289 réponses à ce sujet

[kraidy1117]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...
I know you're trolling me (whether intentional or not, that's what you're doing).  However, there's one very good reason as to why your definition of a "meaningful and well thought out role," aka cameo, wouldn't work in Mass Effect 3: It's the finale.  In a bridge of a trilogy (ME2), it's perfectly acceptable to divide character responsibility and subplots in order to tie them up in the ending.  It is NOT acceptable to divide character responsibility in the finale because that removes all possibility of closure.

Why isn't it acceptable?  Why couldn't you have closure?

As the OP suggested they could all be off doing important things and playing crucial roles for the final battle.  Just because they don't play a major role (as far as screen time goes) or serve as squad mates in ME3 doesn't mean there can't be closure given on their story lines.

Yes lets recruit people again and while we are at it lets kill Shepard again!

You are a ****ing moron. Go play ME and have brain sex with your blue friend.

[JeanLuc761]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...
I know you're trolling me (whether intentional or not, that's what you're doing).  However, there's one very good reason as to why your definition of a "meaningful and well thought out role," aka cameo, wouldn't work in Mass Effect 3: It's the finale.  In a bridge of a trilogy (ME2), it's perfectly acceptable to divide character responsibility and subplots in order to tie them up in the ending.  It is NOT acceptable to divide character responsibility in the finale because that removes all possibility of closure.

Why isn't it acceptable?  Why couldn't you have closure?

As the OP suggested they could all be off doing important things and playing crucial roles for the final battle.  Just because they don't play a major role (as far as screen time goes) or serve as squad mates in ME3 doesn't mean there can't be closure given on their story lines.

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

[kraidy1117]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...
I know you're trolling me (whether intentional or not, that's what you're doing).  However, there's one very good reason as to why your definition of a "meaningful and well thought out role," aka cameo, wouldn't work in Mass Effect 3: It's the finale.  In a bridge of a trilogy (ME2), it's perfectly acceptable to divide character responsibility and subplots in order to tie them up in the ending.  It is NOT acceptable to divide character responsibility in the finale because that removes all possibility of closure.

Why isn't it acceptable?  Why couldn't you have closure?

As the OP suggested they could all be off doing important things and playing crucial roles for the final battle.  Just because they don't play a major role (as far as screen time goes) or serve as squad mates in ME3 doesn't mean there can't be closure given on their story lines.

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

Or how about never seeing lUck defeat Vadar, just seeing Han Solo and such? Poeple like this are just babies.

[HTTP 404]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...
I know you're trolling me (whether intentional or not, that's what you're doing).  However, there's one very good reason as to why your definition of a "meaningful and well thought out role," aka cameo, wouldn't work in Mass Effect 3: It's the finale.  In a bridge of a trilogy (ME2), it's perfectly acceptable to divide character responsibility and subplots in order to tie them up in the ending.  It is NOT acceptable to divide character responsibility in the finale because that removes all possibility of closure.

Why isn't it acceptable?  Why couldn't you have closure?

As the OP suggested they could all be off doing important things and playing crucial roles for the final battle.  Just because they don't play a major role (as far as screen time goes) or serve as squad mates in ME3 doesn't mean there can't be closure given on their story lines.

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

thats pretty nerdy.  how is mass effect 3 going to include all team mates from mass effect 2 if you never played mass effect 1 or 2?

[Zulmoka531]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Zulmoka531 wrote...

Ya know, threads like this seem to pop up in this forum on a regular basis, and they all end the same way.

Also, keep the current squad, just find a way to throw Ash/Kaiden and or Liara into the mix.

We'll get a few more, we are just starting to get the ZOMG ME 2 IS NOT RPGEE? threads coming over from the no spoiler to the spoiler forum.  I'd much rather have this debate as its more plausible than a debate that makes very little sense as people's interpretation of what an RPG is seems to be completely random.

Good point. I personally can't read those particular threads. At least most of these ones have some kind of reasoning behind them.

[JeanLuc761]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...
I know you're trolling me (whether intentional or not, that's what you're doing).  However, there's one very good reason as to why your definition of a "meaningful and well thought out role," aka cameo, wouldn't work in Mass Effect 3: It's the finale.  In a bridge of a trilogy (ME2), it's perfectly acceptable to divide character responsibility and subplots in order to tie them up in the ending.  It is NOT acceptable to divide character responsibility in the finale because that removes all possibility of closure.

Why isn't it acceptable?  Why couldn't you have closure?

As the OP suggested they could all be off doing important things and playing crucial roles for the final battle.  Just because they don't play a major role (as far as screen time goes) or serve as squad mates in ME3 doesn't mean there can't be closure given on their story lines.

