82 réponses à ce sujet

[ScotOfClanDonald]

Chewin3 wrote...

All squadmates that survived under your playthrough of ME 1 and ME 2 will be in ME 3. Will everyone be at the normandy as a crue? Not confirmed.

I'd say, given what we know, most of them will not be on the crew, but they will be around, no matter what, and they will have an effect on gameplay, to a greater or lesser extent.

[SalsaDMA]

ScotOfClanDonald wrote...

Bioware has said many times that adding party members is the most detailed and time consuming thing they do for any of their games. The intersection of writing a script that is character consistant while interesting, CGI modelling, voice acting, flag toggles, interactions with other NPCS, and game mechanics are basically a nightmare that absorbs the time of multiple departments for a long period of time.

I don't think that having mindless killbots is that satisfying an experience, which is basically what you're asking for if you're not interested in each character getting a lot of work put into them to make them part of the story. In ME2, the characters were the story so you could stash their characterizations and plotlines in their associated missions, but in ME3, we need them seamlessly integrated because there's a much more important over-arching storyline.

Seriously. I know you don't believe me. I'm just asking for you to be ready for nigh-inevitable disappointment. Unless Bioware innovates far more than they've displayed so far (and I don't see why they'd do that as the final part of a trilogy) and sinks a lot more time & money than you'd expect would be feasable, you're not going to get what you want.

You're welcome to play through the games and see just how little impact each character has outside his/her recruitment and loyalty mission. The impact each character has outside these 2 missions is minimal, limited to minor dialog options and/or comments here and there.

ME3 is about the conclusion of Shepards war with the reapers. I dare think there are much more to do than play 'fetch boy' for your teammembers.

On another note, ME2 as storytelling mechanic would be pointless if the team you recruited there just vanished. Somehow, I doubt Bioware are so careless as to make an entire episode in a planned trilogy being pointless.

[SalsaDMA]

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 27 janvier 2011 - 08:12 .

[levannar]

Is it really so difficult to believe that BW might include the survivors? Both ME1 and ME2 had characters you didn't necessarily recruit. You could go without Garrus and Wrex in ME1, and without Grunt and Legion in ME2. The content was still there.



I'm not saying we should have the entire squad back--I think that's too much to ask for. Some squad mates are even designed in such a way that they can simply walk off if they survived. But until we get a note from BW, none of us knows what will happen.



Another thing many people mentioned already: ME2 would be pretty pointless if you had to go and build a team up from scratch yet again in ME3.

[KenRed]

Or, hell, how about Cerberus just brings everyone back to life that might have died? Or would that be too easy? lol

[ScotOfClanDonald]

SalsaDMA wrote...

You're welcome to play through the games and see just how little impact each character has outside his/her recruitment and loyalty mission. The impact each character has outside these 2 missions is minimal, limited to minor dialog options and/or comments here and there.

I have played through the games and noted how much interaction each character has, and I'll still take Bioware's word on it, thanks.  They've got a lot more experience in the matter than I do.  You're welcome to believe that it's easy as cake and you'll be able to choose between 20 squadmates per mission, too.  I'm just saying, don't bank on it.

ME3 is about the conclusion of Shepards war with the reapers. I dare think there are much more to do than play 'fetch boy' for your teammembers.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at.  I said that the new characters had to be relatively seamlessly integrated into the story because Shepard doesn't have time to go into recruitment missions, unless we're recruiting fleets or planets.  In this way, it'll be more like ME1.

On another note, ME2 as storytelling mechanic would be pointless if the team you recruited there just vanished. Somehow, I doubt Bioware are so careless as to make an entire episode in a planned trilogy being pointless.

Sigh.  You're not even bothering to read what I'm writing.  Nobody is saying that the ME2 crew will "vanish".  Not being on your mission squadmate list DOES NOT equal "pointless".  They will be around.  They will have an effect on gameplay.  Most of them won't be on your squad.   I'm sorry I'm not being clear enough.  

It's not that I want it this way.  I'm just saying that game design realities get in the way of the approach you want them to take.  I'd gladly eat crow if proven otherwise.

Modifié par ScotOfClanDonald, 27 janvier 2011 - 09:16 .

[SalsaDMA]

You're not getting the point of ME2. ME2 is about building your TEAM. If they are no longer your TEAM in ME3, the whole exercise of building the TEAM as a storymechanic would have been pointless.



It seems you're the one not reading what is written.



Also, you say that you take biowares word 'for it'. For what, exactly? For something else which you then hyperbole into meaning what you think it does on another matter entirely? Sure, you can do that, but it wouldn't really count as an argument.



