762 réponses à ce sujet

[JockBuster]

smudboy wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Arijharn wrote...
While the team is obviously under milestone requirements, it seems to make more sense to me at least for them to work under the assumption that the entire team returns, and then filter that through their systems as opposed to the other way around.

This would make sense, were it not for the fact that EA/Bioware took the idea to cater to new players, not returning ones, and seem to have the conclusion that any reference to the previous game will confuse and dumbfound new players.

Stupid, but that seemed to be how they handled ME2.

This is backwards.  A system works based on the necessary number of factors for it to work, as additional features and content are added to it.  A bottom-up approach.  One does, however, design such a system to become robust, so those features and content are added later, easily.  This is one of the fundamental concepts as to why "NO ME2 SQUAD" will be recruitable by default (the KISS rule, I think.) Optional content is excess baggage.  ME2 = excess baggage in spades.

Although the iteration for every squadmate returning will eventually be factored in, they simply will not be as squadmates, unless that's all they are, and not the diverse characters with independent missions and massive dialog wheels, solely for their benefit or character development that we know them for.

or ... Going back  to the TITLE of this thread:
they ALREADY have been recruited, no need to recruit any more, just get your Allies (Krogan, Rachni, True Geth, Quarians, Concul, Turians, et al) to team up and work together again the common cause.
Also, remember Vigil, "the Reapers are in a weakened state while in Dark Space." 

[smudboy]

Arijharn wrote...
This may be true if they designed the game as they were making it. Sure things change during development, but this isn't the same thing. It's not as if, for example, while they were building the game (i.e., after they were planning it) when one day someone comes in and says: "They should totally go to Illium!" When it originally wasn't designed.

Designers do not create designs that cannot be produced within the scope of the project, even if they shoot for the moon (24 squadmates, etc.)  The basic concept of a feature and its function is hammered out before production starts, usually by developers, providing key changes to make the design useful, and grounded.

Production compromises those designs for reality.  "They should totally go to Illium" could very well happen.  Even more possible "we have no time: cut it."  Having dynamic states of variables to produce and be present seamlessly is a logistical nightmare, especially on ME2's squad's level of death, non-recruitment, and non-import of character data.  Thus a low-level, or LCD of function, has to be used a base or core, as the additional content or features are added.  (Keeping within design of ME2 and the Unreal engine, simply importing levels with dynamic variables (place holder characters) seems more believable.)

[Arijharn]

smudboy wrote...
Designers do not create designs that cannot be produced within the scope of the project, even if they shoot for the moon (24 squadmates, etc.)  The basic concept of a feature and its function is hammered out before production starts, usually by developers, providing key changes to make the design useful, and grounded.

Production compromises those designs for reality.  "They should totally go to Illium" could very well happen.  Even more possible "we have no time: cut it."  Having dynamic states of variables to produce and be present seamlessly is a logistical nightmare, especially on ME2's squad's level of death, non-recruitment, and non-import of character data.  Thus a low-level, or LCD of function, has to be used a base or core, as the additional content or features are added.  (Keeping within design of ME2 and the Unreal engine, simply importing levels with dynamic variables (place holder characters) seems more believable.)

The problem with your example however is that other than for DLC characters, there are no issues of 'non-recruitment,' you have to get all of them, therefore the issue is, while undoubtedly difficult to keep track of, is hardly the insurmountable problem you're trying to portray.

If no character is really going to be holding essential gameplay progress (on the basis of the fact that they could die during the events of ME2) then the game development gets easier for them, not harder (because that's less variables they have to make sure of). If a character manages to survive the end of ME2, then the game would either know that you've passed the character's loyalty mission and/or (s)he got lucky when it came time to kill someone off... neither of those problems are insurmountable.

To completely introduce new characters for the final level at the expense of ME2 is overwrought. I think we will see a bevy of new characters (some of them recruitable by default), I don't necessarily disagree with the question of that some ME2 squad members will not be recruitable by default, I just think it's borderline retarded to say that no me2 squad members will be recruitable by default. Why? because we don't know what 'default' means in regards to ME3 (Although I presume it'll be that only 2 or even 3 squadmates from the ME2 will survive, and of those, your guess is as good as mine. I would say that Miranda would be one, but Garrus and Tali are essentially the mascots for the game series)

[smudboy]

Arijharn wrote...
The problem with your example however is that other than for DLC characters, there are no issues of 'non-recruitment,' you have to get all of them, therefore the issue is, while undoubtedly difficult to keep track of, is hardly the insurmountable problem you're trying to portray.

