105 réponses à ce sujet

[Gentleman Moogle]

Foxhound2020 wrote...


Your 3rd tier sounds synonymous with ME1 engineers where you would have to bring one along in order to do certain things that you can't do without them. Giving people options and then forcing them to not use those options made little sense then and now.

I believe bioware has stated that dlc's characters and events are extra content, so they wont have effects on ME3. For example, Lair of the shadowbroker was a DLC which means as far as story and bioware is concerned it never really happened.

Aaaaaaaand you'd be wrong in that assessment. Bioware has categorically stated that both Ascension and LOTSB are cannonical storylines, and will affect the storyline regardless of whether you played them or not. 

[CroGamer002]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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...

I read IG and from sound of it, he won't die.

Kinda disappointed.

Modifié par Mesina2, 11 avril 2011 - 06:05 .

[17thknight]

So basically we have to run around with boring ****s from ME1 (Liara and Ashley) while the excellent members from ME2 (legion, Tali, Thane, Mordin, etc.) all sit on the sidelines.

Whoopody ****in doo.

[Vyse_Fina]

Bamboozalist wrote...
*snip*

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.

Yes and that is the reason why ME2's plot sucked. Nothing really mattered! Nobody had any impact on anything. I just went ahead and assumed Bioware did that in order to avoid too many variables going into ME3 and that ME3 will be different in that regard.

Bamboozalist wrote..
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.

Ok, Let's say Tali get's a sidemission that decides the fate of the quarians. That is certainly important. The game will be finishable without the Quarians though in case Tali did not make it until ME3. Or maybe the mission will even be there when Tali is dead, but Tali won't be. That way the Quarians will still be around to help against the Reapers but Tali has no real impact. You see where I am getting with this?

Believe me I would like nothing more than Bioware saying something like "Screw people who let her die or didn't even play the first two games, we're gonna cater to our fans who supported us over the last 5 years and make it awesome" but that is sadly not how the industry works. Bioware will try not to ****** people off by making the game nearly unbeatable if you didn't play the first two games or let certain people die.

Bamboozalist wrote..
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.

Indeed.

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 11 avril 2011 - 06:16 .

[aimlessgun]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

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.

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.

I think such an assumption is just taking the worst possible scenario you can think of. I thought ME1's story was great. It doesn't suddenly suck just because Garrus didn't impact the plot in any way shape or form.

The people who are on your journey with you matter just by being there. They don't have to have major story points revolve around them. And again, they have said this game is where they let the branches go crazy. Multiple endings. The works. There should be many opportunities for a dead/notdead character to have an impact without being completely necessary to whether the Reapers win, since it won't just be if they win, but how they win.

Modifié par aimlessgun, 11 avril 2011 - 06:25 .

[BinaryHelix101]

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.

Yes and that is the reason why ME2's plot sucked. Nothing really mattered! Nobody had any impact on anything. I just went ahead and assumed Bioware did that in order to avoid too many variables going into ME3 and that ME3 will be different in that regard.

Nobody had an impact on anything you say? Tech specialist, fire team leaders, biotic barrier and line holders, everyone was really good at least one thing on the final mission, which was the entire point of the game. Building a squad of specialists for the 'impossible' mission. If you didn't make characters loyal, chose specialists in the mission poorly etc. Shepard dies. So of course the characters in ME2 were plot integral.

Modifié par BinaryHelix101, 11 avril 2011 - 06:18 .

[We Tigers]

This sort of thing is the best we could hope for, and I'll be very pleased if it works out this way. We were never going to just get back the whole team, but LOTSB DLC showed how effective the temporary squadmate mechanic could be used. If they lived, you get a visit and a mission, and if they didn't, perhaps you just get a mission. There are a lot of ways to make this work once you drop the pipe dream of having every maybe-dead companion playable for the whole game.

[Silmane]

What aimlessgun has said.

