2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaron Oberyn]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.

Exactly. This quote explains why the squadmates were given cameos in the second game, and that they don't have that constriction for the third game.

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

Pulse-eater 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

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.

The reason I related this to squadmates is because thats the bulk of the "choices" in mass 2. Who dies and who doesn't. Depends on which role each squadmate is given in the suicide mission + loyalty missions. Those are 12 of the biggest choices in the game, aside from keeping the base, or destroying it, and a few of the loyalty mission outcomes.

-Polite

[Jamer21]

I see your still fighting the good fight Polite. Good luck

[Pulse-eater]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

The reason I related this to squadmates is because thats the bulk of the "choices" in mass 2. Who dies and who doesn't. Depends on which role each squadmate is given in the suicide mission + loyalty missions. Those are 12 of the biggest choices in the game, aside from keeping the base, or destroying it, and a few of the loyalty mission outcomes.

-Polite

Then, I think, we agree to this extent: The characters are irrelevant unless there are “repercussions” for them being dead or alive in the third game.

My point is that they do not necessary have to be continued squadmates to achieve this.

In fact, if you were, for example to continue them as squadmates with full squadmate placeholders there would not be a real consequence because the game simply provided the guy who got his squad killed with prefect replacements.

Modifié par Pulse-eater, 18 août 2010 - 09:24 .

[Sapienti]

Pulse-eater wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

The reason I related this to squadmates is because thats the bulk of the "choices" in mass 2. Who dies and who doesn't. Depends on which role each squadmate is given in the suicide mission + loyalty missions. Those are 12 of the biggest choices in the game, aside from keeping the base, or destroying it, and a few of the loyalty mission outcomes.

-Polite

Then, I think, we agree to this extent: The characters are irrelevant unless there are “repercussions” for them being dead or alive in the third game.

My point is that they do not necessary have to be continued squadmates to achieve this.

In fact, if you were, for example to continue them as squadmates with full squadmate placeholders there would not be a real consequence because the game simply provided the guy who got his squad killed with prefect replacements.

The reverse is also true. A character does not have to be a squadmate to be relevant just as much as a relevant person does not have to be a squadmate. The only difference in making them a squadmate is different conversations. Also, you don't need a place holder for every character, in fact, you only even need 5 characters in ME2 to begin with since you had doubles of characters. They can give you 5 brand new characters in ME3 and then 5 from ME2 as squadmates if you had them survive and the game would still be balanced, you could only gain, it wouldn't take away from anyone.

Anyway, what that quote seems to say is Bioware is very aware of the giant amount of variations they've enabled. So, like I said before, they saw it coming, if they decide something is worth it then they can do whatever they want with the squad and even have some big consequences for letting a character die, hell, they could have some heavily plot relevant things that they could punish you for if you let a person die. People still seem to be making the big assumption that they fully know what Bioware is capable of and what they're willing to do.

@Smudboy, I see you're still talking in circles. Really, you aren't making an argument, you're just questioning a sentence and then not bothering to form your own argument, you're repeating yourself almost every time you make a post, and you're posting one line responces to paragraphs. If you're really baffled when people tell you you aren't making sence, you may want to go read a book on arguing or something. It could help you come off as intelligent rather than a kid grasping at straws trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Pulse-eater wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

The reason I related this to squadmates is because thats the bulk of the "choices" in mass 2. Who dies and who doesn't. Depends on which role each squadmate is given in the suicide mission + loyalty missions. Those are 12 of the biggest choices in the game, aside from keeping the base, or destroying it, and a few of the loyalty mission outcomes.

-Polite

Then, I think, we agree to this extent: The characters are irrelevant unless there are “repercussions” for them being dead or alive in the third game.

My point is that they do not necessary have to be continued squadmates to achieve this.

In fact, if you were, for example to continue them as squadmates with full squadmate placeholders there would not be a real consequence because the game simply provided the guy who got his squad killed with prefect replacements.

I agree it doesn't mean it has to be squadmates, but the whole story of mass 2, the point of the game + the ending all lead to one conclusion - and that's that they will still be with you. Based on what Bioware's saying in the quote, they will have consequences for the decisions. Getting a squadmate killed will have a consequence, in example, not having them + no one to replace them. Thus your being crippled in the third game for the choice you made at the end of the second game. And so forth. 

