815 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

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.

If you're paragon.  She'll even confess an attraction to you (but won't act on it)

If you're renegade, she makes not-so-subtle threats about hunting you down when this is all over.

[Elyvern]

iakus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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 start to see our problem here 

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



"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.

There is a third possible fate: fixing the cap on the number of squadmates you can have in ME3, and assuming that you saved more than that number in ME2, give you a choice to pick and drop who you want most. They could of course make the ME3 characters mandatory (thus gauranteeing the new experience of meeting people), and set a quota for returning ME2 characters. 

I admit that it also means a helluva load of work for Bioware. But should they be surprised? There is no RPG out in the market that has even attempted something as ambitious as the ME franchise-- carrying over decisions and consequences through 3 games. You're entirely right in that treating ME2 as a purely standalone without making those characters matter in ME3 would really invalidate the existence of ME2 in the 3-game plot. Having the ME2 squadmates return and be relevant is the only way to not just create industry history, but also create a feat that would be worthy of mentioning years from now because they got it right with their first attempt. 

I sincerely hope Bioware is thinking just that.

Modifié par Elyvern, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:42 .

[Frybread76]

Elyvern wrote...

iakus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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 start to see our problem here 

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



"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.

There is a third possible fate: fixing the cap on the number of squadmates you can have in ME3, and assuming that you saved more than that number in ME2, give you a choice to pick and drop who you need. They could of course make the ME3 characters mandatory (thus gauranteeing the new experience of meeting people), and set a quota for returning ME2 characters. 

I admit that it also means a helluva load of work for Bioware. But should they be surprised? There is no RPG out in the market that has even attempted something as ambitious as the ME franchise-- carrying over decisions and consequences through 3 games. You're entirely right in that treating ME2 as a purely standalone without making those characters matter in ME3 would really invalidate the existence of ME2 in the 3-game plot. Having the ME2 squadmates return and be relevant is the only way to not just create industry history, but also create a feat that would be worthy of mentioning years from now because they got it right at their first attempt. 

I sincerely hope Bioware is thinking just that.

ME2 characters returning in ME3 is one thing, but in what form?  Should they be squad mates at the beginning or recruitable later?  Should they even be squad mates or would their being cameos or squad mates for single missions (like Liara in LotSB) be enough?

If ME2 is any indication, then most of the ME2 squad mates will be either cameos or will be dead.

[Elyvern]

Frybread76 wrote...

Elyvern wrote...

iakus wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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 start to see our problem here 

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



"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.

There is a third possible fate: fixing the cap on the number of squadmates you can have in ME3, and assuming that you saved more than that number in ME2, give you a choice to pick and drop who you need. They could of course make the ME3 characters mandatory (thus gauranteeing the new experience of meeting people), and set a quota for returning ME2 characters. 

I admit that it also means a helluva load of work for Bioware. But should they be surprised? There is no RPG out in the market that has even attempted something as ambitious as the ME franchise-- carrying over decisions and consequences through 3 games. You're entirely right in that treating ME2 as a purely standalone without making those characters matter in ME3 would really invalidate the existence of ME2 in the 3-game plot. Having the ME2 squadmates return and be relevant is the only way to not just create industry history, but also create a feat that would be worthy of mentioning years from now because they got it right at their first attempt. 

I sincerely hope Bioware is thinking just that.

ME2 characters returning in ME3 is one thing, but in what form?  Should they be squad mates at the beginning or recruitable later?  Should they even be squad mates or would their being cameos or squad mates for single missions (like Liara in LotSB) be enough?

If ME2 is any indication, then most of the ME2 squad mates will be either cameos or will be dead.

One way I can see how this work is the next (2?) bridging DLCs can whittle down the ME2 squadmates that can transfer to ME3. You can argue that so-and-so died in the Collector's Base, but given that it is still a ME2 DLC, addressing the fate of these characters will still be relevant.

One way to make the impact of losing characters in the suicide mission less immersion breaking for people that killed off a good number of their squadmates is to have certain characters coming at the end to tell you they're leaving and give the reason for their leave-taking for example. If they're dead already, then you don't get those scenes. 

Or if you have a playthrough where you are down to 2-3 characters that are slated to be gone in ME3, there's a good chance to include a temporary squadmate in the form of the VS if a certain character is determined to be offed earlier in the DLC. And the rest will then get offed at the end.

