2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Pauravi]

smudboy wrote...

The issue is "whatever thay may be."  If it's fully fledged squadmates, the practical people are laughing due to the amount of completely optional content that people want from fully fledged squadmates.

Honestly, I don't see this as a problem.
MOST of the content in the game is totally optional, this isn't going to be what makes them decide what to include.  You can successfully complete ME1 and ME2 without doing ANY of the side missions, you can skip loyalty missions, and any number of conversations (and, lets be honest, conversation amounts to most of the content attached to any character).  Does this mean that it is wasted space and effort?  No, of course not.  They're trying to make a game -- a series of games, in fact -- with a lot of replay value.  The way to do that is to make a game where it is difficult or impossible to experience all of the content on one playthrough.  The fact that some people are going to import characters where a lot of squadmates die is irrelevant.  Those same people will go back and play through a different way next time, and experience all that "optional" content.  It isn't being wasted.

The issue mostly concerns ME2 characters, not ME1 characters.

Cameo's are cameo's.  They could be "half-assed", or exceedingly well done.  It's believable.  Fully fledged squadmates, with multiple levels, dialog trees, plot dialog, plot relevance, etc.  Logistical nightmare.

I don't see how new characters are any less of a logistical nightmare.
I don't know what you mean by "multiple levels", but there will still be dialogue trees and plot dialogue for them.  If they can do it for new characters, they can do it for old ones.  They managed to fit all that stuff into that ME2 for a very large number of characters, with recruitment and loyalty missions for each of them.  Considering that there won't need to be recruitment and loyalty missions in ME3, that same amount of total content (or more) can be put towards the story and plot of ME3, and I think that's plenty.

You're assuming that  they're going to get rid of all the cannon characters in a game that was built on the idea of cascading choices just because "it's hard", as if they're not willing to make as much effort on the finale to their groundbreaking series as they were in the second installment, despite not having to work on the engine at all.  Not only is it not that much harder than bringing in new characters (at least, assuming the new characters have any personality at all), but I think Bioware deserves a bit more respect than that.  They've known that this would be an issue since before they released ME1, and I don't think they're going to shy away from it now.

I must also point out that plot relevance is not an issue.  NONE of the characters are plot relevant, except for Liara in ME1, who we needed to find Ilos.  Even Tali, who we needed to convict Saren, has no real individual story relevance after that fact.  That doesn't mean that they can't have an effect on the story, the way Wrex does for the Krogan for instance.  But in truth, what does that amount to?  It is basically a one-or-the-other scenario involving a couple minutes worth of different dialogue, and maybe a cinematic or two.  Hardly a prohibitive amount of extra effort.

How does an optional LI have a significant role?  What significant role are you referring to?  Do you mean a completely optional love interest will have a plot relevant role?

No, like I said.  None of the characters have a relevant plot role in the way you mean.
However, many people would consider being Shepard's a love interest to be a significant role.

What if 1) you killed all the love interest characters, 2) you never had any love interests?

Then you wouldn't see the content.  Exactly the same as in the other two games, where you wouldn't see any of the romance stuff if you didn't have a love interest.  Notice that the fact that people could skip the romances didn't keep them from including it.

I really don't see the big deal.  In reality, what does a character romance consist of?  If it is anything like the previous ones, a few conversation trees, maybe several lines of situational dialogue, and a couple cinematics.  This is enough.  They don't need to have some deep, plot-altering story relevance.

It's not an issue of loyalty, or love interest, or why you brought them along.  It's an issue of the point of ME2, and that characters can interchangably die.  Which almost sets the stage for a placeholder situation.

The system must take into account character death.  It must.  There is no way around it.

Of course it will.  Characters that die will be dead, there is no way around it.  The real question is, realistically, how much does that change?  The reality is, nothing beyond missing out on a bunch of dialogue and a change in cinematics.  Think of, say, Garrus in ME1.  He became a fan favorite, but what did he really add to the story beyond a few (rather short) conversations and a few interjected lines in other conversations or on the elevators?  Or Wrex, one of the most popular characters from the first game, who is completely and totally optional?

For instance, for the sake of argument, assume that the ME3 plot involves going around and convincing a bunch of different races or political groups to join your cause.  If Tali lives, you go to the migrant fleet and one thing happens.  If Tali dies, you go the the migrant fleet and another thing happens.  Or perhapsTali being there merely gives you the ability to choose a different option.  Tali is thus an important character to the story, but what actually changes in terms of content and plot?  In reality, not a ton.  Quite a bit of the dialogue would have actually been exactly the same, with the exception that Tali is going to have several lines, and the Admiralty will have a few different lines too.  And then it probably changes a couple of cinematic scenes (especially at the end).  This is hardly a prohibitive amount of work, though, and it doesn't change anything about what you have to do in the game -- only the outcome of it.

In a nutshell, I think that the main disconnect between your position and those who disagree with you, is that you seem to be imagining that there is some infinite degree of complexity in the plot based who dies and who doesn't.  People like me, on the other hand, see that, in fact, almost NONE of the characters are actually intimately related to the plot in a way that the story couldn't function without them, and are relevant only by their relationship to Shepard.  The perceived importance of every squadmate comes down to skill of Bioware and the voice actors in giving a few dialogue trees and cinematic sequences the gravity to make us see them as an inextricable part of the story.

