2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Wraith_of_Dawn]

Never Played DA, I didn't know they scrapped characters in the expansion.



But why make a mission, where you have characters who can die, and have an incentive to keep most, if not all alive, if for it to have little to no effect on the next game.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
1. No, he said like Garrus and Tali, not just those two.

Hey why not.  Let's try this again:
"I think the development of some of the existing characters people continued to enjoy, like the stuff with Garrus and Tali."

Continued, as in continued from ME1.

He is referring to the existing characters from ME1 that were continued in ME2.  Tali, Garrus, Liara, Wrex, etc.

2. We don't know for sure if we'll get new squad mates. At this point its pure speculation. Meeting new people doesn't translate into meeting new squad mates.

And we're two for two.

"We always try to balance the fact that, people will say "I want all my characters back from the previous game because that's what made the first game great." But when you think about it, part of what made the previous game great is the process of meeting those characters for the first time. That has to be part of the experience too, how you meet new characters."

He's saying: 1) we'll be meeting some new characters for the first time (within the context of squadmates), and that 2) how you meet new characters has to be part of the experience.

The "too" refers to meeting new characters, and meeting old characters.

3. You act as if you know what your talkig about. What makes you think that just because they can die, that they're "ruled out". Do you even read half of the stuff your posting? It's absurd to say in the least. The squadmates are relevant to Mass 2's plot, because without getting to know them and getting their loyalty, you wouldn't make it to Mass 3 because your shepard would die. "ME3 has to be completely about the plot" - Does it? What makes you think so? And if it is about the plot, how would a whole new squad tie into that? Again, do you read your comments before posting?

 -Polite

1) If someone can die, you can't write a story about them.
2) Everyone can die except 2 random people.
Therefore, no one is plot relevant.

ME3 has to be compeltely about the plot, because ME2 did dick all to the Reaper plot.  There's barely any time to wrap things up in any kind of believable manner unless you're killing like 12 Reapers every hour or something.  Or something contrived, like a virus that kills them all.

Now I'm sure they'd have some exposition on some characters, like Tali and Garrus, but nothing plot relevant.  It'll just be a side story: which is exactly what the character stories in ME2 were.

And what you said about "getting to know" them in ME2?  Nonsense.  Getting their loyalty just makes the Suicide Mission easier.  As we already know, we only need two survivors to pass the game alive.  That doesn't make any specific character plot relelvant; that makes any 2 random characters important to keeping Shepard alive.  ME2's plot can go on just fine with everyone dying.

As for a whole new squad tying into the plot of ME3: whatever BioWare wants them to do.

Kid, I get tired of proving you and other people wrong time and time again. As much as I'd like to gloat, it really gets old. You say that the squadmates aren't central in Mass 2, but side stories? That the game isn't about building up your team, and getting to know your squad, getting them loyal? That they're not the focus of the game? Well,




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bioware seems to disagree Click Here
So what now boy? Start at the 0:50 marker and keep watching. You'll know when to stop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This pretty much ends that discussion, now doesn't it? So if they dedicate the game to an entire squad, you really think they're going to sideline them in the third game for a whole new squad? Ha. Ha. Ha.


-Polite

[smudboy]

I like how you were completely embarrassed about not understanding basic English, and decided to do whatever.

Congrats!

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Kid, I get tired of proving you and other people wrong time and time again. As much as I'd like to gloat, it really gets old. You say that the squadmates aren't central in Mass 2, but side stories? That the game isn't about building up your team, and getting to know your squad, getting them loyal? That they're not the focus of the game? Well,

The squadmates aren't central to the plot of ME2.  They are in fact side stories.

The story of ME2 is indeed about building your team.

This pretty much ends that discussion, now doesn't it? So if they dedicate the game to an entire squad, you really think they're going to sideline them in the third game for a whole new squad? Ha. Ha. Ha.

-Polite

No it doesn't end the discussion, since you completely missed the points I made, proving that you lack basic English skills, amongst other cognitive functions, or you're just embarrassed.  I'd imagine the "ha ha ha"ing is your way to make yourself feel better.  Well, I would recommend ending each of your replies like that.

If they dedicate telling side-stories about recruiting people in ME2, then that's what ME2 is all about.  Keep in mind I know full well the terms story, plot, frame story, character vignettes, and other such literary terms mean.