So for example, say a person determined to keep say Morinth (+1 other) in their final playthrough and Morinth gets the stick will start off with a whole new set of ME3 squadmates (+ that 1 remaining ) but still have all their carried-through decisions from ME1-2 remain intact.

Then come ME3, there could be a brief intro at whatever location (citadel or Illium) akin to the introduction of Wrex or Garrus in ME1, after which you can ask the squadmates designed to carry over (and aren't dead in your playthrough) to come back on board. No need for the specific missions to recruit them again. New players with their own set of ME3 characters may likely not have these ME2 character encounters. While imported Shepards will have to decide who and how many of these ME2 characters they want back on their team (taking into consideration the mandatory  new ME3 squadmates they must have).

ME2 characters that become plot-crucial (Tali? Legion?) you will meet as extensive cameos, more if they are LIs (and if they're dead, they'll have a placeholder with less interaction).

Edit: for people that didn't buy the bridging DLC between ME2 and 3 that removes some of the squadmates from the list, and then import into ME3, they could have other NPCs mention that those squadmates had to leave. And if some disgruntled fan protests, then you can kindly point them to buy the DLC for content regarding the missing squadmates if it matters to them so much.

Modifié par Elyvern, 07 octobre 2010 - 10:45 .

[Nightwriter]

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

Well I still don't think it's really a fit comparison.

In the Two Towers, defeating the sequel enemy - Saruman - actually advances the plot. You are cutting Sauron's forces in half and stopping him from cutting your forces in half by conquering Rohan. You make progress. You're also still working with the Fellowship, even if the team is split up. The Fellowship did not, say, abruptly deny the existence of Sauron and his forces, forcing the protagonist to seek help from the Easterlings and recruit a bunch of strangers.

In Empire Strikes Back, Luke becomes a full-fledged Jedi, which is huge plot progression. What's more, we interact with Vader, the villain, all the way through it. So for it to be a fit comparison, in the Empire Strikes Back, they would need to have just thrown the whole Jedi (Spectre) plotline away, and we'd also have to never interact with Vader or the Emperor - the movie would be about stopping stormtroopers from abducting Outer Rim worlds instead.

[upsettingshorts]

Which supports my assertion that the Collectors are a MacGuffin, and the squad "side missions" are in fact the main plot.

However, as previously admitted, my entire argument will fall apart if Mass Effect 3 doesn't turn out a certain way - so we'll see.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 10:21 .

[Chuvvy]

ME1 had a much better story. ME2's gameplay was incredibly repetitive and most of the combat environments involved those same chest high crates. Which can apparently stop mass accelerator rounds. There was no real sense of urgency. Majority of the game was spent recruiting or on loyalty missions. And the collectors were throwaway. It seems like they just tied the reapers in at the end so it could relate back to ME1.

Also the main enemies in the game were mercs.

Modifié par Slidell505, 07 octobre 2010 - 10:35 .

[upsettingshorts]

Slidell505 wrote...
There was no real sense of urgency.

Because it wasn't a plot driven story.  Not all stories are meant to be thrillers...

As far as gameplay goes, anytime I go back to ME1 from ME2 I feel like I'm playing a rail shooter.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 10:47 .

[Nightwriter]

It's true that not all stories are meant to be thrillers, but ME2's clearly was. No urgency or importance is fine if the game isn't trying to portray it, but in ME2, the game is always trying to create both urgency and importance.

[upsettingshorts]

Nightwriter wrote...

It's true that not all stories are meant to be thrillers, but ME2's clearly was..

I disagree. It created urgency at a small handful of set points - basically when you are forced to chat with the Illusive Man, and the tension was always released immediately following the mission.  The only exception is the endgame after the Normandy is boarded.

The characters - recruiting them and dealing with their problems - drove the story at every other point.

A revealing difference is that you know where you're ultimately going basically from the start - through the Omega 4 relay.  The vast majority of the game is preparing to do so, in one fashion or another. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 11:16 .

[Nightwriter]

But I disagree with that disagreement!

The story clearly intends to create tension, edginess, and thrills. It starts with a bang that is meant to wow us. It tries to build up suspense for the suicide mission by impressing upon us with the total unknown that lurks beyond the relay. It says dramatic, half-ridiculous things, like, "They're going to attack Earth!" Both the Collector ship and the derelict Reaper are meant to create spooky thriller atmospheres. Freedom's Progress is meant to be creepy, as are the Collectors themselves, an unknown, faceless enemy stealing colonies from the shadows.

