2338 réponses à ce sujet

[GeoFukari]

smudboy wrote...

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.

Unfourtunatly its Fanboys that buy the game. Its Fanboys that actually care about the outcome of the games. And its Fanboys who create the games. So, I belieive your statement is invalid. A new cast of crew members would be a horrible way for BioWare to continue the series.  This is supposed to be the end of the series. Recruiting a speices to aid in the destruction of the reapers, not team mates. Mass Effect 1 characters will most likely return. And some of the cast of Mass Effect 2 will also return.

Just because you spite life and don't understand: ITS A GAME, doesn't mean you should go on the forums and yell: OH MAH GAWD, THIS GAME SUCKS ALMOST AS MUCH AS MY OPINION.

Modifié par GeoFukari, 31 août 2010 - 06:22 .

[glacier1701]

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.

You should read more history. Napoleon is a poor example of a leader of men. He was basically a master manipulator who happened to be in the right place at the right time. He was in it for himself but potrayed himself as one of the people. For a large part of his 'rule' large areas of France were in rebellion against him or at least were not supplying taxes and/or men. He also never wanted to face reality when it turned against him. Russia, for example, he quite literally left his men and even the most faithful of them turned their backs on him when they saw him leaving. Yes he raised a new army but not because he was a leader of men but because they forcible conscripted those who had previously escaped conscription such as old men or were too young and so on. Even then the turn out was nowhere near what he wanted. The main reason he did as well as he did was that in France the alternative was not very attractive.

As to Shepard and the squad - If you want the breakdown - Kasumi/Zaeed -paid. Tali/.Garrus/Jack - saved from death. Jacob/Miranda - already on the job. Thane - about to die but wants to do 'good' and you are offering the ultimate mission to do good. Grunt - no choice and since its possible to NOT birth him does not matter. Legion - no choice and can be sold off so does not matter. Samara - her code put her into an impossible situation which anyone could solve for her with a minimum of intelligence. Mordin - provided you agree to distribute the cure will come along. In none of the cases does it need Shepard to be there for the recruitment to take place.  This does not mean that there wont be problems along the line as the mission progresses but it does not need Shepard to bring them onboard just a fairly competent person.

[GeoFukari]

As to why Shepard is important to the story. He is the only one to actually knows of the Reapers. They only others would be:

Anderson: An Advisor or Councilor of the Citadel Council. Too Old to fight.
TIM: Not a person who fights.
Some Cerberus Operatives: Who wants to fight as them after learning of their experiments.
Any of Shepards men: They are willing to follow Shepard to death.
The Geth: Too busy with the Quarians + No one really wants to be an antagonist of the first series + needs special explaination

All in all. Shepard is really the only one who knows about the Reapers in full detail. If you were someone else, what would the first game be useful for at all? Shepard IS YOU. You died. You came back to life. This is not the story of the Galactic Community, this is the story of Shepard, the story of YOU. So, live with it. BioWare makes the game. If you guys think you can make a better story go see if you can get a job. But with your attitude I doubt you could get far.

[Killjoy Cutter]

glacier1701 wrote...
As to Shepard and the squad - If you want the breakdown - Kasumi/Zaeed -paid. Tali/.Garrus/Jack - saved from death. Jacob/Miranda - already on the job. Thane - about to die but wants to do 'good' and you are offering the ultimate mission to do good. Grunt - no choice and since its possible to NOT birth him does not matter. Legion - no choice and can be sold off so does not matter. Samara - her code put her into an impossible situation which anyone could solve for her with a minimum of intelligence. Mordin - provided you agree to distribute the cure will come along. In none of the cases does it need Shepard to be there for the recruitment to take place.  This does not mean that there wont be problems along the line as the mission progresses but it does not need Shepard to bring them onboard just a fairly competent person.

Kasumi -- is looking forward to working with Shephard and says she's a fan.  She specifically wants to work with Shep, especially when it comes to getting Shep's help on the Hock job.  "This is where your special skills come into play."

Grunt -- yes, of course, "insert random non-Shephard here" deals with being slammed into a wall and threatened by a Korgan just as calmly and appropriately.

Thane -- yes, of course, "insert random non-Shephard here" makes it all the way to Nassara in time to even talk to Thane, and has the reputation needed to make Thane take him or her seriously.

