672 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Shepard isn't looking for people personally connected to the mission, but what would have greatly helped the story would be if the characters became invested over time.  Over the course of the game, tehy learn what the stakes are and become willing to help Shepard not just because Shep did them a favor, but because they gain a personal motivation as well.  That motivation could vary based on teh characters' personality:  personal survival, a sense of justice, racial pride, friendship among the crew, vengence, or whatnot.  Such a thing would have gone a long way towards repairing the feeling of disconnectedness among the game.  Make it feel more like one game rather than demos for a dozen or so games.

Oh, I agree. That's mainly where Mass Effect 2 goes wrong because there never seems to be a 'unifying moment' per se. I do however think that often times story elements (even if they are themselves great) can be unfortunately contrived. Take Wrex on Virmire, a great sequence most agree, yet one which does completely out of nowhere. And before this, Wrex didn't really have a personal motive to go along with the story, which makes the inclusion of the Krogan army a contrived mechanic.

On the other hand, I was thinking about ME2's plot and I'm curious as to your opinion on something. Imagine if instead of recruiting each party member separately, Bioware instead had TIM give you your crew after Freedom's Progressalong with the Normandy (more in the style of Atlantis if you've ever seen the film). In this way, Shepard would not have had to spend so much time on recruitment so we could have had more story-based events, he could've gotten to know the characters more, and there would have been more time for each character to become emotionally invested in the storyline.  

[Moiaussi]

Nightwriter wrote...

You can't really make claims about what skills are or aren't needed beforehand, and you recruit your characters beforehand. But in any case that's not my problem, my problem is I want my characters to be relevant to the story by more than skill.

Its a large team though, yet they are recruited for what turns out to be a pretty simple mission. There is nothing to indicate that Shepard couldn't have done it simply with the Normandy's regular complement of marine regulars, particularly if Shepard is personally 'a powerful biotic.'

In fact there is nothing to indicate that conventional forces couldn't have handled it just as easily, albiet perhaps with Mordin's help regarding the seekers.

[khevan]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Actually, the idea of having a bunch of squadmates and having backups for each squadmate is valid.

It's the way you prepare for any mission, or hell, every semi-serious camping trip: bring something for every occasion and have two of everything.

The problem is, this makes squadmates feel like items, which is very bad. Worse, it cheapens each item. I don't like character objectification in the best of times, but in a character-focused story it's even worse.

Yeah, in the actual Dirty Dozen movie, all the members of the team had their roles to play intheir Suicide Mission.  It's highlighted by a rhyme they recited marking each person's job and the order in which they had to be done.  Same with Ocean's 11, and other ensemble stories.  If a character is introduced, its for a reason, and that reason is not simply to be an extra warm body when it comes time to Hold the Line.

As much as I've criticised ME2's story/plot, I kinda hafta disagree with this comment here.  In the Dirty Dozen, there was a clear objective, they knew where they were going, and what they were going to do when they get there.  As it stands now, in ME2 we didn't know what was waiting for us on the other side of the O-4 relay.  In this very specific circumstance it's unfair to try to compare ME2 to the DD.

Now, it could certainly be argued that ME2 should have had a clearer end objective, a suicide mission certainly, but one where we knew what the objectives were, what skillsets would be needed, what roles each member should have played.  I'd have prefered this, actually.  But as it stands, we're flying blind after the O-4 relay, so having backups makes more sense.

[SonofMacPhisto]

Nightwriter wrote...

SonofMacPhisto wrote...

This is a huge thread, and I feel bad that I have no hope (or time!) to honestly get caught up with it.  Here's how I'd respond to you OP, since I've read you other places and respect your opinions.

Mass Effect 2 exceeded my expectations.  The characters contributed greatly to that satisfaction and I certainly experienced a character-story fusion.  

Why?

You were undertaking a suicide mission to stop the Collectors, who are working for your real enemy, the Reapers.  That was compelling to me, but especially with that fatal spectre hanging above it all.  Hell, the game starts out with killing you!  So now we're going to risk it again?  Knowingly?  