[wizardryforever]

Nightwriter wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

Well I still don't think it's really a fit comparison.

In the Two Towers, defeating the sequel enemy - Saruman - actually advances the plot. You are cutting Sauron's forces in half and stopping him from cutting your forces in half by conquering Rohan. You make progress. You're also still working with the Fellowship, even if the team is split up. The Fellowship did not, say, abruptly deny the existence of Sauron and his forces, forcing the protagonist to seek help from the Easterlings and recruit a bunch of strangers.

In Empire Strikes Back, Luke becomes a full-fledged Jedi, which is huge plot progression. What's more, we interact with Vader, the villain, all the way through it. So for it to be a fit comparison, in the Empire Strikes Back, they would need to have just thrown the whole Jedi (Spectre) plotline away, and we'd also have to never interact with Vader or the Emperor - the movie would be about stopping stormtroopers from abducting Outer Rim worlds instead.

Like I said, it's a blend of the two.  I think you're vastly overestimating Saruman's importance to Sauron's war effort.  Saruman was trying to ingratiate himself to Sauron and take a piece of the pie for himself, rather than get swept aside in the conquest.  He was a glorified minion for the most part, suspiciously similar to the Collectors.  The difference being that the Collectors are under the complete control of the Reapers, in a way that Saruman wasn't to Sauron.  That's about the only difference.  Meanwhile Frodo is only slightly closer to Mordor, which is the main plot, yes?  Does this mean that the plot of the Two Towers sucked?  No.  Why does ME2 suck then?

The Empire Strikes Back is about character development, right?  The plot does not revolve around stopping the Empire this time around, it revolves around deepening the characters.  Sound familiar?  The plot is no closer to conclusion than it was at the end of A New Hope, if you consider that nothing was done to defeat the Empire.  But that's nonsense you say, character development helped defeat the Empire in the end.  Well based solely on the ending of TESB, there's no indication that it would.  Sort of like the character development in ME2.  Why do we assume that the character development in ME2 will not pan out?  There's still a finale in which these developments can bring about the end of the Reapers.  We don't know how it will turn out.

[upsettingshorts]

Nightwriter wrote...

But I disagree with that disagreement!

The story clearly intends to create tension, edginess, and thrills. It starts with a bang that is meant to wow us. It tries to build up suspense for the suicide mission by impressing upon us with the total unknown that lurks beyond the relay. It says dramatic, half-ridiculous things, like, "They're going to attack Earth!" Both the Collector ship and the derelict Reaper are meant to create spooky thriller atmospheres. Freedom's Progress is meant to be creepy, as are the Collectors themselves, an unknown, faceless enemy stealing colonies from the shadows.

I don't view any of the evidence you cite as examples of tension in the dramatic sense, nor see how they prove that the story is plot driven.

I think this is the point where we agree to disagree.

[Frybread76]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

It's true that not all stories are meant to be thrillers, but ME2's clearly was..

I disagree. It created urgency at a small handful of set points - basically when you are forced to chat with the Illusive Man, and the tension was always released immediately following the mission.  The only exception is the endgame after the Normandy is boarded.

The characters - recruiting them and dealing with their problems - drove the story at every other point.

A revealing difference is that you know where you're ultimately going basically from the start - through the Omega 4 relay.  The vast majority of the game is preparing to do so, in one fashion or another. 

I think the "main" story was meant to be a thriller of sorts, with Shepard and Co. racing against time to thwart the Collectors in taking any more human colonies.

The only problem is the "main" story does not make up much of the game.  The "main" story and tension is set aside for lots of squad recruitment and loyalty missions, most of which do not advance the "main" story.

[cachx]

Is there a new character in Mass Effect 2
that seems to pop-up as the lead favorite? I know I have mine, to me it
seems pretty obvious that Mordin Solus is the best character. I'm
curious if you've heard otherwise.
"Mordin was one of the more popular ones. I
think the development of some of the existing characters people
continued to enjoy, like the stuff with Garrus and Tali. 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.

I don't know how do you deduce that. It seems to me like a justification for having structured ME2's narrative like they did, and not really a hint to ME3.