There is absolutely no guarantee they'll suddenly have plot relevance in ME3, especially since they had none in ME2. 
Especially since they can all die, aside from 2 random ones.
Especially since two are DLC.
Especially since you can play ME3 without an import.

Face it: you simply believe they'll be back because you want them to be back.  And you know what?  I bet they'll devote a bit of time to a handful of them, too.  Casey even they'll have some back.  It's a safe bet.  But, according to how ME2 was structured, and how variable the ending is, all we can say for certain at this time is two random ones will be back.

How they'll make plot relevant characters stick is anyone's guess.  My guess is the new characters.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

I like how you were completely embarrassed about not understanding basic English, and decided to do whatever.

Congrats!

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Kid, I get tired of proving you and other people wrong time and time again. As much as I'd like to gloat, it really gets old. You say that the squadmates aren't central in Mass 2, but side stories? That the game isn't about building up your team, and getting to know your squad, getting them loyal? That they're not the focus of the game? Well,

The squadmates aren't central to the plot of ME2.  They are in fact side stories.

The story of ME2 is indeed about building your team.

This pretty much ends that discussion, now doesn't it? So if they dedicate the game to an entire squad, you really think they're going to sideline them in the third game for a whole new squad? Ha. Ha. Ha.

-Polite

No it doesn't end the discussion, since you completely missed the points I made, proving that you lack basic English skills, amongst other cognitive functions, or you're just embarrassed.  I'd imagine the "ha ha ha"ing is your way to make yourself feel better.  Well, I would recommend ending each of your replies like that.

If they dedicate telling side-stories about recruiting people in ME2, then that's what ME2 is all about.  Keep in mind I know full well the terms story, plot, frame story, character vignettes, and other such literary terms mean.

There is absolutely no guarantee they'll suddenly have plot relevance in ME3, especially since they had none in ME2. 
Especially since they can all die, aside from 2 random ones.
Especially since two are DLC.
Especially since you can play ME3 without an import.

Face it: you simply believe they'll be back because you want them to be back.  And you know what?  I bet they'll devote a bit of time to a handful of them, too.  Casey even they'll have some back.  It's a safe bet.  But, according to how ME2 was structured, and how variable the ending is, all we can say for certain at this time is two random ones will be back.

How they'll make plot relevant characters stick is anyone's guess.  My guess is the new characters.

I know nerd rage when I see it lol. How does english fit into this?  I'm not going to keep arguing this with you, as your not contributing to the debate. The next time I say something to you will be in the form of a message when I tell you 4 simple words - I Told You So.

Goodbye Smudboy,

-Polite

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
I know nerd rage when I see it lol. How does english fit into this?  I'm not going to keep arguing this with you, as your not contributing to the debate. The next time I say something to you will be in the form of a message when I tell you 4 simple words - I Told You So.

Goodbye Smudboy,

-Polite

Hello Polite,

http://social.biowar...2255/19#3317968

See that?  Actually reply to the points I make.  My first comment is in regards to the English reading comprehension skills you failed to use in interpreting what was being said, by the highlighted words.  No problems, it happens to the best of us.

How am I not contributing to the debate?  I'm looking at all your points and giving you examples and reasonings as to why they are wrong.  You continue to show your intentions of wanting all squadmates back, simply because ME2 was all about squadmates.  I have re-itereated the same core reasonings as to why I, and others, believe that these squadmates won't be back, and if they are, won't be of any plot relevance.  I also continually remind you that there will be new squadmates.

Now you may not like the idea of new squadmates, because you believe ME2 must have the entire team back (and why get new squadmates?)  And all my and your reasoning is irrelevant: because Casey said so.

I hope you do get to tell me "I told you so."  As childish as I wish you to be, naturally.  Because then BioWare would be able to do the impossible: make specific past characters, who are not able to be plot relevant in ME3, because of so many reasons (most obvious: death), become plot integral to the happenstance of ME3's plot.  I guess they can pull a full Lazarus Project on some, like Tali and Garrus, since they had no scruples doing so to Shepard, and he wasn't even plot integral to ME2 despite being a protagonist.  So why not ME3?

