238 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

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.

Me too.  My husband likes GoT but I never got into it.

 

I don't need a video game to tell me or try to show me what sorrow is like.  I held my dad's hand when he died, told my mom I'd see her after her heart test and she died during the test, hugged a niece when her newborn died and hugged an inlay when her kid died of a drug overdose, just a few over the years that stand out.  

 

I don't mind a character dying for a reason in one play though as long as there is a reasonable way to have them live in another play through.  I thought they did a very good job with Mordin's death and this is the one I pick 99% of the time.  I didn't even mind leaving Ash or Kaiden behind, though I did tear up even after leaving one of them after 4 years of playing ME1.  I left the person behind that fit my story.

 

i don't mind my character dieting in one play through if she can live in another.  But, have to say if BioWare makes the game like the one most of the group seem to want, I'll pass and go back to JE or KOTOR or ME or DA or some other game that isn't out to shock and depress people.

[mopotter]

And? What I know so isn't mass effect a horror game, or have I missed that in ALL 3 games? it is a rpg that wants to give the player different options, so why should I not want the power too save as many as I can (or kill as many as i can aka suicide mission in me2)? it gives me more reson to play it again.

 

But in the end this is just one of many opinions.

Yes.  Reasons to play it again and again and again.  Sometimes I wonder how often please replay a game.  Even KOTOR had choices.  True I never play a Sith.  But even as a jedi I could make choices each time I played.   

 

This replay value is one reason I enjoyed ME2 so much.  ME1 loved the story and the ending and I did play it from the day it come out to the day ME2 came out carrying over ever one of my Shepards.  And each one of these Shepards made different decisions and had different people live and die.  IT WAS WONDERFUL.  I knew that if most died in one game I could have another where everyone lived. (did this twice) 

 

I'm not going to buy a game that doesn't give me a reason to play it more than once.  BioWare did this.  They gave me choices and characters and stories I love.  Can't accept anything less now. 

[mopotter]

Have an ironman mode where what happens in a mission happens in a mission. if squadmates die on a mission, they're gone for the rest of the game.
Main character dies in the mission, that's it, game over.

Probably been playing too much X-com 2 where squadmates do die. Of course we can also recruit more in that game, but still can be a pain losing high level squad mates due to bad luck, or making a silly mistake.

I like this idea.  X=Com is a great game.

[Lee80]

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.

I see how that does make things more "real" in a way, but for me it was a very painful moment that was not necessary.  Prior to that they had already killed Sheperd Book who was also a main character.  It was clear from that point that it wasn't a guarantee that everyone would make it.  They killed Wash, the "heart" of the team, the one character that was for the most part universally lovable.  It was just cruel in my opinion.  My least favorite part of the movie by far.  Still a great movie, but ouch that part still stings even after all this time.  

 

 

Edit: sorry for going off topic with this, but wanted to respond to a response to my post.  

[frylock23]

I see how that does make things more "real" in a way, but for me it was a very painful moment that was not necessary.  Prior to that they had already killed Sheperd Book who was also a main character.  It was clear from that point that it wasn't a guarantee that everyone would make it.  They killed Wash, the "heart" of the team, the one character that was for the most part universally lovable.  It was just cruel in my opinion.  My least favorite part of the movie by far.  Still a great movie, but ouch that part still stings even after all this time.  

 

 

Edit: sorry for going off topic with this, but wanted to respond to a response to my post.  

 

I forget about Book, not because I disliked him, but because he wasn't part of the team in the movie. He was close, but he was peripheral and peripheral characters are expendable in a plot because they aren't central to the action at the core most times. Had Book still been on the ship, his death would have been like Wash.

 

I know that's cold, but when I think about constructing a story and I think this is something that's pretty lethal ... the first options I start looking to kill are the "safe" ones who aren't as important to what I've been doing. Like it or not, that was Book in Serenity.

 

Ah well, at any rate, my point is that I don't mind seeing squadmates die if there is a good/plot appropriate reason for it to happen. Thane's a poorly handled. He should have had that fight or the backup to not get skewered. Mordin's was good and he chose his. There was a logical reason why either Ash or Kaidan was going to have to stay behind and sacrifice themselves.

 

I also don't like it feel like I'm ghoulishly picking and choosing too much. It leads to too many threads where people show up and spew all kinds of hatred at pixels.

[Suketchi]

FRAK OFF.