Adding or deleting that much content based on who is or isn't alive in your playthrough is just not something I see as prohibitive, especially given that the game engine is not undergoing any major changes.  The entire development time of ME3 is being given over to design, plot, and acting, and I don't see them short-changing the promises they've made for finalè of their ground-breaking series just to be frugal.

Modifié par Pauravi, 18 août 2010 - 02:14 .

[smudboy]

[quote]Pauravi wrote...
Honestly, I don't see this as a problem.
MOST of the content in the game is totally optional, this isn't going to be what makes them decide what to include.  You can successfully complete ME1 and ME2 without doing ANY of the side missions, you can skip loyalty missions, and any number of conversations (and, lets be honest, conversation amounts to most of the content attached to any character).  Does this mean that it is wasted space and effort?  No, of course not.  They're trying to make a game -- a series of games, in fact -- with a lot of replay value.  The way to do that is to make a game where it is difficult or impossible to experience all of the content on one playthrough.  The fact that some people are going to import characters where a lot of squadmates die is irrelevant.  Those same people will go back and play through a different way next time, and experience all that "optional" content.  It isn't being wasted.
[/quote]
On import, if there is an option making an entity no longer exist, then devoting large resources in design and development surrounding it, let alone main points in the narrative, would not only be fruitless, but impossible.

You can successfully complete ME2 in any shape or fashion.  However, if you don't do at least, what, 2-3 loyalty missions, you can't import.

This is all under the argument that we want fully fledged squadmates with backstories, multiple missions, dialog, etc.

If some people are going to import characters where a lot of squadmates die is irrelevant, then the squadmates (all of them) that do survive as squadmates will be irrelevant.  Thus, the idea of functional squadmates is believable, but not fully fledged ones.

Do you mean replay ME2 just to get characters to survive?  Because the assumption is new game ME3 will = everyone dead save 2.  Which means a lot of lost content for our "fully fledged squadmates", however that works.
[quote]
I don't see how new characters are any less of a logistical nightmare.
I don't know what you mean by "multiple levels", but there will still be dialogue trees and plot dialogue for them.  If they can do it for new characters, they can do it for old ones.  They managed to fit all that stuff into that ME2 for a very large number of characters, with recruitment and loyalty missions for each of them.  Considering that there won't need to be recruitment and loyalty missions in ME3, that same amount of total content (or more) can be put towards the story and plot of ME3, and I think that's plenty.
[/quote]
So just functional squadmates, with little dialog here and there per main plot point?

New characters can be developed and interacted with in any way, shape or form BioWare's designers choose to, because they're static, guaranteed to exist, and won't have to resort to only canned squadmate placeholder dialog.  They can even be plot relevant, or plot integral.

Completely optional characters cannot.

[quote]
You're assuming that  they're going to get rid of all the cannon characters in a game that was built on the idea of cascading choices just because "it's hard", as if they're not willing to make as much effort on the finale to their groundbreaking series as they were in the second installment, despite not having to work on the engine at all.  Not only is it not that much harder than bringing in new characters (at least, assuming the new characters have any personality at all), but I think Bioware deserves a bit more respect than that.  They've known that this would be an issue since before they released ME1, and I don't think they're going to shy away from it now.
[/quote]
What canon characters?  Canonically new game dead ones, maybe?

BioWare's strength is its characters.  This is one reason why I do not believe they will default to functional squadmates, with little main plot commentary.  As usual, they're going to go all out crazy on character development and relationships.  ME3 will blow royal ass if there are no new characters, and ME3 new game is only 2-12 random people who have nothing of importance to say, contribute to, or have their own personal development to add to the narrative.  The easiest way I can see this working is if they act as cameo or plot relevant placeholders for particular missions that are either main plot points, or "loyalty" missions toward a given ending.


[quote]
I must also point out that plot relevance is not an issue.  NONE of the characters are plot relevant, except for Liara in ME1, who we needed to find Ilos.  Even Tali, who we needed to convict Saren, has no real individual story relevance after that fact.  That doesn't mean that they can't have an effect on the story, the way Wrex does for the Krogan for instance.  But in truth, what does that amount to?  It is basically a one-or-the-other scenario involving a couple minutes worth of different dialogue, and maybe a cinematic or two.  Hardly a prohibitive amount of extra effort.
[/quote]
Liara, Tali and Ashley/Kaidan were all plot integral in ME1.

It does not matter that the Tali character was irrelevant after her Saren evidence.  She provides a MacGuffin: plot integrity fulfilled.  Aside from plot integrity, ME1's Tali has more motivation and backstory about the main plot then all of ME2 characters combined.

What does it amount to?   An easier time writing a static character that will be part of the narrative as opposed to a generic placeholder that somehow has to be plot integral.  Thus, the plot integrity of the character (for ease of creation) would not be based on them as a character, but them as a plot device.  (So not Tali, but anyone who had evidence on Saren.)  We can do that for a placeholder of any of the 2-12 ME2 characters.  So their intrinsic value as a character is meaningless; they're just some schleb to gives us a plot ticket, and they have generic corresponding dialog to that effect (Zaeed: "Hey Shepard.  I found this goddamned Prothean artefact.")

