2338 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
You seem to assume that it's only about motivations, and not about the person doing the motivating and presenting the reasons -- which Shep turns out to be pretty good at. 

What reasons are these? What masterful, diplomatic, smooth, human resource skills is Shepard showcasing as a job seeker?

In the case of Mordin, it also helps that Shep is able to cut chunky path through the Vorcha and save the district almost as an afterthought -- "yeah, no problem, kill a few dozen Vorcha and some Krogan to save these people I've never met, cool, be back in 20 minutes or so."  And he does with a 3-man squad what would normally take a platoon of regular infantry.

This has nothing to do with the Shepard character or persona.  This is the player.  Remember that whole schpeal about being a hero, a bloody icon?  Never once shown, used or proven, save to get discounts at stores.

Or with Thane, who else but Shep gets through a tower full of well-equiped and remorseless mercs fast enough to beat Thane to his target?  Thane can have confidence that this is someone who gives him a real shot at redemption because he has seen Shep in action.  And he does with a 3-man squad what would normally take a platoon of regular infantry.

Same as above.

[GeoFukari]

Is it just me.... or did this discussion go off topic.... by a lot.



SOMEONE just wants attention by trolling, ignore them.

[theelementslayer]

smudboy wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...
Alright, I havent argued with you for a while and its really hot and I have nothing better to do. How is shepard integral to the plot. Well alright then. Here it is. TIM wants shepard to be the leader. He wants to spend the money to bring him back. Why? We are given the exposition that Shepard is a great leader through many speeches of Miri and TIM. And thats what TIM wants. He wants a good leader. Also no you cant replace Shepard with anyone its like saying you could replace Stalin or FDR with anyone. No you cant, they wouldn't/wont do the same things that the others would. Im pretty sure that a few of the characters join shepard because she is a good leader. They probably wouldnt join say Verner or a rando quarian. You can call shepard who you want but it still remains the fact that because of shepards iconic background and previous exploits that the people join, they probably wouldnt join a cerberus operation, they would join SHEPARDS operation of taking out the collectors.
That is why commander shepard is integral to the plot.

That is a glorified introduction to Shepard, much the same way Udina, Anderson and Hacket introduced Shepard in ME1.  Neither make Shepard plot integral.

So what your saying is that hmm lets say Samara will follow Verner to hell and back because TIM said so? Or mordin, he would do the same. No I dont think he would. Shepard is needed to gather forces because she is a leader. Key word-leader. I know I would much rather go to battle behind Shepard then Verner. Lets use  a real life situation. Napolean. He lost 95% of his men in russia and then was able to scrounge another army because he was a good leader. This would be shepard. On the other hand you have lets say gorby. He had power however he lost it in russia, the people did not want to follow him. Or even frances Louis the sixteenth I think it is. He had power however people didnt want to follow him. therefore guiotine. TIM needs a team to fight the collectors and for that he needs a leader. Shepard. Without shepard people might not have joined and they might not have won. Or even got that far. Hence plot integral.

[smudboy]

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...
Alright, I havent argued with you for a while and its really hot and I have nothing better to do. How is shepard integral to the plot. Well alright then. Here it is. TIM wants shepard to be the leader. He wants to spend the money to bring him back. Why? We are given the exposition that Shepard is a great leader through many speeches of Miri and TIM. And thats what TIM wants. He wants a good leader. Also no you cant replace Shepard with anyone its like saying you could replace Stalin or FDR with anyone. No you cant, they wouldn't/wont do the same things that the others would. Im pretty sure that a few of the characters join shepard because she is a good leader. They probably wouldnt join say Verner or a rando quarian. You can call shepard who you want but it still remains the fact that because of shepards iconic background and previous exploits that the people join, they probably wouldnt join a cerberus operation, they would join SHEPARDS operation of taking out the collectors.
That is why commander shepard is integral to the plot.

That is a glorified introduction to Shepard, much the same way Udina, Anderson and Hacket introduced Shepard in ME1.  Neither make Shepard plot integral.