Suicide.  Death.  Do we stop and think what it means to ask someone to join us, and likely end their life?

So for me, the characters and their stories contributed very positively.  We had to be ready, not just with equipment and numbers, but in our souls and hearts.  I took the Asari Consort's e-mail very seriously, where she implored me to make sure my squad went into battle with glad hearts.  I didn't want Jacob or Miranda worrying about their families, or Tali about the fleet, or Grunt freaking out in the middle of battle.  I got to at least connect with every member of my old squad, the only family I've ever had in this fictional universe, and at least know they were alive and well before I lept into the great unknown.

So having that sensitivity, I was perfectly comfortable with each member of the team saying, 'Listen, if you want my help on this, we need to take care of this first.' 

My first time through the Suicide Mission is one of the best experiences I've ever had in a video game.  It was like Virmire-Ilos-Citadel on every upper you can imagine.  Best of all?  My careful preperation led to a flawless execution.  The finale was breath-taking, and as the credits rolled, my mouth was agape with tears in my eyes.  We'd done it!

Now, of course, there were wonky moments.  'Whoa, EVERYONE on my squad has some issue to take care of?'  'EDI, why do we all have to get on the shuttle?  I just want to scan this planet...'  Thing is, as gamers, we need to have a certain amount of grace with our medium.  It's young and inexperienced, and it's still figuring out what its can do as art, or even if it CAN be art.

I hope that takes care of some icky negativity.  Too much of that, and you might as well start pissing in your breakfast cereal.  

Fair enough. Good show.

Though, I think BioWare has done a pretty great job with the storylines of its other games. ME2 is quite the anomaly. So, I think you should amend your sentence there to say we should be lenient with BioWare's first trilogy sequel. Because it is quite a young medium.

I haven't played much of BioWare's other games, and was talking more about gaming in general.  However, you're still right and I agree with your specificity.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Oh, I agree. That's mainly where Mass Effect 2 goes wrong because there never seems to be a 'unifying moment' per se. I do however think that often times story elements (even if they are themselves great) can be unfortunately contrived. Take Wrex on Virmire, a great sequence most agree, yet one which does completely out of nowhere. And before this, Wrex didn't really have a personal motive to go along with the story, which makes the inclusion of the Krogan army a contrived mechanic.

On the other hand, I was thinking about ME2's plot and I'm curious as to your opinion on something. Imagine if instead of recruiting each party member separately, Bioware instead had TIM give you your crew after Freedom's Progress along with the Normandy (more in the style of Atlantis if you've ever seen the film). In this way, Shepard would not have had to spend so much time on recruitment so we could have had more story-based events, he could've gotten to know the characters more, and there would have been more time for each character to become emotionally invested in the storyline.  

I dunno.  The only thing I thought wrong with the Wrex scene on Virmire was that he was taking things a little too calmly.  After hearing his story and learning about the krogans' history with the Council races, news of a genophage cure possibly being destroyed here should have really riled him up.  Thh salarians and the squad were right to be concerned.

As to TIM's giving us a squad after Freedom's Progress (I have not seen Atlantis):  While it would require a lot of rewriting of the game itself, I suspect the end product would have been better overall.  It would have freed up more time and resources to focus on the Collectors, and give the squad chances to react to them and to each other.  One weakness in the game is the squad's very noticeable lack of curiosity about the enemy they're supposed to be risking their lives to fight, as well as the people who are supposed to watch their backs on the mission.. 

Shepard could also have more chances to juggle the different personality types.  Loyalty could be gained, lost and regained several times over the course of the game.  I see no reason not to keep loyalty missions as is, but add more "general preparation" missions for upgrading the Normandy, personal weapons and gear, and intelligence gathering.

[Iakus]

khevan wrote...
As much as I've criticised ME2's story/plot, I kinda hafta disagree with this comment here.  In the Dirty Dozen, there was a clear objective, they knew where they were going, and what they were going to do when they get there.  As it stands now, in ME2 we didn't know what was waiting for us on the other side of the O-4 relay.  In this very specific circumstance it's unfair to try to compare ME2 to the DD.