[quote]
No, like I said.  None of the characters have a relevant plot role in the way you mean.
However, many people would consider being Shepard's a love interest to be a significant role.
[/quote]
Yes, but these people are idiots, or expect less of a writer.

[quote]
Then you wouldn't see the content.  Exactly the same as in the other two games, where you wouldn't see any of the romance stuff if you didn't have a love interest.  Notice that the fact that people could skip the romances didn't keep them from including it.
[/quote]
And yet this optional content is to have great plot relevance, somehow?

Providing a cameo or dialog wheel on romance isn't the issue here.

[quote]
I really don't see the big deal.  In reality, what does a character romance consist of?  If it is anything like the previous ones, a few conversation trees, maybe several lines of situational dialogue, and a couple cinematics.  This is enough.  They don't need to have some deep, plot-altering story relevance.
[/quote]
Nor am I implying they do or should.

[quote]
Of course it will.  Characters that die will be dead, there is no way around it.  The real question is, realistically, how much does that change?  The reality is, nothing beyond missing out on a bunch of dialogue and a change in cinematics.  Think of, say, Garrus in ME1.  He became a fan favorite, but what did he really add to the story beyond a few (rather short) conversations and a few interjected lines in other conversations or on the elevators?  Or Wrex, one of the most popular characters from the first game, who is completely and totally optional?
[/quote]
This is part of my argument.

[quote]
For instance, for the sake of argument, assume that the ME3 plot involves going around and convincing a bunch of different races or political groups to join your cause.  If Tali lives, you go to the migrant fleet and one thing happens.  If Tali dies, you go the the migrant fleet and another thing happens.  Or perhapsTali being there merely gives you the ability to choose a different option.  Tali is thus an important character to the story, but what actually changes in terms of content and plot?  In reality, not a ton.  Quite a bit of the dialogue would have actually been exactly the same, with the exception that Tali is going to have several lines, and the Admiralty will have a few different lines too.  And then it probably changes a couple of cinematic scenes (especially at the end).  This is hardly a prohibitive amount of work, though, and it doesn't change anything about what you have to do in the game -- only the outcome of it.
[/quote]
Yes, they are plot relevant, but not plot integral.  This is part of my argument.

If you haven't realized, I accept this as a possibility.  I do not however accept fully fledged squadmates.  Perhaps your definition in relation to mine is different.
[quote]
In a nutshell, I think that the main disconnect between your position and those who disagree with you, is that you seem to be imagining that there is some infinite degree of complexity in the plot based who dies and who doesn't.  People like me, on the other hand, see that, in fact, almost NONE of the characters are actually intimately related to the plot in a way that the story couldn't function without them, and are relevant only by their relationship to Shepard.  The perceived importance of every squadmate comes down to skill of Bioware and the voice actors in giving a few dialogue trees and cinematic sequences the gravity to make us see them as an inextricable part of the story.
[/quote]
Don't worry: I know for a fact all save Mordin are fluff.  To imply they'll be integral to ME3's plot is contrived.

The "percetived importance" of every squadmate having value to the plot is either granting them cameo's along main plot points, cameo placeholders, and other such means of storytelling.  If after this they become functional squadmates, I see no problem here.
[quote]
Adding or deleting that much content based on who is or isn't alive in your playthrough is just not something I see as prohibitive, especially given that the game engine is not undergoing any major changes.  The entire development time of ME3 is being given over to design, plot, and acting, and I don't see them short-changing the promises they've made for finalè of their ground-breaking series just to be frugal.
[/quote]
If it's given over to plot, or rather, the focus of the narrative in ME3 is the main plot, then we shouldn't be fiddling with who died yesterday, whose content is obviously completely optional and can't be of any importance, like granting 12 sets of assets fully fledged squadmate status.  It doesn't make sense and is too laborious to consider.

[Harley_Dude]

Every Bioware game I've played had recruitment as part of the game. It would be highly unusual for them to stray from that formula. I think it would be confusing to new players to start ME3 with 12 characters already defined. Will their skills be predetermined as well? Leveling up your squad has been another Bioware feature most of us are used to. Are the squad members you saved going to start at 1 again with the same skills? If it does it will seem more like ME2.5 instead ME3.

[MustangManiac]

Personally I think that in order to send Mass Effect to go out with a bang, you'll need to involve every character possible. That means taking everyone and putting them in your squad (preffered) or giving them a damn big role in the last game. If you have to then make it so that you recruit several at a time! After all, you're going up against possibly billions of reapers and let's face it; one frigate and about 25 people won't do jack. Maybe find big-time evedence and walk up to the council and go "Now do you believe me?!"

[McBeath]

The Harley Dude wrote...

Every Bioware game I've played had recruitment as part of the game. It would be highly unusual for them to stray from that formula. I think it would be confusing to new players to start ME3 with 12 characters already defined. Will their skills be predetermined as well? Leveling up your squad has been another Bioware feature most of us are used to. Are the squad members you saved going to start at 1 again with the same skills? If it does it will seem more like ME2.5 instead ME3.

