2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Wraith_of_Dawn]

Tertium earns my respect, for whatever it is worth.



I don't deny that not all of the characters will return, but if they don't give us at least 3(1/4 of the ME2 team including DLC) then the entirety of ME2 could have been basically skipped.



The Collectors could be scrapped, and you could probably have a better story from ME1 to ME3 then through all 3 if the middle one has little to no effect.The point of ME was to stop the reaper threat;We didn't do that, it was put of for the obviously more important bugs.

[SmokePants]

Crespire wrote...

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?

Bioware addressed that before ME2 even released. You cannot import a dead Sheperd save file into ME3. You have to start a new Sheperd.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Ross42899 wrote...

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

But you don't get it. They're not going to repeat the same process. There would be no reason for them to leave. Once again, Mass Effect 2 is ALL about the squadmates. Why make a game that is focused on that just to give them cameos in the third game? Explain that to me.

-Polite

[SmokePants]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

But you don't get it. They're not going to repeat the same process. There would be no reason for them to leave. Once again, Mass Effect 2 is ALL about the squadmates. Why make a game that is focused on that just to give them cameos in the third game? Explain that to me.

-Polite

You mean, explain to you the thousands upon thousands of games that have you assemble a cast of characters and tackle a mission without any promise of being able to carry any of it over to the next game? I would think the reasons would be self-evident.

Ugh. Is this really happening? Am I really here right now having this conversation?

[Lucky Thirteen]

Wraith_of_Dawn wrote...

Tertium earns my respect, for whatever it is worth.

I don't deny that not all of the characters will return, but if they don't give us at least 3(1/4 of the ME2 team including DLC) then the entirety of ME2 could have been basically skipped.

The Collectors could be scrapped, and you could probably have a better story from ME1 to ME3 then through all 3 if the middle one has little to no effect.The point of ME was to stop the reaper threat;We didn't do that, it was put of for the obviously more important bugs.

Oh yeah cause, those bugs were just doing their own seperate thing to try and take over the galaxy or something. Not working for the Reapers at all nor preparing for the reapers to come let alone trying to kill off the only threat to the Reapers and creating a new Reaper that could be used for any number of things, such as trying to get the Citidal relay working again or causeing destruction and chaos or ultimately something we'll find out about in ME3.

Oh yeah, those bugs had nothing to do with the Reapers at all. Don't know what BioWare was thinking, putting a image of a Collector in the ME1 vision Shepard had in ME1 and not ME2 where it belongs.

Modifié par Lucky Thirteen, 02 août 2010 - 05:43 .

[smudboy]

Lucky Thirteen wrote...

Wraith_of_Dawn wrote...

Tertium earns my respect, for whatever it is worth.

I don't deny that not all of the characters will return, but if they don't give us at least 3(1/4 of the ME2 team including DLC) then the entirety of ME2 could have been basically skipped.

The Collectors could be scrapped, and you could probably have a better story from ME1 to ME3 then through all 3 if the middle one has little to no effect.The point of ME was to stop the reaper threat;We didn't do that, it was put of for the obviously more important bugs.

Oh yeah cause, those bugs were just doing their own seperate thing to try and take over the galaxy or something. Not working for the Reapers at all nor preparing for the reapers to come let alone trying to kill off the only threat to the Reapers and creating a new Reaper that could be used for any number of things, such as trying to get the Citidal relay working again or causeing destruction and chaos or ultimately something we'll find out about in ME3.

Oh yeah, those bugs had nothing to do with the Reapers at all. Don't know what BioWare was thinking, putting a image of a Collector in the ME1 vision Shepard had in ME1 and not ME2 where it belongs.

Sorry, what Shepard vision of Collectors in ME1?

[xI extremist Ix]

Lucky Thirteen wrote...

Wraith_of_Dawn wrote...

Tertium earns my respect, for whatever it is worth.

I don't deny that not all of the characters will return, but if they don't give us at least 3(1/4 of the ME2 team including DLC) then the entirety of ME2 could have been basically skipped.