(Still, I support the idea for Wrex-like cameos for ME3, at least for some of the characters).

[sagefic]

JThompson6577 wrote...

A lot of it also seems to be like the people who accuse their favorite band of selling out. They saw this little BioWare game and had a ton of fun with it, told all their friend who played it and had a ton of fun and told all their friends...

Cut to two years later and ME2 is this huge game everyone's waiting for, Hell it was big enough to get a midnight opening at Gamestop (don't kid yourself God of War 3.) And alot of people who stumbled across the first game by accident feel somehow betrayed by the game and are trying to find things to hate about ME 2.

this is true except for " feel somehow betrayed by the game and are trying to find things to hate about ME 2" I don't know if that's the case.

here's my take:

ME1 read like a novel. ME2 read like a short story collection.

the ME2 short story collection was more polished, had cooler cut scenes. you could fire it up for an hour or two and burn out some awesome quest that was interesting, compelling, different from other quests - was a main plot quest or just some side quest and it was cool. then you could close it up and be done for the night. but the lack of character development for shepard him/herself and the lack of continuity between stories left me a little cold.

ME1 was a little clunkier, it had these very repeatative environments, talking-head convos, and endless mako driving that seemed at odds with the "race against time" main plot. but WHEN you hit those story-arc moments, it really felt like this coming-of-age (or coming-of-hero, as it were) story that went somewhere. it all built - shep's past history, shep's current mission, the mystery of the reapers, and even the LI arc (if chosen) into this epic story ending.

i don't see one as "better" - they are different styles of narration and have their strengths and weaknesses. ME2 moves at a great clip - ME1 does not. ME1 had many moments of emotional payoff, ME2 did not as much. ME1 developed shep as a hero - ME2 assumed shep was a hero. etc. etc.

for me, i get nostalgic replaying ME1, but i also find myself longing for the combat and cutscenes of ME2.

this is why i hope ME3 manages to merge the best of both.

Modifié par sagequeen, 08 octobre 2010 - 01:05 .

[Xeranx]

wizardryforever wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

Well I still don't think it's really a fit comparison.

In Empire Strikes Back, Luke becomes a full-fledged Jedi, which is huge plot progression. What's more, we interact with Vader, the villain, all the way through it. So for it to be a fit comparison, in the Empire Strikes Back, they would need to have just thrown the whole Jedi (Spectre) plotline away, and we'd also have to never interact with Vader or the Emperor - the movie would be about stopping stormtroopers from abducting Outer Rim worlds instead.

The Empire Strikes Back is about character development, right?  The plot does not revolve around stopping the Empire this time around, it revolves around deepening the characters.  Sound familiar?  The plot is no closer to conclusion than it was at the end of A New Hope, if you consider that nothing was done to defeat the Empire.  But that's nonsense you say, character development helped defeat the Empire in the end.  Well based solely on the ending of TESB, there's no indication that it would.  Sort of like the character development in ME2.  Why do we assume that the character development in ME2 will not pan out?  There's still a finale in which these developments can bring about the end of the Reapers.  We don't know how it will turn out.

If ME2 is about character development then why were we given new characters to develop when we have a perfectly good number of characters whose stories can be further elaborated on?  Why bring in 10 new individuals we have to get to know and then actually "know" before the start of a suicide mission?  That's nonsensical.  "I already have a good team" is correct.  They've been with you to hell and back and because circuit eyes says so you just say, "well let's look at what you got because my old team might not be up to snuff" especially if you romanced one of them?  Did you suddenly forget how invested in their welfare you got in the first game?

Garrus - Dr. Heart
Wrex - Family Armor
Tali - Geth Data for her pilgrimmage
Liara - Romance
Kaiden - Romance
Ashley - Romance

I'm inclined to ask what the bfd is with this new squad whom I don't know and would ask if they would be willing to go on a mission that would certainly spell death for any or all of them?  And please don't say I need the best of the best because I had the best of the best.  Normal individuals who showed they could deal with anything, big or small, thrown at them.  I don't need people who are superb during cut scenes and nowhere else.

[Revan312]

cachx wrote...

I don't know how do you deduce that. It seems to me like a justification for having structured ME2's narrative like they did, and not really a hint to ME3.

(Still, I support the idea for Wrex-like cameos for ME3, at least for some of the characters).

The reason we see the same thing happening again is because of a couple things.

