xlavaina wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
not even Tali and Garrus
the embodiment of the ME universe
Yeah, chicken legs and calibrations...
You do understand that to a casual PS3 user these two will be the most dull of the ME2 squaddies?
Squad Composition of ME3- A discussion
Débuté par
Bluko
, juil. 07 2010 07:47
#1451
Posté 19 août 2010 - 03:48
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Yeah, chicken legs and calibrations...
You do understand that to a casual PS3 user these two will be the most dull of the ME2 squaddies?
Retour en haut
#1452
Posté 19 août 2010 - 04:24
Sapienti
-
- Members
- 270 messages
smudboy wrote...
Yes, you are correct, sir! My apologies. Did that much too quickly.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.
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
This makes it just seem like you're trying to hide behind a big number like so many staticians tend to do without even trying to elaborate on how these can be significant. This does not build a strong argument. It will fool some of the dumb/simple who see it and just say "Well that number is huge, he's arguing on X side, so it must be significant haha!" and you'll also get some other people to just get behind a figure without really understanding it. It might make you feel good, but it doesn't really help a case at all to anyone bothering to even look at a number and determine what it is.
This is the same sort of math that went into ...whatever the game was that claimed to have millions of different guns when they were just variations and combinations used to count as different things. You're looking at it all wrong. Rather than try to find how many different possibilities there are for death you'd be better off if you just looked at the resulting squad. People are going to have this character alive or this one or this one dead etc. Then you're left with either they have dialogue or they don't. Its that simple. Sure there are tons of variations of who can die. But what does it matter? Bioware doesn't need to take into account every possible aspect of a characters death. Like I said you can either experience it or you don't. Not to mention Bioware can decide two out of the 10 characters of ME2 (not counting DLC here) can be important and then cut variations of story importance down by a lot. Or 3 out of 10 etc etc. Again you're making things seem daunting by putting importance that isn't there and never was there onto tasks that don't even need to be.
Someone brings that point up and your answer is "we didn't see that in ME2" we're not talking about ME2 we're talking about ME3. Want to use a previous game as an example of the future? Doesn't work that way either because ME2 was vastly different to ME1 and while it may not be as big a step they can still do more than what you are familiar with.
Anyway, aside from different variations of death being almost irrelevant, think about the probability of some of them, aside from people purposely going for only two survivors, what are the chances people really suck that much?
#1453
Posté 19 août 2010 - 04:27
Sapienti
-
- Members
- 270 messages
Zulu_DFA wrote...
xlavaina wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
not even Tali and Garrus
the embodiment of the ME universe
Yeah, chicken legs and calibrations...
You do understand that to a casual PS3 user these two will be the most dull of the ME2 squaddies?
Garrus? Hardly, he's simply badass even if you are casual. Just because they're not going to know who he was from the first game doesn't mean they're going to find him boring. Out of ME2 squad members I think Jacob would be really dull (and I know a lot of people who'd agree), and he's newly introduced since that seems to matter so much to some people. Garrus is a cool looking alien with a sniper rifle, an attitude and a reputation for taking on tough odds and coming out on top.
#1454
Posté 19 août 2010 - 04:36
Pauravi
-
- Members
- 1 989 messages
If youy do, that's because you completely misunderstand the argument.The Harley Dude wrote...
4083 variations! I hear some air leaking out of the 'keep all your squad' theories.
The number of permutations is totally irrelevant. Each squad member can simply be a self-contained "package" of every possible interaction or dialogue that they have with the story and with other characters. Removing that character removes all of that content, regardless of who else is there. The number of possible combinations of different squad members is a meaningless red herring.
#1455
Posté 19 août 2010 - 04:43
Throw_this_away
-
- Members
- 1 020 messages
I used to convince myself that LI's from ME1/2 would return as squadmates... but now I don't think so. I agree on the plot-centric cameos.
I did convince myself that all surviving characters from ME2 would be in ME3 (if they died in ME2... too bad), but given the "new characters" comment, adding more to the list would be a bad idea (spreading content too thin).
Still, I hope that my fav characters (Zaeed, Miranda, Legion, Ash/Kaiden) return as squadmates in ME3.
I did convince myself that all surviving characters from ME2 would be in ME3 (if they died in ME2... too bad), but given the "new characters" comment, adding more to the list would be a bad idea (spreading content too thin).
Still, I hope that my fav characters (Zaeed, Miranda, Legion, Ash/Kaiden) return as squadmates in ME3.
#1456
Posté 19 août 2010 - 04:46
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Sapienti wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
xlavaina wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
not even Tali and Garrus
the embodiment of the ME universe
Yeah, chicken legs and calibrations...
You do understand that to a casual PS3 user these two will be the most dull of the ME2 squaddies?
Garrus? Hardly, he's simply badass even if you are casual. Just because they're not going to know who he was from the first game doesn't mean they're going to find him boring. Out of ME2 squad members I think Jacob would be really dull (and I know a lot of people who'd agree), and he's newly introduced since that seems to matter so much to some people. Garrus is a cool looking alien with a sniper rifle, an attitude and a reputation for taking on tough odds and coming out on top.
Hmmm... Looks like you've never played ME1, and can't possibly be biased in this matter, so I'll take your word for it. However, if you didn't specify that it's Garrus and an alien you were talking about, I'd swear that you meant Zaeed.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 19 août 2010 - 04:55 .
#1457
Posté 19 août 2010 - 04:53
Sapienti
-
- Members
- 270 messages
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. 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,.
Really, it sounds like your arguments are take on less and less strength everytime you form a new one. Which is sad because unlike Smud you were making a good argument for the other side. If it keeps up, I'm going to take your spot and just argue for that side a bit more clearly.
It seems like you've spent too long talking about this topic. So much so that you've begun to take peoples opinions as infallible fact or something. "In that thread of mine people came up with [this]...So, there again, if the choices are to matter, they will only matter in the end..." because these people in this thread came to that conclusion. Sure, you got some people to agree with you, but that doesn't give your argument any more credence. If anybody is going to sound like some televangelist dude I don't know, it would be you with your congregation of believers lmao. You see what I mean? Don't take it offensively, I'm just pointing out holes I see so you can correct them in your next post. Something isn't logical or likely just because a large majority of people agree on it. If that were the case, we'd still have college professors doing cocaine recreationally because its such a wonderful way to relax and makes the weak strong, the strong relaxed, the stupid eloquent and the mind rested.
Bioware doesn't need to make two games in one to account for every squadmember dead. They just need to have a base game and reward the player for surviving characters. The best example is Tali and the Quarians, if you the player has Tali alive, you get Quarian support for ME3. If she's dead, Kal Reegar can be your go to guy but it could be harder to do. Similar to using the paragon dialogue option or the crowd work over. The placeholders people love to talk about so much don't need to be squadmates, they can just as easily be NPCs, same way squadmates don't need to return as squadmates, they can come back as cameos/npcs.
ME2 opened that way because it was more or less a fresh start in the middle of a trilogy. They wanted to give people who hadn't touched their Mass Effect in ages a chance that was in the storyline, to change their features if they wanted to as well as change their class to something new. I expect we'll see something similar since we're most likely getting new classes, but I doubt it'll be as drastic as Shepard dying, I'd expect some new tech that gives a person biotics or amplifies what they've already got, they don't need some giant plot twist no matter how much you, and your other thread you speak of so fondly, seem to believe. Also, ME1 to ME2 had a big ass two year gap. They're expecting a smaller one and I personally doubt that we're going to have another big time gap plot twist at the beginning of ME3. Also it can be argued that they weren't ready to account for every single choice tossed into ME1 for ME2 due to development changes, time, restrictions, etc and that ME3 is going to have a larger focus on choices made in ME2. I don't just mean choices with squad members because as you say, you see the result of that in the same game. I'm talking about side missions done and the effects of living or dying. All of these don't need to affect the galaxy and can be reduced to dialogue trees being available or not. Which would mean players would get a similar gameplay experience, just you'd have some with less characters than others.