The Collectors could be scrapped, and you could probably have a better story from ME1 to ME3 then through all 3 if the middle one has little to no effect.The point of ME was to stop the reaper threat;We didn't do that, it was put of for the obviously more important bugs.

Oh yeah cause, those bugs were just doing their own seperate thing to try and take over the galaxy or something. Not working for the Reapers at all nor preparing for the reapers to come let alone trying to kill off the only threat to the Reapers and creating a new Reaper that could be used for any number of things, such as trying to get the Citidal relay working again or causeing destruction and chaos or ultimately something we'll find out about in ME3.

Oh yeah, those bugs had nothing to do with the Reapers at all. Don't know what BioWare was thinking, putting a image of a Collector in the ME1 vision Shepard had in ME1 and not ME2 where it belongs.

Really ME2 main story could be cut out. Two things seem to have more importance; Dark Energy affecting Haestrom's star and Peace between the quarians and geth. And no, it isn't because I am a Tali fan it is because if you think about it logically it makes more sense.

The only reason they added the collectors and Shepard's death was to further the time line and make you reconnect with everybody. Sure, they added another agent for the reapers, but the collectors and the reaper embryo couldn't compare to Saren and the geth from the first game.

[Jaron Oberyn]

SmokePants wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

But you don't get it. They're not going to repeat the same process. There would be no reason for them to leave. Once again, Mass Effect 2 is ALL about the squadmates. Why make a game that is focused on that just to give them cameos in the third game? Explain that to me.

-Polite

You mean, explain to you the thousands upon thousands of games that have you assemble a cast of characters and tackle a mission without any promise of being able to carry any of it over to the next game? I would think the reasons would be self-evident.

Ugh. Is this really happening? Am I really here right now having this conversation?

Thousands of games have you assemble a cast of characters to assemble a mission? I wouldn't say thousands, but yes there are games that have you recruit people for missions. I won't argue that. But let me ask you this, are those games trilogies? Did the developer of the game say and I quote "The squadmates are the focus of the game"? Do they? Because I've never seen a video game where the main focus is the squadmates. 




Start at 0:56 and see what Bioware has to say about Mass Effect's 2. I'm sure you'll be shocked to find out that you were in fact wrong.

So I'll ask you, is this really happening? Am I really here right now having this conversation? Because you say one thing, but Bioware says another? Who do you think I'm going to believe?

-Polite

[Wittand25]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Ross42899 wrote...

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

But you don't get it. They're not going to repeat the same process. There would be no reason for them to leave. Once again, Mass Effect 2 is ALL about the squadmates. Why make a game that is focused on that just to give them cameos in the third game? Explain that to me.

-Polite

Because if you make them squadmates you have several problems:
Explain their back-story again and bore players who played ME2, or don't and confuse and irritate those who did not ?
Deal with the fact that there are (2^12)-13 different party setups (not accounting loyalty,romance or anything about Shepard) and balance according to that.
Provide lots of content that only players with a specific safe will be able to experience or make everyone survives standard cheapening ME2 ?
Writing for the characters you know the ME2 squad-mates already, they told you all their dark secrets and you dealt with their pasts, what are they going to talk with Shepard about in ME3 ?
 
There are several game design reasons why allowing only few squad-mates back in the squad and turning others into VINPC (very important non player controlled) is a sensible approach. They can be easier replaced if they are absent for one reason or another, need far less design work because their actions and dialog are limited and therefore easier to control, they are easier to write for because they can experience stuff worth talking about while being away from Shepard. they would be less irritating for new players while still giving returning ME2 veterans a welcome back feeling.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Wittand25 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Ross42899 wrote...

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

But you don't get it. They're not going to repeat the same process. There would be no reason for them to leave. Once again, Mass Effect 2 is ALL about the squadmates. Why make a game that is focused on that just to give them cameos in the third game? Explain that to me.