So what your saying is that hmm lets say Samara will follow Verner to hell and back because TIM said so? Or mordin, he would do the same. No I dont think he would. Shepard is needed to gather forces because she is a leader. Key word-leader. I know I would much rather go to battle behind Shepard then Verner. Lets use  a real life situation. Napolean. He lost 95% of his men in russia and then was able to scrounge another army because he was a good leader. This would be shepard. On the other hand you have lets say gorby. He had power however he lost it in russia, the people did not want to follow him. Or even frances Louis the sixteenth I think it is. He had power however people didnt want to follow him. therefore guiotine. TIM needs a team to fight the collectors and for that he needs a leader. Shepard. Without shepard people might not have joined and they might not have won. Or even got that far. Hence plot integral.

Ersatz leader.

[RiouHotaru]

smudboy wrote...

A.) They don't require any kind of introductory mission or barely any introduction at all. New characters would require introduction to the game, which usually takes the form of quests. In Me2 at least, this took the form of both a recruitment and loyalty mission for most characters, which takes up significant resources.
B.) Their models are already in the game, and since Me3 isn't going for any kind of engine upgrade, Bioware can pretty much just stick them straight from 1 or 2 into 3.
C.) Including past NPCs instead of introducing new ones is less intrusive to the story so they can spend time progressing the main story line instead of sidelining it to pick up and develop characters like they did with Me2.

I think what people have trouble understanding is that making squaddies in the game actually isn't -that- difficult. What's difficult is integration. That integration comes from character specific missions and romances. By including past npcs in Me3, Bioware already eliminates the hardest part of including squadmates in their game.

The argument is for ME2 squadmates->ME3 squadmates.  Simply having them in ME3 is inconsequential.

A) Whose argument falls flat on its ass when new players never heard of these characters, or they're dead/not recruited/not loyal/not imported.  Characters, regardless of previous involvement, need to be introduced (i.e. meeting Tali for the third time, discovering Archangel again, etc.) which you yourself state "new characters would require introduction."  Why would this not hold true to ME2 characters, when ME1 characters got intros? (e.g. Tali, Garrus.)
Oh how original.  Yet another time gap, and Garrus and Legion still have massive holes in their suits/body.  Optionally remove the Cerberus logos from Miranda and Jacob.  Characters still don't have spacesuits, helmets, or any kind of protective equipment.  Or, simply don't have any characters at all.
C) Yes, because past NPCs are going to be completely plot relevant and integral to ME3's plot, just because.

Functional squaddies are not the issue.  It's having actual squadmates that are relevant or involved in the plot, with complete dialog wheels, character development, that do actually exist, do know what's going on, were involved previously, were loyal, etc.  Or else it'll be ME2.5: Fight the Reapers.  You argument still doesn't hold up because you didn't address the basic issues of squad death, lack of recruitment, lack of loyalty, and the non-importing of characters.  Great, we have all their old characters models: how the hell do all these variables work that'll be easy to include, just because some fanboy wants their old ME2 squad back?  What about the ME1 fanboys, who want their original squad back?  It becomes a ridiculous argument of "my opinion is more important", as opposed to looking at the functionality of how the system has dealt with squad death and recruitment before.

It continues to amuse me how folks believe that the ME1/ME2 squaddies cannot possible return as recruitable characters.  I'll provide counter-arguments to your points, smud.

A) Your argument also falls flat on it's own ass.  People who played ME2 without having touched ME1 won't have any idea who Garrus/Tali/Ashley/Kaidan is, or how they seemingly know who Shepard is personally.  The game only gives a little exposition for them to explain a possible connection.  Arguing that the player not knowing who they are will keep them out of ME3 is just as perposterous, since the game could easily have the characters give exposition regarding their role, or just gloss over it.

I love you how discount this, when this is a relevant point.  The fact their models, animations, etc are in ME2, and that ME3 isn't a complete overhaul like ME2 was for ME1, makes it much easier for Bioware to reuse them, since they don't have to devote a crap-ton of resources to remaking or creating new models.  And VAs are never an issue it seems given the sheer amount of dialogue.  So from a financial standpoint it would be simple to reinclude the old NPCs.

