815 réponses à ce sujet

[Frybread76]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...
Don't forget the assumed fact that most of the characters you recruit can be killed and some don't even have to be recuirted.  Additionally, some have said it sounds like many might not even make it into ME3.  If all of this is true, it makes ME2 seem like an even bigger waste of time than if all 12 could be transferred over to ME3.

I don't buy that, yet.

In order to even import a save from Mass Effect 2 to 3, at least two ME2 squadmates must have survived.  This seems somewhat artificial.  Why not one?  Is one squadmate incapable of lifting Shepard up into the Normandy?  No, considering when two survive it only takes one to do it.

So why the 2-other-people must survive plot device? 

How many squadmates must Shepard take with him during missions in both Mass Effect 1-2?  Two.

So at a bare minimum, any imported save from ME2 to 3 will have enough characters to play the game.  Throw in the fact that Ashley/Kaidan has plot armor by being safely hidden from the plot and you're up to three potential characters.  

Am I basing a lot on the assumption that Bioware wouldn't use some artificial, hamfisted, "two squadmates must survive in order for a save to be importable" plot device if they didn't have some reason for doing it?  I sure am.

smudboy wrote...
ME3 will have a whole new crew.  Because they can all die.  Because Casey said so.

Then Bioware will have failed and ME2 was a total and utter waste of time. 

You're right, at least two crew members have to survive.  So I guess it's POSSIBLE, but not REQUIRED, that two squad mates from ME2 will transfer to ME3.  Still leaves the other 10 up for grabs, according to what's been said.

And if only two transfer, then to me that would make ME2 seem like a filler to tide us over from ME1 to ME3.

[Nozybidaj]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


So why the 2-other-people must survive plot device? 

It wasn't a "plot device".  It was a "game mechanic" to make sure you could play DLC after the suicide mission.

Then Bioware will have failed and ME2 was a total and utter waste of time. 

Agreed.

[upsettingshorts]

Nozybidaj wrote...
It wasn't a "plot device".  It was a "game mechanic" to make sure you could play DLC after the suicide mission.

That makes sense.

Frybread76 wrote...

You're right, at least two crew members have to survive.  So I guess it's POSSIBLE, but not REQUIRED, that two squad mates from ME2 will transfer to ME3.  Still leaves the other 10 up for grabs, according to what's been said.

And if only two transfer, then to me that would make ME2 seem like a filler to tide us over from ME1 to ME3.

My point wasn't that only two will transfer, only that at least two must be available for transfer or you wouldn't have a save to import in the first place.

Furthermore having read statements on ME3 that they don't have to worry about so many variables it being the finale, why couldn't they go ahead and add all the ME2 characters to the game, and just remove them had they died in the previous one?  I mean, it would leave the game rather empty for those with the bare minimum of surviving characters from the suicide mission, but why would that be a bad thing?  Getting more than half your team killed ought to have some consequences, right?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:29 .

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

Why do people act like nostalgia is some kind of embarassing STD?  Nostalgia is not bad, I've admitted to having nostalgia myself, and it colors my opinion on many past games.  This thread was designed to explore people's reasoning, not start a flame war.  You'd think I'd accused everyone of having herpes the way people have reacted to a simple question.  Jesus.

I have never said that ME1 was bad, only that objectively speaking, ME2 has better gameplay.  I'm not attacking anyone who likes ME1 better, or their beliefs.  All I'm asking is that people examine their underlying reasoning here.

The nostalgia  implication here is that people hold up ME 1 as some kind of ideal that ME 2 couldn't possibly live up to.  We, the ME 2 "haters" do not think that way (at least I don't).  We have reasons for not liking ME 2 due to problems with ME 2, not just because ME 1 was so great.

Consider:  Whast if one of us made a thread called "New and Shiny" and suggested that ME 2 fans praise the game so much at just because it was new and different.

[wizardryforever]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]wizardryforever wrote...

