927 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Team gathering for ME2 yes it was not implicit it was team gathering for ME3. The fact that it was a suicide mission should have made that fairly clear if nothing else. It also makes them a pain to transfer to the next game.

If it is truly the case that these wonderfully designed characters were meant to be throwaways, then that'd be a damn shame.  Honestly, I expect more out of Bioware.  They're one of the few gaming corps that still maintains a sense of integrity and pride in their work.

For example, look at all the work they put into Thane: they spent ages pouring over his character design in order to get him "just right" for the ladies (which was kinda lame, but at least they made an effort).  They also gave him a complicated (if ridiculously emo) backstory, two unique missions, and some great dialogue (apart from the flashbacks).  Oh yeah, and he has a kickass skillset (save for Shredder Ammo).

However,Thane's missions are fairly short, and he has a minimal role in the game outside of them.  That was a helluva lot of effort for less than an hour of content.  Now, wouldn't it be great if you could still squeeze some more juice from the fruits of your labor?  Especially with hordes of fangirls joyously waving their hard-earned cash right under your nose?  Or would you rather do all that work all over again on the gamble that you'll reel in an audience of equal size?

I counter "they called it a suicide mission" with the phrase they put on the back of the box:

PROVE THEM WRONG.

Which implies that it's only a suicide mission of you believe it is and lack the mettle to defy the odds.  I mean, my God, it's right there on the back of the damn box right before you even buy the game.  I WONDER IF THEY'RE IMPLYING SOMETHING?

I watched ESB before New Hope. Never felt like I missed much. But I would have missed a conclusion had I skipped ROTJ. Just as each movie stands alone as well as part of a trilogy, the same applies to games.

Which was PART OF MY BLOODY POINT.  Damn, son, you readin' this stuff?

Now, the core argument I was trying to make was that a trilogy will matter more to you if you participate in the whole thing.  Therefore, by including content exclusive to returning players, you are rewarding them for spending potentially hundreds of dollars on your products at no loss to the new guys, since they wouldn't care too much about bridging material anyway.  In fact, a loyalty bonus, especially in the form of returning squadmates, would encourage new players to go back and play the old games (which has already happened with people playing ME2--they run back and try out ME1).  More monies for Bioware!  Yay!

If ME3 just wants to recycle the ME2 squad members they should just call it an expansion pack like they did with TOB. I like the ME2 squad , but as much as you want to see them return I want new personalities and associated quests more than  I want the same thing I just did one game ago.

An expansion pack is something that uses nearly the exact same engine and mechanics of a previously released game and requires that said game be purchased and installed prior to use.  Lair of the Shadow Broker and SC: Brood War are expansion packs (although LotSB is a really small one).  StarCraft 2, however, is not an expansion pack because it has a drastically reworked engine and quite different gameplay, and did not require the first game to be installed in order to play.  Jim Raynor, Sarah Kerrigan, Zeratul, and Arcturus Mengsk all return from SC1, and so did a wide variety of units and game mechanics, but these familiar faces and features did not make the game a "rehash."

ME3  will not be an expansion pack because it will not require ME2 to play.  However, several characters can return from the first two games.  Besides, "BIG CONSEQUENCES" and carry-over content are two of ME's major selling points.  You honestly want less of what the series is trying to be famous for?

And seriously, stop acting like it's all or nothing here.  You can still have old friend and new faces.  What the f*ck is it with this forum and its false dichotomies, anyway?

In each case they were a fully fleshed out character. To do that in ME3 would require not only a rehash of the backgrounds and relationships, but also a whole set of new lines to keep them interesting.

Harry Potter was seven books long and the characters never got boring (IMO), never stopped developing, and never ran out of things to do.  Your argument is invalid.

You would be suprised how many people reply yes.

Nonetheless, it's a douchey question.

I'd agree if you only ever got one run at it. That would make it a very tense affair like playing Diablo Hardcore where one wrong move really does mean something. However, you can replay it so any tension, sense of accomplishment is totally lost.

Blame the fact on multiple save files, not on the mission itself.  And really, this is true with any videogame: you goofed, you reload.  It's not real life.

The fact that people can actually tailor who lives and who dies should be enough proof of how pointless the SM is as a measure of success.

