Peppard wrote...
There's a vast difference between the following choices for how to handle the fate of a particular character:
(A) make the character an integral part of the main story arc,
(
a brief cameo NPC with little interaction,
© a sidekick squad mate with a bunch of quippy, but essentially irrelevant remarks
Choice A would require some creation of a canon story, that ignores players choices, so that's out.
Choice B is what BW's done before, but has received negative fan feedback for choosing
Choice C is something new, that, relies on the modular design of ME2 to pull off
Is option C really preferrable? You'd rather have a bunch of returning party members with nothing substantial
to contribute to the storyline than a squad with a mix of a few returning characters (Liara, Ashley/Kaiden) along
with some new ones? People were complaining about the fact that most of the ME1 squad wasn't returning
for ME2, and now that they've had some time with the game, they've become so attached to the new squad
members that the cycle is repeating again. Personally, I think a change of cast can be a good thing.
Peppard wrote...
They aren't cutting anything from those players--they are potentially offering them "replay value." Others might also see importing a save with only a few survivors as a challenge, a player super-insanity run if you will.
I think most gamers don't want to replay a game to get the full experience. Now, I am making a bit of an assumption here, but I would be willing to bet that most ME2 players have not played through the main game more than once, and don't plan on doing so.
Peppard wrote...
I think you're making assumptions just to make it sound harder, and downplay the value of having returning characters, just because there are a few players who may not see a few of those characters in imports to ME3. While having "everyone survive" may not be the most common result, I bet the average player is much closer to having several team mates survive than the blood bath scenario. I keep seeing posts that it is "too easy" to save people in fact. I have not seen many posts that it is "too hard" to save most of the squad.
You're right, I am making a few convenient assumptions for my argument, so let me make a few more while I'm at it
On the whole, people who post online are not a representative sample of the player community, imo. If I had to paint a picture of the 'average' ME2 player, it would be someone who did maybe three or four loyalty missions and then headed for Omega-4, and ended up losing maybe 4 or 5 people out of their team of 11. As to who lived and who died, well, that could be anybody depending on the player. So if I'm Bioware and I'm trying to ascertain who were the 'most likely' characters to survive ME2 to put in ME3, who do I pick? Based on ME2, I'd have to say Bioware's choice will probably be to pick none of them. Notice there wasn't a single case in ME2 where a full squad member could be unavailable based on your choices in ME1.
Peppard wrote...
BW could design a game that works well based around a minimum squad of 6 characters (since 6 was the magic number in ME1) covering 3 basic classes (tech/combat/biotic). They start everyone off with at least one character in each of the 3 classes (Liara--biotic), Virmire Survivor (now a combat person), and a third character for Tech, who could be new. That gives them a fourth character that can be anything they want, probably a hybrid type. The two new characters, plus the 2 old ME1 can be used for anything central story related (the way Jacob and Miranda work in ME2).
I agree with your choice for the initial three party members. The only question that remains for me is: if returning party members from ME2 wont have any significant impact on the story (as you suggested), then why do you want them in your squad? I would take a completely new squad that is well-integrated into the storyline any day over a ship full of Zaeeds.
Modifié par --Master of All--, 16 avril 2010 - 10:27 .
Retour en haut