[Inverness Moon]

BioWare is not going to put all that effort into developing those squad mates for ME2 and then just replace them with new ones for ME3. No, they're going to make you pay for your choices at the end of ME2 by lowering the number of squad mates you have available in ME3.



Also, the fact that anyone can die doesn't necessarily mean they won't be plot relevant. If you think that you're just assuming BioWare is going to let you have the best, or even a favorable outcome when you have to deal with the reapers in ME3 with a lot of your squad dead.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Inverness Moon wrote...

BioWare is not going to put all that effort into developing those squad mates for ME2 and then just replace them with new ones for ME3. No, they're going to make you pay for your choices at the end of ME2 by lowering the number of squad mates you have available in ME3.

Also, the fact that anyone can die doesn't necessarily mean they won't be plot relevant. If you think that you're just assuming BioWare is going to let you have the best, or even a favorable outcome when you have to deal with the reapers in ME3 with a lot of your squad dead.

Well said Inverness.

-Polite

[KainrycKarr]

I'm going to be honest; I hope you're right, I really do. I will gladly eat my words if this turns out to be the case.

[Blackveldt]

Okay. I've continued reading this thread and wanted to note certain things (a bit long here, so bear with me):

- Just because squad members can die, does not necessarily signify reduced or 'cameo' roles. This is a hasty generalization and a fallacious argument.

- In regards to those using the quote, "...meeting those characters for the first time. That has to be part of the experience too, how you meet new characters..." as a means to buttress an argument favoring a 'replacement crew' theory. This line of reasoning is in error because intent is being inferred based on the false assumption (treated as true) that any mention of meeting new characters is specifically referring to one outcome only: new squad mates in ME3 will replace previous ones. An invalid conclusion as there are several ways in which to interpret the statement (as purposely vague as it is) as well as several potential outcomes. It is entirely possible to not only have new squad mates in addition to old ones, but simply new characters (non-squad mates) with whom to interact.

- We do not need to dichotomize Mass Effect. 'Plot' and 'character development/relationships' are not necessarily two warring entities part of a whole. In fact, character development and relationships can be a plot in and of itself or otherwise significantly contribute to the progression of a plot, hence 'plot device.' The loyalty and relationship of certain squad members may directly affect a larger component in regards to the Reapers. Great writers can intertwine these two elements in an almost symbiotic relationship, where each can feed off of or support the other. Tali's research on the sun of Haestrom hints at involvement with the Reapers and either her death or loyalty and friendship may play a huge role in developing this plot component.

- The argument that squad mates will remain at Shepard's side due to the dire Reaper threat is an incomplete line of thought. It is entirely possible for squad mates to assist Shepard either peripherally or else far (in terms of distance) from Shepard. A brief example would be Tali (assuming she was not exiled from the Flotilla) acting as the new Admiral to replace her father. Shepard may not actually ever see her or perhaps only have brief contact with her throughout the game--yet, she would still be assisting by rallying her people to fight with the humans, etc.

- The fallacious argument: because we got 'cameos' from Ashley/Kaidan in ME2, the same will occur in ME3. It will be a different game, set under different circumstances, options, and settings. You cannot apply the same line of reasoning to a different variable. Interpreting and assuming another's intent, all the while treating such personal assumptions as truth, can lead to invalid conclusions. Bioware representatives have stated that such characters were non-recruitable specifically because they were significant to the plot of ME3; they wanted to ensure that these characters did not have a chance of dying like other squad members. Perhaps this means Ashley/Kaidan will be more integral to the plot. Perhaps they will at least be more important than surviving squad members or have more lines of dialogue. Perhaps they will simply have more personal involvement (with Shepard). It is pure conjecture at this point in relation to why or how much Bioware "care[s]" for the Virmire survivor.

- Building on this, ME1 relationships/interaction with crew members was wholly optional. The success of the mission was not contingent upon interaction with the crew; you could have completed a 'successful' game (desirable outcomes) without having initiated a single dialogue-wheel conversation. More importantly, you could have achieved all end sequences (saving the Council, letting the Council die) whether or not you recruited Garrus, gave Tali the geth data, killed Wrex, left Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire, etc. ME2, however, is a completely different story. In ME2, interaction with the crew was essential to the success of the mission. You had to recruit a number of squad mates and in order to have a desirable outcome, you had to gain some squad mates' loyalty. In order to achieve this, you must initiate conversations with the different characters, who don't immediately start talking about their loyalty missions. This means that Shepard must have at least one conversation with each squad mate (with the exception of the DLC characters) that is not strictly business. In other words, to ensure the most desirable end sequence (everyone lives), our goal as the gamer is to build and foster relationships with the crew, ensuring loyalty and friendship.