-Polite

Because if you make them squadmates you have several problems:
Explain their back-story again and bore players who played ME2, or don't and confuse and irritate those who did not ?
Deal with the fact that there are (2^12)-13 different party setups (not accounting loyalty,romance or anything about Shepard) and balance according to that.
Provide lots of content that only players with a specific safe will be able to experience or make everyone survives standard cheapening ME2 ?
Writing for the characters you know the ME2 squad-mates already, they told you all their dark secrets and you dealt with their pasts, what are they going to talk with Shepard about in ME3 ?
 
There are several game design reasons why allowing only few squad-mates back in the squad and turning others into VINPC (very important non player controlled) is a sensible approach. They can be easier replaced if they are absent for one reason or another, need far less design work because their actions and dialog are limited and therefore easier to control, they are easier to write for because they can experience stuff worth talking about while being away from Shepard. they would be less irritating for new players while still giving returning ME2 veterans a welcome back feeling.

Severa game design reasons? Do you even know anything about game design? Did you not read the article with Casey Hudson I posted a few pages ago? It seems like you didn't, so why don't you go do that and we can continue the discussion. Because unless you have all of the facts, you can't make such an erroneous conclusion as you did above.

-Polite

[Blackveldt]

[quote]smudboy wrote...
How is it a hasty generalization and fallacious?[/quote]

The argument is as follows:  Squad members can die; therefore, said squad members will return as cameos in the next installment.  This is a very specific conclusion based off insufficient evidence.  The fact that squad members can die cannot alone support the conclusion.  You cannot say with 100% certainty that squad members will fulfill a cameo role.

[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]

Read my sentence:  "In regards to using the quote . . . as a means to buttress an argument favoring a 'replacement crew' theory..  Not a meet-new-characters-and-have-old-ones-return theory (or any other theory, for that matter).  The statement was intended for those that were thinking along the lines of the OP (with regards to a brand new crew completely replacing ME2's crew).  It was not directed at any person in particular.  None of my statements were.

[quote]Basic English would say otherwise.  As would I.[/quote]
Besides being purposefully snarky to only ignore my statement, I am curious as to your meaning.  If you are referring to my forgotten "but," allow me to retype it:

We do not need to dichotomize Mass Effect. 'Plot' and 'character development/relationships' are not necessarily two warring entities but part of a whole.

[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]

I was not referring to ME2.  I stated that character development and relationships can be a plot in and of itself, referring to possibilities and therefore geared more toward the future.   If I were talking specifically of ME2, I would have instead stated:  Character development and relationships were a plot in and of itself.
[quote]Um, if they were to be, they'd have already been "intertwined" by now.[/quote]

Assumption.  We do not have sufficient evidence to make this call.  We do not know how ME3 will start or end or specifically how ME2 and its characters/relationships will fit or lead into it.

[quote]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.[/quote]

How the information is revealed is foreshadowing; it is a writing technique.  ME2 did this via Tali dialogue / data pads.  I am not referring to how we came to this realization, however.  I am springing forward to ME3 (since it is obviously not integral to ME2's story) where it is indeed a part of the plot (and not merely a writing technique) and Tali's continued friendship begins to possibly shape the outcome.

[quote]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]

Again, not talking about ME2's relationships here in regards to the game's main plot.  My whole argument is concerned with possibility.  Even when providing an ME2 example (Haestrom's sun), I applied it to ME3--how the relationship with Tali in ME2 may affect ME3's plot.  Worth noting, however, is that you are operating under the assumption that a 'symbiotic' relationship, whether in the beginning stages or not, does not exist in ME2.

To humor you, however, operating under your personal assumption that no such relationship(s) exist in ME2, it is entirely possible for a supporting character to develop a "connection" later due to past events.  That is, after all, how human relationships may work (a shared past or event, etc), no matter how insignificant.  A supporting character may experience a specific event, which in turn can open up any number of opportunities.  Tali suffered through a trial in the midst of discovering her father's death.  Shepard can comfort her, speak out for her--such things can strengthen a relationship, and ME3 can simply continue that development, perhaps weaving Tali's loyalty and renewed strength of character into the story's main plot itself.