  Dialogue, story, and an opportunity to influence that story is all that is necessary to be an RPG..  [/quote]

I'm inclined to agree.  Now look at my problems with ME 2:

1. Dialogue.

Which of your companions, in Jacob's loyalty mission:
Advocate arresting Jacob's father?
Advocate leaving him to his fate?
Would rather kill him?

Garrus wants to kill Sidonis.  What do the following have to say about that?
Thane.  Samara.  Tali.

At what point in the game does Tali express her concerns about having an AI (EDI) on board?

Mordin is struggling to decide what to do with the genophage data.  Which companions advocate destroying it?  Which advocate keeping it?

2. Story

How is ME 2 a continuation of the ME 1 story?  Keep in mind that ME 2 has an almost entirely new cast, a new enemy that's introduced and promptly forgotten about, and glaring continuity problems with ME 1

3. Opportunity to influence the story:

This is where ME 2 actually hurts ME 1.  ME 2 cannot simply be judged as a standalone game, but as a sequel to ME 1.

What choices end up mattering?  No, not all the choices in ME 1 had to have an immediate impact on ME 2 (I actually thought the rachni cameo was well done), but there were some that should.  The fate of the Council, the Virmire survivor, your LI, if any.  Anderson or Udina as Councilor.  Missions you took against Cerberus.

In addition, how do you think your choices in ME 2 will matter in ME 3?  Keep in mind that most recruitment missions, and all loyalty missions are skippable.  Any squadmate can potentially die, and all these games are supposed to be "standalone".  How will these choices matter in ME 3 without penalizing newcomers?
[/quote][/quote]
Putting aside the fact that I made that point initially to point out that ME2 is no less of an RPG than ME1 simply because it lacks a bulky inventory and pointless customization of tons of skill points, I'll say this:
1. Consider that having all your squadmates interact with NPCs in conversation, or even each other, is a relatively new phenomenon.  Add to that the fact that all characters are fully voiced and the fact that you have twice as many characters this time around, and it becomes prohibitively expensive.  Sure, it'd be nice to have everyone have an opinion on everything, but that's a lot of stuff that really isn't necessary.  You listed some of the glaring examples, and I'll admit that they suck, but its understandable.
2. This is "sequel syndrome" again, just in a different form.  It's the way trilogies are set up.  The second installment usually makes little headway in the story, instead fleshing out the characters and the setting.  As for continuity, name a trilogy in which the second work could have been completely omitted and the overall story still been as rich.  I certainly can't think of one.  Kudos to you if you can.
3. I personally think that there were plenty of decisions that changed the way things happened in the game, just not as majorly as we might have liked.  The council decision, for example, is one of the biggest changes in terms of NPC attitudes, especially on the Citadel, depending on which choice you made.  Overall story influence is something that I think they are saving for the finale.  I fully expect all big decisions to matter, and a fair amount of small decisions to show up in some form or another.  As for newcomers, I don't really know how they'll handle it.  I hope that they'll allow at least some of the squadmates to return, and you would have to choose which ones you take with you aboard the Normandy.  This rewards imports by giving us more choices, but doesn't bother newcomers since they never knew these people anyway, and they'll get some default selection.

[Frybread76]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
It wasn't a "plot device".  It was a "game mechanic" to make sure you could play DLC after the suicide mission.

That makes sense.

Frybread76 wrote...

You're right, at least two crew members have to survive.  So I guess it's POSSIBLE, but not REQUIRED, that two squad mates from ME2 will transfer to ME3.  Still leaves the other 10 up for grabs, according to what's been said.

And if only two transfer, then to me that would make ME2 seem like a filler to tide us over from ME1 to ME3.

My point wasn't that only two will transfer, only that at least two must be available for transfer or you wouldn't have a save to import in the first place.

Furthermore having read statements on ME3 that they don't have to worry about so many variables it being the finale, why couldn't they go ahead and add all the ME2 characters to the game, and just remove them had they died in the previous one?  I mean, it would leave the game rather empty for those with the bare minimum of surviving characters from the suicide mission, but why would that be a bad thing?  Getting more than half your team killed ought to have some consequences, right?

