238 réponses à ce sujet

[Spacepunk01]

BioWare should make it so that everyone could potentially die. How can you be truly invested in the different characters if they can't be lost? I remember the Suicide Mission in Mass Effect 2. What an amazing event that was. Was I sad when I lost companions during that mission? Yes. I really cared about them, but it also felt real. I wouldn't sacrifice that feeling for anything. If my character makes mistakes or misjudgements, that will have consequences. I wouldn't want it any other way. What's the point in making choices and decisions if they don't have any consequences for you or the people around you?

[Dalinne]

BioWare should make it so that everyone could potentially die. How can you be truly invested in the different characters if they can't be lost? I remember the Suicide Mission in Mass Effect 2. What an amazing event that was. Was I sad when I lost companions during that mission? Yes. I really cared about them, but it also felt real. I wouldn't sacrifice that feeling for anything. If my character makes mistakes or misjudgements, that will have consequences. I wouldn't want it any other way. What's the point in making choices and decisions if they don't have any consequences for you or the people around you?

 

I'm totally with you, even now the Suicide Mission gives me chills and really moves me! but at the same time a SM arc could mean that most companions will be not back for the next game as it has been pointed out in the forum. That would be a shame, I really missed the ME2crew in a current role in ME3   . Probably, the best way is make a Virmire so even if they have to duplicate efforts making the survivor character's arc in the next games, at the same time they know that time spent is well inverted, given the fact that one of the two potentially dead is alive and will be in a recurrent role.

 

Or... they can make separate main protagonists and characters for each game... as Dragon Age.

Please! Be a trilogy! Please be a trilogy!!

[Sanunes]

I'm totally with you, even now the Suicide Mission gives me chills and really moves me! but at the same time a SM arc could mean that most companions will be not back for the next game as it has been pointed out in the forum. That would be a same, I really missed the ME2crew in a current role in ME3   . Probably, the best way is make a Virmire so even if they have to duplicate efforts making the survivor character's arc in the next games, at the same time they know that time spent is well inverted, given the fact that one of the two potentially dead is alive and will be in a recurrent role.

 

Or... they can make separate main protagonists and characters for each game... as Dragon Age.

Please! Be a trilogy! Please be a trilogy!!

 

Even if it has the same idea as the Virmire Survivor it can still lead to the mess of what happened in Mass Effect 3.  They have to dedicate content on the characters that could return and having a filler character there too. I am not the biggest fan of the Mass Effect 3 endings, but the way returning characters were handled bothered me a lot more since it is part of the entire game.  It also leads to the problem with have with Liara where she became the major player in exposition dumps for she was the only party member that would always return in Mass Effect 3.  Another way I think of it all the content we have for all the returning characters has to be bland enough that it isn't a loss if they don't return and is half of what it could be since they have to fit a second character with voice acting to fill their role even with Kaiden and Ashley.

[Felya87]

The suicide mission was great in many ways. The range of different ending for the companions made me play ME2 many, many times. Sadly, this awesome mission penalyzed horribly the ME2 companions. I think this kind of situation, with so many companions death should be left for the end of a trilogy, not the middle game.

[Sanunes]

The suicide mission was great in many ways. The range of different ending for the companions made me play ME2 many, many times. Sadly, this awesome mission penalyzed horribly the ME2 companions. I think this kind of situation, with so many companions death should be left for the end of a trilogy, not the middle game.

 

I think it works fine in the middle game, I think they just needed to pick a couple of characters they wanted to move forward into the third game and didn't make them part of the mission where they can die.

[mopotter]

BioWare should make it so that everyone could potentially die. How can you be truly invested in the different characters if they can't be lost? I remember the Suicide Mission in Mass Effect 2. What an amazing event that was. Was I sad when I lost companions during that mission? Yes. I really cared about them, but it also felt real. I wouldn't sacrifice that feeling for anything. If my character makes mistakes or misjudgements, that will have consequences. I wouldn't want it any other way. What's the point in making choices and decisions if they don't have any consequences for you or the people around you?

ME2 was great fun and a big part of this fun was playing each game a little differently.  