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

thats pretty nerdy.  how is mass effect 3 going to include all team mates from mass effect 2 if you never played mass effect 1 or 2?

Way I see it, people who play the finale of a singleplayer-only trilogy before they've played the first and second need to be slapped across the face. Hard.

Bioware should not be forced to pander to the people who can't be bothered to put in the resources throughout the entire course of the story.

[kglaser]

Ah, yes..."hatred-free discussion". We have dismissed that claim.

[kraidy1117]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...
I know you're trolling me (whether intentional or not, that's what you're doing).  However, there's one very good reason as to why your definition of a "meaningful and well thought out role," aka cameo, wouldn't work in Mass Effect 3: It's the finale.  In a bridge of a trilogy (ME2), it's perfectly acceptable to divide character responsibility and subplots in order to tie them up in the ending.  It is NOT acceptable to divide character responsibility in the finale because that removes all possibility of closure.

Why isn't it acceptable?  Why couldn't you have closure?

As the OP suggested they could all be off doing important things and playing crucial roles for the final battle.  Just because they don't play a major role (as far as screen time goes) or serve as squad mates in ME3 doesn't mean there can't be closure given on their story lines.

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

thats pretty nerdy.  how is mass effect 3 going to include all team mates from mass effect 2 if you never played mass effect 1 or 2?

Who says you have to recruit all of them? You don't have to recruit any of the DAO party members expect for Morrigan, Alistair and Oghern, yet you have the option to recruit other people.

[kraidy1117]

kglaser wrote...

Ah, yes..."hatred-free discussion". We have dismissed that claim.

It won't happen when we have moronsand cry babies.

[Nozybidaj]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

I think it would be a great way to include the characters, especially given the fact that they can all potentially be dead at the end of ME2.  Would you rather they have these "important roles" they can fulfill in ME3 or be completely cut out of the ME3 experience since there is potentially a large number of people that would never see the content?

Considering that BW would be devoting a significant amount of resources to bringing these characters back for potentially only a portion of their playerbase it might be deemed easier just to cut them out entirely.  Why develop so much content for only portions of the playerbase?  At least with these types of cameo appearances they would at least be guaranteed to be there if you put forth the effort to keep them alive.

[HTTP 404]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...
I know you're trolling me (whether intentional or not, that's what you're doing).  However, there's one very good reason as to why your definition of a "meaningful and well thought out role," aka cameo, wouldn't work in Mass Effect 3: It's the finale.  In a bridge of a trilogy (ME2), it's perfectly acceptable to divide character responsibility and subplots in order to tie them up in the ending.  It is NOT acceptable to divide character responsibility in the finale because that removes all possibility of closure.

Why isn't it acceptable?  Why couldn't you have closure?

As the OP suggested they could all be off doing important things and playing crucial roles for the final battle.  Just because they don't play a major role (as far as screen time goes) or serve as squad mates in ME3 doesn't mean there can't be closure given on their story lines.

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

thats pretty nerdy.  how is mass effect 3 going to include all team mates from mass effect 2 if you never played mass effect 1 or 2?

Way I see it, people who play the finale of a singleplayer-only trilogy before they've played the first and second need to be slapped across the face. Hard.

Bioware should not be forced to pander to the people who can't be bothered to put in the resources throughout the entire course of the story.

got it! so EA is going to let Bioware make a game which requires people to play 2 games released years before that?

[kraidy1117]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

I think it would be a great way to include the characters, especially given the fact that they can all potentially be dead at the end of ME2.  Would you rather they have these "important roles" they can fulfill in ME3 or be completely cut out of the ME3 experience since there is potentially a large number of people that would never see the content?

Considering that BW would be devoting a significant amount of resources to bringing these characters back for potentially only a portion of their playerbase it might be deemed easier just to cut them out entirely.  Why develop so much content for only portions of the playerbase?  At least with these types of cameo appearances they would at least be guaranteed to be there if you put forth the effort to keep them alive.

How about no. Not everyone likes Liara or did you think that everyone does? I want to finish the fight with Garrus and Liara, not a bunch of nobodies.

[JeanLuc761]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

I think it would be a great way to include the characters, especially given the fact that they can all potentially be dead at the end of ME2.  Would you rather they have these "important roles" they can fulfill in ME3 or be completely cut out of the ME3 experience since there is potentially a large number of people that would never see the content?

