In a mod if you really care about a companion would you be upset if the mod warranted a death to intensify it's meaning, or do you want your companion to live at all costs?

blivit270 wrote:

In a mod if you really care about a companion would you be upset if the mod warranted a death to intensify it's meaning, or do you want your companion to live at all costs?

Im not really used with "mod companions" but i always play on hardcore and like it when there is that sence of risk in it.
Makes the game more fun when there is a chance of losing it all or winning and feeling satisfaction that you made it

If I like the companion, I want them alive. If I don't care about them, they can die.

I wouldn't mind them if they were done well, but the only one I can think of is Cass and it's just stupid.

If the death is scripted and has meaning, then I might be fine with it (aside from there being any emotional impact). However if it's just something along the lines of me being in combat, I turn around and Willow managed to get herself killed somehow then I wouldn't be happy about that.

Generally for most playthroughs I would be indifferent. I like playing solo, so in the moment I may be a little mad then I realize its part of the story and I wouldn't have done anything with them.I already horde weapons and armor, don't need to start hording tons of companions lol

Depends on the companion, but I like companion deaths that are scripted. It gives some feelings to the game and for me at least makes me want to go for swift revenge, even if it is reckless. Overall I like to see main characters die in games and shows, so scripted deaths are a plus, as they give companion death some immersion. But if the companion is one of my essential team mates I want to see them live, but if they do die it gives even more reason to role play and hunt down the killer.

Personally I consider forced character deaths (especially those deliberately designed around characters you're expected to care about) to be a failure of game design.

It is basically an admission of 'hm, we need a dramatic moment and can't come up with anything... I guess we should kill someone for shock value!  What about the guy/girl who's been helping you?  Great idea!'

Mass Effect 2, IMO, did a perfect job of handling this.  If you played your Shepard as a prick who didn't help your companions, do their personal quests and such... most of them die during the suicide mission.  But if you do aid them, listen, finish the stuff they need finished... the game rewards smart decisions and leadership with 0 deaths.  

ME3 on the other hand, jammed a number of character deaths down your throat with almost no means to stop them.  We can only save Mordin by making terrible choices in ME1 and ME2 (killing Wrex who is awesome, and destroying the data/killing Maelon), Legion dies regardless (despite the fact that the ME lore states Geth can't truly die), Thane dies regardless, and at the end either Shepard dies or you have to wipe out all synthetic life to survive.  So you have to destroy EDI, Glyph, the Geth (even if they were your allies) and all that.  Stupid, horrible design decision - one that I opted to ignore completely in my mod/headcanon.
 
Even Bioware's newest game (Inquisition) is guilty of this.  There's a moment where you have to leave someone behind to die, Kaiden/Ash-style, and no choices, dialogue or option exists to prevent it.  So dumb.

There is no hard rule in life that says 'someone helpful and worth caring about must die in a way which traumatizes those close to them!' so it shouldn't be a forced thing in games, either.  Reward intelligent, thorough gameplay with the option of keeping characters alive.  Save the unavoidable death nonsense for the Renegade Shepards who don't give a f**k about helping Thane save his son, or Miranda saving her sister, etc.

Nope, as long as their death is meaningful and has purpose, that they die for something worthwhile.

Don't open this if you haven't played Mass Effect 3 or you care about spoilers.

Spoiler:

Keelah se'lai.

hitman47101 wrote:

Nope, as long as their death is meaningful and has purpose, that they die for something worthwhile.

Don't open this if you haven't played Mass Effect 3 or you just don't care.

Spoiler:

Keelah se'lai.

And see, that is one of the most egregious examples of this IMO.  It felt like a forced, unnecessary dramatic moment to me that is later contradicted/rendered moot by the game itself.  

You've already been pitted with the monumental choice of Quarians or Geth, though if you've made smart/good choices you can actually choose to end the war between them and 'save' both.  But then the game decides to slip in the sucker punch of 'oh hey, I know you probably feel great about that, but now Legion has to die!  Because REASONS!'

And then, should you choose the Destroy ending, you wipe out the Geth anyway.  So Legion's sacrifice was rendered that much more pointless by the game's own ending choices.  It isn't like those Reaper upgrades (the ones Legion gave his life to disperse) saved the Geth from the Crucible - something like that would have given his sacrifice meaning.

(just my opinion mind you, I'm not saying 'No! Hitman is wrong!')

Ok yeah maybe that one was a little tacked on as it did sorta come from nowhere, i still think the moment itself is great though.

I feel we could go back and forth for a very long time on this subject so I'll just say agree to disagree. Mass Effect is touchy, not often do you get so emotionally invested in game characters, i think that stands as a testament to the overall quality of the writing in the series, barring a few WTF moments of course. haha

Also just noticed this topic is referring to Fallout specifically, in that case, kill anyone but leave Willow be. XD

Oh for sure, I 100% respect your stance/opinion on it.