Due to the nature of this goal, it is unlikely that the writers/designers/etc would cheapen this experience by either replacing this loyal crew with a new one or downgrading their roles to 'cameos.' It would not only suggest that the goal and entire experience of ME2 was meaningless or otherwise unnecessary, but would have wasted not only the gamers' time and effort as well as those who actually worked on the game. It expends resources to build up the characters and relationships the way they did (designing a game with continuity in mind, finding, hiring, re-hiring voice actors, writers, etc). It would be impractical and wasteful to disregard all of that careful work, planning, and experience, and even more impractical to try to start anew with a brand new crew. That would mean more work, more voice casting, more designing, more complex writing and dialogue (writers would have to take into account previous surviving squad members, cameo or not), creating more 'branches' of plot devices and basically, a convoluted mess for a finale in a trilogy.

- The death of a character has the potential to add to a story as much as a living one. I am not saying this is what may happen in ME3, but we need to admit the possibility and significance of a character death. In the classic Sophocles tragedy Antigone, the entire premise rested on and built upon the death of Polyneices. As an example, a dead Tali, besides possibly affecting certain characters emotionally, will not be there to guide her people to a peaceful solution with the geth, resulting in a war that depletes the resources of both sides and affects the overall war with the Reapers. In fact, who is to say that crew mate death doesn't affect this outcome significantly? Shepard, after all, did recruit the best in the galaxy, including a Justicar whose opinion holds great sway to her people, a Turian who has influence with C-Sec, a mercenary who founded the Blue Suns, and so on and so forth. It is entirely possible that players may be 'punished' for having the bare minimum of surviving squad members in ME3, as Shepard may have little with which to work, in turn affecting whether or not Shepard is successful in the finale, whether s/he lives or dies, etc. There are too many variables to consider to casually dismiss as irrelevant via curtailed statement. Operating under the assumption that character deaths have no repercussions whatsoever in ME3 is simply in error.

- Finally, it is too hasty to use the word 'never,' especially when dealing with the unknown. Anything is possible at this point, though certain variables may be more likely than others. But I generally do not like to judge something as either inevitable or impossible without sufficient evidence--which we do not have. We do know that Bioware spent a lot of time, money, and effort perfecting the relationship process in ME2, making it integral to the protagonist's success. With this information, we can form our own hypotheses or theories and surmise that disregarding said relationships, effort, etc, seems impractical or implausible, though not impossible.

Modifié par Blackveldt, 02 août 2010 - 06:04 .

[CROAT_56]

well said black

[SmokePants]

Wraith_of_Dawn wrote...

Never Played DA, I didn't know they scrapped characters in the expansion.

But why make a mission, where you have characters who can die, and have an incentive to keep most, if not all alive, if for it to have little to no effect on the next game.

Do you realize just how many games there have been where you could "save" certain characters from an untimely demise? Too many to name. And none of those games let you carry over your save file to the next game. So, obviously, there was a point to it within the context of each individual game, and that was to invest the player in the experience at hand and give them a satisfying outcome that they earned-- not to invest them in an experience yet to come.

[smudboy]

[quote]Blackveldt wrote...

Okay. I've continued reading this thread and wanted to note certain things (a bit long here, so bear with me):

- Just because squad members can die, does not necessarily signify reduced or 'cameo' roles. This is a hasty generalization and a fallacious argument.
[/quote]
How is it a hasty generalization and fallacious?

[quote]
- In regards to those using the quote, "...meeting those characters for the first time. That has to be part of the experience too, how you meet new characters..." as a means to buttress an argument favoring a 'replacement crew' theory. This line of reasoning is in error because intent is being inferred based on the false assumption (treated as true) that any mention of meeting new characters is specifically referring to one outcome only: new squad mates in ME3 will replace previous ones. An invalid conclusion as there are several ways in which to interpret the statement (as purposely vague as it is) as well as several potential outcomes. It is entirely possible to not only have new squad mates in addition to old ones, but simply new characters (non-squad mates) with whom to interact.
[/quote]
Where do you get "one outcome only": that new squad mates will replace old ones?

