Originally Posted by Squire
I bet the people insisting ME must have character deaths to retain its identity also swore up and down about ME3s ending being awful.
I expect this fan base to know: on the list things that make for a good narrative (you know, the important thing here) "character deaths" rates exceptionally low. If they're not writing a story that deaths have a place in, fine. That doesn't mean it isn't Mass Effect, that there won't be tough choices with tangible consequences, or that the stakes aren't going to be real.
Edit: In general, I think it does ME a huge disservice to list characters dying as a defining trait. It has a lot going for it as a series and it's not the deaths that are interesting, but the scenarios that gave way to them. Again, they had a place in the specific narratives of the original trilogy.
People didn't hate Me3s ending because characters died. If you think that, you are missing the entire point of why people hated the ending,
Characters dying adds weight and drama. In the first game the Virmire choice was an honest conundrum that really forced the players hand and stuck in your head. In the second game of course the Suicide Mission was key to the entire game - and was probably the best end sequence of any rpg I've played because of that. And in the third game Thane and Mordins death were two of the most impactful and emotional scenes I've experienced in a computer game.
Death of characters you like, enjoy and have developed a relationship with is one of the few ways a computer game can give weight to its story. Having it completely off the table from the start is a mistake to be frank - and at the very least they shouldn't have been so fucking stupid as to tell people beforehand.