Now, it could certainly be argued that ME2 should have had a clearer end objective, a suicide mission certainly, but one where we knew what the objectives were, what skillsets would be needed, what roles each member should have played.  I'd have prefered this, actually.  But as it stands, we're flying blind after the O-4 relay, so having backups makes more sense.

Unfortunately, I believe it was the developers who originally made the Dirty Dozen comparisons

And you're right, Shepard and TIM had no idea what they were getting into.  What sort of opposition they were going to face.  Not just a vague idea, no idea whatsoever.  Heck, they violated all sorts of laws of science and medicine raising someone from the dead without knowing  what exactly they were going to do with him or even if he'd listen to what they had to say.

I've said for a while that it would have made more sense if, early on (say around Freedom's Progress) they'd at least gotten a partial schematic of the Collector Base.  I could have been used as a way to justify why exactly this team was put together.

[jeweledleah]

my 2 cents in, pardon the rambling.



On one hand, it seems like ME1 had more of a plot...after a fashion. On the other hand, I found myself pretty much sticking to the same 2 favorites for every single mission and then realizing that its almost time for Virmire and I haven't used Ashley once. I mean, I dutifully talked to her here and there and i kinda found out a little more about her, but I haven't actually fought along side her. she was just this person to chat up here and there while on a ship, about on par with Dr. Chakwas with few more dialogue options.



In second Mass effect, one of my favorite parts was that I got to fight alongside each and every one of my teammates. there weren't just ship filler to me, they were in fact teammates, even just for their loyalty missions. and while you had several specialist options for every step of the suicide mission, you had them as options, you heard them on on the radio, you saw them fight. That alone made me appreciate my whole team more in ME2. and while we didn't have enough information on what's waiting for us beyond Omega 4 relay, the team we assembled does make sense in my mind - most of them are people who have nothing left to lose, so they are more willing to die, people who ARE specialists, at least the ones you are given dossiers on - remember, some of them you pick up on your own, like Tali, Legion, heck even Grunt wasn't your original target.



ME1 didn't really feel like a team to me, it was just a bunch of people that tagged along.



so in a way, I have a feeling I enjoyed the overall plot of ME1, because the characters were incredibly superfluous to it, while in ME2, the plot while in existence, was overshadowed somewhat by all these personalities that you gathered. It would have been nice to see more interpersonal interaction between them, yes, but them being held together by the mission and allegiance to Shepard also makes sense. Its almost an underlining thread that runs through the series, Shepard being the center of it all, the connecting force that keeps it all going which makes Cerberus resurrecting him instead of just building an army on their own, a touch more plausible and reasonable.

[Ragnarok521]

I think the story would have benefited if the Collectors were a completely new and unknown force in the galaxy, so you'd have to spend more time in the story learning about them. What they are, what they're capable of, where they're from, where they're taking the people they abduct (which would lead Shepard to the Omega 4 relay).

Once you knew your enemy, the focus should have shifted to preparation where Shepard would have to get intel on things like Collector weaponry, a layout of Collector Base so they could prepare a plan of attack (Though EDI pulled a schematic for their base from somewhere...I'm guessing the Collector Ship along with the IFF) Weaknesses of their vessel that destroyed the original Normandy, any vulnerabilities the Collectors themselves might have, etc. There's little mystery to them in the actual game, and thus less reason to be interested in them (besides their sudden interest in abducting human colonies), as the Illusive Man tells you most of the relevant facts about them in one conversation.

[khevan]

iakus wrote...

Unfortunately, I believe it was the developers who originally made the Dirty Dozen comparisons

And you're right, Shepard and TIM had no idea what they were getting into.  What sort of opposition they were going to face.  Not just a vague idea, no idea whatsoever.  Heck, they violated all sorts of laws of science and medicine raising someone from the dead without knowing  what exactly they were going to do with him or even if he'd listen to what they had to say.