That's because people on these forums spent a lot of time and energy figuring out what the triggers were and how to exploit them, then were kind enough to share their data.  It was hard work to figure that stuff out.  Anything that relies on math and variables can be exploited to get the results you want.  Coding is math.  Therefore, coding can be exploited.  The only alternatives would be to make events random (which could be avoided by frequent reloading) or unavoidable (which would remove player choice from the picture and railroad the plot even further).

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 15 février 2011 - 08:37 .

[CroGamer002]

^I agree as always but Harry Potter 7 sucked in both book and movie.

[ZeroDotZero]

Tali will almost certainly be a squaddie in ME3. Tali died on the SM for me. Does that mean that I will have one less squaddie in total? Yes.



Jack also died on the SM for me. She might not be a squaddie for ME3. Does that mean that I will have one less squaddie in total? It damn well should do.



Losing Jack is just as easy as losing Tali, why should I be punished more for losing Tali? If Bioware has ANY ME2 squaddies returning, they should all be returning. They can add new squaddies too, if they like, but the ME2 squad must return.

[AdmiralCheez]

Mesina2 wrote...

^I agree as always but Harry Potter 7 sucked in both book and movie.

Yeah, but that's largely due to the ending/epilogue.  Which really, really sucked.

I mean seriously, Rowling, WTF?

*end short HP7 rant*

[AkiKishi]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

If it is truly the case that these wonderfully designed characters were meant to be throwaways, then that'd be a damn shame.  Honestly, I expect more out of Bioware.  They're one of the few gaming corps that still maintains a sense of integrity and pride in their work.

For example, look at all the work they put into Thane: they spent ages pouring over his character design in order to get him "just right" for the ladies (which was kinda lame, but at least they made an effort).  They also gave him a complicated (if ridiculously emo) backstory, two unique missions, and some great dialogue (apart from the flashbacks).  Oh yeah, and he has a kickass skillset (save for Shredder Ammo).

However,Thane's missions are fairly short, and he has a minimal role in the game outside of them.  That was a helluva lot of effort for less than an hour of content.  Now, wouldn't it be great if you could still squeeze some more juice from the fruits of your labor?  Especially with hordes of fangirls joyously waving their hard-earned cash right under your nose?  Or would you rather do all that work all over again on the gamble that you'll reel in an audience of equal size?

I counter "they called it a suicide mission" with the phrase they put on the back of the box:

PROVE THEM WRONG.

Which implies that it's only a suicide mission of you believe it is and lack the mettle to defy the odds.  I mean, my God, it's right there on the back of the damn box right before you even buy the game.  I WONDER IF THEY'RE IMPLYING SOMETHING?


Now, the core argument I was trying to make was that a trilogy will matter more to you if you participate in the whole thing.  Therefore, by including content exclusive to returning players, you are rewarding them for spending potentially hundreds of dollars on your products at no loss to the new guys, since they wouldn't care too much about bridging material anyway.  In fact, a loyalty bonus, especially in the form of returning squadmates, would encourage new players to go back and play the old games (which has already happened with people playing ME2--they run back and try out ME1).  More monies for Bioware!  Yay!

An expansion pack is something that uses nearly the exact same engine and mechanics of a previously released game and requires that said game be purchased and installed prior to use.  Lair of the Shadow Broker and SC: Brood War are expansion packs (although LotSB is a really small one).  StarCraft 2, however, is not an expansion pack because it has a drastically reworked engine and quite different gameplay, and did not require the first game to be installed in order to play.  Jim Raynor, Sarah Kerrigan, Zeratul, and Arcturus Mengsk all return from SC1, and so did a wide variety of units and game mechanics, but these familiar faces and features did not make the game a "rehash."

ME3  will not be an expansion pack because it will not require ME2 to play.  However, several characters can return from the first two games.  Besides, "BIG CONSEQUENCES" and carry-over content are two of ME's major selling points.  You honestly want less of what the series is trying to be famous for?

And seriously, stop acting like it's all or nothing here.  You can still have old friend and new faces.  What the f*ck is it with this forum and its false dichotomies, anyway?


Harry Potter was seven books long and the characters never got boring (IMO), never stopped developing, and never ran out of things to do.  Your argument is invalid.


Nonetheless, it's a douchey question.


