2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Flamewielder]

smudboy wrote...

If Miranda is plot integral to Shepard being rebuilt, then so is TIM, Jacob, Liara, and every other person on that station and those associated with the events up to the revival of Shepard.  That's not what I'm saying.

When I say plot integral, I mean an actual part of the plot (like the brain or heart of a person) that is composite: if you remove it, the plot is broken or cannot advance.  Miranda and TIM are the introduction to Shepard, in the same way Udina, Anderson and Hackett introduce Sheaprd in ME1.  In ME1, Shepard's just some guy.  It's as soon as Shepard becomes Touched by Protheans, then the first human spectre, then gets the Cipher, does he continually prove his integrity.  Udina, Anderson and Hackett could've been anyone of authority.

I admit that plot integrity isn't essential, but that's what we were discussing (and maybe my definition is hard to follow.)  I recall having an argument before that Mordin isn't plot integral, because there exists something/one to replace him (Mordin's assistant), but not within the context (the dude just wouldn't go with us even if we asked.  And by that time, Mordin's MacGuffin was already used.  What makes Mordin plot integral is by a clear introduction (by TIM and Miranda) and his provnig himself to the plot (via MacGuffin: seeker swarm defenses.))

Plot integrity does create a dependent relationship on the plot, and thus make side-characters, or any characters, relevant to the narrative simply by existing.  As well, their literary function (MacGuffin, plot ticket, The Guide, etc.) depends how integral and how many times they push the plot along.

Ah! OK. I somehow confused plot integral with game integral in the case of Mordin, as you can't open up the lab without recruiting him. Then I guess you could always resist the urge to recruit him and never open the door... but it's kind of like this HRB (Huge Red Button) that dares you to press it...  No Mordin = No Research (and no MacGuffin).
Anyway, the clarification is welcome!

[FlyinElk212]

smudboy wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...
To be fair, Miranda was the leader responsible for reviving Shepard, which allowed us to continue the story. I believe this makes her relatively plot integral (though whether or not the ACT of actually reviving Shepard is plot integral is up for debate).

If Miranda is plot integral to Shepard being rebuilt, then so is TIM, Jacob, Liara, and every other person on that station and those associated with the events up to the revival of Shepard.  That's not what I'm saying.

When I say plot integral, I mean an actual part of the plot (like the brain or heart of a person) that is composite: if you remove it, the plot is broken or cannot advance.  Miranda and TIM are the introduction to Shepard, in the same way Udina, Anderson and Hackett introduce Sheaprd in ME1.  In ME1, Shepard's just some guy.  It's as soon as Shepard becomes Touched by Protheans, then the first human spectre, then gets the Cipher, does he continually prove his integrity.  Udina, Anderson and Hackett could've been anyone of authority.

Ah! Now I think I follow a bit better. In the sense of that definition, then you are certainly correct: Mordin is the only necessary character. Still, that further supports the "Bioware doesn't really do plot integrity" thing.

And there's the problem with ME2.  Shepard, or rather TIM, is nothing but an SOB (Seeker of Bodies, or a glorified HR department.) ......So the actual person isn't integral, just their role as being 1) not-dead, 2) there to grab Shepard, 3) upper body strength. Truly, these are not qualities to promote a plot integral placeholder on.

LOL! This is definitely the most clever thing I've seen here in a while. Double entendreeee!

Right, you don't need a character to be well-done (or medium rare...or raw, in Shepard's case) and plot integral.  But it would certainly help.

I'm not sure how a random, optional romance with a person makes them plot-important.  Unless we're going for the sacrifice one over the other scenario...

As for additional content, I can't really see BioWare spending time on a placeholder plot role or placeholder DLC (so not Tali...but some other Quarian, or not Grunt...but some other Krogan, etc.), but it's not too difficult to write off.

Yeah...honestly, I can't see them spending the time on it either. Funnily enough, every time I say I believe Bioware's gonna bring em back as squaddies,  I believe myself less and less. lol--cameos would be so much easier and believable from a development standpoint.

But one thing is for certain: Bioware's no slouch when it comes to business. Having a game where most of the content is locked without the purchase of another one of their games seems like something they'd do. Having "complete placeholder squaddies" makes the purchase of their previous games not as enticing as having locked content that becomes available with buying/playing ME2 and making squaddies survive.