My understanding is that the level cap of 30 was done so that when ME3 launched there wasn't a need to "reset" the character yet again... I don't know if this will be true of the NPC's, so if they'd get a new skill set or two perhaps.  Same for Shepard, I would imagine that they're would be new skills, ect.

That, or maybe we'll all just start back at level 1 again, who knows.

[McBeath]

smudboy wrote...


Do you mean replay ME2 just to get characters to survive?  Because the assumption is new game ME3 will = everyone dead save 2.  Which means a lot of lost content for our "fully fledged squadmates", however that works.

By this do you mean that people assume that the canon ME2 ending is that everybody died?  Or that characters must have died?  I have always assumed that the canon ending for ME2 is that everybody lives, and that will be the case for people who just start an ME3 file without an import.  Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.

smudboy wrote...

It doesn't make sense and is too laborious to consider.

I have a small issue with this... business is full of cases where a company stepped up and did something that everybody else thought was "too laborious to consider", and it payed off.  Bioware seemed to really take some chances with this franchise instead of just making another standard format RPG, though I'm sure they could have and still done a great job with some solid sales numbers.

ME2 in fact deviates from the standard RPG format, even the plot(or lack of in some peoples minds) is something that other companies may not have gambled on, not to mention the gameplay changes.  I expect to be pleasantly surprised by the next game, and wouldn't write anything off on the chance that it's "too laborious".

Cheers. 

Modifié par McBeath, 18 août 2010 - 05:07 .

[Elyvern]

McBeath wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

Every Bioware game I've played had recruitment as part of the game. It would be highly unusual for them to stray from that formula. I think it would be confusing to new players to start ME3 with 12 characters already defined. Will their skills be predetermined as well? Leveling up your squad has been another Bioware feature most of us are used to. Are the squad members you saved going to start at 1 again with the same skills? If it does it will seem more like ME2.5 instead ME3.

My understanding is that the level cap of 30 was done so that when ME3 launched there wasn't a need to "reset" the character yet again... I don't know if this will be true of the NPC's, so if they'd get a new skill set or two perhaps.  Same for Shepard, I would imagine that they're would be new skills, ect.

That, or maybe we'll all just start back at level 1 again, who knows.

I highly doubt that. The reason to cap at level 30 is because you enter the game already proficient in weapons, you don't need to level them up, there's no need to dump points into charm and intimidate either--in short the entire levelling and point system was streamlined so there isn't need for players to distribute that many points into a wide spread of talents and skills.

[TheKillerAngel]

For DLC characters (Kasumi, Zaeed) in ME3 - It would make complete sense if they were not mentioned beyond a few lines of crew dialogue (if the imported save had them on the ship) - given that their contracts only go as far as the Collector mission. It's very possible they just left after that. However, it might also make sense if they stayed with you if you gained their loyalty.



If the imported save didn't have them altogether, they just wouldn't be mentioned.

[AresXX7]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

For DLC characters (Kasumi, Zaeed) in ME3 - It would make complete sense if they were not mentioned beyond a few lines of crew dialogue (if the imported save had them on the ship) - given that their contracts only go as far as the Collector mission. It's very possible they just left after that. However, it might also make sense if they stayed with you if you gained their loyalty.

If the imported save didn't have them altogether, they just wouldn't be mentioned.

the only one of the two, I see any relevance for, in ME3, is Kasumi
based on what you decided with the greybox
(it also happens to be the only logical reason, for Cerberus wanting to hire a thief in the first place, so TIM can try to get the info in it)

[Pauravi]

smudboy wrote...

If you haven't realized, I accept this as a possibility.  I do not however accept fully fledged squadmates.  Perhaps your definition in relation to mine is different.

Perhaps it is.  What is a "fully-fledged squadmate" to you?
Because if you're saying that it is somehow different from the sort of squadmates I described, then I don't think that ME1 or ME2 have had any so far, except Liara.

  Don't worry: I know for a fact all save Mordin are fluff.  To imply they'll be integral to ME3's plot is contrived.

I never said they would be.  I said only that they could possibly be plot relevant, not integral.  Besides, even your example Mordin isn't integral.  They could just as easily and plausibly have explained the resistance to the swarms by sending samples and data off to Cerberus scientists.  Mordin himself doesn't change anything about what our mission is or why we're doing it, nor does he provide any plot-changing information or provide any service that could not conceivably be rendered by someone else, or even by a non-squad-member.  His importance to the plot is a contrivance to get him onto the ship as a character.

But the thing is, I don't think that not being integral to the plot makes them "fluff", or not fully-fledged.  If they re-appear and have roles that are like most of the characters in both games so far -- characters many people love, like Wrex in ME1, Thane, Legion, or Samara in ME2, or Tali and Garrus from both -- I will have absolutely no complaints, and I doubt other people would either.

Since you seem to be conceding that it is possible for them to be squadmates, with dialogue, and even with contingent plot relevancies, then I think I've made my point.  I simply don't think it is necessary that the squadmates all be plot-essential, especially since virtually none of them to date have been.