Blame the fact on multiple save files, not on the mission itself.  And really, this is true with any videogame: you goofed, you reload.  It's not real life.


That's because people on these forums spent a lot of time and energy figuring out what the triggers were and how to exploit them, then were kind enough to share their data.  It was hard work to figure that stuff out.  Anything that relies on math and variables can be exploited to get the results you want.  Coding is math.  Therefore, coding can be exploited.  The only alternatives would be to make events random (which could be avoided by frequent reloading) or unavoidable (which would remove player choice from the picture and railroad the plot even further).

Funny you should mention Thane because Thane should be dead regardless of what happened in the SM anyway.  Thane really should go off and spend his last few months with his son. That would make sense.
As long as what they do makes sense. Wrex made sense A/K did not. That's still a conclusion for the character.
I don't feel the urge to drag them around the galaxy just because.

It would be so much more gratifying if proving them wrong was an actual effort though. SM probably less taxing on Insane that Garrus' timed mission and a total joke compared to final room of overlord.

We have a squad of 12 old faces. That's already pushing it since you can only use 2 characters at a time. Each squad member means less overall focuson each. I like quality over quantity even if it means that the ME2 crew don't play a part.  The largest problem is simply not knowing who is alive and who is dead. As I pointed out before it's very easy to choose 4 "dead" characters which is pretty useless for anyone.

Another Issue that arose when Mesina2 did his "run" left 4 squad mates with almost identical skillsets.

If you know that you have multiple saves it's really the fault of the designers for not taking that into account when determing what would constitute a "suicide" mission.

I spent very little time and no energy. The only reason my first play went wrong is because I relied on what I had seen in gameplay. Grunt should have been the best bullet sponge around. Mordins experience in special forces did not translate into the SM.

As soon as I realised that it was basically scripted 100% , but not very satisfying.

[CroGamer002]

^???

[Zing Freelancer]

Phaedon wrote...

 First of all, please don't get off-topic when posting here, this thread is not to argue about whether or not squaddies will return in ME3, but rather point out a misconception about this subject.

The misconception is the following: ME2 squaddies can't return in ME3 because too many variables would be involved. Sounds logical, doesn't it? Think about it. What kind of variables change if you kill them? Just one. (OK, not just one, I am just saying)
They won't be there as part of your ME3 squad. Think of this as an example:

You can have Grunt stay in his tank for the whole game and Legion deactivated, as well. The only thing that changes is that you don't get to use them as squaddies.

As for an entirely new squad, that doesn't make much sense either. It won't prove to be cheaper for Bioware in any way, and fans are going to be pissed.

Spot on, I will get pissed if Garrus is absent.
For the sake of discussion, I would say I dont see a point introducing new squad mates when the game was always about carrying over your save to the next one.
What could have been done, you have say max 8 squad mates. Then there is people out there you can hire to your squad, you just need to fire one of the current squadies first

[AdmiralCheez]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Funny you should mention Thane because Thane should be dead regardless of what happened in the SM anyway.  Thane really should go off and spend his last few months with his son. That would make sense.
As long as what they do makes sense. Wrex made sense A/K did not. That's still a conclusion for the character.
I don't feel the urge to drag them around the galaxy just because.

It was just an example.  I could have used Miranda. *shrug*

I am not opposed to cameos so long as the make sense and do the character justice (Wrex and LotSB).  However, doing that sort of thing twelve times in a row would be hideously contrived and kind of boring.  Temporary squadmates take just as much effort to program as a full-time one and close to the same amount of disk space.

And BTW, any and all offstage deaths will be met with extreme hostility.  I seriously will not buy the f*cking game if even one squadmate bit it between ME2 and 3.  That's tacky and lazy.

It would be so much more gratifying if proving them wrong was an actual effort though. SM probably less taxing on Insane that Garrus' timed mission and a total joke compared to final room of overlord.

Yeah, ME1's final boss fight kind of sucked, too (zombie robot laser frog will eat your sooouuullll).  But, if LotSB and Overlord are anything to go by, Bioware is getting better at boss battles and challenging level design.

We have a squad of 12 old faces. That's already pushing it since you can only use 2 characters at a time. Each squad member means less overall focuson each. I like quality over quantity even if it means that the ME2 crew don't play a part.  The largest problem is simply not knowing who is alive and who is dead. As I pointed out before it's very easy to choose 4 "dead" characters which is pretty useless for anyone.

