2338 réponses à ce sujet

[glacier1701]

theelementslayer wrote...

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.

 We could argue on Napoleon for a long time. Just so you know military history is something I do tend to pick up a lot of reading material on. Not saying I am an expert but the Napoleonic era is one that I do have a lot of stuff on simply because of my personal heritage. Napoleon was a great general in his early career but could not adapt to changes  developed to counter his style of warfare and simply could not understand the nature of warfare at sea nor accept advice on it despite being the 'leader' of a country that faced another that had for close on a century been the acknowledged naval power. As he got older he also would fail to listen to advice from those who had good advice to give on matters that he knew little. I would also advise a closer reading of the sayings attributed to him. It showed that he understood how to manipulate people rather than use the force of charisma to lead them.
 
 Anyways the point is that he is not a person who could be compared to Shepard. There is a huge difference between someone who led hundreds of thousands into battle and Shepard who seems to have had perhaps less than 20 or so under command at the same time. It is the difference between personal charisma on a one to one basis which Shepard can exercise which Napoleon could not.

[silentknightBAT]

casey hudson lead project director said there will be over 1000 choices you made in ME and ME2 that will effect the finale ME3 I'd say if they were romancable and you didn't break up with them the renegade way which may make some of them hate you and not want to talk to you at all then they will probabley return in ME3 if only half of the romancable characters return the i got my oney on miranda because she is very interested in you regardless of your morality and bioware put alot of story and detail into these characters it would be a pain for them and some of us to make even more detailed story driven characters for me3 and relive the experience maybe they'll have a poll or something to see which characters should return as squadmates for me3 people who just start me3 should get as many characters as someone with the no one left behind achievement. zaeed and kasumi don't have much else to do so they may return in ME3. bioware won't let import your character if died at the end of me3 so there may be some consequence because full renegade or paragon you should have more than 2 squadmates left unless your sucky leader in which case go buy another game with no leadership skill required at all so bioware will punish you if your were the worst leader of all time by not letting import that character so they want players to have a better ending for me2 than epic fail not that hard to keep everyone alive they even give achievements for securing that squad members loyalty except for jack because you can lose her loyalty in more ways than any other character even after doing her loyalty mission. You also get an achievement for having a romance with a character other than kelley, samara, or morinth and for most paragons a relationship is easier to have, than a full renegade. Also samara says she will return to if you were a paragon and chose her over morinth obviously.

[SurfaceBeneath]

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.

First of all, you seem mad.

Secondly, I will not pretend to guess whether or not Bioware will include past squadmates in Me3 for sure. No one can assume they all will be included or none of them will be included. However, my stance is that it makes sense that they would because A.) It'd be more significant to fans of the past games who built up relationships with them and B.) Because it'd be easier than introducing new characters.

You overestimate the amount that either NPCs from the first or second game had to do with the plot. They were all essentially bystanders, and besides Loyalty and Recruitment missions, had about as much character specific dialogue as any non-recruitable npc in the game. For 95% of the game when you're actually going on missions, all of the squad mates in both games are essentially interchangable and do not meaningfully interact with the story. You say that they'll have to "reintroduce" old squad mates from the past games, but that's not true. The old Me1 squad mates were barely reintroduced at all. The game assumes Shepard knew them and didn't waste much time telling you who they were. Garrus and Tali had probably the fewest dialogues of any of the Me2 npcs since Shepard pretty much knew all about them already so there wasn't much for them to say besides the events of the past 2 years when Shep was dead. Quite frankly, they were just less expanded upon then the new cast was. So it logical to assume the same would happen in the third game.

So yes, it would take much less effort for Bioware to include old npcs than it would be to introduce new ones, who might require an entire mission or two devoted to them wheras the old npcs would simply be there. Maybe a mission to recruit Liara and Kaiden/Ashley and you'd be set on npcs period and the entire game could focus on the plot.

It's as silly to assume that Me3 will be like Me2 than it was to assume Me2 would be like Me1. Stop being a silly goose.

[Zulu_DFA]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

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.

First of all, you seem mad.

