This is Chapter 2 of my brainstorming initiative. ( Chapter 1 can be found here : http://social.biowar...548530#4548530 )
This chapter will deal with SHEPARD'S SQUAD.
Mass Effect 2 featured in its last chapter the delegation of responsibilities (and risks) to team-mates, a very inspired move in my opinion. And one worth building on.
Traditionally, RPG henchmen previously filled the role of item "pack mules",healers,lockpickers/un-trappers or damage sponges, with AI limitiations preventing broader roles or the involvement of the henchmen team as a whole. In time the personality of RPG henchmen became more defined, sometimes upgraded to love interests and even being given their own sidequest chains. But the collection of the henchmen, the "Team" as a whole was rarely,if ever used.
And even for Mass Effect 2, one could accurately criticize the "choices" as merely affecting content of cutscenes ("permanent deaths" being cutscenes themselves) rather than the combat,the gameplay itself.
But fortunately,this does leave room to grow in Mass Effect 3.
My proposal can be summed up with one phrase :
Shepard has a squad. Let him use it.
Building on the precedent of Mass Effect 2's final act, the entirety of (the remaining) "Team Shepard" should be involved in Mass Effect 3. That is,more than just the two squadmates Shepard used to bring with him.
So besides "Shepard's Fireteam" ( Shepard + 2 Squadmates ), there should be a Sniper,a Tech,a Biotic and a "Fireteam Two" as possible "attachments" to a mission.
A tentative categorizing would look like this (keep in mind this is a "maximal" representation) :
- Fireteam Two Leaders :
- Miranda
- Garrus
- Snipers :
- Garrus
- Legion
- Thane
- Techs :
- Tali
- Legion
- Kasumi
- Biotics :
- Samara/Morith
- Jack
So for a given mission, besides Shepard's Fireteam doing its thing, a Tech can be chosen to help hack whatever there is to hack, a sniper can be posted to keep watch and take down enemies if necessary, a Biotic can be picked to create a distraction ( Jack ) or infiltrate ( Samara ) and a Fireteam #2 to launch a diversionary/secondary attack on the objective.
Now,like any good game mechanic, a "trade-off game" should surround the assignment of Sniper,Tech,Botic,Fireteam #2 support. As with any trade-off dilemma, advantages and disadvantages should accompany the decision to either assign support or not.
So why should/shouldn't the player assign Sniper,Tech,Biotic Fireteam #2 support to a certain mission?
A) Playing quests without assigning this 'Support' should not result in the player being "stonewalled" in any way, i.e. unable to continue,especially in the light of the numerous combinations of team permanent deaths that can be inherited from savegames.
But what should happen is that quests,particularly plot quests, should have less-than optimum conclusions the less support is assigned, with quests wrapping up in increasingly favorable ways the more support is assigned.
Of course, there should be such a thing as overkill, as some quests should not need full support or need support at all. And there should also be such as thing as "misdiagnosing", meaning assigning the wrong kind of support ( if deciding not to go with full support ).
Naturally, the player should not be forced to "fly blind". Pieces of intel regarding what and how much to use should be available for obtaining. But some form of "fog of war" should exist. And bad decisions,while not necessarily resulting in "Game Over", should still exist and result in the quest not being completed properly, reward-wise.
Let's take for example "Quest X".
"Quest X" briefing says :
" Person Z knows something and you need to find out what that 'something' is. Person Z is your adversary, is in a fortified compound, heavily guarded. Get in and find out what Person Z knows. Alternatively, check the compound computers for relevant data. "
Cue player-Shepard and his two team-mates storming the compounds. Alarms sound and the compound data servers initiate their self-formatting routines. Person Z had been warned. The player can try to go for Person Z, but risk losing the servers, or can go for the servers but risk losing Person Z.
1) If the player assigned no support at all before the mission :
- If he chooses to go for Person Z, the compound security forces delay Shepard long enough ( read "enough in-game enemies" ) for Person Z to escape from the roof of the compound via a ship. Meanwhile the servers finish their formatting.
This would be an example of an outright BAD decision that would see Shepard come back empty-handed. At best it would be a set-up for the next quest,further chasing Person Z.
- If he chooses to go for the servers first, Person Z escapes but the servers also manage to progress far into the formatting due to the heavy security presence blocking Shepard. Only a few encrypted files are recovered.
This one would be an example of a half-failed quest due to insufficient support assigned.
2) If the player assigns a Biotic to act as a diversion :
- If the player chooses to go after Person Z, same as above, comes back empty handed. A biotic does help to dilute the forces Shepard faces but not enough and Person Z escapes, albeit a with Shepard on his tail.
