762 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

inversevideo wrote...

The way I see it, all ME1 and ME2 squad mates, and ancillary characters (Hackett, Anderson, Council), who did not die earlier, will be in ME3.

And I am sure, it will not come as a shock, that many will make the 'ultimate sacrifice' in ME3.
How they meet their end may be a result of something you do in ME2, or it may not be in your control; anymore than Presley meeting his end, was in your control.

I do not expect that Shepard will actually come up with a plan to stop the Reapers.
I do believe that a plan will be presented to Shepard, by an as yet only hinted at but unseen party; and this will initiate a race to complete the plan in time. Similar to what occurred in ME1.

Just a hunch, but I don't think anyone is safe, in the finale, including Shepard, as this supposedly 'ends' the arc. But like many Bioware stories, there may be an 'o.k., a tragic, and a happy ending' for Shepard depending on your choices (in ME 1, ME2 and ME3) leading into the final conflict.

AGREED.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xpheyel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

What you are saying is quite logical too, but you seem to entirely miss the premise that resources that may be allocated to squad development are limited, and they will either go to squadmate quantity, or their quality, or will be allocated to both ends in some proportion. And since the extremeties are quite out of question, the poll is all about in what direction the proportion should be leaning.

No, that is an assumption that you have made. Or actually two assumptions. You have to assume both that:
1) Resources are limited in such a way that a large squad necessitates a less talkative one.
2) Resources saved from not making additional squad members are automatically going to contribute to the depth of the ones actually included.

In order for your conclusion from your poll, which you use as the premise to your argument, to apply in the way you're trying to use it. 

I don't prefer less squad members or in fact non-ME1/ME2 squad members at all but I might choose the first option in your poll for no reason other than I would prefer to see the ME1 squad come back and be more talkative. Or 6 people from the ME2 squad come back and be more talkative. 

I think you're just setting up a false choice that if we want deeper characters in ME3 we MUST accept new ones. And you're doing it using an internet poll and a bunch of pretty tortured reasoning based on assumptions that are automatically sympathetic to your conclusion. 

It's an excessively over the top way to say you'd like new squad members in ME3. You can give whatever reasons and justifications you like for that but I don't think for a second that it is provable in the way you're trying to go about it or that there are not equally valid reasons to use old squad members.

Finally, a person who gets to the root of the matter!

Basically, you are trying to defeat my whole argument by "Who's saying the resources will be limited?" For this I have only to shrug my shoulders and reply that I wouldn't mind 50 recruitable characters for 20 squadmate slots with hundreds of lines of dialogue each... We have Blue Ray, after all!

[JKoopman]

OP is correct, actually. Since all of your crew can possibly die in ME2, I don't forsee any of them coming back in any major way in ME3. Like your ME1 squad, I forsee them being nothing more than cameo roles, which is really quite sad.

Modifié par JKoopman, 14 avril 2010 - 04:51 .

[Xandurpein]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xpheyel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

What you are saying is quite logical too, but you seem to entirely miss the premise that resources that may be allocated to squad development are limited, and they will either go to squadmate quantity, or their quality, or will be allocated to both ends in some proportion. And since the extremeties are quite out of question, the poll is all about in what direction the proportion should be leaning.

No, that is an assumption that you have made. Or actually two assumptions. You have to assume both that:
1) Resources are limited in such a way that a large squad necessitates a less talkative one.
2) Resources saved from not making additional squad members are automatically going to contribute to the depth of the ones actually included.

In order for your conclusion from your poll, which you use as the premise to your argument, to apply in the way you're trying to use it. 

I don't prefer less squad members or in fact non-ME1/ME2 squad members at all but I might choose the first option in your poll for no reason other than I would prefer to see the ME1 squad come back and be more talkative. Or 6 people from the ME2 squad come back and be more talkative. 

I think you're just setting up a false choice that if we want deeper characters in ME3 we MUST accept new ones. And you're doing it using an internet poll and a bunch of pretty tortured reasoning based on assumptions that are automatically sympathetic to your conclusion. 

