2338 réponses à ce sujet

[SmokePants]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

How so?   It's not exactly terminal if no one dies. 

Or are you saying that the end of the mission absolutely has to mean the breakup of the entire squad?   I'm not sure how that's the case, when at least half of them have little reason to leave.  Sure, Zaeed might leave to hunt Vido, Samara might go back to one of the worlds she mentions going back to clean up or on word of another ArdatYakshi, and so on.  But contriving a reason for every single squadie to leave, including any LI, would cross the line into the absurd.

The suicide mission is like being exposed to a lethal dose of radiation in the form of mortal uncertainty. Whether they immediately survived or not is incidental.

They don't have to contrive a reason for every single one. All they have to do is contrive a reason for Sheperd, like they did with ME2.

Even if they did bring back some, they aren't going to be exactly where you left them. BioWare would have to reintroduce them one at a time.

[Killjoy Cutter]

SmokePants wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

How so?   It's not exactly terminal if no one dies. 

Or are you saying that the end of the mission absolutely has to mean the breakup of the entire squad?   I'm not sure how that's the case, when at least half of them have little reason to leave.  Sure, Zaeed might leave to hunt Vido, Samara might go back to one of the worlds she mentions going back to clean up or on word of another ArdatYakshi, and so on.  But contriving a reason for every single squadie to leave, including any LI, would cross the line into the absurd.

The suicide mission is like being exposed to a lethal dose of radiation in the form of mortal uncertainty. Whether they immediately survived or not is incidental.

They don't have to contrive a reason for every single one. All they have to do is contrive a reason for Sheperd, like they did with ME2.

Even if they did bring back some, they aren't going to be exactly where you left them. BioWare would have to reintroduce them one at a time.

Depends on when the story picks up -- if the story picks up a week after ME2, the convolutions to split everyone up would be astounding and frankly game-ruining.

[Rheinlandman]

I am going to put my two cents in,

Returns (and function) will be based on your decisions:

Creating a whole new cast of characters this late in the story doesn't seem like the best idea, I think the bioware writers would rather flesh out some of their favorite companions.  They might add some new ones though.

Heres my list.

Legion: he is obsessed with you, he is the main conduit between the organics and the geth; also he will be crucial to brokering a peace between the Quarians and Geth.

Jacob and Miranda: Depending on your end game choice they will stick with you, if you were paragon Miranda told the Illusive man to shove it. I think most of us here have earned loyalty across the board. They are with you through thick and thin.

Mordin: He is beyond the normal life expectancy for a Salarian, I doubt he will make a return.

Thane: He may have passed away by now, if he is still alive he would be infirm or opting to spend his last days with his son.

Grunt: He is your Krant, he will follow you as long as you will lead him to a good fight. Maybe in the interlude between 2 and 3 he will have gone off to do Krogan things but if you ask him I bet he'd rejoin.

Garrus: C'mon its friggin Garrus, you shaped him in ME1, by this point he is like Sheps BFF.

Tali: Much the same with Garrus, she is Vas Normandy now. Until she does something massive to earn forgiveness from the Migrant Fleet (like helping eradicate the Geth or brokering a peace) she will probably stick with you.

Samara: Totally a cameo character.

Morinth: Might make a cameo, but not as likely as her mother.

Jack: She might help you at some point, but I doubt she will stick around for long, unless you romanced her she will probably go off and do her own thing.

Kasumi: She stuck with you for the mission, she doesn't seem to be one to stick around, maybe she got around to romancing Jacob if Shep didn't.

Zaeed: I doubt it, he alluded to how expensive he was, he might make a cameo leading a merc outfit or something.

Liara: I am not so certain about this one. I would hope that if you had romanced her she will join you, maybe the Devs will create a slot that will be filled by whomever you romanced.

Kaiden/Ashley: Depends if you romanced them I would think, although they are probably still pissed at you for working with Cerberus.

Joker: Ya man

Chakwas: I hope so

Wrex: No, but he is going to play a part in the final thing I have to say.

I think the ending to ME3 is pretty clear, over both games you have amassed a ton of allies and friends. So there is going to be a huge Return of the Jedi-esque scene where you will see you see a huge cinematic gathering of everybody. As I believe alot of ME3 is going to deal with playing diplomat and helping to form this momentous alliance to prepare for the Reapers.

So depending on the choices, rachni, krogan, council or cerberus, a fleet of either quarians or geth (or if you made peace a mixed fleet), and alliance. And I am sure you'll have an epic chance to fight along side your friends again.

