762 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Xandurpein wrote...

The premise of the OP's logic is of course very skewed, particularily when it comes to Ashley/Kaidan.

Logic can't be:
1. someone's
2. skewed

The basic argument is that it wastes resources (with the implied argument that this in turn will be enough for Bioware to do it) to write content for a companion we are not 100% sure will be alive in ME3.

The basic argument of this particular thread is that 90% of people more want quality over quantity, when it comes to squadmates. And ME2 squad was too big already. Cutting the number of squadmates in ME3 to 6-7 with 2 of them being unkillable Liara and Ashley/Kaidan will result in higher quality of squadmate related content (more banter, comments, powers for each, etc.). And BioWare can't just select 4-5 most popular ME2 squadmates to be recruitable in ME3, because it will a) be "unfair" to other funbases, will require to adjust the story to the characters, which is unacceptable in the final chapter of the trilogy (normally it takes a new character to bring about story progression).

He then makes the argument that this does not apply to Kaidan and Ashley as they are supposed to be interchangeable.

I do.

Kaidan/Ashley are no doubt interchangeable in a very narrow sense of the word. They will no doubt be integral to the main plot and they will play the same role in the plot. That is the only way they are interchangeable though.
Kaidan and Ashley are two different personalities in ME1. Their romances do not play the same.

That's all that is required of them. They may have had different "baggage" prior to ME1, but their service under Shepard, including Virmire, made their characters quite close to each other.

They most certainly have different voice actors.

That's obvious, but it's ME1 consequence, not ME2squad-related.

I defy the OP to explain to me how we can see a deep and believable interaction with Kaidan and Ashley if the interaction with them are exact mirrors of each other.

Your problem, not mine. Also, it's not ME2squad-related.

Liara and Ashely or Kaidan will no doubt be integral to the plot of ME3. The other crew members will only play small optional roles in the plot. There is however no logical reason why 'integral to the plot' must equal 'more interaction'.

CALIBRATIONS!!!

There is no logical reason why for example romantic interests MUST be pivotal to the main plot. Leliana in Dragon Age is totally optional to the entire main plot (you can finish the game and never even see her) but is still a romantic interest.

For once, I agree. That's why ME2 romances will get the shaft in ME3, the way ME1 romances got it in ME2. The only thing that deserves to be reflected is cheating on ME1 LI issue.

So 'integral to the plot' must equal 'more interaction' is a false statement.

Even if so, "more interaction" with all ME2 squadmates in ME3 means less resources to the main story progression.

And the whole argument from the OP revolves around that statement.

The whole argument of the OP revolves around the statement that more squadmates means less interaction. And less squadmates (which must come at the expense of ME2 squadmates) means more interaction.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 avril 2010 - 11:13 .

[Xandurpein]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

And BioWare can't just select 4-5 most popular ME2 squadmates to be recruitable in ME3, because it will a) be "unfair" to other funbases, will require to adjust the story to the characters, which is unacceptable in the final chapter of the trilogy (normally it takes a new character to bring about story progression).

Yes they can. They have already done so in ME2! They did treat the squad mates from ME1 differently. Some became squad mates and other got cameos. Isn't that obvious!

[viverravid]

my take:



In the cases of Wrex, Ashley/Kaidan and Shiala in ME2, two sets of dialog were recorded, based on your previous actions. For every non-Liara ME1 and ME2 character pulled into ME3, probably the same needs to be done - with the easiest option being they show up at one point only, possibly with an alternative character or scene for those who killed them.



The alternative is that they fill generic squadmate and story roles that can be filled by anyone, have minimal writing and dialog, and they reuse ME2 content as much as possible. I think even the fans of these characters would prefer Bioware not take this option.



Making them key to the plot at more than one point in the game, or making one a full-featured squadmate with associated dialog and character progression, requires a lot of redundant work to cover all the possible ME2 save file permutations. Having one key point where their presence contributes, and for those who killed them, something else might happen, is not too hard.



Personally, I think they'll include Liara as a squadmate, and they'll only do the hard work of recording and animating possibly unused squadmate dialog and scenes for some or all of the other ME1 characters (possibly including the 2 who may or may not have survived ME2). They'll have to do a certain amount of redundant content for the fans, and the non-Virmire ME1 characters seem to have the strongest following. The rest of the ME2 crew will get cameos, of the 'one key point' type I described, with voice parts quite possibly already recorded in the ME2 main or pickup sessions. There'll be a good explanation as to why the core team is mainly new people.



My ideal squad? Don't care so long as they're varied and well written. Would be disappointed if Liara isn't there, though. And she's got a lot of 'splainin to do.