It's an excessively over the top way to say you'd like new squad members in ME3. You can give whatever reasons and justifications you like for that but I don't think for a second that it is provable in the way you're trying to go about it or that there are not equally valid reasons to use old squad members.

Finally, a person who gets to the root of the matter!

Basically, you are trying to defeat my whole argument by "Who's saying the resources will be limited?" For this I have only to shrug my shoulders and reply that I wouldn't mind 50 recruitable characters for 20 squadmate slots with hundreds of lines of dialogue each... We have Blue Ray, after all!

No he did not!   Read the bold text.

Did you really misunderstand that, or are you doing it on purpose? The size of the pool of characters that can be recruited in ME3 has nothing to do with the choice of whether we should have new ones or the old ones, unless you want MORE squad mates than in ME2.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 14 avril 2010 - 04:57 .

[khevan]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

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

1. Yes it can.
2. Yes it can.

The rules of logic cannot be skewed or personalized, yes, but the application of those rules, can indeed be skewed or personalized.  Just as in mathematics, the rules are absolute, but if someone uses those rules incorrectly to arrive at a false answer, "their" math is flawed.  It's shorthand for saying "Your application of the rules of mathematics is incorrect."  That is a cumbersome statement to make, and is therefore shortened to "Your math is flawed."

The same holds true for logic.  Simply dismissing someone's claim that you {or anyone, not specifically pointing at you) are flawed in your application of logic by saying that logic can't be flawed is merely deflecting, and not answering their position. 

I won't comment on your use of the rules of logic, simply because I haven't looked at the poll which supplies one of the bases to your premises, but I wanted to point out the error you've continually made involving logic and the use thereof.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xandurpein wrote...
The size of the pool of characters that can be recruited in ME3 has nothing to do with the choice of whether we should have new ones or the old ones.

The core factor to which everything is tied is the resource limit. The novelty of the team is mainly based on the necessity to bring about new story arcs. For example, a batarian squadmate takes Shepard to the Leviathan of Dis, Mordin's nephew studies it (since Mordin has been getting too old for gang-bang job), Feron & Joker are Shepard's wingmen on a spacefighter mission/minigame to take out Harbinger, and a turian female spectre is there for long awaited fan service mainly.

However, this doesn't mean the ME2 squadmates aren't recruitable, if the squad is not cut to 7. I even admitted in the OP, that some of ME2 SMs may be recruitable via DLC (maybe even free day one DLC, to encourage day one sales).

[Zulu_DFA]

khevan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

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

1. Yes it can.
2. Yes it can.

The rules of logic cannot be skewed or personalized, yes, but the application.

1. No.
2. No.

Application of logic in the argument is not "someone's logic". It's someone's application of logic. Saying that it's the same thing is misusing the term "logic", in the very least.

[Alraiis]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...
The size of the pool of characters that can be recruited in ME3 has nothing to do with the choice of whether we should have new ones or the old ones.

The core factor to which everything is tied is the resource limit. The novelty of the team is mainly based on the necessity to bring about new story arcs. For example, a batarian squadmate takes Shepard to the Leviathan of Dis, Mordin's nephew studies it (since Mordin has been getting too old for gang-bang job), Feron & Joker are Shepard's wingmen on a spacefighter mission/minigame to take out Harbinger, and a turian female spectre is there for long awaited fan service mainly.

However, this doesn't mean the ME2 squadmates aren't recruitable, if the squad is not cut to 7. I even admitted in the OP, that some of ME2 SMs may be recruitable via DLC (maybe even free day one DLC, to encourage day one sales).

Returning squadmates would take fewer resources than new ones, as their art design, personalities, and general kit of powers are already created, not to mention their voice actors are probably already under a contract to come back for the sequel, which saves on the casting budget.

[khevan]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

khevan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

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

1. Yes it can.
2. Yes it can.

The rules of logic cannot be skewed or personalized, yes, but the application.

1. No.
2. No.

Application of logic in the argument is not "someone's logic". It's someone's application of logic. Saying that it's the same thing is misusing the term "logic", in the very least.