Modifié par Rheinlandman, 25 août 2010 - 09:11 .

[Harley_Dude]

Marta Rio wrote...

ManBearPig91 wrote...
And look at it, Bioware has stickied your thread; don't encourage them.

I honestly think the people at Bioware stickied this so they could have a chuckle at our expense. People working themselves into a frenzy based on little to no information? Hi-larious, especially if you know the actual truth.

I'm sure by now they have seen the ten kazillion threads explaining why people love the ME1/2 characters so much, so I wouldn't worry about them getting ideas about dumping the characters because a few people can make arguments that it makes rational/fiscal/etc sense.  In the end, they may end up cameoing the entire squad (for whatever reason), but it won't be due to the discussion in this thread.

Or maybe their panicking over the corner they have painted themselves in and are farming ideas.

[SmokePants]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Depends on when the story picks up -- if the story picks up a week after ME2, the convolutions to split everyone up would be astounding and frankly game-ruining.

ME2 picked up weeks later and did a pretty good job scattering everyone to the winds. Like ME2, ME3 will be a new game and not an expansion pack. They can't assume everyone who is going to play ME3 played ME2, hence they can't dump a bunch of random characters in the player's lap. They would have to take their time and give them each a reintroduction.

[Eldareus]

SmokePants wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Depends on when the story picks up -- if the story picks up a week after ME2, the convolutions to split everyone up would be astounding and frankly game-ruining.

ME2 picked up weeks later and did a pretty good job scattering everyone to the winds. Like ME2, ME3 will be a new game and not an expansion pack. They can't assume everyone who is going to play ME3 played ME2, hence they can't dump a bunch of random characters in the player's lap. They would have to take their time and give them each a reintroduction.

Actually that's not quite accurate it did start off a couple weeks after events of ME1 but they reshuffled the deck when they killed off shepard, resurrected him, then had him recover in a coma for two years. The story really picks up two years after the events of ME1. Everyone believed Shepard was dead and moved on with their lives. Can't blame them for that.


It all depends where Bioware chooses to pick up the story after the events of ME2. I guess it really depends on how fast it takes for the Reaper fleet to invade the Milky way galaxy.

It's fun to speculate what the writers and developers have in mind.

[MrCasperTom]

The problem I have is that if most, if not all, of the characters from ME2 are not in ME3 then I fail to even see the point of most of the missions in ME2. So we spend most of the game recruiting team members and gaining their loyalty for them all to sod off after one mission and then we have to do it all over again in ME3 if we need a team. Kinda dissapointing really.

[smudboy]

MrCasperTom wrote...

The problem I have is that if most, if not all, of the characters from ME2 are not in ME3 then I fail to even see the point of most of the missions in ME2. So we spend most of the game recruiting team members and gaining their loyalty for them all to sod off after one mission and then we have to do it all over again in ME3 if we need a team. Kinda dissapointing really.

The point of the completely optional missions of ME2 was to gain the squad's loyalty in some contrived attempt at them being more effective in the Suicide Mission.

[Jaron Oberyn]

MrCasperTom wrote...

The problem I have is that if most, if not all, of the characters from ME2 are not in ME3 then I fail to even see the point of most of the missions in ME2. So we spend most of the game recruiting team members and gaining their loyalty for them all to sod off after one mission and then we have to do it all over again in ME3 if we need a team. Kinda dissapointing really.

That's one of the biggest reasons why there isn't going to be a whole new team. The second game was dedicated to the squad. They were the focus. We're not getting a whole new team after all of the crap we just went through. Mass Effect 3 isn't going to be about recruiting another team, doing loyalty missions, etc... again, because it would be a repeat of mass effect 2. Why some people (smudboy) can't wrap their minds around this is beyond me.

Edit: And before you start your placeholder crap smudboy, theres no squadmate
placeholders. If you don't recruit Garrus or Wrex in Mass 1, you don't
get replacements, you get nothing. That simple.


-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 26 août 2010 - 01:17 .

[smudboy]

MrCasperTom wrote...

The problem I have is that if most, if not all, of the characters from ME2 are not in ME3 then I fail to even see the point of most of the missions in ME2. So we spend most of the game recruiting team members and gaining their loyalty for them all to sod off after one mission and then we have to do it all over again in ME3 if we need a team. Kinda dissapointing really.

