2338 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

-Polite

Ashley/Kaidan.
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

"You're".

Placeholders exist.  I've proven you wrong.

[Jaron Oberyn]

glacier1701 wrote...

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?

1. My argument in no way suggests there will be less squad dialogue. It's the fact that people assume Bioware is going to reward their carelessness with a whole new team. That's not going to happen. You guys don't seem to be capable of wrapping your minds around the fact that the entire game of Mass 2 was about the squad. The squad who's mission was to shut down the collectors. Only, the collectors were working for the reapers, not on their own. So the "collectors" haven't exactly been stopped since the reapers are sill out in dark space, working their way it. Thus, there is no reason to leave. No reason for Shepard to get a whole new team.


2. Bioware does not take the easiest way out. Your example of Thanes mission doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if she didn't talk to you first, she still lied to you. You still killed her sister. Whether she told you it was her sister or not, she died by your hand. Even so, she had her employees killed my eclipse mercs. So why would paragon shepard step in again?

That is a weak argument. Your basis for "Bioware takes the easy way out" is because the squad from the first game were given cameos. But stubborn people like you, Zulu, and smartboy think that it was because of technical issues, even when Bioware themselves confirmed it was because they figured people would use the second game as an entry point into the trilogy, and didn't want to have the former team as your squad. Plus the fact that they wanted to ensure that they survived the suicide mission, and they didn't have to create a POSSIBLY dead character for the third game.

Like it or not, your surviving squad will be your team in the third game. Again, they're not going to dedicate an entire game to team building, just to discard them and build another team. The argument about how some players might not get the same content, or know who the team members are is weak also. Why? Because in 2 articles Bioware confirmed that the first 2 games will influence Mass 3 diversely. Some players will see one thing as a result of their choice, while others may not. They do this because it adds replay value. No ones game is meant, neither is it going to be, equal.

Saying that they will not acknowledge everyone, or past decisions is extremely ridiculous. What evidence do you have to support this? That's right, absolutely none. It's your speculation because your mind cannot concieve how they can make so many variations to the game. Bioware knew full well what they were doing.

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

-Polite

Ashley/Kaidan.
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

"You're".

Placeholders exist.  I've proven you wrong.

Proven how? Where? Please do tell/show.

Edit: lol, I see that your a Talifan. :lol:It's a well known fact that more than half of the tali fanbase are kids. Seems I must have been right.

-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 19 août 2010 - 02:17 .

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

Ashley/Kaidan is a placeholder.

Wrex/Wreav is a placeholder.

I have just proven to you that placeholders exist, even though you stated "There are no placeholders.  Never were, and never will be."

[Throw_this_away]

smudboy wrote...

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

I just had to quote this... because sometimes something is so rare that you only get to see it one time in your life. 

[Throw_this_away]

I just want to chime in and say that placeholders do not need to be used in ME3 for dead squadmates. They just need to have roles that are not plot critical, or missions that are not character dependent.



I envision ME3 as having most missions being directly linked to the overall plot (as opposed to the character missions in ME2 that were more about the characters themselves). So a mission to get the support of the Krogans, for example, could be done with or without Grunt/Wrex. If you have one or both you might just get some character specific commentary and dialogue options.



That being said, I still think we will get Kaiden/Ash, Liara, and most of the popular ME2 LI's for your squad (Sorry Jacob... you will be killed off, Jack and Thane too), with some new characters that brings the total squad number to 10 or so.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

Ashley/Kaidan is a placeholder.

Wrex/Wreav is a placeholder.

I have just proven to you that placeholders exist, even though you stated "There are no placeholders.  Never were, and never will be."

What are you talking about? We are discussing squadmates, not cameos. So no, you haven't proven anything.
But on the topic of cameos, Wrex/Wreav don't have the same story now do they? Wrex is trying to rebuild the clans, his brother isn't. They both impact the plot in totally different ways. Same with Ash/Kaidan. Two different people, two different viewpoints, personalities, etc...



-Polite

[McBeath]

smudboy wrote...

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.

The only people who will miss out on that content are people who CHOOSE to miss  out on that content.  While you make some valid points I find it hard to believe that Bioware will allow you to kill off characters that they worked hard on(and obviously like) just to get new ones. 

Not sure if you mean that they're be more loyalty and recruitment missions in ME3?  IF so, I doubt that anybody will have to see that again, that's why we played ME2 in the first place.  They said that ME2 was a significant deviation from the style of RPG that they're used to making, but I think this was the reason. 