As for PS3, its probably the only truly dumb thing in your post. Mass Effect is a story being told. A writer writing a novel isn't going to rewrite his 7th volume just because the italian translation only goes as far back as the third. He's going to keep doing what he's doing and not purposely compromise his own creativity. You can argue this for Garrus and Tali's case if you think they need a home field advantage in the form of a console iteration. Fact is they don't, in the ME canon they're there from the beginning.
#1458
Posté 19 août 2010 - 04:55
Sapienti
-
- Members
- 270 messages
Zulu_DFA wrote...
Sapienti wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
xlavaina wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
not even Tali and Garrus
the embodiment of the ME universe
Yeah, chicken legs and calibrations...
You do understand that to a casual PS3 user these two will be the most dull of the ME2 squaddies?
Garrus? Hardly, he's simply badass even if you are casual. Just because they're not going to know who he was from the first game doesn't mean they're going to find him boring. Out of ME2 squad members I think Jacob would be really dull (and I know a lot of people who'd agree), and he's newly introduced since that seems to matter so much to some people. Garrus is a cool looking alien with a sniper rifle, an attitude and a reputation for taking on tough odds and coming out on top.
Hmmm... Looks like you've never played ME1, and can't possibly be biased in this matter, so I'll take your word for it. However, if you didn't specifie that it's Garrus and an alien you were talking about, I'd swear that you meant Zaeed.
Nah I played ME1 (thrice) so I am biased about it. But its just a fact, Mass Effect is a sci fi series. Why axe a perfectly good alien? Zaeed is cool and all, but Turians are cooler.
#1459
Posté 19 août 2010 - 05:00
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Sapienti wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
Sapienti wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
xlavaina wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
not even Tali and Garrus
the embodiment of the ME universe
Yeah, chicken legs and calibrations...
You do understand that to a casual PS3 user these two will be the most dull of the ME2 squaddies?
Garrus? Hardly, he's simply badass even if you are casual. Just because they're not going to know who he was from the first game doesn't mean they're going to find him boring. Out of ME2 squad members I think Jacob would be really dull (and I know a lot of people who'd agree), and he's newly introduced since that seems to matter so much to some people. Garrus is a cool looking alien with a sniper rifle, an attitude and a reputation for taking on tough odds and coming out on top.
Hmmm... Looks like you've never played ME1, and can't possibly be biased in this matter, so I'll take your word for it. However, if you didn't specify that it's Garrus and an alien you were talking about, I'd swear that you meant Zaeed.
Nah I played ME1 (thrice) so I am biased about it. But its just a fact, Mass Effect is a sci fi series. Why axe a perfectly good alien? Zaeed is cool and all, but Turians are cooler.
I'm not so sure... I just mean, that with more people buying ME2 as their first ME installment, without so much as chance to go back to ME1, the fav character ratings will even out somewhat.
Sapienti wrote...
you've begun to take peoples opinions as infallible fact or something. "In that thread of mine people came up with [this]...So, there again, if the choices are to matter, they will only matter in the end..." because these people in this thread came to that conclusion. Sure, you got some people to agree with you, but that doesn't give your argument any more credence.
Actually, those people were sort of my opponents in that thread.
I'm all for epic cameos for all the ME2 squaddies (and many other NPCs). I argue that an attempt to "bring them back" as squadmates in ME3 will land anywhere between "lame" and "total disaster". That said, my best Quarian friend is Admiral vas Quib-Quib, and I expect to be fully "rewarded" for playing pacifist even though I got some random Quarian (which Tali is) killed on the "suicide mission".Sapienti wrote...
Bioware doesn't need to make two games in one to account for every squadmember dead. They just need to have a base game and reward the player for surviving characters. The best example is Tali and the Quarians, if you the player has Tali alive, you get Quarian support for ME3. If she's dead, Kal Reegar can be your go to guy but it could be harder to do. Similar to using the paragon dialogue option or the crowd work over. The placeholders people love to talk about so much don't need to be squadmates, they can just as easily be NPCs, same way squadmates don't need to return as squadmates, they can come back as cameos/npcs.
Two words: Ret & Con. We've seen it in ME2 already with the thermal ammo. And it was even more lame as the writers tried to mask it as not being one. There also was minor retconning concerning... who could have thought... Garrus and Tali, since there was little to no reflection of several variants of Shepard's interaction with them in ME1. But that's not nearly as much retconning (or ignoring continuity) as will be necessary to facilitate for example Tali's return as squadmate in ME3.Sapienti wrote...
A writer writing a novel isn't going to rewrite his 7th volume just because the italian translation only goes as far back as the third. He's going to keep doing what he's doing and not purposely compromise his own creativity.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 19 août 2010 - 05:39 .
#1460
Posté 19 août 2010 - 06:10
Pauravi
-
- Members
- 1 989 messages
[quote]smudboy wrote...
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?[/quote]
This is worded kind of awkwardly so I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you're asking "If 10 squad members are dead, where does their content go?" then yes. Nothing. You don't see it on that particular playthrough. Just as you don't see the content if you choose not to recruit someone in ME1 or ME2, or if you skip loyalty missions, or whatever. If you want to see different content, import a different save.
Also, no, it wouldn't be anything like 2 ME2's.
Since it seems fairly clear that ME3 is not going to revolve around recruitment and loyalty, I don't expect that the number of squadmates that you have is going to heavily influence the number of assignments or missions you do. In ME2 almost all the content revolves around the characters, and so each character carries with them an inordinate amount of the gameplay. But then, look at ME1. You could choose to never recruit Wrex at all -- how much content would you have missed out on? Not much, beyond his dialogue and one rather simplistic mission. I suspect that the amount of actual content that depends entirely on the presence of a particular character will be
pretty small.
[quote]Are you assuming everyone becomes a fully fledged squadmate with placeholders for a fully fledged squadmate?[/quote]
No.
I've said nothing of "placeholders". It is your assumption that they will be there -- that they need to be there. I really don't see it as necessary, and I don't think Bioware is going to make "placeholder" characters. They like developing their characters too much -- if they design a new one, they will be in the game.
[quote]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]
False.
Tali needs to be Tali -- it is her connection to you, and perhaps to Legion, that makes her unique and gives her influence over the situation. As I said, I've never mentioned placeholder characters. I don't think they're necessary, and I don't think Bioware will make them.
[quote][quote]
So then are Wrex, Samara, Garrus, Thane, and Grunt all fluff to you?
[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
And yet, they exist.
This doesn't do much to support your arguments for why Bioware won't bring back characters simply because they aren't "plot-integral".
You've got entire arguments for why they're not bringing old squadmates back that hinge on the idea that they won't do it because it would be impossible to integrate them into the plot since they can die in ME2. And yet, they already have a whole host of characters that are not tightly integrated into the plot, so clearly this isn't a concern to them. It doesn't appear to be a concern to anyone, in fact, other than yourself.
[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.[/quote]
I think you're the only one who cares. The rest of us like the taste of a very well-made frosting.
Besides, at this point you've all but admitted that the Mass Effect writers are perfectly willing to write in characters who are just "fluff". Since you've also admitted that it is perfectly plausible that they could bring back old characters in fluffy roles, I really don't see how your argument that they won't do it has any ground to stand on.
[quote]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]
So, by the logic you're applying to ME3, Thane shouldn't have existed in ME2. Yet, obviously, he does.
In other words, this is a good explanation for why you don't like the character.
However, this is a very poor argument for why he (or any other "fluff" character) will not appear in ME3.
[quote]
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]
Are you not understanding what I'm saying, or what?
I'm saying that the characters presence OR absense are both equally plot-relevant. This is an ANTI-placeholder scenario.
If Legion is alive, A happens.
If Legion is dead, B happens.
Replacing him with some new character that has the same function serves no purpose except to eliminate option B, which also eliminates the plot point that hinges on your ability to keep them alive. Or, if the placeholder doesn't eliminate option B then he serves no purpose at all, and no placeholder need be made in the first place.