1. The point of ME2 is to stop the Collectors.  Mission accomplished.
2. ME2 can involve gaining people's loyalty, in a contrived means to make them effective on a Suicide Mission.  We don't know what ME3 will be about aside from Reapers.  Whether we need to get new peoples loyalty for Suicide Mission 2.0 is irrelevant.
3. ME3 may involve many other characters, and those who were on your team in ME2.  If they're simply on your team, then that's fine.  Whether they'll have even more missions to go on is debateable, since they can all die, not even be recruited, not even be loyal, and not even be imported; there's no point in creating 12+ entirely optional levels, let alone corresponding content, for the sake of it (as OP and many others have beat to death with in showing), when they could be building real assets as per the main story, or other characters that can be properly weaved into the narrative, and done so without being a contrived mess of static characters unrelated to anything aside from the realm of whining fanboys.
4. ME3 can involve loads of DLC, as we've seen ME2 do.  Liara wasn't a squadmate, who got reduced to a cameo, and now she's getting her own side story.  (We will not mention the comic book.)  The problem with this is still point 3: they can be totally unrelated or completely removed from the narrative, which implies DLC placeholders.
5. Unless you can account for resurrection, rewriting, rejoining, or reintroduction of 12 characters without it being some contrived mess of crap, this is simply too much effort to be placed on completely optional content, which can easily be explained or given recognition through cameos, news reports, or emails (as ME2 has shown.)  ME3 desperately needs to tie up (or at least develop and resolve) a cohesive overarching plot with the crap that was ME2's retarded attempt at advancing the series.

[SmokePants]

Eldareus wrote...

SmokePants wrote...

ME2 picked up weeks later and did a pretty good job scattering everyone to the winds. Like ME2, ME3 will be a new game and not an expansion pack. They can't assume everyone who is going to play ME3 played ME2, hence they can't dump a bunch of random characters in the player's lap. They would have to take their time and give them each a reintroduction.

Actually that's not quite accurate it did start off a couple weeks after events of ME1 but they reshuffled the deck when they killed off shepard, resurrected him, then had him recover in a coma for two years. The story really picks up two years after the events of ME1. Everyone believed Shepard was dead and moved on with their lives. Can't blame them for that.

My statement is accurate. I am well aware that most of the game takes place 2 years later, but it picks up with a prologue that is soon after the events of ME1. And as you stated, that prologue does a good job of dispersing the squad, even though they have "no reason" to leave Sheperd. That's my whole point -- they don't need to come up with 12 excuses to get rid of characters; they only need the one. In ME2's case, that was Sheperd dying.

Personally, I think we're going to get another prologue and Sheperd will once again be put in a box -- be it a prison or a cryo sleep or whatever. The player will have no idea what has happened in the interim period between games, so it's best that Sheperd doesn't either. Naturally, he has to ask questions to bring himself (and the player) back up to speed.

Modifié par SmokePants, 26 août 2010 - 03:02 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

SmokePants wrote...

Eldareus wrote...

SmokePants wrote...

ME2 picked up weeks later and did a pretty good job scattering everyone to the winds. Like ME2, ME3 will be a new game and not an expansion pack. They can't assume everyone who is going to play ME3 played ME2, hence they can't dump a bunch of random characters in the player's lap. They would have to take their time and give them each a reintroduction.

Actually that's not quite accurate it did start off a couple weeks after events of ME1 but they reshuffled the deck when they killed off shepard, resurrected him, then had him recover in a coma for two years. The story really picks up two years after the events of ME1. Everyone believed Shepard was dead and moved on with their lives. Can't blame them for that.

My statement is accurate. I am well aware that most of the game takes place 2 years later, but it picks up with a prologue that is soon after the events of ME1. And as you stated, that prologue does a good job of dispersing the squad, even though they have "no reason" to leave Sheperd. That's my whole point -- they don't need to come up with 12 excuses to get rid of characters; they only need the one. In ME2's case, that was Sheperd dying.

Personally, I think we're going to get another prologue and Sheperd will once again be put in a box -- be it a prison or a cryo sleep or whatever. The player will have no idea what has happened in the interim period between games, so it's best that Sheperd doesn't either. Naturally, he has to ask questions to bring himself (and the player) back up to speed.

You really think that Bioware will recycle the exact same setup and initial mission(s) process?

But really, anything that sends the whole squad off and leaves Shephard to rebuild yet again will be a hackjob recycle of the same plot element.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 26 août 2010 - 03:28 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

MrCasperTom wrote...