Nothing is truly missed out in that scenario--the only downside would be that the placeholders take place of beloved characters, that the newbies who just bought ME3 wouldn't have a connection to or care about anyway. Seeing Bioware's shift to heavy DLC and after-game purchases, I could see them going down this path as well. It's a sucky path, but one I could envision.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Sapienti wrote...

smudboy wrote...

So when does 12 become an issue of quality?

I'm quite sure that's not the only actual hindrance.


But the 2 can be any of the 12.  You then have to create 2 placeholders for your 12 squadmates, ontop of the 4 new characters.

So ontop of the 12 characters they must bring back, they must now have the 6 of them have LI dialog per.


So ontop of what was stated above, now we have even more LI's.


But those were the two that saved me and the only survivors (((((

So...cameos?  Thank you for agreeing with the sane people.

Liara, Tali and Ash/Kaidan were all plot integral in ME1.

All you're saying is ME2 characters useless, so it'll be easy?  If they're useless, they shouldn't even bother, and focus on things that do, like the story, and plot integral characters.  If they're useless, just give them cameos.

To hell with balance!  Gotta catch em all!  I'm guessing, what, 18 squadmates?  TEAM KROGAN REPRESENT.

Oh I made sure they were.

Yes!

Oh god did I love seeing those seeker swarms carry off Grunt...

Oh so give them plot relevance, unless they die.  So they'll get what, a placeholder, or a cameo?


Legion: *does the robot*
Shepard: This is your reason for staying with me?
Legion: Yes Shepard Commander.  Your dancing skills require upgrade.
Shepard: This is entirely not silly.

Do not refer to or quote or even think of using Hideo Kojima for improving ones argument.  Ever.

How dare new players not purchase ME1 and ME2!

Um, no, because that old friend would have to have died, and then we'd get Harry Potter Best Friend #2.

Lol, I read a couple of your posts before I just started skimming on by them. They really are the same thing over and over, they don't even have anything to do with what other people post. Did you even mean to quote me? What do Bugs Bunny and Mickey have to do with Mass Effect? If your name wasn't Smudboy, I'd say your advances toward me were kinda cute, but I don't swing that way papasito.

Haha. Don't worry about Smudboy. He's just a placeholder for people who don't get to post you know. A space filler? He's like a broken record, says the exact same stuff in response to any argument. That last bit was a bit funny though. Had a little LOL moment there. Yeah....

-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 15 août 2010 - 04:26 .

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Haha. Don't worry about Smudboy. He's just a placeholder for people who don't get to post you know. A space filler? He's like a broken record, says the exact same stuff in response to any argument. That last bit was a bit funny though. Had a little LOL moment there. Yeah....

-Polite

Haha.  Don't worry about PoliteAssassin.  He's just a placeholder for people who don't get to post you know.  A space filler?  He's like a broken record, says the exact same stuff in response to any argument.  That last bit was a bit funny though.  Had a little LOL moment there.  Yeah....

Please don't become like PoliteAssassin.  He's incapable of responding and thinks because he references things they automatically make perfect sense to whatever unconnected point he comes up with.

[Flamewielder]

FlyinElk212 wrote...
Ah! Now I think I follow a bit better. In the sense of that definition, then you are certainly correct: Mordin is the only necessary character. Still, that further supports the "Bioware doesn't really do plot integrity" thing.

Yeah...honestly, I can't see them spending the time on it either. Funnily enough, every time I say I believe Bioware's gonna bring em back as squaddies,  I believe myself less and less. lol--cameos would be so much easier and believable from a development standpoint.

But one thing is for certain: Bioware's no slouch when it comes to business. Having a game where most of the content is locked without the purchase of another one of their games seems like something they'd do. Having "complete placeholder squaddies" makes the purchase of their previous games not as enticing as having locked content that becomes available with buying/playing ME2 and making squaddies survive.

Nothing is truly missed out in that scenario--the only downside would be that the placeholders take place of beloved characters, that the newbies who just bought ME3 wouldn't have a connection to or care about anyway. Seeing Bioware's shift to heavy DLC and after-game purchases, I could see them going down this path as well. It's a sucky path, but one I could envision.