What do you mean?  The design must obviously include and deal with all scenarios.

If no character is really going to be holding essential gameplay progress (on the basis of the fact that they could die during the events of ME2) then the game development gets easier for them, not harder (because that's less variables they have to make sure of). If a character manages to survive the end of ME2, then the game would either know that you've passed the character's loyalty mission and/or (s)he got lucky when it came time to kill someone off... neither of those problems are insurmountable.

The addition of dynamic states or variables makes things more complex.  Your statement says nothing of design or complexity of development.  As in my previous statement, the design is dealing with every instance of a variable, so it wouldn't make things easier: development simply must take into account all states of variables as listed.  So, character A state1: living?, etc.

To completely introduce new characters for the final level at the expense of ME2 is overwrought. I think we will see a bevy of new characters (some of them recruitable by default), I don't necessarily disagree with the question of that some ME2 squad members will not be recruitable by default, I just think it's borderline retarded to say that no me2 squad members will be recruitable by default. Why? because we don't know what 'default' means in regards to ME3 (Although I presume it'll be that only 2 or even 3 squadmates from the ME2 will survive, and of those, your guess is as good as mine. I would say that Miranda would be one, but Garrus and Tali are essentially the mascots for the game series)

Why would we introduce new characters for the final level of ME3, at the expense of ME2?  What overwrought scenario are you describing?

There is a small possibility that previous squadmates will be squadmates in ME3.  One of the good things of ME3 is the design no longer has to worry about continuation issues: this is the end.

Considering the evidence against ME2 squadmates coming back as squadmates, it's not borderline retarded at all.  We can say for certain, based on Casey's comments (unless he's just kidding), that there will be new ME3 squadmates.  The possible ways I can foresee the ME2 squad coming back are: 1) cameo, 2a) plot driven cameo placeholders, 2b) plot driven squadmates, 3) placeholders, 4) functional squadmate placeholders.

I can't see DLC working at all, unless it operates as a 5) character driven squadmate placeholder

[Arijharn]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]Arijharn wrote...
The problem with your example however is that other than for DLC characters, there are no issues of 'non-recruitment,' you have to get all of them, therefore the issue is, while undoubtedly difficult to keep track of, is hardly the insurmountable problem you're trying to portray.
[/quote]
What do you mean?  The design must obviously include and deal with all scenarios.
[/quote]
Because you're over-complicating it. It's not as if you can choose to recruit Thane or not during the course of ME2, you have to recruit Thane to complete the story. You have the option of choosing who to recruit first between Thane and Samara for example, but that's the limitation of it.

To further my example, Thane and Samara would have opinions for example on the events/choices you make during the course of ME3, but in no way would they be instrumental in them (in the same way that you had to recruit your group of kick ass mercenaries during the course of ME2 in comparison), nor would they be essential in achieving your goal. This may be at the expense of storyline immersion of course, but that is irrelevant and what I'd argue as unavoidable too.


[quote]smudboy wrote...
[quote]Arijharn wrote...
If no character is really going to be holding essential gameplay progress (on the basis of the fact that they could die during the events of ME2) then the game development gets easier for them, not harder (because that's less variables they have to make sure of). If a character manages to survive the end of ME2, then the game would either know that you've passed the character's loyalty mission and/or (s)he got lucky when it came time to kill someone off... neither of those problems are insurmountable.
[/quote]
The addition of dynamic states or variables makes things more complex.  Your statement says nothing of design or complexity of development.  As in my previous statement, the design is dealing with every instance of a variable, so it wouldn't make things easier: development simply must take into account all states of variables as listed.  So, character A state1: living?, etc.
[/quote]

I hear what you're saying, but it isn't an impossible situation to overcome, especially since no ME2 character (barring DLC) is avoidable. I can see that there could be more issues perhaps with them (DLC) however, but it would make sense in that regard to merely entertain those states depending on data retrieved from the ME2 game files (i.e., blissful ignorance otherwise).