 

This is such a fraking ignorant position. And it is manipulative as well trying to use tragedy as a reason your opinion is 'objectively' superior. 'You hold said position because you haven't suffered loss.' Frak you and the horse you rode in on. You don't know what any single person has suffered and it is arrogance beyond fraking belief to assume because they don't hold the same opinion as you that they can't have suffered loss.

 

'Combat in a MATURE rpg should be consequence free.' Combat is costly and that cost is paid for in blood so MATURE ADULT titles shouldn't ignore this cost and shouldn't pretend that the player can stop loss from happening due to combat. It isn't pointless it is to show people that solving problems with lethal violence is LETHAL to all parties involve. And don't counter with, 'we know this we don't need it in our games.' You know that saving someone you care about gives you are warm fuzzy feeling as well so by that logic you don't need it in your games either.

 

Mordin is one of the worse examples of a character death, death 99.99999999% of the time is brutal and there is no time for speeches and it happens as a shock. Mordin's death is the most contrived and unlikely of all the deaths the entire problem with all the scripted deaths in ME3 is that they were these huge heroic successes. No one ever died just doing their duty, in a non grand fashion they were all over the top spectacle that actually minimized the tragedy of the loss because of the huge gains made in place of their loss. Saving a member of the council, curing the genophage, giving individual consciousness to all geth programs. Death isn't like this it isn't some glorious act, it it brutal and painful and a mature RPG shouldn't be rainbows and unicorns. 

 

Maybe some of us that have experience actual loss are tired of ADULT RPGs making death into a sham and a mockery and that is why we want to see a more honest portrayal of it in our games?

 

lol. F**k you too.

 

I don't think my opinion is superior, and I never said it was. You seem to think yours is though.

 

You're right, I don't know what someone has suffered based on their stance or opinions, which is why I used the word impression. Defined as, 'an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence'. If someone were to explain that, yes, they had suffered a tragic loss in real life, and still they feel that pointless, horrible, unavoidable death that serves no purpose to the story (all for the sake of realism) is important in a game, and proceed to explain why, perhaps I could understand where they were coming from. So far, the only reason I've been given is 'realism', because 'realism'. 

 

The realism argument makes no sense to me. Being realistic isn't something Mass Effect should be expected to strive for at all costs, because the entire plot isn't realistic in itself.

 

I never said combat should be consequence free, either. As a matter of fact, I said death should be a consequence. A consequence of choices made by the player. Bioware puts a lot of focus on player choice and the consequences of those choices. It makes sense that those same game mechanics would extend to the fate of your squadmates. 

 

Trust me, I don't need the reality of death described to me. It's horrific, cruel, meaningless, pointless, and in NO way glorious. Every time a character I care about dies, I re-live the experience of my loved one dying. If I'm going to have to experience that pain, the writer better have a good f***ing reason for it. 'Realism' doesn't cut it for me.

 

...You know, maybe characters should have to use the bathroom every so often or their bladder will explode (they use to do that in the old days I hear). It adds nothing to story at all, but hey, realism. We don't want to trivialize the trials of the human experience. 

 

Also, maturity rating is irrelevant. Games that aren't even meant for mature audiences have had characters die in horrible ways that the main character had no way of preventing (like Achaka, from King's Quest, which is rated 10+). 

 

Death isn't like this, it isn't some glorious act, it is brutal and painful and a mature RPG shouldn't be rainbows and unicorns. 

 

lmao. Yeah, because Mordin's death was ALL rainbows and unicorns. Making his death meaningful somehow made it NOT brutal and painful?? Ooookay. lol

[q5tyhj]

Of course squadmate death should be included, don't be a *****. 

[KaiserShep]

 

Mordin is one of the worse examples of a character death, death 99.99999999% of the time is brutal and there is no time for speeches and it happens as a shock. Mordin's death is the most contrived and unlikely of all the deaths the entire problem with all the scripted deaths in ME3 is that they were these huge heroic successes. No one ever died just doing their duty, in a non grand fashion they were all over the top spectacle that actually minimized the tragedy of the loss because of the huge gains made in place of their loss. Saving a member of the council, curing the genophage, giving individual consciousness to all geth programs. Death isn't like this it isn't some glorious act, it it brutal and painful and a mature RPG shouldn't be rainbows and unicorns. 

 

Maybe some of us that have experience actual loss are tired of ADULT RPGs making death into a sham and a mockery and that is why we want to see a more honest portrayal of it in our games?

 

Oh come on. A space opera without dramatic deaths? Mordin's death one of the worst? Get the hell outta here. 

