289 réponses à ce sujet

[JeanLuc761]

Nozybidaj wrote...

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.

Yep, because I'm sure Bioware intentionally gave Liara and Ashley/Kaiden those roles because they wanted to ****** off all the fans of Mass Effect 1.

They couldn't possibly have been thinking "Well, we can't have these guys on a suicide mission, they need to be around for the finale.  The best course of action is to keep their roles limited and have viable excuses not to join Shepard in order to guarantee their survival."

Nope, Bioware just wanted to make the ME1 fans angry. 

[HTTP 404]

kraidy1117 wrote...

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.

Ok got it, im a moron.  you win your argument.  So you think everyone who saw lord of the rings also read the book? wow

[kraidy1117]

Nozybidaj wrote...

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.

*looks at Garrus nad tali* Wow you are so wrong it's not even funny. Congrats on failig big time.

[Onyx Jaguar]

"

Ok got it, im a moron. you win your argument. So you think everyone who saw lord of the rings also read the book? wow"



Wtf are you talking about that has nothing to do with anything EA_Biowareaccount

[HTTP 404]

"your a moron" arguments are pretty lame. back your own argument, throw some logic in it and I can respect where your coming from. insult me and I could care less what you say.

[kraidy1117]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

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.

Ok got it, im a moron.  you win your argument.  So you think everyone who saw lord of the rings also read the book? wow

No people who saw Retrun of the King saw or read the first two books. How about you read.

[Onyx Jaguar]

No, why would reading the books make seeing the movies a prerequisite? Now if the argument was why would you read/see the Return of the King without knowledge of the Two TOwers then that argument would make sense.

[Nozybidaj]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Yep, because I'm sure Bioware intentionally gave Liara and Ashley/Kaiden those roles because they wanted to ****** off all the fans of Mass Effect 1.

They couldn't possibly have been thinking "Well, we can't have these guys on a suicide mission, they need to be around for the finale.  The best course of action is to keep their roles limited and have viable excuses not to join Shepard in order to guarantee their survival."

Nope, Bioware just wanted to make the ME1 fans angry. 

/shrug Whether it was intentional or not the fact is they weren't dissuaded by the prospect of it in the slightest.

[kraidy1117]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

No, why would reading the books make seeing the movies a prerequisite? Now if the argument was why would you read/see the Return of the King without knowledge of the Two TOwers then that argument would make sense.

He misread what I said. I said that people who never read OR watched the first two parts then watching RotK is very low.

[kraidy1117]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Yep, because I'm sure Bioware intentionally gave Liara and Ashley/Kaiden those roles because they wanted to ****** off all the fans of Mass Effect 1.

They couldn't possibly have been thinking "Well, we can't have these guys on a suicide mission, they need to be around for the finale.  The best course of action is to keep their roles limited and have viable excuses not to join Shepard in order to guarantee their survival."

Nope, Bioware just wanted to make the ME1 fans angry. 

/shrug Whether it was intentional or not the fact is they weren't dissuaded by the prospect of it in the slightest.

Yes because after two years, everything is fine and dandy.

[HTTP 404]

Onxy Jaguar, I didnt bring it up in the first place... read the post before yours..



Kraidy stop making assumptions about what I have read and haven't read.



totally off topic now. haha. anyhoo, I find it hard to see how bioware can incorporate Mass Effect 2 squadmates as your squadmate in Mass Effect 3. tell me how they can do this? that's all. no insults. no verbal vomit. =)

[JeanLuc761]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Yep, because I'm sure Bioware intentionally gave Liara and Ashley/Kaiden those roles because they wanted to ****** off all the fans of Mass Effect 1.

They couldn't possibly have been thinking "Well, we can't have these guys on a suicide mission, they need to be around for the finale.  The best course of action is to keep their roles limited and have viable excuses not to join Shepard in order to guarantee their survival."

Nope, Bioware just wanted to make the ME1 fans angry. 

/shrug Whether it was intentional or not the fact is they weren't dissuaded by the prospect of it in the slightest.

I beg to differ.  Wrex was given an admirable role in Mass Effect 2 (and in my opinion, so was Liara and Ashley/Kaiden).  Garrus and Tali were given INCREDIBLY well done fan-service, even though Bioware didn't originally intend for them to return as they did, or become love interests (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

And you don't think Bioware cares about the fans?