As above an example of a BAD call in the given context of (un)assigned support.
- If the player chooses to go after the server, the distraction the Biotic causes thins the forces facing Shepard and a bit more files are recovered before deletion but Person Z still escapes.
An example of a bad call in assigning support. A biotic on its own is not enough.
3) If the player assigns a Tech, the Tech will block the self-fromatting process of the servers and will begin to download their contents :
- Without the need to go for the servers the player is free to go for Person Z. Unfortunately, as before, the significant security presence thwarts Shepard and Person Z still escapes. But on the upside, the data on the servers is secured.
An example of a "close but no cigar" decision. Assigning a Tech was a good call, but not enough to accomplish all objectives.
4) If the players assigns a Sniper, the Sniper will stand watch outside of the compound:
- If the player decides to go for Person Z, the servers finish their deletion but although Person Z reaches the roof the sniper kills the ship pilot. However, since Shepard is farther behind, Person Z takes the pilot's place and flies away. Shepard comes back empty handed
A case of a "close but no cigar" BAD call. The idea was right,but something was missing, Shepard risked it all and lost.
- If the player decides to go for the servers, Person Z escapes and only a few files are recovered.
A case of a half-failed mission due to a bad call. Assigning a sniper was the right idea but Shepard did not capitalize on it.
5) "AH SO CLOSE!" combinations such as Biotic+Tech or Sniper+Tech result in Person Z escaping, albeit just barely, and the data being recovered.
6) The CORRECT combination is using all 3 : Biotic diversion for dispersing compound forces, Tech for securing the servers and Sniper for killing the ship pilot. The result is that Shepard grabs Person Z in the nick of time.
7) The IDEAL combination would be Tech + Fireteam #2. The Tech secures the data while Fireteam #2 drops in and holds the rooftop, denying Person Z any route of escape, thus the quest is no longer a race against time.
8) Sniper+Fireteam #2 is less-than-ideal, the Sniper is superfluous and significant chunks of data will be deleted.
9) Biotic+Fireteam #2 is less-than-ideal as some data will still be deleted.
This is just an example.
The point is that quests should have different levels of completion depending of how much support was used and in what combination. Again,while intel and hints should be provided, "fog of war" should still exist.
"Ok,ok", you might say. "So what's to prevent me from always assigning everything to a mission? A Tech,a biotic,a sniper and Fireteam #2 for good measure."A fair point.
To which I will answer in 3 parts :
1) The risk in assigning support should be the same as the risks in any military operation. While getting team-mates killed in some not-so-significant mission might increase the immersion into the esprit de corps of "Team Shepard", it is also taking things a little too far. So while death should be ruled out, it should be possible for team-mates to be incapacitated (and not necessarily due to bad tactical calls) and unusable for 1-2 quests.
2) On the other hand, there could be a "Joker" approach. In ME2 Joker had one gameplay section all to himself.
Similarly, there could be provisions for Shepard to choose to send Miranda (Paragon) or Garrus (Renegade) and the rest of Fireteam #2 plus (if he/she so chooses) a Sniper,Tech,Biotic in whatever combination to carry out missions independently somewhere else, bringing their own (Paragon or Renegade) approach to that mission,which might or might not be appropriate.
Perhaps to accomplish a mission Shepard would need to be in 2 places at once. Well,with his Fireteam #2 he can ... well,you know what I mean.
3) Since the teammates have been established in ME2 as also being "characters" with their own convictions,values and backstories,this should reflect in the way they go about the mission.
The Sniper Garrus being Renegade might make a call on the spot, independent of Shepard's orders, to take a certain difficult/delicate/sudden shot.
Sniper Legion,at the other end, might refuse to take a shot if deemed to "affect mission parameters".
I don't claim to have come up with the most ideal example,but you get the gist of it. Some team-mates might be better qualified for some missions than others.
The conclusion is this :
SHEPARD'S SQUAD as a WHOLE. A valuable but finite resource.
Like any military commander, Shepard should contend with the timeless dilemma of "Can I afford to use this resource?" vs "Can I afford not to use this resource?". Players should be confronted with the "When,where and how to engage my squad?".
As Shepard put it during his first discussion with the Illusive Man : "I'll need an army... Or a really good team".
Shepard is as much a skilled warrior as he is a skilled leader and Mass Effect 3 should allow players to explore that dimension, the dimension of leadership.
Well that's about it. I hope you found this a pleasant read.
Feedback,of all kinds, always welcome.
And once again,thank you taking the time.
P.S. : If, in light of Ch1 and Ch2, you feel my line of thinking is any good, you can pitch in proposals of what Mass Effect gameplay subject should I tackle next.
Retour en haut
