238 réponses à ce sujet

[Gago]

Yea but for legit reason/bad choice not just because. 

[Bfler]

There can be no triumph without loss. 

No victory without suffering.

No freedom without sacrifice.

[The Night Haunter]

I'd prefer they not die, or at least limit it to as few as possible and have it be optional. Having too many characters who can die leads to issues further in the story when you have to account for characters either being alive or dead.

And having no characters die makes the story bland. There is a reason A Song of Ice and Fire is so popular, it is because for the past 50 years the majority of science fiction and fantasy settings have been all happy endings and everyone gets out alive. That is incredibly boring. The choice between Kaiden and Ashley on Virmire is interesting (would have been more interesting with better characters), the chance that you can lose Wrex without gaining his loyalty, Mordin's death in ME3 was super meaningful.

I don't want to play a fairy tale, I want to play an interesting story.

 

That said the show GoT goes over board and just kills willy nilly which is just as bad, the books do a far more reasonable job of it.

[Asdrubael Vect]

always yes for any Bioware game, but mostly want that their deaths would be connected with our doing in game

 

do not want any forced(especially for no reason) characters what would be with us no matter what even if we hate them

[Jedi Comedian]

There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

Truer words were never spoken.
Unfortunately.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And having no characters die makes the story bland. There is a reason A Song of Ice and Fire is so popular, it is because for the past 50 years the majority of science fiction and fantasy settings have been all happy endings and everyone gets out alive. That is incredibly boring. The choice between Kaiden and Ashley on Virmire is interesting (would have been more interesting with better characters), the chance that you can lose Wrex without gaining his loyalty, Mordin's death in ME3 was super meaningful.

I don't want to play a fairy tale, I want to play an interesting story.

 

That said the show GoT goes over board and just kills willy nilly which is just as bad, the books do a far more reasonable job of it.

I've played games where none of the companions die, Bioware games included, and they weren't bland but incredibly interesting, more so than many that have what you say makes good stories. 

 

The Virmire choice was objectively stupid since everyone involved was handed the Idiot Ball for the sake of "drama". 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

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.

 

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.

Deus Ex is one of my favorite roleplaying franchises because of this. 

[capn233]

If there is a sufficient enough plot reason for it, I am okay with it.

 

Probably should keep the "knocked out" mechanic for the typical combat portions though.

[Felya87]

And having no characters die makes the story bland. There is a reason A Song of Ice and Fire is so popular, it is because for the past 50 years the majority of science fiction and fantasy settings have been all happy endings and everyone gets out alive. That is incredibly boring. The choice between Kaiden and Ashley on Virmire is interesting (would have been more interesting with better characters), the chance that you can lose Wrex without gaining his loyalty, Mordin's death in ME3 was super meaningful.

I don't want to play a fairy tale, I want to play an interesting story.

 

That said the show GoT goes over board and just kills willy nilly which is just as bad, the books do a far more reasonable job of it.

 

I really don't understand why GoT is so famous. The books are incredibly boring, I've stopped after a few volumes. Didn't even tryed the tv serie.

 

Is just fashionable now killing characters, few years ago killing characters was a well done thing, was something plot relevant, and it wasn't in vain, just to force the receiver of the story to be sad and shocked. It's an overused thrope now.

And is nothing GoT did of new. I've grow up with cartoons that were twice as bloody as Martin's books, so the many death were nothing that I found in any way a novelty.

Plus, I have real life to look to find the impotence in front of death. I've had lots of death in my family in the last years, plus family friends.

 

For some may seem strange, but I play videogames to have fun. I have no fun when I can't have some hope at least while I play. I like to have the chance to have a more lighthearted run. Conflicts, revelations, sad moments, plot point don't need characters die no matter what.

 

I found myself cry like a baby in Doctor Who, and basically it never happen that a main character die in that show. There are different ways to give shock and feels without the boring forced death, usually even pointless for the plot.

[frylock23]

I am fine with the idea of character death so long as the story is done such that whatever key things need to be done in the plot by said character are not things that have to be done by that character such that we get bland placeholders later on.

 

If Companion A dies, then either Companion B or C should be able to carry out the necessary plot elements or the story should be branched in such a way that those plot elements lead to conclusions that follow from lack of Companion A. No more inserting Placeholder A to play what would have been Companion A's role.

 

They had the first contingency in place with Ash/Kaidan to a certain extent although each functioned basically as a placeholder for the other and they used the latter contingency to some extent with Tali and the whole Quarian/Geth War with some options not being available if you didn't have Tali around and have her around in the proper capacity.

 

But for most of the rest of the ME2 cast, they just failed on the job.