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

Jamer21 wrote...

I see your still fighting the good fight Polite. Good luck

Thanks Jamer21. I make due with what I have so far. Hopefully in the coming months, more will be revealed, and this argument will be resolved. It's only a matter of time.

-Polite

[Pulse-eater]

Sapienti wrote...

... Also, you don't need a place holder for every character, in fact, you only even need 5 characters in ME2 to begin with since you had doubles of characters. They can give you 5 brand new characters in ME3 and then 5 from ME2 as squadmates if you had them survive and the game would still be balanced, you could only gain, it wouldn't take away from anyone.  ...

That was only an example of one (unlikely) scenario for those who may believe in the squad returning en masse. Apparently we agree however. As I have always considered a new baseline squad to be completely necessary, and adding to it (some) survivors to be the most plausible strategy for squadmate continuity.

The only major concern is maintaining the high quality of the continued survivors. One strategy which I have suggested, previously, is providing them with story/plot roles through cameos --to replace their character related (recruitment/loyalty) missions. A placeholder would fulfill their role if dead so that content is not missed by anyone. But the placeholder would not segway into squadmate status; the former squadmate would. So like you said a player “could only gain, it wouldn't take away from anyone.” Scripted and interchangeable class-based missions could also be used to this end.

Modifié par Pulse-eater, 18 août 2010 - 11:00 .

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
I agree it doesn't mean it has to be squadmates, but the whole story of mass 2, the point of the game + the ending all lead to one conclusion - and that's that they will still be with you. Based on what Bioware's saying in the quote, they will have consequences for the decisions. Getting a squadmate killed will have a consequence, in example, not having them + no one to replace them. Thus your being crippled in the third game for the choice you made at the end of the second game. And so forth. 

-Polite

Since the lowest number of squadmates that can survive to allow an import is 2 out of 12, you have to account for every variation of that up to 12 surviving.
Survive = Variations (# of deaths)
12 = 1 (all survive)
11 = 12 (1 die)
10 = 66 (2 die) (12 * 11/ 2)
9 = 55 (3 die) (11 * 10 / 2)
8 = 45 (4 die) (10 * 9 / 2)
7 = 36 (5 die) (9 * 8 / 2)
6 = 28 (6 die) (8 * 7 / 2)
5 = 21 (7 die) (7 * 6 / 2)
4 = 15 (8 die) (6 * 5 / 2)
3 = 10 (9 die) (5 * 4 / 2)
2 = 6 (10 die) (4 * 3 / 2)
=295 variations

Out of those 295 variations, only 1 has them all surviving.  The other 294 instances have at least 1 or more dying.

Modifié par smudboy, 18 août 2010 - 11:13 .

[Pulse-eater]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I agree it doesn't mean it has to be squadmates, but the whole story of mass 2, the point of the game + the ending all lead to one conclusion - and that's that they will still be with you. Based on what Bioware's saying in the quote, they will have consequences for the decisions. Getting a squadmate killed will have a consequence, in example, not having them + no one to replace them. Thus your being crippled in the third game for the choice you made at the end of the second game. And so forth. 

-Polite

Its true they have every reason in the world to still be around but Bioware can contrive the events between the end of ME2 and the beginning of ME3 to account for why they are gone. The same way the gimmick of destroying the Normandy and killing Shepard did the first time.

I can’t see Bioware ever letting a player be “crippled” as far as gameplay is concerned. Which is why there will (probably) be a new baseline squad to cover the essentials. Which will (hopefully) be joined by continued squadmate survivors.

[Pauravi]

smudboy wrote...

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.

But isn't this exactly what we agreed was plausible?  All such things can be included in a self-contained "package" that is activated contingent on whether the character is alive or not.  Plot-relevant dialogue isn't any different from non-plot-relevant dialogue, and not having it doesn't break the plot.  Even they have plot relevance -- for instance if Tali is needed to obtain peace between the Quarians and Geth -- NOT having them doesn't break the plot either, it only makes a certain outcome impossible.  In that sense they are integral to the plot, but not in a way that is contrived, or that makes it so that their absense makes the story implausible such that they require a placeholder.