I dissagree on one point: "locking away" MOST of a game's content makes no sense, and that's what you'd end up with placeholders, even if you makes the "No One Left Behind" ending the default one for new players. Offering SOME hidden content does, if you're looking for a sales incentive (in which case the "new player" version of ME2's ending will have some/all of the ME2 characters dead).

On the other hand, cameos (or those horrid e-mails) would feel hollow to old players. I'm really curious to see how the Liara DLC will turn out. I suspect she'll be a temporary squadmate and will not stay on the Normandy once her mission is complete. If that's the case, I believe that's how BW will handle the ME2 survivors in ME3.

ME2 survivors temp squaddies are more satisfying than a mere cameo,
ME2 survivors become easter eggs for game import players,
ME2 survivors act as a sales incentive if some/all ME2 squaddies are dead in the "new player" game,
ME2 survivors won't run out of dialogue, as their time with Shepard will be limited
ME2 survivors can be given plot-logical reasons NOT to stick around once their mission is over.
ME2 survivors are not taking up space from potentially interesting new characters (no placeholder required)
ME2 survivors DLC can always be sold to the fans of specific characters (implying the most populars)

I'm kinda like you: I'd love to see them back as full squaddies but don't think it's what BW intends to do. Temp squaddies offer an answer to the old players' desire to see their fave squaddie in ME3, in a way that's emotionally more satisfying than a cameo or e-mail and yet easier to pull off than a bunch of place holders who would never be used by those who, like me, left no one behind.

[McBeath]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Yeah...honestly, I can't see them spending the time on it either. Funnily enough, every time I say I believe Bioware's gonna bring em back as squaddies,  I believe myself less and less. lol--cameos would be so much easier and believable from a development standpoint.

But one thing is for certain: Bioware's no slouch when it comes to business. Having a game where most of the content is locked without the purchase of another one of their games seems like something they'd do. Having "complete placeholder squaddies" makes the purchase of their previous games not as enticing as having locked content that becomes available with buying/playing ME2 and making squaddies survive.

Nothing is truly missed out in that scenario--the only downside would be that the placeholders take place of beloved characters, that the newbies who just bought ME3 wouldn't have a connection to or care about anyway. Seeing Bioware's shift to heavy DLC and after-game purchases, I could see them going down this path as well. It's a sucky path, but one I could envision.

I would agree that they'll do whatever is best for business.  If they can get people to purchase ME1 and ME2 then they will.  The best way is to get them interested in the characters and plot progression.  I know more than a few people who played ME2 solely based on the hype, and then went back and got into the first one just to see what they were missing.

Back on topic it's not an issue of "work",  just because it isn't easy doesn't mean they won't do it.  My understanding is that Legion was supposed to lead this(ME2) game as a main character, but they went back and redid it for the sake of quality.  They removed elements of ME1 for the sake of quality, reguardless of the work envolved.  I'm sure they added characters as LI's and everything else because fans wanted it.... I'm sure the same will be true for ME3.  IF they intended for us to have the same squad, we will.  They won't let a little hard work get in the way of that. 

As for plot, I think people are reading way too far into the plot already.  Nobody knows what it is yet.  We just assume that it'll involve certain aspects by comparing it to other games(like dragon age).  I doubt the characters will be plot required as I've posted previously, they'll just offer little bits.  Like Legion may very well mention that the geth took fewer loses in such a battle due to the extra herictic forces, ect.  That may be the consiquences of our "big choice" regarding the rewrite.  Otherwise the geth still do there part, just loosing more ships.

I think that we(shepard) won't be as involved in the fleet actions as some people think.  Legion mentions(and Vigil I think) that Soveriegn spent a long time contacting other races for support and alliances.  Who knows what species Bioware has cooked up for us to face.  Frankly it makes good tactical sence(and a good bit of story) to have a sapient species helping the Reapers, which we can face off with.  Only time will tell.