[LinksOcarina]

And see how much flak BW got from that narrative choice in DAI. If BW did something like TW2 they would unleash Armageddon here. I think.

 

That is true...

 

And kind of sad.

[Dean_the_Young]

I really don't understand why GoT is so famous. The books are incredibly boring, I've stopped after a few volumes. Didn't even tryed the tv serie.

 

Is just fashionable now killing characters, few years ago killing characters was a well done thing, was something plot relevant, and it wasn't in vain, just to force the receiver of the story to be sad and shocked. It's an overused thrope now.

And is nothing GoT did of new. I've grow up with cartoons that were twice as bloody as Martin's books, so the many death were nothing that I found in any way a novelty.

Plus, I have real life to look to find the impotence in front of death. I've had lots of death in my family in the last years, plus family friends.

 

For some may seem strange, but I play videogames to have fun. I have no fun when I can't have some hope at least while I play. I like to have the chance to have a more lighthearted run. Conflicts, revelations, sad moments, plot point don't need characters die no matter what.

 

I found myself cry like a baby in Doctor Who, and basically it never happen that a main character die in that show. There are different ways to give shock and feels without the boring forced death, usually even pointless for the plot.

If it was just about killing characters or impotence in front of death, it wouldn't be novel, but it's not.

 

It's a lot of different element, most of which is the intertwined complexity. There are huge planned networks that are gradually developed and evolved. There's regular subversion of expected tropes, including the treatment of children and other social taboos such as incest. There's a wide variety of memorable characters with truly vile people and well developed antagonists and regular use of that most rare device of all, actual character development with gradual progression. It's a steady transition of casts, with uncertainty of which characters will survive and which will move out of the limelight for what reasons, that keeps a sense of suspense for some and allows the surprise removal of others. It's well-conceived and often surprising plot-twists that frequently defy or subvert common tropes or expectations in the initial read-through. It's a lack of preachyness, where morality is neither sacrosant or pointless as morality alone is not sufficient but a lack of basic human decency can spark disaster for cynical realists and clever elites. It's the creation and establishment of significant world building, not all at once via some narrative dump but progressively through inference, contradictory sources, and demonstration. It's the use of themes and symbols, encouraging and defing them, so that even if it's not clear what the plan is it's clear there's a remarkably well-developed design behind events. It's a rare setting where magic is both potent and limited, capable of decisive things but no more important than the need for allies, armies, and more basic necessities. It's a setting in which there is a constant sense of genuine and looming danger as Winter is coming, and despite all the petty in-fighting a steadily progressing menace from the north is growing.

 

 

It is, basically, a lot of things that are not only uncommon in and of themselves, but even rarer together.

[Alex_Dur4and]

Yay! Definitely YAY!!! Something complex like the Ashley/Kaiden choice or your least loyal squad mate betrays you (boss fight) or he/she dies unless he/she becomes your love interest (or vice versa)

[SKAR]

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

gotta win some and lose some.

[Lee80]

I dislike characters optionally dying as these games focus so heavily on creating a world state, and what effects your choices have on the next game.  It will lead to character either not appearing at all in the sequel or being so watered down that they might as well not have been in the game.  If this is going to be another trilogy I suggest keeping the core team members alive till the final part, then throw in a death or a few if one must.  

 

I am agreeing with the others though in the fact that death is not a particularly interesting plot device for me.  There are loads of more interesting ways to cause emotional and dare I say even positive experiences in games.  

[frylock23]

I dislike characters optionally dying as these games focus so heavily on creating a world state, and what effects your choices have on the next game.  It will lead to character either not appearing at all in the sequel or being so watered down that they might as well not have been in the game.  If this is going to be another trilogy I suggest keeping the core team members alive till the final part, then throw in a death or a few if one must.  

 

I am agreeing with the others though in the fact that death is not a particularly interesting plot device for me.  There are loads of more interesting ways to cause emotional and dare I say even positive experiences in games.  

 

Death is all right when it's done right. I am thinking about Wash in Serenity as an obvious example of death used to great effect. It came completely out of left field and suddenly put the entire ending on the footing of no one being sacred anymore, so everything that followed was that tiny bit more dangerous.

[Furisco]

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

I don't like a candy, coated, sissy boy ride for a game. Give me death destruction heartache and pain intertwined with it's spiritual opposites, to build us up to an emotional crescendo; that shakes us to our very foundations and causes us to question who we are.

It reminds me I'm alive.......

Emotional Krogan is the best Krogan.

 

On topic, i want scripted deaths if they are well done since they can give us emotional moments and another reason to fight. I didn't mind Thane dying, but the way he died with the entire squad static while he got a sword through his body was dumb.