Read the damn sentence man:
"That has to be part of the experience too."  That is, meeting new characters and having old ones return.

[quote]
- We do not need to dichotomize Mass Effect. 'Plot' and 'character development/relationships' are not necessarily two warring entities part of a whole.
[/quote]
Basic English would say otherwise.

As would I.

[quote]
In fact, character development and relationships can be a plot in and of itself or otherwise significantly contribute to the progression of a plot, hence 'plot device.'
[/quote]
Of course.  But not in ME2.  ME2's characters had zippedy doo dah to do with the main plot.  They got fleshed out, but doing that did 1) nothing to Shepard's development, 2) nothing to the plot's development or progression.

[quote]
The loyalty and relationship of certain squad members may directly affect a larger component in regards to the Reapers. Great writers can intertwine these two elements in an almost symbiotic relationship, where each can feed off of or support the other. Tali's research on the sun of Haestrom hints at involvement with the Reapers and either her death or loyalty and friendship may play a huge role in developing this plot component.
[/quote]
Um, if they were to be, they'd have already been "intertwined" by now.

That's not a plot component: that's foreshadowing.  If that's a plot component, Jacob's dad or neural decay is a plot component, as is killing Samara/Morinth, or Kolyat, or Sidonis dying/going to jail, or whatever.

Sure, side characters are supposed to support the protagonist(s) in the resolution of the main plot, but not in ME2.  In ME2, side characters become main characters of their own plots, which have nothing to do with ME2's main plot.  Why would whatever happened in a previous game to a side character then create some kind of symbiotic relationship in the protagonist of ME3?  Why would the writer hold back that connection for...later?  Especially if they can all die?

[quote]
- The argument that squad mates will remain at Shepard's side due to the dire Reaper threat is an incomplete line of thought. It is entirely possible for squad mates to assist Shepard either peripherally or else far (in terms of distance) from Shepard. A brief example would be Tali (assuming she was not exiled from the Flotilla) acting as the new Admiral to replace her father. Shepard may not actually ever see her or perhaps only have brief contact with her throughout the game--yet, she would still be assisting by rallying her people to fight with the humans, etc.
[/quote]
But that's the argument.  It's in regards to squadmates.

[quote]
- The fallacious argument: because we got 'cameos' from Ashley/Kaidan in ME2, the same will occur in ME3. It will be a different game, set under different circumstances, options, and settings. You cannot apply the same line of reasoning to a different variable. Interpreting and assuming another's intent, all the while treating such personal assumptions as truth, can lead to invalid conclusions. Bioware representatives have stated that such characters were non-recruitable specifically because they were significant to the plot of ME3; they wanted to ensure that these characters did not have a chance of dying like other squad members. Perhaps this means Ashley/Kaidan will be more integral to the plot. Perhaps they will at least be more important than surviving squad members or have more lines of dialogue. Perhaps they will simply have more personal involvement (with Shepard). It is pure conjecture at this point in relation to why or how much Bioware "care[s]" for the Virmire survivor.
[/quote]
What do you mean: of course you can apply the same set of reasonings.  Virmire sacrifice: not in ME2.  Nearly whole cast of ME2 gone: not in ME3.  Not recruited, not made loyal, not even imported: not in ME3.

[quote]
- Building on this, ME1 relationships/interaction with crew members was wholly optional. The success of the mission was not contingent upon interaction with the crew; you could have completed a 'successful' game (desirable outcomes) without having initiated a single dialogue-wheel conversation. More importantly, you could have achieved all end sequences (saving the Council, letting the Council die) whether or not you recruited Garrus, gave Tali the geth data, killed Wrex, left Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire, etc. ME2, however, is a completely different story.
[/quote]
Right.  And ME2's story had nothing to do with anything.

[quote]
In ME2, interaction with the crew was essential to the success of the mission.
[/quote]
No it wasn't.  The only thing that differed was who died.