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

So then are Wrex, Samara, Garrus, Thane, and Grunt all fluff to you?
Strictly speaking, they have no special importance to Shepard's goal specifically other than that they are only there to help Shepard through the last mission through force of arms.  If you consider that to be "supporting the protagonist", then no squadmate is fluff and this is a non-issue.  If this isn't enough, then you're making the statement that a majority of the characters in the story so far are fluff and poorly written.  You're entitled to your opinion, but a lot of people disagree with you.

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.

Sure, but as I pointed out above, it is possible to have a character be relevant to a particular important turn in the plot, without that part of the plot being completely necessary.  In fact, isn't that kind of the point of this 3-game journey?  To have multiple possible endings and plot directions that are contingent on how the previous 2 games turned out?  Making certain events contingent on the survival of certain characters seems to me to be a pretty fantastic way to do that.  Highly divergent plots is one of the things that Bioware has specifically talked about ME3 having.

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.

In your opinion.

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 thought we already agreed that it was perfectly plausible for optional characters to be plot-relevant?
As I have already reiterated several times, optional characters can have an effect on the plot through their absense or presence.  If X is alive then the plot goes one way, if they are dead then it goes another way.  In that way it is not necessary for them to be there for the plot to make sense, but if they are there then the plot takes a different turn and thus they become integral to the plot in that particular playthrough.

Your mistake is the assumption that a character cannot be both optional and important to the story.  The reason that it can be this way is because the story itself is not set in stone.

That's too contrived.  Why bring some characters back and some not, when they can all die?

The very simple answer is because some of the characters intended to leave anyway, even if they survived the mission.  Samara is a good example.  Having Mordin retire would also be a perfectly realistic thing to do; he is very old for a Salarian.  This isn't contrived, the groundwork has already been laid for it in the game.  It makes perfect sense in the context of their characters.

Anyway, I remain unconvinced that having old characters return as squadmates is implausible, and so far you've agreed with me as far as the technical details.  Your objection at this point seems to be mainly on the grounds of some tenuous, overly picky demands about what you consider to be good storytelling, none of which, in my view, preclude the sort of squadmate story-involvement that ME1 and ME2 have already displayed anyway.

Modifié par Pauravi, 18 août 2010 - 11:32 .

[smudboy]

Sapienti wrote...
@Smudboy, I see you're still talking in circles. Really, you aren't making an argument, you're just questioning a sentence and then not bothering to form your own argument, you're repeating yourself almost every time you make a post, and you're posting one line responces to paragraphs. If you're really baffled when people tell you you aren't making sence, you may want to go read a book on arguing or something. It could help you come off as intelligent rather than a kid grasping at straws trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about.

Again, quote me on what I write and then point out the flaws.  It's much easier then just telling me to go read a book, thanks.

[Pauravi]

Pulse-eater wrote...

I can’t see Bioware ever letting a player be “crippled” as far as gameplay is concerned. Which is why there will (probably) be a new baseline squad to cover the essentials. Which will (hopefully) be joined by continued squadmate survivors.

That's how I see it happening.
A few new squadmembers to make sure that the player has enough help, supplemented by surviving characters who may also, by their survival, open up new paths for the plot to take.  That will make it so that both the lifes and deaths of your ME1/2 squadmates are important, and rewarding those who did well in keeping their squads alive through both games, while still allowing every player to have success in the end (even if it is not the most optimal ending).

[glacier1701]

Bah - damn post didnt show and then it does show - see second post below.

Modifié par glacier1701, 18 août 2010 - 11:37 .

[glacier1701]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
I agree it doesn't mean it has to be squadmates, but the whole story of mass 2, the point of the game + the ending all lead to one conclusion - and that's that they will still be with you. Based on what Bioware's saying in the quote, they will have consequences for the decisions. Getting a squadmate killed will have a consequence, in example, not having them + no one to replace them. Thus your being crippled in the third game for the choice you made at the end of the second game. And so forth. 

-Polite

Since the lowest number of squadmates that can survive to allow an import is 2 out of 12, you have to account for every variation of that up to 12 surviving.
Survive = Variations (# of deaths)
12 = 1 (all survive)
11 = 12 (1 die)
10 = 66 (2 die) (12 * 11/ 2)
9 = 55 (3 die) (11 * 10 / 2)
8 = 45 (4 die) (10 * 9 / 2)
7 = 36 (5 die) (9 * 8 / 2)
6 = 28 (6 die) (8 * 7 / 2)
5 = 21 (7 die) (7 * 6 / 2)
4 = 15 (8 die) (6 * 5 / 2)
3 = 10 (9 die) (5 * 4 / 2)
2 = 6 (10 die) (4 * 3 / 2)
=295 variations

Out of those 295 variations, only 1 has them all surviving.  The other 294 instances have at least 1 or more dying.

