2338 réponses à ce sujet

[xlavaina]

I really hope they stick with the ME2 squad and maybe have a few optional members from ME1. This way, people who let all but 2 of their squad die can recruit a few more, but still have to deal with the consequences.



By the way guys, it is really tough to kill of all but two of your team. Bioware will probably anticipate that a couple died (on my first run I think five died) and go from there.



And I agree. It sucks to be a writer for ME3 right now.

[vigna]

Only half my crew died the first run. I didn't know time was an issue.

[Harley_Dude]

Mr. Man wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

Apparently dialog for Tali and Legion has been unlocked by PC hacks that show the game originally allowed you to recruit the squad in any order. For some reason Bioware reversed course and forced you to recruit in two groups. My guess is they were finding issues with managing all the dialog resources and making it fit on the 2 discs for the 360. If that was the case it would be difficult to fit 12 characters onto 2 discs for the entire game unless they go with the "calibrations" type of interaction. Cameos would be easy as they only occur once within the context of the quest at hand.

If Bioware focused on what was easy instead of what was awesome, then Mass Effect would have never come this far to begin with.

If your talking about the combat then yes it has greatly improved. But when it comes to choices, and I include who survives as a choice, then I have to disagree. The ramifications of your choices in ME1 deserved greater weight in the ME2 story. It felt like Bioware just gave them lip service. Since they have the game mechanics dialed in let's hope they have a better role playing story within ME3. That and go back to ME1 style planet scanning.

[Mr. Man]

The Harley Dude wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

Apparently dialog for Tali and Legion has been unlocked by PC hacks that show the game originally allowed you to recruit the squad in any order. For some reason Bioware reversed course and forced you to recruit in two groups. My guess is they were finding issues with managing all the dialog resources and making it fit on the 2 discs for the 360. If that was the case it would be difficult to fit 12 characters onto 2 discs for the entire game unless they go with the "calibrations" type of interaction. Cameos would be easy as they only occur once within the context of the quest at hand.

If Bioware focused on what was easy instead of what was awesome, then Mass Effect would have never come this far to begin with.

If your talking about the combat then yes it has greatly improved. But when it comes to choices, and I include who survives as a choice, then I have to disagree. The ramifications of your choices in ME1 deserved greater weight in the ME2 story. It felt like Bioware just gave them lip service. Since they have the game mechanics dialed in let's hope they have a better role playing story within ME3. That and go back to ME1 style planet scanning.

Your right, choices in ME2 and ME1 should have much more wieght on ME3, carrying over surviving squad mates is one of the ways they can do this.

[SmokePants]

The Harley Dude wrote...

If your talking about the combat then yes it has greatly improved. But when it comes to choices, and I include who survives as a choice, then I have to disagree. The ramifications of your choices in ME1 deserved greater weight in the ME2 story. It felt like Bioware just gave them lip service. Since they have the game mechanics dialed in let's hope they have a better role playing story within ME3. That and go back to ME1 style planet scanning.

"We were surprised by how many people imported a game from Mass Effect 1…We put a lot into that feature..." - Casey Hudson

I've noticed that pretty much everyone who is convinced that BioWare has some grand intentions for ME3 with how they handle previous outcomes is guilty of grossly underestimating the process of making games.

We all understand how ME2 handles ME1 outcomes. There's nothing particularly fancy of perplexing about it. There's no magic dust there. And yet they completely busted their ass to give it to us.

The point is, they only have one ass to bust and that's all they'll ever have.

[Zulu_DFA]

SmokePants wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

If your talking about the combat then yes it has greatly improved. But when it comes to choices, and I include who survives as a choice, then I have to disagree. The ramifications of your choices in ME1 deserved greater weight in the ME2 story. It felt like Bioware just gave them lip service. Since they have the game mechanics dialed in let's hope they have a better role playing story within ME3. That and go back to ME1 style planet scanning.

"We were surprised by how many people imported a game from Mass Effect 1…We put a lot into that feature..." - Casey Hudson

I've noticed that pretty much everyone who is convinced that BioWare has some grand intentions for ME3 with how they handle previous outcomes is guilty of grossly underestimating the process of making games.

We all understand how ME2 handles ME1 outcomes. There's nothing particularly fancy of perplexing about it. There's no magic dust there. And yet they completely busted their ass to give it to us.

The point is, they only have one ass to bust and that's all they'll ever have.

It's also of interest, that although that interview does not give away any information directly affecting this discussion, the figures given come as a surprise to many fans here.