Someone has said that Bioware says each game would be a stand-alone experience.  So it seems to me that no matter what you do, your squad won't transfer to ME3, just like your squad from ME1 didn't transfer to ME2 (outside of cameo appearances and LotSB).

I do hope you are right and our efforts to recruit and do loyalty missions in ME2 were not in vain.  But from what has been said in interviews and such, it doesn't sound to me like many characters from ME2 outside of the ones fans will demand be in ME3 (Garrus and Tali) will transfer.

[Nightwriter]

Well... accusing me of nostalgia sort of invalidates the credibility of my complaints. Since I think my complaints are valid ones, I'm going to go ahead and say "no". Rose-colored glasses don't apply here.

Honestly, ME1 was not the most phenomenal game in the world either, in some aspects, so I'm not sure how much nostalgia I can be accused of. Characters weren't that great and some things could feel plastic-y at times.

It did, however, do story better, and I really don't feel that this can be disputed.

[wizardryforever]

iakus wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Why do people act like nostalgia is some kind of embarassing STD?  Nostalgia is not bad, I've admitted to having nostalgia myself, and it colors my opinion on many past games.  This thread was designed to explore people's reasoning, not start a flame war.  You'd think I'd accused everyone of having herpes the way people have reacted to a simple question.  Jesus.

I have never said that ME1 was bad, only that objectively speaking, ME2 has better gameplay.  I'm not attacking anyone who likes ME1 better, or their beliefs.  All I'm asking is that people examine their underlying reasoning here.

The nostalgia  implication here is that people hold up ME 1 as some kind of ideal that ME 2 couldn't possibly live up to.  We, the ME 2 "haters" do not think that way (at least I don't).  We have reasons for not liking ME 2 due to problems with ME 2, not just because ME 1 was so great.

Consider:  Whast if one of us made a thread called "New and Shiny" and suggested that ME 2 fans praise the game so much at just because it was new and different.

I'd agree with that.  Although the "just" would throw me off.  New games are exciting partly because they're new, many new games are made just to attract new people.  Just as some old games are repackaged and sold as "classics" to get some of the old fanbase interested again (in case they no longer have the game, or can't play it).  That's nostalgia.

For the record, I never said that nostalgia was the only reason people could still like ME1 over ME2, just that I thought it was coloring people's opinions.

[Iakus]

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

[quote]smudboy wrote...
ME3 will have a whole new crew.  Because they can all die.  Because Casey said so.

[/quote]

Then Bioware will have failed and ME2 was a total and utter waste of time.  [/quote]

You start to see our problem here 

Edit: Maybe it's a result of me skimming, but I don't see where he says that.

[/quote]

"We always try to balance the fact that, people will say "I want all my characters back from the previous game because that's what made the first game great." But when you think about it, part of what made the previous game great is the process of meeting those characters for the first time. That has to be part of the experience too, how you meet new characters"

He doesn't outright say so, but it sounds like we're getting new squadmates fro ME 3.  Which means either the Normandy's gonna get really crowded, or at least some of the crew will be relegated as cameos, Wrex-style.  iiven that any of them can die, the latter is an extremely likely fate.

[upsettingshorts]

Frybread76 wrote...
Someone has said that Bioware says each game would be a stand-alone experience.  So it seems to me that no matter what you do, your squad won't transfer to ME3, just like your squad from ME1 didn't transfer to ME2 (outside of cameo appearances and LotSB).

I do hope you are right and our efforts to recruit and do loyalty missions in ME2 were not in vain.  But from what has been said in interviews and such, it doesn't sound to me like many characters from ME2 outside of the ones fans will demand be in ME3 (Garrus and Tali) will transfer.

Yeah, I concede the possibility.  That's why ultimately my opinion is based on hope. 

Otherwise then many of the core story decisions in the Mass Effect series will have been mistakes.

However, the "stand alone" experience of ME3 could simply be to assume that certain members of your squad in ME2 are fated to survive, given how strong the plot armor is on characters like Miranda I wouldn't discount that either.