Hmmm dont think those numbers are correct. Lets take the case of having just 2 survivors. That means 12*11 squad variations or 132 and not the 6 I see you list. My math for when 3 survive fails at this point - its been too long since I've done this math - but the maximum it could be is 12*11*10 = 1320. However while "abc" is different from "cab" in terms of squads it is not so the true number is less than 1320. Yet even so my poor math shows that we have more than 295 variations and we have not even accounted for larger squad sizes!! Perhaps someone can figure this out I know I cant and I liked math when I was in school.

[smudboy]

glacier1701 wrote...

Hmmm dont think those numbers are correct. Lets take the case of having just 2 survivors. That means 12*11 squad variations or 132 and not the 6 I see you list. My math for when 3 survive fails at this point - its been too long since I've done this math - but the maximum it could be is 12*11*10 = 1320. However while "abc" is different from "cab" in terms of squads it is not so the true number is less than 1320. Yet even so my poor math shows that we have more than 295 variations and we have not even accounted for larger squad sizes!! Perhaps someone can figure this out I know I cant and I liked math when I was in school.

Yes, you are correct, sir!  My apologies.  Did that much too quickly.

If # Survive
12 = (1) = 1 variation
11 = (12) = 12 variations
10 = ((12*11) / (2)) = 66 variations
9 = ((12*11*10) / (2*3) ) = 220 variations
8 = ((12*11*10*9) / (2*3*4)) = 495 variations
7 = ((12*11*10*9*8) / (2*3*4*5)) = 792 variations
6 = ((12*11*10*9*8*7) / (2*3*4*5*6)) = 924 variations
5 = ((12*11*10*9*8*7*6) / (2*3*4*5*6*7)) = 792 variations
4 = ((12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5) / (2*3*4*5*6*7*8)) = 495 variations
3 = ((12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5*4) / (2*3*4*5*6*7*8*9)) = 220 variations
2 = ((12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3) / (2*3*4*5*6*7*8*9*10)) = 66 variations

----
4083 variations

[xlavaina]

The numbers aren't relevant in this case. Bioware does not need to nor will they account for that many permutations. Mass Effect 1 and 2 had not relied heavily on squad interactions, and it will make no sense if Bioware changes this trend. It should be as simple as: "you have this squad member, or you don't". For example. Lets say Miranda died in your run. Maybe you'll get to chose another XO. Lets say Tali dies. Maybe Ken and Gabby will have something to say about it.



So really, the only practical choice Bioware has at this point is twelve optional dialog trees, one for each character, that are not necessary to interact with. Maybe they'll replace the ones that died with other new characters. Or maybe not.



I have read a few arguments that Bioware will likely replace the majority of the characters again. However, I personally don't think this will be the case. Bioware has always chose to design the deepest and most complex character possible. This is the basis for my argument that some of the more original characters from the second game will return, ie: Mordin, Legion, possibly Kasumi so that they can be further developed. Additionally, I personally really hope that Garrus and Tali return for the same reason, especially since they were in the first game as well.



But whatever, this is my opinion.

[Zulu_DFA]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.

Exactly. This quote explains why the squadmates were given cameos in the second game, and that they don't have that constriction for the third game.

-Polite

Exactly. You know, Assasin, who you remind me of? "Reverend" Fred Phelps. The dude who thinks that God punishes America for the sin of homosexuality through such events as soldiers' deaths in overseas action. And "to back up his claims" he has some fine quotes from the Bible to bring up as his "sources". Well, given that the Bible is the Word of God Himself, nobody can really argue with Fred. Same are you - a beliver, who obviously has "faith in BioWare". Just don't mix this "logic" of yours with the real one, OK? "Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est" (more commonly known as "Credo quia absurdum") must be your motto.