[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]
An exceedingly poor characterization of ME2, from my view.
I don't see anything wrong with a character-driven story. You're so very focused on your preference in plots, and clearly so upset by the way ME2 played out, that I'm frankly surprised that you're here discussing this at all. One wonders why you spend so much time and energy talking about a game that you obviously have a lot of contempt for.
[quote][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]
Uh, a scenario with multiple outcomes/endings is still part of the plot.
However that scenario turns out, it is part of the plot for that playthrough. You don't need a placeholder unless you're insisting that the characters will fulfill some function in the plot that requires them to be there. But, as you've just spent a significant amount of time explaining, many of Mass Effect's characters do no such thing. Why you're arguing that they will in ME3 is beyond me.
[quote][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]
So what? Aren't we talking about ME3?
I'm responding to your idea that they won't include old squadmates because it is impossible to integrate them into the plot since they can die. I'm saying that there is a very simple way to integrate their alive/dead status into the way that the game unfolds, and thus, the fact that they may or may not be dead is just not that big a problem.
[quote][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]
No, it isn't anything like 12 separate plots, and it isn't anything like a hugely branched tree. You're thinking of it in a much too complicated fashion. The plot is less like a tree and more like a chain with interchangable links. Which links you can add or subtract will depend on who is with you and what choices you make.
Think of it more like the ending of Dragon Age (I'm assuming you've played and finished it). What you do during the game -- the point of your quest, and the steps you go through to finish it -- never changes, no matter what choices you make or who you choose to come along with you. However, the outcome you obtain can change drastically based on the choices that you make along the way and the things that happened during the adventure.
For instance, whether Tali is alive or dead doesn't change the fact that you'll need to ask the Quarians for help. You'll need to go to the migrant fleet either way. But the outcome of that meeting may hinge on whether Tali survived or not. Perhaps that will make the difference between the Quarians being destroyed in an attack on the Geth, the Quarians standing and fighting from their floatilla, or the Quarians reaching an accord with the Geth and having a homeworld to fight from. You still have to make the same series of choices no matter who is alive or dead. But the presence or absence of a character may have a large influence on the outcome of those choices.
Of course this means that any given playthrough is not necessarily going to use quite a bit of content. However, Bioware themselves have said that with ME3, they don't have to try and connect it to a next story, and so they can have wildly diverging scenarios in the plot. If they're truly considering that, then there is no way that they could NOT have significant content that is inaccessable given certain sets of circumstances. You can call it unrealistic if you like -- I'm just taking Bioware at their word.
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?[/quote]
This is worded kind of awkwardly so I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you're asking "If 10 squad members are dead, where does their content go?" then yes. Nothing. You don't see it on that particular playthrough. Just as you don't see the content if you choose not to recruit someone in ME1 or ME2, or if you skip loyalty missions, or whatever. If you want to see different content, import a different save.
Also, no, it wouldn't be anything like 2 ME2's.
Since it seems fairly clear that ME3 is not going to revolve around recruitment and loyalty, I don't expect that the number of squadmates that you have is going to heavily influence the number of assignments or missions you do. In ME2 almost all the content revolves around the characters, and so each character carries with them an inordinate amount of the gameplay. But then, look at ME1. You could choose to never recruit Wrex at all -- how much content would you have missed out on? Not much, beyond his dialogue and one rather simplistic mission. I suspect that the amount of actual content that depends entirely on the presence of a particular character will be
pretty small.
[quote]Are you assuming everyone becomes a fully fledged squadmate with placeholders for a fully fledged squadmate?[/quote]
No.
I've said nothing of "placeholders". It is your assumption that they will be there -- that they need to be there. I really don't see it as necessary, and I don't think Bioware is going to make "placeholder" characters. They like developing their characters too much -- if they design a new one, they will be in the game.
[quote]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]
False.
Tali needs to be Tali -- it is her connection to you, and perhaps to Legion, that makes her unique and gives her influence over the situation. As I said, I've never mentioned placeholder characters. I don't think they're necessary, and I don't think Bioware will make them.
[quote][quote]
So then are Wrex, Samara, Garrus, Thane, and Grunt all fluff to you?
[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
And yet, they exist.
This doesn't do much to support your arguments for why Bioware won't bring back characters simply because they aren't "plot-integral".
You've got entire arguments for why they're not bringing old squadmates back that hinge on the idea that they won't do it because it would be impossible to integrate them into the plot since they can die in ME2. And yet, they already have a whole host of characters that are not tightly integrated into the plot, so clearly this isn't a concern to them. It doesn't appear to be a concern to anyone, in fact, other than yourself.
[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.[/quote]
I think you're the only one who cares. The rest of us like the taste of a very well-made frosting.
Besides, at this point you've all but admitted that the Mass Effect writers are perfectly willing to write in characters who are just "fluff". Since you've also admitted that it is perfectly plausible that they could bring back old characters in fluffy roles, I really don't see how your argument that they won't do it has any ground to stand on.
[quote]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]
So, by the logic you're applying to ME3, Thane shouldn't have existed in ME2. Yet, obviously, he does.
In other words, this is a good explanation for why you don't like the character.
However, this is a very poor argument for why he (or any other "fluff" character) will not appear in ME3.
[quote]
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]
Are you not understanding what I'm saying, or what?
I'm saying that the characters presence OR absense are both equally plot-relevant. This is an ANTI-placeholder scenario.
If Legion is alive, A happens.
If Legion is dead, B happens.
Replacing him with some new character that has the same function serves no purpose except to eliminate option B, which also eliminates the plot point that hinges on your ability to keep them alive. Or, if the placeholder doesn't eliminate option B then he serves no purpose at all, and no placeholder need be made in the first place.
[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]
An exceedingly poor characterization of ME2, from my view.
I don't see anything wrong with a character-driven story. You're so very focused on your preference in plots, and clearly so upset by the way ME2 played out, that I'm frankly surprised that you're here discussing this at all. One wonders why you spend so much time and energy talking about a game that you obviously have a lot of contempt for.
[quote][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]
Uh, a scenario with multiple outcomes/endings is still part of the plot.
However that scenario turns out, it is part of the plot for that playthrough. You don't need a placeholder unless you're insisting that the characters will fulfill some function in the plot that requires them to be there. But, as you've just spent a significant amount of time explaining, many of Mass Effect's characters do no such thing. Why you're arguing that they will in ME3 is beyond me.
[quote][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]
So what? Aren't we talking about ME3?
I'm responding to your idea that they won't include old squadmates because it is impossible to integrate them into the plot since they can die. I'm saying that there is a very simple way to integrate their alive/dead status into the way that the game unfolds, and thus, the fact that they may or may not be dead is just not that big a problem.
[quote][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]
No, it isn't anything like 12 separate plots, and it isn't anything like a hugely branched tree. You're thinking of it in a much too complicated fashion. The plot is less like a tree and more like a chain with interchangable links. Which links you can add or subtract will depend on who is with you and what choices you make.
Think of it more like the ending of Dragon Age (I'm assuming you've played and finished it). What you do during the game -- the point of your quest, and the steps you go through to finish it -- never changes, no matter what choices you make or who you choose to come along with you. However, the outcome you obtain can change drastically based on the choices that you make along the way and the things that happened during the adventure.
For instance, whether Tali is alive or dead doesn't change the fact that you'll need to ask the Quarians for help. You'll need to go to the migrant fleet either way. But the outcome of that meeting may hinge on whether Tali survived or not. Perhaps that will make the difference between the Quarians being destroyed in an attack on the Geth, the Quarians standing and fighting from their floatilla, or the Quarians reaching an accord with the Geth and having a homeworld to fight from. You still have to make the same series of choices no matter who is alive or dead. But the presence or absence of a character may have a large influence on the outcome of those choices.
