762 réponses à ce sujet

[SimonTheFrog]

ReluctantMind wrote...

It seems like killing characters as a plot device would only be rewarding if the ME2 squad returned in ME3 with more than brief cameos.

Seriously, though. I have hope (definitely not knowledge) that Bioware will return at least some of the ME2 squad in significant roles for the following reasons:
1. Bioware is a company and companies do what will make them profit. There have been multiple references to the fact that Bioware was surprised by the large number of imports. That means a lot of fans who have become attached to at least some of the ME2 squad. I suspect the ones who are done with the ME2 squad constitute a much smaller number.
2. There have been a number of posts by people claiming they will not buy the game if they have to recruit a whole new squad. A large number of those people will of course buy the game, but the number of people who will follow through on that is not zero. The greater threat to Bioware's bottom line is that a large number of people will hold off on buying the game due to frustration and buy it following the price drops or buy it used.
3. In contrast to #2 above, I have not seen a single post by anyone claiming they will not buy the game if the old squad returns. They may exist, but they would be extremely rare.
4. The most vocal fans will also be the ones writing many of the early fan reviews for ME3. Fan service and loyalty to fans is not because Bioware loves us as people, they want our money (Note: I have no problem with this fact). A flood of angry fans probably does not do a whole lot for a game's early numbers.
5. I agree with the argument that we supposedly recruited the "best of the best" and it would feel stupid to have to recruit anew. Did we catch every awesome possible squad member in the galaxy with these twelve? Of course not, but it still makes me think of my favorite line from Hot Shots Part Deux when Topper Harley is being recruited to rescue the Iraqi hostages. Previous attempts have failed and so now they have to "go in to get the men that went in to get the men that went in to get the men". When Topper asks why they want him he is told "you're the best of what's left".

Bottom line for me is that I think it is more in Bioware's economic interests to bring back most/all of the living squad for more than basic cameos. This could include one-shot missions in the vein of the LotSB, but would exclude the VS Horizon treatment or Wrex treatment. I freely admit I could be completely wrong or that my assumptions could be completely incorrect, but I maintain hope that I will be able to truly play the game with my old squaddies. I by no stretch see them as used up or unable to advance the story.

Yeah, the money.

You describe BioWare as monolithic, which they aren't. There's people there that need to worry about budget, break-evens etc. There's people there that need to worry about explaining it all to the shareholders and there's people there that love games, love to hear the feedback from the fans and specifically love the universe and characters of the franchise. Those are the people that create the content.
Of course BioWare as a whole needs to be profitable. But the guys who create the content are not sitting there thinking how to get as much money from costumers as possible. They want to create a game that kicks ass and makes many people happy (and surely the side-effect of economical success is everything but frowned upon). 

The big decisions are not up to every designer, obviously. And who's gonna be the squadmate in ME3 is a big decision. But the designers surely have a word in there, too. It's usually a team-decision, too. So, if the team feels that a new cast of squaddies fits the "feeling" of ME3  (which we know nothing about), than this probably is going to happen. If the think that a closure to all friendships, li's, old enemies etc. is welcomed, we'll see lots of re-appearances. Who knows with that bunch. 

Thing is, we don't know anything about the general direction ME3 is going. I mean, who would have thought that ME2 is giving us the dirty dozens-theme with recruiting a bunch of mercs, criminals, outlaws and assassins, all supervised by a shadow-ops/terrorist employee. They might have similar surprises up their sleeves for ME3. 

What makes a game create a lot of profit is really really hard to predict. You can reduce the risks of total fail with a couple of well-proven tools and having characters appear that have a huge fan base is surely one of those tools. But maybe BioWare has some other ideas and feels confident they can skip this particular one?! 

I'm not saying game development is free art. Not the slightest. But there is a part loose creativity involved and clinging too much to beaten tracks might not be as profitable is it looks on paper.

But as i said earlier, my guess is that they will give us a mix of me1, me2 and new squaddies. 