C) Nothing to say really.  Past NPCs have been relevant to the story now for a while.  Characters from ME1 appeared even in Default Shepard games in ME2 for relevance (Gianna Parisini for example, who provides the plot-hook regarding Dark Energy).  Do you have any logical reason why ME2 relevant NPCs would make an appearance in ME3 to add to the story?  Time and resources aren't a factor though, remember point B.

[theelementslayer]

smudboy wrote...

Ersatz leader.

huh?

[BellatrixLugosi]

77 pages in and people still don't ask whats the problem with a new squad.

[Harley_Dude]

This thread will be interesting in another 8 days.

[GeoFukari]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

77 pages in and people still don't ask whats the problem with a new squad.

I don't think a new squad is going to happen... Thats what Mass Effect 2 was for. Building a squad.
Some will leave like Samara who will continue on her justicar ways or Tali who might become an Admiral for the Migrant Fleet. Personally I doubt that Miranda and Jacob are going anywhere. Garrus will stay most likely as well. Mordin will either stay or go persue a project to undo the Genophase. Thane will probably not survive. Grunt will either go to aid Wrex and the Krogan. Basically, some will stay some willl not. The main point is that either way, Bioware will pull off some grand scheme to get us all happy.

[Hobosapien]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

77 pages in and people still don't ask whats the problem with a new squad.

If that's the way it goes I just hope there is a good reason that is explained in game.  As Shepard goes thru extreme situations I would think he or she would want a reliable and proven team.  Shepard says as much to Garrus.

[BellatrixLugosi]

GeoFukari wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

77 pages in and people still don't ask whats the problem with a new squad.

I don't think a new squad is going to happen... Thats what Mass Effect 2 was for. Building a squad.
Some will leave like Samara who will continue on her justicar ways or Tali who might become an Admiral for the Migrant Fleet. Personally I doubt that Miranda and Jacob are going anywhere. Garrus will stay most likely as well. Mordin will either stay or go persue a project to undo the Genophase. Thane will probably not survive. Grunt will either go to aid Wrex and the Krogan. Basically, some will stay some willl not. The main point is that either way, Bioware will pull off some grand scheme to get us all happy.

Funny how most games where you spend recruiting a squad their sequel's still.........have a new squad.  Its either going to happen or not, don't use the "oh because most of the game was recruiting so therefore they will be back" shpel.

Besides........my question wasn't answered. What is the >problem< with a new squad?

[GeoFukari]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

GeoFukari wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

77 pages in and people still don't ask whats the problem with a new squad.

I don't think a new squad is going to happen... Thats what Mass Effect 2 was for. Building a squad.
Some will leave like Samara who will continue on her justicar ways or Tali who might become an Admiral for the Migrant Fleet. Personally I doubt that Miranda and Jacob are going anywhere. Garrus will stay most likely as well. Mordin will either stay or go persue a project to undo the Genophase. Thane will probably not survive. Grunt will either go to aid Wrex and the Krogan. Basically, some will stay some willl not. The main point is that either way, Bioware will pull off some grand scheme to get us all happy.

Funny how most games where you spend recruiting a squad their sequel's still.........have a new squad.  Its either going to happen or not, don't use the "oh because most of the game was recruiting so therefore they will be back" shpel.

Besides........my question wasn't answered. What is the >problem< with a new squad?

I guess the problem is that we got attached to these characters. While I would wish to keep all the old characters to reassemble.
For me, if you can't get Garrus back, I will not buy that game.

[Killjoy Cutter]

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Ersatz leader.

huh?

It's from German, meaning substitute or false.

Face it, smudboy has made his mind up about ME2, he's going to rip it every way he can no matter what, and nothing is going to stop him from believing and saying things that are contrary to the facts in evidence. 

Look at who is avatar is, it's an absolutely perfect summary of his persona on the forums.