And, judging by the fact that not all loyalty missions get always completed I wouldn't be so astonished if the actual rate of the "No one left behind" achievement turned out to be as "high" as 10-20%. So the argument "almost everyone has it", weak as it's ever been (because it still can't cancel the fact that the squadmates may all die), does no longer count at all, as it's now simply doubtful.

Definitely, BioWare will put more effort to the continuity in ME3. But the two problems are that (1) it says nothing as to how much more effort, and (2) it wasn't planned this way. It was planned another way: Liara, Ashley and Kaidan were meant to be in ME3, while Garrus and Tali were not. Simple as that.

And, of course, the return of the ME1-style planet scanning would be very much more appreciated, than some random ME2 squadmate return.

[Commander Kurt]

First of all, I think it may be difficult to compare ME2 with ME3. It is quite logical that the more differentiated the story becomes in ME2 due to decissions made in ME1, the more you have to work with these same outcomes in ME3 (at the cost of having more different outcomes due to new decissions). In short, the later in the series you differentiate outcomes the greater number of differentiaded outcomes you get for the same cost.



Secondly, I am amazed at the argument that people can die. I mean, of course they can die. Having them die is sort of like using the magic flute in Super Mario 3, you get to the end faster but you haven't played the whole game. This is by no means the standard way of playing a game, and therefor not the standard result. It is like stating that the second world in that game does not exist because it is possible to skip it and therefore some people will buy the game and never see it. Well, it still exists. It seems reasonable that a few squad members die despite a players best intentions, but some seem more likely than others to get the axe (Mordin for instance). I wonder if this has any significance..? I hope not, Mordin in a favourite.

[SmokePants]

If you want to use the Mario/warping analogy, then it would be like if you used the Warp Zone in Super Mario 1 and found that when you went to play Mario 3, you start halfway into the game. No game does that, because that would be entirely unwelcome. When a game starts, you should have every opportunity to chart your course through it. If I choose to use a Warp Whistle, it's because I want to skip levels in THAT game, not the one coming out in three years.

Modifié par SmokePants, 07 septembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Commander Kurt]

SmokePants wrote...

If you want to use the Mario/warping analogy, then it would be like if you used the Warp Zone in Super Mario 1 and found that when you went to play Mario 3, you start halfway into the game. No game does that, because that would be entirely unwelcome. When a game starts, you should have every opportunity to chart your course through it. If I choose to use a Warp Whistle, it's because I want to skip levels in THAT game, not the one coming out in three years.

So people playing ME generally don´t want decissions in one game to carry through to the next game? Interesting theory, I thought that was the whole point for those who liked the game.

I'm going to think about the possibility that you might be right. I find it a bit unlikely at the moment, but I have been surprised by people before.

[SmokePants]

Decisions can matter without walling off entire levels and huge chunks of content. If I used the Warp Zone in Mario 1, it would be neat if Mario 3 acknowledged that I did so, but not if they acknowledged it by cutting my game in half.

They had ample opportunity to pull that crap with ME2, but they didn't. They could have made Wrex a companion and ommitted his missions if he died in ME1. They could have done the same with Shiala or since Thane's recruitment involved Nassana Dantia, they could have turned that off if you didn't handle her ME1 mission a certain way.

What would be the effect of that? You would have correct and incorrect save states. "Sure, you paid the same money for the game as everyone else, but you didn't play the previous game(s) 'right', so sucks to me you." To gain access to the ommitted content, you'd have to go through the previous game again (and their data shows that only about 50% of players can finish the game even one time) and make different decisions. And in the case of the suicide mission, you'd probably need a FAQ to get it right.

Those are just unreasonable expectations on the player, not to mention reviewers, who might never know that half the game was missing and they missed out on a moment or two that may have made the game for them.. They would have to be out of their minds to do it that way.

Modifié par SmokePants, 07 septembre 2010 - 11:02 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Mr. Man wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

Apparently dialog for Tali and Legion has been unlocked by PC hacks that show the game originally allowed you to recruit the squad in any order. For some reason Bioware reversed course and forced you to recruit in two groups. My guess is they were finding issues with managing all the dialog resources and making it fit on the 2 discs for the 360. If that was the case it would be difficult to fit 12 characters onto 2 discs for the entire game unless they go with the "calibrations" type of interaction. Cameos would be easy as they only occur once within the context of the quest at hand.

If Bioware focused on what was easy instead of what was awesome, then Mass Effect would have never come this far to begin with.

This.