1.) ME3 is going to have to contend with about a million different possible outcomes that are cumulative from the first and second games. From what council/human councilor you chose to who you recruited to how you handled their loyalty mission and finally which of them survived the mission, if hardly any.

2.) ME1 had a very clear cut ending from a choice standpoint concerning your crew. Wrex either lived or died and either Kaiden or Ash lived or died, one of them was potentially romanced. That's it and what we found in ME3 was most of the crew relegated to cameos. ME2 is far more complicated concerning where your crew is at in the end meaning it will be a hundred times more difficult for Bioware to sort through the mess.

3.) We know there will be new squad mates. Every Bioware game ever made has new characters to recruit or have on your team. So if you saved Wrex in ME1 and all of the crew in ME2 then your sitting at 15 people including Ash/Kaiden and Liara. Add in new squad mates and your at an even higher number.. Now excluding the possibility of the virmire survivor, Liara or wrex being a squadmate in ME3 still leaves the number at 12 with new additions in ME3. That's a ton of people to fully VO and have meaningful conversation strings with, too many in fact.

So with those three imagine a scenario like this. A savegame has Wrex living and all of the crew from ME2 minus Mordin, Legion, Tali and Jacob. Now they have to recognize in the story to come that they are dead and have the proper responses for such events that took place. The save purposefully failed Zaeed's loyalty mission and messed up Samara's while also not recruiting Thane. It now needs to relegate the remaining 8 that live, two of which weren't loyal and one that didn't get picked up, into either squadmate roles or cameos while still including new characters. Add into that the entire save or blowup the base at the end and whether or not TIM despises you and the potential for change in Miranda's thoughts on Cerberus. There's council decisions, how you dealt with the Rachni, the potential multiple people you romanced and their conflicts with each other etc etc.

In my mind Bioware pretty much has to relegate the squad from ME2 to cameos or risk taking 5 disks and 6 years to complete the game. Many of the decisions seem like the only reasonable response would be emails and fleeting references, especially if that's how they treated the decisions from the first game and their far shallower complexity.

Modifié par Revan312, 08 octobre 2010 - 01:35 .

[StarcloudSWG]

That's why they wrote "outs" into the characters on the squad in the first place.

Samara moves on, being a Justicar.

Mordin is nearing the end of his life.

Thane is nearing the end of his life.

Tali could return to the fleet.

Legion could return to Geth.

Maybe Jacob returns to the Alliance.

Zaeed is a mercenary, he retires or just leaves to take another job.

Grunt might go along with Zaeed on jobs, actually, or even start another krannt of his own.

Kasumi just vanishes one day.

Jack has no reason to stick around either, so she jumps ship except maybe if she's a love interest.



Really, I think the "core" group going into ME 3 is going to be something like Miranda, Garrus, and maybe any other love interest.

[cachx]

Revan312 wrote...

cachx wrote...

I don't know how do you deduce that. It seems to me like a justification for having structured ME2's narrative like they did, and not really a hint to ME3.

(Still, I support the idea for Wrex-like cameos for ME3, at least for some of the characters).

*lots of text*

If you think about it, squadmates can be very "modular" as they mostly consist of:

+2, 3 or 4 dialgue trees. (LI's get 1 or 2 extra scenes).
+2-3 sentences per mission (and the occassional extra dialog, like Tali during the Quarian quest in the citadel, for example).

They could include them all, at the cost of (even more) reduced importance on the overall story. You don't really need to mention who died specifically. With the exception of Zaeed and Kasumi, all non-obligatory characters were in a life and death situation during their recruitment, so they could be treated as being dead in the case that you didn't pick them up (Thane gets offed by Nassana's guards, The Illium police is forced to gun down Samara, Tali eventually gets overwhelmed by Geth, etc).

It all depends on how Bioware is going to tackle the whole thing. My logic says cameos, but I really really want the squaddies to come back as squaddies.

[smudboy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...
There was no real sense of urgency.

Because it wasn't a plot driven story.  Not all stories are meant to be thrillers...

As far as gameplay goes, anytime I go back to ME1 from ME2 I feel like I'm playing a rail shooter.

For the love of God, man!  It's a plot driven story!  There are multiple other stories INSIDE the plot driven story!  Those may be considered character driven stories!  But the main story is a plot driven story.  It acts as a frame for those stories.  It doesn't matter if the focus or majority of ME2 were the characters and their interludes.  The plot of ME2 is to Stop the Collectors, not Daddy Issue #9!

