Luc0s wrote...
And that's exactly what I meant with retconning the possible deaths of your squad in ME2. Sure, I'd buy it if Legion would return in ME3 regardless of his status in ME2, because he's a geth. But if any other character from ME2 comes into my ME3 while he/she is supposed to be death then I simply just won't buy it. That would be bad writing.
Oh of course, but I don't think that will happen even if they bring back the ME2 characters...I simply said it can be done if they wish but it doesn't even need to be. They can bring back 3-4 characters and if they died in your game, tough poopie you don't get them back!
Yeah but the difference is that if you're able to miss some characters within the game because of your own choices. That's entirely up to the player and if you decide to miss some characters that are recruitable then that's the choice of the player. This is all fine, as long as it stays within the game. But we're talking about a cross-game mechanic here. The beginning of ME3 needs to be equal for everyone, regardless of their ME2 squad status. The game would be totally imbalanced if someone who saved his entire ME2 crew starts with a full crew, while someone who lost his ME2 squad would have to start from scratch with new squad-members.
Yeah we definitely don't agree here, I don't think ME3 needs to be equal for everyone at all...or at least, it depends on how you "define" equal. As an example, let's say ME3 has a max of 10 characters and 4 are from ME2. If I only get 8 because 2 of my ME2 potentials died I wouldn't feel like I was short-changed, in fact it'd make me feel even more immersed in ME3 because my actions in a previous instalment have had such far reaching consequences.
Either everyone starts with a full crew in ME3, or everyone starts from scratch again. But because Mass Effect is an RPG and it wouldn't be an RPG if you didn't get the feeling that your character and party is growing, I put my money on the latter. It's much more likely that everyone will start from scratch again in ME3 than everyone starting with a full crew.
I don't see why this should be the case. This is basically penalizing the majority of the playerbase - who want character continuity - to appease the minority who would whine and throw their toys because it was "unfair" they had less characters than their friend due to getting their buddies killed. Your actions and choices are meant to stick in the ME world, it's the foundation of the game's theme.
Casey Hudson himself said that he wants to keep the Mass Effect series balanced. Everyone's experience should be equal regardless of their choices. For example, you can let the council live or die in ME1. Either choice results in a different atmosphere in ME2, but neither of the choices is better than the other. In the end, it doesn't matter if you let the council live or die.
I don't think it's better or worse if you miss a couple of characters from your maximum potential because they died in ME2, just different. It's similar to the difference between playing ME2 standard or ME2 with Zaeed and Kasumi attached. Besides, most people have multiple run-throughs with different decisions, so many will play ME3 the first time with their "primary" runthrough and then if they miss other characters they'll likely reload ME3 with a perfect Suicide Mission etc. and experience it with all characters.
In addition, like I said above, it depends on how you define "equal" or "balanced". Equal and balanced can simply mean your experience is just as good as another player's and that doesn't necessarily mean you need the same amount of characters available. Even if we make it so no ME2 squadies return and thus we all have the same number of squadmembers, our experiences aren't going to be equal because some of us will be ok with ME2 squadies not returning while others (such as myself) will be unhappy about it: so there you go, that's an imbalance/inequality in of itself.
You cannot make a gameplay experience balanced or equal for all gamers, it's impossible.
This is true, but like I said earlier, the game needs to be balanced for everyone. It doesn't matter if you play male or female, the game is still roughly the same. It doesn't matter if you didn't take Garrus with you, because it was your own choice and you didn't really miss much when you didn't take him with you. Same goes for Wrex. This are all options within a game ass you progress the story. But we're talking about the beginning of ME3 here. It just wouldn't make sense if you possibly start with an entire crew in ME3 if your ME2 squads survived or no crew at all if your ME2 squads died. That just doesn't make sense and is totally imbalanced.
It was our own choice to not properly upgrade our ship, to not do all the loyalty quests and it was our own choices in deciding team leaders etc. that lead to our team members dying or surviving - in fact, I can't think of a finer example of player choice than the Suicide Mission. It was our own choice to import a save game with characters dead from ME2 rather than going back and trying to do the Suicide Mission perfectly to keep everyone alive. Every consequence in ME3 is going to be due to a player choice in ME1 and ME2 so I don't see how it's any different.
I see BioWare bringing back the ME2 crew as cameos or temporary mission-related squad-members. But you have to keep in mind that everyone should start equally in ME3. So even if your ME2 squad would return and even if they would become full squad-members again, they'll not join you from the very beginning, but most likely short after the first mission or something. Again, it just would be totally lame to start with an entire crew in ME3. That's just not RPG-style.
Again, this is where we completely disagree and likely no amount of discussion will make us agree here haha: I don't think everyone needs to start "equally" in ME3. If people have an issue with not having certain characters they can do the Suicide Mission in ME2 properly or use a default character. I'd agree with you if the inclusion of certain characters in ME3 was out of our hands but it isn't at all. Most people on these forums support ME2 characters returning, and most know they may in fact miss out a couple of potential characters in ME3 due to deaths in ME2, yet still they want that continuity to exist. If there's a choice between a balanced gameplay experience in ME3 without character continuity or an imbalanced yet fully coherent experience, the vast majority of players choose the latter even sometimes at their own behest - that should say everything about the path BW 'should' take.
The only other issue then becomes if you want to start ME3 as a standalone like they tried to with ME2, but in that situation you'll be using the default Shepard anyway so it's no problem.
Besides, all Mass effect games need to be able to stand on their own. The ME series is a trilogy but each game is also a stand-alone story. Think about players who just pick up Mass Effect 3. By your logic, these new players who never have played ME1 and ME2 before, either start with an entire crew that they don't know anything about, or they'll start without a crew and therefor miss quite a lot of the ME3 content just because they haven't played ME1 and ME2. Would that make sense? No, it wouldn't.
See above - you use the default Shepard for an ME to standalone which would have all the characters returning.
Therefor, one more time, everyone in ME3 needs to start equally and that means your surviving ME2 squad is yet again going to leave you for some reason. How and why? Well, I don't know. I guess a prison sequence would be pretty cool. Shepard could be taken hostage or captured and a few months later two guys of your former ME1 squad are going to save Shepard. Then Shepard is all on his own again with just 2 of his former allies. Then you as a player get the chance to meet up with your ME2 squad if they survived. This idea would make a whole lot more sense than Shepard having (part of) his ME2 already recruited from the very beginning.
I think this is silly. You're basically balancing up the worth of "equal balance" and "continuity" and saying the former is more important, whereas I think you'll find 99.9% of the forum posters here (and likely ME players) would prefer the latter. What is more important in ME3's construction is what their playerbase would prefer the most, and in this case the majority of us wouldn't mind losing a character here or there from our potential roster if it meant continuity was preserved and we had the potential for old favourites like Garrus and Tali to return (or not!): quality over quantity.
The long and short of it is that there's no need for BW to not bring back some ME2 characters as squadies. If someone starts ME3 without having played the first 2 they'll get a default Shepard with all the squadies, if they import a game with a perfect Suicide Mission they will to; and if they important a game with one or two of the characters dead then that's actually an incredibly powerful gameplay mechanic that sees your choices and actions stick in a subsequent instalment, something the
majority of players would advocate.
Modifié par Myrmedus, 07 août 2010 - 06:58 .
.
.
Retour en haut
.
