novel idea: How about we go against the grimdark and have nobody die in this one?

 

Except, ya know, all the mooks we're shooting at. 

 

[themikefest]

Depemding on the playthrough only one squadmate can die. Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire. For that to happen, control or synthesis is chosen

 

In ME1 don't recruit Wrex.

 

In ME2, don't recruit Thane and don't activate the geth. Delete Maelon's data during Mordin's loyalty mission

 

In ME3 all squadmates will survive, even Mordin if reputation is high enough and the right dialogue is chosen.

 

If destroy is chosen, do the same as above except the edibot is destroyed

[Hammerstorm]

Why should my squadmates die? I am The Protagonist, he who can defeat all my enemies and save all my friends, Fear me!!!