Samara -- random three-man team tears apart a major Eclipse cell?

Mordin -- random three-man team talks their way past security, then tears apart the Blue Suns and the Vorcha to get in, and then get to the environmental plant?

Etc.

[smudboy]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

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?

Nothing says it does.  It was in the case of ME1, however.

When ME2 says "this is Shepard's story", well, it better damn well be about Shepard.  ME1 took that, also literally. The value, or drama, we capitulate for our protagonist, becomes richer, as they are the only ones that can do what they can.  It makes the character more real, more believable, and more important.  It is a clear form of foreshadowing.  The whole point of the story, is the plot.  When you're controlling such an integral factor, you feel much more empowered and important than simply "that guy/girl."  For example, if we learned through character development, that Grunt was integral to defeating the Collectors, our opinion of him would go beyond "comical-violent-person."

That's not to say a non-integral character can't have this level of association done to them.  It just requires other methods, where events are very closely related to them, in a non-contrived way.  This is why we usually have the Last Survivor of an Ancient Race, or some such, where by virtue of existing, they are a component of the story being told.  It makes the external universe and its happenings be internal, or instrinsic: their passion, their ideals, their thrust to save/stop the bad guy, becomes so much richer; be the effect of that instance a simple plot device, a sacrificial moment, or a simple comment about being alive, and we connect with the character, and their plight, mcuh more.

When I look at the box art of ME1 (Here), with Shepard, the red silhouette/visions/cipher = that means something.
When I look at the box art of ME2 (Here), it's just some guy with a gun.

[Fiery Phoenix]

smudboy wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

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?

Nothing says it does.  It was in the case of ME1, however.

When ME2 says "this is Shepard's story", well, it better damn well be about Shepard.  ME1 took that, also literally. The value, or drama, we capitulate for our protagonist, becomes richer, as they are the only ones that can do what they can.  It makes the character more real, more believable, and more important.  It is a clear form of foreshadowing.  The whole point of the story, is the plot.  When you're controlling such an integral factor, you feel much more empowered and important than simply "that guy/girl."  For example, if we learned through character development, that Grunt was integral to defeating the Collectors, our opinion of him would go beyond "comical-violent-person."

That's not to say a non-integral character can't have this level of association done to them.  It just requires other methods, where events are very closely related to them, in a non-contrived way.  This is why we usually have the Last Survivor of an Ancient Race, or some such, where by virtue of existing, they are a component of the story being told.  It makes the external universe and its happenings be internal, or instrinsic: their passion, their ideals, their thrust to save/stop the bad guy, becomes so much richer; be the effect of that instance a simple plot device, a sacrificial moment, or a simple comment about being alive, and we connect with the character, and their plight, mcuh more.

When I look at the box art of ME1 (Here), with Shepard, the red silhouette/visions/cipher = that means something.
When I look at the box art of ME2 (Here), it's just some guy with a gun.

That's exactly the kind of post I was hoping you'd answer me with at first. For once, Smud, we agree.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 31 août 2010 - 07:07 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

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?

Nothing says it does.  It was in the case of ME1, however.

When ME2 says "this is Shepard's story", well, it better damn well be about Shepard.  ME1 took that, also literally. The value, or drama, we capitulate for our protagonist, becomes richer, as they are the only ones that can do what they can.  It makes the character more real, more believable, and more important.  It is a clear form of foreshadowing.  The whole point of the story, is the plot.  When you're controlling such an integral factor, you feel much more empowered and important than simply "that guy/girl."  For example, if we learned through character development, that Grunt was integral to defeating the Collectors, our opinion of him would go beyond "comical-violent-person."

That's not to say a non-integral character can't have this level of association done to them.  It just requires other methods, where events are very closely related to them, in a non-contrived way.  This is why we usually have the Last Survivor of an Ancient Race, or some such, where by virtue of existing, they are a component of the story being told.  It makes the external universe and its happenings be internal, or instrinsic: their passion, their ideals, their thrust to save/stop the bad guy, becomes so much richer; be the effect of that instance a simple plot device, a sacrificial moment, or a simple comment about being alive, and we connect with the character, and their plight, mcuh more.

