120 réponses à ce sujet

[Wittand25]

scyphozoa wrote...

ME3 should not be designed for the people who failed to make the most out of ME2. If you didn't play ME2 or you didn't complete all the missions and keep your team alive, you are not the people ME3 should be designed for.

ME3 should reward its more committed players and punish those who fail to keep their team alive. ME3 should be designed for the fans who care the most, not the fans who care the least.

And on the cover they should print:
"Unless you played ME1 and ME2 and kept your safegame put the box back on the shelf and go slowly away because we do not want your money."
Seriously that would be horrible business sense. I am all for rewarding old players but what you and many others are asking is not a reward for old players but punishment for new ones.
ME3 should be designed to be a great and complete game even for the worst import (no ME2 squad ...) and rewards for old players then added later, like it was the case for ME2.

[aeetos21]

If a person didn't play ME1 and they didn't play ME2 I highly doubt they're going to pick up the last in the trilogy. BW's biggest audience pull for ME3 is going to come from people who played one or two of the first two games. Focusing their efforts there is good business sense.

[Wittand25]

aeetos21 wrote...

If a person didn't play ME1 and they didn't play ME2 I highly doubt they're going to pick up the last in the trilogy. BW's biggest audience pull for ME3 is going to come from people who played one or two of the first two games. Focusing their efforts there is good business sense.

Not everyone who played both games still has their safegames ( I lost mine because the hard drive of my computer broke as example) And judging by the player data Bioware themself released most players do not even finish a playthrough. While whithout doubt many of the potential byers of ME3 at least have heard of the previous games, limiting the game just to those with perfect imports is not smart. Especially since Wrex and LotSB show that character fans can be pleased without draining to many resources from the main game that needs to work for everyone nomatter if  you kept the squad-mate alive in the previous game or how their relationship with Shepard was.

[Lunatic LK47]

Wittand25 wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

If a person didn't play ME1 and they didn't play ME2 I highly doubt they're going to pick up the last in the trilogy. BW's biggest audience pull for ME3 is going to come from people who played one or two of the first two games. Focusing their efforts there is good business sense.

Not everyone who played both games still has their safegames ( I lost mine because the hard drive of my computer broke as example) And judging by the player data Bioware themself released most players do not even finish a playthrough. While whithout doubt many of the potential byers of ME3 at least have heard of the previous games, limiting the game just to those with perfect imports is not smart. Especially since Wrex and LotSB show that character fans can be pleased without draining to many resources from the main game that needs to work for everyone nomatter if  you kept the squad-mate alive in the previous game or how their relationship with Shepard was.

Except Horizon and being railroaded into Cerberus showed the equally bad side as well. Last time I checked, LotSB was assumed by a certain individual that it was only going to remain as cut content.

[SmokePants]

aeetos21 wrote...

If a person didn't play ME1 and they didn't play ME2 I highly doubt they're going to pick up the last in the trilogy. BW's biggest audience pull for ME3 is going to come from people who played one or two of the first two games. Focusing their efforts there is good business sense.

That's how you think. That's not how most people who buy games operate. According to BioWare's statistics, half the people who played ME2 did not finish it. Most gamers I know don't really care about finishing, but they won't hesitate to pay full price for the hot new game. You're saying BioWare should just disregard half their audience? Good business sense?

I'll tell it to you straight: no one with any kind of say over Mass Effect 3 shares your opinion, because it is absurd. ME3 will be a game that new players can pick up and enjoy. They won't enjoy it quite as much as us few invested players, but they certainly won't be left out in the cold. Again, that notion is absurd.

Modifié par SmokePants, 26 décembre 2010 - 11:30 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Wittand25 wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

If a person didn't play ME1 and they didn't play ME2 I highly doubt they're going to pick up the last in the trilogy. BW's biggest audience pull for ME3 is going to come from people who played one or two of the first two games. Focusing their efforts there is good business sense.