[ReluctantMind]

I stated Bioware as a business is there to make money. I didn't say there weren't people there that love their jobs and the fans. But they don't get to do those jobs unless the business as a whole survives. My point was that it is my opinion that the survival of that business and all the individuals and departments of which it is composed is better served by bringing back old squad members in significant ways. That does not rule out some new folks as well. I have yet to be disappointed by a Bioware game I have played, so I am along for the ride regardless.

[Ieldra]

ReluctantMind wrote...
I stated Bioware as a business is there to make money. I didn't say there weren't people there that love their jobs and the fans. But they don't get to do those jobs unless the business as a whole survives. My point was that it is my opinion that the survival of that business and all the individuals and departments of which it is composed is better served by bringing back old squad members in significant ways. That does not rule out some new folks as well. I have yet to be disappointed by a Bioware game I have played, so I am along for the ride regardless.

I think that's true.

If they'll fob us off with cameos for all the old LIs that will tell everyone "Don't invest emotionally in the characters we make", thereby highly reducing the storytelling quality of the games. That will eventually drive off quite a few people, since that quality is what makes Bioware games special. So far, at least.

As for me, I will get ME3 regardless. I want to know how the story ends. But in the case we get nothing but cameos for the old team members, I will become very distant about future Bioware games.

BTW:
I used to ignore this thread in the hope that it would die. I resent the message it carries. People like Zulu don't seem to care about any characters, and while that doesn't bother me, it's also my impression that he, specifically makes a point of kicking those who care about them in the face. I do resent that.

As for what the fans wish, see this
social.bioware.com/892908/polls/1974/

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 novembre 2010 - 06:26 .

[Elite Midget]

Kinda harsh to say Zulu doesn't care. If he didn't than he wouldn't have bothered posting. The ones that don't care are ones that don't even try to go on the Forum because they just don't care enough. Obviously the people that don't care are the majority too and Bioware makes a lot more cash from them than those that do care about the little things.

I personally believe that since Bioware just had to make the ME2 Squadies killable that Bioware has no choice now but to introduce a new Squad+VS/Liara since they, as Bioware has said in the past, wants to get as much content as they can to as many people as possible. If they did the surviving ME2 Squadies they would end up denying users ME3 conten(Such as Character Development, Plot, Plot Progression, even more new Romances, Game Balance, and a grander feel for the series) when that's the opposite they want to do. Hence why they're putting so much effort into ME2 even though there's a high chance that many PS3 Owners wont pick it up in doves like the 360 and PC Gamers did since ME2 is a year old now.

That and many ME2 characters fans would be furious if characters like Thane don't return but Tali and Garrus do despite that none of them has to survive ME2.

Modifié par Elite Midget, 23 novembre 2010 - 06:40 .

[GracefulChicken]

... I like Thane, dont love him, but he's okay... But, what reason does he even have to return? He's dying, he's got a son he's trying to reconnect with, and he doesnt further the plot in ANY way at all. No useful knowledge about the Reapers, no unique skillset, no useful connections. If anyone should get the ME3-boot, it'd be him. The thing is one group of people are always going to be upset that their favourite character got taken out, but sometimes it's nessecary and it just makes sense, and devs know that. You can just keep a character in the game just because they have fans, and you want to appease everyone. Thane, for all practical purposes, is a useless character with regards to the plot. Why should he return past a cameo? It would just be grotuitist fanservice, and would tie up a character slot for someone who could actually move the story along. Thane has numerous reasons to not return to the Normandy. Tali, although I really really hate her, has more reason to return than Thane does. She has power with the Quarians, which can help against the Reapers, and can sort out the tension between them and the Geth. Thane is just a cool dude. He doesnt go beyond that plot-wise.

[Fiery Phoenix]

GracefulChicken wrote...