Since you won't be buzzing around recruiting everyone again and solving their daddy issues, there will be a lot more room for quality content.  You know, character development?  Conversations?  THE PLOT?  And, oh yeah, we can probably cut out a lot of those sidequests since stopping the Reapers will probably take up most of our time.  No recruitment/loyalty/side missions leaves a lot of disk space.

Yep, I just advocated nerfing the UNC/N7 missions.  If the main quest is big and variable enough, we honestly don't need them.

And honestly, a large squad allows for more freedom when it comes to character building, gameplay, and personal taste.  I wound up thinking a lot more strategically in ME2 than I did in ME1 since each squadmate filled a different role (while in ME1 you just needed someone with max decryption/electronics plus biotics if you wanted to make the game too easy for yourself).  Oh yeah, and more options = better replay value.

Your last sentence is hard to make sense out of, but I'll try.  Ahem.  Picking who is alive/dead in the "default" save is hard to say, since I'm not Bioware, but they will probably strike a balance between who will be the most useful, who meshes best with the new guys, and who is easiest to introduce.  Choosing which old squaddies return is again up to Bioware, but they will again probably follow the same formula.  That sort of thing isn't as hard as you think if you use your imagination (or if you're Bioware, you have ME3's plot right in front of you).

Another Issue that arose when Mesina2 did his "run" left 4 squad mates with almost identical skillsets.

Solved easily by a handful of new characters.  If not, and I'm really tired of repeating myself, CONSEQUENCES, DAMMIT.  Mesina2 set up that save to make ME3 as challenging as possible.  He doesn't expect Bioware to pat him on the head and give him a free ride.

If you know that you have multiple saves it's really the fault of the designers for not taking that into account when determing what would constitute a "suicide" mission.

The ability to have multiple character profiles ups the replay value.  They want you to play more so you can explore all your options.  Multiple saves ain't going away, honey.

I spent very little time and no energy. The only reason my first play went wrong is because I relied on what I had seen in gameplay. Grunt should have been the best bullet sponge around. Mordins experience in special forces did not translate into the SM.

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Ecael and the gang, who spent hours hacking code and testing out dozens of different scenarios, thereby giving you all the information you need to get your own, personal "perfect" ending.  And, whoa, waitaminute here, you were just complaining about the SM being too easy, and now you are saying it's too difficult?

Mordin and Grunt have never been in command of their own units.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

As soon as I realised that it was basically scripted 100% , but not very satisfying.

That's how coding works, bro.  And sorry it wasn't a satisfying experience for you.  I don't expect my favorite end level of all time to be everyone's cuppa tea.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 15 février 2011 - 10:01 .

[AkiKishi]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

It was just an example.  I could have used Miranda. *shrug*

I am not opposed to cameos so long as the make sense and do the character justice (Wrex and LotSB).  However, doing that sort of thing twelve times in a row would be hideously contrived and kind of boring.  Temporary squadmates take just as much effort to program as a full-time one and close to the same amount of disk space.

And BTW, any and all offstage deaths will be met with extreme hostility.  I seriously will not buy the f*cking game if even one squadmate bit it between ME2 and 3.  That's tacky and lazy.
Yeah, ME1's final boss fight kind of sucked, too (zombie robot laser frog will eat your sooouuullll).  But, if LotSB and Overlord are anything to go by, Bioware is getting better at boss battles and challenging level design.

Since you won't be buzzing around recruiting everyone again and solving their daddy issues, there will be a lot more room for quality content.  You know, character development?  Conversations?  THE PLOT?  And, oh yeah, we can probably cut out a lot of those sidequests since stopping the Reapers will probably take up most of our time.  No recruitment/loyalty/side missions leaves a lot of disk space.

Yep, I just advocated nerfing the UNC/N7 missions.  If the main quest is big and variable enough, we honestly don't need them.

And honestly, a large squad allows for more freedom when it comes to character building, gameplay, and personal taste.  I wound up thinking a lot more strategically in ME2 than I did in ME1 since each squadmate filled a different role (while in ME1 you just needed someone with max decryption/electronics plus biotics if you wanted to make the game too easy for yourself).  Oh yeah, and more options = better replay value.

