22 réponses à ce sujet

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Yeah like after my third playthrough of 2 where I intentionally just went with the first quickest choices ever on the suicide mission (personality of character) I got to thinking about whether or not alot of the decisions we made during loyalty missions would carry over into me3 if those characters died. 

It seems like most every loyalty mission contains one or two big threads that could carry over into the next game, but alot of them make me worried that on my playthrough where I have just Morinth, Garrus, and Legion alive I'll have significantly less content to enjoy in ME3.


And then I got to thinking about what choices you ended up making that could or could not still have interesting consiquences depending on the....livelyhood of the associated character.

Maelin's Genophage Research Data, Keiji's Gray Box, the whereabouts of Vido, possible retalliation from Miranda's Father, and the choices made reguarding the Heretics, advice given to the Quarian Admiralty Board....these are all things I'm worried about getting resolved in the third game if the associated character bites the big one. 


It would be super lame to never find out about the fate of the quarians or to have the gray box sit in the normandy's cargo hold for the rest of eternity.  Even smaller things like whether or not you let certain characters survive (Jacob's father hearing about his son's death in prison might make a really touching email) are things that we REALLY need to still see the ramnifications of even if that character is gone. 

Alot of the small decisions of me1 were carried over in interesting ways, but I don't want to be locked out of major portions of the game just because I didn't keep all 12 of my squad alive in xxxxx playthrough.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 14 juillet 2010 - 01:28 .

[HopHazzard]

I actually think it would be pretty cool if people who took the time to build their squad and make sure they all made it through the mission got a better gameplay experience in ME3 than people who just rushed through it.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

But what about those that meticulously play out the suicide mission in a way that creates the most INTERESTING scenario? IE: killing Wrex on Virmire from a story perspective makes sense, and leaves you with an interesting "version" of the urdnot tribes.

Character death should impact the story, for Bioware to communicate to us that letting people die was "wrong and you should never do it ever" would be kind of contrary to the entire point of the moral choice system.

I'm saying I hope that we aren't locked out of anything, and that each squad-relevant quest plays out differently if that person didn't make it rather than not at all..

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 14 juillet 2010 - 02:00 .

[pvt_java]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

But what about those that meticulously play out the suicide mission in a way that creates the most INTERESTING scenario? IE: killing Wrex on Virmire from a story perspective makes sense, and leaves you with an interesting "version" of the urdnot tribes.

Character death should impact the story, for Bioware to communicate to us that letting people die was "wrong and you should never do it ever" would be kind of contrary to the entire point of the moral choice system.

I'm saying I hope that we aren't locked out of anything, and that each squad-relevant quest plays out differently if that person didn't make it rather than not at all..

Bioware practically told you how to get everyone alive out of the suicide mission. Did you not read the 15,000 tips that are in the game? There's even a guide on these very forums that shows you how to get 100% survival. If you rushed through it and you have 3 people alive, then that is your fault. I imagine that character death will play a role, but they are not going to cater to people who rushed through the game. 

[HopHazzard]

Killing Wrex because he's endangering your mission is very different from getting your squad killed because you made bad command decisions. If your squad dies on the suicide mission it's because somewhere along the line you screwed up as their commander. Why shouldn't there be repercussions from that in terms of things you might've been able to do if they'd lived?

[angj57]

pvt_java wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

But what about those that meticulously play out the suicide mission in a way that creates the most INTERESTING scenario? IE: killing Wrex on Virmire from a story perspective makes sense, and leaves you with an interesting "version" of the urdnot tribes.

Character death should impact the story, for Bioware to communicate to us that letting people die was "wrong and you should never do it ever" would be kind of contrary to the entire point of the moral choice system.

I'm saying I hope that we aren't locked out of anything, and that each squad-relevant quest plays out differently if that person didn't make it rather than not at all..

Bioware practically told you how to get everyone alive out of the suicide mission. Did you not read the 15,000 tips that are in the game? There's even a guide on these very forums that shows you how to get 100% survival. If you rushed through it and you have 3 people alive, then that is your fault. I imagine that character death will play a role, but they are not going to cater to people who rushed through the game. 