As I see it, to continue your character states, I see it as:
character A state1: living
character A state2: dead 
Wouldn't it therefore by either a boolean variable at least or even of a short integer or even character data type (if you want to get picky). Of course this would have flow on effects throughout the course of the game, but if a character doesn't really have a degree of control over the state of events of ME3 (like they didn't really have control over the events of ME2 other than a) Their loyalty mission or The ability to progress to the next storyline chapter) then the workload is no real larger or smaller than the workload the developers had during the development of ME2 (I'd argue larger if only because they want to make their next game better than the one before).

In any case, this isn't truly 'dynamic,' as it's decided during the ending of ME2 and not (necessarily) during the events of ME3. If it is 'dynamically' changed during the events of ME3, then because the characters (the design) of the game is created in such a way that the characters are essentially self-contained, then the player wouldn't loose part of their experience. If Thane or Samara suddenly died during the course of ME3 then sure the game may get harder but it wont suddenly make the game too hard to complete.


[quote]smudboy wrote...
[quote]Arijharn wrote...
To completely introduce new characters for the final level at the expense of ME2 is overwrought. I think we will see a bevy of new characters (some of them recruitable by default), I don't necessarily disagree with the question of that some ME2 squad members will not be recruitable by default, I just think it's borderline retarded to say that no me2 squad members will be recruitable by default. Why? because we don't know what 'default' means in regards to ME3 (Although I presume it'll be that only 2 or even 3 squadmates from the ME2 will survive, and of those, your guess is as good as mine. I would say that Miranda would be one, but Garrus and Tali are essentially the mascots for the game series)
[/quote]
Why would we introduce new characters for the final level of ME3, at the expense of ME2?  What overwrought scenario are you describing?

There is a small possibility that previous squadmates will be squadmates in ME3.  One of the good things of ME3 is the design no longer has to worry about continuation issues: this is the end.

Considering the evidence against ME2 squadmates coming back as squadmates, it's not borderline retarded at all.  We can say for certain, based on Casey's comments (unless he's just kidding), that there will be new ME3 squadmates.  The possible ways I can foresee the ME2 squad coming back are: 1) cameo, 2a) plot driven cameo placeholders, 2b) plot driven squadmates, 3) placeholders, 4) functional squadmate placeholders.

I can't see DLC working at all, unless it operates as a 5) character driven squadmate placeholder
[/quote]
[/quote]

The one thing to me that makes the most sense about the inclusion of ME2 characters is the fact that ME3 does not need to treat any character as essential (like Wrex, like Liara, like your Virmire survivor)... therefore everyone is fair game. In my view, that's far more liberating (especially since like I've been saying, no one would be essential to the progress of ME3).

As an example, Tali would be in your squad because her name is Tali vas Normandy (unless you killed her off during ME2). Tali however will have no bearing on your capability to finish ME3 though. She's not going to suddenly give you information that you would otherwise be unable to have in order to find some hidden nexus of Reapers. She may be there by default, she may not be... your guess is as good as mine.

Miranda would be in your squad for one of two reasons, she resigned, or she hasn't (and neither, in a way, have you). Miranda however will have no bearing on your capability to finish ME3 though. She's not going to suddenly give you information that you would otherwise be unable to have in order to find some hidden nexus of Reapers. She may be there by default, she may not be... your guess is as good as mine. Having said that, she is hard to kill off, perhaps chances are better than average that she'll be there as the token 'Cerberus' officer.

Add this rationalisation to your other squad mates.

[Zulu_DFA]

Arijharn wrote...

Because you're over-complicating it. It's not as if you can choose to recruit Thane or not during the course of ME2, you have to recruit Thane to complete the story. You have the option of choosing who to recruit first between Thane and Samara for example, but that's the limitation of it.

Actually, You're not quite right. Of Tali, Thane and Samara you need to recruit only two to proceed on the "suicide mission", which means any one of them can be left for dead. Yeah, that's right. The game treats dead squadmates and non recruited alike. Proof: I recruited Garrus, did his "loyalty", killed him off on the suicide mission. Then I went to Omega, and the news were: "Mercs laying seige to Archangel"! (same with the reference to Archangel an NPC gives during Kasumi's loyaly). So I think if a companion died or was not recruited in ME3 there will be zero reference to them.