When I look at the box art of ME1 (Here), with Shepard, the red silhouette/visions/cipher = that means something.
When I look at the box art of ME2 (Here), it's just some guy with a gun.

Too much reliance on symbolism, too much reliance on beaten-dead shortcuts to significance.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Too much reliance on symbolism, too much reliance on beaten-dead shortcuts to significance.

1. What is wrong with symbolism?
2. Where is this reliance on symbolism?
3. What symbolism?
4. What beaten-dead shortcuts to significance?

[GeoFukari]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Too much reliance on symbolism, too much reliance on beaten-dead shortcuts to significance.

1. What is wrong with symbolism?
2. Where is this reliance on symbolism?
3. What symbolism?
4. What beaten-dead shortcuts to significance?

Its a game. You cant judge a book by its cover.

[RiouHotaru]

smudboy wrote...
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.

1) and 2a) can be provided, 2b) is never going to happen, at least not in regards to Mass Effect.  All evidence is subject to some form of interpretation based on emotion or bias.  Just as you argue about the irrelevance of Shepard and various plotholes, that's a form of bias, whether you think it is or not.  Nothing here is going to be completely objective unless the evidence is stated in the form of a solid, irrefutable fact.

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...

smudboy wrote...
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.

1) and 2a) can be provided, 2b) is never going to happen, at least not in regards to Mass Effect.  All evidence is subject to some form of interpretation based on emotion or bias.  Just as you argue about the irrelevance of Shepard and various plotholes, that's a form of bias, whether you think it is or not.  Nothing here is going to be completely objective unless the evidence is stated in the form of a solid, irrefutable fact.

If I see a guy walking down the street, I see a guy walking down the street.  If I say "I saw a guy walking down the street", that is an objective statement about an observation.  If I say "I saw a guy walking down the street; I think he was on drugs, or at least retarded, because he was walking funny", that is speculating, with perhaps a few biases.

Based on the objective evidence of the plot and happenstance of events thereof, I have concluded that Shepard is not integral to the plot of ME2.  Shepard is, however, integral to the plot of ME1, for various objective reasons, easily observable to its plot; that, if Shepard was taken out of the plot of ME1 at various times, as well as other characters, the plot could not continue.

Observing plot holes is not a bias.  It's an observation.  A bias is "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation."  I see people getting into a shuttle because EDI said so, for no operation that's described, that no operation is given or experienced, when people never entered the shuttle before in that number, in entirety.  I see that in order for the next event to occur in its entirety, everyone must've gotten into the shuttle for that event to happen the way it did.  Where is my bias?  Where is my emotion here?

It is a solid, irrefutable fact, that everyone got onto that shuttle, and that the scene afterward could only have occurred if Shepard and all squadmates were not present.

To finally bring it back to the topic of the thread, it is my belief that, via objective observation, of how squadmate death has been handled from ME1 in ME2, that ME2 squadmates and various other characters will get cameos or placeholders in ME3.

[smudboy]

GeoFukari wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Too much reliance on symbolism, too much reliance on beaten-dead shortcuts to significance.

1. What is wrong with symbolism?
2. Where is this reliance on symbolism?
3. What symbolism?
4. What beaten-dead shortcuts to significance?

Its a game. You cant judge a book by its cover.

1. Oh?  I'm talking about the plot and the quality of plot integrity to improve characterization.  I am not referring to the game or gaming aspect.  Nor are any creative writing rules or literary devices suddenly suspended or disregarded simply because it's an interactive media.
2. I'm not judging a book by it's cover.  Quite the entire contrary.  What are you even talking about?

[BellatrixLugosi]

(facepalm) and smudboy and zulu are not the same person how? They both argue the same, and have the same delusions.

[xlavaina]

smudboy wrote...
To finally bring it back to the topic of the thread, it is my belief that, via objective observation, of how squadmate death has been handled from ME1 in ME2, that ME2 squadmates and various other characters will get cameos or placeholders in ME3.

This is certainly a possibility, but I think the devs have more original thoughts in mind for some characters. For example, Garrus absolutely loves Shep in their little bromance (or romance if female), and has nowhere to go. He quit C-Sec to join up with Shep, and had been proven that he can't lead a squad of his own the same way shep did. What if Tali is exiled from the Migrant Fleet? She has nowhere else to go but with you on your ship. 