My first time through I had deaths, and I was paying attention to the tips. So many people had told me that it was a scuicide mission and that some of the crew would die that I assumed that some deaths were inevitable. So I chose people who I deemed expendible rather than the ones that I thought would be best at the jobs. For instance I figured going through the ventilation pipes was the most dangerous job, so I picked Thane. He was the top of my suicide mission list because he was going to die soon anyway.

[IoCaster]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Any big decisions that are plot related will be covered by a stand-in if necessary. The other stuff will probably be handled by cameos, emails and quick fetch quests that won't affect the main plot in ME3.



What you could do if you're on PC is run your bloodbath suicide mission and create the save file. Copy that after end credits save file to another folder. Reload a save from before the O4 Relay and do a no one left behind run. Now you'll have two import files to play with in ME3.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

pvt_java: No but as I said, you can get character death without rushing. Some of it intentional to create a bigger narrative impact on my own personal experience.  (ex: Tali gets exhiled, Shepard sides with Legion, both of these have a notable impact on tali's personality and would leave her unable to perform her duties during the suicide mission at 100% capacity.)

Who would think that Mordin is so capable of dieing just because you
took Garrus or Grunt along to fight the final boss with you, the game
doesn't tell you that they're the ones that will make all the
difference, that's something that the community found out after beating
the game.  Brad Shoemaker of giantbomb.com
ended up with Mordin dead and he felt like he was properly prepared and
did everything right, he was blindsided, many of these decisions were
intended to blindside you as a player.

Miranda failing to hold up as a biotic is also something that you can't really forsee unless you already know that she's crap at it.  Fire team leader can get both the tech expert killed (At first glance many people can be lead to believe that Zaeed was a good fire team leader, and some people assigned jacob to the vents just because they thought his volunteer was a hint)  and the distraction team leader killed (fire team leader 2, my initial run I picked grunt because from what I could figure sending my toughest squadmate out to be a distraction seemed completely logical at the time.)  Outside of that there are conflicts that you might not be able to end with both sides happy even if you're doing everything just because of when you did them and how your points were allocated.  That again is info you'd have to already know before starting to be able to guess against.  Even the outcome of Zaeed's mission can result in lost loyalty while appearing to do everything right just because your paragon bar isn't high enough.  Whether or not we get to go up against Vido again shouldn't depend on how many paragon points we had on that mission.

This can be a deliberate choice for the sake of roleplaying; deaths caused while still completing every mission in the game. For these plot threads to ALL die with the character would just feel incomplete and sloppy. Arbitrarily requiring tali alive to find out what happens to the quarians would be just bad. Vido has almost half as much reason to have it out for Shepard as Balak does. Miranda's Father is still out there with a devastated legacy. Maelin's Data and Keiji's Graybox are still on the normandy somewhere, as are the recovered bodies of your crew (coffins) The Geth are still occupying the Quarian Homeworld and there's the chance of the Heretics rising again. Killing Wrex didn't lock us out of Tachunka, Killing Tali, Legion,

Sidonis, Aresh, Ronald Taylor, Maelin, Morinth, Vido, and Kolyat are all potential survivors and to single out THESE threads based on the results of the suicide mission would be kind of lame. Finding out "the rest of the story" with them should be treated the same as it was for Harkin, Nassana Dantius, and Wrex.

Keiji's Graybox and the Genophage Data shouldn't lose their importance just because of the life or death of your squadmate. Both turnouts should produce their own results. Maybe in one Kasumi is lured out and kidnapped for the Gray Box and you have to rescue her, and in another turnout the same villain acquires the remains of her body and the genetic information it holds and demands Shepard hand over the gray box in exchange. Differing outcomes are part of the fun in replaying ME1 into 2. It'd be like the life or death of the council was negated by promoting Udina to councilor because you didn't pick Anderson. The meeting with Anderson in ME2 is a great example of following through on criss-crossing continued plot threads, and I want to see that carried over into the other games.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 14 juillet 2010 - 02:45 .