In any case, it's all wild speculation and/or reading into vague statements by the developers.  Until concrete information is released it's all much ado about nothing.

iakus wrote...

"We always try to balance the fact that,people will say "I want all my characters back from the previous game
because that's what made the first game great." But when you think aboutit, part of what made the previous game great is the process of meetingthose characters for the first time. That has to be part of the experience too, how you meet new characters"

Yeah, I saw that.  He was talking specifically about the inclusion of ME1 characters in ME2, but another reading of that statement would be to focus on his mention of balance.  

Is ME1's story rendered worthless and moot if the characters don't return in ME2?  Not really, at least based on my interpretation of it being a plot driven adventure.  

Is ME2's story compromised if Shepard's work building a squad for a mission that they weren't strictly needed for - a point smudboy has convincingly hammered home on more than one occasion - ruined if they aren't major parts of the sequel?  I would say so.

Still, it's speculative and reading into a vague quote.  I will still gladly cling to my hopes until they are either met or dashed.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:41 .

[Beerfish]

I just started playing ME1 again the other day (I finally bought a bunch of ME2 dlc and wanted to start a new character fresh from the beginning.) I am really enjoying ME1 again. Both games were excellent from my point of view. As with most games they weren't perfect, or at least I had a few beefs with some things in ME2 but overall I try not to compare two games I like lest it sound like I do not like one or the other.



(Goodness knows there are enough games to dislike without over brow beating the ones I do like.)

[Nightwriter]

wizardryforever wrote...

iakus wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

  Dialogue, story, and an opportunity to influence that story is all that is necessary to be an RPG.. 

I'm inclined to agree.  Now look at my problems with ME 2:

1. Dialogue.

Which of your companions, in Jacob's loyalty mission:
Advocate arresting Jacob's father?
Advocate leaving him to his fate?
Would rather kill him?

Garrus wants to kill Sidonis.  What do the following have to say about that?
Thane.  Samara.  Tali.

At what point in the game does Tali express her concerns about having an AI (EDI) on board?

Mordin is struggling to decide what to do with the genophage data.  Which companions advocate destroying it?  Which advocate keeping it?

2. Story

How is ME 2 a continuation of the ME 1 story?  Keep in mind that ME 2 has an almost entirely new cast, a new enemy that's introduced and promptly forgotten about, and glaring continuity problems with ME 1

3. Opportunity to influence the story:

This is where ME 2 actually hurts ME 1.  ME 2 cannot simply be judged as a standalone game, but as a sequel to ME 1.

What choices end up mattering?  No, not all the choices in ME 1 had to have an immediate impact on ME 2 (I actually thought the rachni cameo was well done), but there were some that should.  The fate of the Council, the Virmire survivor, your LI, if any.  Anderson or Udina as Councilor.  Missions you took against Cerberus.

In addition, how do you think your choices in ME 2 will matter in ME 3?  Keep in mind that most recruitment missions, and all loyalty missions are skippable.  Any squadmate can potentially die, and all these games are supposed to be "standalone".  How will these choices matter in ME 3 without penalizing newcomers?

Putting aside the fact that I made that point initially to point out that ME2 is no less of an RPG than ME1 simply because it lacks a bulky inventory and pointless customization of tons of skill points, I'll say this:
1. Consider that having all your squadmates interact with NPCs in conversation, or even each other, is a relatively new phenomenon.  Add to that the fact that all characters are fully voiced and the fact that you have twice as many characters this time around, and it becomes prohibitively expensive.  Sure, it'd be nice to have everyone have an opinion on everything, but that's a lot of stuff that really isn't necessary.  You listed some of the glaring examples, and I'll admit that they suck, but its understandable.
2. This is "sequel syndrome" again, just in a different form.  It's the way trilogies are set up.  The second installment usually makes little headway in the story, instead fleshing out the characters and the setting.  As for continuity, name a trilogy in which the second work could have been completely omitted and the overall story still been as rich.  I certainly can't think of one.  Kudos to you if you can.
3. I personally think that there were plenty of decisions that changed the way things happened in the game, just not as majorly as we might have liked.  The council decision, for example, is one of the biggest changes in terms of NPC attitudes, especially on the Citadel, depending on which choice you made.  Overall story influence is something that I think they are saving for the finale.  I fully expect all big decisions to matter, and a fair amount of small decisions to show up in some form or another.  As for newcomers, I don't really know how they'll handle it.  I hope that they'll allow at least some of the squadmates to return, and you would have to choose which ones you take with you aboard the Normandy.  This rewards imports by giving us more choices, but doesn't bother newcomers since they never knew these people anyway, and they'll get some default selection.