Still operating under your first assumption (that no such relationship(s) exist in ME2), a writer may want to continuously develop a relationship.  To reach your full potential, so to speak, with an LI at the end of ME2, and therefore most likely at ME3's beginning, can seem shallow, even cheap, considering the little personal time Shepard actually spends with any LI (not to mention Ashley/Kaidan/Liara).  More time gives the writers more content and dialogue with which to work and more depth for the relationships.  This is still speculation, however, as I am not a Bioware writer and do not know what they have planned or why they would specifically "hold back" a  connection for later (assuming that were the case).  The potential deaths has no relevance to meaningful relationships.  A writer can still write an in-depth romance, etc, for a character that might die.  If that character is indeed dead, that subplot simply is not pursued in that particular playthrough--much like the romance subplots of Jack, Miranda, and Tali are not available/pursued by femSheps.

[quote]But that's the argument.  It's in regards to squadmates.[/quote]

I do not understand the relevance of this statement in regards to my criticism.  I know that's the argument and I know that it's in regards to squad mates.  I read some arguments that specifically stated that old squad members will not be cameos either solely or significantly based on their inevitable decision to remain with Shepard to battle the Reaper threat.  I pointed out that it is indeed still possible for a returning character to battle the Reaper threat from afar--as a cameo.

[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]

ME2 =/= ME3.  They are two different games, each a distinct part of a trilogy, and therefore two different variables.  You cannot treat them the same way as if they were the same variable or identical, especially since we have insufficient information on ME3.  Predicting a pattern without enough information is not as simple as implementing a regression equation.  You are simply listing potential events, not logical reasonings or lines of thought, i.e., critiques/analyses of ME2/ME3.

[quote]Right.  And ME2's story had nothing to do with anything.[/quote]

Again, purposefully snarky comment with your play on words (and preoccupation with everything wrong with ME'2 plot--something I am not discussing) that does not address my statements.  I am uncertain why you feel the need to do this.

[quote]No it wasn't.  The only thing that differed was who died.  Mission is successful regardless.[/quote]

Read my words carefully:  "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."

Shepard interacts with the crew, regardless of the player's initiation.  In order for the plot to move forward (and thus the mission to be completed), Shepard must recruit Jack, Grunt, Garrus, and Mordin.  Through these recruitment missions, Shepard automatically interacts with her/his crew, the player selecting dialogue options to direct this interaction.  How you proceed can set the basis for that particular interaction and possible relationship.  You must continue the dialogue, interacting with these members in order to finish the game.

[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]

You are simply rephrasing some of my statements.  Recruitment and loyalty missions equate to the building and fostering of squad member relationships.

[quote]Why would that cheapen anything?  If they're alive, they could get a cameo. What's wrong with a cameo?[/quote]

The latter question is more a personal one.  In any case, as I'd stated previously, having a 'replacement crew' or mere cameos for ME2 squad members would imply that the [significant] relationships which both gamer and developer spent time and effort building, were indeed not significant (being replaced so easily or reduced to a brief appearance, etc).  Players spend time interacting, building these relationships; it is understandable that they might want to see those relationships flourish or otherwise continue.

[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]

I hope you are not taking my words out of context, as I was still discussing what I deemed the goal of ME2:  "...to build and foster relationships with the crew."  I did not mention plot anywhere with regards to this goal, yet you again bring up the shortcomings of ME2's plot.  What I do mention is that this goal would indeed be meaningless and unnecessary if ME3 significantly reduces the roles of these characters and relationships.  As mentioned previously, such relationships/characters have the potential to be a significant part of ME3's plot (again, previous examples--Tali as Admiral, Haestrom's sun, etc).

[quote]Um, they got paid regardless, and weren't at liberty to say "hey Casey, the story should go this way.[/quote]

You quoted:  "but would have wasted not only the gamers' time and effort as well as those who actually worked on the game."