Your last sentence is hard to make sense out of, but I'll try.  Ahem.  Picking who is alive/dead in the "default" save is hard to say, since I'm not Bioware, but they will probably strike a balance between who will be the most useful, who meshes best with the new guys, and who is easiest to introduce.  Choosing which old squaddies return is again up to Bioware, but they will again probably follow the same formula.  That sort of thing isn't as hard as you think if you use your imagination (or if you're Bioware, you have ME3's plot right in front of you).


Solved easily by a handful of new characters.  If not, and I'm really tired of repeating myself, CONSEQUENCES, DAMMIT.  Mesina2 set up that save to make ME3 as challenging as possible.  He doesn't expect Bioware to pat him on the head and give him a free ride.

The ability to have multiple character profiles ups the replay value.  They want you to play more so you can explore all your options.  Multiple saves ain't going away, honey.

 you were just complaining about the SM being too easy, and now you are saying it's too difficult?

Mordin and Grunt have never been in command of their own units.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

That's how coding works, bro.  And sorry it wasn't a satisfying experience for you.  I don't expect my favorite end level of all time to be everyone's cuppa tea.

Well that we can agree on at least.

I'd react that way if it was my character what happens to NPCs though when not "in my care" that's upto the storytellers. As long as it fits, if they want to kill them off , that is their perogative. I may not like it, but It would still be motivation for my character, not something I would take personally as a player.

That was the design of ME2, in the context of ME2 it made sense. Why would they carry over to ME3? ME should be about the bigger picture. Why would the characters from ME2 suddenly know about the plot ? That makes very little sense if you think about it. New character on the hand perfectly plausible.

UNC missions are there to give you something to discover while planet scanning. Aside from that I agree they add very little overall. But they also don't take up a whole lot of space either.

That also means that you need certain skill sets. Having 3 people with Inferno ammo and 1 with incinerate not a good outcome. Because you have no way of knowing which characters you need to cover for, it's very hard to intergrate new characters skills, because the needs will depend very much on who is missing from each individuals game.

Ever hear that saying "Chase two hares and you catch none" ? That's what may well happen to ME3 if too much attention is paid to the fan whims. It's not something I want to see. In an ideal world yes we would have all the characters from ME2 as well as a bunch of characters exclusive to ME3. But I really don't see that working out.
With a clean slate you know exactly where you stand so if it does come down to a choice that's the sensible one.

It's always been easy not sure where you got the impression I found it difficult only illogical based on the gameplay mechanics. Mordin led special forces, experienced or not Grunt should have been a bullet sponge. Call it a plothole or a mistake, but Grunt does not have shields.

Favourite level ? Icing on the cake was the T-800 fed human smoothies I guess...

[AdmiralCheez]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Well that we can agree on at least.

Yay.  Also, if you can break up your posts like I do, it'd be a lot easier for me to follow your arguments.  As of now, I'm pretty confused.

I'd react that way if it was my character what happens to NPCs though when not "in my care" that's upto the storytellers. As long as it fits, if they want to kill them off , that is their perogative. I may not like it, but It would still be motivation for my character, not something I would take personally as a player.

That does not change the fact that offstage deaths are cheap as hell.

That was the design of ME2, in the context of ME2 it made sense. Why would they carry over to ME3? ME should be about the bigger picture. Why would the characters from ME2 suddenly know about the plot ? That makes very little sense if you think about it. New character on the hand perfectly plausible.

Old characters would find out about stuff  the same way Shepard does.  Durr.

UNC missions are there to give you something to discover while planet scanning. Aside from that I agree they add very little overall. But they also don't take up a whole lot of space either.

Either way, they can be cut.

That also means that you need certain skill sets. Having 3 people with Inferno ammo and 1 with incinerate not a good outcome. Because you have no way of knowing which characters you need to cover for, it's very hard to intergrate new characters skills, because the needs will depend very much on who is missing from each individuals game.

Hence why you'd probably get a sentinel/soldier duo or something to cover all your bases.  Easy-peasy.

And honestly, are you just ignoring me when I say that people who got their squad killed should have to deal with the consequences?  As in, you know, possibly not having a balanced team?