The problem I have is that if most, if not all, of the characters from ME2 are not in ME3 then I fail to even see the point of most of the missions in ME2. So we spend most of the game recruiting team members and gaining their loyalty for them all to sod off after one mission and then we have to do it all over again in ME3 if we need a team. Kinda dissapointing really.

1. The point of ME2 is to stop the Collectors.  Mission accomplished.
2. ME2 can involve gaining people's loyalty, in a contrived means to make them effective on a Suicide Mission.  We don't know what ME3 will be about aside from Reapers.  Whether we need to get new peoples loyalty for Suicide Mission 2.0 is irrelevant.
3. ME3 may involve many other characters, and those who were on your team in ME2.  If they're simply on your team, then that's fine.  Whether they'll have even more missions to go on is debateable, since they can all die, not even be recruited, not even be loyal, and not even be imported; there's no point in creating 12+ entirely optional levels, let alone corresponding content, for the sake of it (as OP and many others have beat to death with in showing), when they could be building real assets as per the main story, or other characters that can be properly weaved into the narrative, and done so without being a contrived mess of static characters unrelated to anything aside from the realm of whining fanboys.
4. ME3 can involve loads of DLC, as we've seen ME2 do.  Liara wasn't a squadmate, who got reduced to a cameo, and now she's getting her own side story.  (We will not mention the comic book.)  The problem with this is still point 3: they can be totally unrelated or completely removed from the narrative, which implies DLC placeholders.
5. Unless you can account for resurrection, rewriting, rejoining, or reintroduction of 12 characters without it being some contrived mess of crap, this is simply too much effort to be placed on completely optional content, which can easily be explained or given recognition through cameos, news reports, or emails (as ME2 has shown.)  ME3 desperately needs to tie up (or at least develop and resolve) a cohesive overarching plot with the crap that was ME2's retarded attempt at advancing the series.

Seems like the real problem here is that you kinda hate ME2, and maybe you want as many of the characters from it gone as possible.

The highly contrived course would be to have all these characters who are loyal to Shephard suddenly drift apart, or to recycle the "disaster breaks up the team" bridge between ME1 and ME2.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 26 août 2010 - 03:26 .

[Il Divo]

Commander Bond wrote...

Adding new characters in the end of a triology always makes for a better story. Hell, look at what it did for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

Oh, wait....

Admiral Ackbar.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Seems like the real problem here is that you kinda hate ME2, and maybe you want as many of the characters from it gone as possible.

Nope.

The highly contrived course would be to have all these characters who are loyal to Shephard suddenly drift apart, or to recycle the "disaster breaks up the team" bridge between ME1 and ME2.

Nope.  If they're even loyal to begin with, they are so up to the point of the Suicide Mission.  There is no narrative outside of a head nod from one when is successful.  And that's if they were 1) recruited, 2) loyal, 3) survive.  They don't have to be loyal.  (I'm not even sure what the cause of that event is.)  I'm not saying they can't hang around and be functional if even alive, but that doesn't mean we need and thus must to go into even more backstory on completely optional content.

The only contrived thing they must do is give Shepard a reason to be there.  After Cyber Jesus, it can't be that hard to do better.

[Il Divo]

Commander Bond wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Commander Bond wrote...

Adding new characters in the end of a triology always makes for a better story. Hell, look at what it did for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

Oh, wait....

Admiral Ackbar.

Nien Nunb is the far more intelligent choice.

Nonsense. I shall take Admiral Ackbar and his trap sensing capabilities over Nien Nunb any day!

[SmokePants]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You really think that Bioware will recycle the exact same setup and initial mission(s) process?

But really, anything that sends the whole squad off and leaves Shephard to rebuild yet again will be a hackjob recycle of the same plot element.

This is BioWare we're talking about. They've been accused of having a formula more than once.

The reasons behind having Sheperd "come to" and have to rebuild his team and have everything explained to him are good reasons and they have not been invalidated. All they have to do is put an interesting twist on it and people will accept it. It's not like they're going to blow up the Normandy and kill Sheperd again.

A "hackjob" would happen if they have to write every line of dialogue so generically that they work whether characters are alive or dead or like or loath Sheperd. There could be no specificity in any of the storytelling. That's why those characters have to go -- for the good of the game.

[McBeath]

SmokePants wrote...

Eldareus wrote...

SmokePants wrote...