[Zulmoka531]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Yep, because I'm sure Bioware intentionally gave Liara and Ashley/Kaiden those roles because they wanted to ****** off all the fans of Mass Effect 1.

They couldn't possibly have been thinking "Well, we can't have these guys on a suicide mission, they need to be around for the finale.  The best course of action is to keep their roles limited and have viable excuses not to join Shepard in order to guarantee their survival."

Nope, Bioware just wanted to make the ME1 fans angry. 

/shrug Whether it was intentional or not the fact is they weren't dissuaded by the prospect of it in the slightest.

With all due respect, Wrex and the rest of the Mystery Inc gang could have had larger, more important cameo roles, the point is still valid that they could not die on the suicide mission. They have or at least should have, important roles coming up.

[kraidy1117]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

Onxy Jaguar, I didnt bring it up in the first place... read the post before yours..

Kraidy stop making assumptions about what I have read and haven't read.

totally off topic now. haha. anyhoo, I find it hard to see how bioware can incorporate Mass Effect 2 squadmates as your squadmate in Mass Effect 3. tell me how they can do this? that's all. no insults. no verbal vomit. =)

Default squadmates. Default Shepard has Wrex dead, no LI and Garrus was never recruited. They can do the same for ME3 default. Have some characters dead and some living. People who played ME2 should have an advantage and connected to the story.

[Nozybidaj]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I beg to differ.  Wrex was given an admirable role in Mass Effect 2 (and in my opinion, so was Liara and Ashley/Kaiden).  Garrus and Tali were given INCREDIBLY well done fan-service, even though Bioware didn't originally intend for them to return as they did, or become love interests (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

And you don't think Bioware cares about the fans?

Then I don't see what the argument is over.  If you propose that it was INCREDIBLY well done, why would you be against using the same technique in ME3?  Why would you argue against giving the ME2 crew the same kind of "admirable" role in ME3 opposed to potentially them not being there at all?  

Fact is, not all of these characters will be in everyone's games.  That in and of iteself is going to be a large limiting factor in these characters potential to come across into ME3 in any significant way, whether it be as squad mates or not.  I'd think if you feel that the ME2 portrayals of the ME1 characters was done with such love and care you would jump at the chance for your favorite ME2 characters to be treated with such high regard.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 12 avril 2010 - 06:00 .

[CTM1]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Seeing as he is am oron who should have used the search feature, how is that ironic.

Because you resorted to name-calling, and he didn't? Because you later responded to someone wishing for a "hatred-free discussion" by referring to people (besides Solomen) who did nothing more than provide their opinions? Without acknowledging the fact you, in fact, are a more accurate example of what the person was talking about, since you provided some of said hatred by your name-calling (not to mention general abusive behavior in this thread, which seems to surface whenever a conversation drags on long enough with you). How is that not ironic? My comment wasn't about Solomen, but about what you said in response to another's complaint on the whole subject.

You're not very observant, are you? That seems evident enough considering how poorly you've already demonstrated your ability to read a post so far. That wasn't even the point of my previous post, which was to bring your attention to another argument that was made in this thread (and has since been swallowed up by all this bickering, sadly) that you so hilariously misunderstood.

Yes go protect people who are getting flamed,

Why would a person not do so? Is flaming others a good thing?

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****.

How is this relevant?

Here's an idea, kraidy1117. Try reading before responding. It does wonders.

Modifié par CTM1, 12 avril 2010 - 06:13 .

[kglaser]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

And you don't think Bioware cares about the fans?

BioWare bends over backwards for their fans.  It's just the truth.

[JeanLuc761]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I beg to differ.  Wrex was given an admirable role in Mass Effect 2 (and in my opinion, so was Liara and Ashley/Kaiden).  Garrus and Tali were given INCREDIBLY well done fan-service, even though Bioware didn't originally intend for them to return as they did, or become love interests (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

And you don't think Bioware cares about the fans?

Then I don't see what the argument is over.  If you propose that it was INCREDIBLY well done, why would you be against using the same technique in ME3?  Why would you argue against giving the ME2 the same kind of "admirable" role in ME3 opposed to potentially them not being there at all?  