Considering that BW would be devoting a significant amount of resources to bringing these characters back for potentially only a portion of their playerbase it might be deemed easier just to cut them out entirely.  Why develop so much content for only portions of the playerbase?  At least with these types of cameo appearances they would at least be guaranteed to be there if you put forth the effort to keep them alive.

I was wondering when this argument would come up.  

Let's look at it this way though.  In order to wipe out your entire squad (as many have done), you need to skip roughly 50-60% of the main content in Mass Effect 2 to guarantee their deaths.  That means those players are missing 50% of the content Bioware put into the game.

The "Well Bioware wouldn't do that because players wouldn't see the content" no longer applies.

[AZ RUSH]

they should take ME 1+2 squad mates together for ME3, and maybe through in a few knew characters. i wouldn't mind if they killed off Ashley though.. never really liked her.

[Nozybidaj]

kraidy1117 wrote...


 I want to finish the fight with Garrus and Liara, not a bunch of nobodies.

That was exactly my point from the begining.  Glad we all agree.

[Nivenus]

No. I don't think so.



Don't get me wrong, the way they pulled it off in ME2 worked. I was skeptical at first, but, in the end, I grew to love the ME2 team.



But here's the problem - or rather, the many problems. First off, ME2 specifically went that way because it was trying to indicate a turning point in the series - a second, darker act so to speak. Recruiting a new team in ME3 would be delaying the ending act unnecessarily. Once again, you'd be focusing on building your team and earning their loyalty, rather than focusing on the coming fight. It would also come off as a needless rinse and repeat of MEs 1 and 2.



Another problem is just conceptually. The character roster for Mass Effect is already quite large. There's so far a total of, including DLC characters but not including people like Joker or Chakwas, twenty characters that can join your party. Out of the possible romances, there are already ten. I don't really feel we need... more, if you know what I mean? I mean, not substantially. One, two, or even three more characters in ME3 would be completely appropriate. But we don't need more (main) characters.



Plus, BioWare would have to figure out a way to get rid of the team. In ME2 they did this by killing you. I doubt they'll repeat this for ME3.



What I figure BioWare should do, actually, is let you recruit party members from your teams in both ME1 and ME2 that survives to ME3. You wouldn't get to take everybody (because frankly, there's not enough room in your roster) but you'd get to choose who you want for the mission. I definitely feel like Kaiden, Wrex, Ashley, and Liara should get a return shot in ME3, but I also feel like players should be able to carry over their characters from ME2.



We'll see. I trust BioWare to do what's right for the series, when it comes down to it.

[CTM1]

kraidy1117 wrote...

kglaser wrote...

Ah, yes..."hatred-free discussion". We have dismissed that claim.

It won't happen when we have moronsand cry babies.

That's ironic, coming from you. Weren't you the one who decided calling Solomen a "****ing moron" first?

Also:

CTM1 wrote...

Shouldn't have to do this again, but I guess people are generally too lazy to avoid pointless pyramid quotes.

CTM1wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

You do know, no gives a flying **** right?People want ME2 squadmates to be squadmates in ME3, thats all there is too it..

Which I never disagreed with, and in fact stated myself. At least try to make it look like you bothered reading, kraidy1117. 

Bioware not doing that is just being lazy and will make them lose money.

Again, this was never my point (nor Peppard's, the person whose argument I was attempting to clarify). Once again proving you did not bother reading. Is it really that hard?

Try again. If you are going to bother responding to this argument, at least make the effort. It makes you look foolish.

Modifié par CTM1, 12 avril 2010 - 05:44 .

[kraidy1117]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...
I know you're trolling me (whether intentional or not, that's what you're doing).  However, there's one very good reason as to why your definition of a "meaningful and well thought out role," aka cameo, wouldn't work in Mass Effect 3: It's the finale.  In a bridge of a trilogy (ME2), it's perfectly acceptable to divide character responsibility and subplots in order to tie them up in the ending.  It is NOT acceptable to divide character responsibility in the finale because that removes all possibility of closure.

Why isn't it acceptable?  Why couldn't you have closure?

As the OP suggested they could all be off doing important things and playing crucial roles for the final battle.  Just because they don't play a major role (as far as screen time goes) or serve as squad mates in ME3 doesn't mean there can't be closure given on their story lines.

This is going to sound nerdy as hell, but what you're suggesting would be like watching Lord of the Rings: Return of the King from the perspective of Aragorn and allowing all the trials of Sam and Frodo to take place in the background (i.e., low screentime), even though victory is still achieved.

It's a horrible, horrible idea.

thats pretty nerdy.  how is mass effect 3 going to include all team mates from mass effect 2 if you never played mass effect 1 or 2?