[Xandurpein]

If I, for the sake of argument, accept your assumption that it takes a new character to bring about story progression this does not mean it has to be a new squad mate. The Illusive Man was was a new character in ME2 that pushed the plot along, but he was not a squad mate. There is no need for a squad mate to be pivotal in the plot and no need for a person who is pivotal in the plot to be a squad mate.

[viverravid]

Where did I say it takes a new character to bring about story progression? (edit: or were you talking to zulu? his post below is spot on)

My point was making a non-Liara ME1 or ME2 character pivotal to the plot at more than one point in the game is a lot of work if they aren't necessarily going to be there. You need backup options for the players who killed them.

So most of the ME2 characters will have one-off cameos. They may be semi-pivotal, in that a key battle might be easier if such-and-such survived. But hey main story arc will be the same either way.

Modifié par viverravid, 14 avril 2010 - 12:04 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Xandurpein wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

And BioWare can't just select 4-5 most popular ME2 squadmates to be recruitable in ME3, because it will a) be "unfair" to other funbases, will require to adjust the story to the characters, which is unacceptable in the final chapter of the trilogy (normally it takes a new character to bring about story progression).

Yes they can. They have already done so in ME2! They did treat the squad mates from ME1 differently. Some became squad mates and other got cameos. Isn't that obvious!

OK, you got a point here, but again, ME2 is the middle part, and ME3 is final.

First, there is a chance to make it up to Liara, Ashley and Kaidan fans, but there won't be a chance to make it up to Jack or Samara or Kasumi fans if dying Thane and old peg Mordin get ahead.

Secondly, the story must be pushed ahead real hard, and it would be expedient to introduce new story related squadmates to push it on, as the old ones are pretty much used up.

Thirdly, no way people will start a game that pretends to be an RPG fully stuffed with squadmates. Therefore there must be an opening plot twist, that makes Shepard part ways with the "suicide mission" survivors. An recruiting them again, some of them for the 3rd time will be quite lame. Reunion with Liara and Ashley/Kaidan can make sense though. And the argument that recruitment will necessarily take resources away from the main plot is invalid (see the previous paragraph).

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 avril 2010 - 12:06 .

[Zhijn]

@ the poll.

There arent any less interaction in ME2 compared to ME1.
In ME1 you could complete the crews entire dialog tree befor the third random mission/planet.

So its much the same in ME2, except there are more teamsters to interact with in ME2. Hmm!.

The random banter between the teams, now thats a missed feature!.

Modifié par Zhijn, 14 avril 2010 - 12:08 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Zhijn wrote...

The random banter, now thats a missed feature!.

Which will be unfeasible to bring about if there is a large squad.

[Xandurpein]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

First, there is a chance to make it up to Liara, Ashley and Kaidan fans, but there won't be a chance to make it up to Jack or Samara or Kasumi fans if dying Thane and old peg Mordin get ahead.

I don't really see what the fact that some characters can be dead and some not has to do with anything. Your argument is that there are too many squad mates in ME2. That wouldn't change if no one could die on the suicide mission. If you are a huge fan of one character then presumably you replay the suicide mission so your fave survives, just as if you accidentally killed your fave character on Virmire, because you misread the situation.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Secondly, the story must be pushed ahead real hard, and it would be expedient to introduce new story related squadmates to push it on, as the old ones are pretty much used up.

I agree very much that they need to push the story ahead in ME3. Which is why I think there should be NO new squad mates. Focus on the story and let the squad mates be sidekicks with maybe one short optional scene at some point and then some chit chat on Normandy.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Thirdly, no way people will start a game that pretends to be an RPG fully stuffed with squadmates.

Did you ever play Thone of Bhaal? All it takes is a short introduction with solo Shepard and maybe Ashley/Kaidan and then they go and board the Normandy and are greeeted with the crew. Or maybe you go and round them up after shore leave, with some explanations why everybody isn't there. It's doable you know.

[Zhijn]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Zhijn wrote...

The random banter, now thats a missed feature!.

Which will be unfeasible to bring about if there is a large squad.

Not really, BW just gotta take it a step up, again.
I mean, DAO did it with ten times the dialog + banter, and more or less same amount of teamsters.

Its just BW who slacked and/or cut corners with ME2.

Either way some characters will leave for sure, like Zaeed, Kasumi, Samara and possible Thane.

So mabye the banter will return in ME3. Ah who knows really, its all theories and speculation at this point!.

[Xandurpein]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Zhijn wrote...

The random banter, now thats a missed feature!.

Which will be unfeasible to bring about if there is a large squad.

Random banter was a weak spot already in ME1. It's mostly due to the small squad size. With only two squad mates there are to few options. (3 man squad = 1 possible pair for banter. 4 man squad (DA) = 3 possible pair for banter.)

