390 réponses à ce sujet

[RobertM5252]

Peppard wrote...

Squad are basically just NPCS  +weapons.   Having more variety is a good thing for combat, even if the more squad you have, the less intertwined, specific dialog you could have.  Imagine for a moment if you could get a lot more dialog out of a character, but as a result, they could no longer be in the squad.  Would you want that? Or if you could have as many squad as weapons, but no dialog? Most of us prefer something that balances the two sides, and allows us choice about which characters to combine on a mission.

 ME2 may have gone a bit overboard one way (lots of variety, less dialog),

Indeed, I would say that most of the time the ME2 characters are non-talking NPC guns. You would expect that Mordin would have some kind of interesting insight into the Human-Reaper thing, but he's got nothing to say the entire last mission. (Mordin with nothing to say is, in itself, rather ridiculous.) You would expect Tali and Garrus to have more interesting insights into fighting with the Husks again than other characters since Tali and Garrus have experience with them. But nope, they've got nothing unique to say.

Peppard wrote...
but I don't think the characters were in general less memorable than the ME1 ones, because each got a loyalty/recruitment arc in which to shine.   A.N.A.N, is right, ultimately,  ME1 and ME2 aren't that different in terms of how much the characters mattered to the main plot.   One thing ME2 did not do as well as ME1, was the sense of "team", as there were not many conferences where everyone talked to each other (or appeared to be talking).

Excellent points. ME2's focus on characters was not, on the whole, lower than ME1's, it was just more compartamentalized. The ship-based dialog and their own loyalty missions aside, they were all more or less interchangable with one another. There are, of course, logistical reasons for this—finding something unique for each character to say in every mission would be a nightmare and having non-squad NPC conversations change dramatically depending on who's with you doubly so—but it's still rather disappointing. Thus, I'd like to see ME3 improve on this, not suffer more than ME2 did. Especially if it does so because of how ME2 was made.

[Welder0]

It's irrelevant to me; as much fun as I've had with the first 2 installments, I'm in for 3 and I'll enjoy it too.

[MadInfiltrator]

Relax. Bioware is not constrained by having to keep the game channel into the next one. This game can have wildly divergent paths. They can all be recruitable, it's just BW's choice if they want to or not.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Damnit I thought this was the Can we be sure that Quarians aren't Naked thread now I am disappoint.

[II Sl4sh3r II]

I really hope they include old squadmates into ME3.  It's nice to see new faces and recruit new people but if that's the case it will be like playing ME2 all over again. 


ME1 Squadmates:
Liara - LI
Ashley - LI
Kaidan - LI
Tali
Garrus
Wrex

ME2 Squadmates (No DLC included):
Miranda - LI
Jacob - LI
Thane - LI
Jack - LI
Legion
Grunt
Mordin
Samara/Morinth - LI
Tali - LI
Garrus - LI

If they follow this pattern ME3 returning squadmates will be:
Legion
Grunt
Mordin

From the first game none of the LI's returned as squadmates. Bioware did this so the only events that were affected in ME2 were minor ones.  It sucks but they did this with Dragon Age: Awakening as well, the only one that returned in the expansion was Oghren (not a LI).  However, ME3 is the end of the trilogy so maybe they were just allowing us to build up our squad as much as possible throughout the first 2 games and they'll be combined in the third one along with some new ones to keep things interesting.  Who knows.

Modifié par II Sl4sh3r II, 06 juillet 2010 - 02:31 .

[TelexFerra]

I just did the math. There are 4,083 different squadmate survival combinations.

[RobertM5252]

TelexFerra wrote...

I just did the math. There are 4,083 different squadmate survival combinations.

The odds of successfully navigating all the survival combinations are 3,720 to 1.

:innocent:

[TelexFerra]

ha

[The BS Police]

I think it' actually pretty simple, if any of you squadmates die you simply can't recruit that character nor will you get a replacement, it's just a vacant spot and decreases your chance of survival and/or victory in ME3.

Modifié par The BS Police, 06 juillet 2010 - 04:23 .