A major part of the groundwork for the existing characters have already been done. NEW characters would require a build up from scratch, and would thus be even more resource demanding than using the old team. I can't really see how you can talk about the 'resources needed for characters' and then use it to claim NEW characters would require LESS resources than reusing the work they have already done with the old characters.



As for your notice of the amount of interaction from characters, I find it humoring if you really think there is big difference in interaction from wether you take Jacob and Miranda on a random mission, or if you take Garrus and Tali. The difference you will actually feel the majority of the time, is in what combat abilities they got. Their differences in personalities are rarely touched upon outside the 2 character specific missions each character has, and are usually restricted to a few more lines of dialog here and there. Nothing major, really.

[ScotOfClanDonald]

SalsaDMA wrote...

You're not getting the point of ME2. ME2 is about building your TEAM. If they are no longer your TEAM in ME3, the whole exercise of building the TEAM as a storymechanic would have been pointless.

It seems you're the one not reading what is written.

My impression that ME2 was about building your "TEAM" for a "suicide mission," not about building your "TEAM" to fight the last battle against the Reapers.  In other words, they're the cast of Mass Effect 2, which is its own seperate game.  Certainly some or most or all of the people you recruit will be interested in fighting in the last battle, but that does not mean that they have to be on your ground fighting squad to be involved.  Most of them have other interests and ways that they can be helpful instead of just being groundpounders.

I read what has been written.  Several times, in fact.  I can recognize that each game, while being part of a trilogy, is its own contained story.  Often the main character of a novel series is surrounded by different people as he gets into new books and new adventures.

Also, you say that you take biowares word 'for it'. For what, exactly? For something else which you then hyperbole into meaning what you think it does on another matter entirely? Sure, you can do that, but it wouldn't really count as an argument.

You aren't really interested in this.  I already described how it takes a lot of coordination between several departments to create each squadmate.  I've heard the same from Obsidian regarding their games like Fallout: New Vegas or Knights of the Old Republic 2.  You and folks like you are just following an argument posited by people who almost certainly aren't video game desgin professionals about what you think is involved with NPC squadmate design.  Maybe you're looking at a few snippets of code. Certainly your perspective counts less than that of the people who actually designed the game, don't you think?

A major part of the groundwork for the existing characters have already been done. NEW characters would require a build up from scratch, and would thus be even more resource demanding than using the old team. I can't really see how you can talk about the 'resources needed for characters' and then use it to claim NEW characters would require LESS resources than reusing the work they have already done with the old characters.

I really doubt that, even if they do bring the ME2 cast back as permanent squadmates, Bioware is just going to import the ME2 character suites and such and call it a day.  They'll all have graphical updates, new VA work, their powers will get re-arranged, etc.  In the end, it'll be about the same as creating new characters, and with more of a chance to all be wasted work because the character bit the dust in the previous game.

You're also disregarding Bioware's desire and ability to create interesting characters (like ol' Big Ben from the trailer) or perhaps bring in old characters that have never been squadmates before (like Anderson).  Asking them not to include new or expanded characters promotes stagnation and does disservice to Bioware's creativity. 

Like I said.  If you want to keep believing that it ain't no thang to have every survivor from the last two games pop up on your squad selection screen, you're welcome to it, and I'll tip my hat to you if you're right, but you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

[SalsaDMA]

The entire story in ME2 was about Shepard getting a team together and getting to know them/help them out. As far as relevant story telling goes, the collectors and suicide mission was really nothing. ME2 was from the start of made to be a middle point int he trilogy. The collectors are both 'created' and 'destroyed' again as a plot mechanic in that game, meaning that they have no relevance in either the previous nor the latter installment in the series.



The only binding component that there will exist between ME1 and ME3 in ME2 are the characters on your team. If they did as you appearantly think they will do, relegate the team of ME2 to cameo appearances, ME2 might as well not have happened at all, for all intents and purposes. This would be extremly poor story telling, especially considered we are talking about a planned trilogy where ME3 was already conceptualized storywise while they started on ME2.



You also still seem to think that creating new characters is less resource demanding than using material of characters that already exists. I cannot comprehend why, as it goes against any sound principle. Especially when you consider the usual mantras of programming, which is to make reusable objects You are literally claiming that creating character 'A', which already have established background lore with the player, needs MORE work to incorporate into the game, than creating an entirely new character 'B', which needs exactly the same amount of work on modeling, sounds, coding etc, as character 'A' if they decided to do both from scratch, and character 'B' would in most occurences need MORE work because you would also need HR to hire NEW voiceactors, instead of re-using the old ones, you would need NEW lore to be written and integrated in the game for the characters to come alive, you would need NEW graphic designs of what they should look like, rather than using existing designs, and so on. All these NEW and ADDITONAL things a new character needs compared to an old character makes you think a new character takes LESS resources to create????