Secondly, I will not pretend to guess whether or not Bioware will include past squadmates in Me3 for sure. No one can assume they all will be included or none of them will be included. However, my stance is that it makes sense that they would because A.) It'd be more significant to fans of the past games who built up relationships with them and B.) Because it'd be easier than introducing new characters.

You overestimate the amount that either NPCs from the first or second game had to do with the plot. They were all essentially bystanders, and besides Loyalty and Recruitment missions, had about as much character specific dialogue as any non-recruitable npc in the game. For 95% of the game when you're actually going on missions, all of the squad mates in both games are essentially interchangable and do not meaningfully interact with the story. You say that they'll have to "reintroduce" old squad mates from the past games, but that's not true. The old Me1 squad mates were barely reintroduced at all. The game assumes Shepard knew them and didn't waste much time telling you who they were. Garrus and Tali had probably the fewest dialogues of any of the Me2 npcs since Shepard pretty much knew all about them already so there wasn't much for them to say besides the events of the past 2 years when Shep was dead. Quite frankly, they were just less expanded upon then the new cast was. So it logical to assume the same would happen in the third game.

So yes, it would take much less effort for Bioware to include old npcs than it would be to introduce new ones, who might require an entire mission or two devoted to them wheras the old npcs would simply be there. Maybe a mission to recruit Liara and Kaiden/Ashley and you'd be set on npcs period and the entire game could focus on the plot.

It's as silly to assume that Me3 will be like Me2 than it was to assume Me2 would be like Me1. Stop being a silly goose.

So, the dispute is actually this: Will we have a new squad or calibrations?

You see, if you get all the old squad, they will all be boring like death. And if you get a new squad, it can be easily introduced via its connection to the plot... just like in ME1. And the Normandy dialogue for the new squadmates is easy to write, because they are new.

New = not used up.

Old = used up. Alive/dead, loyal / not loyal, romanced / not romanced, but always used up.

Hence, it's easier to introduce new characters.

[HTTP 404]

ahh this thread. I still agree with the OP but people dislike that opinion here and Im in the minority feeling that any character who can die will not return as a squad mate in 3.

[SmokePants]

It's not just the easy way, it's the correct way.

A brain surgeon that goes in through the anus, is technically working "harder" than a surgeon going in through the skull, but the results of that hard work would be disastrous.

[mopotter]

HTTP 404 wrote...

ahh this thread. I still agree with the OP but people dislike that opinion here and Im in the minority feeling that any character who can die will not return as a squad mate in 3.

I agree.  

I think it would be nice if they worked their computer programing magic so that if they lived they are part of your crew and if they died you have a blank where the characters show up - like they did in ME1 with Kaidan/Ash - but I don't think it will happen.

I think they will do it like the did ME2.  Died in your game not around, Lived in your game not in the crew but somewhere out in the universe where you can at least meet them like you did Wrex and for me this would be ok.

edit:  I do expect to have Liara, Ash/Kaidan back.  When ME2 came out I think it was Chris who said they were not in your crew because they needed to live so they would be in ME3.  I trust this.  

Modifié par mopotter, 01 septembre 2010 - 10:51 .

[heretica]

HTTP 404 wrote...

ahh this thread. I still agree with the OP but people dislike that opinion here and Im in the minority feeling that any character who can die will not return as a squad mate in 3.

Lol. Then you'll have a crew of 2.

I think that all characters have two states. Dead or Alive. That's it. I don't think they will include any new squad mates because it's the last game and they want  some closure.

So I guess they will make for each character 2 posible stories. Perhaps a recap of the events, showing some coffins and stuff. Other crew members comenting on it, like Joker's comments about "the old good days".; that's if that crew member died.

It's pretty obvious by now that Liara and VS will be in ME3. I don't think they are going to be like "You know, Shepard... I think I'm going to buy a house in Illium and retire while you fight the Reapers."

Edit: Also, I really hope there is the option to destroy the galaxy or have Shepard dying (again) but now for real.

Modifié par Catt128, 01 septembre 2010 - 11:11 .

[KVerde]

Originally, I thought Bioware wold do away with all the old characters but after reading this thread I realize they couldnt possibly disregard all the work from ME2. It totally would invalidate the whole game and its purpose. So I think BW will do the following. ME3 will have a a total of 12 playable squad mates just like ME2. Six will be from previous games. One will be Liara. The other five will be new characters recruited throughout the course of the game. This ensures that even if the player killed off the six from before they will still have six squad mates to work with in ME3 the same amount as in the original.