[santaclausemoreau]

The BS Police wrote...

I think it' actually pretty simple, if any of you squadmates die you simply can't recruit that character nor will you get a replacement, it's just a vacant spot and decreases your chance of survival and/or victory in ME3.

Agreed.  Make ME2 count for something.

Modifié par santaclausemoreau, 06 juillet 2010 - 04:27 .

[lazuli]

I think that some of our former companions are going to be relegated to cameos, though perhaps in ways more integral to the story than they were in ME2.  There seems to be a widely held assumption on the boards that gathering allies is going to be central to the plot of ME3.  If this assumption is accurate, then some of our former companions might be significant figures in their respective alliances:  Ashley/Kaidan for the Alliance, Tali for the Migrant Fleet, Wrex for the Krogan, etc.  For various plot reasons, we might not have them with us constantly.  It's kind of lame, but easily within the realm of possibility.

And I wouldn't be surprised if a few former companions perish before ME3 really begins.  Mordin is old.  Thane has Kepral's syndrome.  And Jack's neural degeneration is hinted at in her special upgrade.

To be honest, the most I'd expect to see of Zaeed or Kasumi is an email.

I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

[Jaron Oberyn]

 All of the surviving squad mates are going to be in your squad in ME3. Probably not Zaeed or Kasumi, but that may change depending on their popularity. As for the other squaddies, as long as they didn't die it's safe to say that they will return.
Why? Because Bioware stressed that ME2 was about the squad mates. That's pretty much the entire game. Gaining their loyalty, learning about them, etc... They're not going to disregard everybody just because it would be hard to have the different possible outcomes for the game. It would render ME2 pretty much useless. Shepard isn't going to have to recruit another squad and do more loyalty missions to gain their trust. He already has the galaxy's dirty dozen. 
Just because they subjected the LI's from the first game to cameos, along with wrex, doesn't mean they'll do it in the 3rd game. This is the final chapter. In my game, my Shepard quit cerberus along with Miranda. We blew up the base, etc... So just for the sake of this argument, if Miranda quit cerberus, where would she go? If she were put in a cameo? I'm not saying Bioware can't do it, but its highly unlikely. 
There are multiple ways ME2 can end. And depending the end, Bioware will have to tailor the 3rd game to meet that certain permutation. It's evident that they're clearly at work on it already, and based on Casey Hudsons remark it's "hard". I can only imagine since there were so many outcomes of who died, and who didn't. This is one of the reasons I had hoped Mass 3 would take longer to come out, so they can send the trilogy out with a bang. A perfect ending. Hopefully they can do it in the 2 years they're planning to do so though.
Click Here

CH remark at the bottom. Might want to read the full article though, if I recall correctly they mention some stuff about Mass 3. 


-Polite

[Aulis Vaara]

Privateerkev wrote...

perfectly? Do you have any idea how easy it is to save everyone? I would be shocked if anyone who has spent even a minute on the wiki site even has trouble with it anymore. The way it is these days, people only die in your suicide mission if you want them to...

And everybody obviously spends time on the wiki, it's not as if they want their experience to be as realistic as possible. I was bummed when Thane died the first time around, but that was how it was. Jack also died, but I wasn't much bummed about that.

People die every time with me, most of the time unwanted (Tali *sniff*), though I usually kill off Zaeed because I despise him.

I've looked over the 'rules' now, and I will be using them for this playthrough, but I don't think I'll do that every time. It's more intense if you don't know who's going to end up dead. And I think more people than just me think that way.

[Mooner911]

RobertM5252 wrote...

Peppard wrote...
Squad are basically just NPCS  +weapons.   Having more variety is a good thing for combat, even if the more squad you have, the less intertwined, specific dialog you could have.  Imagine for a moment if you could get a lot more dialog out of a character, but as a result, they could no longer be in the squad.  Would you want that? Or if you could have as many squad as weapons, but no dialog? Most of us prefer something that balances the two sides, and allows us choice about which characters to combine on a mission.
 ME2 may have gone a bit overboard one way (lots of variety, less dialog),

Indeed, I would say that most of the time the ME2 characters are non-talking NPC guns. You would expect that Mordin would have some kind of interesting insight into the Human-Reaper thing, but he's got nothing to say the entire last mission. (Mordin with nothing to say is, in itself, rather ridiculous.) You would expect Tali and Garrus to have more interesting insights into fighting with the Husks again than other characters since Tali and Garrus have experience with them. But nope, they've got nothing unique to say.