This is basically an Appeal to Law fallacy, with strict definitions instead of laws.  You're using the strictest possible meanings to deflect others arguements, instead of seeing them for what they are.

And if you'd read the rest of my post, which, from your answer, you didn't do, I in no way misused the term logic.  I specifically said that "your logic is flawed." is shorthand for "your application of the rules of logic is flawed."  Is that so hard to grasp that you must continually insist that "Logic can't be skewed" when that in no way invalidates what someone is saying?

It's deflection, nothing more, and certainly a debating fallacy if not a logical one.

[Zulu_DFA]

Alraiis wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...
The size of the pool of characters that can be recruited in ME3 has nothing to do with the choice of whether we should have new ones or the old ones.

The core factor to which everything is tied is the resource limit. The novelty of the team is mainly based on the necessity to bring about new story arcs. For example, a batarian squadmate takes Shepard to the Leviathan of Dis, Mordin's nephew studies it (since Mordin has been getting too old for gang-bang job), Feron & Joker are Shepard's wingmen on a spacefighter mission/minigame to take out Harbinger, and a turian female spectre is there for long awaited fan service mainly.

However, this doesn't mean the ME2 squadmates aren't recruitable, if the squad is not cut to 7. I even admitted in the OP, that some of ME2 SMs may be recruitable via DLC (maybe even free day one DLC, to encourage day one sales).

Returning squadmates would take fewer resources than new ones, as their art design, personalities, and general kit of powers are already created, not to mention their voice actors are probably already under a contract to come back for the sequel, which saves on the casting budget.

You know what will take even fewer resources? Making a big expansion pack for ME2 and calling it ME3. Way to go.

[facialstrokage]

scyphozoa wrote...

Not to derail this thread, but I disagree with the fundamental argument of this post that ME2 squadmates being carried into ME3 is a waste of resources. ME2 sold 3 million+ copies and it probably cost Bioware a lot of resources to create those characters. Furthermore, there is now the argument of brand recognition, now more than ever people know and care about the ME2 cast.

I'm not saying they are all coming back, but I am saying that dismissing them as a waste of resources is unlikely. That rule applied for characters from ME1 into ME2, but I do not think the same rules that apply for the 2nd chapter of a trilogy apply to the 3rd chapter of a trilogy. As the final chapter, there is no alternative opportunity to reintroduce the cast of ME2. I personally believe it would be a much bigger waste of resources not to carry the ME2 squad into ME3.

but to answer your question;

The Illusive Man
Kal Reegar
Aria
Batarian
Admiral Hackett

I agree that having characters return wouldn't be a waste but for a different reason- not that you're wrong, but I'm just giving another point of view. Recasting wouldn't be a waste because the option is always there for the player to enjoy. It's the option to do so that makes it resources-well-spent. First, let's assume that most people, if not all people, plays ME more than once. With that said, he'll find out more things and explore more characters with each playthrough. Chances are he or she eventually will explore most if not all aspects of the game. But even if he or she hates a particular character and never talks to him or her, the option is still there and having that choice sets the game apart from others. Personally, I have never played as femshep. But does that mean Jennifer Hale was a complete waste of time and resources? No. I chose not to play as femshep, but that doesn't make her voice acting a waste, I simply haven't taken advantage of it. Plus, I can, and probably will, go back and play as femshep, at least once, just to enjoy the character. The point is, if the content is there and  can people can use it, then it's not a waste of resource. Only when the content is there but people can't use it, whether or not they want to, is it wasted.

Modifié par facialstrokage, 14 avril 2010 - 05:34 .

[Zulu_DFA]

khevan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

khevan wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

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

1. Yes it can.
2. Yes it can.

The rules of logic cannot be skewed or personalized, yes, but the application.

1. No.
2. No.

Application of logic in the argument is not "someone's logic". It's someone's application of logic. Saying that it's the same thing is misusing the term "logic", in the very least.

This is basically an Appeal to Law fallacy, with strict definitions instead of laws.  You're using the strictest possible meanings to deflect others arguements, instead of seeing them for what they are.