At Smudboy, perhaps you could keep the rudeness to a minimum?  I disagree with you, but at least I am respectfull of your opinion.  You go out of your way to be as technical as possible and try to come off as intelligent but then act like a child.  If you don't agree with me that's entirely your choice, but at least try to do so with a degree of maturity.  I know the internet is this great tool that allows people to be generally rude from the safety of thier computers, but try to reign it in will you.  Cheers.

[McBeath]

Flamewielder wrote...

I dissagree on one point: "locking away" MOST of a game's content makes no sense, and that's what you'd end up with placeholders, even if you makes the "No One Left Behind" ending the default one for new players. Offering SOME hidden content does, if you're looking for a sales incentive (in which case the "new player" version of ME2's ending will have some/all of the ME2 characters dead).

I'm kinda like you: I'd love to see them back as full squaddies but don't think it's what BW intends to do. Temp squaddies offer an answer to the old players' desire to see their fave squaddie in ME3, in a way that's emotionally more satisfying than a cameo or e-mail and yet easier to pull off than a bunch of place holders who would never be used by those who, like me, left no one behind.

I don't think they'll lock content, but instead maybe give us little quotes... like they intended with Galaxy and Miranda/Jacob.  New players if they get a "No One Left Behind" may get little bits about the characters(or perhaps a codex entry for each one to give them some idea), but not be punished.  Instead, if they want to learn more they can go back and play the previous two games.  People who don't really care about the NPC's can just shoot things with huge guns.  Everybody is happy.  As I said earlier, I have friends who only played ME2 cause they love shooters, and then wen't and bought ME1 to see what they were missing.  I'm sure that will continue, likely with a box set of both released a few months prior to ME3.

I think having them in your squad is less an issue then the dialog on ship.  Nearly as much went into Jokers dialog options as the others on ship, but he wasn't a squad mate.  I don't really care if I can't take them onto missions(cause I didn't take more than 4 of them usually), but the dialog is nice.  This placeholder talk to me is silly, and is reading too far into the technical aspect of game design.  Bioware will do what is always has, push the bar in regards to quality and game play experience.  If they(and other companies) let difficulty get in the way we'd still be playing Atari's

Modifié par McBeath, 15 août 2010 - 05:42 .

[Harley_Dude]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

If you look at ME3 from the perspective of the new player it is doubtful all the characters would return. So for those of us that import a game the likely scenario are cameos for those characters not coded into the base game. The characters in the base game need to be connected to plot lines like the genophage or geth and would have to be easily replaced as stated previously. I don't see a compelling reason to include the DLC characters, Jack, Jacob, Samara or Thane as they offered no continuity to the story. They all felt like filler to me.

They're not going to penalize us for the sake of new players. Mass 2 had ashley/kaidan/liara/anderson/udina, I could go on forever, and new players didn't know who they were. Thinking that they'll remove characters because some people might not know who they are is illogical. That's what happens when you jump into the second or third act of a trilogy. 

-Polite

You would get a slightly different version of events or some unique trivial quest. If you killed Shiala on Feros you got exactly the same interaction with the colonist regardless if you used an import or created a new game. If you killed the council or killed Wrex you got the same thing as a new game.

So I guess if you killed wrex, his brother is uniting the Krogan, or if you kill the council you get to talk to the new one? Oh that's right, you don't. These are different consequences of the plot. If they were "placeholders" with the exact same purpose, it would defeat the whole meaning of choice and consequence that Bioware's implementing in the game. Lie to yourself if you want, but don't expect me or everyone else to believe it.

-Polite

You are arguing my point. In the whole scheme of things these actions were irrelevent. In ME1 you killed the council or not, it had no material impact on ME2. Since all the characters in ME2 can be killed I think you are deluding yourself they will have any material impact in the game but we'll see. Personally I want new characters since that makes the game more interesting. Do you really want to be stuck with Jacob for another 40 hours?

[McBeath]

The Harley Dude wrote...

You are arguing my point. In the whole scheme of things these actions were irrelevent. In ME1 you killed the council or not, it had no material impact on ME2. Since all the characters in ME2 can be killed I think you are deluding yourself they will have any material impact in the game but we'll see. Personally I want new characters since that makes the game more interesting. Do you really want to be stuck with Jacob for another 40 hours?