I mean, are you saying that you haven't liked any of the characters so far?  Is Wrex a stupid, shallow character because he wasn't integral to the main plot?  Do Tali's emotional confrontation with the Admiralty, or Thane's personal struggles make them any less compelling as characters just because they don't provide you with some essential piece of the Collector puzzle?

I simply don't think that being necessary to the plot of the game makes them less good as characters.

If ... the focus of the narrative in ME3 is the main plot, then we shouldn't be fiddling with who died yesterday, whose content is obviously completely optional and can't be of any importance, like granting 12 sets of assets fully fledged squadmate status.  It doesn't make sense and is too laborious to consider.

It absolutely makes sense if you want to consider the ME series as a cohesive story, which Bioware from the beginning has told us that they want to do.  If there is one thing that Bioware has showed us repeatedly with their games, it is that:  It is not just the plot, it is the characters.

They should fiddle with characters who died yesterday if they want to keep people's emotional interest in the story.  Whether they have plot relevance or not is almost completely irrelevant.  They know that the strength of their games isn't just the cool storyline or the fun combat system, it is that people become attached to them -- specifically, to the characters.  Not only that, but they clearly want us to have a continuous relationship with them.  If they didn't they wouldn't play up the romances as much as they do.  They know that people's attachment to the characters they've gotten to know over the past two games is what is going to help keep them interested in the next game.

Yes, they will add some new characters, sideline a few older ones, but IMO, most of them will be back.  Maybe not story-essential, but story-relevant, and with plenty of choice lines as they help Shepard save the galaxy.  It was good enough for me in the last two games, and it's good enough for me now.

[smudboy]

McBeath wrote...

By this do you mean that people assume that the canon ME2 ending is that everybody died?  Or that characters must have died?  I have always assumed that the canon ending for ME2 is that everybody lives, and that will be the case for people who just start an ME3 file without an import.  Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.

These are all assumptions.  It's similar to what happens in ME2 new games, which makes new players wonder about what content they're mission from ME1.  Considering it's called a Suicide Mission and they treated ME2's Shepard as Ruthless (Rachni died, Wrex died, etc.), I'd assume the LCD rule would also be in effect.

I have a small issue with this... business is full of cases where a company stepped up and did something that everybody else thought was "too laborious to consider", and it payed off.  Bioware seemed to really take some chances with this franchise instead of just making another standard format RPG, though I'm sure they could have and still done a great job with some solid sales numbers.

ME2 in fact deviates from the standard RPG format, even the plot(or lack of in some peoples minds) is something that other companies may not have gambled on, not to mention the gameplay changes.  I expect to be pleasantly surprised by the next game, and wouldn't write anything off on the chance that it's "too laborious".

Cheers. 

Too laborious would imply having 12 fully fledged squadmates from the previous game to have all this content related to the plot.  This not only can't be done well, but would imply placeholders if these characters are to be plot integral, which is another level of complexity.  (Remember, plot integrity isn't essential, but it gives value and meaning to.  If squadmates do return as such, they'll simply be functional, with potential plot relevance, which is also a placeholder situation (No tali, then some Quarian.  No Garrus, so some Turian, etc.))

The three examples from decreasing complexity:
1) Fully Fledged Squadmates
2) Placeholders
3) Cameos (and 2) derivatives thereof)
4) Functional squadmates
5) Nothing at all.

I think what Pauravi is saying is 4 and 5, with potentially 2.  The question is: is it harder to do one of these then simply having new squadmates?  Aside from simple cameos, then 1 and 2 would be more difficult to pull off, aside from BioWare simply creating new squadmates and doing whatever they wanted with them.  Keep in mind doing 1) would be like doing ME2 all over again, but making each mission and side story even more interesting than before, on an already established character.

[smudboy]

Pauravi wrote...
Perhaps it is.  What is a "fully-fledged squadmate" to you?
Because if you're saying that it is somehow different from the sort of squadmates I described, then I don't think that ME1 or ME2 have had any so far, except Liara.

Full dialog wheel, plot relevant dialog after each plot point, love interests, recruitment/loyalty missions, etc.

I never said they would be.  I said only that they could possibly be plot relevant, not integral.  Besides, even your example Mordin isn't integral.  They could just as easily and plausibly have explained the resistance to the swarms by sending samples and data off to Cerberus scientists.  Mordin himself doesn't change anything about what our mission is or why we're doing it, nor does he provide any plot-changing information or provide any service that could not conceivably be rendered by someone else, or even by a non-squad-member.  His importance to the plot is a contrivance to get him onto the ship as a character.

Mordin is integral.  The "what if" there was someone just like Mordin to did all the Mordin related stuff blah blah blah.  There was.  His assistant.  But we've dismissed that as being terribly contrived, since the narrative provided us many reasons why we wouldn't meet him without Mordin, and them joining in the same time and manner.  There's no Cerberus scientists we can point to and go here and there.  Either the narrative has given it to us in some shape or form, or we can play "what if" till the cows start singing where we're now the writers, and then we're getting a bit too absurd here.