I've said for a while that it would have made more sense if, early on (say around Freedom's Progress) they'd at least gotten a partial schematic of the Collector Base.  I could have been used as a way to justify why exactly this team was put together.

Oh, believe me, I agree with you.  I wish the central story arc was a bit clearer.  With only a couple of changes, I think it could have worked quite well, especially if a few changes had been made to the "main" story elements, the team building side of things.

I just think that it's slightly unfair to criticize ME2 for having "redundant" squadmates when they were preparing for an unknown.  In the case of preparing for the unknown, it's better to have a bunch of people who can do a bunch of different things, so while the basic premise was a bit flawed (should have had a better idea of what they were getting into), the execution of that wasn't terrible, ie having extra bodies doesn't hurt.

Mind you, I've criticized ME2 plenty, and there's plenty to criticize, in my opinion, but I think the writers did some good work, I just think they focused their attention in the wrong directions.

[Nightwriter]

They were, technically, redundant, but that shouldn't matter. Does Wynne make Morrigan redundant? They're both mages.

Yet we don't criticize their redundancy because they contribute more to the story than gameplay, class and combat. They talk to us throughout the plot, participate in it, interact with each other, and react to the events of the game as if they are a part of it.

That is what ME2's characters were lacking, that is why they didn't feel like part of the story, and that is why we sit around thinking they were redundant - because in lack of story contribution we're forced to fall back on what they contribute in terms of functionality in the suicide mission, which makes it awful when even what they do contribute there isn't unique.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:53 .

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

They were, technically, redundant, but that shouldn't matter. Does Wynne make Morrigan redundant? They're both mages.

Yet we don't criticize their redundancy because they contribute more to the story than gameplay, class and combat. They talk to us throughout the plot, participate in it, interact with each other, and react to the events of the game as if they are a part of it.

That is what ME2's characters were lacking, that is why they didn't feel like part of the story, and that is why we sit around thinking they were redundant - because in lack of story contribution we're forced to fall back on what they contribute in terms of functionality in the suicide mission, which makes it awful when even what they do contribute there isn't unique.

Indeed.

Aside from their one arguement, you'd hardly know that TalI and Legion were on the same ship.  Same with Miranda and Jack.  Same with everyone else and...everyone else...

[jeweledleah]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

They were, technically, redundant, but that shouldn't matter. Does Wynne make Morrigan redundant? They're both mages.

Yet we don't criticize their redundancy because they contribute more to the story than gameplay, class and combat. They talk to us throughout the plot, participate in it, interact with each other, and react to the events of the game as if they are a part of it.

That is what ME2's characters were lacking, that is why they didn't feel like part of the story, and that is why we sit around thinking they were redundant - because in lack of story contribution we're forced to fall back on what they contribute in terms of functionality in the suicide mission, which makes it awful when even what they do contribute there isn't unique.

Indeed.

Aside from their one arguement, you'd hardly know that TalI and Legion were on the same ship.  Same with Miranda and Jack.  Same with everyone else and...everyone else...

except you could say the same about characters in ME1..only with some of them you could forget they were on a ship at all, with unless you dutifuly walked around for some post mission conversations.

[Iakus]

jeweledleah wrote...

except you could say the same about characters in ME1..only with some of them you could forget they were on a ship at all, with unless you dutifuly walked around for some post mission conversations.

True.  But ME 1 wasn't about building a team, preparing them for a mission, and building loyalty.  ME 2 was.  If the characters are the story, shouldn't there be a story involving the characters?

[Nightwriter]

jeweledleah wrote...

except you could say the same about characters in ME1..only with some of them you could forget they were on a ship at all, with unless you dutifuly walked around for some post mission conversations.

Why must something be in ME1 in order for me to ask for it, I ask? When I point out a fault, the fault is only valid if it is a fault ME1 did not have?

Modifié par Nightwriter, 17 janvier 2011 - 09:32 .