Of course this means that any given playthrough is not necessarily going to use quite a bit of content. However, Bioware themselves have said that with ME3, they don't have to try and connect it to a next story, and so they can have wildly diverging scenarios in the plot. If they're truly considering that, then there is no way that they could NOT have significant content that is inaccessable given certain sets of circumstances. You can call it unrealistic if you like -- I'm just taking Bioware at their word.
Modifié par Pauravi, 19 août 2010 - 06:32 .
#1461
Posté 19 août 2010 - 09:37
TheKillerAngel
-
- Members
- 3 608 messages
I think we need to take a step back - the only people who have just 2 surviving squad members are people who are DELIBERATELY going for a bad load. You really, really have to try to lose that many people in the SM.
#1462
Posté 19 août 2010 - 11:33
Sapienti
-
- Members
- 270 messages
Zulu_DFA wrote...
I'm not so sure... I just mean, that with more people buying ME2 as their first ME installment, without so much as chance to go back to ME1, the fav character ratings will even out somewhat.
I'm all for epic cameos for all the ME2 squaddies (and many other NPCs). I argue that an attempt to "bring them back" as squadmates in ME3 will land anywhere between "lame" and "total disaster". That said, my best Quarian friend is Admiral vas Quib-Quib, and I expect to be fully "rewarded" for playing pacifist even though I got some random Quarian (which Tali is) killed on the "suicide mission".
Two words: Ret & Con. We've seen it in ME2 already with the thermal ammo. And it was even more lame as the writers tried to mask it as not being one. There also was minor retconning concerning... who could have thought... Garrus and Tali, since there was little to no reflection of several variants of Shepard's interaction with them in ME1. But that's not nearly as much retconning (or ignoring continuity) as will be necessary to facilitate for example Tali's return as squadmate in ME3.
The thermal clips weren't really an example of retconing, they tried to give a valid answer which was plausible, it goes against previously established things, but there was an in game reason for it so I don't think it qualifies. Also the Garrus and Tali relationship is even less of a retcon. All they did was give Garrus and Tali an in game relationship with Shepard that was mentioned in the story. Garrus, Tali and Shepard all acting as if they've been good friends for a long time because of their previous adventures. If you were to take Mass Effect and turn it into a book, that's exactly what they would be, regardless of whether the player decided to interact with them or not. The game went ahead and established some facts on the side lines, it did what a lot of games and stories do and filled in some blank pages.
All of Shepard's adventures didn't take place over the course of a few hours, it could have been weeks or even months in which time he got to know Garrus, whether that is simply implied or if the player feels that way, it isn't altering any previously established facts. All you really have in terms of referencing previous interactions is one line between Shepard and Tali where Shepard mentions you getting the Geth data if you did that mission. Everything else is blanketed under the assumption that the player treated them kindly, not altering any facts, just filling in the blanks homie.
They don't need to alter any facts for Tali's return either. If she survived the mission, then she survived. She has conversations, she can be a love interest, she can have Shepard's babies and they can go on to be the main characters in "ME4: A New Threat." If she dies, then she simply has nothing to say. It'd be the same as if you decided not to pick up Kasumi or Thane as a squadmate in ME2. A lack of something no need for a place holder or anything. That would not be a disaster at all. She survives, she can be a squadmember, doesn't take any clever writing. If she dies, then she just aint around when Shepard goes to convince Quib Quib to join the fight and you have to do things different or see a different cut scene with different branching dialogue. It isn't too hard to get really, nothing lame or disastrous about that.
Lastly, Mass Effect is about choices and consequences. You can't expect to get as much money going to save the civilians from a fire as you would if you opted out to get the treasure directly...or something. Its just how the game works dude. If you play the pacifist, reap the pacifist rewards.
#1463
Posté 19 août 2010 - 11:33
armass
-
- Members
- 1 019 messages
Miranda is gonna survive, cause ive seen her survive in all outcomes except the one that kills Shepard also.
#1464
Posté 19 août 2010 - 11:50
Sapienti
-
- Members
- 270 messages
Pauravi wrote...
*Snizzip*
See while you make excellent points and crush all of Smud's arguments, he's just going to come back and continue to talk in circles, either he'll repeat things he's been repeating or he'll jump onto another post and pretend he was never defeated and go on about place holders and possible variations til ME3 is released.
#1465
Posté 19 août 2010 - 12:08
Jaron Oberyn
-
- Members
- 6 755 messages
Sapienti wrote...
smudboy wrote...
Yes, you are correct, sir! My apologies. Did that much too quickly.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.
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
This makes it just seem like you're trying to hide behind a big number like so many staticians tend to do without even trying to elaborate on how these can be significant. This does not build a strong argument. It will fool some of the dumb/simple who see it and just say "Well that number is huge, he's arguing on X side, so it must be significant haha!" and you'll also get some other people to just get behind a figure without really understanding it. It might make you feel good, but it doesn't really help a case at all to anyone bothering to even look at a number and determine what it is.
This is the same sort of math that went into ...whatever the game was that claimed to have millions of different guns when they were just variations and combinations used to count as different things. You're looking at it all wrong. Rather than try to find how many different possibilities there are for death you'd be better off if you just looked at the resulting squad. People are going to have this character alive or this one or this one dead etc. Then you're left with either they have dialogue or they don't. Its that simple. Sure there are tons of variations of who can die. But what does it matter? Bioware doesn't need to take into account every possible aspect of a characters death. Like I said you can either experience it or you don't. Not to mention Bioware can decide two out of the 10 characters of ME2 (not counting DLC here) can be important and then cut variations of story importance down by a lot. Or 3 out of 10 etc etc. Again you're making things seem daunting by putting importance that isn't there and never was there onto tasks that don't even need to be.
Someone brings that point up and your answer is "we didn't see that in ME2" we're not talking about ME2 we're talking about ME3. Want to use a previous game as an example of the future? Doesn't work that way either because ME2 was vastly different to ME1 and while it may not be as big a step they can still do more than what you are familiar with.
Anyway, aside from different variations of death being almost irrelevant, think about the probability of some of them, aside from people purposely going for only two survivors, what are the chances people really suck that much?
Well said. I've been trying to beat this into smud for the past month or two. He's so stubborn, and can't admit he's wrong though. I'm glad someone other than me is showing him up.
-Polite
#1466
Posté 19 août 2010 - 12:21
Jaron Oberyn
-
- Members
- 6 755 messages
Sapienti wrote...
Pauravi wrote...
*Snizzip*
See while you make excellent points and crush all of Smud's arguments, he's just going to come back and continue to talk in circles, either he'll repeat things he's been repeating or he'll jump onto another post and pretend he was never defeated and go on about place holders and possible variations til ME3 is released.
Smud is going to quote both of you, and then ask "what is your point? what point are you trying to make?" Never fails. Those two sentences make him feel secure about himself. He talks about this as if he knows what he's saying, which clearly he doesn't. I'm not saying I know everything, but I know a lot more than he does not only based on articles, but first hand experience in game development. Mass Effect 3 wouldn't be the epic end of the trilogy if they gave every character from the first and second games cameos. Bioware already stated that the reason they did it was because they were in the middle of the trilogy, and people could possibly begin the trilogy at that entry point. They made it clear that they don't have those constraints for the third game, and will make it where all of the decisions from the first and second game impact the third in a way where it is uniquely diverse. There were two articles where Casey Hudson said this. Both of them have been posted in this thread several times. That being said, what is the bulk of Mass Effect 2? Bioware stated themselves that the Mass 2 characters were the most differentiated characters they've ever done. That the squadmates are the focus of the game. If they dedicated an entire game to recruiting the squad, getting them loyal, and equipping them for a suicide mission, that doesn't exactly end in ME2, then they are not going to cut those characters from the third game, and make us recruit another dirty dozen. We already have the galaxies most dangerous individuals. Yeah, we might lose a few, depending on the circumstances. Zaeed and Kasumi might leave, Thane is likely to be dead. But you have to literally try to get all but 2 squaddies killed. So that'd be your fault, and the consequences for that choice would be waiting for you in the third game.