The characters are generally irrelevent plot wise.  There inclusion(or lack of) in ME3 may not be determined by plot.  They've done thier plot part by providing us with missions to do for thier recruitment and loyalty. 

Either those missions were simple filler for ME2 or they had a purpose.  I don't think they were filler, Bioware could have really filled that 20 or so hours of gameplay with collectors and other more related material.  The purpose of all that recruitment and loyalty was instead to clear the way for ME3.  If they were so expendable then Bioware didn't need to have a dozen loyalty missions to ensure there survival.  Wouldn't it have been easier to just script that certain characters(Miranda and Garrus for example) had to live while the others always just died off.  That way there would be no need to worry about adding them into the next game?  Wouldn't really have changed the context of a "suicide mission" to have casualties. 

Even ME1 included recruitment and loyalty style events, though some of them were more well tied to the overall plot.  ME3's characters may well be like Alenko in ME1, there from the start.

Modifié par McBeath, 15 août 2010 - 06:29 .

[smudboy]

McBeath wrote...
At Smudboy, perhaps you could keep the rudeness to a minimum?  I disagree with you, but at least I am respectfull of your opinion.  You go out of your way to be as technical as possible and try to come off as intelligent but then act like a child.  If you don't agree with me that's entirely your choice, but at least try to do so with a degree of maturity.  I know the internet is this great tool that allows people to be generally rude from the safety of thier computers, but try to reign it in will you.  Cheers.

I don't recall disagreeing with you, nor do I recall "acting like a child."  If someone dishes it out at me, I dish it right back.

What exactly is your opinion, so that I can show you just how amazing my argument is?

[Pulse-eater]

Sapienti wrote...

... Other characters do have a reason to stay in Shepard's squad, Tali and Garrus only left Shepard because they thought he died and went off to do their own thing. They've shown that they'd follow Shepard into hell and back, if only two characters had the potential to be plot heavy characters, I think it would be those two. ...

I agree. If you were only to continue two characters as squadmates, Tali and Garrrus are the best options.

No other characters have inspired so much popular attention from the fan base. They would provide squadmate continuity for all three games. And would provide 1 female alien love interest and 1 male alien love interest. They offer the best "bang of the buck" --The most logical consideration.

This continuity does not require invention, only the modest innovation of using cameos as the story/plot placeholder. After which the original character (Garrus, Tali) can segway back into squadmates. The cameo placeholder does not need to become a squadmate.

[McBeath]

smudboy wrote...

What exactly is your opinion, so that I can show you just how amazing my argument is?

Simply put, that without knowing what the overall plot lines for ME3 is, how can we guess at the ability of Bioware to include the ME2 team in whatever capacity they want to.

For instance, Liara and Virmire are left out for a reason.  What is it?  Other than the fact that they are important to ME3 why do this?  In my opinion it is these characters that will guide the plot along the lines Bioware requires to tell the story of ME3. 

Now to the ME2 team.  If ME3 is indeed a race to recruit allies, then perhaps they'd be required to be camo characters, but if not what stops them from being in ME3 as squadmates?

If Liara and Virmire are guiding the plot, whatever ME2 team-mate is there may just have a "one liner", like when you select a person to go into a loyalty mission... they say things, though anybody can.  I think that the big choices of ME3 will be like that.

I don't see the need for placeholders, and suspect that Bioware's development team knew this when they did ME2... they were already thinking ahead to ME3.  They didn't put any choices into the game that they couldn't work with.   Instead of placeholders for important characters that died they simply left out the ones they needed from the beginning.  If they died then players can't use them in game for the third, though this is only an issue for players that imported such a file.  I think that the majority of people have completed no one left behind runs.

As a game that was planned as a trilogy the story was already written prior to the games being made.  Sure, things have been changed due to fan feedback, new ideas, ect.  but the core story remains the same.   Without knowing the direction that the plot goes in how can we know for sure what to expect?

[smudboy]

McBeath wrote...

smudboy wrote...

What exactly is your opinion, so that I can show you just how amazing my argument is?

Simply put, that without knowing what the overall plot lines for ME3 is, how can we guess at the ability of Bioware to include the ME2 team in whatever capacity they want to.

Because they can die.