You ignore the former half of the statement (gamers) and focus solely on the salaries of those working on the project, something I did not mention.  While getting paid is not completely irrelevant, they still spent time and effort crafting the relationships/dialogue/etc while maintaining continuity.  You are also assuming that the designers/writers cared only for a paycheck.  Why bother putting so much time, money, and effort into the relationships if only to disregard them later?  And the writers do indeed have the liberty to craft the story.

[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]

I believe that is my point:  that it is potentially not as difficult to write for an already established character as a new one--hence being more impractical.  Especially considering that the old crew members, cameo or not, must be also taken into account and have their roles and dialogue written and performed, however minimized.

Creating a storyline for a previous squad mate would not be a waste when content of the carefully written relationships is taken into account.  Creating a new character requires background, personality, interaction with the crew/Shepard, abilities, etc, and then development of that personality, interactions, and so on, to the point that the gamer can empathize with said character.  ME2 focused on doing precisely that.  The assumption that ME3 can adequately fill in the plot holes, climax, and resolution to a satisfying conclusion, and still accomplish what ME2 did (in terms of relationship-building/new character development) without cheapening or forcing the process, might be somewhat of a stretch.  There would need to be a balance so that character development doesn't suffer at the cost of plot and vise versa (ME2).  You are also still assuming that relationships with squad mates do not have the potential to affect plot significantly, as stated previously.

A lot of things "would suffice," but since Bioware have placed great significance on the imported save and continuity, we might infer that squad mate relationships carry over to ME3, carrying significance and impact on its plot.

[quote]A really expensive funeral?[/quote]

Again, you resort to mockery in avoiding my opening statement.  I don't understand this method.

[quote]So?  The argument is squadmates, not storylines.
They're dead.  Ooh.  Let's get an email.[/quote]

As stated quite a number of times now, characters have the potential to be the storyline or a crucial part of it.  In fact, my entire point was that we cannot casually dismiss the possibility of the significance (to the plot) of a character death.  My example was Polyneices from Antigone.  You side-stepped the issue, failing to address that particular paragraph's thesis.

[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.)[/quote]

Again, I explained why interaction with certain squad mates are a necessity (to advance the story) and elaborated upon the most desirable outcome.  I never stated that we need all squad mates to be "fully fleshed out" to merely complete the Suicide Mission.

[quote]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[/quote]

Again, you are preoccupied with ME2's plot, when my main points were addressing the future, possibilities, i.e., ME3--how ME2 relationships may figure into the plot of ME3.  And if not, how that diminishes such relationships with apparently no significant purpose--how that may even demean ME2 as a whole if it was indeed a "character building" game.  You are also again assuming that the ME2 characters and relationships do not have the potential to affect ME3.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Brand new character can indeed be plot integral; I never suggested otherwise.  It is very plausible that ME3 will have plenty of new characters or even new squad mates.  Writers can write in relevant characters without being 'placeholders,' as they, again, have that potential to affect plot; I do not see why there are only three outcomes for this rather vague statement.  If I am reading this wrong, please rephrase and clarify.

[Wittand25]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Severa game design reasons? Do you even know anything about game design? Did you not read the article with Casey Hudson I posted a few pages ago? It seems like you didn't, so why don't you go do that and we can continue the discussion. Because unless you have all of the facts, you can't make such an erroneous conclusion as you did above.

-Polite

Are any of the points I made invali ? If so please explain.
And have you forgotten the interview in which Mr. Hudson explained that all three ME games are supposed to work as single title as well ? Anything else would be bad buisness sense, wouldn´t it ?
Carrying the whole squad over would mean that ME3 would not work as single game and only as successor of ME2, something that the team is trying to avoid.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Excellent post BlackVeldt. Smudboy employed the same verbal tactics when debating with me. My only conclusion to that level of maturity is that he is in fact a kid. Not just based on his level of maturity in a discussion, but also the fact that he has "boy" written in his name along with the fact that he's a Tali fan. And not to generalize a fan group, but it's a well known fact that most Tali fans are young kids.