As an example, Tali would be in your squad because her name is Tali vas Normandy (unless you killed her off during ME2). Tali however will have no bearing on your capability to finish ME3 though. She's not going to suddenly give you information that you would otherwise be unable to have in order to find some hidden nexus of Reapers. She may be there by default, she may not be... your guess is as good as mine.

Aside from the fact that Tali may be alive, but "betrayed" by Shepard (and many other characters can have different states depending on what happened during their respective loyalty missions, which will need to be accounted for), she'll be a very boring squadmate. Basically you here are advocating "larger squad but less interactive".

Let me remind you, that in ME1 companions sometimes had full blown conversations and arguments with each other during missions, instead of ME2 "mission one liners", and had multiple things to say at multiple locations, instead of just 1 comment per hub world. Not to mention the famous elevator dialogue.

Furthermore, ME3 has to be all about killing the Reapers, and it's everyone's duty (so to say) so contribute something to advancing the plot towards victory. Only new squadmates can do that. Those that can't - the ME2 ones - are, well, baggage.

[snfonseka]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

.........

Furthermore, ME3 has to be all about killing the Reapers, and it's everyone's duty (so to say) so contribute something to advancing the plot towards victory. Only new squadmates can do that. Those that can't - the ME2 ones - are, well, baggage.

I don't think that there must be a connection with plot towards victory and the squadmates. The "plot towards victory" is based on the script... that finding a way to defeat Reapers / finding a weakness in Reapers / gathering allies, uniting different races against Reapers etc.

It should not be like this:

TIM: "Hey Shepard, I have a list of people you should collect, they are real bad ass... If you can convince them to join you, you can defeat Reapers. I don't know how.... but I've got a good feeling about this! You must have them if you want to win, no other can do this.."

Shep: "Wait!... how on earth a squad can defeat the Reapers? We need a strategy... a plan... we need to gather forces..."

TIM: "No..... only these new people can do the job. Only they can contribute something to your mission.... you can forget about strategy... THE SQUAD WILL LEAD YOU TO THE VICTORY... THATS IT!"

[Arijharn]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Because you're over-complicating it. It's not as if you can choose to recruit Thane or not during the course of ME2, you have to recruit Thane to complete the story. You have the option of choosing who to recruit first between Thane and Samara for example, but that's the limitation of it.

Actually, You're not quite right. Of Tali, Thane and Samara you need to recruit only two to proceed on the "suicide mission", which means any one of them can be left for dead. Yeah, that's right. The game treats dead squadmates and non recruited alike. Proof: I recruited Garrus, did his "loyalty", killed him off on the suicide mission. Then I went to Omega, and the news were: "Mercs laying seige to Archangel"! (same with the reference to Archangel an NPC gives during Kasumi's loyaly). So I think if a companion died or was not recruited in ME3 there will be zero reference to them.

Ah, you're right (silly me for always being the stickler for 'doing it properly'). However, while you are right and the situation for the states becomes more complicated, it isn't unachievable. As an aside, if I recall correctly however, the 'time-to-next-story-event' isn't based on how many people you have recruited, but how many missions you have performed (and to top this off, I think it also takes into account how many missions are available at the time)

Here's another way to look at it, in the main storyline it may not necessarily matter about the particular's of whether you betrayed Tali or not, although it would be good if it comes to a crisis point at some time. If you're trudging along minding your business on Illium, I would find it hard to believe that Tali would be moaning and groaning until it may come to a pivotal moment to her or your situation (although again, it wouldn't matter to the extent of whether you can complete the game or not). It would behave the same way in principle as to when Garrus teases Tali on the Citadel for example (and dialog can change in this too - for example, there are many cases when particulars of a conversation between Morrigan and Leliana in Dragon Age changes based on whether you as a male Warden had slept with Morrigan (or Leliana) at the time.)

[Zulu_DFA]

snfonseka wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

.........

Furthermore, ME3 has to be all about killing the Reapers, and it's everyone's duty (so to say) so contribute something to advancing the plot towards victory. Only new squadmates can do that. Those that can't - the ME2 ones - are, well, baggage.