Because they can not even be recruited.

Because you can play the game without an import.

For instance, Liara and Virmire are left out for a reason.  What is it?  Other than the fact that they are important to ME3 why do this?  In my opinion it is these characters that will guide the plot along the lines Bioware requires to tell the story of ME3. 

Now to the ME2 team.  If ME3 is indeed a race to recruit allies, then perhaps they'd be required to be camo characters, but if not what stops them from being in ME3 as squadmates?

Same as above.

If Liara and Virmire are guiding the plot, whatever ME2 team-mate is there may just have a "one liner", like when you select a person to go into a loyalty mission... they say things, though anybody can.  I think that the big choices of ME3 will be like that.

I don't see the need for placeholders, and suspect that Bioware's development team knew this when they did ME2... they were already thinking ahead to ME3.  They didn't put any choices into the game that they couldn't work with.   Instead of placeholders for important characters that died they simply left out the ones they needed from the beginning.  If they died then players can't use them in game for the third, though this is only an issue for players that imported such a file.  I think that the majority of people have completed no one left behind runs.

If they don't use placeholders, they'll just use cameos.  If they don't use any of those, they'll have completely static functional squadmates, as well as new characters.  Either way we're getting new squadmates.

It doesn't matter if the majority or minority completed no one left behind.  The system must account for every instance of the variables.  That's how the system was made.

As a game that was planned as a trilogy the story was already written prior to the games being made.  Sure, things have been changed due to fan feedback, new ideas, ect.  but the core story remains the same.   Without knowing the direction that the plot goes in how can we know for sure what to expect?

Same as above.

Now we could make arguments for how characters are resurrected, but that's pushing it.

And if BioWare simply does whatever it wants, then the import is inherently pointless on which squadmates survived.

[EvilTyger]

I think that the status of your squad mates (from both games) will effect what fleets and armys come to your aid in the final battle against the Reapers, and their effectiveness. (And also the Rachni.) I think the style of their arrival will be based on Paragon/Renegade choices, and effectiveness based on loyalty status.Wrex & Grunt bringing the Krogan, Legionb ringing the Geth, Tali the Migrant Fleet, Zaeed a new mercenary group. The effect would be similar to the Normandy upgrades in ME2.

[SmokePants]

I think people are looking at choice->consequence as appetizer->entree, when they should be looking at it as entree->after-dinner mint. The choice itself is always the important part. It's the thing you remember doing. It shapes your experiences and defines your character. RPG's have been using choice (without much in the way of consequence) for decades. Obviously, it is its own reward.

BioWare is trying to layer in long-term consequences and it is novel, but those consequences will never overshadow the original choices. They are only meant to reflect them. But like all reflections, they lack the substance of the original subject. Expecting the consequences to be more significant than the choices is foolish.

Modifié par SmokePants, 15 août 2010 - 08:07 .

[Shadow_broker]

MIRANDA RULEZ



She's coming back with Liara and Virmire survivor and legion

no one else

DEAL WITH IT HAHAHAHAA

[Jaron Oberyn]

The Harley Dude wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

If you look at ME3 from the perspective of the new player it is doubtful all the characters would return. So for those of us that import a game the likely scenario are cameos for those characters not coded into the base game. The characters in the base game need to be connected to plot lines like the genophage or geth and would have to be easily replaced as stated previously. I don't see a compelling reason to include the DLC characters, Jack, Jacob, Samara or Thane as they offered no continuity to the story. They all felt like filler to me.

They're not going to penalize us for the sake of new players. Mass 2 had ashley/kaidan/liara/anderson/udina, I could go on forever, and new players didn't know who they were. Thinking that they'll remove characters because some people might not know who they are is illogical. That's what happens when you jump into the second or third act of a trilogy. 

-Polite

You would get a slightly different version of events or some unique trivial quest. If you killed Shiala on Feros you got exactly the same interaction with the colonist regardless if you used an import or created a new game. If you killed the council or killed Wrex you got the same thing as a new game.

So I guess if you killed wrex, his brother is uniting the Krogan, or if you kill the council you get to talk to the new one? Oh that's right, you don't. These are different consequences of the plot. If they were "placeholders" with the exact same purpose, it would defeat the whole meaning of choice and consequence that Bioware's implementing in the game. Lie to yourself if you want, but don't expect me or everyone else to believe it.