Garrus has been in my party both games and now he's romanced with that FemShep. He is an integral part of MY Mass Effect storylines and he hasn't really done a damn thing. He did his own thing in C-Sec and on Omega, but now he rolls with Shepard.

More importantly, you have to outright get Garrus killed in ME2 or you have poor planning.

I dunno. You think I don't understand what you're saying, Vyse, but I do. Thing is, Garrus is a major player for me in the ME universe.

What I meant by stats and polls is that, I can't speak for everyone when I say that Garrus and Tali are very very much liked and will be around regardless. I can only speak for myself.

I like the idea of temp squadmates, but having only temps the entire game? Nah. They're gonna give you atleast a few people who can be fulltime. I fully believe 100% that Garrus is one of them. We'll see if I'm wrong.

[17thknight]

We Tigers wrote...

This sort of thing is the best we could hope for, and I'll be very pleased if it works out this way. We were never going to just get back the whole team, but LOTSB DLC showed how effective the temporary squadmate mechanic could be used. If they lived, you get a visit and a mission, and if they didn't, perhaps you just get a mission. There are a lot of ways to make this work once you drop the pipe dream of having every maybe-dead companion playable for the whole game.

That is utterly lame. It really is. "A visit and a mission" for the most interesting characters in the series? A 5 minute romp around some planet with people like Legion, Thane, Tali, Mordin, Miranda? Dull.

Oh but we get back the 12-year-old Liara and the worthless xenophobic idiiot Ashley.

This is shaping up to be a Garrus/Wrex party from beginning to end all over again.

[Phaedon]

This is interesting, but in which page of the article is it?

[aimlessgun]

Phaedon wrote...

This is interesting, but in which page of the article is it?

It is the OPs speculation/theory.

[Bamboozalist]

We Tigers wrote...

This sort of thing is the best we could hope for, and I'll be very pleased if it works out this way. We were never going to just get back the whole team, but LOTSB DLC showed how effective the temporary squadmate mechanic could be used. If they lived, you get a visit and a mission, and if they didn't, perhaps you just get a mission. There are a lot of ways to make this work once you drop the pipe dream of having every maybe-dead companion playable for the whole game.

The pipe dream is that all 12 characters will get a side mission. Resource wise restricting someone to the Squad is much less intensive than making an entire mission based around them. Also if you get the mission with or without the character then that character is completely pointless. Bioware shoved themselves into a corner with this. You don't spend the 2nd part of a trilogy specifically on getting the PC to know characters just to cameo them.

Sorry if we expect Bioware to actually make an actual trilogy and not a series of three videogames with the same main villain.

[Taritu]

Some real crazed stuff in this thread. Tali's dead to you if she goes back to help her people in a war against the Geth which could wind up with her entire race dead? She should put humanity's survival ahead of the survival of her own race? Why shouldn't you put Quarian's survival ahead of humanity's then?

People have more loyalties than just to Shepard. He's not the only dude in the universe.

As for squadmates, I think the OP is probably essentially correct, the question, of course, being who we get in our permanent squad. Personally, I'm hoping for Garrus, Liara and the VS, with Tali after we fix the Quarian/Geth problem. Other than that, I don't much care, none of the ME2 people really turned my crank, and I don't imagine Wrex will be coming back fulltime, though I'd love to be wrong (Grunt is never going to be a real replacement for Wrex.)

(Well, ok, I'd love Zaeed as a real character, but I know I'm in the minority and that as he was DLC that ain't happening.)

Modifié par Taritu, 11 avril 2011 - 06:33 .

[Bamboozalist]

Taritu wrote...

Some real crazed stuff in this thread. Tali's dead to you if she goes back to help her people in a war against the Geth which could wind up with her entire race dead? She should put humanity's survival ahead of the survival of her own race? Why shouldn't you put Quarian's survival ahead of humanity's then?

THIS JUST IN PEOPLE! The Reapers are only targetting humanity! That whole thing about them harvesting the whole galaxy and us fighting a galactic war against them? Nope, just humanity.