I actually agree with iakus.

I don't feel you can excuse every game deficiency with cries of development constraints. What iakus suggests would seriously have improved my game. So, okay, maybe they couldn't afford character comments on every mission. I buy that. But look at what we're actually left with - wondering if the characters even know each other exist at all. The game feels barren in this way. I cannot convince myself resources were so strained that they couldn't improve this even a smidge.

I know it's rude to say I'm tired of people crying "sequel syndrome", so I won't say it. I must remain polite! It's all that separates us from the animals.

But honestly, when you do say sequel syndrome, what sequels are you referencing, exactly, which suffer from the same syndrome?

Modifié par Nightwriter, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:43 .

[Frybread76]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...
Someone has said that Bioware says each game would be a stand-alone experience.  So it seems to me that no matter what you do, your squad won't transfer to ME3, just like your squad from ME1 didn't transfer to ME2 (outside of cameo appearances and LotSB).

I do hope you are right and our efforts to recruit and do loyalty missions in ME2 were not in vain.  But from what has been said in interviews and such, it doesn't sound to me like many characters from ME2 outside of the ones fans will demand be in ME3 (Garrus and Tali) will transfer.

Yeah, I concede the possibility.  That's why ultimately my opinion is based on hope. 

Otherwise then many of the core story decisions in the Mass Effect series will have been mistakes.

However, the "stand alone" experience of ME3 could simply be to assume that certain members of your squad in ME2 are fated to survive, given how strong the plot armor is on characters like Miranda I wouldn't discount that either.

In any case, it's all wild speculation and/or reading into vague statements by the developers.  Until concrete information is released it's all much ado about nothing.

True.  I want to add that Liara, Mordin and Kaidan/Ashley also have very strong fan followings and might make it into ME3 as squad mates.  Or, which I think is more likely, they will make cameo appearances and might join your squad for a mission or so (like Liara in LotSB) but not be permanent members, all of which will be new save for Garrus and Tali.

However, Kaidan/Ashley might have been written off as squad mates with how negatively they view Shepard's working with Cerberus, and might be striclty cameos as a result.

[bjdbwea]

wizardryforever wrote...

For the record, I never said that nostalgia was the only reason people could still like ME1 over ME2, just that I thought it was coloring people's opinions.

Of course it did. ME 1 is a fantastic game, so obviously we expected ME 2 to be equally (or even more) fantastic.

[upsettingshorts]

Frybread76 wrote...
True.  I want to add that Liara, Mordin and Kaidan/Ashley also have very strong fan followings and might make it into ME3 as squad mates.  Or, which I think is more likely, they will make cameo appearances and might join your squad for a mission or so (like Liara in LotSB) but not be permanent members, all of which will be new save for Garrus and Tali.

However, Kaidan/Ashley might have been written off as squad mates with how negatively they view Shepard's working with Cerberus, and might be striclty cameos as a result.

Indeed.

A large part of my hopes - and assumptions - rest a lot on a feeling I got at the end of the game - specifically your crew acknowledging you, nodding and such - and after the mission none of the crew seeming to believe that the mission was genuinely over.  That might be meaningless, I can't say, but it was just a feeling.  The ending didn't feel as clean or abrupt as Mass Effect 1's - there was a powerful sense that there was still more for all of them to do

Like I've acknowledged though, there's still a very good chance I'll be wrong.  I hope I'm not. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 08:49 .