-Polite

You are arguing my point. In the whole scheme of things these actions were irrelevent. In ME1 you killed the council or not, it had no material impact on ME2. Since all the characters in ME2 can be killed I think you are deluding yourself they will have any material impact in the game but we'll see. Personally I want new characters since that makes the game more interesting. Do you really want to be stuck with Jacob for another 40 hours?

Are you kidding? The decision to kill the council did have an impact on the game, and will have one on the third game. You need to re-read my argument, because your not makig a whole lot of sense. If you killed the council, you get a different experience than if you didn't. If you killed wrex, you get a different experience than if you didn't. Two different experiences depending on the choice you made.

-Polite

[Pulse-eater]

Shadow_broker wrote...

MIRANDA RULEZ

She's coming back with Liara and Virmire survivor and legion
no one else
DEAL WITH IT HAHAHAHAA

Well if it was me deciding who to continue as squadmates it would only be Tali, Garrus, Miranda, and Legion. Most of the others look like rejects from the X-men anyway.

Modifié par Pulse-eater, 15 août 2010 - 09:30 .

[gamer2k316]

In a lot of ways, implementation of each character will depend on exactly WHEN ME3 starts out.  For instance, if its a few months after ME2, you can create some sort of situation where Shep gets seperated from his team, giving an excuse to re-build from a pool of teammates.  

For instance, Bioware could force Liara, Kaiden/Ashley, and a few others, and the remaining pool of people may be avaliable for recruitment/other side missions depending on their status at the end of ME2.  I agree covering each possibility is a bit much, especially the DLC characters from ME2...(Those will be the biggest headaches of the bunch, but Bioware could simply assume the exist for story purposes...).

Also recall some characters have excuses to not be around (if alive, of course):
Liara: Tracking Shadow broker (almost certainly will be in squad at some point though)
Kaiden/Ashley: Alliance Business (almost certainly in squad, especially if romanced)
Wrex: Running Tuchanka
Tali/Leigon: Possible Quarian/Geth war (Major ME3 plot point???)
Garrus: Could be hunted by various merc groups (probably a squad mate early on and through the game)

That covers ME1 characters at least; on to ME2 (assuming alive)

Miranda: Probably in squad
Jacob: Probably in squad
Jack: Hunting Illusive Man (Revenge for childhood; Possible conflict with Miranda/Jacob depending on ME2 end??)
Thane: Dieing
Samara/Morninth: Hunting some criminal in Asari space (remember, morninth has to keep up appearances...)
Zaeed: On Contract
Kasumi: Stealing from some rich guy somewhere


Point is, you can find ways to write certain characters out, but that assumes the reapers currently aren't destroying everything.  Worse case, you can seperate the group while they are "gathering intelligence" on the reapers.

If you can seprate the group, you can carefully control the situation, making it easier for the devs to account for who is alive/dead, and wrap them into the story either as a plot point, or a full party member.

[Sapienti]

SmokePants wrote...
Poor analogy. I don't view this as a son dying vs living. I view it as a cat vs a dog. Some in the forum are convinced that BioWare will be giving us a "dog" and can't possibly give us a "cat". They are arguing that a cat defeats the whole purpose of having a pet and is thus unacceptable. So, my "side" in this argument would be to argue that cats are proven pets and BioWare could very easily give us one, as they require less attention and are more fool-proof than dogs. At the end of the day, I would prefer a dog, but cats are pretty good, too.

A son dying in war vs living? Yeah, you pretty much illustrated your bias with that one.

No you missed the point. I'm saying the stance of "I hope this happens but I'll be happy if it doesn't is equivalent to that. I never compared that situation to the discussion at hand. And cats vs dogs wouldn't really work in the way you say either since to directly compare the cats vs dogs debate to ME can't really fit. It would be more of a breed bias thing than species, like a Labrador vs a Shepherd (haha get it?) and then arguing the merits of both breeds. That would be the discussion, but the stance you're taking just sounds more like "I bet we'll be getting a small dog, damn chiahuahuas suck but I'll be happy if we get a big breed instead" which isn't acurate. I see your stance, but you aren't articulating it in a way that conveys the stance that is objective. From where I stand its what I see with the whole "Gawsh I hope I'm wrong though" line.