You make excellent points regarding the patterns of Mass 2 and Mass 3 not being identical. People assume that Bioware sidelined the Mass 1 squad because they couldn't make them squadmates, or because it would cost to much. They also assume that because a game could be 100% different for one player than the other, Bioware won't implement it in the game because some people might not see it on their playthrough. All I have to say to that is Urdnot Wrex. Plain and simple.



-Polite

[Wittand25]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
You make excellent points regarding the patterns of Mass 2 and Mass 3 not being identical. People assume that Bioware sidelined the Mass 1 squad because they couldn't make them squadmates, or because it would cost to much. They also assume that because a game could be 100% different for one player than the other, Bioware won't implement it in the game because some people might not see it on their playthrough. All I have to say to that is Urdnot Wrex. Plain and simple.

-Polite

 Who was exactly what I believe many squadmates from ME2 will become a VINPC.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Wittand25 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Severa game design reasons? Do you even know anything about game design? Did you not read the article with Casey Hudson I posted a few pages ago? It seems like you didn't, so why don't you go do that and we can continue the discussion. Because unless you have all of the facts, you can't make such an erroneous conclusion as you did above.

-Polite

Are any of the points I made invali ? If so please explain.
And have you forgotten the interview in which Mr. Hudson explained that all three ME games are supposed to work as single title as well ? Anything else would be bad buisness sense, wouldn´t it ?
Carrying the whole squad over would mean that ME3 would not work as single game and only as successor of ME2, something that the team is trying to avoid.

So you know what they're trying to avoid and accomplish? What's wrong with the points you've made is you haven't thought them out properly and logically.

Before we continue our discussion, lets either agree or disagree to a few facts.

1. Mass Effect 2 is all about the squad members.

2. Would it make sense for Bioware to discard the team from the second installment, the team who you spent an entire game getting to know, and getting loyal, and give them cameo roles? While creating a whole new team, which includes new asset creation, writing off the current 12 members, and writing in, oh lets just say 12, new squaddies. Do you really think they're going to do all of that, and stay true to their word that they want to develop Mass Effect 3 and get it out of the door soon so people won't have to wait as long for the third installment?

3. Do you honestly think Bioware is going to water down Mass 3 so that people can jump into the third act of the game and play it? Honestly?

Answer those 3 questions for me, and then lets see where this goes.

-Polite

[tonnactus]

theelementslayer wrote...


Its contract work, not hourly, so ya I can see them being paid the same depending on 12 lines or 1200 line.

Ok.Why shepardt couldnt talk with michel and rebecca then?The models are in the game.Their voice actors are in then
game.But they only said 2 lines at best. Why shepardt get an email from ashley and dont get contacted like in the first game? Emily Wongs voice actors was also in the game,together with her model.

Modifié par tonnactus, 02 août 2010 - 06:31 .

[Barquiel]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

But you don't get it. They're not going to repeat the same process. There would be no reason for them to leave. Once again, Mass Effect 2 is ALL about the squadmates. Why make a game that is focused on that just to give them cameos in the third game? Explain that to me.

The characters are the focus of ME2. We recruited them to stop the collectors. The collectors are defeated, mission accomplished!
and now....
Time will pass between ME2 and ME3.
1 year? 3 years? 5 years? I don't know.
But it is unlikely that the reapers will arrive 2 weeks after the collector base had been dealt with.

Thane will probably die in the meantime. Mordin isn't the youngest salarian in ME2.
Samara says she will move on to fight injustice (Omega?)
(iirc) Jack says she'll leave as well .
The DLC characters are just hired guns (one mission!)
Grunt could help his clan, Tali becomes an admiral, Garrus a spectre, etc.

Yes...it's is a triology, and the devs said ME is more like Indiana Jones (and not Star Wars).
Raiders of the Lost Ark: Marion
Temple of Doom: Willie
Last Crusade: Elsa

[Jaron Oberyn]

Wittand25 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
You make excellent points regarding the patterns of Mass 2 and Mass 3 not being identical. People assume that Bioware sidelined the Mass 1 squad because they couldn't make them squadmates, or because it would cost to much. They also assume that because a game could be 100% different for one player than the other, Bioware won't implement it in the game because some people might not see it on their playthrough. All I have to say to that is Urdnot Wrex. Plain and simple.