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

except you could say the same about characters in ME1..only with some of them you could forget they were on a ship at all, with unless you dutifuly walked around for some post mission conversations.

Why must something be in ME1 in order for me to ask for it, I ask? When I point out a fault, the fault is only valid if it is a fault ME1 did not have?

Because it must always be ME 1 or ME 2.  There is no option #3

[Il Divo]

Nightwriter wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

except you could say the same about characters in ME1..only with some of them you could forget they were on a ship at all, with unless you dutifuly walked around for some post mission conversations.

Why must something be in ME1 in order for me to ask for it, I ask? When I point out a fault, the fault is only valid if it is a fault ME1 did not have?

This usually stems from so many of the arguments on these forums occurring between "ME1" and "ME2" fans, although sometimes people forget that to criticize ME2 does not require that one have played or even like ME1. It was the same on the Elder Scrolls Boards. I was a Morrowind fan. Oblivion was the new game on the block. The Morrowind fans and Oblivion fans started attacking each other on which game was 'better'.  

[Nightwriter]

Well I object. I object, I say.

[jeweledleah]

Nightwriter wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

except you could say the same about characters in ME1..only with some of them you could forget they were on a ship at all, with unless you dutifuly walked around for some post mission conversations.

Why must something be in ME1 in order for me to ask for it, I ask? When I point out a fault, the fault is only valid if it is a fault ME1 did not have?

because it seems to be the most common argument that people use to "prove" that ME1 was better then ME2. 

personaly, I like both, for different reasons (though I have to tell you plannet scanning and resource bonus, you get on every character once you finished the game at least once, is a huge reason why I tend to replay ME2 more - I cannot stand driving Mako, but I pathologicaly cannot stand leaving unexplored areas either)

A lot of issues IMO were imrpoved in second instalment.  a few things fell through the cracks, I suppose.  I liked how story developed in ME2.  this might however be due to me being practicaly addicted to reading connecting book series in variety of genres, so I'm used to transitional installments and have learned to apreciate them for what they add to the overall story.

iakus wrote...

True.  But ME 1 wasn't about building a team, preparing them for a mission, and building loyalty.  ME 2 was.  If the characters are the story, shouldn't there be a story involving the characters?

which is why ME2 caracters ARE the story.  you find out more about them and more about the world as you're building these disseparate individuals into a team, with you as the connection, the thread that ties it all together.  they are putting aside their differences essentialy for you.  they are working with individuals they would ignore at best, kill at worst - for you.  to lesser degree, some of them also get caught up in the whole save the galaxy thing as a consequence, but its you they follow, its you they fight with.  the story is you gathering them and uniting them under your banner.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:20 .

[bjdbwea]

Nightwriter wrote...

Did you feel that the characters constituted the story, like Casey says, or did the characters feel separate from the story? If they did feel separate to you, why did they feel separate?

It felt to me like there was virtually no main story to speak of in ME 2. I was always waiting for the amazing story that I expected from BioWare to really start, but it never did. The intro (although I don't like the plot device that they used) was well done, but then? A few conversations with TIM (always in the same place, always without any other NPCs), a few short walks through some completely linear and almost NPC-free levels, and then the final mission. That at least told something of a story, although with a terrible and ridiculous "revelation".

Nightwriter wrote...

Why didn't you experience the story-character fusion Casey describes? Were the characters enough to carry the game to your satisfaction?

Between the story bits, there were the character recruitment and loyalty missions. Some of them were very well done, some less so. In itself, they were nice stories. Overall, they are probably among the best companion side quests in any game. But that's just not enough. Before you spend time developing character missions, you should have written a proper main story first. Because as it is, ME 2 feels like a collection of short stories, or like a TV series, rather than the amazing blockbuster movie that was ME 1. Part of the problem is that the companions have almost no connection to the main story, nor do they interact with each other, nor is there much interaction with Shepard outside of their respective missions. In my opinion, "the characters are the story" can certainly work in a movie or a video game, if the developers actually make it happen, but in ME 2 it's little more than an excuse for the absence of a proper main story.