 

The bit about making death into a "sham and a mockery" is ridiculous hyperbole. 

[themikefest]

Oh come on. A space opera without dramatic deaths? Mordin's death one of the worst? Get the hell outta here. 

 

The bit about making death into a "sham and a mockery" is ridiculous hyperbole. 

For me, his death was unnecessary. If the console on the ground is able to detect a temperature malfunction, why couldn't it repair it? I don't agree having him go up.

 

Shooting him in the back is good. The salarians offer aid if I sabotage the cure. excellent. Get as much help as possible to deal with the reapers

[Xerxes52]

On one hand, I do like having the option of squad mates dying, mainly through player choice or mistake, but scripted deaths can be fine if written well.

 

On the other hand, I hate having them get sidelined in sequels like Ashley/Kaidan or most of the ME2 squad in ME3.

 

[aoibhealfae]

In Mass Effect 1, I have more problem killing Kaidan than I do with Ash. The thing is, Ash should have died on Eden Prime with the rest of her unit. I already save her life once and I'm not obliged to save her ass again. She willingly die to protect the bomb. Which is a hell lot redeemable than having her alive to only whine about how she's special because she's alive and how she couldn't trust me because Cerberus rebuilt me and always make me question why I let her live through the entirety of the playthrough...

 

In Mass Effect 2, all deaths are optional and senseless and are done in the most melodramatic way and as a punishment of sort by not doing their loyalty or upgrading the ship or using the wrong specialists. Frankly, I wished they considered expanding the main narrative and make the reaper threat and Harbinger more visible rather than coming up with several dumb ways for your companions to die.

 

In Mass Effect 3, some deaths are optional but stopping Samara from committing suicide with a paragon interrupt is probably the most idiotic death option in the game. No build up whatsoever, she just point a gun to her head while she saying she's proud of her daughters before actually explaining why she's killing herself until AFTER you stop her. At least Morinth was given an entire slot where the game ease you through to get to know her and choose between her and her mother but this one came out nothing. She didn't even explain much about The Code except for an "Ardat-Yakshi cannot exist outside the monastery". 

 

Thane is a walking dead man since ME2. Among the first few things he said to you was that he's dying and intended to die on the Dantius tower. Honestly, I like to think he let himself being killed by Kai Leng because he sees this as a chance to die quickly rather than die slowly from his disease. I felt sorry for his romancers though.

 

Kinda wish you could choose between Mordin and Padok Wiks like you do with Chakwas and Dr Michel. But considering Mordin don't have additional scenes after Tuchanka, I let him atone for his genophage project and have Wrex and Bakara name their baby after him.

 

But overall, if all older squadmates are allowed to have the options to die and be killed either directly or indirectly by Shepard, I would want it to happen to everyone, which is why Liara stick out like a sore thumb. I heard she was supposed to kill herself after Thessia if Shepard didn't comfort her and that does make sense considering EVERYONE in the ship make you talk to her and if you choose to ignore her paragon interrupt and be "I don't know" renegade, she slump on the bed defeated while Shepard walk away. There's some build up to her eventual mental breakdown but sadly it was quickly shelved. They made a lot of effort to all squadmates to be expandable and optional, even restrict their interactions to a few minutes interaction between a couple of scenes. Had Liara being given the same treatment, at least you would have the real fear that you could potentially lose her... instead of playing the game with the intention to get a low EMS destroy ending where you could watch your squadmates being pulverized.

 

And Arrival DLC and Citadel DLC prove that you can fight and play the game solo. If there's really was a choice, why bother with the comps? Kill them all, and fight everything by yourself. Make it an endgame achievement. I know you need it.

 

I'm quite okay with EDI being killed with the reapers in Destroy ending. I'm a Battlestar Galactica fan and frankly, Tricia Helfer is way more amazing as Number Six than as EDI and one of the thing about the Cylons was that they could die and be resurrected, since the Normandy could still function even after all the damage, its possible that some parts of EDI could survive in the ship. And I thought EDI's self-awareness of her mortality is just a scrap of what happened to the Cylons after the destruction of the resurrection ship. Some of the best parts of Season 3 and 4.

 

I'm not really attached to the Geth after Legion's death but I thought it really was nicely done (with them being destroyed, the Quarians no longer have the chance to live without their suits). I know that the original writers want to keep him sanitized and robotic as in ME2 but I don't really feel the whole arc was a Pinocchio Syndrome exactly since Legion was already a fully evolved AI because of the reaper augmentation prior to his rescue. I like the idea that Legion lied his way to get the organics to help his people survive. Kinda like Ex Machina or an itty bit of Blade Runner.