I don't think that there must be a connection with plot towards victory and the squadmates. The "plot towards victory" is based on the script... that finding a way to defeat Reapers / finding a weakness in Reapers / gathering allies, uniting different races against Reapers etc.

So is ME3 going to be a strategy game?

No, because the when the Reapers arrive, we're fried. It's not the matter of numbers, it's a matter of some artifact that'll defeat the Reapers, and the quest to find out what it is, where it is, how to get to it, how it works and who can work it is going to be the ME3 plot.

[snfonseka]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

snfonseka wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

.........

Furthermore, ME3 has to be all about killing the Reapers, and it's everyone's duty (so to say) so contribute something to advancing the plot towards victory. Only new squadmates can do that. Those that can't - the ME2 ones - are, well, baggage.

I don't think that there must be a connection with plot towards victory and the squadmates. The "plot towards victory" is based on the script... that finding a way to defeat Reapers / finding a weakness in Reapers / gathering allies, uniting different races against Reapers etc.

So is ME3 going to be a strategy game?

No, because the when the Reapers arrive, we're fried. It's not the matter of numbers, it's a matter of some artifact that'll defeat the Reapers, and the quest to find out what it is, where it is, how to get to it, how it works and who can work it is going to be the ME3 plot.

Its too bad you never played the DA:O, if so you wouldn't ask me that question..... anyway I still think you are joking on that! If not the case let me try to clarify it... I mentioned that Shepard need a "strategy"; not that ME3 is a RTS. The word "strategy" means "a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal." So based on your description the plan is to "find an artifact" and the goal is "defeat the Reapers".

You have just approved my argument with your speculation.... that we don't need a specific new team to get the job done!

Err.... I am not working in Bioware... So no comment here (Since I have no knowledge of what BW writers are writing, but if you do please share the info with us )

Modifié par snfonseka, 12 août 2010 - 01:09 .

[Talexe]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but is it possible Shepard will have no permanent squadmates on the Normandy, but having them vary based on the mission and location? That could accommodate all outcomes.

[snfonseka]

Talexe wrote...

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but is it possible Shepard will have no permanent squadmates on the Normandy, but having them vary based on the mission and location? That could accommodate all outcomes.

Yea... I have seen this somewhere..... But I think its a nice idea... So no harm in posting twice !

Modifié par snfonseka, 12 août 2010 - 10:17 .

[smudboy]

Arijharn wrote...
Because you're over-complicating it. It's not as if you can choose to recruit Thane or not during the course of ME2, you have to recruit Thane to complete the story. You have the option of choosing who to recruit first between Thane and Samara for example, but that's the limitation of it.

To further my example, Thane and Samara would have opinions for example on the events/choices you make during the course of ME3, but in no way would they be instrumental in them (in the same way that you had to recruit your group of kick ass mercenaries during the course of ME2 in comparison), nor would they be essential in achieving your goal. This may be at the expense of storyline immersion of course, but that is irrelevant and what I'd argue as unavoidable too.

I was describing the process of design and development.  And somehow the conversation went to talking about characters completing stories but not being story relevant to ME3 (i.e. placeholders.)

Arijharn wrote...
I hear what you're saying, but it isn't an impossible situation to overcome, especially since no ME2 character (barring DLC) is avoidable. I can see that there could be more issues perhaps with them (DLC) however, but it would make sense in that regard to merely entertain those states depending on data retrieved from the ME2 game files (i.e., blissful ignorance otherwise).

You can completely avoid characters on recruitment.

And you can completely avoid importing.

As I see it, to continue your character states, I see it as:
character A state1: living
character A state2: dead 
Wouldn't it therefore by either a boolean variable at least or even of a short integer or even character data type (if you want to get picky). Of course this would have flow on effects throughout the course of the game, but if a character doesn't really have a degree of control over the state of events of ME3 (like they didn't really have control over the events of ME2 other than a) Their loyalty mission or The ability to progress to the next storyline chapter) then the workload is no real larger or smaller than the workload the developers had during the development of ME2 (I'd argue larger if only because they want to make their next game better than the one before).

The flag's data type is irrelevant; it just implies more complexity, as the design has to account for ALL iterations.