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story. If Casey's suggestion is right (and I think it at least deserves consideration), and the characters are the story, a lot of that criticism becomes unfair. So... is it unfair?

No. If anything, ME 2 wasn't criticized enough. Many so-called professional reviewers chose to simply ignore all the flaws in this game, as far as the story as well as many other things are concerned.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:47 .

[Iakus]

jeweledleah wrote...

which is why ME2 caracters ARE the story.  you find out more about them and more about the world as you're building these disseparate individuals into a team, with you as the connection, the thread that ties it all together.  they are putting aside their differences essentialy for you.  they are working with individuals they would ignore at best, kill at worst - for you.  to lesser degree, some of them also get caught up in the whole save the galaxy thing as a consequence, but its you they follow, its you they fight with.  the story is you gathering them and uniting them under your banner.

How do you build these individuals into a team, though?  Yes, Shepard is the connection, but how does that make them into a team that works together, rather than twelve individuals Shep manages to get pointed in the same direction?

How are they putting aside their differences?  Yes, Jack doesn't :accidentally" shoot Miranda in the back or vice versa, or hesitate just long enough for a Collector to do the job for her.  But why?  How can they trust each other?  Same with Jacob and Zaeed or Thane.  Anyone and anyone else.  Sure they all care for Shepard but do any of them care if anyone else lives or dies.  Where in the recruitment or loyalty missions do we see them coming together as a team?  ME 2 is all about the individuals, and stays about the individuals.  It's never about "building a team"

[Xeranx]

Going back to a few responses if having the team being in some way affected by the story would have it contrived how exactly are you to employ these individuals without offering them enough money to join up with you? I mean we have good reasons for Garrus and Tali to join up since they were in the first and succeeded in completing an objective that could have left everyone dead.



Jack makes the best sense in terms that she was a prisoner and wouldn't see much of anyone or anywhere without your involvement. She would be the best person to explore the idea that Iakus put forth in that she forms a connection in which she feels the Collectors must be stopped, but that isn't accomplished. Her angle was probably to get back at Cerberus. She blows up a Cerberus base where they drugged her and forced her to fight other kids. And after that...? She stays on with Shepard because he did her a solid? She's looking at possibly dying and the currency paid to her is the ability to blow up a base that she understands is abandoned before we get there (nevermind that we find out someone intends to use it again when we get there)? I can't understand the reasoning here.



Mordin joins on quite possibly intrigued with Cerberus' willingness to employ aliens. I can absolutely understand that and any possible questions Mordin would have in that situation.



Zaeed is paid an exorbitant amount and (possibly?) promised revenge on Vido.



Miranda and Jacob are on TIM's payroll. The others have questionable reasons for why they'd join up for a mission that could result in each individual's death or all of them. And with that I'm coming back to Jack: wouldn't she be thinking that she's putting herself on the line to die for Cerberus' cause considering we're not shown how she makes any connection to the Collectors?

[jeweledleah]

the team building happens gradually, and mostly during suicide mission. ANd even then - they are all there for Shepard.  they will protect each other for Shepard, for his/her mission.
this IS the bridge story, so we 're probably not seeing a lot just yet. granted, there could have been some more character development, but to me that seems like nitpicking in hindsight.

I'm an amateur artist and one thing I have learned is that at some point, you have to declare your work finished, because if you don't, you'll keep messing with it, trying to improve it and at some point, you might even overdo it and it still will never be done. you don't always get the stopping point quite right. but you have to stop and move on.

So I look at it as a chance for my imagination to fill in some blanks and as an opportunity to exercise some patience and see what the rest of the story brings.

I still maintain that Mass Effect 2 story was good, and that character development was better then ME1 if only because of loyalty missions and having a chance to fight alongside each and every member of your team.

just the fact that it causes so many discussions, so much speculation and analysis shows me that there's enough depth to it.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 17 janvier 2011 - 11:48 .