Not everyone who played both games still has their safegames ( I lost mine because the hard drive of my computer broke as example) And judging by the player data Bioware themself released most players do not even finish a playthrough. While whithout doubt many of the potential byers of ME3 at least have heard of the previous games, limiting the game just to those with perfect imports is not smart. Especially since Wrex and LotSB show that character fans can be pleased without draining to many resources from the main game that needs to work for everyone nomatter if you kept the squad-mate alive in the previous game or how their relationship with Shepard was.

There is an immediate qualm Bioware faces that was not apparent with ME2 however. The fanbase is actively aware of what became of Ash/Kaidan, Wrex, Liara and are likely to research their involvement in ME3 to see if improvements were made. Liara received noticeable development due to a DLC but we cannot accept Liara fans to be satisfied if that was the extent, that in ME3, she was cameo'd again. I firmly believe if Garrus and Tali were found to be Ash/Kaidan'd in ME3. The game would lose customers because their respective fanbases are extremely intense, partially obsessive at times.

This a primary dilemma Bioware must consider because attempting to welcome new comers too much could well impact sales from existing customers who felt ignored. That is perhaps the most compelling argument to at least some of the squad's return in a strong form. I believe the fans could handle LotSB-esque cameo for say, Garrus, or even an indoctrination plot. So long as he is a centralized figure for a portion of the game. If he is not... well that will probably not go over well.

SmokePants wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

If a person didn't play ME1 and they didn't play ME2 I highly doubt they're going to pick up the last in the trilogy. BW's biggest audience pull for ME3 is going to come from people who played one or two of the first two
games. Focusing their efforts there is good business sense.

That's how you think. That's not how most people who buy games operate. According to BioWare's statistics, half the people who played ME2 did not finish it. Most gamers I know don't really care about finishing, but they won't hesitate to pay full price for the hot new game. You're saying BioWare should just disregard half their audience? Good business sense?

I'll tell it to you straight: no one with any kind of say over Mass Effect 3 shares your opinion, because it is absurd. ME3 will be a game that new players can pick up and enjoy. They won't enjoy it quite as much as we few invested players, but they certainly won't be left out in the cold. Again, that notion is absurd.

WhileI certainly am in agreement. One could argue ME3 could be designed to be played by everyone as any game theoretically could but would be confusing and difficult to follow if you have little to no experience with the series. This works because most people blind buy a game and few would bother to consider if it would be difficult for them to follow.
Not a likely scenario but EA has been known to do something similar,
especially with sports games.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 26 décembre 2010 - 11:34 .

[Wittand25]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
There is an immediate qualm Bioware faces that was not apparent with ME2 however. The fanbase is actively aware of what became of Ash/Kaidan, Wrex, Liara and are likely to research their involvement in ME3 to see if improvements were made. Liara received noticeable development due to a DLC but we cannot accept Liara fans to be satisfied if that was the extent, that in ME3, she was cameo'd again. I firmly believe if Garrus and Tali were found to be Ash/Kaidan'd in ME3. The game would lose customers because their respective fanbases are extremely intense, partially obsessive at times.

This a primary dilemma Bioware must consider because attempting to welcome new comers too much could well impact sales from existing customers who felt ignored. That is perhaps the most compelling argument to at least some of the squad's return in a strong form. I believe the fans could handle LotSB-esque cameo for say, Garrus, or even an indoctrination plot. So long as he is a centralized figure for a portion of the game. If he is not... well that will probably not go over well.

A temporary place in the squad for fan favourites and cameos for the not as popular seems to be the best solution.
E.g. you meet Garrus or replacement NPC and they give you a mission. If Garrus is loyal and alive you can select him as team member during this mission, if he is not you have to use two members of the ME3 squad. After the mission Sheppard and Garrus part ways again and Garrus only shows up afterwards in the end game and the epilogue.
For not so beloved NPCs simply coming across them and having a short talk would be sufficient.
That way the costs for the returning characters can be kept relatively small, their presence or absence does hugely influence the feeling of the game, while not affecting the gameplay side too much.