So your 'requires less resources' argument seems stretched to me, to say the least. And you also seem to disregard Biowares desire and ability to create a coherent story spanning over a planned trilogy that maintains a proper flow, despite this being the very thing they announced they wanted to do with the ME trilogy from the start off.

[DarthSliver]

ScotOfClanDonald your point makes no sense if you ask me. If that was the case than why is Mass Effect 3 coming out so soon after Mass Effect 2. That would indicate to me that Mass Effect 3 is a rushed game and not worth playing at all.



Your point makes me think why buy Mass Effect 3?

[ScotOfClanDonald]

I didn't say that bringing back old characters requires more resources, or that new characters require less. It's about the same amount of work either way, because the majority of the characterization will almost certainly change to some extent between games. These characters don't exist in a vacuum (no space jokes, please). They will be active and doing stuff between games; character growth has been foreshadowed in several places. They will be, to some extent, different people when we meet them again as everybody grows and changes over time.



I'm not "disregarding" anything. I'm pointing out the realities of the situation that lead to specific conclusions. I respect Bioware's ability to "create a coherent story spanning over a planned trilogy that maintains a proper flow" without requiring potentially 20 returning squadmates. They're not fundamentally connected in any way, shape, or form.

[Lunatic LK47]

ScotOfClanDonald wrote...

I read what has been written.  Several times, in fact.  I can recognize that each game, while being part of a trilogy, is its own contained story.  Often the main character of a novel series is surrounded by different people as he gets into new books and new adventures.

24 tried this approach with the 4th Season and guess what, none of the new characters were remotely likeable up to the point that they brought Tony Almeida, Michelle Dessler, and David Palmer during the second half of the season. Season 5 and 6 had pointless shock value with offing the veteran cast members just for the lulz and none of the newer characters helped matters, and the series was consistently going downhill until the entire series ended, and out of all of the newer recurring characters they cooked up in this time frame, only Renee Walker, President Allison Taylor, and Cole Ortiz (yes, as in Freddie Prinze Jr. breaking away from the "pretty-boy" casttype) were remotely likeable

You're also disregarding Bioware's desire and ability to create interesting characters (like ol' Big Ben from the trailer) or perhaps bring in old characters that have never been squadmates before (like Anderson).  Asking them not to include new or expanded characters promotes stagnation and does disservice to Bioware's creativity.

Uh, we spent two games trying to get to know our squad members. Dumping them off is a really bad move and see my previous paragraph.

[Lunatic LK47]

****ing forums.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 28 janvier 2011 - 12:22 .

[DarthSliver]

I agree, we spent 2 games getting our squad together. It makes more sense having the same party with maybe a couple of new squadmates added. I say a couple because i am sure the DLC Zareed and Kasumi left us. They were only in it for the money from the start, but i could be wrong.



I just hope we can choose to fly under an Alliance or Cerberus flag. I assume the Third game will make us go recruit armies mostly.

[ScotOfClanDonald]

The incompetance of how 24 was handled in its fourth season has nothing to do with Mass Effect 3.  The comparison is meaningless, because they're entirely different situations.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Uh, we spent two games trying to get to know our squad members. Dumping them off is a really bad move and see my previous paragraph.

For the last time, nobody is suggesting that we "dump them off" and never see them again.  There's every indication that every one of the characters that we saved through both prior games will have an effect on gameplay in the last game.

Most of them just won't be squad members.  

We didn't need two games to love Wrex, Tali, or Garrus.  They were fan favorites from the start.  We didn't need two games to love the ME2 crew; we've only got one game with them anyway, and yet so many people are demanding that their stories continue.

Their stories can and will continue (mostly in limited appearences), but we'll also be introduced to new squadmates who will be just as interesting.

Modifié par ScotOfClanDonald, 28 janvier 2011 - 02:49 .

[Lunatic LK47]

ScotOfClanDonald wrote...

The incompetance of how 24 was handled in its fourth season has nothing to do with Mass Effect 3.  The comparison is meaningless, because they're entirely different situations.

Uh, I posted the 24 situation because it was relevant. I posted this because it showed the negative sides of just dumping off or marginalizing the veteran characters just because "we want new characters." I'm worried about Mass Effect 3 entering the same boat. The last thing I want is the gaming equivalent of "Godfather trilogy" syndrome in terms of having two good games and having a crappy final game leaving a sour taste in our mouths.

Most of them just won't be squad members.  

We didn't need two games to love Wrex, Tali, or Garrus.  They were fan favorites from the start.  We didn't need two games to love the ME2 crew; we've only got one game with them anyway, and yet so many people are demanding that their stories continue.

