167 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

[quote]SalsaDMA wrote...




[/quote]

So your argument is: Other games are not part of a trilogy and don't do it, so therefore ME3 shouldn't do it either, despite being part of a trilogy and a supposedly tight story connecting through all 3 games...

Can I just say I disagree and let you figure out why yourself? It should be obvious enough as to why, for anyone.

[/quote]

Way to miss my point completely.

How is not given a complete crew at the begining anything to do with whether or not this is a trilogy? Did you not play me2 i seem to remember not having a crew right at the begining of that game also, wasn't that the supposed point of all those recruitment missions.

What i was saying was that bioware went with the same old principles with me2 as they did with other rpgs, you start with a crew of 1 or 2 and as the game progresses you meet up with and other characters join you.

We don't get a fully fledged crew in me1 or me2 until some later point in both games so why would this be any different with me3. Why would they suddenly include a new dynamic in the 3'rd part of the series, would that not be something you would do right from the get go. If bioware wanted a fully assmebled squad thereby changing a fundamental function in rpg's then adding it into the 3'rd part of a trilogy makes no sense whatsoever.

[Manic Sheep]

So split up the team around the beginning (they will probably have to do that for the trail anyway and the alien members of you crew might want to be on their home planet) and have you regroup with some of the old team and recruit some newbie’s as you go along. If they have a comic, character descriptions and a short into for each that should be enough to get new players on the same page and make it playable.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 03 mai 2011 - 09:42 .

[Pani Mauser]

alperez wrote...

Well welcome to the world of the fans of the Vs and Liara who argued the same point with me2.

It there was ME4, I would not be worrying about ME2 characters in ME3, because there would be hope to see them returning next game. So, don't compare this situation to VS and Liara in ME2. I don't know about you, but I saw VS and Liara encounters in ME2 like 'see you next game'. And for left out ME2 squaddies there is no next game.

alperez wrote...
As for killing off these characters during the suicide mission well that eliminates the choice you or i as the player have, would you have been happier with 4 or 5 storyline deaths in me2 where no matter what you did certain characters were doomed. Most people would have been appalled at such a thing, that you the player really didn't make any impact, that characters died, despite being loyal and despite you doing everything right, you still couldn't save character a. because of a plot death that someone else decided.

They didn't seem to have this problem with virmire casualty. You could save both plot wise. I had Tali and Liara chilling on Normandy, along with four armed marines, so they could protect the other one. But BW decided that their story needed only one Alliance soldier, so they didn't hesitate to kill the second one.

I personally hate Virmire situation as a whole, but I at least it didn’t give people false hope to see that character back in full capacity.

Also, turning some characters into cameos shows that your choices don’t matter at all. It doesn’t matter if characters live or dies if their impact on the story is minimal. You decided to spend time doing loyalty mission etc? Here your easter egg appearance ala Shiala or Conrad. You never bothered with that character and now s/he is dead? Don’t worry, you lose nothing. 

They already stated that they don’t want to punish those who got squadmates killed. So, it is actually punishing people for caring instead. If you don’t care, you kill the character and play next game like nothing happened. But if you cared for someone, you have to suffer seeing them being relegated to small cameo. So much for caring about their game.<_<

alperez wrote...
All i'm saying is that we know so little at this stage and yet people are getting wound up over something that makes perfect sense. Not all characters who survived the suicide mission will play a full squadmate role in me3, really did you not see that one coming.

I didn’t see that coming. No one of survivors left after Suicide Mission, and I had plenty of sidequest and DLCs to complete. This made me feel like those characters are going to stay with you to fight the Reapers when they come. If BW just showed that some characters left right after your main mission of the game is complete, or outright killed them, it would make their intent clear.

Also, they doubled the squad in ME2, and character interaction was even better than in ME1, which made me believe they are able to pull off 15+ squad too.

alperez wrote...Would it not make sense for someone like Grunt seeing what the reapers are doing to Tuchanka stay and help the krogans? Or for Mordin seeing his home planet under attack try to help the salarians.

I see Grunt going back to Tuchanka to breed etc, but the way he acts in ME2 made me believe that he will join you on your first call. And Mordin is retired STG agent and scientist, not politician, not general or something of that caliber. He can’t do much at home anyways. Ok, he will kill couple of husks with farming equipment, but on the grand scheme of things it will mean nothing, while helping Shepard could matter a lot more.

alperez wrote...
As for tali or legion not being plot relevant because we've already done everything regarding those choices well i beg to differ. We don;t know the details of what we are to do in me3, but not having tali or legion could very well be the difference for all you or i know.

I agree on the point that we don’t know details yet. Maybe the difference is very important like you said, or maybe their deaths just result in having some random NPCs in their place and slightly different dialogs, like it was with Wreav instead Wrex. You had different dialog, but it didn't hinder your quest at all. Grunt is acepted to the clan no matter who is the leader.

alperez wrote...
We don't know how the story plays out or who in fact will or will not be a full squadmate, if we find that all the me2 is cameod and play no real role in me3 then we would have a reason to be annoyed and upset.