[Nozybidaj]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

A large part of my hopes - and assumptions - rest a lot on a feeling I got at the end of the game - specifically your crew acknowledging you, nodding and such - and after the mission none of the crew seeming to believe that the mission was genuinely over.  That might be meaningless, I can't say, but it was just a feeling.  The ending didn't feel as clean or abrupt as Mass Effect 1's - there was a powerful sense that there was still more for all of them to do

Like I've acknowledged though, there's still a very good chance I'll be wrong.  I hope I'm not. 

/shrug At the end of ME1 we have Shepard with a team ready to go through hell with him as he walks off telling the Council "the Reapers are still out there, and I'm going to find a way to stop them".  That certainly didn't feel like a clean abrupt ending where everyone was just going to wander off and do their own thing.

On the other hand in ME2 I recruited a bunch of random folks to do a specific job.  The job is done.  Not much reason for any of them to hang around at this point considering half the crew is only there because they were either paid to be or work for a group sponsoring the mission that you can basically tell to go get stuffed at the end.

[Nightwriter]

bjdbwea wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

For the record, I never said that nostalgia was the only reason people could still like ME1 over ME2, just that I thought it was coloring people's opinions.

Of course it did. ME 1 is a fantastic game, so obviously we expected ME 2 to be equally (or even more) fantastic.

Actually, the reason playing ME1 first screwed me over is it made me walk into ME2 expecting certain things of the story. I thought it was going to continue in the same direction and it didn't.

It’s like if you picked up book 4 or 5 of Harry Potter and he just simply wasn’t going to Hogwarts this year, the book was going to be about killing a pack of vampires who were preying on remote farm settlements in Ecuador.

You’re not working with Hogwarts anymore or anyone from Hogwarts, Durmstrang is funding this mission because they say they’re the only ones who acknowledge the existence of the vampires of Ecuador and Harry needs them, we must save the farmsteads of Ecuador. Other readers blink at you and ask why you're so unhappy, Igor Karkarov is so much better than Dumbledore.

[upsettingshorts]

Nozybidaj wrote...
/shrug At the end of ME1 we have Shepard with a team ready to go through hell with him as he walks off telling the Council "the Reapers are still out there, and I'm going to find a way to stop them".  That certainly didn't feel like a clean abrupt ending where everyone was just going to wander off and do their own thing.

The team of Alliance personnel loyal to the Alliance and under their chain of command, that is just detached to your command?  Including the Virmire survivor who explicitly states their loyalty is to the Alliance in ME2?

In any case, I don't feel the need to explain or justify my gut feelings.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:01 .

[Frybread76]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

A large part of my hopes - and assumptions - rest a lot on a feeling I got at the end of the game - specifically your crew acknowledging you, nodding and such - and after the mission none of the crew seeming to believe that the mission was genuinely over.  That might be meaningless, I can't say, but it was just a feeling.  The ending didn't feel as clean or abrupt as Mass Effect 1's - there was a powerful sense that there was still more for all of them to do

Like I've acknowledged though, there's still a very good chance I'll be wrong.  I hope I'm not. 

/shrug At the end of ME1 we have Shepard with a team ready to go through hell with him as he walks off telling the Council "the Reapers are still out there, and I'm going to find a way to stop them".  That certainly didn't feel like a clean abrupt ending where everyone was just going to wander off and do their own thing.

On the other hand in ME2 I recruited a bunch of random folks to do a specific job.  The job is done.  Not much reason for any of them to hang around at this point considering half the crew is only there because they were either paid to be or work for a group sponsoring the mission that you can basically tell to go get stuffed at the end.

This is all my assumption, but the only characters who have nothing better to do -- or who might at least stay with Shepard out of loyalty or whatever -- are Garrus, Jacob, Tali and (maybe) Miranda.

All the other characters have reasons for not sticking around or at least only being no more than cameos in ME3.

[upsettingshorts]

Frybread76 wrote...
All the other characters have reasons for not sticking around or at least only being no more than cameos in ME3.

Funny that, while you're right with many of the characters like Mordin (old) and Thane (sick) etc. one of the characters I got the biggest "I'm in it for the long haul" gut feelings from was Samara.