Modifié par Xandurpein, 14 avril 2010 - 12:52 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Xandurpein wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

First, there is a chance to make it up to Liara, Ashley and Kaidan fans, but there won't be a chance to make it up to Jack or Samara or Kasumi fans if dying Thane and old peg Mordin get ahead.

I don't really see what the fact that some characters can be dead and some not has to do with anything. Your argument is that there are too many squad mates in ME2. That wouldn't change if no one could die on the suicide mission. If you are a huge fan of one character then presumably you replay the suicide mission so your fave survives, just as if you accidentally killed your fave character on Virmire, because you misread the situation.

Mordin was my 3rd favorite character in ME2 and he doesn't make it into the 5 I save + 1 I recruit later. I didn't kill Kaidan accidentally. He was an officer and more tolerant to the aliens, so he had to go with Kirrahe. And I had to return to the bomb to secure the mission.

Xandurpein wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Secondly, the story must be pushed ahead real hard, and it would be expedient to introduce new story related squadmates to push it on, as the old ones are pretty much used up.

I agree very much that they need to push the story ahead in ME3. Which is why I think there should be NO new squad mates. Focus on the story and let the squad mates be sidekicks with maybe one short optional scene at some point and then some chit chat on Normandy.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Thirdly, no way people will start a game that pretends to be an RPG fully stuffed with squadmates.

Did you ever play Thone of Bhaal? All it takes is a short introduction with solo Shepard and maybe Ashley/Kaidan and then they go and board the Normandy and are greeeted with the crew. Or maybe you go and round them up after shore leave, with some explanations why everybody isn't there. It's doable you know.

Never heard of the "Throne of Baal".
Yes, it's doable, but new squadmates are doable better. Because the old ones are old, used up and there are too many of them to make every fan cult happy and retain squad interaction at satisfying level. And new ME3 players won't appreciate them at all, neither will those fans, who don't participate in character cults, or whose favorites get shafted.

[spacehamsterZH]

Oh god, not this again. ME3 will have a default version that plays if you don't import your character, just like ME2 did, and any and all characters the devs choose to keep in the game will be alive and well. No resources will have gone to waste and none of this has to be a problem. Myth: busted.

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

The premise of the OP's logic is of course very skewed, particularily when it comes to Ashley/Kaidan.

Logic can't be:
1. someone's
2. skewed

Why do you keep telling people this. Yes. Yes, it can. Maybe if we were all geth what you say could be true.

Since we're all humans and not geth, logic can be someone's and it can be skewed.

And even if we were all geth, the moment we got on the internet it would completely shatter our ability to reason properly and utterly ruin our capacity to reach consensus on absolutely anything.

THIS UNIT SEES A CHAIR.

NEGATIVE. THIS UNIT SEES THAT IT IS A RECLINER.

INCORRECT. IT IS A CHAIR. A RECLINER IS A CHAIR. STATEMENT IS VALID.

NEGATIVE. YOUR LOGIC IS FAULTY. CHAIRS DO NOT RECLINE. ONLY RECLINERS RECLINE.

THIS UNIT QUESTIONS YOUR LOGIC AND SUBMITS THAT A RECLINER IS A class OF CHAIR AND THUS THE STATEMENT IS VALID.

THIS UNIT SUSPECTS AN ERROR IN YOUR RUNTIMES AND SUBMITS THAT A CHAIR IS AN INAPPROPRIATE DESIGNATION FOR THE PIECE OF HUMAN FURNITURE IN QUESTION AS NOT ALL CHAIRS RECLINE BUT ALL RECLINERS ARE CHAIRS.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 14 avril 2010 - 01:26 .

[Xandurpein]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Never heard of the "Throne of Baal".
Yes, it's doable, but new squadmates are doable better. Because the old ones are old, used up and there are too many of them to make every fan cult happy and retain squad interaction at satisfying level. And new ME3 players won't appreciate them at all, neither will those fans, who don't participate in character cults, or whose favorites get shafted.

Throne of Bhaal was the sequel to Baldur's Gate 2, by many RPG fans considered one of the best RPG ever made. (Baldur's Gate 2 used a forced canon, where some companions that might have died in BG1 where used in BG2 and some wheren't. I'm not advocating it, but it has been done...)

You are of course free to stick to your opinion that the squad in ME1/2 is "used up", and that the majority would favor new squad mates to the old ones. I feel the opposite, and I doubt you are correct in your assumption that the majority feels like you do. I have seen many complaints that Liara, Ashley and Kaidan was left out of ME2, but I have seen very few complaints that Tali and Garrus where carried over to ME2.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

The premise of the OP's logic is of course very skewed, particularily when it comes to Ashley/Kaidan.