It will be absolutely pointless then. The game will be already bought so BW gets their profit disregarfing your opinion, and there is no ME4, so feedback will not matter.

alperez wrote...
However we can be pretty sure this isn't the case as the articles have already told us, so why can't we trust that bioware may actually know what they're doing and that the reasoning we'll be given in me3 will make perfect sense both storyline wise and logistically.

As I said before, I have no worries about plot relevance of characters. I have worries about ability to interact with them. Wrex is uber important to the krogan part of story in ME2, and if he had more dialogs, I would never want him on my ship, because he has his important role. But he had the same amount of dialog as Conrad Verner, Shiala, Parasini, etc, and it sucks. Major characters should not be treated the same as minor NPCs.

Unfortunately I care for characters more that I care for story, so seeing a character for five minutes doing something very important plot-wise will never satisfy me.

If it was confirmed that all former squadmates that are not permanent in ME3 had the same amount of conversation as permanent ones, I would never post in such threads. But if ME2 is any indication of their treatment of former squadmates, it shows that the only way to get decent interaction out of the character is to have him/her aboard.

[WizenSlinky0]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Yes, I'm sure 'Return of the Jedi' or 'Return of the King' were severely hamstringed by following their established trilogy setting, rather than inventing a new one for the latest movie...

Note, sarcasm may be evident in the above sentence...

Comparing a movie, which can be rented for say 3-4 bucks (or if you're that type, pirated) to a video game that costs 60? Seriously? A video game is an expensive buy to find out you don't like it, or it isn't accesible to new players.

[SalsaDMA]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Yes, I'm sure 'Return of the Jedi' or 'Return of the King' were severely hamstringed by following their established trilogy setting, rather than inventing a new one for the latest movie...

Note, sarcasm may be evident in the above sentence...

Comparing a movie, which can be rented for say 3-4 bucks (or if you're that type, pirated) to a video game that costs 60? Seriously? A video game is an expensive buy to find out you don't like it, or it isn't accesible to new players.

Are you for real???

[crimzontearz]

apparently he is.

that said, movie entrance today is what like 15$

a blue ray is what? 40?

also it's just common sense that if something is called "_______ 3" probably you will need to take a gander at 1 and 2 before jumping in

why do we keep pandering to morons?

[SalsaDMA]

Alperez, your whole argumentation is carried on fallacy and flaws.

Ofc, your arguments, as well as that which you argue for, is as sloppy as your quoting was, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

It's fine that you want a stand alone game. I would have prefered the epic ending to a trilgoy about choices mattering and continuency through the series. The stand alone crap they could have done for ME4, which they have already admitted they want to make in some form.

As is, with the info they are giving us about how little choices matter, it comes to a point where you think to yourself: "What's the point of them in the first place?"

You may think Wrex in ME2 was handled good. I think to myself: What's the difference between killing him and not killing him? You get the exact same playthrough in ME2 regardless of which choice you picked; only difference being which pixels are used for the character, and a slight change of a few letters in the name of the person greeting you.

Bioware promised alot with the ME series. From the sounds of the released info, they aren't planning to fulfill on those promises.

[WizenSlinky0]

crimzontearz wrote...

apparently he is.

that said, movie entrance today is what like 15$

a blue ray is what? 40?

also
it's just common sense that if something is called "_______ 3" probably
you will need to take a gander at 1 and 2 before jumping in

why do we keep pandering to morons?

Now you're just being insulting. Grow up a bit.

The cost of buying a movie on DVD is nowhere comparable to that of a video game. The prices of movies also drop lower than that of AAA games. I know I'm way more willing to buy a DVD that looks O.K, but I'm not guarentee'd to like. Used to have family nights where we'd pick a random DVD out, buy it, and check it out together.

I do EXTENSIVE research before buying a video game these days. But not everybody does that. So it pays off  to make your games easily accesible to new players.

Comparing movies to video games simply doesn't work. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. The dynamics of their sales, presensation, and expectations are entirely different.

SalsaDMA wrote...

Alperez, your whole argumentation is carried on fallacy and flaws.

Ofc, your arguments, as well as that which you argue for, is as sloppy as your quoting was, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

It's
fine that you want a stand alone game. I would have prefered the epic
ending to a trilgoy about choices mattering and continuency through the
series. The stand alone crap they could have done for ME4, which they
have already admitted they want to make in some form.

As is, with
the info they are giving us about how little choices matter, it comes
to a point where you think to yourself: "What's the point of them in the
first place?"

You may think Wrex in ME2 was handled good. I
think to myself: What's the difference between killing him and not
killing him? You get the exact same playthrough in ME2 regardless of
which choice you picked; only difference being which pixels are used for
the character, and a slight change of a few letters in the name of the
person greeting you.