Mordin provides a MacGuffin.  A plot device.  That is all the evidence we need.  We don't have to like it (e.g. The Shuttle Mission), but it's still integral to the plot.

If Mordin is contrived, then getting everyone else on the ship is goddamned fantasy-land-drug-induced criminal and the writers should be shot.

But the thing is, I don't think that not being integral to the plot makes them "fluff", or not fully-fledged.  If they re-appear and have roles that are like most of the characters in both games so far -- characters many people love, like Wrex in ME1, Thane, Legion, or Samara in ME2, or Tali and Garrus from both -- I will have absolutely no complaints, and I doubt other people would either.

If they're not supporting 1) the plot, 2) the protagonist, they're fluff.

Since you seem to be conceding that it is possible for them to be squadmates, with dialogue, and even with contingent plot relevancies, then I think I've made my point.  I simply don't think it is necessary that the squadmates all be plot-essential, especially since virtually none of them to date have been.

Well that's my point too, then.

I mean, are you saying that you haven't liked any of the characters so far?  Is Wrex a stupid, shallow character because he wasn't integral to the main plot?  Do Tali's emotional confrontation with the Admiralty, or Thane's personal struggles make them any less compelling as characters just because they don't provide you with some essential piece of the Collector puzzle?

Liking a character has nothing to do with them being plot integral, plot relevant, or green.  Any good writer does not introduce entire elements that are personified without good reason.  If it's no big deal and doesn't come across as contrived, then we can buy it.  But ME2's entire theme is "get some people to help you with your problem, by helping them with their problem", and aside from Mordin, they are all completely disconnected to that goal.

I simply don't think that being necessary to the plot of the game makes them less good as characters.

What you like about the characters is up to you.  There are objective observations we can point to and say "this is good" or was presented well.  For them to have value to the plot gives them a quality beyond characterization: they become part of the narrative on more than their existence.  Some of the stereotypes, like The Goddess or The Seductress, which should have had an impact on the plot (Samara/Morinth), were wasted opportunities.  In fact, all the characters were wasted opportunities to that effect, on sheer number alone.  (We can point to Tali/Liara as being Guides, Mordin, not so much.)

It absolutely makes sense if you want to consider the ME series as a cohesive story, which Bioware from the beginning has told us that they want to do.  If there is one thing that Bioware has showed us repeatedly with their games, it is that:  It is not just the plot, it is the characters.

Which is completely wrong.

They should fiddle with characters who died yesterday if they want to keep people's emotional interest in the story.  Whether they have plot relevance or not is almost completely irrelevant.

Then the value of the plot is diminished, while we go play with optional crap that has nothing to do with the plot, all because someone thinks they should have emotional interest.  I want to look at a character and list the reasons why they're valuable to the story, the struggle the protagonist is having, and how the side-character is helping them with that struggle;  I don't want to only look at a side character and go "I'm interested in their personality" or something frivolous like that.  You do not introduce elements to a story unless they're involved with it story, not involve their own other story for the sake of it which is completely unrelated.

They know that the strength of their games isn't just the cool storyline or the fun combat system, it is that people become attached to them -- specifically, to the characters.  Not only that, but they clearly want us to have a continuous relationship with them.  If they didn't they wouldn't play up the romances as much as they do.  They know that people's attachment to the characters they've gotten to know over the past two games is what is going to help keep them interested in the next game.

If you felt a great romance from any of the characters, that's great for you.  I did not.  Romances were barely an afterthought and had marginal buildup and exposition.

ME3 needs to be about the Reapers.  That's not to say it must eliminate romances or side-character interludes, 'cause they're lacking in the main plot.  In fact, I'm not sure what the main plot is going to be about anymore.  After ME2, ME3 could be about a series of "Magical Mystery Shuttle Rides" or "Let's Repopulate the <species> Homeworld."

Yes, they will add some new characters, sideline a few older ones, but IMO, most of them will be back.  Maybe not story-essential, but story-relevant, and with plenty of choice lines as they help Shepard save the galaxy.  It was good enough for me in the last two games, and it's good enough for me now.

That's too contrived.  Why bring some characters back and some not, when they can all die?  If they're all useless to the plot, what's the point?  More fluff, more drivel, all because of someone's subjective emotional attachment?  Please.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...
snip

Smud... Your not making much sense. I advise you actually take a couple of seconds to read through what you've wrote before you attempt to post an argument, because you have next to no idea of what your talking about. 

-Polite

Polite...could you maybe ask me about the areas I'm not making much sense?  I advise you to actually make the effort to read and then post questions on my posts, since you seem to be unable to comprehend most of what I've been writing.

Your right. I'm unable to comprehend utter nonsense. Nice try though.

-Polite

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...
snip

Smud... Your not making much sense. I advise you actually take a couple of seconds to read through what you've wrote before you attempt to post an argument, because you have next to no idea of what your talking about. 

-Polite

Polite...could you maybe ask me about the areas I'm not making much sense?  I advise you to actually make the effort to read and then post questions on my posts, since you seem to be unable to comprehend most of what I've been writing.

Your right. I'm unable to comprehend utter nonsense. Nice try though.