[Sartoz]

always yes for any Bioware game, but mostly want that their deaths would be connected with our doing in game

 

do not want any forced(especially for no reason) characters what would be with us no matter what even if we hate them

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

 

Agreed.

Personally, a forced live/die binary choice is a weak story arc/plot (ie: Virmir's Ashley/Kaidan choice). Perhaps a better mechanism is presenting the Pathfinder with combat situations that need certain "hold the line" choices and death is a random event for one of the two Fire Team members.  In other words, remove the actual decision from the Pathfinder. Even better is to stretch the "death" over two-three missions in the early game.

[The Night Haunter]

I've played games where none of the companions die, Bioware games included, and they weren't bland but incredibly interesting, more so than many that have what you say makes good stories. 

 

The Virmire choice was objectively stupid since everyone involved was handed the Idiot Ball for the sake of "drama". 

 

 

I really don't understand why GoT is so famous. The books are incredibly boring, I've stopped after a few volumes. Didn't even tryed the tv serie.

 

Is just fashionable now killing characters, few years ago killing characters was a well done thing, was something plot relevant, and it wasn't in vain, just to force the receiver of the story to be sad and shocked. It's an overused thrope now.

And is nothing GoT did of new. I've grow up with cartoons that were twice as bloody as Martin's books, so the many death were nothing that I found in any way a novelty.

Plus, I have real life to look to find the impotence in front of death. I've had lots of death in my family in the last years, plus family friends.

 

For some may seem strange, but I play videogames to have fun. I have no fun when I can't have some hope at least while I play. I like to have the chance to have a more lighthearted run. Conflicts, revelations, sad moments, plot point don't need characters die no matter what.

 

I found myself cry like a baby in Doctor Who, and basically it never happen that a main character die in that show. There are different ways to give shock and feels without the boring forced death, usually even pointless for the plot.

My main thing is that Shepard and Co are involved in about 500 fire fights by the time ME3 is done. What are the chances every enemy you face is so crappy at their job that everyone lives through the entire game? Pretty much zero, yet no companion is killed in normal combat because that would be bad game design (yes I realize this was in BG/BG2, and yes I stand by it being a bad design choice by today's standards). So how do we reconcile this? We give consequences to other actions. On Virmire no-one was handed a stupid ball, there was a nuke, it needed to be protected for the several minutes it took for the Normandy to get out of range. If they set it on a timer you don't think the Geth could hack it? Ditto for a remote-det. So someone had to stay behind and ensure the bomb goes off.

 

I play video games to have fun too, it is no fun when you know, without a doubt that the hero will win and no consequences will be involved. KotOR is a rare gem that someone is awesome despite no main characters dieing. I rarely consider much high fantasy to be good any more, I used to love Raymond Fiest's Magician series', but now it all seems rather pointless. Plot armor comes down to protect every interesting character and you know what will happen before it does. Terry Brooks novels are good because there are consequences to actions, and no-one is immortal. Glen Cook's novels are also great, they explore more mature themes than High Fantasy, people die, sometimes senselessly, it is as real as a fake world can get.

 

I am not saying Bioware should allow random deaths, nor that characters should die just for the sake of dieing. I am saying that there should be times when you can't save everyone. There should be times people die if you make poor choices, and there should be times people die even if you make the right choice (not necessarily companions, but interesting and important characters).

[SKAR]

The ash/kaidenkaiden situation. We chose one of the two. I believe if another situation presented itself there could be a way to save both squadmates. I'm sure bioware is going to put more freedom in our choices this time around. By letting us not save ash and kaiden they sort of took away a key choice. Mass Effect is all about choices right? Why couldn't there be a third option? For plot? If one was to die it should have been because they weren't loyal or whatever. Same goes for thane. Miranda is a good example about our actions dictating her life or death at the hands of kai leng. The suicide mission is another. By them(bioware) killing someone automatically instead of by players choice is dumb to me. It's an RPG. We should have freedom in ALL of the choices we make. The only time something happens automatically without our interference is when a key event needs to be mentioned in a comic or book. I felt like a d¡#$ because I wanted to sleep with Ashley and let kaiden die but he was a good guy. Couldn't even replace him with someone cooler. Kaiden was a good guy but I would have loved to see a love triangle between shep, kaiden, and ash in 2. Shepard would have went off.

[SKAR]

If there is a sufficient enough plot reason for it, I am okay with it.

Probably should keep the "knocked out" mechanic for the typical combat portions though.

Sure that works as well.

[Addictress]

they NEED to DIE!