I don't remember where I read this, but someone said that they will either get rid of all possible romance options, or keep all of them because it would be unfair to keep some and let some go. I sincerely hope this is not the case because either way it makes no sense. It would probably be impossible for all of them to stay because of Thane. He's dying and the only way for all romance options to stay is if the gap between the two games is nearly instant. There's also the possibility that all potential romances will leave. I would not be happy with this choice, as it means Miri, Jacob, Jack, Thane, Garrus, Tali and possibly Samara will all leave. This is totally uncool with me, because plot wise it doesn't make sense: Miri is now loyal to you after the suicide mission. Jacob has always been loyal to you. Jack is now loyal to you now that you broke ties with Cerberus. Thane is... well idk, hes dying. He is the wild card here I don't know how BW is going to be able to incorporate him. Tali has been attached to you since ME1 and so has Garrus. 

I just can't see Bioware put all this time into characters just to throw them away a game later. It was different in the gap between ME1 and 2 (Ash/Kai were both hardcore alliance and had somewhere to go after you died, Liara was caught up in her SB stuff) where the love interests had logical reasons to leave. I guess I'm just venting. 

BIOWARE PLEASE GIVE US ME3 SQUAD INFO!!!111

[Fiery Phoenix]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

(facepalm) and smudboy and zulu are not the same person how? They both argue the same, and have the same delusions.

Trust me, though, they are NOT the same person.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Wow smud, that's only your response to everyone. I'm gonna start believing you have limited comprehension skills.





-Polite

[BellatrixLugosi]

I was waiting for you to get here Polite (hugs)

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Wow smud, that's only your response to everyone. I'm gonna start believing you have limited comprehension skills.


-Polite

I can assure you: me smart you than er.

Which?

[glacier1701]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...
As to Shepard and the squad - If you want the breakdown - Kasumi/Zaeed -paid. Tali/.Garrus/Jack - saved from death. Jacob/Miranda - already on the job. Thane - about to die but wants to do 'good' and you are offering the ultimate mission to do good. Grunt - no choice and since its possible to NOT birth him does not matter. Legion - no choice and can be sold off so does not matter. Samara - her code put her into an impossible situation which anyone could solve for her with a minimum of intelligence. Mordin - provided you agree to distribute the cure will come along. In none of the cases does it need Shepard to be there for the recruitment to take place.  This does not mean that there wont be problems along the line as the mission progresses but it does not need Shepard to bring them onboard just a fairly competent person.

Kasumi -- is looking forward to working with Shephard and says she's a fan.  She specifically wants to work with Shep, especially when it comes to getting Shep's help on the Hock job.  "This is where your special skills come into play."

Grunt -- yes, of course, "insert random non-Shephard here" deals with being slammed into a wall and threatened by a Korgan just as calmly and appropriately.

Thane -- yes, of course, "insert random non-Shephard here" makes it all the way to Nassara in time to even talk to Thane, and has the reputation needed to make Thane take him or her seriously.

Samara -- random three-man team tears apart a major Eclipse cell?

Mordin -- random three-man team talks their way past security, then tears apart the Blue Suns and the Vorcha to get in, and then get to the environmental plant?

Etc.

 Many flaws in your arguement so where do I begin.

 Grunt - hmmm hard to slam me against the wall if he is still inside his tank!

 Kasumi - Hmm what special skills? The fact that Shepard can pull a trigger on a gun? You have to recall that ANY class of character can get through the mission so stating special skills means nothing.

Samara - Hmmmm Shepard is special. Yup so why cant I call Nassana and get an invite? After all I already know her and so far as the past is concerned I did her a favour. Nope forced to fight but yet again ANY class of character can get through. So in the end Shepard is not needed.

Mordin - Hmmm oh yeah I got a grenade launcher! As for the rest same as Samara once past the initial hurdle.

Really it boils down to the fact that Shepard is not needed to recruit and thus can be replaced. This does not mean the end result prior to the Suicide mission is the same as if we had Shepard but there are no barriers to a competent person getting there.

Modifié par glacier1701, 31 août 2010 - 10:39 .

[smudboy]

BellatrixLugosi wrote...

(facepalm) and smudboy and zulu are not the same person how? They both argue the same, and have the same delusions.

Which delicious delusious are you referring to, my master baker of knowledge?