ME2 picked up weeks later and did a pretty good job scattering everyone to the winds. Like ME2, ME3 will be a new game and not an expansion pack. They can't assume everyone who is going to play ME3 played ME2, hence they can't dump a bunch of random characters in the player's lap. They would have to take their time and give them each a reintroduction.

Actually that's not quite accurate it did start off a couple weeks after events of ME1 but they reshuffled the deck when they killed off shepard, resurrected him, then had him recover in a coma for two years. The story really picks up two years after the events of ME1. Everyone believed Shepard was dead and moved on with their lives. Can't blame them for that.

My statement is accurate. I am well aware that most of the game takes place 2 years later, but it picks up with a prologue that is soon after the events of ME1. And as you stated, that prologue does a good job of dispersing the squad, even though they have "no reason" to leave Sheperd. That's my whole point -- they don't need to come up with 12 excuses to get rid of characters; they only need the one. In ME2's case, that was Sheperd dying.

Personally, I think we're going to get another prologue and Sheperd will once again be put in a box -- be it a prison or a cryo sleep or whatever. The player will have no idea what has happened in the interim period between games, so it's best that Sheperd doesn't either. Naturally, he has to ask questions to bring himself (and the player) back up to speed.

Nonsense.  Bioware has stated that they want to do DLC to bridge the two games(and prevent this kind of senario).  They can release DLC that will comfortably explain why certain characters are available in ME3(like Liara) and why some may not.  We will get a prologue, but I doubt we'll be in some kind of "box".  It's not neccessary like it was last time around.  Hopefully they use this DLC to not only bridge the gap but to explain and take care off any plot holes that may exist to ensure a clean entry into ME3.

SmokePants wrote...

A "hackjob" would happen if they have to write every line of dialogue so generically that they work whether characters are alive or dead or like or loath Sheperd. There could be no specificity in any of the storytelling. That's why those characters have to go -- for the good of the game.

The only limitation to ME2 characters is if they are needed for the plot.  IF they are, they need placeholders.  IF they aren't(which I think they aren't), they don't.   This is the greatest strength for them to return, in that they're just there to provide a dialog wheel between missions, balanced skill sets and little one liners on missions.  Easy to do. They don't need to write all that dialog... if Ashley and Liara do all the big stuff, then the only dialog they have to write is the dialog that I as a player access when I activate thier dialog wheel. 

Bioware only has to find a reason to include a few new characters to drive the plot in the cut scenes and we're set.  In ME2 there were only 3 characters on the squad that did this, and reasonably only 2 were needed since EDI or Joker filled in and survive into ME3. 

The issue on if a character likes/hates Shepard isn't a huge issue.  The biggest issue is the romance, so Bioware will be forced to do 2 sets of dialog for certain characters... which they did in ME2 so it's nothing new.  In real life how often do your friends/co-workers bring up the same thing?  Not too often.  Tali an exile(which is probibly the biggest squaddie choice you can make)?  You may get a one liner about it then they'll let it drop.  "Hey Tali, did that geth data I gave you help with your pilgrimage?".  Yep, just like that.  Does it change her character in the game?  Nope.  The other squadmates had "choices" that could be ignored all together without being noticed in the overall plot.  Tali's is the only one that may come up if you visit the fleet again... but last time they let a geth onboard, I'm sure an exile is ok compared to this when the galaxy is at stake.

Some people think ME2 has no point... but the point is to provide those characters with a reason to be on the Normandy.  It is a total waste of time and resources to create 12(or however many) new characters when we already have a team.  People think that because new players won't know who they are they can't be there... well I ask this:  Does it make sense to create a new team of characters and ensure that 100% of players don't know who they are or bring back existing characters and ensure that the minority of new players don't know who they are?

Either way, the new players are in the dark... why bother to make sure that we all are?  IF they're gonna be clueless anyways why not just bring back some old characters to satisfy the existing players and offer new ones the chance to buy the older games to meet them?   Just my thoughts though.

Cheers.

Modifié par McBeath, 26 août 2010 - 05:25 .

[SmokePants]

I think people are taking the whole "bridge the gap" thing too literally. We don't know what they mean exactly and we don't know if plans will change. I have a hard time picturing any DLC requiring the SM to be complete before accessing. It would completely undo the SM as the canonical end of the game. You'd always have that little bit extra to do and I would personally hate that.