[BellatrixLugosi]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Ersatz leader.

huh?

It's from German, meaning substitute or false.

Face it, smudboy has made his mind up about ME2, he's going to rip it every way he can no matter what, and nothing is going to stop him from believing and saying things that are contrary to the facts in evidence. 

Look at who is avatar is, it's an absolutely perfect summary of his persona on the forums.

WIN!

[GeoFukari]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Ersatz leader.

huh?

It's from German, meaning substitute or false.

Face it, smudboy has made his mind up about ME2, he's going to rip it every way he can no matter what, and nothing is going to stop him from believing and saying things that are contrary to the facts in evidence. 

Look at who is avatar is, it's an absolutely perfect summary of his persona on the forums.

WIN!

+ Repect

[MrCasperTom]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...
Funny how most games where you spend recruiting a squad their sequel's still.........have a new squad.  Its either going to happen or not, don't use the "oh because most of the game was recruiting so therefore they will be back" shpel.

Besides........my question wasn't answered. What is the >problem< with a new squad?

My problem will be the lack of point, to me anyway, of ME2. I liked ME2 but the simple fact is the majority of the game was the building of a squad. You could argue that it was merely for the Collectors mission but if that is true I should have just killed everyone but 2 people in order to make sure Shep gets carried over to ME3, that is if many, if not all, of the squad don't come back.

The lack of members from ME1 didn't really bother me that much; you only really 'went out of your way' to recruit one member (Laira), the rest were with you before you started on the main plot and missions.

However ME2 was dominated by creating a squad and gaining their trust. You didn't do much else, it was constantly brought up about needing a good team before doing anything etc. Sure it might have been just for the one mission but if Bioware go ahead and get rid of them all to me ME2 was just a waste of time. I've gotten to know some characters as well as liking many of them. I spent most of the game playing with them and the plot was essentially replaced by this.

If ME3 is disconnected from ME2 and there is little but occasional pop-ups of these characters what we've played if about an hour or two of Collector missions that had any point. The rest was, in effect, pointless for any form of carry-over or addition to the Shepard story.

At least that's what I think.

[theelementslayer]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Ersatz leader.

huh?

It's from German, meaning substitute or false.

Face it, smudboy has made his mind up about ME2, he's going to rip it every way he can no matter what, and nothing is going to stop him from believing and saying things that are contrary to the facts in evidence. 

Look at who is avatar is, it's an absolutely perfect summary of his persona on the forums.

lolz I always kill his avatar. Love the game but yup no way Logain survives, hes a horrible person, he abandoned his kin.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Smud, if I may...



You think Shepard is not plot integral in ME2; that's totally fine by me. However, do you think that the fact that a protagonist is not integral to the plot automatically means a bad story?



I personally think not. You can have a protagonist with no real relevance to the core plot and yet still produce a satisfying story. Being plot integral only helps to make a better story, but is in no way a necessity.



I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...
It continues to amuse me how folks believe that the ME1/ME2 squaddies cannot possible return as recruitable characters.  I'll provide counter-arguments to your points, smud.

Who'dathought.

A) Your argument also falls flat on it's own ass.  People who played ME2 without having touched ME1 won't have any idea who Garrus/Tali/Ashley/Kaidan is, or how they seemingly know who Shepard is personally.  The game only gives a little exposition for them to explain a possible connection.  Arguing that the player not knowing who they are will keep them out of ME3 is just as perposterous, since the game could easily have the characters give exposition regarding their role, or just gloss over it.

What argument?  I'm replying to someone else.

I love you how discount this, when this is a relevant point.  The fact their models, animations, etc are in ME2, and that ME3 isn't a complete overhaul like ME2 was for ME1, makes it much easier for Bioware to reuse them, since they don't have to devote a crap-ton of resources to remaking or creating new models.  And VAs are never an issue it seems given the sheer amount of dialogue.  So from a financial standpoint it would be simple to reinclude the old NPCs.

And you're still talking about optional content.  Optional content can be cut, or reduced to cameos.