Seriously, though, just like every "source" you quote, it works both ways, and even more so against your claims. See, Casey actually points out that both ME1 and ME2 need to be hooked up into their respective sequels, which means that the sequels need to be designed in such a way that allows for that. Thus ME2 was designed to be largely the same no matter what were your choices in ME1. And the same goes to ME3 as it relates to ME2. It's the outcomes of ME3 that may (or still may not) have drastic differences due to everyone's choices, including those from ME1&2. Not the beginning. The beginning of ME3 will be a plot twist. In ME2 it was Shepard's "death", in ME3 it will be something else. A Shepard's trial, or a cryo sleep for a couple centures until the Reapers arrive (Ha! all characters die anyway but Liara), or a travel back through time, or any "half-assed" thing the writers come up with.

And again, as I point out in my Ah, yes... "BIG CHOICES"... OP, the choices regarding squadmates are not really big, because they are not affecting the Galaxy in any way. Even FDR's death had no bearing on the course of WWII (although it might have had some consequense for a couple of sites in Japan, but FDR and his "placeholder" were goddamn presidents, not random badass gunfighters!) If anything, what you call the "choices" in ME2, like whether or not upgrade the Normandy, who to send into the vents, etc., has already been accounted for in the very ME2's "suicide mission" - by party members deaths - and was never meant to have any further impact.

Also, in that thread of mine many people came up with quite reasonable argument, that BioWare won't build two or three games in one, just to make the choices matter. Neither they will punish any players for the "wrong" choices by cutting "their games" in half. So, there again, if the choices are to matter, they will matter only in the end of ME3, not in the beginning of it and not in the middle.

And what about this story with PS3 port? It seems Tali and Garrus have just offcially lost their "home field" advantage, don't you think? Which supports my opinion that NO ME2 SQUAD - not even Tali and Garrus - will be recruitable by default in ME3. Cameos - easily. DLC additional squadmates with a price tag and no reason to be in ME3 - possibly. So I bet it'll be a tough luck with your good fight, sorry, kid, lol, .

[Harley_Dude]

4083 variations! I hear some air leaking out of the 'keep all your squad' theories. I think DAO in space is sounding more plausible with cameos from each squad member saved when you visit their homeworld.

[smudboy]

[quote]Pauravi wrote...
But isn't this exactly what we agreed was plausible?  All such things can be included in a self-contained "package" that is activated contingent on whether the character is alive or not.  Plot-relevant dialogue isn't any different from non-plot-relevant dialogue, and not having it doesn't break the plot.  Even they have plot relevance -- for instance if Tali is needed to obtain peace between the Quarians and Geth -- NOT having them doesn't break the plot either, it only makes a certain outcome impossible.  In that sense they are integral to the plot, but not in a way that is contrived, or that makes it so that their absense makes the story implausible such that they require a placeholder.
[/quote]
For instance, if we have 12 fully fledged squadmates, and if 10 squadmates aren't available to the 2 surviving squadmate people, what takes place of all that content?  Nothing?  Are you assuming everyone becomes a fully fledged squadmate with placeholders for a fully fledged squadmate?  That's 2x the work.  That's like 2 ME2's in ME3, half of it completely optional.  That's the most unbelievable thing listed so far.

In your example the characters aren't integral: the placeholders are.  So it doesn't matter if it's Tali or some Quarian, Garrus or some Turian, etc.

[quote]
So then are Wrex, Samara, Garrus, Thane, and Grunt all fluff to you?
[/quote]
Yes.

[quote]
Strictly speaking, they have no special importance to Shepard's goal specifically other than that they are only there to help Shepard through the last mission through force of arms.  If you consider that to be "supporting the protagonist", then no squadmate is fluff and this is a non-issue.  If this isn't enough, then you're making the statement that a majority of the characters in the story so far are fluff and poorly written.  You're entitled to your opinion, but a lot of people disagree with you.
[/quote]
They don't have to be poorly written to be fluff.  They're fluff to the main plot.  They are merely a large dollup of icing which is 3x bigger than the cake it's on.

The support of the protagonist has to come in the form of some determined role.  For example, Thane's an assassin.  What is he going to assasinate?  The Collectors?  The Collector General?  Is there a sub plot of Thane planning such a plot to coincide with the main plot?  No, there isn't.  So is Thane supporting Shepard socially?  Is he causing Shepard to grow spiritually, to help him through some mental, emotional, ideological conflict?  Is he providing some kind of guidance or quest to help Shepard with his internal struggles?  How about watching Shepard's back, or constantly in the shadows looking for potential opponents, or using his contacts with the Hanar to progress the story?  No he isn't, nor anything like that.  Thane's just some guy, with his own problems, whose own story has nothing to do with the main plot.