Way I see it, people who play the finale of a singleplayer-only trilogy before they've played the first and second need to be slapped across the face. Hard.

Bioware should not be forced to pander to the people who can't be bothered to put in the resources throughout the entire course of the story.

got it! so EA is going to let Bioware make a game which requires people to play 2 games released years before that?

Your are a moron. ME3 is the last of the trilogy, If someone has notp layed the first two or did not like them, the odds of them buying ME3 is so low it's not even funny. Thats like someone going to see RotKK without ever watching the first two movies or reading the books.

[JeanLuc761]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Way I see it, people who play the finale of a singleplayer-only trilogy before they've played the first and second need to be slapped across the face. Hard.

Bioware should not be forced to pander to the people who can't be bothered to put in the resources throughout the entire course of the story.

got it! so EA is going to let Bioware make a game which requires people to play 2 games released years before that?

That's not what I said.  All I said is that Bioware shouldn't be working for the lowest common denominator here, and should instead strive to reward their loyal fans.  Any good business practice will tell you that pissing off your loyal fanbase is a terrible, terrible idea.

Besides, for new players all you really need to do is have the characters there anyway (as ME2 did), and if the players are confused then screw them, it's their own fault for joining up at the end of a trilogy.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Nozybidaj wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...


 I want to finish the fight with Garrus and Liara, not a bunch of nobodies.

That was exactly my point from the begining.  Glad we all agree.

Not really.  Not in this thread at least.

[kraidy1117]

CTM1 wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

kglaser wrote...

Ah, yes..."hatred-free discussion". We have dismissed that claim.

It won't happen when we have moronsand cry babies.

That's ironic, coming from you. Weren't you the one who decided calling Solomen a "****ing moron" first?

Also:

CTM1 wrote...

Shouldn't have to do this again, but I guess
people are generally too lazy to avoid pointless pyramid quotes.

CTM1
wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

You do know, no gives
a flying **** right?People want ME2 squadmates to be squadmates in ME3,
thats all there is too it..

Which I never disagreed with,
and in fact stated myself. At least try to make it look like you
bothered reading, kraidy1117. 

Bioware
not doing that is just being lazy and will make them lose money.

Again,
this was never my point (nor Peppard's, the person whose argument I was
attempting to clarify). Once again proving you did not bother reading.
Is it really that hard?

Try again. If you are going to bother
responding to this argument, at least make the effort. It makes you look foolish.

Seeing as he is am oron who should have used the search feature, how is that ironic. Yes go protect people who are getting flamed, you seem to like doing that. Better yet why not you just go and talk with Smudboy and complain about ME2? Then us fans of ME2 would't have to deal with this bull****.

[kglaser]

Nivenus wrote...

Another problem is just conceptually. The character roster for Mass Effect is already quite large. There's so far a total of, including DLC characters but not including people like Joker or Chakwas, twenty characters that can join your party. Out of the possible romances, there are already ten. I don't really feel we need... more, if you know what I mean? I mean, not substantially. One, two, or even three more characters in ME3 would be completely appropriate. But we don't need more (main) characters.

THIS.  For goodness sakes, this.  Thank you.

[Nozybidaj]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

That's not what I said.  All I said is that Bioware shouldn't be working for the lowest common denominator here, and should instead strive to reward their loyal fans.  Any good business practice will tell you that pissing off your loyal fanbase is a terrible, terrible idea.

Besides, for new players all you really need to do is have the characters there anyway (as ME2 did), and if the players are confused then screw them, it's their own fault for joining up at the end of a trilogy.

ME2 proved you wrong on just about every single point there.  Not only did BW not care about "pissing off your loyal fanbase" I would wager they feel things worked out just fine in ME2.

[kraidy1117]

Nozybidaj wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...


 I want to finish the fight with Garrus and Liara, not a bunch of nobodies.

That was exactly my point from the begining.  Glad we all agree.

How about no. I don't want to have Liara at my side, hell I rather have an option to kill her so I can do it.  Miri and Garrus are the ones who will be with me to beat the reapoers, if they are not then I won't buy ME3, simple.

[Onyx Jaguar]

kglaser wrote...

Nivenus wrote...

Another problem is just conceptually. The character roster for Mass Effect is already quite large. There's so far a total of, including DLC characters but not including people like Joker or Chakwas, twenty characters that can join your party. Out of the possible romances, there are already ten. I don't really feel we need... more, if you know what I mean? I mean, not substantially. One, two, or even three more characters in ME3 would be completely appropriate. But we don't need more (main) characters.

THIS.  For goodness sakes, this.  Thank you.

Also it is counterproductive from a cost standpoint.