[mopotter]

I see how that does make things more "real" in a way, but for me it was a very painful moment that was not necessary.  Prior to that they had already killed Sheperd Book who was also a main character.  It was clear from that point that it wasn't a guarantee that everyone would make it.  They killed Wash, the "heart" of the team, the one character that was for the most part universally lovable.  It was just cruel in my opinion.  My least favorite part of the movie by far.  Still a great movie, but ouch that part still stings even after all this time.  

 

 

Edit: sorry for going off topic with this, but wanted to respond to a response to my post.  

Serenity is a wonderful move, but it's a movie and I have different expectation with movies than I have with video games.  

 

I agree 100% about Wash, but I expected someone I really liked to die because it was Joss Whedon, an amazing guy who seems to enjoy killing off characters I like.  I was glad he let  Kaylee and Simon make it through.    FireFly is the only tv show I actually own along with the movie.  One of my top 5 tv shows and 2 of the top 5 were Joss Whedon's.  

 

I've mentioned before, that in a video game I don't mind someone dying if the next time I play the game, I can save them.  I don't mind my character dying in one game if they can survive (no charred bodies please) in another play through.  What I dislike a lot, is having the same result every time I play.  

[mopotter]

Oh come on. A space opera without dramatic deaths? Mordin's death one of the worst? Get the hell outta here. 

 

The bit about making death into a "sham and a mockery" is ridiculous hyperbole. 

Yeah.

 

Mordin's (and Thanes) deaths were actually ok with me in a good way.  

 

Salarians live short lives so he was towards the end of his life I felt this was something Mordin would do, better to go out this way than die in bed sort of thing.    

 

Thane, died the way he lived but the Shepard who romanced him (after losing Kaiden on Virmire) deserved more than a conversation at the hospital.  How about lunch or something.  

[9TailsFox]

Companions should die and we should be the one who kill.

[Iakus]

Companion deaths can be done well.

 

But it better be for a d*mn good reason, and not just for shock value or "feelz".  That stuff is just emotional manipulation.

[Paridave]

Companion deaths can be done well.

 

But it better be for a d*mn good reason, and not just for shock value or "feelz".  That stuff is just emotional manipulation.

Agreed.  Being sent to execute Danse in Fallout 4 was not a good thing.  You shouldn't be put into the position of loading an earlier save just to avoid killing one of your companions.

[Dean_the_Young]

Agreed.  Being sent to execute Danse in Fallout 4 was not a good thing.  You shouldn't be put into the position of loading an earlier save just to avoid killing one of your companions.

 

Why not?

 

Besides that you don't actually have to kill him, the delimma serves a very important narrative point- not only on the extent and effectiveness of synth infiltration, but a prelude to Maxon's intentions for the Commonwealth and the character of the Brotherhood of Steel under his reign. If Maxson would break those bonds and execute one of the most loyal, honorable, and fervent believes in his cause, and a personal friend no less, what else do you think he'll do? Is that really the man you want ruling the Commonwealth?

 

All of the three major factions have feel-good quests to cast them in a good light, but they also have quests to make you question whether joining them is right. The Institute requires you to betray past allies who helped you. The Railroad requires you to betray and exploit Patriot. And the Brotherhood has Danse.

[DuskWanderer]

No character deaths should be for no reason. I expect red shirts from Mass Effect because it's like that in all three games now, (and it's a BioWARE staple), so either don't do it or play with it in an unexpected way (For example, I'd never expect the red shirt to be an asari or a krogan, but they'd make excellent ones). But I don't think we should have a pattern. 

 

 

Otherwise, I'm okay with character deaths, provided they make sense and fit the narrative. I'm more concerned with ascribing feelings of guilt or nudging on the developer's part. I killed Wrex in Mass Effect for story reasons, the third game is significantly more interesting when Wreav leads the krogan. Yet all I kept hearing was "Oh, it would be better if Wrex was here" and "Oh, Virmire was so bad because Wrex died." To say nothing of the Citadel DLC. Don't get me wrong, Wrex's dialogue was nothing more than character shilling bad writing, but when I make a conscious choice to save Mordin, I felt cheated out of content because the developers felt like I made the wrong move. 

[Paridave]

Why not?