Ever hear that saying "Chase two hares and you catch none" ? That's what may well happen to ME3 if too much attention is paid to the fan whims. It's not something I want to see. In an ideal world yes we would have all the characters from ME2 as well as a bunch of characters exclusive to ME3. But I really don't see that working out.
With a clean slate you know exactly where you stand so if it does come down to a choice that's the sensible one.

A "clean slate," however, would be the dumbest move Bioware would ever make.  Edmonton would burn.  People would boycott the game.  Continuity and replayability would suffer because the lack of carry-over content would dissuade veterans from picking ME3 up and would do nothing to encourage newcomers to pick up the older games.

This whole thread was started on the basis that bringing back the old squad is not as hard as you think.  Go back and read the OP.  Seriously.

A mix of old and new characters would be the best solution because it would encourage more people to play the game and would balance continuity and "fanservice" with story progression and gameplay.  Chase your hares all you want, sonny, but I'm killing two birds with one stone.

It's always been easy not sure where you got the impression I found it difficult only illogical based on the gameplay mechanics. Mordin led special forces, experienced or not Grunt should have been a bullet sponge. Call it a plothole or a mistake, but Grunt does not have shields.

Grunt and Mordin were never leaders.  Mordin was in the STG, but he did not lead the team.  Being a bullet sponge does not mean you can effectively command a fire team.

As for the shieldy thing, it's a small mistake that can be forgiven since expecting Grunt to know how to coordinate and lead a team is pretty high on the herp derp scale.  It'd only be worse if you tried to make him your tech.

Favourite level ? Icing on the cake was the T-800 fed human smoothies I guess...

I don't have to like everything about it for it to be my favorite.  The whole HR thing was lame, but I loved everything else about that mission.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 15 février 2011 - 10:52 .

[Cancer Puppet]

I haven't read all the posts, but I'd just like to say that I'm certain that all love interests will be returning. Assuming they survived the suicide mission of course... There's no way Bioware is throwing away the dramatic opportunities presented by a Jerry Springer-esque LI slap-fight.

[We Tigers]

To the guy who keeps saying "CONSEQUENCES, DAMMIT": are you advocating making the game significantly harder for people who made certain decisions in previous games, or just letting them miss out on any associated content? Bioware will never do the former, and certainly not in the final game of their flagship series.



I've skimmed the thread, but my general stance is that I disagree with its premise. Dead characters in an NPC role can be easily replaced, but dead characters in a party role cannot, lest Bioware seek to truly develop two parallel games or provide very narrow, replaceable roles for all variable party members. The choices and the drama of ME2 were aimed at making ME2 great, not at translating directly over to ME3.

[Terraneaux]

Cancer Puppet wrote...

I haven't read all the posts, but I'd just like to say that I'm certain that all love interests will be returning. Assuming they survived the suicide mission of course... There's no way Bioware is throwing away the dramatic opportunities presented by a Jerry Springer-esque LI slap-fight.

I thought it was pretty clear that the new writing team wanted to push you away from the VS in ME2 so they wouldn't have to deal with it.

[Therefore_I_Am]

You guys are getting a bit too emotionally attached to these characters... A number of your squadmates will probably be replaced by equally if not more immersive characters. Legion replaced by a Rachni warrior?Thane replaced by Kolyat (who can invoke much more emotion than Thane given their connection)... possibilities, people, possibilities. Don't rack your head back and forth on the keyboard over who is going to leave or stay.
Certain things will happen that you don't like? Well, tough. It's all a matter of PoV... albeit a very secular PoV, and from where I'm standing, You will either have to accept it or stomp off in a huff. Variables will be there, just not in the way everyone would like.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 16 février 2011 - 12:33 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

Terraneaux wrote...

Cancer Puppet wrote...

I haven't read all the posts, but I'd just like to say that I'm certain that all love interests will be returning. Assuming they survived the suicide mission of course... There's no way Bioware is throwing away the dramatic opportunities presented by a Jerry Springer-esque LI slap-fight.

I thought it was pretty clear that the new writing team wanted to push you away from the VS in ME2 so they wouldn't have to deal with it.

...How do you explain the picture of your LI still on your desk? Assuming you didn't leave Ashley/Kaiden for a current dquadmate? Ooooh there are some possibilities out there. Wouldn't make much sense just to ditch Ashley/Kaiden like that.
You know what they say: When a girl is pushing you away it's their way of telling you that they want you closer than ever.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 16 février 2011 - 12:37 .