Fact is, not all of these characters will be in everyone's games.  That in and of iteself is going to be a large limiting factor in these characters potential to come across into ME3 in any significant way, whether be as squad mates or not.  I'd think if you feel that the ME2 portrayals of the ME1 characters was done with such love and care you would jump at the chance for your favorite ME2 characters to be treated with such high regard.

I've already voiced my reasoning on this matter.  In the middle part of a trilogy, it's acceptable for some characters to be given lesser roles in order to tie them up in the finale.  It is not acceptable to do the same for characters who played an important role in the second part, especially when most of them are hinted at playing major roles in the finale.

I get that you're upset about how Liara was treated, and that's fine, but your endless sarcasm and less than subtle disrespect to the fans of Mass Effect 2 needs to stop if you want to be taken seriously.  

[HTTP 404]

kraidy1117 wrote...

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

Onxy Jaguar, I didnt bring it up in the first place... read the post before yours..

Kraidy stop making assumptions about what I have read and haven't read.

totally off topic now. haha. anyhoo, I find it hard to see how bioware can incorporate Mass Effect 2 squadmates as your squadmate in Mass Effect 3. tell me how they can do this? that's all. no insults. no verbal vomit. =)

Default squadmates. Default Shepard has Wrex dead, no LI and Garrus was never recruited. They can do the same for ME3 default. Have some characters dead and some living. People who played ME2 should have an advantage and connected to the story.

good point, default shephard in ME2 has Wrex dead could make it difficult for him to be a squadmate in ME3.  I definitely could see maybe one or two characters make a come back from ME2 with some script writing manuvering.  Garrus missing out on ME2 story entirely could be a good default for ME3.  Im not convinced that more than 2 squadmates return to ME3 makes for a cluster-F of script to write around due to possibility of dying in ME2 suicide mission.  Bioware has got their work cut out for them for ME3

[JeanLuc761]

kglaser wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

And you don't think Bioware cares about the fans?

BioWare bends over backwards for their fans.  It's just the truth.

I agree, Bioware are without a doubt one of the most fan-driven developers I have ever had the pleasure of giving my business to.  That's why I get so passionate when people who disagree with a design choice suddenly imply that Bioware doesn't care about their fans.

[kglaser]

Their job is not easy. I'm sure I sound like a Bioware fangrrl by this point, but I don't give a damn. They did a great job and it's just going to get tougher.

[Nozybidaj]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I get that you're upset about how Liara was treated, and that's fine, but your endless sarcasm and less than subtle disrespect to the fans of Mass Effect 2 needs to stop if you want to be taken seriously.  

I'm not attempting to "disrespet" anyone.  I'm just trying to understand your view.  You say its not acceptable for the ME2 crew to have roles in ME3 similar to the ME1 crew in ME2.  Why?

They could have very similar roles and still have all their individual story arcs tied up, allowing BW to devote their resources to story arcs and content that everyone is going to see and enjoy.  You have said multiple times yourself that you thoroughly enjoyed the ME1 portrayals in ME2.  Why wouldn't you enjoy it in ME3?

Seeing as how every single crew member in ME2 can die at multiple points in time its fair to assume that portions of the playerbase may or may not have any number of characters surviving through to ME3.  That is going to limit to options available for these characters to have any sort of meaningful impact or appearance in ME3.  The suggestion as put forth by the OP seems like a perfectly rational way for those folks who did put in the effort to make sure these characters survive in ME2 to be rewarded for that in ME3.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 12 avril 2010 - 06:13 .

[JeanLuc761]

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I get that you're upset about how Liara was treated, and that's fine, but your endless sarcasm and less than subtle disrespect to the fans of Mass Effect 2 needs to stop if you want to be taken seriously.  

I'm not attempting to "disrespet" anyone.  I'm just trying to understand your view.  You say its not acceptable for the ME2 crew to have roles in ME3 similar to the ME1 crew in ME2.  Why?

They could have very similar roles and still have all their individual story arcs tied up, allowing BW to devote their resources to story arcs and content that everyone is going to see and enjoy.  You have said multiple times yourself that you thoroughly enjoyed the ME1 portrayals in ME2.  Why wouldn't you enjoy it in ME3?