[wizardryforever]

Nightwriter wrote...

I actually agree with iakus.

I don't feel you can excuse every game deficiency with cries of development constraints. What iakus suggests would seriously have improved my game. So, okay, maybe they couldn't afford character comments on every mission. I buy that. But look at what we're actually left with - wondering if the characters even know each other exist at all. The game feels barren in this way. I cannot convince myself resources were so strained that they couldn't improve this even a smidge.

I know it's rude to say I'm tired of people crying "sequel syndrome", so I won't say it. I must remain polite! It's all that separates us from the animals.

But honestly, when you do say sequel syndrome, what sequels are you referencing, exactly, which suffer from the same syndrome?

Squad interaction is one of my main complaints about the game.  One of the major flaws with ME2 as opposed to say, Dragon Age.  That said, my point does still stand, we don't know just what they improved with the decision to not have much squad interaction.  We just don't.

Well thanks for that.

When I say sequel syndrome, it works if you apply ME2 to either The Empire Strikes Back, or even the Two Towers for this scenario.  It's more of a blend between the two here.  TESB introduces us to a ton of new characters, and splits up the team that was in the first movie.  Not much interaction occurs between say, Luke and Han for most of the movie.  For Two Towers, it helps to look at the book, since the movie alleviates this considerably.  Most of the story was about stopping Saruman from invading and conquering Rohan, both of which had only been mentioned in passing in the first book.  Saruman is entirely in the background in the first book, and Rohan is only mentioned as a way to get to Mordor, but it is considered too dangerous.  That's about the extent of the mention they get.  In Two Towers we get Frodo on the long road to Mordor, yet he does not get all that far compared to the first book.  The main plot is barely advanced at all!  Instead we get side plots that enrich the overall story, the same complaint being leveled at ME2.

[Frybread76]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...
All the other characters have reasons for not sticking around or at least only being no more than cameos in ME3.

Funny that, while you're right with many of the characters like Mordin (old) and Thane (sick) etc. one of the characters I got the biggest "I'm in it for the long haul" gut feelings from was Samara.

However, if you converse with Samara enough, she tells Shepard that he can call on her at any time and she will come to his aid.  This sounds to me like the writers gave her an "out" and she will not start the game as a squad mate.

[upsettingshorts]

Frybread76 wrote...

However, if you converse with Samara enough, she tells Shepard that he can call on her at any time and she will come to his aid.  This sounds to me like the writers gave her an "out" and she will not start the game as a squad mate.

Yeah, no combination of scenarios for surviving ME2 squadmates would surprise me a ton - but just because she might be hanging out somewhere else to start the game doesn't mean she couldn't ultimately be a squadmate. 

I mean, would my perfect scenario involve all surviving ME2 squad mates onboard the Normandy SR-2 to start ME3?  Of course.  But I'm not so delusional as to expect it.  I just hope that the fact I recruited these guys and got to know them over the bulk of ME2's game that such efforts will be rewarded in the sequel.

It's not the same as ME1.  In ME1 my squadmates, while helpful/cool/fun, were along for the ride.  In ME2 so much was devoted to acquiring and improving them that to abandon them would be a waste.  That simple, really.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:16 .

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

Putting aside the fact that I made that point initially to point out that ME2 is no less of an RPG than ME1 simply because it lacks a bulky inventory and pointless customization of tons of skill points, I'll say this:
1. Consider that having all your squadmates interact with NPCs in conversation, or even each other, is a relatively new phenomenon.  Add to that the fact that all characters are fully voiced and the fact that you have twice as many characters this time around, and it becomes prohibitively expensive.  Sure, it'd be nice to have everyone have an opinion on everything, but that's a lot of stuff that really isn't necessary.  You listed some of the glaring examples, and I'll admit that they suck, but its understandable.

And I was using those as specific examples as to why I think ME 2 was a poor story.  A character centric game needs charactarization.  Not just a personal mission.