For the default settings (those without a transferable save file from ME2) I think the game will only bring back two or three of the characters. BW has already shown it is willing to screw gamers over for not playing the previous installments.



Now, which six will BW bring back? For this I will start with those who are definitely out. First, Thane. He will die due to his illness. Morinth and Samara are out because the Asari squadmate role will be filled by Liara. Jack is out because she was one of the least favorite characters among fans. Zaeed is out because he had the least amount of story invested in him, is simply a mercenary for hire, and is not very popular either.



Now for those who are definitely in. Tali and Garrus for obvious reasons.



This means of the remaining four they will be chosen from Mordin, Kasumi, Miranda, Jacob, Legion, Grunt or Wrex.



Of those I would say Mordin, Wrex, Legion and Jacob/Miranda will be the four. Wrex as fan service to those who played from the original game. Legion because of his uniqueness as a geth. Mordin because of his popularity. Of all the characters in ME2 he was also given the most depth in character. And Jacob or Miranda because of their Cerberus ties and how they go back to the Mass Effect Galaxy game.



As for new characters. Without Thane, a new drell will be needed. His character and race were well received by fans. I'm thinking the addition will be Thane's son. He was featured in ME2 already and will want to redeem himself.



Next. A batarian. It is a humanoid race that would fit in perfectly in the squad and shed light on batarian ways within the Mass Effect galaxy. Moreover, I think the batarians are going to be a big part of the story once they are forced to join the fight against the reapers.



Of the other three one will definitely be human. The others,maybe a vorcha. a prothean, a collector or a new race. It could be anything.



So there you have it, my speculations regarding the squad mates in ME3.



My other predictions for ME3.



Shepard will sever his relationship with Cerberus.



The Shadow Broker will provide future intel for Shepard.



Shepard will save the galaxy, but die in the process becoming a legendary badass never to be equaled in gaming again.

[heretica]

KVerde wrote...


Now for those who are definitely in. Tali and Garrus for obvious reasons.

Care to explain, please? What makes Tali or Garrus better than other squad mates? I think everyone is expendable. If they can be killed by the end of ME2 I highly doubt they will have a bigger role in ME3 just because they have more fans than, let's say... Jacob. Which is not what you meant, I hope.

[smecky-kitteh]

Catt128 wrote...

KVerde wrote...


Now for those who are definitely in. Tali and Garrus for obvious reasons.

Care to explain, please? What makes Tali or Garrus better than other squad mates? I think everyone is expendable. If they can be killed by the end of ME2 I highly doubt they will have a bigger role in ME3 just because they have more fans than, let's say... Jacob. Which is not what you meant, I hope.

I just hope they don't get sidelined. I don't care if there squad mates or not. 

[KVerde]

Catt128 wrote...

KVerde wrote...


Now for those who are definitely in. Tali and Garrus for obvious reasons.

Care to explain, please? What makes Tali or Garrus better than other squad mates? I think everyone is expendable. If they can be killed by the end of ME2 I highly doubt they will have a bigger role in ME3 just because they have more fans than, let's say... Jacob. Which is not what you meant, I hope.

Okay, allow me to explain.

Tali and Garrus were in the the original and featured prominently in the second game. They have a larger role in the series. Plus, the people who have played the series also have more invested in them emotionally. It would only make sense for BW to bring them back to please fans and give the Mass Effect universe lasting heroes.

[heretica]

KVerde wrote...

Catt128 wrote...

KVerde wrote...


Now for those who are definitely in. Tali and Garrus for obvious reasons.

Care to explain, please? What makes Tali or Garrus better than other squad mates? I think everyone is expendable. If they can be killed by the end of ME2 I highly doubt they will have a bigger role in ME3 just because they have more fans than, let's say... Jacob. Which is not what you meant, I hope.

Okay, allow me to explain.

Tali and Garrus were in the the original and featured prominently in the second game. They have a larger role in the series. Plus, the people who have played the series also have more invested in them emotionally. It would only make sense for BW to bring them back to please fans and give the Mass Effect universe lasting heroes.