[quote]
Sure, but as I pointed out above, it is possible to have a character be relevant to a particular important turn in the plot, without that part of the plot being completely necessary.  In fact, isn't that kind of the point of this 3-game journey?  To have multiple possible endings and plot directions that are contingent on how the previous 2 games turned out?  Making certain events contingent on the survival of certain characters seems to me to be a pretty fantastic way to do that.  Highly divergent plots is one of the things that Bioware has specifically talked about ME3 having.
[/quote]
Yes I agree.  I'm merely saying the more integral, the more value.

I don't know what tthe "point" of this 3 game journey is.  I don't know why it's in 3 parts, and I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen.  ME2 made darn sure of that.  The squad, save Mordin, that had 0 plot relevance in ME2, are suddenly now going to have relevance in ME3, and that they can all die?  Then it's a placeholder scenario.

[quote]
[quote]
Which is completely wrong.[/quote]
In your opinion.
[/quote]
Well why would you tell a framestory whose 12 other stories had nothing to do with the frame?  If this was The Yellow Rolls Royce, and Shepard was the Rolls Royce, and it's "Shepard's story" through the eyes or alternate stories of 12 other people, then I could buy it.  But it's not.  Aside from Mordin, it's "you'll get who you need," then "Let's go on a Suicide Mission!" and then a few levels from Unreal.

[quote]
I thought we already agreed that it was perfectly plausible for optional characters to be plot-relevant?
[/quote]
If they're placeholders.  Alternate outcomes of just that content don't make them plot relevant, they just make that relevant to that outcome (or however we define a scenario with multiple outcomes/endings.)

[quote]
As I have already reiterated several times, optional characters can have an effect on the plot through their absense or presence.  If X is alive then the plot goes one way, if they are dead then it goes another way.  In that way it is not necessary for them to be there for the plot to make sense, but if they are there then the plot takes a different turn and thus they become integral to the plot in that particular playthrough.
[/quote]
I know what you're saying, but ME2 doesn't do this at all.

[quote]
Your mistake is the assumption that a character cannot be both optional and important to the story.  The reason that it can be this way is because the story itself is not set in stone.
[/quote]
They can be important to one part of the story, that's for sure.  But we're talking fully fledged squadmates that can die.  It's like asking a writer to write up 12 plots.  It's like watching the original Clue and having "Or maybe it ended...like this...!" 12x.  Unless done elegantly simple in a purely scenic manner (cameos/cutscenes), it's too many variatious to contend.  BioWare can do characters and their individual, separate, static stories.  One giant dynamic one with multiple branches?

[quote]
The very simple answer is because some of the characters intended to leave anyway, even if they survived the mission.  Samara is a good example.  Having Mordin retire would also be a perfectly realistic thing to do; he is very old for a Salarian.  This isn't contrived, the groundwork has already been laid for it in the game.  It makes perfect sense in the context of their characters.
[/quote]
Character intentions are irrelevant.  Individual character context is also irrelevant, when their ultimate context is death.

[quote]
Anyway, I remain unconvinced that having old characters return as squadmates is implausible, and so far you've agreed with me as far as the technical details.  Your objection at this point seems to be mainly on the grounds of some tenuous, overly picky demands about what you consider to be good storytelling, none of which, in my view, preclude the sort of squadmate story-involvement that ME1 and ME2 have already displayed anyway.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it's implausible.  I'm saying as fully fledged squadmates, it's insane.

Good storytelling is simple. succinct, and clear.  You don't pull Chekov's gun on 12 completely optional characters that may/may not have any content whatsoever/potentially have 12 placeholders, and expect it to be feasible, let alone any good.  Again, if BioWare can do it, I would be impressed, but I can't see it happening.  I'm expecting cameos, love interest cameos, and maybe some placeholders, but definitely not fully fledged squadmates.

Modifié par smudboy, 19 août 2010 - 01:38 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Exactly. You know, Assasin, who you remind me of? "Reverend" Fred Phelps. The dude who thinks that God punishes America for the sin of homosexuality through such events as soldiers' deaths in overseas action. And "to back up his claims" he has some fine quotes from the Bible to bring up as his "sources". Well, given that the Bible is the Word of God Himself, nobody can really argue with Fred. ..