Mission is successful regardless.
[quote]
You had to recruit a number of squad mates and in order to have a desirable outcome, you had to gain some squad mates' loyalty. In order to achieve this, you must initiate conversations with the different characters, who don't immediately start talking about their loyalty missions. This means that Shepard must have at least one conversation with each squad mate (with the exception of the DLC characters) that is not strictly business. In other words, to ensure the most desirable end sequence (everyone lives), our goal as the gamer is to build and foster relationships with the crew, ensuring loyalty and friendship.
[/quote]
ME2 is about recruitment and loyalty missions.  Only two or which are needed to get a 'Shepard survives' ending.  (Then again I'm unfamiliar with the logistics. Regardless, one must look to the "2nd worst most possible playthrough" to allow for the story to continue with lowest probable variables.)

[quote]
Due to the nature of this goal, it is unlikely that the writers/designers/etc would cheapen this experience by either replacing this loyal crew with a new one or downgrading their roles to 'cameos.'
[/quote]
Why would that cheapen anything?

If they're alive, they could get a cameo. What's wrong with a cameo?
[quote]
It would not only suggest that the goal and entire experience of ME2 was meaningless or otherwise unnecessary,
[/quote]
Please explain to me how the  goal of ME2 was not meaningless and unnecessary, considering it didn't do dick and all to the overarching plot.

[quote]
but would have wasted not only the gamers' time and effort as well as those who actually worked on the game.
[/quote]
Um, they got paid regardless, and weren't at liberty to say "hey Casey, the story should go this way."
[quote]
It expends resources to build up the characters and relationships the way they did (designing a game with continuity in mind, finding, hiring, re-hiring voice actors, writers, etc). It would be impractical and wasteful to disregard all of that careful work, planning, and experience, and even more impractical to try to start anew with a brand new crew. That would mean more work, more voice casting, more designing, more complex writing and dialogue (writers would have to take into account previous surviving squad members, cameo or not), creating more 'branches' of plot devices and basically, a convoluted mess for a finale in a trilogy.
[/quote]
It's not impractical or wasteful to create new characters and hire new artists.  Happens every game.  All assets are recreated from scratch.  Old assets might be used as a guide, but really, everything's pretty much from scratch.

For one thing, it's not difficult to write a cameo for an existing character.  It does take time to write a new character.

It would however be a waste, if you had to create an entire storyline for an existing character that is entirely optional, as opposed to simply making a new character that will definitely be in the story, and then giving that variation.  The consequences that exist have to be dealt with, but you don't want to create entire narratives on optional content that have nothing to do with anything.  If it's just fanservice, cameos would suffice.

[quote]
- The death of a character has the potential to add to a story as much as a living one. I am not saying this is what may happen in ME3,
[/quote]
A really expensive funeral?

[quote]
but we need to admit the possibility and significance of a character death. In the classic Sophocles tragedy Antigone, the entire premise rested on and built upon the death of Polyneices. As an example, a dead Tali, besides possibly affecting certain characters emotionally, will not be there to guide her people to a peaceful solution with the geth, resulting in a war that depletes the resources of both sides and affects the overall war with the Reapers. In fact, who is to say that crew mate death doesn't affect this outcome significantly? Shepard, after all, did recruit the best in the galaxy, including a Justicar whose opinion holds great sway to her people, a Turian who has influence with C-Sec, a mercenary who founded the Blue Suns, and so on and so forth. It is entirely possible that players may be 'punished' for having the bare minimum of surviving squad members in ME3, as Shepard may have little with which to work, in turn affecting whether or not Shepard is successful in the finale, whether s/he lives or dies, etc. There are too many variables to consider to casually dismiss as irrelevant via curtailed statement. Operating under the assumption that character deaths have no repercussions whatsoever in ME3 is simply in error.
[/quote]
So?  The argument is squadmates, not storylines.

They're dead.  Ooh.  Let's get an email.
[quote]
- Finally, it is too hasty to use the word 'never,' especially when dealing with the unknown. Anything is possible at this point, though certain variables may be more likely than others. But I generally do not like to judge something as either inevitable or impossible without sufficient evidence--which we do not have. We do know that Bioware spent a lot of time, money, and effort perfecting the relationship process in ME2, making it integral to the protagonist's success. With this information, we can form our own hypotheses or theories and surmise that disregarding said relationships, effort, etc, seems impractical or implausible, though not impossible.[/quote]
We do not need all squadmates to be fully fleshed out to complete the Suicide Mission.  It just keeps people alive during said mission.  Again, LCD is we need two surviving squadmates.  Considering that can be anyone, it implies no one squadmate will have plot integrity. (Unless Bioware pulls Lazarus Project 2.0.)