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be.
-Polite
#1467
Posté 19 août 2010 - 12:48
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
[quote]Pauravi wrote...
This is worded kind of awkwardly so I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you're asking "If 10 squad members are dead, where does their content go?" then yes. Nothing. You don't see it on that particular playthrough. Just as you don't see the content if you choose not to recruit someone in ME1 or ME2, or if you skip loyalty missions, or whatever. If you want to see different content, import a different save.
[/quote]
Meaning some people will get 2/12ths the content, while others will get variably up to 12/12ths.
[quote]
Also, no, it wouldn't be anything like 2 ME2's.
[/quote]
If you consider placeholders, so 24 fully fledged squadmates, then yes, it would be like 2 ME2's.
[quote]
Since it seems fairly clear that ME3 is not going to revolve around recruitment and loyalty, I don't expect that the number of squadmates that you have is going to heavily influence the number of assignments or missions you do. In ME2 almost all the content revolves around the characters, and so each character carries with them an inordinate amount of the gameplay.
[/quote]
They all have canned loyalty missions, and all save 4 have recruitment missions. This is not an inordinate amount.
[quote]
But then, look at ME1. You could choose to never recruit Wrex at all -- how much content would you have missed out on? Not much, beyond his dialogue and one rather simplistic mission. I suspect that the amount of actual content that depends entirely on the presence of a particular character will be
pretty small.
[/quote]
Which does imply a cameo or functional squadmate, and which does not imply fully fledged squadmates.
[quote]
No.
I've said nothing of "placeholders". It is your assumption that they will be there -- that they need to be there. I really don't see it as necessary, and I don't think Bioware is going to make "placeholder" characters. They like developing their characters too much -- if they design a new one, they will be in the game.
[/quote]
If they don't have placeholders, then peopel will be missing out on 10/12ths of the character content, which you have labeled as fully fledged squadmates. That's loyalty and recruitment missions.
[quote]
False.
Tali needs to be Tali -- it is her connection to you, and perhaps to Legion, that makes her unique and gives her influence over the situation. As I said, I've never mentioned placeholder characters. I don't think they're necessary, and I don't think Bioware will make them.
[/quote]
I'm making the example of the placeholder. The placeholder becomes relevant or integral to the plot, not the character in the placeholder. Thus there's nothing special about them intrinsically, it's just them being physically there in that placeholder.
There's no reason BioWare won't make them, because they did exactly that with all the ME2 (Ash/Kaidan, Wrex/Wreav, Shiala/that other chick, etc.) Simple cameos.
[quote]
And yet, they exist.
This doesn't do much to support your arguments for why Bioware won't bring back characters simply because they aren't "plot-integral".
[/quote]
This isn't about existing or not existing. I'm making a statement on how to make characters good, that is to say, better. Because if we're getting the same guys back again? They have to be even more interesting and worthwhile to the story, or it's just ME2.5. This is one simple way of doing it.
[quote]
You've got entire arguments for why they're not bringing old squadmates back that hinge on the idea that they won't do it because it would be impossible to integrate them into the plot since they can die in ME2. And yet, they already have a whole host of characters that are not tightly integrated into the plot, so clearly this isn't a concern to them. It doesn't appear to be a concern to anyone, in fact, other than yourself.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it's impossible: I've provided examples of placeholders and cameos that can be plot relevant and integral. It IS impossible to have fully fledged squadmates be part of plot integrity because they can die. It'd be like asking a reader of a book whether they got someone killed, and tearing out chapter 5 and beyond because the plot hinges on that character.
[quote]
I think you're the only one who cares. The rest of us like the taste of a very well-made frosting.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it doesn't taste good. I'm saying it has no value to the plot.
[quote]
Besides, at this point you've all but admitted that the Mass Effect writers are perfectly willing to write in characters who are just "fluff". Since you've also admitted that it is perfectly plausible that they could bring back old characters in fluffy roles, I really don't see how your argument that they won't do it has any ground to stand on.
[/quote]
I've come up with quite a few variations on how ME3 will deal with squadmates, none of which involve fully fledged characters.
[quote]
So, by the logic you're applying to ME3, Thane shouldn't have existed in ME2. Yet, obviously, he does.
[/quote]
All 11 characters shouldn't have existed or been expanded upon in the way they did.
[quote]
In other words, this is a good explanation for why you don't like the character.
[/quote]
It has absolutely nothing to do with why I like or dislike a character. It has everything to do with their plot integrity.
[quote]
However, this is a very poor argument for why he (or any other "fluff" character) will not appear in ME3.
[/quote]
If it's non-essential to the "rock-solid" plot that ME3 is going to be, then it wouldn't be included.
[quote]
Are you not understanding what I'm saying, or what?
[/quote]
Ditto.
[quote]
I'm saying that the characters presence OR absense are both equally plot-relevant. This is an ANTI-placeholder scenario.
If Legion is alive, A happens.
If Legion is dead, B happens.
[/quote]
Wait, before you said that "If someone dies, we get nothing." Now we get something? What is B then?
[quote]
Replacing him with some new character that has the same function serves no purpose except to eliminate option B, which also eliminates the plot point that hinges on your ability to keep them alive. Or, if the placeholder doesn't eliminate option B then he serves no purpose at all, and no placeholder need be made in the first place.
[/quote]
For one, having placeholders is an issue of balance (for storytelling and squadmate status.)
Two, certain scenes require characters, and if one character dies, another takes their place, or the scenes simply won't happen (ME2 has a few of both of these examples.)
Three, you're assuming a non-placeholder example. That's fine. But then you're creating an entirely new plot point, or thread.
So you're doing 2 times the work on your 12 characters, times the number of scenes you want per character (if not scene A, then scene B. Therefore, if not scene A1, then scen B1, etc.) Unless you want nothing.
As opposed to just having a placeholder for those 12 scenes, times the number of scenes you want per character. (A->B->C...)
[quote]
An exceedingly poor characterization of ME2, from my view.
I don't see anything wrong with a character-driven story. You're so very focused on your preference in plots, and clearly so upset by the way ME2 played out, that I'm frankly surprised that you're here discussing this at all. One wonders why you spend so much time and energy talking about a game that you obviously have a lot of contempt for.
[/quote]
Who says I obviously have a lot of contempt for? Stick to the argument, not my potential mental state.
I don't see anything wrong with a character driven story, either. However:
1. ME2 is not a character driven story. It's a plot driven story. The protagonist has a clear goal. That goal is the Suicide Mission. If it was a character driven story, then it would be the character in the frame being developed, him/her being an active protgaonist, being integral to the plot (their), pushing it along on their designs, attitudes, opinions, motivations, and not through external means or causes. That doesn't happen in ME2.
2. ME2 tries to be a frame story, or rather uses framing, and does. (Framing is hard to do, and the simplicity of the main plot makes it possible, but doesn't mean it was done well. It simply functions as such.) Characters have their own story to tell. If this was The Yellow Rolls-Royce, or a Thousand and One Nights, I'd buy it. But it's not setup like that. TIM just tells us to get people and we go get them. Oh, they have their own story to tell. Okay?
3. The character vignettes are not properly woven into the narrative. This is obvious. They're tacked on. No one is connected to anything, have next to no motivation, especially to the plot (save Mordin. The only two character conflicts just happen, and that's only after canned loyalty missions.)
[quote]
Uh, a scenario with multiple outcomes/endings is still part of the plot.
[/quote]
Sure.
[quote]
However that scenario turns out, it is part of the plot for that playthrough. You don't need a placeholder unless you're insisting that the characters will fulfill some function in the plot that requires them to be there. But, as you've just spent a significant amount of time explaining, many of Mass Effect's characters do no such thing. Why you're arguing that they will in ME3 is beyond me.
[/quote]
Because we're trying to give reasons why they should have all these resources placed upon them. This is the simplest and best way to do it: make them integral. Since they can die, that's impossible, so a placeholder can work. Easier still is for them to act as a guide, so a cameo would work. Easier still is to simply do nothing.