And if you'd read the rest of my post, which, from your answer, you didn't do, I in no way misused the term logic.  I specifically said that "your logic is flawed." is shorthand for "your application of the rules of logic is flawed."  Is that so hard to grasp that you must continually insist that "Logic can't be skewed" when that in no way invalidates what someone is saying?

It's deflection, nothing more, and certainly a debating fallacy if not a logical one.

Actulally the "your logic is flawed" counter argument to my posts as often as not is followed by nothing.
Therefore, I discourage the use of this formula by my opponents. If you have something to say agaist my arguments, do so without calling me an idiot in a polite but still scientifically incorrect way.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 avril 2010 - 05:59 .

[Alraiis]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

You know what will take even fewer resources? Making a big expansion pack for ME2 and calling it ME3. Way to go.

You're absolutely right. That would take fewer resources. I'm glad you understand the relationship now, because it seemed you didn't earlier when you suggested that no old squadmates would return.

Given that resources are limited, and given that they're aiming---as you said yourself---for the optimal balance between squad quantity and squad quality, and given that returning squadmates take fewer resources than new squadmates (but represent a sacrifice of quality as you approach the "expansion pack" perception), the best solution is to have some returning party members and some new ones.

This creates quantity---it saves some resources because existing development work can be leveraged, allowing a bigger squad for the same amount of money. This also creates quality---both by showing the growth of old characters and by creating all-new plotlines and for new characters. And finally, it pleases fans who create 2000-page threads or put "Bring so-and-so back as a squadmate for ME3" in their signatures. Fan service pays the bills. It's an obvious choice.

Modifié par Alraiis, 14 avril 2010 - 05:48 .

[khevan]

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]Xandurpein wrote...

The premise of the OP's logic is of course very skewed, particularily when it comes to Ashley/Kaidan.[/quote]
Logic can't be:
1. someone's
2. skewed

[quote]
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.[/quote]
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).

[quote]
He then makes the argument that this does not apply to Kaidan and Ashley as they are supposed to be interchangeable. [/quote]
I do.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]
They most certainly have different voice actors. [/quote]
That's obvious, but it's ME1 consequence, not ME2squad-related.

[quote]
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. [/quote]
Your problem, not mine. Also, it's not ME2squad-related.

[quote]
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'. [/quote]
CALIBRATIONS!!!

[quote]
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. [/quote]
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.

[quote]
So 'integral to the plot' must equal 'more interaction' is a false statement.[/quote]
Even if so, "more interaction" with all ME2 squadmates in ME3 means less resources to the main story progression.

[quote]
And the whole argument from the OP revolves around that statement.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

This quote from earlier in the thread begs to differ with you.  First, Xandurpein said that the premise behind your logic was flawed, and you pulled out the whole "Logic can't be skewed" line.  If that's not an attempt to deflect, what is?  He wasn't questioning your logic, but the premise behind your logic, thus your assertion that logic cannot be skewed is irrelevant, and nothing but a deflection.

You also answer his points with such dazzling displays of rhetoric as "I do."  and "Your problem, not mine." 

You, sir, are not interested in debating your points, you're here to say "This is what should happen, here's why, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong."

If that's not your intent, that's certainly how it's coming across. 

[Collider]

I have seen a few threads where people have claimed that it is unlikely
or nearly impossible to account for all of the variations possible with
the suicide mission in Mass Effect 2, that it would be a logistical
nightmare.

Not only is it not impossible, it's not such a daunting task as some people would make it.
Basically, whether or not a squad mate could return is binary - 0 or 1. Either 0 they did not survive or 1 they did survive.

Here is a clear way how deceased squad mates could be handled in Mass Effect 3. These possibilties are not mutually exclusive.

a)
Another NPC assumes their position. An example of this would be Urdnot
Wreav, who is the head of the Urdnot Clan if Wrex was killed. This NPC
would
not be a squad mate.Quests involved with this NPC may be altered
slightly or significantly due to the squad mate associated being
deceased.