In any case, this isn't truly 'dynamic,' as it's decided during the ending of ME2 and not (necessarily) during the events of ME3. If it is 'dynamically' changed during the events of ME3, then because the characters (the design) of the game is created in such a way that the characters are essentially self-contained, then the player wouldn't loose part of their experience. If Thane or Samara suddenly died during the course of ME3 then sure the game may get harder but it wont suddenly make the game too hard to complete.

If a variable has multiple states, it's dynamic.  In this case, a simple flag tells the system in ME3 to account for a certain state.  It must account for all states of that variable.  If that variable is active during several events in ME3, then it's even more complex and more work to account for.

Arijharn wrote...
The one thing to me that makes the most sense about the inclusion of ME2 characters is the fact that ME3 does not need to treat any character as essential (like Wrex, like Liara, like your Virmire survivor)... therefore everyone is fair game. In my view, that's far more liberating (especially since like I've been saying, no one would be essential to the progress of ME3).

That just implies it's easier to not include them.

As an example, Tali would be in your squad because her name is Tali vas Normandy (unless you killed her off during ME2). Tali however will have no bearing on your capability to finish ME3 though. She's not going to suddenly give you information that you would otherwise be unable to have in order to find some hidden nexus of Reapers. She may be there by default, she may not be... your guess is as good as mine.

So a 4) functional squad mate placeholder?

Miranda would be in your squad for one of two reasons, she resigned, or she hasn't (and neither, in a way, have you). Miranda however will have no bearing on your capability to finish ME3 though. She's not going to suddenly give you information that you would otherwise be unable to have in order to find some hidden nexus of Reapers. She may be there by default, she may not be... your guess is as good as mine. Having said that, she is hard to kill off, perhaps chances are better than average that she'll be there as the token 'Cerberus' officer.

So a 4) functional squad mate placeholder?

Add this rationalisation to your other squad mates.

Well this isn't the argument.  The argument is fully fleshed out squadmates from ME2.  Getting a beefy sized dialog wheel, their own character development, possibly their own level, romance options, different dialog at plot points, etc.  I see nothing wrong with having a functional squad mate placeholder: it can work.  It'll just be fluff.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Zulu_DFA wrote...


So is ME3 going to be a strategy game?

No, because the when the Reapers arrive, we're fried. It's not the matter of numbers, it's a matter of some artifact that'll defeat the Reapers, and the quest to find out what it is, where it is, how to get to it, how it works and who can work it is going to be the ME3 plot.

There you go stating your opinion as if it's fact.   So do you work for Bioware? Cause judging by the boldness of your statement, it certainly sounds like you do.

-Polite

[Valtauran]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

http://social.bioware.com/1449956/polls/4680/

Now, Liara and Virmire Survivor are the only two former squadmates, that are alive in all saves. Others are expendable => waste of ME3 resources.

=> ME2 squadmates = cameos, DLCs.
__________________________________________________________________________
On another note, make up a list of up to 5 new squadmates you wish to be in ME3. Be serious!

Mine:

Feron
Batarian escaped slave / former Special Intervention Unit member
Mordin's nephew
Turian female spectre (flexibility!)
Joker Father Grigory Kahoku's son Kai Leng



EDIT:

This is actually extras because as I said, the poll results are enough, but still

Data to mull over from the SURVIVOR show:
All ME2 LIs got voted out ahead any of ME1 LI. Also, some of the fan favorites have proven to pack up as much hate as love, which doesn't add up to their chances of much screen time in ME3.

BioWare will want to reward importing ME2 characters in ME3. How? More camoes. Who's cameos? The former squadmates' cameos who will all be dead by default (except two, probably Miranda & Jacob, still cameo-ed, though). Bioware can't penalize newbies, let alone casual ME2 players (who may not have an all-in save) by withdrawing available recruitables from ME3.