[Siansonea]

Simple solution: Play through several times and create a suite of different outcomes, so you can have a different experience with each ME3 playthrough. That's what I've done. My ME1 characters had pretty different experiences even in ME2. My Paragon Vanguard kept running into all sorts of people he helped in ME1, whereas my Renegade Soldier didn't run into any familiar faces. Well, except for Nassana Dantius.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Yeah I know, it's just that I'm up to planning my 5th shepard and I am worried that decisions i've made to create a dramatic character arc within 2 or make the suicide mission actually....a suicide mission might leave that playthrough with far less content to play through, I have faith that bioware will account for every possibility and not just lock off something because we didn't do something right in the last game. I have saves with everyone alive and saves with alot of deaths, I just hope we get more scenes like the urdnot camp and meeting with the council and less like....meeting conrad again (hint: if you go paragon a glitch from ME1 defaults it to the renegade path) Just because the character is dead is no reason to pretend like whatever that involved no longer exists. Vido, Miranda's Father, the Quarians, the Heretics, Maelin's Research into the Genophage, and Keiji's Gray Box are some of the largest "what if's" lingering after 2 that I hope every person who started that line of the story will be able to eventually conclude. (Plus the "everyone lives" ending is....kinda boring thematically)

[Fiery Phoenix]

HopHazzard wrote...

I actually think it would be pretty cool if people who took the time to build their squad and make sure they all made it through the mission got a better gameplay experience in ME3 than people who just rushed through it.

I really hope you're right.

[Bryy_Miller]

Well, it's pretty clear from ME1 that at least one acheev will grant a bonus. Might as well be No One Left Behind.

[Bogsnot1]

Siansonea II wrote...

Simple solution: Play through several times and create a suite of different outcomes, so you can have a different experience with each ME3 playthrough. That's what I've done. My ME1 characters had pretty different experiences even in ME2. My Paragon Vanguard kept running into all sorts of people he helped in ME1, whereas my Renegade Soldier didn't run into any familiar faces. Well, except for Nassana Dantius.

^ This.

I currently have 7 saves. 2 Vanguard (renagade and paragon) and one of each other class. I plan to finish with 13, one for each class covered in gender and alignment, and one where everyone, including Shep, dies.

[Cheese Elemental]

I have two saves where everyone survives: My Paragon Soldier save (my primary character) and my Paragon Adept (second playthrough, most likely).

All of my other saves have at least one squad member dead. My Vanguard save has everyone except for Tali, Garrus and Legion dead, and I might write something about that Shepard's Heroic BSOD between ME2 and ME3.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

I actually think it would be pretty cool if people who took the time to build their squad and make sure they all made it through the mission got a better gameplay experience in ME3 than people who just rushed through it.

I really hope you're right.

But you're just missing the point here.  Not every death is going to be because someone "rushed".  The concept of rewarding people who did it one way and punishing people who did it another takes the role-playing out of role-playing game.  You can't have choice when the next game says "Well this was the right choice and this was the wrong choice and if you made the wrong choice then **** you!!". 


You can still have posthumous storytelling work just as well without stepping on anyone's toes in a situation where someone's livelyhood is at question.  It would just play out differently and offer a unique experience to either playthrough, much like the decisions you make at the end of me1 or in most of the quests in the game.  The idea that characters that had ties to whoever died express remorse at thier death would leave an impression on players.  That's basically exactly what the Wrex, Council, and Ashley/Kaiden scenes are THERE for in me2, so that your choices meant something, reguardless of the outcome.


That practically every trailer of mass effect has at least one shot of one of the death scenes *thane running down a hallway from an explosion* tells me that they are okay with any choice people make during that mission so long as the playable main character of the third game manages to survive.  That's what bioware's supposed to be all about right?  Player choice that drives the narrative and ties into gameplay in new and interesting ways.    Turning the suicide mission into a "right or wrong" questionare would just completely ruin the entire idea of the mission itself in the first place.  

Do you remember how in the movie braveheart the main character dies at the end?  Did the story just end there and everyone say "well might as well just stop the war and go home."  Whenever anyone in a movie dies with unfinished business what happens?  The people who were still alive can carry on with what's left.  You can have character development happen in a narrative for someone who's already dead, hell that's basically the entire first half of watchmen in a nutshell. 

These lingering threads need to have some conclusion for either outcome.  If Thane dies during the mission, his son would still be alive, you can have dealing with thane's sickness, and you can have an alternate outcome where it's about a father who's already gone.  Both are interesting narratively and one shouldn't be discarded in favor of the other.  It'd be like if in ME2 ashley got some amazing team-up mission while kaiden doesn't get one.