As for new characters, I suspect we'll meet them in more plot oriented missions like in ME1 with Liara or Legion in ME2, not the ME2 style recruitment.

Also, some players missed out on things in ME2 by not having certain import criteria met... like the rich achievement.  My understanding is that there isn't enough credits in game to purchase all of the upgrades available unless you have that achievement from ME1, even counting the DLC.  They decided to limit that to players who owned ME1.  While not significant content it's still something they miss out on.

Edit- In addition to my first point, I think that Bioware will ensure that a new game playthough in ME3 features a full survival rate( or assumes that the returning characters lived while the others just "died" and vanish).  This way whatever characters they wish to keep they can in those games.  Some players think we are being punished by not getting something extra, but I tend to think that the reward was actually playing ME2 to being with... plus whatever extra bits of dialog/LI we get due to having a playthrough.

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

[smudboy]

This is what I'm responding to:

PoliteAssasin wrote...
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

There are placeholders.  They're called Ashley/Kaidan, and Wrex/Wreav.  There might be others, I'm not sure.

Taken for the value of that sentence as a sentence, within the context of ME2, there are most certainly placeholders.

To assume you are making a statement about ME3 is not only guessing, but also bad English.  There can never "were" be placeholderes.  However, you're implying there "never will be" placeholders.  Which I assume to be in ME3, based on what came before it, "were".  Hence, ME2.

Since there are obviously placeholders, I have proven you wrong.

Now we all know you have problems with English.  And if that's the case, then simply write clearer, simpler sentences.  Then I will be able to answer you appropriately.  If not, simply ask others what you've written and have them tell you what it means.

[smudboy]

McBeath wrote...

The only people who will miss out on that content are people who CHOOSE to miss  out on that content.  While you make some valid points I find it hard to believe that Bioware will allow you to kill off characters that they worked hard on(and obviously like) just to get new ones. 

They do.  It's called the Suicide Mission.

[McBeath]

smudboy wrote...

McBeath wrote...

The only people who will miss out on that content are people who CHOOSE to miss  out on that content.  While you make some valid points I find it hard to believe that Bioware will allow you to kill off characters that they worked hard on(and obviously like) just to get new ones. 

They do.  It's called the Suicide Mission.

I understand that you can kill them off.  I just don't think they'll go into more work to create replacements.  It was meant to be an emotional end, they made a real effort for us to like those characters and to loose them is meant to be hard.  I don't think it was meant to be a way to just get new characters. 

I still think if they're dead, they're dead for that whole playthough up until the end of ME3.  It's an option that we as players have to explore.  Just my thought on it though.  Cheers.

[smudboy]

McBeath wrote...
I understand that you can kill them off.

If you did, then...

  I just don't think they'll go into more work to create replacements.  It was meant to be an emotional end, they made a real effort for us to like those characters and to loose them is meant to be hard.  I don't think it was meant to be a way to just get new characters. 

...why would you think this?

I don't know what end, intentions, reasons, etc., BioWare had with the ME2 characters.  Nor do I think that's relevant.  The fact that the an entire character can cease to be brings forth many obvious outcomes.  As glacier has pointed out, BioWare, or any developer/project manager/designer worth their weight, will do the simplest and most elegant of designs.  To have 12 returning characters for the sake of them is not simple or elegant.  We know how ME deals with character death: cameos, cameo placeholders, and absolutely nothing.

That said, I share the sentiment that I'd love to see characters return in any shape or form.  Which is why we liked Shiala and Parasini's cameo's so much.  However it's not a matter of what I want; it's a matter of what ME3 can't do.

I still think if they're dead, they're dead for that whole playthough up until the end of ME3.  It's an option that we as players have to explore.  Just my thought on it though.  Cheers.

Whoa.  Whoa there!  That doesn't make...any sense.  If they're dead at the end of ME2, why would they suddenly be alive at the end of...ME3?  What would be the point of...reviving a 10(≈2) characters at the end of a sequel?  Unless there's some serious storytelling or relationships I'm not seeing here, that's worse than any Lazarus Project 2.0 idea I've ever heard.

[Harley_Dude]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Saying that they will not acknowledge everyone, or past decisions is extremely ridiculous. What evidence do you have to support this? That's right, absolutely none. It's your speculation because your mind cannot concieve how they can make so many variations to the game. Bioware knew full well what they were doing.