And I do not believe that a new squad would lead many to boycott the game. Sure there will be a huge sh*tstorm here on the forum once it gets announced and several fanboys will act as if Bioware was their girlfriend and has just cheated on them with their best friend. But they will come around and most of them will get the game anyway even if they proclaimed otherwise here before.

Modifié par Wittand25, 26 décembre 2010 - 12:00 .

[SmokePants]

Everyone will discover that there is no backburner. The characters that don't come back as party members have already finished cooking.

Modifié par SmokePants, 26 décembre 2010 - 11:49 .

[SmokePants]

Wittand25 wrote...

And I do not believe that a new squad would lead many to boycott the game. Sure there will be a huge sh*tstorm here on the forum once it gets announced and several fanboys will act as if Bioware was there girlfriend and has just cheated on them with their best friend. But they will come around and most of them will get the game anyway even if the proclaimed otherwise here before.

They will come around when they graduate from diapers and learn to use the potty like big boys and girls. Nobody remains a crying infant forever.

[lovgreno]

scyphozoa wrote...

I think its important to remember that the parameters for designing the second chapter of a trilogy are not the same as the parameters for designing the third chapter of a trilogy.

ME1 followers could be put on the back burner because there was a 3rd game to bring them back to. Since there is no chapter after 3 in a trilogy. there is no back burner to put ME2 followers on.

Furthermore, Bioware invested resources into creating these characters. The ME2 characters not only have their development price tag, but also the monetary value of brand recognition. These characters are now associated with the franchise and to dismiss them would be to dismiss a heavily invested aspect of the ME franchise. Simply put, it will be more profitable to keep the ME2 cast than to replace them.

This. Popular characters like the ME1 alien squadmates are marketing gold that it would be foolish to not include in the squad since it should be rather easy to do.

Give new players a few different default Sheps to choose from and everyone could have a full squad of survivors including Wrex but sadly excluding Kaidan or Ashley (but one big choice with big  consequences would be nice).

Give the returning squadmates a role similar to those not necesary to requit as squadmates in ME2 and there won't be any trouble making them fit into the story. It has kind of been done before so it would be easy to do again.

It would actualy be easier to give old squadmates a remake than making new characters from scratch. BioWare have tested them on us players for one or two games and knows how to make them popular. New characters is a gamble with time and resources, wich is something investors and those in charge of the budget hates.

So no, there are no need for "zombies" . No need for choosing between pleasing old fans or giving new player a lot of content, both can be done with similar to already tested methods. All it takes is enough time for BioWare to do a good work.

Modifié par lovgreno, 26 décembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Posted that I agreed with Scyphoza's message on Christina Norman's twitter, and here's her response.

I don't think it is a spoiler to say that fans who let their team die in me2 will feel the consequences in me3

Take it what you will.

[rasblak]

lovgreno wrote...
This. Popular characters like the ME1 alien squadmates are marketing gold that it would be foolish to not include in the squad since it should be rather easy to do.

Give new players a few different default Sheps to choose from and everyone could have a full squad of survivors including Wrex but sadly excluding Kaidan or Ashley (but one big choice with big  consequences would be nice).

Give the returning squadmates a role similar to those not necesary to requit as squadmates in ME2 and there won't be any trouble making them fit into the story. It has kind of been done before so it would be easy to do again.

It would actualy be easier to give old squadmates a remake than making new characters from scratch. BioWare have tested them on us players for one or two games and knows how to make them popular. New characters is a gamble with time and resources, wich is something investors and those in charge of the budget hates.

So no, there are no need for "zombies" . No need for choosing between pleasing old fans or giving new player a lot of content, both can be done with similar to already tested methods. All it takes is enough time for BioWare to do a good work.