[quote]
So what? Aren't we talking about ME3?
I'm responding to your idea that they won't include old squadmates because it is impossible to integrate them into the plot since they can die. I'm saying that there is a very simple way to integrate their alive/dead status into the way that the game unfolds, and thus, the fact that they may or may not be dead is just not that big a problem.
[/quote]
Right, and your solution is "do nothing" or have an email or some such. But if they are alive, they're fully fledged squadmates? That's a lot of content for optional stuff, when we're stuck with only 2 random squadmates for the whole game. If it's a cameo, I can buy it.
[quote]
No, it isn't anything like 12 separate plots, and it isn't anything like a hugely branched tree. You're thinking of it in a much too complicated fashion. The plot is less like a tree and more like a chain with interchangable links. Which links you can add or subtract will depend on who is with you and what choices you make.
[/quote]
That's assuming they're plot relevant, which ME2 hasn't shown they will be.
If we assume they will be, that's complicated, considering there are 12 people to make fully fledged squadmates and plot relevant/integral.
[quote]
For instance, whether Tali is alive or dead doesn't change the fact that you'll need to ask the Quarians for help. You'll need to go to the migrant fleet either way. But the outcome of that meeting may hinge on whether Tali survived or not. Perhaps that will make the difference between the Quarians being destroyed in an attack on the Geth, the Quarians standing and fighting from their floatilla, or the Quarians reaching an accord with the Geth and having a homeworld to fight from. You still have to make the same series of choices no matter who is alive or dead. But the presence or absence of a character may have a large influence on the outcome of those choices.
[/quote]
If a functional squadmate, no problem.
If a cameo placeholder, no problem.
If a cameo, no problem.
Fully functioanl squadmate, big problem.
[quote]
Of course this means that any given playthrough is not necessarily going to use quite a bit of content. However, Bioware themselves have said that with ME3, they don't have to try and connect it to a next story, and so they can have wildly diverging scenarios in the plot. If they're truly considering that, then there is no way that they could NOT have significant content that is inaccessable given certain sets of circumstances. You can call it unrealistic if you like -- I'm just taking Bioware at their word.
[/quote]
If you believe a fully functional squadmate, then yes, it will use a lot of optional content. Unless you do not think they'll be fully fledged, then no, it's not that big a deal.
What you're saying makes sense, but they're still limited by who lives and dies, so really, it's what they can't do, not what they can, that they're limited by, no matter how much freedom ME3's design grants. So what if they have wildly diverging scenarios? That can be easily handled by cameos. And that's still even more work on top of the fully fledged squadmates you want. So they're either plot relevant and part of the plot, or they're fully fledged and plot relevant to wildly diverging scenarios? It's either or. I'm not saying they can't develop characters and a plot at the same time, but they've yet to do it together properly. And the amount of content you're expecting I can't see happening with, now, all this freedom for them to create scenarios.
This is worded kind of awkwardly so I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you're asking "If 10 squad members are dead, where does their content go?" then yes. Nothing. You don't see it on that particular playthrough. Just as you don't see the content if you choose not to recruit someone in ME1 or ME2, or if you skip loyalty missions, or whatever. If you want to see different content, import a different save.
[/quote]
Meaning some people will get 2/12ths the content, while others will get variably up to 12/12ths.
[quote]
Also, no, it wouldn't be anything like 2 ME2's.
[/quote]
If you consider placeholders, so 24 fully fledged squadmates, then yes, it would be like 2 ME2's.
[quote]
Since it seems fairly clear that ME3 is not going to revolve around recruitment and loyalty, I don't expect that the number of squadmates that you have is going to heavily influence the number of assignments or missions you do. In ME2 almost all the content revolves around the characters, and so each character carries with them an inordinate amount of the gameplay.
[/quote]
They all have canned loyalty missions, and all save 4 have recruitment missions. This is not an inordinate amount.
[quote]
But then, look at ME1. You could choose to never recruit Wrex at all -- how much content would you have missed out on? Not much, beyond his dialogue and one rather simplistic mission. I suspect that the amount of actual content that depends entirely on the presence of a particular character will be
pretty small.
[/quote]
Which does imply a cameo or functional squadmate, and which does not imply fully fledged squadmates.
[quote]
No.
I've said nothing of "placeholders". It is your assumption that they will be there -- that they need to be there. I really don't see it as necessary, and I don't think Bioware is going to make "placeholder" characters. They like developing their characters too much -- if they design a new one, they will be in the game.
[/quote]
If they don't have placeholders, then peopel will be missing out on 10/12ths of the character content, which you have labeled as fully fledged squadmates. That's loyalty and recruitment missions.
[quote]
False.
Tali needs to be Tali -- it is her connection to you, and perhaps to Legion, that makes her unique and gives her influence over the situation. As I said, I've never mentioned placeholder characters. I don't think they're necessary, and I don't think Bioware will make them.
[/quote]
I'm making the example of the placeholder. The placeholder becomes relevant or integral to the plot, not the character in the placeholder. Thus there's nothing special about them intrinsically, it's just them being physically there in that placeholder.
There's no reason BioWare won't make them, because they did exactly that with all the ME2 (Ash/Kaidan, Wrex/Wreav, Shiala/that other chick, etc.) Simple cameos.
[quote]
And yet, they exist.
This doesn't do much to support your arguments for why Bioware won't bring back characters simply because they aren't "plot-integral".
[/quote]
This isn't about existing or not existing. I'm making a statement on how to make characters good, that is to say, better. Because if we're getting the same guys back again? They have to be even more interesting and worthwhile to the story, or it's just ME2.5. This is one simple way of doing it.
[quote]
You've got entire arguments for why they're not bringing old squadmates back that hinge on the idea that they won't do it because it would be impossible to integrate them into the plot since they can die in ME2. And yet, they already have a whole host of characters that are not tightly integrated into the plot, so clearly this isn't a concern to them. It doesn't appear to be a concern to anyone, in fact, other than yourself.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it's impossible: I've provided examples of placeholders and cameos that can be plot relevant and integral. It IS impossible to have fully fledged squadmates be part of plot integrity because they can die. It'd be like asking a reader of a book whether they got someone killed, and tearing out chapter 5 and beyond because the plot hinges on that character.
[quote]
I think you're the only one who cares. The rest of us like the taste of a very well-made frosting.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it doesn't taste good. I'm saying it has no value to the plot.
[quote]
Besides, at this point you've all but admitted that the Mass Effect writers are perfectly willing to write in characters who are just "fluff". Since you've also admitted that it is perfectly plausible that they could bring back old characters in fluffy roles, I really don't see how your argument that they won't do it has any ground to stand on.
[/quote]
I've come up with quite a few variations on how ME3 will deal with squadmates, none of which involve fully fledged characters.
[quote]
So, by the logic you're applying to ME3, Thane shouldn't have existed in ME2. Yet, obviously, he does.
[/quote]
All 11 characters shouldn't have existed or been expanded upon in the way they did.
[quote]
In other words, this is a good explanation for why you don't like the character.
[/quote]
It has absolutely nothing to do with why I like or dislike a character. It has everything to do with their plot integrity.
[quote]
However, this is a very poor argument for why he (or any other "fluff" character) will not appear in ME3.
[/quote]
If it's non-essential to the "rock-solid" plot that ME3 is going to be, then it wouldn't be included.
[quote]
Are you not understanding what I'm saying, or what?
[/quote]
Ditto.
[quote]
I'm saying that the characters presence OR absense are both equally plot-relevant. This is an ANTI-placeholder scenario.
If Legion is alive, A happens.
If Legion is dead, B happens.
[/quote]
Wait, before you said that "If someone dies, we get nothing." Now we get something? What is B then?
[quote]
Replacing him with some new character that has the same function serves no purpose except to eliminate option B, which also eliminates the plot point that hinges on your ability to keep them alive. Or, if the placeholder doesn't eliminate option B then he serves no purpose at all, and no placeholder need be made in the first place.