At the end of the Suicide Mission (part of the main plot!), you can get everyone killed (save 2)!  ME3 will not have all those wonderful people you had interludes with play any major plot role!

Now your theory is fine in regards to thinking that they might play a role in ME3.  That STILL doesn't make ME2 a character driven story.  In order for that to have occurred:
1) Shepard would have to be an active protagonist.  That means, Shepard would be pushing the plot along at their accord.
2) Shepard would have to be much more emotionally involved.  That implies character conflicts and developments toward their plot.  Shepard has the emotional range of a bully who might act out scenes of Picard in Star Trek, and the development of a dried piece of mud.  This isn't even possible under the current template they have setup for them.
3) TIM GIVES YOU THE PLOT at EVERY TURN. And this is not "TIM's Magical Plot Ticket Adventure!"  Shepard is literally caught up in events, without a moment to breathe, argue, or complain to any avail (of course with the pacing of a legless donkey), as TIM hands out events.  If they COULD argue and change their course, and then do wtf they wanted, then they would be an active protagonist, and if the plot developed as the character chose, then it would be a character driven story!

http://www.writersst...r-action-driven

Modifié par smudboy, 08 octobre 2010 - 04:27 .

[smudboy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

It's true that not all stories are meant to be thrillers, but ME2's clearly was..

I disagree. It created urgency at a small handful of set points - basically when you are forced to chat with the Illusive Man, and the tension was always released immediately following the mission.  The only exception is the endgame after the Normandy is boarded.

The characters - recruiting them and dealing with their problems - drove the story at every other point.

No they didn't.  They might have driven their story.  They had d!ck and all to do with the Collector story.

[smudboy]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

That's why they wrote "outs" into the characters on the squad in the first place.
Samara moves on, being a Justicar.
Mordin is nearing the end of his life.
Thane is nearing the end of his life.
Tali could return to the fleet.
Legion could return to Geth.
Maybe Jacob returns to the Alliance.
Zaeed is a mercenary, he retires or just leaves to take another job.
Grunt might go along with Zaeed on jobs, actually, or even start another krannt of his own.
Kasumi just vanishes one day.
Jack has no reason to stick around either, so she jumps ship except maybe if she's a love interest.

Really, I think the "core" group going into ME 3 is going to be something like Miranda, Garrus, and maybe any other love interest.

Core group of corpses.

[ScooterPie88]

[Edit: Comment on the topic at hand, not on the posters. -- Pacifien]

Modifié par Pacifien, 08 octobre 2010 - 04:16 .

[DPSSOC]

I generally like ME1 more than ME2 for a few simple reasons

1) Customization: I much preferred the ME1 system (for all it's clunkiness) when it came to weapon customization. In ME1 I felt I was handed weapons and the only limit on them was range, I could decide what they'd be effective against (through upgrade combinations). In ME2 I'm given weapons and told "Take this, it's good for this, you can use ammo types to make it better at that." I preferred the control ME1 gave me.



2)Character Progression: I loved the ME2 characters, but because we have so many missions and so few conversations that progression of character relationships seems to move in leaps and bounds. For example after hopping on the Normandy and completing 1 mission Miranda feels you've "earned the right" to know about the reasons behind her affiliation with Cerberus (some of them anyway). Keep in mind this is a character who comes on the scene obviously not trusting you. Alternatively in ME1 it's 1 mission, 1 convo and progression just feels a lot smoother.



3) Pacing: The best way to describe my impression of ME2's pacing is inconsistent. Throughout the bulk of the game you're either recruiting or completing loyalty missions. So for 24 missions (I think) you're just plodding along with no real sense of urgency doing things that do nothing to advance the main plot (stopping the collectors). Which wouldn't be bad except its broken up by 4 (I think) missions that [i[do[/i] advance the plot and it's a much different pace. Think of it like driving along at 50 km/h then suddenly speeding up to 120 for a brief time then immediately dropping back to 50, that doesn't make for a comfortable ride.



Ultimately 2 and 3 are bigger points for me than 1 but over all I felt ME1 had better storytelling, not necessarily a better story but they presented it better. Also I personally liked the control offered by the ME1 inventory system (though I recognize I'm in the Minority)