Edit: Also the fact that the Quarians WILL no matter what be in a war with the Geth is, like Cerberus trying to kill Shepard, would be yet another example of Bioware's complete failure to live up to "choices matter" and their inability to make a dynamic trilogy.

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 11 avril 2011 - 06:41 .

[Taritu]

The Quarian/Geth war is happening right now. Win it, then worry about the Reapers is likely to be the Quarian attitude. Tali will be going back to them to try and convince them not to be morons. I mean, you dealt with the Admirals, you know that a bunch of them were hardcore for war. And they think if they win, they can reprogram the Geth, giving them a better chance vs. the Reapers.

Point being that you aren't the only show around, and working with you might not be the best thing Tali can do with her time. Don't get me wrong, I want her as a squadmate, but the idea that she's some horrible traitor if she thinks that shooting a gun for Shep isn't the most important thing she could be doing (and let's face facts, you don't need her, another squadmate will do) is just tiresome.

As for the choice thing, probably, but we'll see.

[Vyse_Fina]

aimlessgun wrote...

I think such an assumption is just taking the worst possible scenario you can think of. I thought ME1's story was great. It doesn't suddenly suck just because Garrus didn't impact the plot in any way shape or form.

The people who are on your journey with you matter just by being there. They don't have to have major story points revolve around them. I would say that in party based RPGs almost every main story point revolves around the main character, not their squadmates. Are you saying that every party based RPG before ME3 has sucked balls?

Ok, I should probably have left my opinion on what is important to a plot and what is not out of this.
If ME3 works as described by OP it seems obvious to me that hardly anyone who can die in the first 2 games will be a permanent member in the squad of ME3,because then they take part in everything. When they take part in everything, Bioware either takes into account every possible character and writes/records dialogue for them to be prepared for all situations, or they make each character totally generic so that it can be replaced easily, OR they did what I described above.

To answear your question:
I'm not saying all party based RPGs sucked, but most of them had a scripted story with one outcome that you couldn't influence and the partymembers played their unchangeable roles in it. (some games did a good job with that, some didn't).

Mass Effect 1 had Shepard as the main character with the Visions, Liara who helped him with the Visions, Ashley and Kaiden who had quite the impact on Virmire I'd say and Tali who provided the evidence against Saren.

In Mass Effect 2 however 90% of the game was about your squad and their individual problems. in other words, 90% of the game had hardly anything to do with Shepard, the overarching plot with the Reapers or even with each of the individual stories. The stories of the squadmembers were not even connected in any way. It kinda didn't even matter if you did their loaylty missions because they all died because of circumstances that are normally not affected by loyalty. Their roles as experts were kinda weird too. Why was Zaeed not a good leader, especially after his loaylty mission? Why was Samara not a good leader allthough she has 1000 years of experience? Why is Garrus supposed to be superior to them? Why can actually anyone you can pic actually do the job but then die because of bad luck? (like a door jamming while you try to close it)

Let's stop this though, ok?
I explained what I meant with the Tali example in the in my last post already and by the time I post this 10 more posts arguing with what I said there will probably have popped up. People obviously disagree with what I'm saying so I'll stop discussing the matter any further.
sorry, couldn't help it

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 11 avril 2011 - 07:36 .

[Bamboozalist]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had Shepard as the main character with the Visions, Liara who helped him with the Visions, Ashley and Kaiden who had quite the impact on Virmire I'd say and Tali who provided the evidence against Saren.

Notice that Tali and the Kaidan/Ashley weren't in your party for any time they had to be important to the story? Tali stopped being relevant to the main plot after she joined you party and Ashdan Willenko had to leave the party to go be important.

[Mr.Tacito]

dreman9999 wrote...

The SR3 is just the old SR2 ship reconfiguied with more things.

Hopefully a Lounge!

[Vyse_Fina]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had Shepard as the main character with the Visions, Liara who helped him with the Visions, Ashley and Kaiden who had quite the impact on Virmire I'd say and Tali who provided the evidence against Saren.

Notice that Tali and the Kaidan/Ashley weren't in your party for any time they had to be important to the story? Tali stopped being relevant to the main plot after she joined you party and Ashdan Willenko had to leave the party to go be important.

Okay, sorry, I just can't stop afterall...
The difference here is: in Mass Effect 1 they were there to do their part. Nobody could die before doing what was important.

In Mass Effect 3 they might well be dead before the game even starts. So what if they are truly important to the game by default in a way that makes it extremely hard or impossible to finish the game without them? What happens if they are dead? You cannot finish the game anymore and have to replay ME1 and 2?

Let's say Garrus is supposed to be one of the permanent squad members, but he is dead. Who takes his place? Another possibly dead character? That'd lead Bioware to writing and recording 10 games worth of dialogue for that one spot.

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 11 avril 2011 - 07:35 .

[anlk92]

I think some people are really misjudging the situation here. Possiblity of a certain character being dead in a playthrough doesn't mean they can't affect the plot in an important way. On the contrary, Casey says in the GI article that some decisions you made in the first two games will be decisive in which endings will be available for you, meaning that not every ending will be available for your import in the first place anyways.

On another note, I don't believe a character possibly being dead prevents them from coming back as a permanent squadmate either. There is only a difference of a few lines of dialogue (alright maybe not a few, but they surely have time to write some extra dialogue) between having people come back for a mission or two, or permanently. Having some of them as temp squadmates and some as permanents makes sense stroy wise. It wouldn't make sense to have most of them return as permanent squadmates (as the article says Bioware doesn't like the idea of punishing people for the way they have chosen to play the games by witholding content), but having two or three of them return is totally logical. The lack of these characters in some playthroughs could simply be made up for by having little twists to the story and gameplay (like an additional mission where you go inform the deceased squadmates family of his/her death, preferably something more creative/interesting than that ). It would boost the already high replay value of the game.

I think another cool feature to have would be being able to visit your temporary squadmembers (or at least the LI's) outside of their missions (given they survive that mission). It could save Bioware lots of ****storm.

Modifié par anlk92, 11 avril 2011 - 07:38 .

[mjh417]

Im amazed at some of the ignorance on this board. No one knows all or even remotely enough of the details of ME3's plot to distinguish what characters will be important which won't. Anyone who's read the article and doesn't think Bioware to be fools would know that most if not all ME2 squadmates will effect the story in an impactful way alive or not. If they aren't alive than their piece of plot will either be repurposed or less likely dropped all together meaning the story and conclusion will be different based on your past choices, something that Mass Effect is supposed to be about. I think between these purposed three tiers of squadmates the OP defined, all characters have equal potential to heavily effect the plot. This game isn't gonna be like ME1 or ME2 in its plot structure, ME3 is meant to be the culmination of your choices and how they play out into he endgame, therefore every squadmate will most likely serve some specific function to stopping the Reapers. Its the conclusion that makes the most sense, and thats why im not really all that worried about how much I'll see of my favorite characters in ME3.

[Lunatic LK47]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

In Mass Effect 2 however 90% of the game was about your squad and their individual problems. in other words, 90% of the game had hardly anything to do with Shepard, the overarching plot with the Reapers or even with each of the individual stories. The stories of the squadmembers were not even connected in any way. It kinda didn't even matter if you did their loaylty missions because they all died because of circumstances that are normally not affected by loyalty. Their roles as experts were kinda weird too. Why was Zaeed not a good leader, especially after his loaylty mission? Why was Samara not a good leader allthough she has 1000 years of experience? Why is Garrus supposed to be superior to them? Why can actually anyone you can pic actually do the job but then die because of bad luck? (like a door jamming while you try to close it)

Zaeed: Everyone under his command has a history of getting killed, even during R&R.

Samara: "I always worked alone." How do you expect a 9th Century Templar who has communication issues to lead a successful modern-day Special Forces unit?

Garrus: Had military experience, not to mention he had the full trust of his squad until Sidonis screwed them over.

[Vyse_Fina]

mjh417 wrote...

Im amazed at some of the ignorance on this board. No one knows all or even remotely enough of the details of ME3's plot to distinguish what characters will be important which won't.

Except for you?

mjh417 wrote...
Anyone who's read the article and doesn't think Bioware to be fools would know that most if not all ME2 squadmates will effect the story in an impactful way alive or not.

Kinda contradicts your first sentence.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Zaeed: Everyone under his command has a history of getting killed, even during R&R.

Samara: "I always worked alone." How do you expect a 9th Century Templar who has
communication issues to lead a successful modern-day Special Forces
unit?

Garrus: Had military experience, not to mention he had the full trust of his squad until Sidonis screwed them over.

That makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up.

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 11 avril 2011 - 08:15 .

[Klijpope]

The issue is how much Bioware wants to invest in VO that might very well not be used. Doing extensive dialogue trees for a character that may well be dead means less for one that is very much alive (money and time, and disk space, is finite, alas). However, Bioware actually have very good data on who died or survived the SM (from the in-game feedback), so they know which squad members were killed off the most. These are unlikely to get more than a cameo.

As Garrus and Tali are quite popular, it is likely most save states have them alive, and it would pay dividends with the fans to have at least a temporary mission, or even a sequence of them.

It seems Bioware are biting the bullet and having at least one character with major VO not being available, in the alternate VS. This makes sense, given the importance of the characters and their tiny role in ME2.

Also, this being the last game, they can kill characters off for good. Why should it be a numpty who gets offed in the opening 30 mins, and not Garrus? That would hurt, real good. Good motivation in that. Or Anderson. In fact, I'll call it. One of the main cast gets it in the opening sequence!

Also, Zaeed and Kasumi. As DLC, many players won't have had them in the first place to be killed in the SM, so there's possibly a larger chance of these 2 appearing than not. Kasumi, after all, was in possession of some dark secret that could very well alter the likelihood of other civs helping humanity.

Others could appear as recurring cameos, rather than one-offs. You could send other teams out to deal with some stuff, reporting back later.

Basically, there's loads of ways Bioware could do justice to former squadmates without having them as permanent companions.

[Vyse_Fina]

Klijpope wrote...

The issue is how much Bioware wants to invest in VO that might very well not be used. Doing extensive dialogue trees for a character that may well be dead means less for one that is very much alive (money and time, and disk space, is finite, alas). However, Bioware actually have very good data on who died or survived the SM (from the in-game feedback), so they know which squad members were killed off the most. These are unlikely to get more than a cameo.

As Garrus and Tali are quite popular, it is likely most save states have them alive, and it would pay dividends with the fans to have at least a temporary mission, or even a sequence of them.

It seems Bioware are biting the bullet and having at least one character with major VO not being available, in the alternate VS. This makes sense, given the importance of the characters and their tiny role in ME2.

Also, this being the last game, they can kill characters off for good. Why should it be a numpty who gets offed in the opening 30 mins, and not Garrus? That would hurt, real good. Good motivation in that. Or Anderson. In fact, I'll call it. One of the main cast gets it in the opening sequence!

Also, Zaeed and Kasumi. As DLC, many players won't have had them in the first place to be killed in the SM, so there's possibly a larger chance of these 2 appearing than not. Kasumi, after all, was in possession of some dark secret that could very well alter the likelihood of other civs helping humanity.

Others could appear as recurring cameos, rather than one-offs. You could send other teams out to deal with some stuff, reporting back later.

Basically, there's loads of ways Bioware could do justice to former squadmates without having them as permanent companions.

I love this guy. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/love.png[/smilie]
He understands