Joker: izzsshhhwshwweeeshhhzwisweeshhh...
Shepard: Joker?
Joker: Don't say this out loud Commander. *they* can hear us...
Shepard: Joker?
Joker: Those who believe that BioWare is out to teach us 'Life'-long lessons about how ppl move on and it is selfish of us to demand that they stay as our Guns to order around. It's not about making money, it's about the plans BioWare has for the pixels on our monitors, and the flows of electrons that generate them. Oy! Even a flow of electrons has got to earn a College degree and... grow as a character, right?

Shepard: Yeah?... So why do I only get to keep shooting aliens? I'm the most iconic bastard in the galaxy for crying out loud.

Joker: Well.. Commander. Live long enough and maybe, You'll. Get. To. Serve. Drinks. Too!

Modifié par rasblak, 27 décembre 2010 - 04:16 .

[Praetor Knight]

rasblak wrote...

Joker: izzsshhhwshwweeeshhhzwisweeshhh...
Shepard: Joker?
Joker: Don't say this out loud Commander. *they* can hear us...
Shepard: Joker?
Joker: Those who believe that BioWare is out to teach us 'Life'-long lessons about how ppl move on and it is selfish of us to demand that they stay as our Guns to order around. It's not about making money, it's about the plans BioWare has for the pixels on our monitors, and the flows of electrons that generate them. Oy! Even a flow of electrons has got to earn a College degree and... grow as a character, right?

Shepard: Yeah?... So why do I only get to keep shooting aliens? I'm the most iconic bastard in the galaxy for crying out loud.

Joker: Well.. Commander. Live long enough and maybe, You'll. Get. To. Serve. Drinks. Too!

Joker must have been computing Pi too long as EDI spun his seat, exclaiming, "All your pixels are belong to us"

[crimzontearz]

Bioware needs to find the quads to tell people who are JUST entering the trilogy with ME3 or killed offmost of the team in ME2 "deal with less content buddy"



it's a trilogy based on decisions let's not screw that too

[crimzontearz]

it's called "worst possible scenario" .....like in ME2 No import = council dead, no sidequests done, no romance, rachni dead, udina as a representative and so on

[Mister_Tez]

I posted this back in Feb, I think, in one of the many threads on the subject of ME2 squadmates in ME3...

------------------------------------------

I do not see why the majority of your (surviving) ME2 team cannot be part of your team in ME3.

They don’t need to have a full set of replacement team members for each ME2 team member who may have died during ME2′s “suicide mission” – just a few extra people to recruit, in addition to any survivors who stay with you. If you kept the whole team alive, awesome. If you were a muppet and lost all but two, then tough – you have to make do with a final squad of e.g. six only.

I think “dire consequences” should not just be regarding the presumably obvious choices (Collector Base, Heretics, etc.), but also regarding your team’s survivors. So if you screwed up at the end of ME2, then it hobbles you for ME3 by restricting your team size and variety. I don’t see why I should be penalised (by not having ME2 teammates in ME3) for acing the suicide mission – people who screwed up should be penalised (come on, it’s not hard to buy upgrades &  pick the correct specialists, you have to be a bit of an idiot to mess it up!).

People talk about too much dialogue, too much voice acting being needed… how so?

You have 11 team mates in ME2. The voice actor for each one had to record dialogue for every single mission that their character could be used in, plus unique dialogue for their own recruitment mission, plus unique dialogue for their own loyalty mission, plus Normandy dialogue.

If your ME2 team carries over into ME3, you do not need to recruit them again, you do not need to make them loyal again. So the only dialogue needed is the standard dialogue for each mission same as with ME2 (in-mission chatter, cutscene dialogue), plus dialogue for any post-mission chats on the Normandy. Less dialogue needed than ME2.

The minimum no. of suicide mission survivors possible for Shepard to still survive is two. Assume that there will be some recruitment in ME3, of say four characters to bring the squad to six (minimum), the same squad size as ME1. Those four could be Liara [Update: OK, maybe not, given LotSB], Ashley/Kaiden, and two new people. Each of those could have a recruitment mission and a loyalty mission, so would need dialogue for those as well as the standard dialogue for each mission they can be used on.