If there's going to be choice of this magnitude it needs to be carried through to the end, it would be terrible if we got to the end of me3 and weren't able to find out what happened to some lingering plot thread just because we didn't do one decision over the other.  When you do that you make the decision in the first place pointless.  Hell in ME1 you can avoid recruiting garrus and basically part ways at c-sec and in ME2 it remembers that and slightly alters the conversation.

Turning a narrative choice into a "win or lose" situation is just doing a disservice to the characters and the stories we shared with them in the game.  Live or Die, if there's loose ends they need to be tied up by the end of the over-arcing story, not ignored because you didn't do it "the way you're supposed to".  "Supposed to" shouldn't exist in games about choice, otherwise there is no choice.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 14 juillet 2010 - 11:22 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

But you're just missing the point here.  Not every death is going to be because someone "rushed".  The concept of rewarding people who did it one way and punishing people who did it another takes the role-playing out of role-playing game.  You can't have choice when the next game says "Well this was the right choice and this was the wrong choice and if you made the wrong choice then **** you!!".

Indeed. I was just saying in reference to those who actually cared enough to get to know their teammates and complete all the loyalty missions. "Rewarding" can still happen to those who accidentally got someone killed at the end; ME3 could determine whether or not you had them loyal in the first place, and from there, your reward can be specified. For example, John Shepard recruited Garrus and completed his loyalty mission, but then Garrus got killed at the end, while Natalie Shepard recruited Garrus but never got enough motivation to do his loyalty mission, so she just didn't care and rushed through the Omega-4 Relay, only for Garrus to die right in front of her. In this case, both Natalie and John share the incident of Garrus' death; the only difference is that John actually cared for Garrus whilst Natalie did not. In my opinion, ME3 should recognize this; if you import John, there should be some sort of "reward" that distinguishes whether or not you did the loyalty mission of a dead squad member, as that's pretty much the only way to know whether you actually cared about your team and the whole suicide mission or not, regardless of the aftermath of the suicide mission itself.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

That practically every trailer of mass effect has at least one shot of one of the death scenes *thane running down a hallway from an explosion* tells me that they are okay with any choice people make during that mission so long as the playable main character of the third game manages to survive.  That's what bioware's supposed to be all about right?  Player choice that drives the narrative and ties into gameplay in new and interesting ways.    Turning the suicide mission into a "right or wrong" questionare would just completely ruin the entire idea of the mission itself in the first place.

I'm sure the suicide mission was never intended to be a right-or-wrong game. If anything, it's closer to a trial-and-error experience. The problem is that some people tend to meta-game the suicide mission, which is exactly why it is only really meaningful during your very first playthrough.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Do you remember how in the movie braveheart the main character dies at the end?  Did the story just end there and everyone say "well might as well just stop the war and go home."  Whenever anyone in a movie dies with unfinished business what happens?  The people who were still alive can carry on with what's left.  You can have character development happen in a narrative for someone who's already dead, hell that's basically the entire first half of watchmen in a nutshell.

By some amazing coincidence, I bought Braveheart recently but haven't watched it yet. And guess what, you just spoiled it. Now that it matters, just saying is all.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

These lingering threads need to have some conclusion for either outcome.  If Thane dies during the mission, his son would still be alive, you can have dealing with thane's sickness, and you can have an alternate outcome where it's about a father who's already gone.  Both are interesting narratively and one shouldn't be discarded in favor of the other.  It'd be like if in ME2 ashley got some amazing team-up mission while kaiden doesn't get one.

But what if you never did loyalty missions in ME2? That's what I'm saying. ME3 really should be able to determine these little things, because that's how you actually "feel" the experience.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

If there's going to be choice of this magnitude it needs to be carried through to the end, it would be terrible if we got to the end of me3 and weren't able to find out what happened to some lingering plot thread just because we didn't do one decision over the other.  When you do that you make the decision in the first place pointless.  Hell in ME1 you can avoid recruiting garrus and basically part ways at c-sec and in ME2 it remembers that and slightly alters the conversation.

This is precisely what I want to see in ME3. Imagine if ME2 always assumed you had recruited Garrus. What would that be like? I honestly wouldn't even have enough motivation to play the game anymore. Not that I have a playthrough where Garrus was never recruited, but I'm trying to make a point here.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Turning a narrative choice into a "win or lose" situation is just doing a disservice to the characters and the stories we shared with them in the game.  Live or Die, if there's loose ends they need to be tied up by the end of the over-arcing story, not ignored because you didn't do it "the way you're supposed to".  "Supposed to" shouldn't exist in games about choice, otherwise there is no choice.