-Polite

First I'm not making much sense, now you're calling it utter nonsense.  So which one is it?  Did you understand some first, then none later?  Did you have some revelation in sleep?  Did you forget, then read again and go "utter nonsense"?

"You're".

Oh wait you're a moron.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...
snip

Smud... Your not making much sense. I advise you actually take a couple of seconds to read through what you've wrote before you attempt to post an argument, because you have next to no idea of what your talking about. 

-Polite

Polite...could you maybe ask me about the areas I'm not making much sense?  I advise you to actually make the effort to read and then post questions on my posts, since you seem to be unable to comprehend most of what I've been writing.

Your right. I'm unable to comprehend utter nonsense. Nice try though.

-Polite

First I'm not making much sense, now you're calling it utter nonsense.  So which one is it?  Did you understand some first, then none later?  Did you have some revelation in sleep?  Did you forget, then read again and go "utter nonsense"?

"You're".

Oh wait you're a moron.

Lol, never fails with you smud. It's like clockwork, whenever you feel like someone has the upper hand in any argument, you resort to personal insults. How typical.

-Polite

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Lol, never fails with you smud. It's like clockwork, whenever you feel like someone has the upper hand in any argument, you resort to personal insults. How typical.

-Polite

Your lack of understanding is not an argument.

I'm still waiting for you to make a point.  Or are you so destroyed I called you a moron?  See, if you weren't a moron, you'd have simply quoted me on what you didn't understand, and asked. Now you're wasting everyone's time because you're having an emotional reaction.

Either add to the conversation, ask me personally, or shut up.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Lol, never fails with you smud. It's like clockwork, whenever you feel like someone has the upper hand in any argument, you resort to personal insults. How typical.

-Polite

Your lack of understanding is not an argument.

I'm still waiting for you to make a point.  Or are you so destroyed I called you a moron?  See, if you weren't a moron, you'd have simply quoted me on what you didn't understand, and asked. Now you're wasting everyone's time because you're having an emotional reaction.

Either add to the conversation, ask me personally, or shut up.

Since your so knowledgeable, why not request your name be changed to SmartBoy instead of Smudboy. Smudboy just doesn't define your personality or maturity.
No no no. I'm not having an emotional reaction, your exhibiting symptoms of emotional insecurities. That's why you resort to personal insults, and statements about not understanding my point. It makes you feel better. It's ok to admit it. The signs are quite obvious, so no point in denying it.

-Polite

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Lol, never fails with you smud. It's like clockwork, whenever you feel like someone has the upper hand in any argument, you resort to personal insults. How typical.

-Polite

Your lack of understanding is not an argument.

I'm still waiting for you to make a point.  Or are you so destroyed I called you a moron?  See, if you weren't a moron, you'd have simply quoted me on what you didn't understand, and asked. Now you're wasting everyone's time because you're having an emotional reaction.

Either add to the conversation, ask me personally, or shut up.

Since your so knowledgeable, why not request your name be changed to SmartBoy instead of Smudboy. Smudboy just doesn't define your personality or maturity.
No no no. I'm not having an emotional reaction, your exhibiting symptoms of emotional insecurities. That's why you resort to personal insults, and statements about not understanding my point. It makes you feel better. It's ok to admit it. The signs are quite obvious, so no point in denying it.

-Polite

"You're"

I'm not insulting you.  I'm calling you a moron because you don't understand what you're doing.  If I've offended you, I apologize: I don't want you to be emotional, I want you to be rational and clear, because I do not understand what you're trying to say.

However, since you're using emoticons I can only assume you're being emotional.

So you win.  You're right.  I'm wrong.  There's nothing for us to say anymore.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Lol, never fails with you smud. It's like clockwork, whenever you feel like someone has the upper hand in any argument, you resort to personal insults. How typical.

-Polite

Your lack of understanding is not an argument.

I'm still waiting for you to make a point.  Or are you so destroyed I called you a moron?  See, if you weren't a moron, you'd have simply quoted me on what you didn't understand, and asked. Now you're wasting everyone's time because you're having an emotional reaction.

Either add to the conversation, ask me personally, or shut up.

Since your so knowledgeable, why not request your name be changed to SmartBoy instead of Smudboy. Smudboy just doesn't define your personality or maturity.
No no no. I'm not having an emotional reaction, your exhibiting symptoms of emotional insecurities. That's why you resort to personal insults, and statements about not understanding my point. It makes you feel better. It's ok to admit it. The signs are quite obvious, so no point in denying it.

-Polite

"You're"

I'm not insulting you.  I'm calling you a moron because you don't understand what you're doing.  If I've offended you, I apologize: I don't want you to be emotional, I want you to be rational and clear, because I do not understand what you're trying to say.

However, since you're using emoticons I can only assume you're being emotional.

So you win.  You're right.  I'm wrong.  There's nothing for us to say anymore.

Great. It's good that your facing your problem instead of running away from it. I'm proud of you smartboy. I really am.

-Polite

[McBeath]

@ Smudboy



Thanks for the clarification.



Cheers.