-Polite

You kill the council in ME1 which consisted of a Turian, Asari and a Salarian and yet you easily recruit a Turian, Asari and a Salarian in ME2. You can take every Paragon option in both games and at the end can take the Renegade option and vice versa. The "choices"  made in both games are mostly an illusion and have had no impact on the main quests in either game and it is doubtful they will in ME3. With this game being ported to PS3 it would make no sense at all to create a bunch of content that is only availalable to 360 users who also happened to play ME1. Minor cameos and dialog in the same manner of ME2 is likely, a completely different experience not so much. Business choices will trump any of the "choices" you have made between your ears.

[McBeath]

smudboy wrote...

...why would you think this?

That said, I share the sentiment that I'd love to see characters return in any shape or form.  Which is why we liked Shiala and Parasini's cameo's so much.  However it's not a matter of what I want; it's a matter of what ME3 can't do.

It's just how I see the whole thing playing out.  I'm not saying I'm 100% right... and won't be surprised if none of them return, though I will be disappointed.  It's just how I see the trilogy unfolding when I sit back and look at it as a trilogy.  Maybe my hopes/expectations are too high, maybe not.  Either way I'm sure I'll love ME3.

In previous Bioware games(like BG) they tend to form attachments to characters(like Minsc, Jaheira) and you've got them for the series.  I know that the style of game and continuity is different, just an example though.

It's just how I see the trilogy unfolding when I sit back and look at it as a trilogy.  Maybe my hopes/expectations are too high, maybe not.  Either way I'm sure I'll love ME3.

smudboy wrote...
Whoa.  Whoa there!  That doesn't make...any sense.  If they're dead at the end of ME2, why would they suddenly be alive at the end of...ME3?  What would be the point of...reviving a 10(≈2) characters at the end of a sequel?  Unless there's some serious storytelling or relationships I'm not seeing here, that's worse than any Lazarus Project 2.0 idea I've ever heard.

Perhaps I was unclear... my point is this.  IF certain characters survive the end of ME2 one of two things will occur to those characters.  Either they'll leave the Normandy for whatever reason(thane dies, samara returns home, ect) OR they remain as part of the team.  This will depend on thier relevence to the story, usefullness, popularity/LI(to some degree) and the plan Bioware has for them from day one. 

Miranda is the best example.  Is she even killable in a playthough where Shepard himself doesn't die?  It seems like they made a pretty good effort to make sure that in ME3 she's around... even going as far as to have her quit cerberus with you if needed.  Granted she's only a single character, and it doesn't allude as that what capicity she'll be around in.

If they died, they're dead in ME3.  With 2 needed for a shepard to live and knowing that 2 other characters remain from ME1 for sure, that gives anywhere from 2-4 characters for Shepards team in ME3, plus the new characters they allude to.  Not as good a playthough content(or fluff) wise as the first one, but this is entirely optional. 

Again, this is just how I feel on the matter, and while I understand your point view(and see how it is possible), I respectully disagree.  I will continue to do so until we see some more media/statements released by Bioware.  I think that I see things from a story/art point of view(what I think makes a good story) and you perhaps see it from a technical point of view(which is needed to make that good story).  Both are valid points of view in my opinion.  Cheers. 

[McBeath]

The Harley Dude wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Saying that they will not acknowledge everyone, or past decisions is extremely ridiculous. What evidence do you have to support this? That's right, absolutely none. It's your speculation because your mind cannot concieve how they can make so many variations to the game. Bioware knew full well what they were doing.

-Polite

You kill the council in ME1 which consisted of a Turian, Asari and a Salarian and yet you easily recruit a Turian, Asari and a Salarian in ME2. You can take every Paragon option in both games and at the end can take the Renegade option and vice versa. The "choices"  made in both games are mostly an illusion and have had no impact on the main quests in either game and it is doubtful they will in ME3. With this game being ported to PS3 it would make no sense at all to create a bunch of content that is only availalable to 360 users who also happened to play ME1. Minor cameos and dialog in the same manner of ME2 is likely, a completely different experience not so much. Business choices will trump any of the "choices" you have made between your ears.

The PS3 debate has no impact at all.  They will already miss content from ME1(that is gonna be exclusive to 360 and pc owners to being with).  They get "bonus content" which may just be a recap of ME1 and ask them for thier choices in critical areas.  Other than not knowing who the ME1 cast is in the first place, the other ME2 squadmates are just as likely to return on PS3 as the current versions of the game.  Lots of camoes and little things are gonna be missing.  All this isn't relevent to the conversation at hand.  

As for good business choices, it's my understanding that after Yvonne agreed to do ME2 they went back and redid her character to match her apperance(which cost more money, ect).  While not a "good" business choice they did it for quality.  Same with Legion, and other characters that were intended to be recruited early(and that have dialog in parts of the game they can't be in).  They redid things for quality(and at an increase cost.)   Quality is a good, if not the most important factor in business.  Who wants to purchase a crappy, but cost effective product?