[jeweledleah]

oh yes, so as far as character motivations. Jack - she's been looking for a place to belong pretty much her entire life. Normandy is the closest she's come so far, the only time she was dealt straight with, so she's sticking around partly to see what happens next, partly in gratitude and partly in hope that this belonging is not just an illusion.



for Mordin, it is a chance to atone. he might say that he's come to terms with Genophage, but when you talk to him, listen to him, you can see that its not entirely true. for him, working with Shepard is a chance to do some good.



Garrus is a vigilante, he created an entire vigilante team for an express purpose of trying to do some good - staying and fighting alongside Shepard for the good of the galaxy is perfect for him.



Tali'Zora vas Normandy says all. regardless of whether romance between Shep and her happens or not, Shep is her captain now. Normandy is her home. and Shepard's mission affects her people as well, so that's a double motivation for her.



Miranda. She's still cold and calculating, but for once in her life she has a chance to be something, mean something not because of her genes, but because of her choices and actions.



Jacob is a slightly more cynical Kaidan, he joins Cerberus in the beginning, because he wants to get things done, but he's uncomfortable with many of their methods. fighting with Shepard, getting things done, doing some good without being selectively blind to Cerberus's actions, is a win win situation for him.



Thane is dying. Thane is feeling a lot of guilt for his life. This is his chance to do something good, something that truly matters - by his own choice, body and soul. remember, he was expecting to die during Nassana's mission, but now he has something to fight for, his son's future for one.



Grunt wants to fight. its his purpose and Shepard is his battlemaster. he will stand with him probably till the end.



Samara swore an oath as a Justicar to help Shepard stop the Reapers. she will stay until she's either dead or that oath is fulfilled (in case you chose Morinth over Samara, well she might stay for kicks and giggles, or she might leave you - this is where choices matter).



Legion is in awe of Shepard , but he also knows that Shep is his connection and Geth's best chance for peaceful solution with the rest of the Galaxy.



As for Zaeed and Kasumi, technically they are not canon characters so they might stay or they might go. personally, I cannot stand Zaeed, so I could care less if he leaves. as for Kasumi, she'll probably stick around for a while if only to hit on Jacob and because she's having fun fighting alongside Shep 9and because she's smart enough to realize that this fight can literally mean her life or death in more ways then one, so might as well do something instead of just waiting for something to happen. she strikes me as someone who'd rather be an active participant)

[Interactive Civilian]

jeweledleah wrote...

Samara swore an oath as a Justicar to help Shepard stop the Reapers. she will stay until she's either dead or that oath is fulfilled (in case you chose Morinth over Samara, well she might stay for kicks and giggles, or she might leave you - this is where choices matter).

Just to clarify, does Samara's oath extend all the way to the Reapers? I was under the impression that it was only for stopping the Collectors. I guess there's enough ambiguity to go either way, depending on which way you define her interpretation of "the mission".

Still, if Bioware wants to cut her loose, that's a perfect excuse. In the sense of stopping the Collectors, she has fulfilled her oath.

Otherwise, nice summary of the characters.

[jeweledleah]

you know, I forgot to mention the crew, but if you listen to the conversations or talk to some of them, they are a pretty idealistic bunch and I have a feeling that TIM hired those specific people Kelly included, because being master manipulator and all, he knew that he had to give Shepard the sort of people he/she'd feel comfortable around. They joined Cerberus because of pursuit of certain ideals and disenchantment with alliance (they weren't as lucky as Kaidan to get Anderson or someone like him as their superior, its quite possible they had to deal with someone like Udina and heck, if Udina was my main reference for how alliance deals with things, I'd be running to Cerberus myself). they will stay with Shepard for the same reason. Dr. Chakwas says outright that she's there for Shepard and Shepard only. Joker has a romance with Normandy, he'll go through hell and back just to fly her and will even learn to get along with EDI.



not sure how far Samara's oath extends, but since she didn't mention anything about being done quite yet after suicide mission, only that once they are done, she will come if Shepard needs her, I'm assuming, her oath extends to Reaper destruction.