If I were to use one to illustrate my own stance it'd be a Shepherd vs a Husky. I'd be more than happy to have either one as both appeal to me, but in this case I'm arguing on the side of the Husky because I've had one longer than my Shepherd, you pickin up what I'm puttin down?

[Sapienti]

gamer2k316 wrote...

In a lot of ways, implementation of each character will depend on exactly WHEN ME3 starts out.  For instance, if its a few months after ME2, you can create some sort of situation where Shep gets seperated from his team, giving an excuse to re-build from a pool of teammates.  

For instance, Bioware could force Liara, Kaiden/Ashley, and a few others, and the remaining pool of people may be avaliable for recruitment/other side missions depending on their status at the end of ME2.  I agree covering each possibility is a bit much, especially the DLC characters from ME2...(Those will be the biggest headaches of the bunch, but Bioware could simply assume the exist for story purposes...).

Also recall some characters have excuses to not be around (if alive, of course):
Liara: Tracking Shadow broker (almost certainly will be in squad at some point though)
Kaiden/Ashley: Alliance Business (almost certainly in squad, especially if romanced)
Wrex: Running Tuchanka
Tali/Leigon: Possible Quarian/Geth war (Major ME3 plot point???)
Garrus: Could be hunted by various merc groups (probably a squad mate early on and through the game)

That covers ME1 characters at least; on to ME2 (assuming alive)

Miranda: Probably in squad
Jacob: Probably in squad
Jack: Hunting Illusive Man (Revenge for childhood; Possible conflict with Miranda/Jacob depending on ME2 end??)
Thane: Dieing
Samara/Morninth: Hunting some criminal in Asari space (remember, morninth has to keep up appearances...)
Zaeed: On Contract
Kasumi: Stealing from some rich guy somewhere


Point is, you can find ways to write certain characters out, but that assumes the reapers currently aren't destroying everything.  Worse case, you can seperate the group while they are "gathering intelligence" on the reapers.

If you can seprate the group, you can carefully control the situation, making it easier for the devs to account for who is alive/dead, and wrap them into the story either as a plot point, or a full party member.

Yea story wise it isn't too difficult for Bioware to do whatever they want with whoever they want. Maybe I watch too much TV but writers are capable of justifying anything, and in the case of squad members the arguments on both sides tend to hinge on resources and willingness and that is something we can not be certain of because none of us are Bioware, the thread will just devolve into people arguing logistics vs willingness using a number of possible scenario. When it comes down to it though the simple fact is the writers will do what they do and Bioware will do what it wants. Best we all can do is do what fanboys do best, and make assumptions.

[Sapienti]

Luc0s wrote...

Which is exactly Smoke's whole point and it sums up our position as "pessimists" perfectly. We suspect we'll get a Shepherd in ME3 and we're fine with that because we like Shepherds. But if we get a Husky in ME3, what you "optimists" argue, we "pessimists" are happy too, because Husky's are just as cool if not cooler.

The whole point it. If we indeed get a Shepherd (and not a Husky), all you "optimists" will be dissapointed, but not us "pessimists" because we didn't expect to get a Husky in the first place. But if we do get a Husky, we're just as happy as you "optimists" are.

See? Our position as a "pesismist" is a win-win situation, while your position is win-lose situation.

Yea I know thats his point, I said he didn't articulate it well enough, and if you read my post, you'd know I'm not on this "optomist" side you speak of, I'm on the side that is going to wait and see what happens. To further the puppy metaphor, I'm going to wait and see what the girlfriend brings home because I just like puppies, only possible determining factor is the price difference between the two breeds and whether or not she decides one is worth the money and effort (speaking from experience lol).

I don't know why people think pessimism is a bad thing though, it is actually probably the best route to take, I always find its good to keep expectations low so you don't get let down, its what sucks about being a blind optomist. In this thread though, I'm just arguing the side that needs arguing, which is the side of these optomists and the plausible aspects of their argument that they themselves do not convey very well.