 

One game, maybe two everyone survives, In the rest of the carryover games my love interest, best friend or another team member died.  Unexpectedly teared up when Jack was carried away trying to protect Miranda after their big fight.    

 

The key for me, --  I could have everyone survive if I wanted to.  I did this once for sure, maybe twice but I carried over every Shepard I had created in ME1 and I had played that for 5 years, so there were a lot of Shepards to bring over.  Most of the time I just sent someone I felt should be able to do the job and then watched what happened.   

 

I did not play ME3 on my xbox 360 more times than it took to make sure I hadn't missed some little thing that would show something other than the charred body and Jedi smile.  Did the sparkles with my sducidal Shepard who had lost Kaidan in ME1 and her second love Thane in ME2 and wanted Joker and Edi to have a chance at the happiness she would never have.       

 

I really do not mind anyone dying in one of my plays, if I can save them in another.  Everyone will get a chance to die at one time or another,  But if I don't have a choice and my character always dies, or the love interest always dies, or really, any of them always dies I'd find that super boring.  

[mopotter]

I think it works fine in the middle game, I think they just needed to pick a couple of characters they wanted to move forward into the third game and didn't make them part of the mission where they can die.

 

Which is why Kaidan and Ash were not part of your team.  They wanted the one who survived to be in ME3.  

 

I really didn't mind the "talk" in ME2 I agreed with them.  Then someone found the e-mail in voice format and that was awesome.  You don't get emotion in e-mails but hearing the emotion when it's read, that's pretty nice.    I have Kaidan on my iTunes.

 

Kaidan  -  https://www.youtube....h?v=DTqNw2XEDvI

 

[Dalinne]

I use dices with the Suicide Mission because I'm unable to let anyone die by choice. So I roll the dices and suffer   O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis...

[themikefest]

The suicide mission in ME2 is great. It can lead to everyone dying or living. My biggest issue is why have 12 squadmates when only 8 is needed to get through the relay and have everyone survive.

[Sanunes]

Which is why Kaidan and Ash were not part of your team.  They wanted the one who survived to be in ME3.  

 

I really didn't mind the "talk" in ME2 I agreed with them.  Then someone found the e-mail in voice format and that was awesome.  You don't get emotion in e-mails but hearing the emotion when it's read, that's pretty nice.    I have Kaidan on my iTunes.

 

[snip]

 

Right, they aren't part of the suicide mission in Mass Effect 2, but they were part of a lesser suicide mission in Mass Effect 1.  So they had to condense both characters to fill a single role in Mass Effect 3.  My thinking is that imagine they weren't included in Mass Effect 3, the amount of time and effort they go into having both of them there could be combined into making a more substantial character that we know is going to be there 100% of the time and not having to find a solution to fit both of them there without having a lot of duplicate work.

[Sanunes]

The suicide mission in ME2 is great. It can lead to everyone dying or living. My biggest issue is why have 12 squadmates when only 8 is needed to get through the relay and have everyone survive.

 

So you have the choice in not recruiting everyone would be my guess.

[themikefest]

So you have the choice in not recruiting everyone would be my guess.

Having twelve causes more problems in a future installment than having 8

 

When I do an ME2 playthrough, I only recruit 8 with at least 2 deaths.

[Sanunes]

Having twelve causes more problems in a future installment than having 8

 

When I do an ME2 playthrough, I only recruit 8 with at least 2 deaths.

 

What I remember from the pre-Mass Effect 3 days of posting is that they never intended to have every character return.  That changed when people kept giving that as an expectation of what they wanted in the third game.

[mopotter]

Right, they aren't part of the suicide mission in Mass Effect 2, but they were part of a lesser suicide mission in Mass Effect 1.  So they had to condense both characters to fill a single role in Mass Effect 3.  My thinking is that imagine they weren't included in Mass Effect 3, the amount of time and effort they go into having both of them there could be combined into making a more substantial character that we know is going to be there 100% of the time and not having to find a solution to fit both of them there without having a lot of duplicate work.

So it would be a different game.  It's an interesting idea, but this is one of those things, I'm not very good at.  I just don't know if I would have enjoyed the game as much without Kaidan or Ash.   ME1 is my favorite of the 3, story wise, so I'm glad they did it the way they did.