[/quote]
For one, having placeholders is an issue of balance (for storytelling and squadmate status.)
Two, certain scenes require characters, and if one character dies, another takes their place, or the scenes simply won't happen (ME2 has a few of both of these examples.)
Three, you're assuming a non-placeholder example. That's fine. But then you're creating an entirely new plot point, or thread.
So you're doing 2 times the work on your 12 characters, times the number of scenes you want per character (if not scene A, then scene B. Therefore, if not scene A1, then scen B1, etc.) Unless you want nothing.
As opposed to just having a placeholder for those 12 scenes, times the number of scenes you want per character. (A->B->C...)
[quote]
An exceedingly poor characterization of ME2, from my view.
I don't see anything wrong with a character-driven story. You're so very focused on your preference in plots, and clearly so upset by the way ME2 played out, that I'm frankly surprised that you're here discussing this at all. One wonders why you spend so much time and energy talking about a game that you obviously have a lot of contempt for.
[/quote]
Who says I obviously have a lot of contempt for? Stick to the argument, not my potential mental state.
I don't see anything wrong with a character driven story, either. However:
1. ME2 is not a character driven story. It's a plot driven story. The protagonist has a clear goal. That goal is the Suicide Mission. If it was a character driven story, then it would be the character in the frame being developed, him/her being an active protgaonist, being integral to the plot (their), pushing it along on their designs, attitudes, opinions, motivations, and not through external means or causes. That doesn't happen in ME2.
2. ME2 tries to be a frame story, or rather uses framing, and does. (Framing is hard to do, and the simplicity of the main plot makes it possible, but doesn't mean it was done well. It simply functions as such.) Characters have their own story to tell. If this was The Yellow Rolls-Royce, or a Thousand and One Nights, I'd buy it. But it's not setup like that. TIM just tells us to get people and we go get them. Oh, they have their own story to tell. Okay?
3. The character vignettes are not properly woven into the narrative. This is obvious. They're tacked on. No one is connected to anything, have next to no motivation, especially to the plot (save Mordin. The only two character conflicts just happen, and that's only after canned loyalty missions.)
[quote]
Uh, a scenario with multiple outcomes/endings is still part of the plot.
[/quote]
Sure.
[quote]
However that scenario turns out, it is part of the plot for that playthrough. You don't need a placeholder unless you're insisting that the characters will fulfill some function in the plot that requires them to be there. But, as you've just spent a significant amount of time explaining, many of Mass Effect's characters do no such thing. Why you're arguing that they will in ME3 is beyond me.
[/quote]
Because we're trying to give reasons why they should have all these resources placed upon them. This is the simplest and best way to do it: make them integral. Since they can die, that's impossible, so a placeholder can work. Easier still is for them to act as a guide, so a cameo would work. Easier still is to simply do nothing.
[quote]
So what? Aren't we talking about ME3?
I'm responding to your idea that they won't include old squadmates because it is impossible to integrate them into the plot since they can die. I'm saying that there is a very simple way to integrate their alive/dead status into the way that the game unfolds, and thus, the fact that they may or may not be dead is just not that big a problem.
[/quote]
Right, and your solution is "do nothing" or have an email or some such. But if they are alive, they're fully fledged squadmates? That's a lot of content for optional stuff, when we're stuck with only 2 random squadmates for the whole game. If it's a cameo, I can buy it.
[quote]
No, it isn't anything like 12 separate plots, and it isn't anything like a hugely branched tree. You're thinking of it in a much too complicated fashion. The plot is less like a tree and more like a chain with interchangable links. Which links you can add or subtract will depend on who is with you and what choices you make.
[/quote]
That's assuming they're plot relevant, which ME2 hasn't shown they will be.
If we assume they will be, that's complicated, considering there are 12 people to make fully fledged squadmates and plot relevant/integral.
[quote]
For instance, whether Tali is alive or dead doesn't change the fact that you'll need to ask the Quarians for help. You'll need to go to the migrant fleet either way. But the outcome of that meeting may hinge on whether Tali survived or not. Perhaps that will make the difference between the Quarians being destroyed in an attack on the Geth, the Quarians standing and fighting from their floatilla, or the Quarians reaching an accord with the Geth and having a homeworld to fight from. You still have to make the same series of choices no matter who is alive or dead. But the presence or absence of a character may have a large influence on the outcome of those choices.
[/quote]
If a functional squadmate, no problem.
If a cameo placeholder, no problem.
If a cameo, no problem.
Fully functioanl squadmate, big problem.
[quote]
Of course this means that any given playthrough is not necessarily going to use quite a bit of content. However, Bioware themselves have said that with ME3, they don't have to try and connect it to a next story, and so they can have wildly diverging scenarios in the plot. If they're truly considering that, then there is no way that they could NOT have significant content that is inaccessable given certain sets of circumstances. You can call it unrealistic if you like -- I'm just taking Bioware at their word.
[/quote]
If you believe a fully functional squadmate, then yes, it will use a lot of optional content. Unless you do not think they'll be fully fledged, then no, it's not that big a deal.
What you're saying makes sense, but they're still limited by who lives and dies, so really, it's what they can't do, not what they can, that they're limited by, no matter how much freedom ME3's design grants. So what if they have wildly diverging scenarios? That can be easily handled by cameos. And that's still even more work on top of the fully fledged squadmates you want. So they're either plot relevant and part of the plot, or they're fully fledged and plot relevant to wildly diverging scenarios? It's either or. I'm not saying they can't develop characters and a plot at the same time, but they've yet to do it together properly. And the amount of content you're expecting I can't see happening with, now, all this freedom for them to create scenarios.
#1468
Posté 19 août 2010 - 12:55
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
Ashley/Kaidan.PoliteAssasin wrote...
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be.
-Polite
Wrex/Wreav.
Shiala/That other chick.
etc.
#1469
Posté 19 août 2010 - 12:58
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
Sapienti wrote...
Zulu_DFA wrote...
I'm not so sure... I just mean, that with more people buying ME2 as their first ME installment, without so much as chance to go back to ME1, the fav character ratings will even out somewhat.
I'm all for epic cameos for all the ME2 squaddies (and many other NPCs). I argue that an attempt to "bring them back" as squadmates in ME3 will land anywhere between "lame" and "total disaster". That said, my best Quarian friend is Admiral vas Quib-Quib, and I expect to be fully "rewarded" for playing pacifist even though I got some random Quarian (which Tali is) killed on the "suicide mission".
Two words: Ret & Con. We've seen it in ME2 already with the thermal ammo. And it was even more lame as the writers tried to mask it as not being one. There also was minor retconning concerning... who could have thought... Garrus and Tali, since there was little to no reflection of several variants of Shepard's interaction with them in ME1. But that's not nearly as much retconning (or ignoring continuity) as will be necessary to facilitate for example Tali's return as squadmate in ME3.
The thermal clips weren't really an example of retconing, they tried to give a valid answer which was plausible, it goes against previously established things, but there was an in game reason for it so I don't think it qualifies.
#1470
Posté 19 août 2010 - 01:07
snfonseka
-
- Members
- 2 469 messages
armass wrote...
Miranda is gonna survive, cause ive seen her survive in all outcomes except the one that kills Shepard also.
Nope.... She can die (just select your non loyal Miranda for your final team)....
#1471
Posté 19 août 2010 - 01:10
snfonseka
-
- Members
- 2 469 messages
PoliteAssasin wrote...
Sapienti wrote...
Pauravi wrote...
*Snizzip*
See while you make excellent points and crush all of Smud's arguments, he's just going to come back and continue to talk in circles, either he'll repeat things he's been repeating or he'll jump onto another post and pretend he was never defeated and go on about place holders and possible variations til ME3 is released.
Smud is going to quote both of you, and then ask "what is your point? what point are you trying to make?" Never fails. ...................
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be.