Seeing as how every single crew member in ME2 can die at multiple points in time its fair to assume that portions of the playerbase may or may not have any number of characters survining through to ME3.  That is going to limit to options available for these characters to have any sort of meaningful impact or appearance in ME3.  The suggestion as put forth by the OP seems like a perfectly rational way for those folks who did put in the effort to make sure these characters survive in ME2 to be rewarded for that in ME3.

Well, I suppose it depends how you look at it.  While the OP's logic is sound, there isn't any real story justification for it to happen that way.  

Tali is now known as Tali'Zorah vas Normandy and is potentially exiled from the quarian fleet.  
Garrus has nobody other than Shepard as a friend in the galaxy.
Grunt says Shepard is his battlemaster.
Miranda quits Cerberus because of Shepard.
Samara blatantly says "If you call for me...I will come."
Legion was built specifically to find and join Shepard and possibly foster a peace between geth and quarians.

Jack and Thane have viable reasons to leave, but as has been stated before, it would NOT be a good idea to bring back even one love interest and have the rest short-changed.

Zaeed, Kasumi and Mordin have the highest chance of leaving but Mordin could easily be written back because the fans demand it.

Compare this to ME2, which began with Shepard's death.  There's story justification for these characters to distance themselves, and I hardly think Shepard will be killed again.  As it stands currently, very few if any of the ME2 characters have a reason to leave.

[HTTP 404]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I get that you're upset about how Liara was treated, and that's fine, but your endless sarcasm and less than subtle disrespect to the fans of Mass Effect 2 needs to stop if you want to be taken seriously.  

I'm not attempting to "disrespet" anyone.  I'm just trying to understand your view.  You say its not acceptable for the ME2 crew to have roles in ME3 similar to the ME1 crew in ME2.  Why?

They could have very similar roles and still have all their individual story arcs tied up, allowing BW to devote their resources to story arcs and content that everyone is going to see and enjoy.  You have said multiple times yourself that you thoroughly enjoyed the ME1 portrayals in ME2.  Why wouldn't you enjoy it in ME3?

Seeing as how every single crew member in ME2 can die at multiple points in time its fair to assume that portions of the playerbase may or may not have any number of characters survining through to ME3.  That is going to limit to options available for these characters to have any sort of meaningful impact or appearance in ME3.  The suggestion as put forth by the OP seems like a perfectly rational way for those folks who did put in the effort to make sure these characters survive in ME2 to be rewarded for that in ME3.

Well, I suppose it depends how you look at it.  While the OP's logic is sound, there isn't any real story justification for it to happen that way.  

Tali is now known as Tali'Zorah vas Normandy and is potentially exiled from the quarian fleet.  
Garrus has nobody other than Shepard as a friend in the galaxy.
Grunt says Shepard is his battlemaster.
Miranda quits Cerberus because of Shepard.
Samara blatantly says "If you call for me...I will come."
Legion was built specifically to find and join Shepard and possibly foster a peace between geth and quarians.

Jack and Thane have viable reasons to leave, but as has been stated before, it would NOT be a good idea to bring back even one love interest and have the rest short-changed.

Zaeed, Kasumi and Mordin have the highest chance of leaving but Mordin could easily be written back because the fans demand it.

Compare this to ME2, which began with Shepard's death.  There's story justification for these characters to distance themselves, and I hardly think Shepard will be killed again.  As it stands currently, very few if any of the ME2 characters have a reason to leave.

unless they die

[Nozybidaj]

JeanLuc761 wrote...
 As it stands currently, very few if any of the ME2 characters have a reason to leave.

Same thing could have been said at the end of ME1.  BW could come up with any number of reasons for a pasasge of time or to give folks a reason to go their separate ways, whether it is to help Shepard in a peripheral support role or not. 

In fact with the way ME2 ended it would make much more sense for these folks to go about helping Shepard in ways other than standing behind him mowing down mercs.  Tali helping with the fleet, Legion helping with the Geth, Miranda helping with Cerberus resources, etc., etc.

If you put aside your hostility at the mere mention of potentially dead characters returning in cameo roles you might see that it really is the best option available and makes the most sense story wise.