Reasons for ME2 squadmates to be absent (dead) from ME3, aside from death on the suicide mission:
Thane - terminally ill
Mordin - old age
Legion - sent to Cerberus
Grunt - dies in the tank
Samara - killed for Morinth
Zaeed - abandoned to burn on Zorya
Kasumi - hunted for her graybox
Tali - suicidal over dad's honor (unloyalty)
Jack - mental disorder (?) or detained by Cerberus for study
Garrus - none, but simple unloyalty (Sidonis at large)



AND, since everybody loves to say that ME2 is so great because the professional reviewers say so, might as well link a review relevant to the topic:

http://www.gamecriti...effect-2-review



AND if you still feel like posting something along the lines "No, I think all ME2 squadmates will return [as squadmates]" or "I think these will stay and these will leave", do it in the appropriate thread:

http://social.biowar...5/index/3068986

For me, the following Characters may or may not be in ME3, if Bioware are smart about it.

Thane - Terminally ill, might be dead by ME3
Mordin - old age
Legion - kept him around, was very useful
Grunt - became a member of Urdnot clan, so i am assuming he will go back to the Krogan Homeworld.
Samara - She fulfilled her pledge and went on her way.
Zaeed - Convinced him that his way isn't the only way, which helped him be more paragon.
Kasumi - Her location is unknown since she has the box from her ex partner/lover.
Tali - Loyal and happy that i helped her out (in the process of a playthrough with her as the romance (she had BETTER be in ME3 Bioware.)
Jack - Helped her out with her problems, so i hope that in ME3, she will be more stable and happy with her life.
Garrus - helped him get over Sardonis and letting him live, because in the end, sardonis living is worse then being killed by Garrus.

All my squad members survived the last mission, it took be alot of work to get that done, it had better be worth it.

[Arijharn]

smudboy wrote...

So a 4) functional squad mate placeholder?

In a nutshell, yes.

[ShadyKat]

Only request I have is for

a female Turian

and a Batarian

[smudboy]

Arijharn wrote...

smudboy wrote...

So a 4) functional squad mate placeholder?

In a nutshell, yes.

That's perfectly acceptable.  It's also very simple to do.

It's not what I'd want, nor is it what everyone's arguing about here.  We all want characters to be as fully fleshed out and as plot relevant as possible.  We know BioWare's strength is characters, so it's believable.

For example, a functioanl squad mate could be present after a plot role squadmate placeholder intro.  That sounds good, though limiting.  It means if you want the level of detail and dialog that normal squadmates would get, you'd need to do twice the work: one for the returning squadmate, and another for the new character.

[usmack5]

While a lot of character absences as squad mates are understandable in mass effect 3, in no way should any of them have died in the time in between games, unless they were unloyal, which would open up possibilities, but it would be pointless for me to do all this stuff to ensure the survival of my crew if they were going to go die in some unseen scene in between games.



That said, I could see these things preventing certain party members from rejoining you for the whole of ME3.



- Tali - becomes a member of the quarian admiralty board - do I really want this to happen? no, because I want her on my squad. Does it make sense? Yes.

- Garrus - becomes a Turian general or spectre - I highly doubt either of these would happen, so I'm putting my money on him being in your party

- Ashley/Kaiden - since they're super involved in alliance spec ops now, I doubt they'll get full party status, but I expect lengthy appearances with them, including conflicts with "love intersts" from ME2

- Liara - we still have to see what's up with the dlc that is to be released, so I can only speculate that I wouldn't be surprised if she was or wasn't a party member due to her being an info. broker

- Zaeed - unless his contract with Cerberus is completely up, I expect he'd be there in a larger adviser role, and if you convinced him to give up his hunt for that blue suns leader, then he'll likely be with you, or he might go hunt him, who knows?

- Kasumi - she either ran away from that one criminal dude that kileed her partner, or she's with your squad - I can't complain either way

- Legion - definitely see him being an ambassador of sorts for the geth, whether it's in official capacities or not will likely determine if he's in your party - basically the same situation as Tali

- Thane - he's either spending long lost time with his son, dying of his ailments, or he's with you - I wouldn't be surprised with any of these - it would be a powerful emotional scene if you visited him on his deathbed, though

- Miranda and Jacob - I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were still with you, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jacob left Cerberus

- Mordin - either retired in all capacities or in your squad - I liked him a lot in ME2, so I'm hoping for the latter

- Jack - either more or less psychopathic then she was before, and as long as you did her loyalty mission, more stable - I could see her going her own way or staying with you

- Grunt - I could see him spending the game with Wrex or as an ambassador for the Urdnots with you - he wasn't that interesting, so I don't care either way

- Samara - I could only see her going to battle evil elsewhere, though a cameo would be a must



Whew, that felt like a lot of typing.....but there you have my impressions of where these people will likely be in ME3

[Promethium147]

You know, Mass Effect 2 had to have Shepard die and rise again in order to justify breaking up the old squad. At least some of the squadmates would want to stay with Shepard. Miranda and Jacob basically work for him, Grunt considers him a commander and mentor, Legion is obsessed with him, Tali and Garrus only left after the Normandy blew up the first time.