-Polite
We all are going to have this discussion until ME3 released
...........
#1472
Posté 19 août 2010 - 01:13
Hobosapien
-
- Members
- 73 messages
I don't think I'd want Kaiden or Ash back in my squad. After they blew Shepard off so easily to hell with them. Garrus and Tali believed in Shepard enough overlook the Cerberus connection, same with Dr Chakwas, so they could return. Liara and Wrex started new lives as leaders of certain key groups, therefore they won't join your crew, but will lend support for key missions.
Zaheed and Kasumi are mercs and will leave. Samara will leave to do her Justicar thing but will return for a small roll. Grunt will stay because Shepard is his battlemaster. Thane is dead or in treatment. Moridin will stay because he understands the gravity of the situation. Jack will stay because what else is she gonna do, maybe goes pirate. Legion goes back to geth to rally them to Shepard for climax. Miri and Jacob stay, they put too much time into bringing Shepard back to leave.
That makes for 7 potential returns and leaves a few spots open for new characters or expanded rolls. I would love see a volus(Biotic God) or Shiala or any species that makes for a more diverse group.
So there is one man's wild guess to tear apart at your leisure.
Zaheed and Kasumi are mercs and will leave. Samara will leave to do her Justicar thing but will return for a small roll. Grunt will stay because Shepard is his battlemaster. Thane is dead or in treatment. Moridin will stay because he understands the gravity of the situation. Jack will stay because what else is she gonna do, maybe goes pirate. Legion goes back to geth to rally them to Shepard for climax. Miri and Jacob stay, they put too much time into bringing Shepard back to leave.
That makes for 7 potential returns and leaves a few spots open for new characters or expanded rolls. I would love see a volus(Biotic God) or Shiala or any species that makes for a more diverse group.
So there is one man's wild guess to tear apart at your leisure.
#1473
Posté 19 août 2010 - 01:15
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
Probability is irrelevant. The system must take into account all states per variable. It has nothing to do with averages/how good/bad a player is.Sapienti wrote...
Anyway, aside from different variations of death being almost irrelevant, think about the probability of some of them, aside from people purposely going for only two survivors, what are the chances people really suck that much?
Also, it's pretty stupid to say "death being almost irrelevant." What is this, ME2?
#1474
Posté 19 août 2010 - 01:41
Jaron Oberyn
-
- Members
- 6 755 messages
smudboy wrote...
Ashley/Kaidan.PoliteAssasin wrote...
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be.
-Polite
Wrex/Wreav.
Shiala/That other chick.
etc.
Are you really that naive? This is the kind of maturity and level of comprehension that makes it seem like you are in fact a child. Bioware said that they took that approach with Mass 2 because people could use the second game as an entry point. They won't have that constraint with the third game. Your basing the third game off of the second, what your doing is saying they're going to make a repeat of Mass Effect 2. Your not making any sense.
Honestly, how old are you? Really?
-Polite
Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 19 août 2010 - 01:42 .
#1475
Posté 19 août 2010 - 01:51
glacier1701
-
- Members
- 870 messages
Polite, Sapiente, Pauravi et al,
The number of squad variations being pointed out is NOT to hide behind the large numbers but to emphase that the job of creating a FULL squadmember is nigh on impossible because so much dialog would have to looked at. One of the complaints about ME2 was the lack of squad banter/interaction. Your arguement suggests that you are willing to put up with having LESS squad interaction than we got in ME2. Yet you also argue that we'll get more because its ONLY 12 squad members. You are basically trying to have it both ways yet you do not seem to have grasped that in all the posts you've made.
I will also point out something that also overlook constantly. BioWare ALWAYS takes the easiest way out. For example lets look at the Thane recruitment and the fact that this is part of a choice we made in ME1. In ME1 we could have a few variations on how we did Nassana Dantius' mission ranging from 'who in heck is she?' to 'oh yeah she is the asari who's sister I killed for her'. While I do NOT have any data to back this up it was obvious from the reactions to the preview we got way back last year that many players had gone the route of getting the mission request when they turned up at the planet where Nassana's sister was, went in to the base and killed everyone and THEN went back to the Citadel for a reward. This means that Nassana was quite rational and never lied to us in any way. Indeed it appeared that she was the victim of circumstances and we'd solved the problem. Yet when the preview aired it showed a Shepard that just stood there while Nassana was killed. For Paragon Shepard's that was unthinkable and quite a lot was said about that until BioWare gave us their answer that basically said TOUGH.
In ME2 we got to see the whole thing play out. If anything it is much worse than the out of context preview we saw. The whole variety of ways that the Nassana mission played out in ME1 was basically thrown out and squeezed into 'she had me kill her sister'. Well in my game she did not have me kill her sister yet my choice was ignored. And from the posts that had been made on the forum at the time it is clear that many others were also in the same boat. BioWare took the easiest option they could and in doing so ignored what a majority of people had done and in doing so turned what could have been a great story and introduction to Thane into something very sloppily presented that tried to paper over the large cracks created with the mismatch with ME1 gameplay.
So yes we MIGHT get all 12 squad members back but it will be done in the EASIEST way possible. And that means they will NOT acknowledge the presence of anyone other than Shepard. They wil NOT refer to anything done in the past UNLESS it is something that simply MUST have happened such as obtaining the IFF or reaching Horizon. Thus they become even more 2 dimensional than they were before and from your own words in your posts this is NOT what you envisage happening yet you constantly argue that it wont happen because BioWare would surely see that this is not what YOU want. Well they certainly have not given many what they wanted so why should they change now?
The number of squad variations being pointed out is NOT to hide behind the large numbers but to emphase that the job of creating a FULL squadmember is nigh on impossible because so much dialog would have to looked at. One of the complaints about ME2 was the lack of squad banter/interaction. Your arguement suggests that you are willing to put up with having LESS squad interaction than we got in ME2. Yet you also argue that we'll get more because its ONLY 12 squad members. You are basically trying to have it both ways yet you do not seem to have grasped that in all the posts you've made.
I will also point out something that also overlook constantly. BioWare ALWAYS takes the easiest way out. For example lets look at the Thane recruitment and the fact that this is part of a choice we made in ME1. In ME1 we could have a few variations on how we did Nassana Dantius' mission ranging from 'who in heck is she?' to 'oh yeah she is the asari who's sister I killed for her'. While I do NOT have any data to back this up it was obvious from the reactions to the preview we got way back last year that many players had gone the route of getting the mission request when they turned up at the planet where Nassana's sister was, went in to the base and killed everyone and THEN went back to the Citadel for a reward. This means that Nassana was quite rational and never lied to us in any way. Indeed it appeared that she was the victim of circumstances and we'd solved the problem. Yet when the preview aired it showed a Shepard that just stood there while Nassana was killed. For Paragon Shepard's that was unthinkable and quite a lot was said about that until BioWare gave us their answer that basically said TOUGH.
In ME2 we got to see the whole thing play out. If anything it is much worse than the out of context preview we saw. The whole variety of ways that the Nassana mission played out in ME1 was basically thrown out and squeezed into 'she had me kill her sister'. Well in my game she did not have me kill her sister yet my choice was ignored. And from the posts that had been made on the forum at the time it is clear that many others were also in the same boat. BioWare took the easiest option they could and in doing so ignored what a majority of people had done and in doing so turned what could have been a great story and introduction to Thane into something very sloppily presented that tried to paper over the large cracks created with the mismatch with ME1 gameplay.
So yes we MIGHT get all 12 squad members back but it will be done in the EASIEST way possible. And that means they will NOT acknowledge the presence of anyone other than Shepard. They wil NOT refer to anything done in the past UNLESS it is something that simply MUST have happened such as obtaining the IFF or reaching Horizon. Thus they become even more 2 dimensional than they were before and from your own words in your posts this is NOT what you envisage happening yet you constantly argue that it wont happen because BioWare would surely see that this is not what YOU want. Well they certainly have not given many what they wanted so why should they change now?