-Polite

[Commander Kurt]

SmokePants wrote...

Decisions can matter without walling off entire levels and huge chunks of content. If I used the Warp Zone in Mario 1, it would be neat if Mario 3 acknowledged that I did so, but not if they acknowledged it by cutting my game in half.

I don´t agree that playing the same game with 6 squad members is half of doing it with 12. To me, it's the same game with fewer calibrations. And don´t get me wrong, I enjoyed socializing with the squad, but I still think 12 members is overkill on the verge of sillyness. And of course, some people will want 50 members and others don't want any. But I don´t think buyers will go crazy over fewer squad members, especially since they made the decission themselves to kill some off (and are free to take them back should they want that content).

They had ample opportunity to pull that crap with ME2, but they didn't. They could have made Wrex a companion and ommitted his missions if he died in ME1. They could have done the same with Shiala or since Thane's recruitment involved Nassana Dantia, they could have turned that off if you didn't handle her ME1 mission a certain way.

Yes, I suspect that some things in ME3 will be done differently than it was in ME2.

What would be the effect of that? You would have correct and incorrect save states. "Sure, you paid the same money for the game as everyone else, but you didn't play the previous game(s) 'right', so sucks to me you." To gain access to the ommitted content, you'd have to go through the previous game again (and their data shows that only about 50% of players can finish the game even one time) and make different decisions. And in the case of the suicide mission, you'd probably need a FAQ to get it right.

Right? Sucks? As I stated, I don´t think it´s a harsh punishment to have (for example) 6 squad members. If it is, I don´t know what I did to make Bioware angry at me before buying the first game. And really, you need more FAQ help killing squad members than saving them.

Those are just unreasonable expectations on the player, not to mention reviewers, who might never know that half the game was missing and they missed out on a moment or two that may have made the game for them.. They would have to be out of their minds to do it that way.

I'm on my 4th playthrough of ME1 now, and I still find new dialogue and even sidemissions. Maybe it has not occured to you that players might value more missions higher than, or equally high as, more squad members. If it has occured to you, this objection makes little sense.

[smudboy]

SmokePants wrote...

Decisions can matter without walling off entire levels and huge chunks of content. If I used the Warp Zone in Mario 1, it would be neat if Mario 3 acknowledged that I did so, but not if they acknowledged it by cutting my game in half.

They had ample opportunity to pull that crap with ME2, but they didn't. They could have made Wrex a companion and ommitted his missions if he died in ME1. They could have done the same with Shiala or since Thane's recruitment involved Nassana Dantia, they could have turned that off if you didn't handle her ME1 mission a certain way.

What would be the effect of that? You would have correct and incorrect save states. "Sure, you paid the same money for the game as everyone else, but you didn't play the previous game(s) 'right', so sucks to me you." To gain access to the ommitted content, you'd have to go through the previous game again (and their data shows that only about 50% of players can finish the game even one time) and make different decisions. And in the case of the suicide mission, you'd probably need a FAQ to get it right.

Those are just unreasonable expectations on the player, not to mention reviewers, who might never know that half the game was missing and they missed out on a moment or two that may have made the game for them.. They would have to be out of their minds to do it that way.

That's an interesting assessment.  The issue is compounded with the sheer number of squadmates to include, if we are to assume the content is similar to ME2; if it's not, and they're just there, with a few lines of dialog, then it's no big deal.  They then become faceless, mindless dolls, merely acknowledging that "yes I was here", and having them be part of a squad select screen.  This is not how BioWare does characters, who are squadmates, and many people wouldn't be too happy about their lack fo exposition.

There would be evidence if such characters were granted cameos at first, and then DLC at a later date; I can easily see this as Bioware tying up lose ends to those threads, should those characters in those threads survive.  There would be enough fan feedback, though not destroying or necessitating anything in the main story.  There's simply no evidence to show an example of this, since Liara cannot die, and all ME2 squaddies can.  Basically, this would imply ones import would need those people to be alive in the first place, which wouldn't make sense if one purchases a Tali DLC, and she's dead.  Thus, it would then have to invlove a placeholder for her, and her story wouldn't revolve about her personally.  Instead, simply having her along for the ride (much like how Liara probably is in the LOTSB.)  It would be about her culture, people, giving Quarians a home, fighting the Geth, etc.

[stysiaq]

SmokePants wrote...

Decisions can matter without walling off entire levels and huge chunks of content. If I used the Warp Zone in Mario 1, it would be neat if Mario 3 acknowledged that I did so, but not if they acknowledged it by cutting my game in half.