Some or all quests associated with the squad mate would either be
altered or unavailable. An example of this would be in Mass Effect 2 -
you cannot do the loyalty mission of the squad mate that was killed.
c)
The changes are minor or nonexistent so it almost appears as they had
never died. An example in Mass Effect 2 would be the news story of the
posthumous awards and dedications to the squad mate who died on Virmire.
d)
Not all squad mates would have to return. Zaeed, Kasumi, Samara and
other squad mates for example could very realistically have other
things to do.

Some
people have noted because any squad mate can die in the suicide
mission, those who did survive could not conceivably or realistically
return or have large roles. This is very false. Take for example Ashley
or Kaidan both of which can die, yet were said by Bioware as having a
large role in Mass Effect 3, in addition to being squad mates. It is a
fair point that Ashley or Kaidan have been interchangeable in their
roles so far, as one or the other appears on Horizon. However, what I
have said goes to show that potentially deceased characters can have
large roles.

Bioware has created the high quality games of Mass
Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2, both of which required ample amounts of
effort and talent. It is not beyond their ability to have fan favorites
return in ways that are satisfying to the fans.

In addition, as
we have seen in Mass Effect 2, we have squad mates that can have
important roles in the game or suicide mission yet do not exclude the
possbility of having a satisfactory ending if they are not recruited.

The majority of ME2 was recruiting, gaining the loyalty of, and making sure the survival of our squad. If they do not return, the suicide mission was essentially pointless and most of ME2 invalidated.

Also
take into account that the fans clearly want squad mates to return. And
as Christina Norman has shown with her comments on additional RPG
features in Mass Effect 3, Bioware listens to its fans.

social.bioware.com/892908/polls/2652/
This
poll has almost 50% of respondents saying outright that they would not
purchase Mass Effect 3 if the squad mates did not return. 8% do not
know whether or not they buy the game. Clearly these characters make
Mass Effect what it is.

social.bioware.com/892908/polls/1974/
This poll has over 80% of voters saying that Mass Effect 3 MUST have squad mates return in more significant ways than cameos.

Would like to hear your feedback on the subject matter.

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]khevan wrote...

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]Xandurpein wrote...

The premise of the OP's logic is of course very skewed, particularily when it comes to Ashley/Kaidan.[/quote]
Logic can't be:
1. someone's
2. skewed

[quote]
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.[/quote]
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).

[quote]
He then makes the argument that this does not apply to Kaidan and Ashley as they are supposed to be interchangeable. [/quote]
I do.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
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.

[quote]
They most certainly have different voice actors. [/quote]
That's obvious, but it's ME1 consequence, not ME2squad-related.

[quote]
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. [/quote]
Your problem, not mine. Also, it's not ME2squad-related.

[quote]
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'. [/quote]
CALIBRATIONS!!!

[quote]
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. [/quote]
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.

[quote]
So 'integral to the plot' must equal 'more interaction' is a false statement.[/quote]
Even if so, "more interaction" with all ME2 squadmates in ME3 means less resources to the main story progression.

[quote]
And the whole argument from the OP revolves around that statement.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

This quote from earlier in the thread begs to differ with you.  First, Xandurpein said that the premise behind your logic was flawed, and you pulled out the whole "Logic can't be skewed" line.  If that's not an attempt to deflect, what is?  He wasn't questioning your logic, but the premise behind your logic, thus your assertion that logic cannot be skewed is irrelevant, and nothing but a deflection. [/quote]
Oops!. You're right. On this particular instance I got faulty. Really this "your logic is flawed" formula is used so often (it had been used in this thread earlier), that I overlooked that Xandurpein was aiming at my premises. My mistake. Also he was not incorrect in his next sentense. The premise of limited resources was in the poll by implication. But this is not a debatable point, as we actually know nothing for sure about ME3 budget. Maybe there is no limit, indeed. Then the OP, and the poll will turn out to have been a major screw-up.

[quote]
You also answer his points with such dazzling displays of rhetoric as "I do."  and "Your problem, not mine." [/quote]
I do. Where applicable.

[quote]
You, sir, are not interested in debating your points, you're here to say "This is what should happen, here's why, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong."[/quote]
Right now I am debating, right?