[Jaron Oberyn]

A little something to contribute. Once again, I have found another source to back up my claims that we won't get an entirely new squad in the third game, but keep the surviving members of the team with the exception of Thane.

IGN interviewing Casey Hudson wrote...

Our chat closed with talk about the challenges BioWare is facing in terms of delivering real choice to the player without letting the story spiral out of control.

"It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go.

That actually will be our goal with the whole trilogy. To take all of the things you've done in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 and then just let it go. Let it diverge into wildly different conclusions. That's the real fun of having played Mass Effect 1 and 2 and then going into the third one will be that you've set all of these things in motion and now we can let them diverge. I'm not worried that people will play it and think 'Oh well I missed all of this content that would have been different if I had made other choices' because what that does is make you interested in replaying it. The replay value of Mass Effect 1 was huge, but Mass Effect 2 is much more so and I think it just continues into the conclusion of the trilogy."

http://uk.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html


-Polite

[Zulu_DFA]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

A little something to contribute. Once again, I have found another source to back up my claims that we won't get an entirely new squad in the third game, but keep the surviving members of the team with the exception of Thane.

IGN interviewing Casey Hudson wrote...

Our chat closed with talk about the challenges BioWare is facing in terms of delivering real choice to the player without letting the story spiral out of control.

"It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go.

That actually will be our goal with the whole trilogy. To take all of the things you've done in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 and then just let it go. Let it diverge into wildly different conclusions. That's the real fun of having played Mass Effect 1 and 2 and then going into the third one will be that you've set all of these things in motion and now we can let them diverge. I'm not worried that people will play it and think 'Oh well I missed all of this content that would have been different if I had made other choices' because what that does is make you interested in replaying it. The replay value of Mass Effect 1 was huge, but Mass Effect 2 is much more so and I think it just continues into the conclusion of the trilogy."

http://uk.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html

-Polite

And this "source" backs your claims how? Exactly?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

A little something to contribute. Once again, I have found another source to back up my claims that we won't get an entirely new squad in the third game, but keep the surviving members of the team with the exception of Thane.

IGN interviewing Casey Hudson wrote...

Our chat closed with talk about the challenges BioWare is facing in terms of delivering real choice to the player without letting the story spiral out of control.

"It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go.

That actually will be our goal with the whole trilogy. To take all of the things you've done in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 and then just let it go. Let it diverge into wildly different conclusions. That's the real fun of having played Mass Effect 1 and 2 and then going into the third one will be that you've set all of these things in motion and now we can let them diverge. I'm not worried that people will play it and think 'Oh well I missed all of this content that would have been different if I had made other choices' because what that does is make you interested in replaying it. The replay value of Mass Effect 1 was huge, but Mass Effect 2 is much more so and I think it just continues into the conclusion of the trilogy."

http://uk.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html

-Polite

And this "source" backs your claims how? Exactly?

To me, it says that one of the people very involved in designing ME3 wants to carry forward impact from the events of previous games if saves are imported, and that he feels that they have a much freer hand to do so because it's the end of the trilogy and there's no fourth game to worry about impacting. 

And to me, who survived 1 and 2 as parts of your team would be a big part of that.

[Pulse-eater]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

A little something to contribute. Once again, I have found another source to back up my claims that we won't get an entirely new squad in the third game, but keep the surviving members of the team with the exception of Thane.

IGN interviewing Casey Hudson wrote...

Our chat closed with talk about the challenges BioWare is facing in terms of delivering real choice to the player without letting the story spiral out of control.

"It has to be one or the either. Either you really let people's choices have repercussion. Or, the choice doesn't really affect things and then things end up coming back together. As we're doing parts one and two, we have a really difficult challenge in terms of creating very different outcomes and yet being able to continue the story. The good thing about the third one will be that we no longer have that constraint and things can diverge as far as we can make them go.

That actually will be our goal with the whole trilogy. To take all of the things you've done in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 and then just let it go. Let it diverge into wildly different conclusions. That's the real fun of having played Mass Effect 1 and 2 and then going into the third one will be that you've set all of these things in motion and now we can let them diverge. I'm not worried that people will play it and think 'Oh well I missed all of this content that would have been different if I had made other choices' because what that does is make you interested in replaying it. The replay value of Mass Effect 1 was huge, but Mass Effect 2 is much more so and I think it just continues into the conclusion of the trilogy."

http://uk.xbox360.ig.../1055366p2.html


-Polite

That’s an important quote, but not because it has anything to do with them returning as squadmates. It doesn’t.

Basically it tells you exactly why they let everyone on the team be killed off in such an indiscriminate, seemingly stupid manner--They wanted wild divergency going into the next game.

Think Wrex/Wreav x 12 or whatever. Except presumably there will be actual tangible effects (consequences) for a living or dead former squadmate in the final game.

Doesn’t rule out squadmate continuity though. A cameo former squadmate could easily segway back into squadmate status if there is a baseline new squad providing the essentials. Easily doable, at least for a few characters, in my opinion.
That would also bring the consequences concept full circle...if there dead you don’t get them as a bonus squadmate...if you kept them alive you do.

Modifié par Pulse-eater, 18 août 2010 - 06:23 .