They had ample opportunity to pull that crap with ME2, but they didn't. They could have made Wrex a companion and ommitted his missions if he died in ME1. They could have done the same with Shiala or since Thane's recruitment involved Nassana Dantia, they could have turned that off if you didn't handle her ME1 mission a certain way.

What would be the effect of that? You would have correct and incorrect save states. "Sure, you paid the same money for the game as everyone else, but you didn't play the previous game(s) 'right', so sucks to me you." To gain access to the ommitted content, you'd have to go through the previous game again (and their data shows that only about 50% of players can finish the game even one time) and make different decisions. And in the case of the suicide mission, you'd probably need a FAQ to get it right.

Those are just unreasonable expectations on the player, not to mention reviewers, who might never know that half the game was missing and they missed out on a moment or two that may have made the game for them.. They would have to be out of their minds to do it that way.

Well, can't argue with that. Cutting whole characters out of the picture surely wouldn't be of any benefit to the game. However, my latest thought on ME3 cast is that the squad ought to be composed purely of ME and ME2 characters. There is simply no need for new companions; Shepherd has a solid pack of people who (s)he can trust, all the "combat-capable" races are already represented (only introducing new race would be of any sense, while vorcha are just too savage and with too short lifespan to create interesting character, and elcor / hanar / volus would be just a humorous addition) and there is no logical reason, why should Shepherd abandon his loyal crew since after the suicide mission everybody just put their warfaces on, knowing that their work is hardly done.

[Commander Kurt]

stysiaq wrote...

Well, can't argue with that. Cutting whole characters out of the picture surely wouldn't be of any benefit to the game. However, my latest thought on ME3 cast is that the squad ought to be composed purely of ME and ME2 characters. There is simply no need for new companions; Shepherd has a solid pack of people who (s)he can trust, all the "combat-capable" races are already represented (only introducing new race would be of any sense, while vorcha are just too savage and with too short lifespan to create interesting character, and elcor / hanar / volus would be just a humorous addition) and there is no logical reason, why should Shepherd abandon his loyal crew since after the suicide mission everybody just put their warfaces on, knowing that their work is hardly done.

So how do you suspect that they solve the issue of squad members possibly being dead, if not by removing them (having fewer squad members) OR replacing them?

As a side note, logical reasons can always be created by the writers. It may not be to our liking, but the story is formed with gameplay in mind.

[Commander Kurt]

smudboy wrote...
That's an interesting assessment.  The issue is compounded with the sheer number of squadmates to include, if we are to assume the content is similar to ME2[...].

But in ME2 we have 10 squad members, and in ME3 they would have to create 13. Do you feel that it is an unreasonable number? 

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Garrus should totally become a spectre in me3

[armass]

After lotsb who wants a yahg squadmate for ME3?

[Harley_Dude]

SmokePants wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

If your talking about the combat then yes it has greatly improved. But when it comes to choices, and I include who survives as a choice, then I have to disagree. The ramifications of your choices in ME1 deserved greater weight in the ME2 story. It felt like Bioware just gave them lip service. Since they have the game mechanics dialed in let's hope they have a better role playing story within ME3. That and go back to ME1 style planet scanning.

"We were surprised by how many people imported a game from Mass Effect 1…We put a lot into that feature..." - Casey Hudson

I've noticed that pretty much everyone who is convinced that BioWare has some grand intentions for ME3 with how they handle previous outcomes is guilty of grossly underestimating the process of making games.

We all understand how ME2 handles ME1 outcomes. There's nothing particularly fancy of perplexing about it. There's no magic dust there. And yet they completely busted their ass to give it to us.

The point is, they only have one ass to bust and that's all they'll ever have.

I don't have a problem with how most of the ME1 information was handled as cameos. It is the killing the council decision that was handled bad. This decision got the the least amount of content in ME2 when it is arguably one of the most important. Having content based on your morality does not wall of the game if you play both sides in different playthroughs. In my opinion it makes the game more enjoyable. Who cares about the people that never finished the game, they probably rented or borrowed it.

[smudboy]

Commander Kurt wrote...

smudboy wrote...
That's an interesting assessment.  The issue is compounded with the sheer number of squadmates to include, if we are to assume the content is similar to ME2[...].

But in ME2 we have 10 squad members, and in ME3 they would have to create 13. Do you feel that it is an unreasonable number? 

There are 12 squad members in ME2.  Just because Zaeed and Kasumi are DLC doesn't take them out of the import: ME3 must account for all states of all variables, especially since you can have those two being the only survivors.