I'm sorry but I don't think I fully understand. You are saying that BW should bring Tali and Garrus back because people grew attached to them? Is that correct? What about people who like other squad mates like Miranda, or Thane ? Garrus and Tali have the same relevance as any other squad mate in ME2, in my opinion. If I were to judge relevance rating  per appearance, I'd say Miranda and Thane have more relevance than Tali or Garrus, because they are on the cover. Even Grunt and Mordin have their own posters.
I dislike Tali, and I like Garrus a lot. But if Tali gets a prominent role in ME3 (which i don't think is going to happen)  just because of her fans, I'd feel that's unfair for everyone who dislike her or simply likes more other crew members.

[KVerde]

Catt128 wrote...

KVerde wrote...

Catt128 wrote...

KVerde wrote...


Now for those who are definitely in. Tali and Garrus for obvious reasons.

Care to explain, please? What makes Tali or Garrus better than other squad mates? I think everyone is expendable. If they can be killed by the end of ME2 I highly doubt they will have a bigger role in ME3 just because they have more fans than, let's say... Jacob. Which is not what you meant, I hope.

Okay, allow me to explain.

Tali and Garrus were in the the original and featured prominently in the second game. They have a larger role in the series. Plus, the people who have played the series also have more invested in them emotionally. It would only make sense for BW to bring them back to please fans and give the Mass Effect universe lasting heroes.

I'm sorry but I don't think I fully understand. You are saying that BW should bring Tali and Garrus back because people grew attached to them? Is that correct? What about people who like other squad mates like Miranda, or Thane ? Garrus and Tali have the same relevance as any other squad mate in ME2, in my opinion. If I were to judge relevance rating  per appearance, I'd say Miranda and Thane have more relevance than Tali or Garrus, because they are on the cover. Even Grunt and Mordin have their own posters.
I dislike Tali, and I like Garrus a lot. But if Tali gets a prominent role in ME3 (which i don't think is going to happen)  just because of her fans, I'd feel that's unfair for everyone who dislike her or simply likes more other crew members.

I see your opinion. You make valid points. In any case we are being both speculative. I only figure Tali and Garrus will continue to be a part of the Mass Effect series because of their larger roles in the series. And by that I mean more dialogue and more involvement with Shepard. But I could see how BW could off them both. Either way I still think six characters will be brought back. It is just the right amount to make the squad gathering in ME2 seem justified while still offering the player a chance to meet and recruit new characters in ME3. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

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.

Which might just be one of the least coherent and informed ploy analyses of all time.

[MrCasperTom]

iakus wrote...

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.

Ok I get what they're getting at now. Still don't agree with it but I understand what they're trying to say.

Cheers.

[smudboy]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
First of all, you seem mad.

You must look beneath the surface of things.

Secondly, I will not pretend to guess whether or not Bioware will include past squadmates in Me3 for sure. No one can assume they all will be included or none of them will be included. However, my stance is that it makes sense that they would because A.) It'd be more significant to fans of the past games who built up relationships with them and B.) Because it'd be easier than introducing new characters.

So we can't guess, but your stance says otherwise.  Okay then.

Returning squadmates as cameo's is fine.  Returning squadmates as squadmates is the problem.  Actually, I think if they focused entirely on cameo dialog, you'd get a more fitting experience and development, greater romance, etc., since they somewhat messed up the ME1 romance characters.

You overestimate the amount that either NPCs from the first or second game had to do with the plot.

Nyar?
Liara, Ash/Kaidan, and Tali were all plot integral to ME1.  (As was Shepard.)
Mordin was plot integral to ME2.

This isn't an issue of amount.  They, and their devices, are literally necessary for the plot, like rails for a train.

They were all essentially bystanders, and besides Loyalty and Recruitment missions, had about as much character specific dialogue as any non-recruitable npc in the game. For 95% of the game when you're actually going on missions, all of the squad mates in both games are essentially interchangable and do not meaningfully interact with the story. You say that they'll have to "reintroduce" old squad mates from the past games, but that's not true. The old Me1 squad mates were barely reintroduced at all.