Uncalled for and baseless comparison. 

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Exactly. You know, Assasin, who you remind me of? "Reverend" Fred Phelps. The dude who thinks that God punishes America for the sin of homosexuality through such events as soldiers' deaths in overseas action. And "to back up his claims" he has some fine quotes from the Bible to bring up as his "sources". Well, given that the Bible is the Word of God Himself, nobody can really argue with Fred. ..

Uncalled for and baseless comparison. 

Really? Well, there is a chance that Phelps is out for the money and lulz, so this comparison to a true believer isn't to his credit...

Anyway, I suggest we wait for what PoliteAssasin has to answer, and don't keep trying to play an attorney for him, at least until he drops his stance at bragging of "solid evidence" when all he can come up with in the terms of interpretation to Casey Hudson's long and widely known interviews falls in the category of "far-fetched" (and that me being generous here).

[David Knight]

So then are Wrex, Samara, Garrus, Thane, and Grunt all fluff to you?

Smud- Yes.

Me- Well, then it's easy to see why you disliked ME2. I happen to like characters more than plot, but your opinion is justified. Some people like plot more than characters. I DO think the majority likes characters more, though, because if the opposite were true, Star Wars would never have been a success.




Smud- They don't have to be poorly written to be fluff.  They're fluff to the main plot.  They are merely a large dollup of icing which is 3x bigger than the cake it's on.

The support of the protagonist has to come in the form of some determined role.  For example, Thane's an assassin.  What is he going to assasinate?  The Collectors?  The Collector General?  Is there a sub plot of Thane planning such a plot to coincide with the main plot?  No, there isn't.  So is Thane supporting Shepard socially?  Is he causing Shepard to grow spiritually, to help him through some mental, emotional, ideological conflict?  Is he providing some kind of guidance or quest to help Shepard with his internal struggles?  How about watching Shepard's back, or constantly in the shadows looking for potential opponents, or using his contacts with the Hanar to progress the story?  No he isn't, nor anything like that.  Thane's just some guy, with his own problems, whose own story has nothing to do with the main plot.

Me- I agree that Thane and Kasumi have no business being on a suicie mission where assassination has no purpose. I ignore that, though, because I can also ignore that magic pixie dust allows starships to move faster than light. It's a common phenomenon called, "Suspension of Disbelief", and it allows most people to enjoy stories more. Try it if you like. If you're not into that sort of thing, that's okay. You are more than entitled to your opinions.




Smud's opponent- Sure, but as I pointed out above, it is possible to have a character be relevant to a particular important turn in the plot, without that part of the plot being completely necessary.  In fact, isn't that kind of the point of this 3-game journey?  To have multiple possible endings and plot directions that are contingent on how the previous 2 games turned out?  Making certain events contingent on the survival of certain characters seems to me to be a pretty fantastic way to do that.  Highly divergent plots is one of the things that Bioware has specifically talked about ME3 having.

Smud-Yes I agree.  I'm merely saying the more integral, the more value.

I don't know what tthe "point" of this 3 game journey is.  I don't know why it's in 3 parts, and I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen.  ME2 made darn sure of that.  The squad, save Mordin, that had 0 plot relevance in ME2, are suddenly now going to have relevance in ME3, and that they can all die?  Then it's a placeholder scenario.

Me- Okay, but Gimli from Lord of the Rings doesn't have much plot value after suggesting the Fellowship travel to Moria. After that he swings his axe. He's still popular. Or Legolas. Does he have any plot relevance? No. Still a fan favorite.

How about Chewbacca or C3-P0? They're there to provide comic relief and immerison in Lucas' universe. Still important, and liked well enough. Plot relevance does not, in most people's opinions, matter more than simple likeablity of the character.


Smud- Which is completely wrong.

Opponent- In your opinion.

Smud- Well why would you tell a framestory whose 12 other stories had nothing to do with the frame?  If this was The Yellow Rolls Royce, and Shepard was the Rolls Royce, and it's "Shepard's story" through the eyes or alternate stories of 12 other people, then I could buy it.  But it's not.  Aside from Mordin, it's "you'll get who you need," then "Let's go on a Suicide Mission!" and then a few levels from Unreal.