[AdmiralCheez]

We Tigers wrote...

To the guy who keeps saying "CONSEQUENCES, DAMMIT": are you advocating making the game significantly harder for people who made certain decisions in previous games, or just letting them miss out on any associated content? Bioware will never do the former, and certainly not in the final game of their flagship series.

Letting squadmates get killed was not a decision, but failure to command.  People who killed off squadmates on purpose either a.) did so because they didn't want to see the character in ME3 or b.) were curious as to what sort of mess they'd get themselves into without them.  Well, there's also c.) dramatic effect, but that's tied somewhat to b.

In other words, people who intentioanlly kill off squadmates know full well that they are removing potentially important content from the game.  It's not cheating you out of content it's your own damn fault.  This is different from, say, the council or collector base because squadmate survival is independent of morality path.  People only die if you suck (on purpose), so it's only natural that you'd play the next game with only half a deck.

"Daddy, I wrecked your car.  Can I have a new one?"

I've skimmed the thread, but my general stance is that I disagree with its premise. Dead characters in an NPC role can be easily replaced, but dead characters in a party role cannot, lest Bioware seek to truly develop two parallel games or provide very narrow, replaceable roles for all variable party members. The choices and the drama of ME2 were aimed at making ME2 great, not at translating directly over to ME3.

Precisely: party members are not replaceable.  Keeping them on the squad in ME3 would greatly enhance their value since they are a limited resource.  That which is most precious to us is that which can be lost.  Naturally, the game would still have to be winnable for everyone, but it'd be a helluva lot trickier if Shepard had to do it on her own.  I don't know about you, but I welcome the challenge.

And frankly, a lot of people want the things that happened in ME2 to matter in ME3.  After all, what's the point of importing a save if your decisions don't carry weight?  And what would be more weighty than the potential loss of a valuable ally and close friend?

EDIT: Fixed a spelling goof.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 16 février 2011 - 12:52 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

You guys are getting a bit too emotionally attached to these characters...

Which is a testament to Bioware's writing ability and more than enough reason from a marketing standpoint to bring them back.

A number of your squadmates will probably be replaced by equally if not more immersive characters. Legion replaced by a Rachni warrior?Thane replaced by Kolyat (who can invoke much more emotion than Thane given their connection)... possibilities, people, possibilities. Don't rack your head back and forth on the keyboard over who is going to leave or stay.

Kolyat is a whiny teenager with no experience.  The rachni have a hive mind, aren't much for conversation, and potentially extinct.

Certain things will happen that you don't like? Well, tough. It's all a matter of PoV... albeit a very secular PoV, and from where I'm standing, You will either have to accept it or stomp off in a huff. Variables will be there, just not in the way everyone would like.

Of course ME3 isn't going to please everyone.  However, there's no excuse for BW to not make an effort, especially with the last game in the series.

[Therefore_I_Am]

Precisely: party members are not replaceable. Keeping them on the squad in ME3 would greatly enhance their value since they are a limited resource. That which is most precious to us is that which can be lost. Naturally, the game would still have to be winnable for everyone, but it'd be a helluva lot trickier if Shepard had to do it on her own. I don't know about you, but I welcome the challenge.

And frankly, a lot of people want the things that happened in ME2 to matter in ME3. After all, what's the point of importing a save if your decisions don't carry weight? And what would be more weighty than the potential loss of a valuable ally and close friend?

Those are the things you will have to deal with, all things considered with squadmates. I'll hazard a guess that the dev team will go on a small linear path with a few of the character plots...

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 16 février 2011 - 12:54 .

[AdmiralCheez]

@Therefore_I_Am: Uh, I don't get what you're trying to say.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 16 février 2011 - 12:55 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Therefore_I_Am: Uh, I don't get what you're trying to say.

Meaning with all the possibilities of the already existing characters, I doubt the story writing will favor them indefinitley. Because there are so many directions and variables for each character, they probably would have to be slimmed down and limited. For a few characters, they may be taken out of the squad and ultimatley the plot... and replaced with linear, simplified dialog with a few choices on what to say to them. Because, to put simply, their time is done; they were only there for the suicide mission.
Those characters will may not be replaced... but I'm sure there are options to recruit others.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 16 février 2011 - 01:37 .