Exactly.  They'll have to still introduce them.  All 12.  In some bizarre "Oh Shepard, is that you?" fashion, or "go down to Engineering, Tali, Garrus and Grunt want to talk to you" scenario, which will have to somehow be a fair experience for new players without imports.

Let's see, they went the Jesus route.  Can't get much worse from there.  There's always amnesia and "it was all a dream."

The game assumes Shepard knew them and didn't waste much time telling you who they were. Garrus and Tali had probably the fewest dialogues of any of the Me2 npcs since Shepard pretty much knew all about them already so there wasn't much for them to say besides the events of the past 2 years when Shep was dead. Quite frankly, they were just less expanded upon then the new cast was. So it logical to assume the same would happen in the third game.

Which was a failing in exposition.  We don't even know how that import impacted Garrus.  At least with Tali you get a few scenes about the events of ME1 (Geth Data, Feros, death of Ash/Kaidan.)  New game players assume a ruthless background (Feros, death of Ash/Kaidan), and that's only through romance.

So yes, it would take much less effort for Bioware to include old npcs than it would be to introduce new ones, who might require an entire mission or two devoted to them wheras the old npcs would simply be there. Maybe a mission to recruit Liara and Kaiden/Ashley and you'd be set on npcs period and the entire game could focus on the plot.

It's really the same argument.
If it's new to new players, it's new, and the writers would have to treat them as new (in much the same way you said they were treated in ME2.)
Why waste time and resources on completely optional content, when they then must still create new characters as well?  Just make new squadmates, and have the corresponding dialog for old character cameo's.

It's as silly to assume that Me3 will be like Me2 than it was to assume Me2 would be like Me1. Stop being a silly goose.

In regards to plot, yes, I have no idea nor can speculate what ME3's plot will be about, considering ME2 screwed the pooch.  However, the topic is about ME3 squadmembers.  We see many examples of cameos and placeholders (Liara, Wrex/Wreav, Ash/Kaidan) of how ME2 handled ME1.  Accessory characters, like Gianna, or Shiala, may make another cameo.  But to play fanservice, with 12 characters, in completely optional content, of varying states, is simply pushing it.  As Casey stated, we know that there will be new squadmates, so we have to fathom around that design, to explain the existence of other squadmates in lieu of death/recruitment/loyalty/import.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Which might just be one of the least coherent and informed ploy analyses of all time.

How is it:
1. the least coherent
2. the least informed ploy analyses

(Actually, what is a ploy analyses?)

If you look at all the instances Shepard does stuff, we can easily remove them and put someone else in their place, and the story and preceeding events would go along just fine.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Which might just be one of the least coherent and informed ploy analyses of all time.

How is it:
1. the least coherent
2. the least informed ploy analyses

(Actually, what is a ploy analyses?)

If you look at all the instances Shepard does stuff, we can easily remove them and put someone else in their place, and the story and preceeding events would go along just fine.

Approached the way you've approached it, the same could be said of about 95% of the protagonists ever depicted.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Which might just be one of the least coherent and informed ploy analyses of all time.

How is it:
1. the least coherent
2. the least informed ploy analyses

(Actually, what is a ploy analyses?)

If you look at all the instances Shepard does stuff, we can easily remove them and put someone else in their place, and the story and preceeding events would go along just fine.

Approached the way you've approached it, the same could be said of about 95% of the protagonists ever depicted.

So it's the least coherent because 95% of the protagonists ever depicted are like this (except for Shepard in ME1), and it is the least informed ploy analyses because 95% of the protagonists ever depicted are like this?  (Except for Shepard in ME1.)  Please explain.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Which might just be one of the least coherent and informed ploy analyses of all time.

How is it:
1. the least coherent
2. the least informed ploy analyses

(Actually, what is a ploy analyses?)

If you look at all the instances Shepard does stuff, we can easily remove them and put someone else in their place, and the story and preceeding events would go along just fine.

Approached the way you've approached it, the same could be said of about 95% of the protagonists ever depicted.

So it's the least coherent because 95% of the protagonists ever depicted are like this (except for Shepard in ME1), and it is the least informed ploy analyses because 95% of the protagonists ever depicted are like this?  (Except for Shepard in ME1.)  Please explain.

By the filter you've applied, Shephard isn't vital to ME1 either.