Uh, for good reason. Everyone loved the characters and wanted more of them. Would the original Star Wars trilogy have succeeded if Lucas decided to dump or marginalize Han Solo, Chewbacca, and Princess Leia just because "he wanted new characters." Would Lethal Weapon have worked as a buddy cop movie if they removed everyone else besides Mel Gibson?

Their stories can and will continue (mostly in limited appearences), but we'll also be introduced to new squadmates who will be just as interesting.

Problem is this is the ****ing ending of Shepard's story. I want to focus on taking out the Reapers with the people that were through hell with Shepard at one point or another (and no, I don't count 5-minute cameos as being "relevant to the story without being involved with you." Saying otherwise is nothing more than a cop-out). I don't want to have to deal with additional FNGs just because BioWare wanted to take the "stand-alone game" approach with their trilogy.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:47 .

[Lunatic LK47]

****ing forums.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:46 .

[ScotOfClanDonald]

For the record, I don't think you'll be displeased with how ME3 turns out. I just don't think that the nuts & bolts will shake out the way you're specifically advocating for here. I think that the "cameos" will be more than 5 minutes, but less than a full game. There's a lot of room in the middle there between the extremes that you're talking about.

[Lunatic LK47]

ScotOfClanDonald wrote... I think that the "cameos" will be more than 5 minutes, but less than a full game.

Still screams cop-out regardless.

[Capeo]

DarthSliver wrote...

I agree, we spent 2 games getting our squad together. It makes more sense having the same party with maybe a couple of new squadmates added. I say a couple because i am sure the DLC Zareed and Kasumi left us. They were only in it for the money from the start, but i could be wrong.

I just hope we can choose to fly under an Alliance or Cerberus flag. I assume the Third game will make us go recruit armies mostly.

The thing is, the squad you assemble for ME2 has the specific mission of taking out the collectors.  Pretty much every pep talk that Shepard gives it conspicuously regarding only the Collectors.  He never broadens it into the fight against the Reapers as a whole.  That only really comes up between him and the IM.  I have the feeling we won't be getting many of the ME2 squad back aside from just some ancillary missions.  I think we're going to get a mostly new crew but I do think Liara is going to part of it.  BW has made sure she can't die up to this point. I do think (and hope) that you'll collect your squad in a more organic way sort of like ME1 but I doubt you're going to be able to keep the crew from ME2.  

[AdmiralCheez]

Bioware has a knack for going the extra mile for the fans. I'm pretty sure the ME2 squad won't be completely cameo'd. Doing so, apart from being a colossal dick move, would show a serious lack of effort and insight.



And I'm going to ******, moan, and boycott the game if I have to ditch two-thirds of my old team again. Because I'm horrifically petty like that.

[Cariborne]

I forsee us having the survivors of ME1 and ME2 as Playable Characters, but not in a way that can impact the story in a major way. Mostly a "Use them if you want" but not developed too much beyond a few side missions as they may not have lived. Then we'll get 4-5 new members who will be developed throughout the battles.



My thoughts

[Deganis76]

SEMI-SPOILER ALERT BELOW:


Let me dispel a rumor:  all squad members cannot die on a transferrable save game from ME2.  That is because of the simple fact ihat in order for Shepard to survive the suicide mission (and thus, for that game file to be exportable to ME3) at least two squad members must be alive.  (See link below, SPOILER ALERT:  http://social.biowar...-5855452-1.html)

Last time I checked 2 surviving squad mates make for a complete party, thus you could potentially play through the entirity of ME3 with those two squadmates.  The only variable would be that you would just not have the squadmates who died available in your party.  And FYI, you can actually play through (and successfully finish) ME2 without a full squad recruited.  Same goes for ME1.

[Ice Cold J]

I think my sig tells you what I would like.

Why not have everyone back? Make it the personal story you're suggesting by giving me all the people I saved (ME2 cast, Virmire survivor, and Wrex).

[We Tigers]

I'm with Scot here. There have been big threads on this on many occasions, particularly a big 10 or 12-pager early last summer, but for me it always comes down to the resources point, and Bioware's history. I raised Dragon Age as an example then, and I'll do it again now; in Awakening, the DA expansion, your only returning squadmate happens to be one of the two DA:O party members who can't die. One could make the argument that this was because Awakening was developed on a short release cycle and Bioware didn't have the option to include all the possibles, but looking at how variable characters were used in ME and Awakening (limited NPC roles), I think we've got a bit of a pattern developing.

Optional character content that's self-contained within one game (Grunt, Legion, Zevran, Sten, Wynne, etc.) is one thing; limiting player access to significant amounts of content in a subsequent and completely separate purchase (contingent only on what came before it) is another.

Modifié par We Tigers, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:03 .