[MrCasperTom]

So wait what is being said is that the story would be the same without Shepard...



I'm missing something with that conclusion... surely.

[MrCasperTom]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Wow smud, that's only your response to everyone. I'm gonna start believing you have limited comprehension skills.


-Polite

I can assure you: me smart you than er.

Which?

Proven wrong by the fact that the sentence would say 'Me smarter than you' which is terrible English. It should actually be 'I'm smarter than you'.

Also considering you broke smart and er it would be 'Me smart er than you'. Doesn't make much sense.

Modifié par MrCasperTom, 31 août 2010 - 11:51 .

[BellatrixLugosi]

Smudy, either you two are the same person, or just clone's of each other, I don't know whats worst. Two insatiable, arrogant, insecure forum troll critics born of two people, or clones

[theelementslayer]

glacier1701 wrote...

You should read more history. Napoleon is a poor example of a leader of men. He was basically a master manipulator who happened to be in the right place at the right time. He was in it for himself but potrayed himself as one of the people. For a large part of his 'rule' large areas of France were in rebellion against him or at least were not supplying taxes and/or men. He also never wanted to face reality when it turned against him. Russia, for example, he quite literally left his men and even the most faithful of them turned their backs on him when they saw him leaving. Yes he raised a new army but not because he was a leader of men but because they forcible conscripted those who had previously escaped conscription such as old men or were too young and so on. Even then the turn out was nowhere near what he wanted. The main reason he did as well as he did was that in France the alternative was not very attractive.

As to Shepard and the squad - If you want the breakdown - Kasumi/Zaeed -paid. Tali/.Garrus/Jack - saved from death. Jacob/Miranda - already on the job. Thane - about to die but wants to do 'good' and you are offering the ultimate mission to do good. Grunt - no choice and since its possible to NOT birth him does not matter. Legion - no choice and can be sold off so does not matter. Samara - her code put her into an impossible situation which anyone could solve for her with a minimum of intelligence. Mordin - provided you agree to distribute the cure will come along. In none of the cases does it need Shepard to be there for the recruitment to take place.  This does not mean that there wont be problems along the line as the mission progresses but it does not need Shepard to bring them onboard just a fairly competent person.

Alright first with Napolean. He was dumb yes, bad leader of man, no. He made people follow him, hence leader. His general skills might be lacking but his leadership skills werent. He made people believe they could still win AFTER he lost 90-95% of his army. Pretty damn good.

As for shepard, sure they all have their reasons but most people dont want to die so they had to have some reason to believe they will make it out alive. Hence, shepard.

[Iakus]

MrCasperTom wrote...

So wait what is being said is that the story would be the same without Shepard...

I'm missing something with that conclusion... surely.

The theory is that ME 2 story wise could have been accomplished by anyone with good combat skills and a modicum of charisma.  Therefore TIM wasted a lot of money ressurecting Shepard when he could have sent someone like Jacob or Miranda (sans Cerberus uniforms) on the recruiting drive.

Not that everything would have worked out identically.  Just that the story could have easily gone on.


Now, about squadmates for ME 3:  The problem is, for every Wrex that joins the crew, there has to be a Wreav. That could be a major headache, aranging al the possible voice acting and such.

I see two potential solutions:

1) optional members:

Like Zaed and Kasumi (only not DLC) they could theoretically take a couple of the more popular characters (for this exercise, let's say Garrus and Tali) and make them optionally recruitable if they survived the Suicide Mission.  like their characters in ME 2, they'll greet you like an old friend regardless of how you treated them and talk about old times only in the broadest possible sense, much like Garrus and Tali in ME 2.  No placeholders for them, they're considered extras in addition to the rest of the crew.  The rest of the squad would likely be new.

problem:  this would infuriate fans of the other ten squaddies.

2)  An old classic from the Baldur's Gate days:  Biff the Understudy! 

For those who don't remember him, in Baldur's Gate, an NPC that was important to the quest is killed (typically by the PC), Biff would run on screen and deliver the lines for that character.  So if there's a line for a character who died in the Suicide Mission, Biff to the rescue!  With Biff, there's no limit to how many characters from ME 2 you could recruit!

problem:  Besides potentially turning ME 3 into a farce?  None that I can see.