[AdmiralCheez]

So you're throwing up your hands and saying "too many variables?" Please see OP. And if you are saying "they can add nothing new," go back and read my old posts.  Furthermore, if you are saying some reduction of roles is inevitable, I can live with that.  The game's not going to ride on a single possibly dead squaddie, anyway.  Kind of a given.

However, having a less prominent role does not mean you can't take them on mission and chat them up on the Normandy afterwards.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 16 février 2011 - 01:41 .

[We Tigers]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

We Tigers wrote...

To the guy who keeps saying "CONSEQUENCES, DAMMIT": are you advocating making the game significantly harder for people who made certain decisions in previous games, or just letting them miss out on any associated content? Bioware will never do the former, and certainly not in the final game of their flagship series.

Letting squadmates get killed was not a decision, but failure to command.  People who killed off squadmates on purpose either a.) did so because they didn't want to see the character in ME3 or b.) were curious as to what sort of mess they'd get themselves into without them.  Well, there's also c.) dramatic effect, but that's tied somewhat to b.

In other words, people who intentioanlly kill off squadmates know full well that they are removing potentially important content from the game.  It's not cheating you out of content it's your own damn fault.  This is different from, say, the council or collector base because squadmate survival is independent of morality path.  People only die if you suck (on purpose), so it's only natural that you'd play the next game with only half a deck.

I'm not talking about people intentionally killing off squadmates; the "decisions" I refer to are mistakes like sending Thane in the vents, not having a loyal biotic for the seeker swarm, etc.  Remember that a tiny, tiny fraction of the market for Mass Effect posts on this board, and that most of them didn't play this game more than once.  Bioware is not going to hamstring significant content in the next game based on how a more casual gamer's ME2 experience went, and they're certainly not going to give this large group of gamers "half a deck" to use.  Do that, and the reviews will be a lot poorer--justly so--than the universal acclaim for the first two games.  Money talks.

I've skimmed the thread, but my general stance is that I disagree with its premise. Dead characters in an NPC role can be easily replaced, but dead characters in a party role cannot, lest Bioware seek to truly develop two parallel games or provide very narrow, replaceable roles for all variable party members. The choices and the drama of ME2 were aimed at making ME2 great, not at translating directly over to ME3.

Precisely: party members are not replaceable.  Keeping them on the squad in ME3 would greatly enhance their value since they are a limited resource.  That which is most precious to us is that which can be lost.  Naturally, the game would still have to be winnable for everyone, but it'd be a helluva lot trickier if Shepard had to do it on her own.  I don't know about you, but I welcome the challenge.

And frankly, a lot of people want the things that happened in ME2 to matter in ME3.  After all, what's the point of importing a save if your decisions don't carry weight?  And what would be more weighty than the potential loss of a valuable ally and close friend?

EDIT: Fixed a spelling goof.

Party members must be replaceable if you want them to return, be in your squad, and play a significant role.  I maintain that Bioware is not going to let some people start with 10 squadmates and others with 4.  They're not going to leave that much content inaccessible to people.  The OP states that you can leave Grunt in the tank, and that's true, but that's a decision you make in ME2.  Similarly, you can kill off most of your party in Dragon Age: Origins, but that's decision you make in that game, not in the next one you're buying.  It's bad business to charge $60 for a game that may be full of inaccessible content for any number of your potential players.  You're thinking about this from the perspective of a die-hard fan rather than the person who just likes video games and is one of Bioware's several million customers.

In ME2, the only things you could miss out on by killing people or making certain decisions in ME1 were 5-minute conversations and emails, and most of that minor content was duplicated anyway (Wrex/Wreav, Ash/Kaidan, Shiala/Feros Colonist).  If you want squad members back as squad members, get ready for them to have very limited roles outside of combat and no special moments to shine.

An alternative would be making the default Shepard for ME3 have everyone survive, but that's still counter to one of the big hooks of the ME series; if you can't have a full game by importing your own Shepard, why would you even bother?

Modifié par We Tigers, 16 février 2011 - 02:03 .

[Siansonea]

I happen to know that all ME3 squad mates will be bunnies.

[NICKjnp]

Siansonea II wrote...

I happen to know that all ME3 squad mates will be bunnies.

peanut butter filled chocolate bunnies.