... I like Thane, dont love him, but he's okay... But, what reason does he even have to return? He's dying, he's got a son he's trying to reconnect with, and he doesnt further the plot in ANY way at all. No useful knowledge about the Reapers, no unique skillset, no useful connections. If anyone should get the ME3-boot, it'd be him. The thing is one group of people are always going to be upset that their favourite character got taken out, but sometimes it's nessecary and it just makes sense, and devs know that. You can just keep a character in the game just because they have fans, and you want to appease everyone. Thane, for all practical purposes, is a useless character with regards to the plot. Why should he return past a cameo? It would just be grotuitist fanservice, and would tie up a character slot for someone who could actually move the story along. Thane has numerous reasons to not return to the Normandy. Tali, although I really really hate her, has more reason to return than Thane does. She has power with the Quarians, which can help against the Reapers, and can sort out the tension between them and the Geth. Thane is just a cool dude. He doesnt go beyond that plot-wise.

There are 12 possible squadmates in ME2, only one of which has anything to do with the plot, and his name is Mordin Solus. Every other squadmate could be taken out of the picture and the plot would continue just fine; it's not just Thane that has nothing to do with the plot.

[Zulu_DFA]

That and many ME2 characters fans would be furious if characters like Thane don't return but Tali and Garrus do despite that none of them has to survive ME2.

Who knows. Maybe Tali and Garrus were deliberatly dumped in the ME2 suicide squad to get them out of the way of the really important characters, aka Liara & VS, in ME3.

[Ieldra]

@Elite_Midget:

See, that's what I mean.

[Spectre_907]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Who knows. Maybe Tali and Garrus were deliberatly dumped in the ME2 suicide squad to get them out of the way of the really important characters, aka Liara & VS, in ME3.

How is the VS important? They are expendable on Virmire and do not have any indication they will be helping you stop nor will be integral in helping to stop the Reapers in Mass Effect 2.

Liara cannot be a squadmate. It is clear from Lair of the Shadow Broker that she will be helping you stop the Reapers with the Shadow Broker's information network. This puts her with more chance to be put into the role of informant similar to the Illusive Man than directly helping you on missions in Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 23 novembre 2010 - 07:55 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Spectre_907 wrote...

How is the VS important?

Why ask me? Ask BioWare, who kept them out of the ME2 suicide squad, and even so much as eloborated through Casey Hudson on the reasons for doing that.

[Elite Midget]

By those reasons for Tali... She has more of a reason to return as a Non-Squadie than a Squadie since she can do far more good outside of being Shepard's Gun. As for the Geth... If you don't solve the issue correctly than she has no reason to ever trust Legion or the Geth. Tali only changes when Shepards calls her out on the childishness of the situation between her and Legion.



The point is. All ME2 Squadies can die. Why should Tali and Garrus get a return to the Squadie Crew while character like Thane and Mordin souldn't? After all, they all can die and I'm sure they can do far more good leaving Shepard's Squad after ME2. ME3 doesn't take place directly after ME2, remember?



VS was important because...



VS was on Eden Prime and saved Shepard from their brain going 'kaboom' from the Prothean Tech(By getting'em to Chakwas ASAP), can lead the Salarians on Virmire or arm the bomb, helps stop Saren, is a decorated Warhero and a public symbol that Alliance personell can look up too, investigates the Collectors(and Cerberus), and is used as bait by TIM to lure out the Collectors.

[Zulu_DFA]

Elite Midget wrote...

VS ... is used as bait by TIM to lure out the Collectors.

Not exactly.



But VS is definitely going to play some heavy plot role in the future.

[ReluctantMind]

I believe Ieldra's point regarding investment is on target. I believe many are emotionally invested in the current characters. I don't mean "I have fallen in love with a digital character" investment. I mean I paid X dollars and spent fifty plus hours per playthrough with these characters investment. I bought my first X-Box specifically to play Mass Effect because of what I had heard of the character interaction and development. I looked forward to more interaction with those characters in ME2. Some fans were quite disappointed in the level of interaction they got, but were able to hope this would be corrected in ME3 and in DLC such as LotSB. As far as we know there will be no such hope following ME3, so this could be our last chance to interact with these characters barring possible DLC that no one would guarantee at this point. I would prefer to carry through to the end of this saga with the teammates I have met over the first two installments. Other people will have different preferences and I respect that. Bioware will do whatever they have planned and as I said, I am along for the ride to what I hope will be the epic conclusion the trilogy deserves.