It's a meaningless distinction -- it's like complaining that the protagonist in a play is on stage.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Which might just be one of the least coherent and informed ploy analyses of all time.

How is it:
1. the least coherent
2. the least informed ploy analyses

(Actually, what is a ploy analyses?)

If you look at all the instances Shepard does stuff, we can easily remove them and put someone else in their place, and the story and preceeding events would go along just fine.

Approached the way you've approached it, the same could be said of about 95% of the protagonists ever depicted.

So it's the least coherent because 95% of the protagonists ever depicted are like this (except for Shepard in ME1), and it is the least informed ploy analyses because 95% of the protagonists ever depicted are like this?  (Except for Shepard in ME1.)  Please explain.

By the filter you've applied, Shephard isn't vital to ME1 either.

It's a meaningless distinction -- it's like complaining that the protagonist in a play is on stage.

Shepard (see: Commander Shepard) is vital (plot integral) to ME1.
-They receive the Prothean Vision
-They receive the Cipher
-Along with Liara's meld, without these things, the plot cannot continue (see: Ilos.)

It is not a meaningless distinction.  Read above.

I am not complaining.  I am stating facts.  Although I do admit to making simple observatiosn to a protagonist and how their value is necessary for the plot.  I have no idea what you're referring to in "complaining that the protagonist in a play is on stage."

[A.N.A.N]

Shepard (see: Commander Shepard) is vital (plot integral) to ME1.
-They receive the Prothean Vision
-They receive the Cipher
-Along with Liara's meld, without these things, the plot cannot continue (see: Ilos.)

It is not a meaningless distinction. Read above.

I am not complaining. I am stating facts. Although I do admit to making simple observatiosn to a protagonist and how their value is necessary for the plot. I have no idea what you're referring to in "complaining that the protagonist in a play is on stage."

Except "anyone" could do the above, exactly the same as in ME2. Shepard is just there at the right time and makes (mostly) the right decisions (in-universe. All decisions that a player can make are 'correct')

Modifié par A.N.A.N, 01 septembre 2010 - 02:47 .

[smudboy]

A.N.A.N wrote...

Shepard (see: Commander Shepard) is vital (plot integral) to ME1.
-They receive the Prothean Vision
-They receive the Cipher
-Along with Liara's meld, without these things, the plot cannot continue (see: Ilos.)

It is not a meaningless distinction. Read above.

I am not complaining. I am stating facts. Although I do admit to making simple observatiosn to a protagonist and how their value is necessary for the plot. I have no idea what you're referring to in "complaining that the protagonist in a play is on stage."

Except "anyone" could do the above, exactly the same as in ME2. Shepard is just there at the right time and makes (mostly) the right decisions (in-universe. All decisions that a player can make are 'correct')

After the Prothean Vision, how can anyone then get the Cipher?  And how can anyone then meld with Liara to have her figure out Ilos?

If you're referring to Shepard at the beginning, then yes, it could be Commander Jeff, or Commander Stacy, or whoever.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying, as soon as Shepard receives the Prothean Vision, Shepard and only Shepard can make the plot advance.  That makes them plot integral.

This is a more intrinsic quality to Shepard: they're the Vision & Cipher Bearer.  As opposed to external plot devices, like MacGuffins or some such, where you can make a hopefully reasonable argument on other persons doing the hand-offs.  Either way, once those plot devices are used up, their use as being plot integral is finished, but that doesn't make them any less vital.

[Harley_Dude]

Since there can be many different combinations of squad members surviving I would expect some type of event at the beginning of ME3 to level the playing field and allow for new characters. It would be unusual for Bioware to produce a game with no additional characters. If you played ME1 you know that most of the team is built within the first hour of the game so adding new characters in ME3 would not detract from the main plot/quests. ME2 was unusual in that most of the game was about recruitment/loyalty. The argument that they all return just because you recruited them would be a substantial change from past Bioware games. Awakenings, which was an expansion, did not return all the recruited characters from Origins. Why would one expect they all return as squad members in ME3 when the game provides clues to how they may depart, i.e. Thane's terminal illness. You also have two DLC characters. Will Bioware require you to purchase DLC so Zaeed and Kasumi magically appear in your ME3 import?