C) Nothing to say really.  Past NPCs have been relevant to the story now for a while.  Characters from ME1 appeared even in Default Shepard games in ME2 for relevance (Gianna Parisini for example, who provides the plot-hook regarding Dark Energy).  Do you have any logical reason why ME2 relevant NPCs would make an appearance in ME3 to add to the story?  Time and resources aren't a factor though, remember point B.

Gianna Parisini is irrelevant to ME2.
Tali also provides a plot hook regarding dark energy, whose tidbit is optional, whose recruitment is optional.
Yes, because they can die.  They cannot even be recruited.  They cannot even be loyal.  They cannot even be imported.

Modifié par smudboy, 31 août 2010 - 06:01 .

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Ersatz leader.

huh?

It's from German, meaning substitute or false.

Face it, smudboy has made his mind up about ME2, he's going to rip it every way he can no matter what, and nothing is going to stop him from believing and saying things that are contrary to the facts in evidence. 

Look at who is avatar is, it's an absolutely perfect summary of his persona on the forums.

I am completely open to any opinion, provided that opinion is backed up by 1) evidence, 2a) rational argument, 2b) a lack of emotion and bias.

[smudboy]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Smud, if I may...

You think Shepard is not plot integral in ME2; that's totally fine by me. However, do you think that the fact that a protagonist is not integral to the plot automatically means a bad story?

I don't know, does it?

I personally think not.

Oh.

You can have a protagonist with no real relevance to the core plot and yet still produce a satisfying story. Being plot integral only helps to make a better story, but is in no way a necessity.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

Completely.

[smudboy]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

GeoFukari wrote...

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

77 pages in and people still don't ask whats the problem with a new squad.

I don't think a new squad is going to happen... Thats what Mass Effect 2 was for. Building a squad.
Some will leave like Samara who will continue on her justicar ways or Tali who might become an Admiral for the Migrant Fleet. Personally I doubt that Miranda and Jacob are going anywhere. Garrus will stay most likely as well. Mordin will either stay or go persue a project to undo the Genophase. Thane will probably not survive. Grunt will either go to aid Wrex and the Krogan. Basically, some will stay some willl not. The main point is that either way, Bioware will pull off some grand scheme to get us all happy.

Funny how most games where you spend recruiting a squad their sequel's still.........have a new squad.  Its either going to happen or not, don't use the "oh because most of the game was recruiting so therefore they will be back" shpel.

Besides........my question wasn't answered. What is the >problem< with a new squad?

Absolutely nothing.

Those that whine are mere fanboys/biased.  Although I do like the attempt at trying to rationalize the validity of ME2's squad/some other random characters, as being plot relevant to ME3.  The evidence shows otherwise.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I wasn't talking about ME2, by the way. I was generalizing. I think you can have characters that are plot-integral other than the protagonist and the story is still acceptable.

Of course, I'm not saying ME2 has the worst or best story ever. I just don't think the primary character in a story HAS to be plot-integral. Do you? Why or why not?

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 31 août 2010 - 06:05 .

[BellatrixLugosi]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Ersatz leader.

huh?

It's from German, meaning substitute or false.

Face it, smudboy has made his mind up about ME2, he's going to rip it every way he can no matter what, and nothing is going to stop him from believing and saying things that are contrary to the facts in evidence. 

Look at who is avatar is, it's an absolutely perfect summary of his persona on the forums.

I am completely open to any opinion, provided that opinion is backed up by 1) evidence, 2a) rational argument, 2b) a lack of emotion and bias.

No.....your not

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Ersatz leader.

huh?

It's from German, meaning substitute or false.

Face it, smudboy has made his mind up about ME2, he's going to rip it every way he can no matter what, and nothing is going to stop him from believing and saying things that are contrary to the facts in evidence. 

Look at who is avatar is, it's an absolutely perfect summary of his persona on the forums.

I am completely open to any opinion, provided that opinion is backed up by 1) evidence, 2a) rational argument, 2b) a lack of emotion and bias.

Snrk.