True and true. Fortunately, BioWare seems to understand this, so there's at least hope.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Hey you know what forum this is in. Spoilers warning on at all times, even on Braveheart. ;E

Yeah my point was totally "do the loyalty missions, but still people die". Not even securing thier loyalty in every case...like for Zaeed, I did his paragon mission, but didn't use the charm option at the end and ended up with vido escaping and zaeed not loyal, yet I did the mission. I like this playthrough because if you send him to escort the crew at the end without loyalty but having done his mission it creates an interesting narrative arc that makes me WANT to still be able to track down Vido in 3. "This one's for Zaeed. *bang*" (Oh god i should never be allowed to write dialogue)

But yeah like, as long as the check is for the flag regarding the choice in the mission that determines what content you see in 3 is totally great by me. flags regarding loyalty and being alive or dead should modify whatever content is planned for that but loyalty and death shouldn't just cut them off on their own right if the flags for the decisions you already made are triggered. That would just take the fun out of it.

Now expecting them to take into consideration for things you didn't ACTUALLY DO, that would be silly. Like if you met Helena Blake without even doing her sidequests. But stuff like characters that you spared in a loyalty mission reacting to the death during suicide would be some potentially powerful stuff. Having larger choices made during loyalty like with the gray box, the geth, quarians, vido, maelin's research, even miranda's father's legacy carrying through regardless of life or death of your squad is a very important factor I think, especially because resolutions for those could have some interesting turnarounds depending on whether someone is there or not.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 14 juillet 2010 - 12:57 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

And let's not forget how all loyalty missions were put under the main quest, NOT the side-quest journal, as one would probably think.

[Madman123456]

Saving everyone from every game, except the virmire choice, would give you the "Happy" Ending in ME3.

Letting some People die will give you a not so happy ending, with the Survivors burying all the dead People and an me3 playthrough with a dead shepard, imported from me2 where everyone but shepard and one teammate to pull shep into the ship, will result in a boring graveyardcutscene where everyone is bored, not just the audience, because no one really cared about incompetent Shepard.



If you do this with a Renegade Shepard, the few People who knew Shepard but somehow survived this will be dancing on the Grave, possibly putting Grenades in the Coffin just to make sure Shepard will stay dead this time.



Gameplay Experience should "reward" Players accordingly. If you cared enough about everyone to play through one more time or use one of the Guides to get everyone out alive, you should get the superhappy fluffy Ending with Flowers and Sunshine and Miranda's new loyalty Outfit which she will steal from Jack.



If you get everyone but one Teammate killed so that Shepard can survive, ME3 ending should show shepard alone and forgotten in a mental Institution. And he gets shown Elcor+Krogan Porn all day.

[Tooneyman]

Yeah, I agree. I am worried as well. I feel my teammates and their decisions won't matter. Just like biowares with ME didnt'. I don't know some of the side quests should be carried over because they where just plain silly.

[Bryy_Miller]

Decisions didn't matter in ME? Surely you are joking.

[santaclausemoreau]

I don't think killing squadmates was meant as a choice... I think it was more of a consequence...

[Madman123456]

santaclausemoreau wrote...

I don't think killing squadmates was meant as a choice... I think it was more of a consequence...

... of you either taking the time todo the loyalty missions so your People will be more "focused", or you rushing through the Game. Which would a rather common Mistake made not necesarily by you, but rather by Bioware.

I heard this quite a lot: if People complain about the gametime of any adventure game being rather short, other People come along and tell them that they need to play something besides the mainquest.
And then they tell them to get into the roleplay more. Which annoys me to no End, because if you do get into Character, every Adventure Game by every Company tells you that this huge Thing that threatens everything in the Game World must be dealt with as soon as possible.
So if you where to really roleplay, you'll go after your generic Evildoer as fast as possible because they are moving forward with his evil Plan as you are getting the Exposition as to why he's doing that and you have to do something to prevent him from wreaking more Havoc.

Gamecompanies such as Bioware make something like that extra dramatic and i don't like that because then the Game punishes me for Roleplaying and trying to foil the evil Plans extra fast.