 

Besides that you don't actually have to kill him, the delimma serves a very important narrative point- not only on the extent and effectiveness of synth infiltration, but a prelude to Maxon's intentions for the Commonwealth and the character of the Brotherhood of Steel under his reign. If Maxson would break those bonds and execute one of the most loyal, honorable, and fervent believes in his cause, and a personal friend no less, what else do you think he'll do? Is that really the man you want ruling the Commonwealth?

 

All of the three major factions have feel-good quests to cast them in a good light, but they also have quests to make you question whether joining them is right. The Institute requires you to betray past allies who helped you. The Railroad requires you to betray and exploit Patriot. And the Brotherhood has Danse.

I disagree.  There's a difference between having to sacrifice a companion for the betterment of all, and having one die just to make a point.  Another example:  On my 2nd play through of ME3, I chose the Geth, and Taili committed suicide, basically to prove a point.  There were other ways in which she could have died.  Suicide was just writers trying to give the story and edgy,emotional pow.

[Dean_the_Young]

I disagree.  There's a difference between having to sacrifice a companion for the betterment of all, and having one die just to make a point.  Another example:  On my 2nd play through of ME3, I chose the Geth, and Taili committed suicide, basically to prove a point.  There were other ways in which she could have died.  Suicide was just writers trying to give the story and edgy,emotional pow.

 

Alternatively, suicide was the writers trying to tell you that Tali doesn't want to live in a galaxy where her people are extinct thanks to you choosing to let the Geth massacre them.

 

Killing Danse isn't for the betterment of all, unless you believe in the ideology of the Brotherhood. It's a test of whether you are willing to go along with the Brotherhood's ideology in the first place, one in which all synths must be exterminated. Not the 'bad' synths, not the synths on the wrong side, not the synths under the Institute's control- all synths. Which includes Danse, even if he's about as close to a true believer as you can find in the Brotherhood.

 

The point isn't that you have to kill Danse. You don't. Not only can you talk your way around it if you really want to still join with the Brotherhood. The point is that Maxson wants you to kill Danse, and how you handle that is a reflection of Maxson's character, Danse's character, and the players own character.

 

 

I'm honestly not sure what you're disagreeing with, regarding me or the Danse scenario. You don't have to carry out the hunt for Danse once you receive the orders from Maxson. If you do, you don't have to kill him. And if you don't, you don't have to give up the Brotherhood faction as a consequence.

 

What, exactly, is wrong with being asked to do a bad thing that is ultimately optional?

[Il Divo]

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.

 

For emphasis.

[Sanunes]

What are your thoughts on squadmates dying during the course of ME:A, whether unavoidable like Thane's death in ME3, or as a consequence of player choices? Do you prefer the writers not put squadmates at risk?

 

I haven't read the entire post, but my feelings are I don't mind if they decide to have a person from my squad die.  The catch is I don't want them to be returning even if they don't die.  I know people have different feelings for Mass Effect 3, but I felt the companion interaction suffered with the returning squad members because they could all die except for Liara and they made filler characters for each one.  I constantly wonder how much better each character could have been if they had twice the dialogue or interaction with Shepard because they didn't have to have a secondary character to fill the role.  It is also why I disliked Liara because they had to place all the all the important conversations with her because she was the only one that was guaranteed to return.

[Omnifarious Nef]

I like this idea.  X=Com is a great game.

I approve of the idea of an Ironman mode, but I'm not entirely sure about just having them killable for the base game. I mean, it'd certainly make the stakes higher, and make you appreciate your squadmates more. Put more investment into your relationship. 

[hotdogbsg]

I really like the idea of permanent death for squadmates but preferably due to player action. While Virmire was shocking and memorable on first playthrough it was frustrating to learn that you couldn't save both Ashley and Kaidan.

 

I think it'd be a great addition to have a couple of scenarios where saving a member of your team is difficult but still possible.

[Felya87]

I approve of the idea of an Ironman mode, but I'm not entirely sure about just having them killable for the base game. I mean, it'd certainly make the stakes higher, and make you appreciate your squadmates more. Put more investment into your relationship. 

 

But since they are expendable in such an easy way, their developmant and writing would be a waste of time, so it would kill the deep and meaningful characters BioWare is famous for. Making companion way too expendable would nullify their porpouse in a story driven RPG. We have seen how companons felt divided from the plot in DAI, were many companions could be left behind, or how small and usatisfating were ME2 companions presence in ME3, reducing them to simple comparison.

 

Less likely is the death of a companion, the more resource can be put into its developmant and writing.