Me- You would tell such a story because you believed people would appreciate the story for its characters. Plenty of people did, and Bioware made money.




Opponent- As I have already reiterated several times, optional characters can have an effect on the plot through their absense or presence.  If X is alive then the plot goes one way, if they are dead then it goes another way.  In that way it is not necessary for them to be there for the plot to make sense, but if they are there then the plot takes a different turn and thus they become integral to the plot in that particular playthrough.

Smud- I know what you're saying, but ME2 doesn't do this at all.

Me- Mass Effect 2 is the middle story, not the finale. Wait until the crux and see what happens... if my argument means anything at all and the squaddies do come back, of course. I could be completely wrong and Bioware deserves to be put on a pikestaff, heheh.




Opponent- Your mistake is the assumption that a character cannot be both optional and important to the story.  The reason that it can be this way is because the story itself is not set in stone.

Smud- They can be important to one part of the story, that's for sure.  But we're talking fully fledged squadmates that can die.  It's like asking a writer to write up 12 plots.  It's like watching the original Clue and having "Or maybe it ended...like this...!" 12x.  Unless done elegantly simple in a purely scenic manner (cameos/cutscenes), it's too many variatious to contend.  BioWare can do characters and their individual, separate, static stories.  One giant dynamic one with multiple branches?

Me- Now it's just an argument of optimism versus pessimism. If you believe Bioware is up to the task, you are on my side. If not, then you are on your side. Again, it's all opinion. We'll know who's right soon enough.





Opponent- The very simple answer is because some of the characters intended to leave anyway, even if they survived the mission.  Samara is a good example.  Having Mordin retire would also be a perfectly realistic thing to do; he is very old for a Salarian.  This isn't contrived, the groundwork has already been laid for it in the game.  It makes perfect sense in the context of their characters.

Smud- Character intentions are irrelevant.  Individual character context is also irrelevant, when their ultimate context is death.

Me- ...But... it's not irrelevant. Not when you're telling a personal story like Mass Effect 2 or LOST. When the story is about the characters, or even if the story is about a great crisis, character intention and personal goals and history is very important, because if you don't care about the characters, why read the story? Why do you care if the main hero dies if he was boring and didn't capture your interest? Why do you care if the protagonist's daughter dies? Why do you care if he defeated the villain?

Why would you care if Luke defeated Vader if Luke was the most boring and uninteresting character imagineable?



Smud- I'm not saying it's implausible.  I'm saying as fully fledged squadmates, it's insane.

Me- In your opinion. Bioware may surprise you. You know, because they are the ones with the money, development team, and (hopefully) willing to give us a great conclusion.





Smud- Good storytelling is simple. succinct, and clear.  You don't pull Chekov's gun on 12 completely optional characters that may/may not have any content whatsoever/potentially have 12 placeholders, and expect it to be feasible, let alone any good.  Again, if BioWare can do it, I would be impressed, but I can't see it happening.  I'm expecting cameos, love interest cameos, and maybe some placeholders, but definitely not fully fledged squadmates.

Me- Really? I didn't know you were a professional writer.
Sarcasm aside, there are plenty of comples stories with many layers that are great. Lord of the Rings isn't simple. Neither is many of Shakespeare. Do you think Shakespeare was a bad writer? Or Hawthorne? Or Earnest Hemingway? None of their stories are simple. None of them at all. And very few of them are clear until you analyze them.


Edit- couldn't figure out the quote thing, so I used simple markers to show who was talking. Sorry.

Modifié par David Knight, 19 août 2010 - 03:29 .

[xlavaina]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
not even Tali and Garrus

I will probably not buy the game if this happens. To me these two have been the embodiment of the ME universe, they're my two de facto squad members. Besides I doubt Bioware would take the two most popular characters out of the game. Especially since both are fiercely loyal to Shepard (Garrus has nowhere else to go and wants to destroy the Reapers as much as Shepard, and Tali also has nowhere else to go, she has no family and is now officially part of the Normandy crew, it would make no sense for them to leave). Taking them out would make no sense from a plot standpoint.

Modifié par xlavaina, 19 août 2010 - 03:25 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

They damn well better give a good excuse if they decide to get out of the squad any of these four characters in ME3: Garrus, Legion, Jacob or Miranda. The others I can think a plausible excuse myself.