[Spectre_907]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Why ask me? Ask BioWare, who kept them out of the ME2 suicide squad, and even so much as eloborated through Casey Hudson on the reasons for doing that.

Because you asserted it. You claim the only reason ME2's squadmates will not be returning as squadmates in ME3 is because of expendability yet the VS is equally expendable on Virmire and you place more importance on them than the ME2 squadmates. All Casey Hudson says is that the ME and ME2 squadmates not surviving have consequences in ME3. This does not imply that the ME2 squadmates are completely irrelevant or that ME squadmates have more importance than ME2's or that they will be recruitable or not.

Modifié par Spectre_907, 23 novembre 2010 - 09:21 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Spectre_907 wrote...
You claim the only reason ME2's squadmates will not be returning in ME3 is because of expendability yet the VS is equally expendable on Virmire.

I think I'm going to call a killer-panda to end the misery of this poor thread.

First, I claim that ME2 squadmates' expendability is weighty, but not the only reason for them to not be returning in ME3 as squadmates. There are other reasons.

Secondly, the VS is not "equally expendable". On the contrary, the VS has to live in 100% of imports, just like Liara. That's what "S" stands for -- survivor.

You people need to understand, that from the game design perspective (which is naturally not the same as a Character X's fanboy/girl perspective) Ashley & Kaidan are less different characters now, than a Cerberus Quitter Miranda and a Pissed by Shepard's Siding With Jack Miranda. Of course, who needs such sh*t as continuity, say character fans, but then the expendability kicks in: if Ashley is dead, there always is Kaidan (he was even spotted in a pink armor once); but if Miranda dies, or Tali dies, or Garrus, or Zaeed, or Jacob, there is absolutely nothing.

[Spectre_907]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

First, I claim that ME2 squadmates' expendability is weighty, but not the only reason for them to not be returning in ME3 as squadmates. There are other reasons.

You said in your original post that poll results and expendability are the only reasons for killing off or having cameos for squadmates in ME3. The title even says it. It's misleading.

Secondly, the VS is not "equally expendable". On the contrary, the VS has to live in 100% of imports, just like Liara. That's what "S" stands for -- survivor.

They have to live because the mission on Virmire demands that either Ashley or Kaidan must die so that you can live. Similarly, the mission on the Collector base demands that two, at minimum, must survive so that you can live. Both are main plot worlds. All deaths occur as a result of your decision in both cases. All squadmates are declared as expendable if it accomplishes the mission in both cases in-game. Being able to survive something does not make you not expendable.

[Elite Midget]

However, you can't compare VS to the ME2 Squadies because no matter what every save must have a VS by ME3. While none of the ME2 Squadies has to be alive in all saves. Thus they aren't equal and uncomparable.

The only Squadie you can compare the ME2 Squadies to is Wrex and you can take how he was treated to how Bioware may end up handling the ME2 Squadies since they forced themselves into a corner by having them all killable ala Wrex.

Modifié par Elite Midget, 24 novembre 2010 - 05:23 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Spectre_907 wrote...

They have to live because the mission on Virmire demands that either Ashley or Kaidan must die so that you can live. Similarly, the mission on the Collector base demands that two, at minimum, must survive so that you can live. 

From the game design PoV "2 out of 13" is as good as "0 out of 13". Especially since a working save can be made with ALL SQUADMATES DEAD - it is tecnically possible.

TVS, by contrast, is "1 of the 2". There can't be a save with both Ashley and Kaidan dead - it is technically impossible.

Spectre_907 wrote...

 All deaths occur as a result of your decision in both cases.

Hallelujah! Now you've said it yourself. You made your decisions. You had your consequences. Enjoy.

Even if the remaining ME2 squad is killed in a shuttle crash off-screen between ME2 & "3", you won't be able to sue BioWare over false advertisement about "consequences" and win the case.

Spectre_907 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

First, I claim that ME2 squadmates' expendability is weighty, but not the only reason for them to not be returning in ME3 as squadmates. There are other reasons.

You said in your original post that poll results and expendability are the only reasons for killing off or having cameos for squadmates in ME3. The title even says it. It's misleading.