As to "relatively new phenomenon" Bioware has been doing this since the Baldur's Gate games.  (Baldur's Gate 2 had sixteen potential companions).  ME2 is the first Bioware game that allowed more than one companion to travel with you that had no interaction.  Oddly enough, this is also the first "character centered" game Bioware has done that I'm aware of.  You'd think that would demand more charactarization, not less.

Yes  would be expensive.  Maybe they should have cut back a little on characters, then?  KOTOR had nine.  Dragon Age had seven (eight with Dog, nine with Shale)  Those characters were certainly not afraid to express themselves.  Dragon Age characters even talked to each other.  Neither of these was a "character centered" game.

2. This is "sequel syndrome" again, just in a different form.  It's the way trilogies are set up.  The second installment usually makes little headway in the story, instead fleshing out the characters and the setting.  As for continuity, name a trilogy in which the second work could have been completely omitted and the overall story still been as rich.  I certainly can't think of one.  Kudos to you if you can.

The Two Towers:

Frodo gets from teh Anduin to CIrith Ungol, temporarilly taming Smeagol and using him as a guide to Mordor.  Saruman is defeated by Merry and Pippin and the Ents.  Aragorn mobilizes the Rohirim.  The story advanced.

Empire Strikes Back

Luke receives training as a Jedi, begun in A New Hope, now continues in earnest under Yoda.  The Empire devestates the rebellion And is actively hunting for Luke (for reasons made known in the confrontation between Vader and Luke)  Han and Leia's relationship develops, going from "Either I'm gonna kill her or I'm beginning to like her" to "I love you" "I know"  The story advanced.

trilogy which the middle portion could have been omitted?  Well, it's not a trilogy anymore, but the "Die Hard" trilogy springs to mind    There seemed to be that level of connection between ME 1 and ME 2.

3. I personally think that there were plenty of decisions that changed the way things happened in the game, just not as majorly as we might have liked.  The council decision, for example, is one of the biggest changes in terms of NPC attitudes, especially on the Citadel, depending on which choice you made.  Overall story influence is something that I think they are saving for the finale.  I fully expect all big decisions to matter, and a fair amount of small decisions to show up in some form or another.  As for newcomers, I don't really know how they'll handle it.  I hope that they'll allow at least some of the squadmates to return, and you would have to choose which ones you take with you aboard the Normandy.  This rewards imports by giving us more choices, but doesn't bother newcomers since they never knew these people anyway, and they'll get some default selection.

"Not as majorly as we might have liked" is an understatement.  The Council decision changes a few lines of dialogue, a pair of asari tourists are rude to you, or not, and a store will sell to you, or not.  Oh, and the Council might or might not see you, since there appears to be no VAs fro the new Council.  At least then you're spared teh "Ah, yes 'Reapers'" line.

If decisions are being held over for the thrid game, why didn't they just make the game a duology?  Why spend a whole game just spinning our wheels?  You may think it'll all miraculously fit together in ME 3.  I hope you're right.  Truly I do.  But I'm bracing myself for another slew of emails.  Because otherwise it "wouldn't be fair to newcomers"

Choosing which squadmates to return might be ideal, but then we'd have a crew full of mimes.  Remember, they couldn't be bothered to voice the characters in ME 2 to provide input on your missions.  What are the odds they'll give them lines if you have up to twelve returning charcters, plus any new characters they'll introduce (and you know they will) plus any other returning characters (Ashley/Kaiden being the most likely)?

[Frybread76]

Frybread76 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...
All the other characters have reasons for not sticking around or at least only being no more than cameos in ME3.

Funny that, while you're right with many of the characters like Mordin (old) and Thane (sick) etc. one of the characters I got the biggest "I'm in it for the long haul" gut feelings from was Samara.

However, if you converse with Samara enough, she tells Shepard that he can call on her at any time and she will come to his aid.  This sounds to me like the writers gave her an "out" and she will not start the game as a squad mate.

About Mordin, I really like him, but he is very old for a Salarian.  Maybe he can be brought back in ME3 and replace Chakwas as a doctor/researcher who is not a squad mate but still part of the crew.