Now considering the only plot integral character, Mordin, was in ME2, and everyone else wasn't plot integral, it could very well be a whole bunch of these characters as squadmates.  But that's it: they'll just be there.  There'll be no point in having squadmates unless their continued storylines aren't connected by some side story into the main plot (and look toward any loyalty mission in ME2 to see if it had any relevance to anything in ME2's main plot.)  So since we know they won't be plot integral, they'll just be fluff.

People have argued ME2 is a "character building" game.  Great, okay. Those characters had nothing to do with anything.  Are we going to have another character building game in ME3?  We could, but again, nothing to do with anything, due to variability of them even existing this time round.

Brand new character?  They can be plot integral.  Meaning, they need to exist.  Writers cannot put characters in a story and be relevant unless they're a generic placeholder (whomever survived), are a generic placeholder for a cameo (like a handler over the radio), or exist purely as a cameo.

[KainrycKarr]

Let's try this; how many of us DO want the old squad(ME1 and 2) thrown out in favor of a new crew, regardless of what is, and is not, likely, development-wise?



Not I.

[Fiery Phoenix]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Let's try this; how many of us DO want the old squad(ME1 and 2) thrown out in favor of a new crew, regardless of what is, and is not, likely, development-wise?

Not I.

Dot.

I also forsee a fight between Smud and Black, even though I completely agree with the latter. No offense, Smud. Just saying.

[IoCaster]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Let's try this; how many of us DO want the old squad(ME1 and 2) thrown out in favor of a new crew, regardless of what is, and is not, likely, development-wise?

Not I.

I personally don't care either way since I'll just make sure that I kill off any character I don't want around for ME3. I don't think it matters since BioWare is likely to sideline the ME2 squad anyway. 

I believe that the people that have convinced themselves that the elite squad of 'badasses' from ME2 will be squad mates in ME3 are destined to be disappointed. Any one of these characters can die. Somewhere upstream in this thread is an excerpt of a post by David Gaider. I'll copy/paste for the folks that missed it:

HugThePiggy wrote...
I realise that it would be a lot more work to incorporate all of the old followers into Amaranthine along with all of the new ones, but I really liked the old ones.

David Gaider wrote...
That would be a lot of work, indeed... and were any of those companions unavailable it would be work you wouldn't see and wouldn't even be aware it was there and made unavailable by your choices in the main game. I appreciate the idea that this would add to replayability, but we can't make content only for people who intend to replay the game... not with party members, one of the most expensive things we can put into a game like this.

It's stated very clearly that BioWare doesn't want to create "content only for people who intend to replay the game... not with party members, one of the most expensive things we can put into a game like this". The best that should be expected is cameos and emails.

Modifié par IoCaster, 02 août 2010 - 12:49 .

[CROAT_56]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Let's try this; how many of us DO want the old squad(ME1 and 2) thrown out in favor of a new crew, regardless of what is, and is not, likely, development-wise?

Not I.

not I

[TheSweetGirl]

I do support the characters coming back but then I realized that some characters like Wrex will probably be busy rounding up his clan to help Shepard in the fight for the Reapers.



Maybe Ash or Kaiden *whoever survived* will get the Alliance back on your side.



Still, I like to keep the ME2 characters there. Unless Garrus is going to help get the turians and Tali the Quarians. Now I will understand if they are not there.

[Onyx Jaguar]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Let's try this; how many of us DO want the old squad(ME1 and 2) thrown out in favor of a new crew, regardless of what is, and is not, likely, development-wise?

Not I.

I wouldn't mind

[Merlin 47]

CROAT_56 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Let's try this; how many of us DO want the old squad(ME1 and 2) thrown out in favor of a new crew, regardless of what is, and is not, likely, development-wise?

Not I.

not I

Not I

[BinaryHelix101]

It's quite difficult to have a game where most of your party members could have died earlier.