[quote]
If that's not your intent, that's certainly how it's coming across. 
[/quote]
And that is a purely rhetorical issue.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 avril 2010 - 06:30 .

[Peppard]

You have to be careful using polls to try to prove a point though, especially if you force a complex choice into one simplified "yes or no" scenario, such as:



Would you want more "celebrity voices" or more characters overall?



I often have to qualify a choice made in the abstract like that. I'd rather listen to Martin Sheen's TIm say a few words with forceful presence than listen to whoever did the voices for Hock, Ja'Dore and random merc #187. I would gleefully cut Carie Ann Moss' Aria or Michael's Captain Bailey though, just to hear more from a random npc like Enyala or Most Polite Krogan in the world. You can't always predict which characters will have impact, especially because players react to different things. Sometimes the money spent on a higher profile VA is worth it, sometimes not. Similarly, to some players, seeing returning characters from previous installments will have more impact and "fun" than getting to meet more new ones,even if the new ones could be given more to say.

[HTTP 404]

I agree with the OP. please save this thread so when ME3 comes out, OP can say I told you so. =) I say it with no malice nor ill intent

[HTTP 404]

Also, I want to clarify that my poll isnt about ME2 characters being able to be in ME3 but it can be used to support an argument one way or another. I just wanted to know what people perferred since the trend bioware was making for ME2 was just to give us more squadmates. (not complaining) =)

[Sky Shadowing]

Again, I heard Game Informer had a recent interview that stated that ME2 characters dying will actually have less content for ME3 players.



Still, Bioware has proven they don't care about "wasting" dialogue. Hell, they recorded entire gay relationships for Kaidan and Ashley (only sure about Kaidan), recorded FemShep-Tali.



I'd be pretty angry if I assembled what everybody admitted was the best people in existence, and then POOF! told "sorry, here's a NEW team".

[binaryemperor]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Logic can't be:

1. Somebody's
2. Flawed

I dun't get yer logic, son. 

Modifié par binaryemperor, 14 avril 2010 - 10:50 .

[Zulu_DFA]

binaryemperor wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Logic can't be:

1. Somebody's
2. Flawed

I dun't get yer logic, son. 

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

[Zulu_DFA]

Sky Shadowing wrote...

Again, I heard Game Informer had a recent interview that stated that ME2 characters dying will actually have less content for ME3 players.

Still, Bioware has proven they don't care about "wasting" dialogue. Hell, they recorded entire gay relationships for Kaidan and Ashley (only sure about Kaidan), recorded FemShep-Tali.

I'd be pretty angry if I assembled what everybody admitted was the best people in existence, and then POOF! told "sorry, here's a NEW team".

And I heard the world comes to its end in 2012. Also in 2017. Link, please, or cut the scuttlebutt!

Also, it's time to point out, that VO recording is not the only limitation of the squad building. It takes more man/time to write the dialogue, than to record it. And the writers have to finish the bulk of their job (the script) early enough so that other departments know what to do. And with ME3 being the finale, I suppose Mac Walters will have more say about what must be in the game, and what must be left out. Of course, Casey Hudson can sort of order him "Bring back the old squad, and I don't give a crap if the plot suffers over it!" but somehow I think this won't be the case.

ME2 was sort of flexible, since the main story was almost out of focus (Ah, "Reapers"...), and the squadmates got their showtime regardless. But ME3 has to meet both ends. The squadmates have to fit in the plot, and the high degree of their quality must be reached in the course of the main story progerssion.

[Nightwriter]

Zulu, all I can hear you saying anymore is BLAH BLAH BLAH me don't wantz no ME2 characters! BLAH BLAH BLAH moar new characters me wantz moar! Stupid ME2 characters me hates! BLAH BLAH BLAH here logic is I do why!

[HTTP 404]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu, all I can hear you saying anymore is BLAH BLAH BLAH me don't wantz no ME2 characters! BLAH BLAH BLAH moar new characters me wantz moar! Stupid ME2 characters me hates! BLAH BLAH BLAH here logic is I do why!

thats the best counter argument EVER.  let's not discuss the topic and just insult people.  its the best way to win arguments.