-Polite

 Who was exactly what I believe many squadmates from ME2 will become a VINPC.

I'm sure a couple of squadmates  will leave. For example Zaeed, Kasumi, Jack. But the others have no reason to leave.

Where does Miranda go after quitting Cerberus? Where does Garrus or Tali go? Garrus isn't going to be able to go back to the Terminus systems because the Blue suns believe he's dead. He'd have to keep a low profile, but doing what? Staying at home and bagging groceries? 

Where does Tali go if the's exiled? She expected to die on the suicide mission. What happens if she's alive?

Where does Grunt go? Shepard is his Battlemaster. He has to stick with Shepard.

Jacob could leave, but then again, if you quit cerberus where would he go? Start his own merc band? Come on.

Samara could leave, but honestly Justicars are supposed to protect people. And what better way to do that than to destroy the ancient machines that are on their way to exterminate the entire galaxy?

Jack will most likely leave, or not, depending of if she's your LI and how you treated her.

Legion isn't going to leave. He just got to Shepard at the end of the game. Why would he leave?

If you just think about this logically, you'd arrive at the same conclusions. I'm sure a couple COULD leave, but theres no way that Bioware will sideline the entire squad and give us a whole new team just because some people might have certain squaddies dead on their playthrough. Thats the consequences of bad planning, and you can't expect to have a workaround, a whole new team, for being careless.

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

tonnactus wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...


Its contract work, not hourly, so ya I can see them being paid the same depending on 12 lines or 1200 line.

Ok.Why shepardt couldnt talk with michel and rebecca then?The models are in the game.Their voice actors are in then
game.But they only said 2 lines at best. Why shepardt get an email from ashley and dont get contacted like in the first game? Emily Wongs voice actors was also in the game,together with her model.

Why delete the assets if they will be in the third game?

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

Barquiel wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

But you don't get it. They're not going to repeat the same process. There would be no reason for them to leave. Once again, Mass Effect 2 is ALL about the squadmates. Why make a game that is focused on that just to give them cameos in the third game? Explain that to me.

The characters are the focus of ME2. We recruited them to stop the collectors. The collectors are defeated, mission accomplished!
and now....
Time will pass between ME2 and ME3.
1 year? 3 years? 5 years? I don't know.
But it is unlikely that the reapers will arrive 2 weeks after the collector base had been dealt with.

Thane will probably die in the meantime. Mordin isn't the youngest salarian in ME2.
Samara says she will move on to fight injustice (Omega?)
(iirc) Jack says she'll leave as well .
The DLC characters are just hired guns (one mission!)
Grunt could help his clan, Tali becomes an admiral, Garrus a spectre, etc.

Yes...it's is a triology, and the devs said ME is more like Indiana Jones (and not Star Wars).
Raiders of the Lost Ark: Marion
Temple of Doom: Willie
Last Crusade: Elsa

They never said Mass Effect was like Indiana Jones. Your distorting their words 
They likened it to Star Wars. In fact Mass 2 was to be the Empire Strikes Back in terms of the trilogy. This is all from Bioware. They wanted it to be the dark second chapter, like ESB. The only reference to Indiana Jones was why the LI's from Mass 1 wouldn't be in the second game as squad mates. Stop making BS up to support your theory.

-Polite

[Wittand25]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
1. Mass Effect 2 is all about the squad members.

No, the point of ME2 was more to expand the universe and to work as a brigde for the things that will happen in ME3 (e.g. Tali and Legion give you both sides of the geth/quarian conflict; Grunt, Mordin, Samara teach you more about their raceses , ...) There is far to little character interaction to claim that the game is about the characters, often the characters are ways to portray different views of the universe or topic.

2. Would it make sense for Bioware to discard the team from the second installment, the team who you spent an entire game getting to know, and getting loyal, and give them cameo roles? While creating a whole new team, which includes new asset creation, writing off the current 12 members, and writing in, oh lets just say 12, new squaddies. Do you really think they're going to do all of that, and stay true to their word that they want to develop Mass Effect 3 and get it out of the door soon so people won't have to wait as long for the third installment?

