Right! In which case, players of Mass Effect 3 who have imported saves should be, for lack of a better word, "punished" for losing that squadmate.EA_BiowareAccount wrote...
unless they die
JeanLuc761 wrote...
Right! In which case, players of Mass Effect 3 who have imported saves should be, for lack of a better word, "punished" for losing that squadmate.EA_BiowareAccount wrote...
unless they die
For example, if you get Tali or Legion killed, you could potentially lose the support of the quarians or the geth respectively. If you get Miranda killed, you lose her support and connections. You get the idea.
JeanLuc761 wrote...
Right! In which case, players of Mass Effect 3 who have imported saves should be, for lack of a better word, "punished" for losing that squadmate.EA_BiowareAccount wrote...
unless they die
For example, if you get Tali or Legion killed, you could potentially lose the support of the quarians or the geth respectively. If you get Miranda killed, you lose her support and connections. You get the idea.
You're absolutely right. I apologize if I seem hostile, that's not really my intent. I'm just saying that, as it stands, it makes very little sense for the Mass Effect 2 characters to leave, and we all know how these forums would explode if ME2 love interests get put on the backburner while ME1 love interests come back.Nozybidaj wrote...
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.
Well the easy reason for that is because it would create a clusterf*ck for Mass Effect 3 writing if all of your decisions had strongly visible consequences in Mass Effect 2. However, I maintain that, since this is the finale and Bioware can literally have the story branch off in dozens more ways than ME2 could have, players should be punished, rather than given replacements.Nozybidaj wrote...
JeanLuc761 wrote...
Right! In which case, players of Mass Effect 3 who have imported saves should be, for lack of a better word, "punished" for losing that squadmate.EA_BiowareAccount wrote...
unless they die
For example, if you get Tali or Legion killed, you could potentially lose the support of the quarians or the geth respectively. If you get Miranda killed, you lose her support and connections. You get the idea.
No, you just get the support in other ways. None of the choices throughout ME1 or 2 have "punished" players for making a particular choice. It is all just different avenues to the same outcome. Same thing here. Rex -vs- Reave is a good example of this.
JeanLuc761 wrote...
we all know how these forums would explode if ME2 love interests get put on the backburner while ME1 love interests come back.
Modifié par Collider, 12 avril 2010 - 06:34 .
Fair enough, that one was just an assumption (at least the romance aspect). BUT, you and I both know that a tremendous portion of the fanbase (if these forums are anything to go by) would be royally pissed off if Bioware removed or reduced the romance portion for Mass Effect 3. I agree that it'd eventually blow over but I can also guarantee that Bioware would lose some sales.Nozybidaj wrote...
JeanLuc761 wrote...
we all know how these forums would explode if ME2 love interests get put on the backburner while ME1 love interests come back.
Whoever said the ME1 LI's are coming back? I certainly wouldn't expect them to. And I doubt the blow up would be as big as you think it is. Sure folks would flame and whine for a while but it would all blow over and widdle itself away over time same as previous similar situations have in the past.
Modifié par JeanLuc761, 12 avril 2010 - 06:36 .
JeanLuc761 wrote...
Well the easy reason for that is because it would create a clusterf*ck for Mass Effect 3 writing if all of your decisions had strongly visible consequences in Mass Effect 2. However, I maintain that, since this is the finale and Bioware can literally have the story branch off in dozens more ways than ME2 could have, players should be punished, rather than given replacements.
Nozybidaj wrote...
JeanLuc761 wrote...
Well the easy reason for that is because it would create a clusterf*ck for Mass Effect 3 writing if all of your decisions had strongly visible consequences in Mass Effect 2. However, I maintain that, since this is the finale and Bioware can literally have the story branch off in dozens more ways than ME2 could have, players should be punished, rather than given replacements.
I see no reason to "punish" folks for their choices. In this partiuclar case I assume we are speaking of having ME2 squad mates die in the final mission. These folks made their choices and have just as much right to see their games play through to conclusion as some one else who made different choices. One person's set of choices are no more "right" than anyone elses.
In the end this is "Shepard's Story" not "Shepard and his ME2 crew's story". If BW decides that they are superfluous to the story of ME3 then so be it. That's they way they will go. At least with admirable cameo appearances for the ME2 crew it would be a nice gesture to those folks who enjoyed them in ME2.
JeanLuc761 wrote...
Fair enough, that one was just an assumption (at least the romance aspect). BUT, you and I both know that a tremendous portion of the fanbase (if these forums are anything to go by) would be royally pissed off if Bioware removed or reduced the romance portion for Mass Effect 3. I agree that it'd eventually blow over but I can also guarantee that Bioware would lose some sales.
And that's where we disagree. Especially given Bioware's insistence that our choices matter, it would be cheap if the deaths of our squadmates and friends ended up being trivial in the grand scheme of things. For the record, I do agree that people should be able to finish the game regardless of who got killed, but I certainly don't think the outcome should be the same.Nozybidaj wrote...
JeanLuc761 wrote...
Well the easy reason for that is because it would create a clusterf*ck for Mass Effect 3 writing if all of your decisions had strongly visible consequences in Mass Effect 2. However, I maintain that, since this is the finale and Bioware can literally have the story branch off in dozens more ways than ME2 could have, players should be punished, rather than given replacements.
I see no reason to "punish" folks for their choices. In this partiuclar case I assume we are speaking of having ME2 squad mates die in the final mission. These folks made their choices and have just as much right to see their games play through to conclusion as some one else who made different choices. One person's set of choices are no more "right" than anyone elses.