It depends under what context we are referring to that number of squadmates for it to be unreasonable.  Within the confines of telling a well thoughout, succinct narrative whose supporting cast and characters assist the protagonist in their journey, then yes, 12, or more, would be an outlandish number.  If we are purely looking at them as functional squadmates that don't contribute to anything, then there's no argument, and BioWare can put in all the fluff it wishes.  That idea falls flat -- considering the scope of production of all -- all because some fans want X characters to return, and be as fleshed out as they were before.

[xlavaina]

I don't think it will be nearly as hard on the import as you think smudboy. Going into ME3 you can have 2-12 squad members alive. Since we all believe that ME3 is going to focus more on the story than the characters, why not just make the gamer suffer the consequences of losing a large chunk of the squad? It makes sense that those who died in the suicide mission actually cause trouble in the next game, and make it much more difficult squad variety wise. The VS, Liara and Wrex (if survived, obviously) could be optional recruitments (or required, who know).

[smudboy]

xlavaina wrote...

I don't think it will be nearly as hard on the import as you think smudboy. Going into ME3 you can have 2-12 squad members alive. Since we all believe that ME3 is going to focus more on the story than the characters, why not just make the gamer suffer the consequences of losing a large chunk of the squad? It makes sense that those who died in the suicide mission actually cause trouble in the next game, and make it much more difficult squad variety wise. The VS, Liara and Wrex (if survived, obviously) could be optional recruitments (or required, who know).

That is assuming all 12 will be part of your squad.  Again, this is all optional content: if functional squadmates, it's irrelevant, since you yourself stated the focus is story.

I can't see the gamer suffering in his playthrough of ME3.  Not once do I recall losing a character from ME1 and going "if only I had saved Wrex."   There was no lack of "squad variety wise."  ME2 broke the bank, because the focus was the characters.  If what you state is true, that the focus of ME3 is the story, and all these characters are optional and pointless, why even think they'd be back?  To that end, the story will determine who our squad will be, and completely optional characters, must act as placeholders, and thus have limited to non-plot involvement.  (Or if great plot involvement, then Tali->some other important Quarian, if Garrus->some other important Turian, etc.)

[Yeti13]

now that the LotSB has come out Im adding to my theory (please don't attack me for having theories)



First off I believe that ME1 was the introduction the world of ME, you meet a few people and learn about your enemy. The way i see it you can have 5 SM survive ME1



In Me2 you have to have at least 2 survive and a up to 12. So lets say you got everyone except 2 people killed, then my guess is that you could have 7 SM + possibly Faron (who owes you big time) so 8 maybe.



Total you could have 18, yes thats a lot i know but i know BW could handle it.



The reason i think this is because ME2 is about the characters, getting the BEST! in the galaxy to help you. Why if they lived would they stop helping the man fighting the greatest threat to the milky way ever?



You now have The shadow broker on your side you do not need cerberus so it might make since for Miri to leave. Jacob probably has your back. Yes Legion and Tail might leave for a while but I'm sure you will get them back with reinforcements from their species.



I just dont think that BW will spend the next game having you gather people up when all the time needs to go to building a coalition to defend the galaxy. 12 people wont cut it this time. (even with the mac daddy cain)

[smudboy]

Yeti13 wrote...
SB stuff

Actually the one of the few things I found interesting after reading the dossier on Garrus (aside from his family issues), was the Shadow Broker thought being under Shepard made Garrus's skills be overshadowed: to develop more, he'd have to be a leader.  If we take the two most popular squadmates, Tali and Garrus, it would make sense if everyone's helping out Shepard to stop the Reapers; simply not as squadmates.  Would Tali be more effective as an engineer on the Normandy, or organizing the Quarians to war?  Would Garrus work best as Shepard's sniper, or a leader of his own military team?  Unless there's some development for Liara that makes Feron take over for her, or somesuch, she seems to be well suited in her position to assist in ME3; though, her argument is by far stronger than all the ME2 squadmates combined, since she can't die.

[Yeti13]

im not saying they wont break away for a while to gather anyone who will fight but garrus leading his own squad doesn't make any since because the war will be one with ships not hand guns or sniper rifles. If he has to go rally the Turians I'm sure he would want to come back onto whatever ship Shepard is on (please BW give shep a DREADNOUGHT) and Garrus was on it, that whould compel the other Turian ships to follow that ship into death. Kinda of like a multi species command ship, the argument works for Tail especially is she becomes an admiral