Even with general in-mission cutscene dialogue for the existing ME2 team + the new recruits, and recruitment + loyalty mission dialogue for the new recruits, that’s not excessive compared to ME2, due to there
being fewer recruitment & loyalty missions than in ME2.

And the surviving team can always be trimmed to a more manageable number, if absolutely necessary, by writing out a few of the obvious ones e.g. Thane due to him being terminally ill, e.g. Samara due to her oath being fulfilled, e.g. Zaeed as he was only in it for the money, etc.

OK, so it has been said that the ME2 team are expendable and do not have any strong ties with ME3′s story (as they can all die, obviously)… but I think in a way that makes it easier to use them in ME3… if they have no strong links to the story, then all the various dead/survived combinations won’t complicate things, as any survivors can simply be potential squadmates and won’t have any direct impact on the story. Whoever survived, in whichever combination, won’t affect the story so there is no complication.

ME2 was about team building and character development. ME3 should be plot development & EPIC TRILOGY FINALE. You shouldn’t have to go around recruiting & making loyal yet another squad of ultimate badasses, it should IMO just be a case of ME2 survivors + a few extras, and then off you go on a major set of story missions.

And of course seeing as ME2 was about team building and character development, it would be so utterly stupid (IMO) if those characters then simply got tossed away in ME3, by whatever means, after all that your Shepard had been through with them. BioWare surely cannot have gone into making ME2 not realising that people would grow attached to certain team members and would want to keep them with them in the final game, given that most of the game is spent recruiting people & making them loyal!

If, after all you have been through in ME2, you have to start over again in ME3, then what was the point? Why bother having the middle game being more about team building and character development than overall story development if those characters are then discarded in the final game? Why even bother keeping your team alive in the suicide mission if they’re going to be reduced to cameos in ME3?

As for who I want to keep in ME3 if BioWare do let you keep your ME2 squad… Miranda, Mordin, Garrus, Tali, and Legion. Don’t mind Grunt, Thane, and Samara, but not bothered if I keep them or not. Don’t give a crap about Jacob or Jack.

Modifié par Mister_Tez, 30 décembre 2010 - 05:39 .

[PsychoWARD23]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

You have to actively pursue all the sidequests to get everyone alive.
Some people don't care that much and will do something of a casual speed run, getting quite a few people killed.
BioWare assuming everyone lived is a laughably bad idea when the trilogy was built upon the idea that your choices matter.
And I still don't understand why people think the ME2 party members signed on to stop the reapers. They did not. They signed on to stop the Collector abductions and have no obligation at all to stick with Shepard.

While this is true, a few squad members will most likely stick with Shepard until the end (Garrus, Tali etc.).

[PsychoWARD23]

crimzontearz wrote...

Bioware needs to find the quads to tell people who are JUST entering the trilogy with ME3 or killed offmost of the team in ME2 "deal with less content buddy"

it's a trilogy based on decisions let's not screw that too

This, Bioware better tell the average person that Mass Effect is meant to be played from the first game, I wouldn't care if they made it so you HAD to import a Shepard, the newcomers can pick up ME1 and ME2, don't like it? Fine, don't play ME3.

[mopotter]

scyphozoa wrote...

ME3 should not be designed for the people who failed to make the most out of ME2. If you didn't play ME2 or you didn't complete all the missions and keep your team alive, you are not the people ME3 should be designed for.

ME3 should reward its more committed players and punish those who fail to keep their team alive. ME3 should be designed for the fans who care the most, not the fans who care the least.

And I would like to see them reward the truly committed players who played every option available so they have games with all combinations of possibilities.  Games where everyone survived and games where squad members and crew died.  

I don't want ME3 to be simple.  I want decisions made in every play count not just the decisions made in one game.