Logic can't be:
1. someone's
2. skewed

Why do you keep telling people this. Yes. Yes, it can. Maybe if we were all geth what you say could be true.

Logic is an exact science, like mathematics. Or it may be refered to a universal set of rules, that applies equally to Zulu's thought process and Nighwriter's thought process.

If Zulu says that 2 + 2 = 6 it doesn't meant that Zulu invented an new mathematics and it is "flawed". It means that
Zulu can't compute properly. But to verify it you have to be able to compute properly yourself.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xandurpein wrote...

You are of course free to stick to your opinion that the squad in ME1/2 is "used up", and that the majority would favor new squad mates to the old ones. I feel the opposite, and I doubt you are correct in your assumption that the majority feels like you do.

When asked a plain question "Quality or Quantity" over 90% of people choose quality. When it comes to the names, people let their feelings to overwhelm their reason.

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

The premise of the OP's logic is of course very skewed, particularily when it comes to Ashley/Kaidan.

Logic can't be:
1. someone's
2. skewed

Why do you keep telling people this. Yes. Yes, it can. Maybe if we were all geth what you say could be true.

Logic is an exact science, like mathematics. Or it may be refered to a universal set of rules, that applies equally to Zulu's thought process and Nighwriter's thought process.

If Zulu says that 2 + 2 = 6 it doesn't meant that Zulu invented an new mathematics and it is "flawed". It means that
Zulu can't compute properly. But to verify it you have to be able to compute properly yourself.

When your logic is dealing with elements that can vary based upon interpretation, this is not true.

And on the internet, we are only ever arguing about elements that can vary based upon interpretation.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

The premise of the OP's logic is of course very skewed, particularily when it comes to Ashley/Kaidan.

Logic can't be:
1. someone's
2. skewed

Why do you keep telling people this. Yes. Yes, it can. Maybe if we were all geth what you say could be true.

Logic is an exact science, like mathematics. Or it may be refered to a universal set of rules, that applies equally to Zulu's thought process and Nighwriter's thought process.

If Zulu says that 2 + 2 = 6 it doesn't meant that Zulu invented an new mathematics and it is "flawed". It means that
Zulu can't compute properly. But to verify it you have to be able to compute properly yourself.

When your logic is dealing with elements that can vary based upon interpretation, this is not true.

And on the internet, we are only ever arguing about elements that can vary based upon interpretation.

Then, it's called rhetoric. It has nothing to do with logic.

[Speakeasy13]

Well logic is whether or not your opinion is right. Rhetoric is how good you defend your opinion. You can defend a faulty opinion all you want, some people might even believe you, but it's not gonna make a faulty opinion correct.

PS: actually you can have your own logic. Doesn't make it right, but you're free to believe so.

Modifié par Speakeasy13, 14 avril 2010 - 02:14 .

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Logic is an exact science, like mathematics. Or it may be refered to a universal set of rules, that applies equally to Zulu's thought process and Nighwriter's thought process.

If Zulu says that 2 + 2 = 6 it doesn't meant that Zulu invented an new mathematics and it is "flawed". It means that
Zulu can't compute properly. But to verify it you have to be able to compute properly yourself.

When your logic is dealing with elements that can vary based upon interpretation, this is not true.

And on the internet, we are only ever arguing about elements that can vary based upon interpretation.

Then, it's called rhetoric. It has nothing to do with logic.

Logic is a series of deductive thoughts and reasonings based upon a ground premise. However, if your ground premise is skewed, your logic can be skewed, as well.

For instance: that 2 + 2 = 4 is often submitted as a universal fact. When you're dealing with base 10 math.

However, in base 3 math 2 + 2 = 11.

[Speakeasy13]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

But I was serious! Must I have Kitten on my list instead?

What kitten?

Look down! Robotic racist kitten with TIM head! It's crawling up your legs!

PS: I do seriously think Biotic God and Smoking Elcor can be in my squad. Biotic God does have biotic powers, and as far as I know why bother obtaining biotics at all if that's all the power you have? Sober he could actually be decent, if not uber powerful biotically; As for the Smoking Elcor, he's an arms dealing to say the least. What's to stopping him from actually being a skilled Engineer with great sabotage specialty?

If I change Blasto to any badass Hanar, would my choice come across as serious to you?

[jlb524]

Arcian wrote...

A cool setup would be:

Aria T'Loak (Patriarch/Some new guy overthrows her)

Oh yeah...just her though.

Arcian wrote...

Kal'Reegar/New make quarian character (if Kal died in ME2)

They'd just make a new quarian as Kal can die.  Makes sense.

[Zulu_DFA]

@ Speakeasy13 and Nightwriter
Opinions have nothing to do with logic.
2 + 2 = 11 even in base three math reads as "two plus two is four".

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic