105 réponses à ce sujet

[Silmane]

This is one of the best things about ME3 that I've heard so far. It's pointless to have an entire crew of people on my ship who do absolutely nothing and I never use them.

I want Brotier Garrus in my party at all times and then the rest temps. My body is not ready for ME3.

[Vyse_Fina]

Silmane wrote...

This is one of the best things about ME3 that I've heard so far. It's pointless to have an entire crew of people on my ship who do absolutely nothing and I never use them.

I want Brotier Garrus in my party at all times and then the rest temps. My body is not ready for ME3.

It is really ironic how people who like Garrus and Tali think this is the best idea ever. Am I the only one who notices that they are the most likely characters for "one mission only"?

...
and no I am not trolling, it makes perfect sense when you consider that they could both be dead after ME2, so giving them an integral role in the plot is next to impossible. The permanent slots in your party are most likely reserved for characters that couldn't die like Liara and either of the Virmire survivors (Bioware can at least count on one of them being alive)

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 11 avril 2011 - 04:54 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Oh boy.

Being on the squad full-time =/= "integral to plot." Remember Garrus and Wrex in ME1? Thane in ME2?

Sometimes you just need more dudes to shoot things.

[Vyse_Fina]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Oh boy.

Being on the squad full-time =/= "integral to plot." Remember Garrus and Wrex in ME1? Thane in ME2?

Sometimes you just need more dudes to shoot things.

?
I fail to see the connection of that statement to... anything? o.oa

[Lvl20DM]

The article also says that some characters will be returning in non-squad roles, either as cameos or important NPC's. That gives us lots of possibilities.

[Bamboozalist]

Vyse_Fina wrote...
and no I am not trolling, it makes perfect sense when you consider that they could both be dead after ME2, so giving them an integral role in the plot is next to impossible. The permanent slots in your party are most likely reserved for characters that couldn't die like Liara and either of the Virmire survivors (Bioware can at least count on one of them being alive)

Liara and Mordin are the only people who had an impact on the story while in your squad, everyone else removed themselves from the squad or stopped being relvant once they joined the squad and that took up about 10 minutes of a 20 hour game.

Putting killable characters in the squad is the best place for them because that means their entire role on the story is reduced to squad chatter and helping you shoot crap. Keeping them out of the squad means they have to either A) Have a cameo that has an actual impact on the story Be completely pointless.

[wright1978]

I would think there would be more of the Samara/Morinth either or selections than resorting to cheap single mission encounters.

[Silmane]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Silmane wrote...

This is one of the best things about ME3 that I've heard so far. It's pointless to have an entire crew of people on my ship who do absolutely nothing and I never use them.

I want Brotier Garrus in my party at all times and then the rest temps. My body is not ready for ME3.

It is really ironic how people who like Garrus and Tali think this is the best idea ever. Am I the only one who notices that they are the most likely characters for "one mission only"?

...
and no I am not trolling, it makes perfect sense when you consider that they could both be dead after ME2, so giving them an integral role in the plot is next to impossible. The permanent slots in your party are most likely reserved for characters that couldn't die like Liara and either of the Virmire survivors (Bioware can at least count on one of them being alive)

No, i don't know stats or read polls, but I feel Garrus and Tali are two of the most famous characters of the series. They are both romancable, too. 

Garrus has no reason to leave the Normandy in my playthrough. I'll accept a well-thought out reason by Bioware for him not being there, maybe, but there's no reason for Garrus NOT to be a full-time squad member in this game. 

It just wouldn't make sense. 

[Vyse_Fina]

Bamboozalist wrote...
Liara and Mordin are the only people who had an impact on the story while in your squad, everyone else removed themselves from the squad or stopped being relvant once they joined the squad and that took up about 10 minutes of a 20 hour game.

Putting killable characters in the squad is the best place for them because that means their entire role on the story is reduced to squad chatter and helping you shoot crap. Keeping them out of the squad means they have to either A) Have a cameo that has an actual impact on the story Be completely pointless.

Ok, just to be clear: You are saying, that killable characters are the best options for permanent additions to the ME3 party because Bioware does not have to bother with writing a decent plot for them? Seriously???

I'm quite sure I'm missunderstanding you...

Silmane wrote...

No, i don't know stats or read polls, but
I feel Garrus and Tali are two of the most famous characters of the
series. They are both romancable, too. 

Garrus has no reason to
leave the Normandy in my playthrough. I'll accept a well-thought out
reason by Bioware for him not being there, maybe, but there's no reason
for Garrus NOT to be a full-time squad member in this game. 

It just wouldn't make sense. 

Stats and polls??? Is there someone rewriting what I'm posting? What stats and polls?

Anyway, the point I was trying to convey is that Garrus may not have a reason to leave in YOUR game, but that he MAY be dead in other peoples games. In theory it is possible that he only survived the last Mission of ME2 in your game. (in theory)
Now imagine Bioware's point of view. We have 12 characters from ME2, but in some peoples games they are dead and in some peoples games they are not. If they make someone who ight not even be alive important to the plot somehow then what happens if that someone isn't alive anymore? Does the plot just end and you have to replay ME1 or 2 to fix it? Do you see where I am going with this?

Bioware can "risk" making a mission for characters that might eb dead. If they are dead, players just don't get to do that one mission. If they were needed to stop the reapers (and therefor a constant addition to Shepard's party) then you coulld not finish the game.

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 11 avril 2011 - 05:30 .

[Tazzmission]

Lvl20DM wrote...

The article also says that some characters will be returning in non-squad roles, either as cameos or important NPC's. That gives us lots of possibilities.

anderson may be one of those....... ive seen the image of him in armor..... i dont know if that means if he is involved action wise but this whole new thing can introduce alot of great scenarios. or maybe anderson is a temp like the dr from arrival?

[Almostfaceman]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...
Liara and Mordin are the only people who had an impact on the story while in your squad, everyone else removed themselves from the squad or stopped being relvant once they joined the squad and that took up about 10 minutes of a 20 hour game.

Putting killable characters in the squad is the best place for them because that means their entire role on the story is reduced to squad chatter and helping you shoot crap. Keeping them out of the squad means they have to either A) Have a cameo that has an actual impact on the story Be completely pointless.

Ok, just to be clear: You are saying, that killable characters are the best options for permanent additions to the ME3 party because Bioware does not have to bother with writing a decent plot for them? Seriously???

I'm quite sure I'm missunderstanding you...

Sure?  Why not?  That's why we have magic things like computers in the place - to make things like this happen.  Where's your imagination?

[AdmiralCheez]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Oh boy.

Being on the squad full-time =/= "integral to plot." Remember Garrus and Wrex in ME1? Thane in ME2?

Sometimes you just need more dudes to shoot things.

?
I fail to see the connection of that statement to... anything? o.oa

This:

it makes perfect sense when you consider that
they could both be dead after ME2, so giving them an integral role in
the plot is next to impossible

What I'm saying is that plot relevance has nothing to do with who is and isn't on the squad.

[flesheatingbull]

this isn't really an original idea. this is exactly what i got out of the article as well.

i think that 'lotsb' is a perfect example of one mission help from someone.

[Akizora]

I don't understand why people think that just because Liara is in the squad at some point(or all points) that LotSB never happened? You do realize there are multiple paths of narrative and storytelling that they could logically diverge from after the ending? They're not stuck and nailed into one outcome as if nothing else could possibly happen.

[Vyse_Fina]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
This:

it makes perfect sense when you consider that
they could both be dead after ME2, so giving them an integral role in
the plot is next to impossible

What I'm saying is that plot relevance has nothing to do with who is and isn't on the squad.

It's not about them being in the squad it's about them possibly being dead. If Bioware makes one of the characters integral to the plot and that character is dead, then what happens? Is what I'm saying really making so little sense to everyone in here?

Let's put it that way: Wrex could die in ME1, Garrus could not.
Wrex was a cameo in ME2, Garrus was still in your squad.
Garrus and Tali can die in ME2.
Because of that, It makes sense if they are only available for one mission in ME3, but the plot will be finishable without them. (in case they are dead, which they might very well be in 50% of all ME2 saves)

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 11 avril 2011 - 05:37 .

[Vyse_Fina]

Almostfaceman wrote...
Sure?  Why not?  That's why we have magic things like computers in the place - to make things like this happen.  Where's your imagination?

Ah yes, trolls...

[Irrepressible]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
This:

it makes perfect sense when you consider that
they could both be dead after ME2, so giving them an integral role in
the plot is next to impossible

What I'm saying is that plot relevance has nothing to do with who is and isn't on the squad.

It's not about them being in the squad it's about them possibly being dead. If Bioware makes one of the characters integral to the plot and that character is dead, then what happens? Is what I'm saying really making so little sense to everyone in here?

Let's put it that way: Wrex could die in ME1, Garrus could not.
Wrex was a cameo in ME2, Garrus was still in your squad.
Garrus and Tali can die in ME2.
Because of that, It makes sense if they are only available for one mission in ME3, but the plot will be finishable without them. (in case they are dead, which they might very well be in 50% of all ME2 saves)

Your overlooking Tier 1 from the OP, that being a full-time squad member WITHOUT being integral to the plot.
Obviously someone who could be dead in ME2 is not going to be Tier 3 as a character who is dead cannot be integral.

[aimlessgun]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
This:

it makes perfect sense when you consider that
they could both be dead after ME2, so giving them an integral role in
the plot is next to impossible

What I'm saying is that plot relevance has nothing to do with who is and isn't on the squad.

It's not about them being in the squad it's about them possibly being dead. If Bioware makes one of the characters integral to the plot and that character is dead, then what happens? Is what I'm saying really making so little sense to everyone in here?

Let's put it that way: Wrex could die in ME1, Garrus could not.
Wrex was a cameo in ME2, Garrus was still in your squad.
Garrus and Tali can die in ME2.
Because of that, It makes sense if they are only available for one mission in ME3, but the plot will be finishable without them. (in case they are dead, which they might very well be in 50% of all ME2 saves)

This is the point:

If they can be dead, they cannot be solely responsible for whether you defeat the reapers or not. They can be 'plot relevant' in the sense that maybe if you got too many people killed, you cannot get the 'best' endings (since there will be multiple endings).

However, being a permanent squaddie has NOTHING to do with someone's plot relevance. Almost every permanent squaddie in ME1 and 2 had no plot relevance and were not required to finish the game. It would not be difficult to bring a possibly dead person back as an "ME2 style" squadmate.

Modifié par aimlessgun, 11 avril 2011 - 05:40 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

It's not about them being in the squad it's about them possibly being dead. If Bioware makes one of the characters integral to the plot and that character is dead, then what happens? Is what I'm saying really making so little sense to everyone in here?

See response below.

Let's put it that way: Wrex could die in ME1, Garrus could not.
Wrex was a cameo in ME2, Garrus was still in your squad.
Garrus and Tali can die in ME2 so it makes sense if they are only available for one mission, but the plot will be finishable without them.

Samara, Grunt, Thane, Zaeed, Tali, Legion, Morinth, and Kasumi were all full-time squadmates in ME2, but were optional.  They had little relation to the plot and the game was perfectly beatable without them.  Same goes for Wrex and Garrus in ME1.  The same could easily be done with Tali, Garrus, Mordin, etc. in ME3.

Duh.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Tazzmission wrote...

hmmmmmmm sounds good honestly. i wonder if sanders is your lawyer for the trial. also this could explain why wrex is back as well... he could use his clan leader status to rally up the krogan army.....

James Sanders is a soldier, he's described as such in the article. He seems to be written as the "inexperienced with the ways of the galaxy" guy, i.e. an analog by which new concepts can be realistically explained, according to the article, but I'm not sure exactly how far they're taking him in that direction beyond the assurance that he's still no rookie.

[Nashiktal]

I wonder who will be the guy to die in the first 30 mins of the game? I mean, its a tradition man.

[Bamboozalist]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...
Liara and Mordin are the only people who had an impact on the story while in your squad, everyone else removed themselves from the squad or stopped being relvant once they joined the squad and that took up about 10 minutes of a 20 hour game.

Putting killable characters in the squad is the best place for them because that means their entire role on the story is reduced to squad chatter and helping you shoot crap. Keeping them out of the squad means they have to either A) Have a cameo that has an actual impact on the story Be completely pointless.

Ok, just to be clear: You are saying, that killable characters are the best options for permanent additions to the ME3 party because Bioware does not have to bother with writing a decent plot for them? Seriously???

I'm quite sure I'm missunderstanding you...

No what I'm saying is the "ME2 people can't be squadmates because they can't impact the plot" is a completely retarded argument. Unless the game is specifically about Shepard's interaction with the squad (ME2) NONE of the squadmates in Mass Effect have impacted really anything beyond following Shepard around and shooting crap. Mordin and Liara are the only people who impacted the story while actually in the squad and that was about 10 minutes of 20+ hour games.

Where as if you give them a side mission, it either A) needs to be important and impact the plot, which it can't do because "THEY MIGHT BE DEAD!!! THINK OF THE NEW PLAYERS!!!! THINK OF THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!! FACEROLLING MY KEYBOARD ALL DAY EVERY DAY!!!!" Their cameo is not important to the story meaning the character that we literally just wasted ~1/12th of an entire game getting to know is now completely pointless.

Bioware screwed themselves with this one. They clearly want to make a trilogy and are working towards it but at the same time they keep trying to make sequels and not the next part in the trilogy. This would be acceptable if the entire thing was planned to be a trilogy from the beginning.

[Vyse_Fina]

aimlessgun wrote...
This is the point:

If they can be dead, they cannot be solely responsible for whether you defeat the reapers or not. They can be 'plot relevant' in the sense that maybe if you got too many people killed, you cannot get the 'best' endings (since there will be multiple endings).

However, being a permanent squaddie has NOTHING to do with someone's plot relevance. Almost every permanent squaddie in ME1 and 2 had no plot relevance and were not required to finish the game. It would not be difficult to bring a possibly dead person back as an "ME2 style" squadmate.

Well i just assumed that the permanent party members would be the ones relevant to the plot. People who are in your party for only one mission are most likely not around to be important for the rest of the game.
Casey said that there won't be any magic "revivals" in the GI article though. The people who are dead will remain dead.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Samara,
Grunt, Thane, Zaeed, Tali, Legion, Morinth, and Kasumi were all
full-time squadmates in ME2, but were optional.

Check

AdmiralCheez wrote...
They had little
relation to the plot and the game was perfectly beatable without them.

Check

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Same goes for Wrex and Garrus in ME1.  The same could easily be done
with Tali, Garrus, Mordin, etc. in ME3.
Duh.

And I guess that is where you lost me. Or maybe I should have clarified that "important to the plot" and "in your squad the whole time"  are more or less the same things to me, assuming the plot won't be completely generic because nobody will have a real impact on anything. (because then it doesn't matter who does what and therefor any dead person can simply be replaced by someone who survived)
If Bioware plans on making everyone irrelevant like in ME2 anyway, then please forget what I said, but then ME3 will have a plot that sucks hard.

The way I look at this though there MIGHT be a system like the one described by OP where only a few people are in your sqaud the entire time and there are a few people in your ME1&2 squad who never had the "chance" to die.
I don't know about you but I see a pattern there.

[AdmiralCheez]

Nashiktal wrote...

I wonder who will be the guy to die in the first 30 mins of the game? I mean, its a tradition man.

My money's on James Sanders, but only since he's the only one to be mentioned so far.

Oh yeah, and he bears the surname of the accursed Kahlee.  Stuid tie-in material, messin' up my videogames...

[Bamboozalist]

Nashiktal wrote...

I wonder who will be the guy to die in the first 30 mins of the game? I mean, its a tradition man.

I'm hoping it's Sanders.