 

I enjoyed talking to Ash and I adore Kaidan.   The first time I played through Virmire it took me a good five minuets to make a decision and I cried (yes it's a bit lame and I still tear up).  But I've worked this into my game play and I like the results. If anything, I'd have wished for a 3rd option where you could leave one or the other, or save both.    

 

Kaidan is my top favorite character in the whole series.  Followed by Garrus, Tali, Jack, Ash, Wrex, Mordin with Liara and the others down in the -I like them and they are ok but I wouldn't miss them group.   

[SKAR]

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

nobody's a ***** if they don't want a squadmember to die. There are other words but not the one you used. Play nice my friend.

[The_Nightman_Cometh]

You shouldn't need squad-mates in order to conquer an entire galaxy.

[Han Shot First]

I feel that if we engage in combat on a regular basis we should not be able to side step casualties. There should be unavoidable casualties in the game. We shouldn't sugar coat combat in a MATURE RPG.

 

Players have this idea that they should go through a mature title with unicorns and rainbows protecting them. This isn't about being "dark and gritty" it is about the consequences of choosing armed conflict to solve a problem. yes sometimes it is vital that we do so but it ALWAYS comes with consequences and a mature title should explore this. And these casualties shouldn't be limited to some insignificant background character, it should be someone that is CURRENTLY in our crew and someone we can actually grow to like. (You may not like any given character so you might not like one that dies but the potential should be there. The casualties should NOT be limited to past crew or a Jenkins casualty. Having the discussion with the doctor about Jenkins was fraking pointless in ME2 because who the frak cares about a character that have a dozen lines and dies in the first 2 minutes of the game? There was no impact, no thought provoking moment it was "what? oh he's dead that was fast. What was his name again?"

 

I also don't think all deaths in battle should be some heroic gesture either sometimes death is not some epic choice of saving a council member or curing a race from the genophage. Sometimes your squad mates die just doing their duty.

 

I couldn't agree more with this post.

 

Death is an unavoidable reality of combat. While the Shepard trilogy wasn't portraying a real war and did not have to be some sort of work of ultra-realistic military fiction, if no character of any significance died it would have run the risk of romanticizing war or portraying it as something fun. That's irresponsible at best.

 

To be fair there was plenty of 'war is hell' moments in ME3, but it probably could have struck a little closer to home more often. Most of it, like overhearing that Adelaide or Bekenstein was destroyed, was referencing the deaths of characters you never actually meet in the game. Sure, millions died...but there's little emotional investment in a statistic. While characters like Mordin, Thane, and Miranda can die in ME3, by the final game they're all relegated to being side characters rather than members of the core cast.

 

As much as I love ME2's suicide mission, I also always thought it was slightly disappointing that it provided an option to get everyone out alive. Even having the option to get everyone out alive undercut whatever emotional impact may have been there for those characters' deaths, since those deaths only occur as a result of the player character's tactical incompetence. It comes at the expense of making the main character unlikable, and poorly suited for the role s/he's thrust in.

 

On the other hand, a valid complaint against optional squad mate deaths is that it is very difficult for the writers to fully account for the variables it creates, if those characters return in any significant role in a sequel. Equally valid, are complaints about characters who die for no other reason than a rather ham-handed attempt at emotional manipulation, or just to provide a choice with consequences. Neither Legion or EDI's deaths felt like a natural or appropriate end to their character arcs, and the less said about Miranda's survival being linked to relationship status...the better.

 

That leaves me with mixed feelings regarding Andromeda. I'd be slightly irked if the main character is once again embroiled in a major war, with none of the consequences of being involved in a war striking close to home. If the writers have decided that all of the major characters are going to be safe from harm, I'd much rather a war wasn't part of the central plot. 

 

I also wouldn't want a sequel however where all the past companions get disappointing cameos because of their determinant status. Assuming for a moment that Andromeda is the first chapter of a multi-game series, I'd rather any character deaths were either scripted and unavoidable like Thane's, or limited to something like the Virmire choice. Suicide Missions are probably best saved to the end run of the final game of a series, where the writers don't have to worry about the impact those character's deaths would have on a sequel. The writers also have to be careful to ensure that the character's deaths feel like an appropriate conclusion to their character arc, and just aren't tacked on for cheap feels or to provide consequences that don't flow naturally from the choice that was made.