Peppard wrote...
but I don't think the characters were in general less memorable than the ME1 ones, because each got a loyalty/recruitment arc in which to shine.   A.N.A.N, is right, ultimately,  ME1 and ME2 aren't that different in terms of how much the characters mattered to the main plot.   One thing ME2 did not do as well as ME1, was the sense of "team", as there were not many conferences where everyone talked to each other (or appeared to be talking).

Excellent points. ME2's focus on characters was not, on the whole, lower than ME1's, it was just more compartamentalized. The ship-based dialog and their own loyalty missions aside, they were all more or less interchangable with one another. There are, of course, logistical reasons for this—finding something unique for each character to say in every mission would be a nightmare and having non-squad NPC conversations change dramatically depending on who's with you doubly so—but it's still rather disappointing. Thus, I'd like to see ME3 improve on this, not suffer more than ME2 did. Especially if it does so because of how ME2 was made.

Without dialogue ME is just a FPS. The majority of fans play ME for it's RPG elements and require the social, vocal interaction between characters to create a satisfactory RPG experience. Most gamers that were comparitively less satisfied with ME2 noticed the key-holed, monologue style VA. The result as Peppard said, was a lack of 'team' spirit or cohesion.
A perfect example is the addition of Kasumi  to the team. While all of her comments are unique, nothing that Shepard says 'in response' is new. Therefor it's not dialogue, it's multiple monologues. This, for the most part, is typical of all the ME2 character voicing. There's very little personal interaction between anyone like there was in ME1.
I get the feeling that BW decided it was too difficult to maintain and voice the ever expanding potential conversation trees. Catering to all the conversation possibilities would put too much strain on VA budgets, development time, convo logistics, file sizes, etc. etc. 'Scuse me, but I call bullsh*t.
VA's are not paid by the word or hour. They're paid a flat fee for one or more acting sessions, all the while guided by a director who understands all the possible directions the story might take. Why is there so little consideration made to target specific squad combinations in specific situations? All convo's are 'hard-written'. That is to say, comments and responses are, for the most part, made independent of which characters are currently in the squad. 100% of the voicing is utilized through the fixed convo wheel. What would happen if a convo wheel choice often illicited a unique comment or response dependent on the squad makeup? The personal touch would greatly increase the players immersion (RPG epic win), and replayability would be guaranteed! I'd love to replay ME or ME2 for a third, fourth, or fifth time and discover something new. VA budgeting might increase by a small amount, convo logistics wouldn't be any more sophisticated, audio files are small and wouldn't over-burden the size of the game, and development schedules would remain unchanged.

[FlyinElk212]

I've had multiple theories as to the squad size, but a few nights ago I came to a startling revelation. Since there are waaay too many variables with ME2 squad deaths, go off of what you already know, and consider the ME3 squad based on easiest mode of game development for Bioware:

What has been the standard size of a ground team throughout the Mass Effect series? 3, 2 squadmates and Shepard.

How many of Shepard's past crew HAVE to be alive by the end of everyone's games? 2 squadmates, Liara and Ashley/Kaidan.

It might be as simple as this: 12 squadmates, same as ME2. You'll definitely have 2 squadmates, Liara and Ashley/Kaidan, to at least meet minimum ground team requirements, and the survivors of ME2 will round out the rest of your squad (not including DLCs Zaeed and Kasumi). You receive extra content/dialogue/side missions for every character alive, but the remaining 10 from ME2 aren't unbelievably integral, and the story can continue with them not there.

There you go. 12 squadmates again. You get extra teammates and content if you kicked **** in ME2. Simple. Bam.

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 06 juillet 2010 - 04:26 .