 

Squadmate deaths are the greatest parts I missed from the previous games! Optional ones, of course. Not scripted ones that you can't avoid. I like the ones which hinge on certain decisions you made three saves ago, then you go back to three saves ago and savor a whole new branch of the story, which makes you reconsider YOUR RPG LIFE

 

Those are what I live for.

 

And then they can live.

[Prince Enigmatic]

If it was just about killing characters or impotence in front of death, it wouldn't be novel, but it's not.
 
It's a lot of different element, most of which is the intertwined complexity. There are huge planned networks that are gradually developed and evolved. There's regular subversion of expected tropes, including the treatment of children and other social taboos such as incest. There's a wide variety of memorable characters with truly vile people and well developed antagonists and regular use of that most rare device of all, actual character development with gradual progression. It's a steady transition of casts, with uncertainty of which characters will survive and which will move out of the limelight for what reasons, that keeps a sense of suspense for some and allows the surprise removal of others. It's well-conceived and often surprising plot-twists that frequently defy or subvert common tropes or expectations in the initial read-through. It's a lack of preachyness, where morality is neither sacrosant or pointless as morality alone is not sufficient but a lack of basic human decency can spark disaster for cynical realists and clever elites. It's the creation and establishment of significant world building, not all at once via some narrative dump but progressively through inference, contradictory sources, and demonstration. It's the use of themes and symbols, encouraging and defing them, so that even if it's not clear what the plan is it's clear there's a remarkably well-developed design behind events. It's a rare setting where magic is both potent and limited, capable of decisive things but no more important than the need for allies, armies, and more basic necessities. It's a setting in which there is a constant sense of genuine and looming danger as Winter is coming, and despite all the petty in-fighting a steadily progressing menace from the north is growing.
 
 
It is, basically, a lot of things that are not only uncommon in and of themselves, but even rarer together.

I got all that from the first three books, and first few seasons of the show.

But from A Feast For Crows onwards, the book series, and show when it broached that book, went to pot for me.

Now the show is unwatchable for me, especially with the awful creative liberties their taking for cheap shock value.

As for Squadmate deaths, I think their should be a option or scenario where it happens.

I don't want things to go full on GoT or The Walking Dead, where character deaths are a gory spectacle, but that's about it.

I liked how The Last Of Us handled character deaths. Nearly everyone for me was emotional and hard to watch and process. Sometimes I needed a bit of time to process what just happened. But then the game moves on, quickly, sometimes jumping ahead in time, taking that time to process away from you, kind of its own message of death in its way, especially from the bleak perspective of its protagonist Joel.

[9TailsFox]

If there is a sufficient enough plot reason for it, I am okay with it.

 

Probably should keep the "knocked out" mechanic for the typical combat portions though.

No it should be some random thug on side quest just shoot our companion.

[Addictress]

The ash/kaidenkaiden situation. We chose one of the two. I believe if another situation presented itself there could be a way to save both squadmates. I'm sure bioware is going to put more freedom in our choices this time around. By letting us not save ash and kaiden they sort of took away a key choice. Mass Effect is all about choices right? Why couldn't there be a third option? For plot? If one was to die it should have been because they weren't loyal or whatever. Same goes for thane. Miranda is a good example about our actions dictating her life or death at the hands of kai leng. The suicide mission is another. By them(bioware) killing someone automatically instead of by players choice is dumb to me. It's an RPG. We should have freedom in ALL of the choices we make. The only time something happens automatically without our interference is when a key event needs to be mentioned in a comic or book. I felt like a d¡#$ because I wanted to sleep with Ashley and let kaiden die but he was a good guy. Couldn't even replace him with someone cooler. Kaiden was a good guy but I would have loved to see a love triangle between shep, kaiden, and ash in 2. Shepard would have went off.

It's not a free-for-all. Just because it's RPG doesn't mean all possibilities must always be available. If it were, why don't we get jet planes? Why can't we open a business in Thedas?

This is a role in a specifically crafted branch of maybe a handful of variations on a specific story.

In order for that to have emotional weight at each key point and for the story to be as it is, there are forced choices. Like an ad lib. The blank is on the name, not the sentence.

Ad lib:
As Waldo approached the orb his son _________ began to feel strange.

The story is set. You choose which son, but the fact a son must feel strange cannot be deleted.

So you want to fight the actual story. You want to fight a much larger issue on what these games are made of.

I don't know, play Skyrim, or Black Desert Online. Personally, I am happy with this arrangement. I FEEL the weight of the choice, and also the gravity of what's happening in the overall story, when I am forced to choose between Templars and Mages. That's the intention. To realize that in the context of what is happening, dramatically, there can be no third option.