[Han Shot First]

I don't mean that ending. I mean getting nuked by Harbinger with no time to react or fight back.

 

I loved that part of the game.

 

Not so much that Shepard & Anderson were the only ones to get through...that was ridiculously contrived, and turned the rest of the Alliance personnel into Red Shirts. I did like that Shepard got critically injured however, and was stripped of plot armor, if only for a moment. 

[GDICanuck]

I assume Andromeda will continue the Bioware tradition of the "Stock Red Shirt Party Member Who Dies on the First Mission", so you'll get your wish, OP.

[themikefest]

I loved that part of the game.

 

Not so much that Shepard & Anderson were the only ones to get through...that was ridiculously contrived, and turned the rest of the Alliance personnel into Red Shirts. I did like that Shepard got critically injured however, and was stripped of plot armor, if only for a moment. 

That whole thing was a joke. It was only setup for the touchy-feely scene between those two on the Citadel. Interesting how Shepard's armor is blown off his/her body while the others in the area still had their armor still on. Shepard should be burnt toast. Dead after Harbinger fired his beam of doom.

 

No reason to have Shepard injured. The only thing it proved is how tough she/he is to get the mission completed. At that point, the player or at least myself already knew that. Just have Shepard go up the beam without being serious injured. The beam disables his/her shields/barriers. The rest plays out the same.

[In Exile]

I loved that part of the game.

Not so much that Shepard & Anderson were the only ones to get through...that was ridiculously contrived, and turned the rest of the Alliance personnel into Red Shirts. I did like that Shepard got critically injured however, and was stripped of plot armor, if only for a moment.

But it's nonsense from a tone perspective. Shepard should have died from a stray bullet in the middle of ME2 on a random world if they were playing it real with plot armor. The whole scene was just trolling it's audience.

[Spacepunk01]

There's no plausible explanation for his survival? Then I guess it never happened.

 

[Mr_Q]

I'm totally against it if they have any intention of creating a direct sequel. 

 

If characters can die, it usually means that they will have far less of an impact in future titles irrespective 

of whether they are dead or alive. Consider party members from the ME2 suicide mission. With the exception of Garrus

and Tali, everyone else played a minor role in ME3 because Bioware couldn't seem handle the potential number

of different outcomes effectively. Characters such as Miranda, Jack, Legion, Jacob, Kasumi, and Samara who some of whom

my Shepard romanced couldn't even be recruited as party members in ME3 despite allegedly being the love of my Shepard's life. 

 

Also, look at the Kaidan and Ashley choice from ME1. It doesn't matter who dies both characters play out almost identically. 

Both refuse to join Shepard in ME2. Both join your party on Mars. Both are uneasy towards Shepard on Mars. Both get KO'd. Both end up in A&E.

Both end up being asked to become Spectres. Both look to protect the council when the Citadel is under attack etc. Their dialogue is also very similar in these scenes.  

 

Ultimately if the choice of dying squadmates leads to superficial diversity, what's the point? 

[N7Jamaican]

If it's like choosing squadmate A over squadmate B -- like Kaidan/Ashley, or suicide mission, sure.

[Monk]

I have an idea. Make it so that all the squad mates can die, except two "red shirts" who are clones of your two preferred NPCs; character points have to be set aside for this. They might not be as powerful as the other ally NPCs but they'll always be there for you. If clones aren't wanted (a la Venture Brothers), could always do machinations of the preferred (a la EDI); so the two bank array of storage are still used for holding their conscience (kinda like with Old Shaundi in SRIV), just nothing DNA-wise is stored. In regards to the story, however, it might work better with clones (Ark… Flood… Repopulation…).

 

How they die should be dramatic, though very scripted (the Krogan grabs Ryder's collar before dying, the Asari runs a hand along the face, etc.… regardless of where they die)

 

Now the difficulty of killing them off should be fairly high. Besides some scripted moment like the SM, it should require not applying medi-gel during battle after a certain duration. This way, unless particularly careful, some of the hardest levels guarantee at least one NPC dying in battle.