And you're absolutely right about what you said, that debates like ours are a testament to Bioware's overall accomplishments with the series.  To me, it is because of how amazing and brilliant the Mass Effect series was, that the WTF moments in ME3 felt that much more WTF.  

I've never been as emotionally invested in a set of characters as I was/am in Mass Effect's.  Not in a game or any other medium (although the Fellowship of the Ring comes close).  

As for this being about Fallout companions... I plead 'misleading topic title' your honor!  Hahaha!

how about this question then, What if the shock value is in that it is someone you cared about, and in the grand scheme of things could be seen as meaningless?

I enjoy a good scripted death, even if I feel bad about it. I like those story moments that make you actually feel something, and I think that these types of games are unfortunately lacking in story events that make you care. There were a lot of games that pulled me in because of how much a death surprised and disappointed me, even otherwise mediocre games. Now, I don't enjoy deaths that turn out to be for nothing, but I do think it's a valid move in a game story, because it so often happens in real life. It just makes the death that much more sobering. The old Brothers in Arms games did this well, I think (not the latest one).

I never had played a game and get realy bad feling about scripted death, with the ecxeption of Nehrim
a total conversation of Oblivion. A scripted death is mostly for me just annoying, just a "OMG realy so cheap?" The most scripted death are often just for a shock moment and nothing for more. I wonder why this must hapen there are better methods to get a shock moment, than use this rediculus rude and primiteve scripted deaths. The peole should use things like " You are Revan" or so.

Nehrim spoiler.

Spoiler:

If said death seemed logical and/or reasonable to me, then no, I would not get angry over it. In Fallout 3, the death of James (yes, I know he was not technically a companion) was an emotional slap in the face. You spend about half of the vanilla game trying to find him, and then not long after you do, you loose him again when he sacrifices himself to save you. If you have been paying attention to the clues, you realize that his biggest priority was keeping you safe, no matter the cost to him. His death is greatly upsetting (to me, at least), but made sense.

Going with the Mass Effect example, I was not angry with the deaths of any of my companions there either. Like many other players, I became very attached to most of the companions I worked with along the way, and watching a number of them "die" during the course of ME 3 was quite the blow, but I never got angry over those either. Mass Effect 3 was about the war with the Reapers. It was a conflict that was about the survival of every member of every technologically advanced race in the galaxy. In war, people die, and some people try to make their deaths mean something. Mordin tried to make up for his part with the Genophage (and, of course, "had to be me...someone else might have gotten it wrong."). To allow the Geth to evolve beyond their original programming, to become true A.I.s right then to be able to fight the Reapers, Legion had to disseminate his consciousness throughout the entire Geth "race". Yes, I know that the Geth could not apparently "die" unless the programs in individual platforms could not upload/update themselves to server hubs, it is stated in the game that a true A.I. cannot remain who/what it is if its "consciousness" leaves its original "Blue Boxes". I would assume, therefore, that the more spread out the A.I. becomes, the less of itself that actually exists.

That's just my opinion, no need to spread it around.

Depends how it's executed.

If they do kill off a loved character, it better have a major impact in the story.
If a companion sacrifices themselves for something actually important it can be good for the story, but I hate those "Oh, this guy's been with you for the entire game, let's have him shot by some unsignificant character out of nowhere, because shock value".

If your choices matter regarding it, it's the best way in my opinion. Imagine if selling Arcade into slavery or feeding your companions to the White-Gloves was mandatory. Yeah, how annoying would that be?

Your choices can also indirectly lead to someone's death, much like ME. That can be a good way to reward players for not making crappy choices.

It really depends on the companion.

If the companion has a compelling story and it's scripted that he/she dies in a point of the game then it's acceptable for me. Of course I will be sad that companion passes away but I always thought it was interesting that their deaths' are futile and the character has to go on without them. The companion's death will force the main character to grow in character, such like: becoming more accepting of people's deaths, developing "tough skin" to these kinds of hardships, eventually becoming cold.

There's a game that best applies about what I'm talking about, The Walking Dead the Telltale game.
I will not spoiler anything in the game but I will say that a major character, that you've been with the whole game, dies and the other characters attached to them has to move on.

Also, you know when it's a good game when a companion you developed feelings for passes away and left you with a hole in your heart.

I wouldn't have a problem with if (as others have said) the death had meaning. If it's in a game like fallout then an option to bring back the follow after the story is finished would please me. It may not be lore friendly, but it would allow people to still have access to that companion if they happen to really enjoy it.

Cursed square for what they did to aerith...
I spent hours leveling her up, then the game went downhill...

For fallout, nah, there is always mods...