The poll is the only and enough reason. Since the squad needs to be smaller, it's only fair that all the ME2 squadmates bowed off. Then the continuity issues is enough reason. But since nothing of this can register in fanboys' heads, we have to bring up the most serious game design issue -- expendability. But even that can't get through, since you are happy to mislead yourself with anything starting with the piece'o'cake "suicide mission" and to Christina Norman's "same team" presentation.

[Ieldra]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The poll is the only and enough reason.

No, it's not. You assume that "less interaction" automatically means "not enough interaction", and you don't mention explicitly the price people would need to pay to have less characters in ME3. The poll is misleading. I would vote for "less characters and more interaction" as a matter of principle from the experience of ME2, but considering the circumstances and the role many people wish the old characters to play, I would say that having more characters and less interaction is the only plausible solution for ME3 if we can't have both, which is still a possibility, however I wish that the circumstances were such that old characters I like or new ones I will come to like could get a lot of interaction. 

This means: I'm willing to pay the price of having less interaction to get my favorites back in ME3, even though in general, as a matter of principle, I think less characters and more interaction is a better approach and leads to a better storytelling quality. The chance to implement that, however, has passed with the publication of ME2. Bioware will disappoint a lot more people by removing old characters than by creating only as much content for every character as in ME2. Or even ME1 - which had less characters *and* less interaction with each. If ME2 could implement more characters *and* more interaction than ME1, it's quite possible that ME3 can do more characters and the same level of interaction as ME2, given that the developers get more and more experience in creating those cinematic dialogue scenes.

BTW, I would be much more inclined to take you seriously if you weren't so cynical about those who care about character continuity, dismissing them as "fanboys" etc.. Emotional investment in characters is one element that makes a story compelling instead of just meh. It's not a trivial thing from any point of view.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 novembre 2010 - 09:24 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The poll is the only and enough reason.

No, it's not. You assume that "less interaction" automatically means "not enough interaction", and you don't mention explicitly the price people would need to pay to have less characters in ME3. The poll is misleading. I would vote for "less characters and more interaction" as a matter of principle from the experience of ME2, but considering the circumstances and the role many people wish the old characters to play, I would say that having more characters and less interaction is the only plausible solution for ME3 if we can't have both, which is still a possibility, however I wish that the circumstances were such that old characters I like or new ones I will come to like could get a lot of interaction. 

This means: I'm willing to pay the price of having less interaction to get my favorites back in ME3, even though in general, as a matter of principle, I think less characters and more interaction is a better approach and leads to a better storytelling quality. The chance to implement that, however, has passed with the publication of ME2. Bioware will disappoint a lot more people by removing old characters than by creating only as much content for every character as in ME2. Or even ME1 - which had less characters *and* less interaction with each. If ME2 could implement more characters *and* more interaction than ME1, it's quite possible that ME3 can do more characters and the same level of interaction as ME2, given that the developers get more and more experience in creating those cinematic dialogue scenes.

BTW, I would be much more inclined to take you seriously if you weren't so cynical about those who care about character continuity, dismissing them as "fanboys" etc.. Emotional investment in characters is one element that makes a story compelling instead of just meh. It's not a trivial thing from any point of view.

Ieldra, I have an utmost respect of your ability to do the logic (except when it comes to Miranda's age anyway). However, most people can't do it and I openly admit that the poll result is not what it would be if they could.

But the poll itself is not misleading. It deals with an abstract game design concept. In its own virtue it is quite telling. And even you admit it yourself that it shows that the ME2 design was flawed, since it put quantity ahead of quality.

What we disagree about is the course of action BioWare must take in the light of that. You say that BioWare ought to persist in their erronneous ways, since doing otherwise would displease "many people". Let's not here delve into how many exactly, and into whether the fans have more "rights" than casuals and noobs... I just say that it'd be utterly retarded not to make amends for the huge f*cking mistake ME2 was, especially since it would obviously be in accordance with the initial BioWare's intent (to use the ME2 squad for one time only -- see Casey Hudson's comments about ME1 LIs).