Having returning squadmates would be pretty easy. You could reuse art and the voice actors are already familiar with the role - no need for more casting. In fact, I imagine the game could reuse a bit of stuff from the second game without a problem.



As for new characters:

Kai Leng (recruitable if you are on good terms with Cerberus, otherwise an enemy.)

Kal'Reegar - he'd be a pretty interesting twist on Quarians, probably a heavy weapons / sniper type, but with limited durability. The problem is that he is also not ensured survival.

Someone from a race we haven't had on the team, like a Batarian revolutionary (their government is like space North Korea, after all).

It might be possible to recruit or have people come back for non-combat work. Say, for instance, a volus who handles the money side of things.

[poisonoustea]

Say, for instance, a volus who handles the money side of things.

Hahaha, I'd love to have a Volus tax advisor on board.

[xlavaina]

I will not buy ME3 if the majority of the characters do not return. I originally bought ME thinking that Mass Effect not only refers to the mass relays, but also that your decisions have a massive effect. I do not want another "recruitment campaign" for ME3. Plus, what would it mean if your squad members died in the suicide mission if none return anyway? That would be borderline ridiculous.



Bottom line. I need Garrus, Tali and Joker to return for me to buy the game (I'm sure Joker will be back though, BW would be absolutely jack **** crazy not to bring him back). I know thats not the majority but they are my favorites

[Arijharn]

smudboy wrote...
That's perfectly acceptable.  It's also very simple to do.

It's not what I'd want, nor is it what everyone's arguing about here.  We all want characters to be as fully fleshed out and as plot relevant as possible.  We know BioWare's strength is characters, so it's believable.

For example, a functioanl squad mate could be present after a plot role squadmate placeholder intro.  That sounds good, though limiting.  It means if you want the level of detail and dialog that normal squadmates would get, you'd need to do twice the work: one for the returning squadmate, and another for the new character.

It would be extra work, but no more real extra work (or lets say no real harder work) than implementing brand new characters. The characters you recruit during the course of ME2 do not really affect the outcome of ME2, so I don't see why the rules would have to change if they were returning in the third instalment either.

The characters can be fleshed out and not constantly bemoan the events of ME2 because lets face it, if they did it would get very annoying, arguably very quickly. "Damn you shephard, why did you sell out my father? DAMN YOU."

[KainrycKarr]

smudboy wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

smudboy wrote...

So a 4) functional squad mate placeholder?

In a nutshell, yes.

That's perfectly acceptable.  It's also very simple to do.

It's not what I'd want, nor is it what everyone's arguing about here.  We all want characters to be as fully fleshed out and as plot relevant as possible.  We know BioWare's strength is characters, so it's believable.

For example, a functioanl squad mate could be present after a plot role squadmate placeholder intro.  That sounds good, though limiting.  It means if you want the level of detail and dialog that normal squadmates would get, you'd need to do twice the work: one for the returning squadmate, and another for the new character.

Well the extra work bit...we know Bioware is keeping the basic frame of ME2 for ME3, so that reduces the workload significantly...it's quite possibly that that free workload might be diverted into the bolded.

Is that what I think will happen? Eh....a very mild maybe, it depends on their mood imo.

Is that what I want to happen? Yes.

[loris]

Well what worries me with the possibility of new squad members in ME3 is that the addition of too many squad members (ME1 squad + ME2 squad + new ME3 squad ) ends up with weakening and over simplifying the dialogues and characters history/design.



With ME1, there was just a few characters, so developing them with long and interesting dialogues and unique "place in the scenario" was not complicated; but with the huge possibilities of death/survival/... for ME3 it's getting really hard to develop each character fully and deeply.

We’ll see how Bioware handles that, and I hope they really thought about it when thinking about the whole trilogy.