Every DLC should either be concurrent to the events of the game (so far, they have been) or they need to be completely outside of it and self-contained. Think "Other Campaigns" in DAO. They would have to patch that menu option in to ME2, because it isn't there. But the general assumption of post-SM content I find to be absurd. Post-SM play is there for player convenience, it is a very poor framework for a continuing story.

[Pr3ying M4nt15 360]

''People think that because new players won't know who they are they can't be there... well I ask this:  Does it make sense to create a new team of characters and ensure that 100% of players don't know who they are or bring back existing characters and ensure that the minority of new players don't know who they are?''

Agreed.
And now that they are porting ME 2 to the PS3 (with possibly some prequel content) it makes even more sence. By the time Mass Effect 3 comes out. They'll be plenty of options to get the gist of the story, most people will have bought at the very least ME 2 as it has more mainstream appeal. Anybody who is playing the series for the first time with ME3 that's their loss.

[TKE Trexil]

[quote]Bluko wrote...

Remember each Mass Effect game is meant to be a stand-alone game.

A.K.A. even if you haven't played ME1 or ME2 yet you can jump in and still be able to play/make sense of the game. This is another reason why it makes sense that all the squadmates would be new. That way new players won't be as overwhelmed if they decide to play Mass Effect 3.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I am new to this forum, and I have no idea how the quote thing works.  So the top is the quote the rest is my post.

I have to disagree, but hear me out.  And this may have been brought up before me, but I havent made my way through the entire forum.  Anywho... ME2 allows for the fact that everyone could die, meaning that when you step into ME3 you may not be playing as Sheperd even.  It seems the Mass Effect saga is getting to be very into the idea of importing old information for the new games.  Replaying ME1 and playing ME2 changes the story greatly.  Just playing ME2 mutliple times changes it.  I feel the BioWare will grasp on to the fact that rolling over information is huge right now.  I feel they will make it more than possible to have members from ME2 and ME1 on the squad for ME3.  Now I agree, I do not think all of them will be sticking around.  Some may leave.  But I believe it is more about ME2 choices for who will stay in ME3.  Think about loyalty.  You can save everyone without having all the loyalties, but those survivors without loyalty may leave.  Obviously the dead will not be there, but it is the same implication of Sheperd and no Sheperd.

I think a lot of ideas are correct, but I also think BioWare loves the growing squad.  ME2 had a squad nearly double ME1 (or more i cant think numbers right now).  ME3 could allow for the squad to be huge.  I would guess 6 newcomers at least.  So a squad of 6 to roughly 15 I will say for now.  But what is also true is that people like Mordin may pass and his Nephew may come and work for you.  Thane may die and depending on Kolyat's mission, he may come to your side.  So many variables are possibly.

Also if your Sheperd doesnt make it at the end of ME2, then who will be there to guide your new character.  Joker?  Please... some of the crew will be there, Miranda and Jacob cant go back to Illusive man (depending on your ending) so they wont leave probably.  Others too, but this is already long.

In the end, I would HATE to see some of these characters go.  There are some I dont care for that much, because they just seem to plain, but I really hope they bring them back for more than cameos.

Grunt and Wrex together on your squad, oh that would be SICK!

I love this saga so far, and I am excited to see what will come of it.

Modifié par TKE Trexil, 26 août 2010 - 08:38 .

[Indoctrination]

ManBearPig91 wrote...

Bioware is a company, and if we as consumers demand (with our wallets) that certain members of the squad return and some continuity is maintained, then Bioware will listen.

Are you new here or something? Did you somehow miss every single instance of a BioWare guy responding to a comment like that? Maybe you should read some of the more brutally honest comments on that subject from guys like Mr. Gaider.

To sum it up, no you do not get to demand with your wallet. BioWare makes the best games they can based on what the teams for their games thinks is the best way to make great games. In my experience users who make comments about demanding things from BioWare only get responses from developers stating just how wrong they are and regardless of whether you e-threaten them or not, they're still going to make their games the exact same way. You can kick and scream all you want, but expecting them to do something really impractical just because you demand that they do it, is only going to end in tears and embarrassment. If you don't believe me take a look at some of the initial topics on the Dragon Age 2 board by angry fan babies who screamed, threatened, and whined about having to play as Hawke.

BioWare is going to put out a product called Mass Effect 3. It will be the best Mass Effect 3 they can make using practical means within their budget and deadlines. You will either like this product and buy it, or you will not like this product and you won't buy it. Either way, BioWare will go on.