I don't think that repairing the damage done to the shooter/RPG gameplay department is on BioWare's business plan, so I don't pretend my occasional b*tching about thermal clips and stuff in the "Disappointment" thread has much sense. But when it comes to this characters vs. story debate, I am quite serious in thinking that pissing even the Taliban off will not ruin BioWare financially. And therefore, as I believe BioWare writers have some decency and self-respect, I expect them to do the right thing. I can be mistaken though.

Oh, and BTW this --

ME1 - which had less characters *and* less interaction with each

is simply not true.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 24 novembre 2010 - 10:26 .

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

With regards the OP title, I agree.

With regards to them being an 'Optional' full on squadmate, I think they can be.

Am not sure if anyone has addressed this (as I'll admit I've been lazy and not followed every page of this topic) but if you go back to ME and ME2, it can be analysed how despite the doubling of the squad, the absolute default/concrete (has to be in) squadmate number has only gone up by 1.

ME = Kaiden, Ashley, Tali and Liara with an optional requirement of at least 1 from Wrex and Garrus
ME2 = Jacob, Miranda, Jack, Garrus and Mordin with an optional requirement of at least 3 from Grunt, Thane, Samara, Tali, Legion, Kasumi and Zaeed

Now if EVERY previous squadmate was available at some point or other then with just 3 new potential squadmates the number of total squadmates triples from the original one (after ME2 doubled it, pattern there anyone?)

So I reckon with that in mind we will see just 3 new squadmates which I think is best especially if they are 3 people we've already met as saves on much needed knowledge of them as we already would have a bit of background. 2 of them right at the start of the game and another being optional. Now I know some people would love to see a Batarian Squadmate, whilst I know some people could see no way in hell would there Shep recruit a Batarian. So I think this squaddie could be the potential/optional 3rd squadmate as I think the 3rd game might have a background story of Shep needing to trust the people recruited due to what happens at the start (I like the trial/prison idea, makes most logical sense).

Here is my idea of ME3 squad...
ME3 = Male New Squadmate, Female New Squadmate (in that specific order as it is how it has been for the last 2), VS, Liara and the rest Optional but Shep needing a specific number required at some point during the game to ensure that Shep can get through some situation.

I said that last line because that is true of the first two as well.

In ME, you needed to have 4 squadmates on Virmire. I know this from own experience where I left Liara till after Virmire and only recruited Garrus. Kaiden went with Kirrahe and I had Garrus and Ash as my squadmates, then of course had to leave Ash at one of the bomb sites and for the first time since getting forced to have her join the squad on Citadel, I had to use Tali (that was a fun couple of minutes whilst I geared her up).

Now with ME2, Shep cannot get to the final battle unless Shep has a minimum of 8 squadmates going into the suicide mission and even then it can sometimes rely on a safeguard during the mission. Hence why I think they put the 8 squadmates needed to unlock the collector ship mission ruling in the game.

I'll be first to admit, I would much prefer if VS and Liara were optional too. It's not that I don't like them, far from it, but so far they are the only ones in the series to not be an 'optional' choice. Now perhaps they could be and they could then just increase the number of optional required, the above as with my 'default ME3 Shep' in another topic is just an 'assumption' of mine after analysing data from the previous 2 games.

Oh and who do I think the 2 squaddies will be...

Bailey and Aria (with Anto being the optional 3rd)

Ok I don't really think they have a chance of being it, especially as it is unlikely they would make them LI (which previous 2 games first squadmates have been), especially not the latter due to the potential for a repeat of the 'Matrix' ending *cringes* but its hard to think of other potential squadmates from people we've already met that have lived through to this point without Shep killing them.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Is it just me or are you guys assuming that Liara will be a squadmate in ME3? If anything, LOTSB seems to confirm otherwise.

[Da_Lion_Man]

Surely she can let Feron take over her work as Shadow Broker?

[Fiery Phoenix]

Oh yeah, but I think Liara is more suited to be an information broker than Feron (given her background, etc.); actually, I think Feron has a much more likely chance of being a squadmate, but that's just my opinion.

[Da_Lion_Man]

I think they both have a good chance. But only 1 of them will be a squad member of course.