In the end this is "Shepard's Story" not "Shepard and his ME2 crew's story". If BW decides that they are superfluous to the story of ME3 then so be it. That's they way they will go. At least with admirable cameo appearances for the ME2 crew it would be a nice gesture to those folks who enjoyed them in ME2.
Collider wrote...
Noz, one of the advertising points of the game is choices and consequences. I don't think Jean is implying you should not be able to complete the game if you don't have most squad mates. He's saying that there needs to be some sort of consequence if most of them died.
JeanLuc761 wrote...
And that's where we disagree.
The problem with this is that it means literally none of the characters you meet in Mass Effect 2 (and Mass Effect 1 for Tali, Garrus and Chakwas) are important to the final storyline at all. Bioware would literally be tossing away 12 characters and everything they did in Mass Effect 2, rendering the game more or less pointless.Nozybidaj wrote...
I would be willing to guarantee you that someone who only had two folks survive will be just as ready to play through and finish ME3 in just as easy and enjoyable way as someone who made sure the whole crew survived.
Modifié par JeanLuc761, 12 avril 2010 - 06:49 .
So you do not think it should any effect if they died? You went through all that trouble to kill them just for nothing to happen? Consequences are neutral, they can be either good or bad. We're asking for some sort of effect from it, hence "Mass Effect" and "choices and consequences." If Liara was a squad mate in ME2 and she could die, you would want some sort of effect in ME3 if she did perish, do you not? The consequence can be not having her around to help.Nozybidaj wrote...
Collider wrote...
Noz, one of the advertising points of the game is choices and consequences. I don't think Jean is implying you should not be able to complete the game if you don't have most squad mates. He's saying that there needs to be some sort of consequence if most of them died.
Why? Why is "keeping them alive" the "right" choice here? In fact many a player may have went out and purposely killed folks off. It actually takes more planning and game play choices to NOT have everyone survive and, in my opinion, makes for a much more dramatic story in the end.
Noz, this isn't really even a decision. You are not directly choosing who to send to their deaths the first time, it's not a moral decision, it's a metagaming decision. If you purposefully kill people off as you seem to have, you should have a consequence from that. If I purposefully had Liara killed, I should have the consequence of her not helping me in some way in ME3. It does not mean it was the "wrong" choice. Take Wrex for example. It's clear that he wants the Krogan to develop past tradition, and is more likely to help you than his replacement, Wreav.Why would BW just go "Oh if you don't have all you're crew survive your basically boned and going to be put at a large disadvantage gameplay wise, you made the WRONG choice this time"?
I don't know about easy to be honest. Not having Legion around isn't going to be the best way to have the Geth recruitable, I'd wager. Enjoyable? If you want them dead, sure.They aren't going to do that. I would be willing to guarantee you that someone who only had two folks survive will be just as ready to play through and finish ME3 in just as easy and enjoyable way as someone who made sure the whole crew survived.
That's what makes the trilogy so extraordinary. I'm still finding new things on my eight playthrough of Mass Effect 1, and my third playthrough of Mass Effect 2.EA_BiowareAccount wrote...
some good points on both sides. I have to give you guys kudos about debating this. This topic interests me the most as I never experienced one decision carry over to next games, ever! I would want direct connection from my experience to carry over to ME3, but what confounds me is how is bioware going to do that? so many variables to consider. Variables that many of us may never see in our play through.
kraidy1117 wrote...
Garrus, I can not see leaving, look when Shepard died. He was lost, he did not know what to do and he decided to lead his own group of misfits.
Oh look, we have someone who thinks about the subject as a whole!royceclemens wrote...
One thing that bugs me about this argument. Some folks say that it would be cost prohibitive to bring the ME2 squaddies back as actual squadmembers because of the divergent paths that the suicide mission could take. Voice acting, plus content that we'd never see.
But wouldn't it be more cost prohibitive to design planets, stages and missions to facilitate up to fifteen cameos? If the ME2 squaddies were all relegated to cameos (and I have no doubt everyone's first playthrough of ME3 would be one where everybody lived), then how long would ME3 be? To say "Hi" to up to fifteen people would mean an ungodly long game, and that's leaving out sidequests.
So wouldn't it be more cost effective just to bring everyone back and just seal off content for the characters that died?
royceclemens wrote...
One thing that bugs me about this argument. Some folks say that it would be cost prohibitive to bring the ME2 squaddies back as actual squadmembers because of the divergent paths that the suicide mission could take. Voice acting, plus content that we'd never see.
But wouldn't it be more cost prohibitive to design planets, stages and missions to facilitate up to fifteen cameos? If the ME2 squaddies were all relegated to cameos (and I have no doubt everyone's first playthrough of ME3 would be one where everybody lived), then how long would ME3 be? To say "Hi" to up to fifteen people would mean an ungodly long game, and that's leaving out sidequests.
So wouldn't it be more cost effective just to bring everyone back and just seal off content for the characters that died?
I don't see it as punishment, but as reward for those of us who stick around since ME1 and actually made an effort to keep everyone alive. It wasn't difficult at all to keep everyone alive, and whoever choosing to let his/her squad mate die probably either a) wanted that squad mate dead orJeanLuc761 wrote...
I see no reason to "punish" folks for their choices. In this partiuclar case I assume we are speaking of having ME2 squad mates die in the final mission. These folks made their choices and have just as much right to see their games play through to conclusion as some one else who made different choices. One person's set of choices are no more "right" than anyone elses.
didn't take the game seriously enough to even try. In the former it wouldn't be punishment at all since this is exactly what they wanted; in the latter case, well they wouldn't take the game seriously regardless of whether you accomodate them or not.
Retour en haut