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

This is what I'm responding to:

PoliteAssasin wrote...
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

There are placeholders.  They're called Ashley/Kaidan, and Wrex/Wreav.  There might be others, I'm not sure.

Taken for the value of that sentence as a sentence, within the context of ME2, there are most certainly placeholders.

To assume you are making a statement about ME3 is not only guessing, but also bad English.  There can never "were" be placeholderes.  However, you're implying there "never will be" placeholders.  Which I assume to be in ME3, based on what came before it, "were".  Hence, ME2.

Since there are obviously placeholders, I have proven you wrong.

Now we all know you have problems with English.  And if that's the case, then simply write clearer, simpler sentences.  Then I will be able to answer you appropriately.  If not, simply ask others what you've written and have them tell you what it means.

Once again, you've taken what I said out of context. I try to explain things to you, but apparently its too much for you to handle. I give up on you kid. You are one lost puppy.

-Polite

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

Once again, you've taken what I said out of context. I try to explain things to you, but apparently its too much for you to handle. I give up on you kid. You are one lost puppy.

-Polite

So what are you trying to say?

1) You're calling me @smartboy.  Does that mean I'm a smartboy or you're making fun of me?  Frankly I don't care either way, since I'm focusing on what you're trying to say.
2) You clearly stated there are no placeholders.
3) You then state there never were, and never will be.

And I've proven do you there are placeholders, so thus, there can be placeholders.  What am I missing?  Hey, if I missed something, say so.  What context were you referring to?

[Harley_Dude]

I think the PS3 is relevant as you have already chosen to kill the council, Wrex and the Rachni as the default new game in ME2. Since remaining squad members is another variable the design choices for ME3 will need to insure everyone can have a full experience regradless of past choices and platform. Bringing back all the squad you survived with as full team members would create unbalanced gameplay for some missions. If all the techs are dead are you stuck for the entire ME3 game with squad members that are no good against mechs and/or geth?

[Hobosapien]

You have to think Paragons will have an easier time in the ME3 climax. A united krogan under Wrex, the Rachni assistance. The original council, with Cpt Anderson. Geth as allies instead of foes. Even Samara says she will be there for you if you call on her. All leading to a stronger force brought together for the final fight.

[Killjoy Cutter]

The Harley Dude wrote...

I think the PS3 is relevant as you have already chosen to kill the council, Wrex and the Rachni as the default new game in ME2. Since remaining squad members is another variable the design choices for ME3 will need to insure everyone can have a full experience regradless of past choices and platform. Bringing back all the squad you survived with as full team members would create unbalanced gameplay for some missions. If all the techs are dead are you stuck for the entire ME3 game with squad members that are no good against mechs and/or geth?

Not sure why they couldn't add a couple more recruitable squadies in ME3 to fill out any roles you butchered in the ME2 runthrough you're importing...


It would be a major writing/design error to focus most of the 2nd act on building the team, and then blow off the entire team in what has been set up an immediate sequel of a 3rd act.

[McBeath]

The Harley Dude wrote...

I think the PS3 is relevant as you have already chosen to kill the council, Wrex and the Rachni as the default new game in ME2. Since remaining squad members is another variable the design choices for ME3 will need to insure everyone can have a full experience regradless of past choices and platform. Bringing back all the squad you survived with as full team members would create unbalanced gameplay for some missions. If all the techs are dead are you stuck for the entire ME3 game with squad members that are no good against mechs and/or geth?

The PS3 debate isn't the same, as it is unique in the fact that they don't have access to ME1.  Unless microsoft allows it to be played on the PS3(which I doubt), Bioware will either have to work within the same canon as us, or change it for thier experience.  I suspect the easiest way is to have a beginning to the game that introduces them to the franchise(like a last time on mass effect thing), asking them for choices. 

They only need to ensure that new players have a full experience... we CHOOSE not to have a full experience as players who import files.  It's entirely at our own discression. 

It's also a single player game.... balance isn't a factor.  If I want to kill off certain crew and "handicap" myself in some missions it's my choice.  In reality even insanity isn't that hard.  I often take squadmates that aren't suited to certain missions just for fun. 

You also forget that we'll likely be getting 2 ME1 characters plus a few new ones.  I'd suspect that whatever enemies were likely to face in ME3(which again we haven't met, so we don't know if it's more mechs geth, though likely isn't) I'm sure that the skill sets offered by Liara, Virmire survivor and new members will compliment those of our shepard. 