I'm guessing ME3 party goes like this. 4 new party members, 4 possible returns, if they surivived ME2 (i.e. Garrus, Tali, Miranda, Jacob return if they survived). The rest of the survivors would be reduced to cameo roles.

It's more likely to go like that, rather than every survivor returns.

Liara is a lock to be in the ME3 party. Unless she dies in the new DLC.

Modifié par BinaryHelix101, 02 août 2010 - 03:24 .

[PrinceLionheart]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Let's try this; how many of us DO want the old squad(ME1 and 2) thrown out in favor of a new crew, regardless of what is, and is not, likely, development-wise?

Not I.

I'm all for it. I wouldn't mind Liara and Ashley/Kaidan to rejoin, but I see no problem and getting some new blood. 

[Ross42899]

it will be like ME2:



- some characters will be back as squadmates (my guess again 2 or 3)

- some characters will have cameo appearances

- many new characters will be squadmates

[SmokePants]

IoCaster is my hero. He fully understands that there isn't a choice here. It's not about what BioWare will or won't do. It's about what BioWare can and can't do.

[tertium organum]

People still think they'll get everybody back, huh? Are you watching/reading Bioware? Please prepare your PR firm for the anger and total bewilderment that will descend on this forum when you finally say it plainly that ME2 squad members will be cameos or that ME3 "has a whole new cast, but some favorites will return" meaning the ones that could have died but were saved in some files - like Ashley and Kaiden. People are swearing up and down that every squadmate  will be playable oblivious to how you structured the game and explained this mechanic already.  I mean, your "true fans"  really seem to think you're going to write stories for close to 20 playable characters. These are the same people that think the plot to the game was also well done so, yeah, catch-22.

Bioware wrote a terrible plot for the  second game and have got themselves in a pickle here. They made the game about characters that could all die yet you're supposed to have continuity to the next game.  But at the same time they want "newcomers" to be able to play the game without having to to play any others so they contrive nonsense like Shepard dying to reboot a story that needs to continue rather than be diverted. Absurd decision, of course, since, if we were really to think this through, there is no need to make "standalone" games in terms of story - after all, it's easy to create a simple preview instead of having the desire for "newcomers" to  jump right in dictate the sort of story you're going to tell. ME2, story-wise, was a completely unnecessary reboot and deviation plot-wise.

I actually get upset thinking about how Bioware are in the process of messing up a good story by stupidly adhering to market and economic principles instead of what makes sense for the story. "Stupidly" because they did not need to - the game was already popular.  In the end, we'll end up with a great first act and two disjointed sequels. Ala The Matrix. great .  Hopefully, some other studio is watching the debacle ( i.e not blinded by the press)  and does a proper "trilogy."

Oh yeah, I will be here whenever ME3 drops to pour oil on the fire. You folks are delusional that think all the characters in ME2 will return and be playable.  It'll be beautiful watching all these "rational" arguments about why the characters should return go up in flames.  And don't mistake me, they are rational arguments but these folks seem to not realize how Bioware is going about writing this so-called "trilogy." They are not  writing a coherent three story arc but writing three standalone games. Because of this stupid decision, they have to jerry-rig the plot throughout all three games to make it seem a coherent arc. All these arguments that, for example,  make the great point that going on yet another recruitment mission is ridiculous when your "team" has survived forget this- while this is an obvious hallmark of good writing and continuity ( the protagonist growing with his comrades) Bioware has decided at a philosophical level that because of the medium they're in ( videogames) that this can't be done. Bioware, essentially, has made convention destroy their story.


ME1 made it seem like they had a coherent vision  and they have said as much but the 'plot' of the second game along with the fact that nearly every character can die shows that they have not thought about this all that well. They're in the process of contriving tenuous links between all the games as they write new characters into the story (  why would Shepard need another freaking team is beyond all of us but rest assured they're cooking up some nonsense so that the "experience of meeting new characters" is in the game). In general, the team went about this the wrong way - they hampered a great story by forcing it into silly gaming conventions, not rising above or evovling the medium beyond them.

Modifié par tertium organum, 02 août 2010 - 04:17 .

[Crespire]

Not to rock the boat, but did you all consider that even Shepard can die in ME2? What if they have a new hero. like Ashley or Joker?