Yes for all the reasons I mentioned before and frankly I fully expect that the squad will be downsized to ten members max and not the full dozen of ME2

3. Do you honestly think Bioware is going to water down Mass 3 so that people can jump into the third act of the game and play it? Honestly?

Answer those 3 questions for me, and then lets see where this goes.

-Polite

Yes because they not only stated that they want every game to be working as single game and as part of the trilogy, it would also be bad business sense to limit your audience to the audience of the last game, give players of the last game a bonus, let them meat old friends and similar yes, but not make it so that a new player will be totally overwhelmed and unable to fully enjoy the game or has to deal with desicions that are out their control (Every desicion in a non important playthroug was made in a way to have the lesser effect in ME2 (rachini, LI, Wrex,...)and the same will happen for ME3).

[Jaron Oberyn]

Wittand25 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
1. Mass Effect 2 is all about the squad members.

No, the point of ME2 was more to expand the universe and to work as a brigde for the things that will happen in ME3 (e.g. Tali and Legion give you both sides of the geth/quarian conflict; Grunt, Mordin, Samara teach you more about their raceses , ...) There is far to little character interaction to claim that the game is about the characters, often the characters are ways to portray different views of the universe or topic.

You are wrong. Bioware stated in THIS video that Mass Effect 2 is all about the squad mates. That the focus of the game is the squad. You must not be playing the same game. It is because you cannot accept this fact that I won't be able to debate further with you, because I am providing more than sufficient evidence to support that Mass Effect 2's focus is the squad mates. 

If Bioware says it, then that's what it is. I, and other people on this forum, am going to believe what Bioware said over a forumite any day. Why? Because I heard it directly from the mouth of one of their developers. And if they allow that comment from the developer to be featured in the video, that tells me that EVERYONE at Bioware supports his statement about Mass 2. 

So how can you contradict Bioware by saying the focus isn't the squadmates? What makes you think they're wrong and your right? Please do share.

-Polite

[tonnactus]

Inverness Moon wrote...

The reapers are still a massive threat to all life in the galaxy. Those that went with Shepard on that mission got a taste of that and they should know what is coming for them.

Like liara in the first game. But in the second,she decided it was more important to hunt the shadow broker.

Bioware wont hesitate to find some cheap reasons to write characters off.

[Jaron Oberyn]

tonnactus wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

The reapers are still a massive threat to all life in the galaxy. Those that went with Shepard on that mission got a taste of that and they should know what is coming for them.

Like liara in the first game. But in the second,she decided it was more important to hunt the shadow broker.

Bioware wont hesitate to find some cheap reasons to write characters off.

Because you work for them huh? You know their intentions.

-Polite

[SmokePants]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Thousands of games have you assemble a cast of characters to assemble a mission? I wouldn't say thousands, but yes there are games that have you recruit people for missions. I won't argue that. But let me ask you this, are those games trilogies? Did the developer of the game say and I quote "The squadmates are the focus of the game"? Do they? Because I've never seen a video game where the main focus is the squadmates.

-Polite

Here's you: "Yeah... but... but.... those were GAMES, this is a TRILOGY! Check out this BioWare quote where he talks about the GAME being about the squad, rather than the TRILOGY being squad-focused"

See what you did there? You twisted things to suit your needs. Hudson said that Mass Effect 2 is centered around squadmates -- obvious -- and you somehow turned that into a grand statement about the series as a whole.

Look here. Are you looking? Right here. Recruiting party members is just something you do in RPG's. That's it. That's all. No other justification required. It is content. Without it, there would be less content. I really don't know how to put it more simply. You, nor anyone else, should need an explanation.

Just promise me you guys won't hurt yourselves or others when the day comes that your twisted, selective logic collapses under the weight of reality. It's just a game.

Modifié par SmokePants, 02 août 2010 - 07:03 .