I understand the technical aspect of it all, but to say that it's a balance issue isn't at all relevent.  Pleanty of weapons and powers are "unbalanced", it's up to us to use them or not.  Since it's a single player experience it doesn't matter if my playthrough is harder to complete than yours, because each of us can go back to replay the previous games and experience a different end result.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Hobosapien wrote...

You have to think Paragons will have an easier time in the ME3 climax. A united krogan under Wrex, the Rachni assistance. The original council, with Cpt Anderson. Geth as allies instead of foes. Even Samara says she will be there for you if you call on her. All leading to a stronger force brought together for the final fight.

Well according to smartboy, it won't affect the game differently than renegade because it would imbalance it, invoking consequences for your decisions. Bioware would never do that to the player.

-Polite

[McBeath]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Hobosapien wrote...

You have to think Paragons will have an easier time in the ME3 climax. A united krogan under Wrex, the Rachni assistance. The original council, with Cpt Anderson. Geth as allies instead of foes. Even Samara says she will be there for you if you call on her. All leading to a stronger force brought together for the final fight.

Well according to smartboy, it won't affect the game differently than renegade because it would imbalance it, invoking consequences for your decisions. Bioware would never do that to the player.

-Polite

Again, I think the overall idea of balance in a single player only game isn't important.  If we as players played against one another, then yes.... a paragon playthrough would be better than a renegade as we'd have more options, ect.  The same thing could be said about certain classes over others.  Players complained early that certain classes were "overpowered" compared to the others, but it really doesn't have an impact on the overall game from each individual's experience.  Again, if we played some kind of deathmatch then yeah, this would be true.

From the current standpoint though it doesn't really matter.  My paragon playthrough won't be better than my renegade, just different.  I'll be challenged differently in each depending on my choices.  Weapons(like the mattock and locust) are overpowered compared to the others, but it's up to us to use them(and enjoy them).

Cheers.

[Jaron Oberyn]

McBeath wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Hobosapien wrote...

You have to think Paragons will have an easier time in the ME3 climax. A united krogan under Wrex, the Rachni assistance. The original council, with Cpt Anderson. Geth as allies instead of foes. Even Samara says she will be there for you if you call on her. All leading to a stronger force brought together for the final fight.

Well according to smartboy, it won't affect the game differently than renegade because it would imbalance it, invoking consequences for your decisions. Bioware would never do that to the player.

-Polite

Again, I think the overall idea of balance in a single player only game isn't important.  If we as players played against one another, then yes.... a paragon playthrough would be better than a renegade as we'd have more options, ect.  The same thing could be said about certain classes over others.  Players complained early that certain classes were "overpowered" compared to the others, but it really doesn't have an impact on the overall game from each individual's experience.  Again, if we played some kind of deathmatch then yeah, this would be true.

From the current standpoint though it doesn't really matter.  My paragon playthrough won't be better than my renegade, just different.  I'll be challenged differently in each depending on my choices.  Weapons(like the mattock and locust) are overpowered compared to the others, but it's up to us to use them(and enjoy them).

Cheers.

I agree with you. Bioware themselves said the game will be unique for each player. smartboy's argument is that Mass Effect 3 can't be like that because everyone has to be able to see the same content in the same playthrough. Which is wrong.

-Polite

[Harley_Dude]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

I think the PS3 is relevant as you have already chosen to kill the council, Wrex and the Rachni as the default new game in ME2. Since remaining squad members is another variable the design choices for ME3 will need to insure everyone can have a full experience regradless of past choices and platform. Bringing back all the squad you survived with as full team members would create unbalanced gameplay for some missions. If all the techs are dead are you stuck for the entire ME3 game with squad members that are no good against mechs and/or geth?

Not sure why they couldn't add a couple more recruitable squadies in ME3 to fill out any roles you butchered in the ME2 runthrough you're importing...


It would be a major writing/design error to focus most of the 2nd act on building the team, and then blow off the entire team in what has been set up an immediate sequel of a 3rd act.

I think encountering the squadies you saved in the course of completing the main story is more plausible. For example, assume each of the Reapers go to different areas of space. On one mission you assist the geth. There you encounter Legion if you saved him or Legion clone if you did not. If you have Legion as a squadmate then only some players will have him. Realistically how much dev time would the character get when many players would not have him? Do you want to have Legion and get the "We are building a consensus" line most of the game because it was not cost effective to build out robust ineraction with characters that may or may not exist in any given players game? I would be more pissed with with lousy interaction with the squadmate I kept alive than adding new members.