Bioware promised alot with the ME series.
From the sounds of the released info, they aren't planning to fulfill on
those promises.

Roughly 50% of players who bought Mass Effect 2 actually went ahead and finished the game. [Source]

Try to justify to your publisher that you want to sell 50% less games by ignoring new players, but you still want to make a game at the same or greater price, with the same quality.

Not going to happen.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 04 mai 2011 - 02:29 .

[SalsaDMA]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Roughly 50% of players who bought Mass Effect 2 actually went ahead and finished the game. [Source]

Try to justify to your publisher that you want to sell 50% less games by ignoring new players, but you still want to make a game at the same or greater price, with the same quality.

Not going to happen.

so make games for the lowest common denominator and ignore any promises you amde about the series when you launched it.

Awesome.

Why call it a trilogy in the first place then?

Why even have choices when they are pointless?

And according to you, cutting 50% out of a game should be the optimal solution, right?

There are different ways to use statistics, but using it like you just did is just plain wrong. Statistics by themselves show jack all. Only when you couple with extensive research into causes and effects can you actually use the numbers for anything.

There's a whole net-thing going on with the flying spaghetti monster that shows the statistical 'coherence' between number of pirates and global warming. The validty of proof is just about as argumentative as your statistical usage just was.

edit: Found a pic on their website about it:

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 04 mai 2011 - 02:50 .

[crimzontearz]

watering down a game for the sake of "accessibility" is pandering to the lazy and the stupid. It is not insulting unless YOU are to lazy or stupid to do your research which by your own admission you are not.

So YOU grow up and stop being defensive for the sake of argument.

A brand new blue ray movie is 40$ or so...stop using DVDs as a comparative metric. For 60$ ME2 offers an average playthrough lenght of 40 hours and each playthrough can be different....a movie lasts 2 if you are lucky.

[naledgeborn]

As long as Miranda is an IMPORTANT permanent squad mate I'll be happy. If she's reduced to a cameo or "squad hottie" or "mute vixen" role this will be the very last Bioware game I purchase. Real talk.

[Paragon Gabriel]

All LI should have some important parts to the story, more or less.

[crimzontearz]

Gabriel the First wrote...

All LI should have some important parts to the story, more or less.

yes but out of 9 LIs between ME1 and ME2 6 can die so......

[alperez]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Alperez, your whole argumentation is carried on fallacy and flaws.

Ofc, your arguments, as well as that which you argue for, is as sloppy as your quoting was, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

It's fine that you want a stand alone game. I would have prefered the epic ending to a trilgoy about choices mattering and continuency through the series. The stand alone crap they could have done for ME4, which they have already admitted they want to make in some form.

As is, with the info they are giving us about how little choices matter, it comes to a point where you think to yourself: "What's the point of them in the first place?"

You may think Wrex in ME2 was handled good. I think to myself: What's the difference between killing him and not killing him? You get the exact same playthrough in ME2 regardless of which choice you picked; only difference being which pixels are used for the character, and a slight change of a few letters in the name of the person greeting you.

Bioware promised alot with the ME series. From the sounds of the released info, they aren't planning to fulfill on those promises.

Ok i admit it i got sloppy with my quoting, sue me, bash me over the head with a large object whatever floats your boat.

Now onto the points you made.

I never said i wanted a standalone game, anyone who knows me knows my views on mass effect and the series in general and how i personally think the characters should have been handled, you however don't know me so you assume because of how i answered in this thread.

I do not think the Wrex or VS. situations were handled well in me2., i think they shoehorned the cameos to suit the purpose of removing these characters from the equation.

What i have argued is that given the limited info people have already jumped to the conclussions that nothing that happened in me2 matters, that the characters will all be reduced to nothingness which is not the conclussion that i personally hold. There are genuine storyline reasons why its impossible for the characters to be immediately available to you at the beginning of me3. There are also simple logistical reasons why this would also be the case (standard rpg forumula etc).

We know from an article in Gi that not all of the me2 characters will be full squadmembers, that some of them will be temporary and some will be cameos and yet from that people have assumed we're getting screwed.

How they handle the integration of the characters from both me1 and me2 and how they handle the integration of overall choices will define how me3 will be perceived, if they foul it up then they deserve every single one of us to rant and rave. But ranting and raving about the fact that squadmember A is being handled so badly when you or i haven't even seen how they've handled the situation is presuming that either of us knows anything about how they will be handled.

[SalsaDMA]

alperez wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Alperez, your whole argumentation is carried on fallacy and flaws.

Ofc, your arguments, as well as that which you argue for, is as sloppy as your quoting was, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

It's fine that you want a stand alone game. I would have prefered the epic ending to a trilgoy about choices mattering and continuency through the series. The stand alone crap they could have done for ME4, which they have already admitted they want to make in some form.

As is, with the info they are giving us about how little choices matter, it comes to a point where you think to yourself: "What's the point of them in the first place?"

You may think Wrex in ME2 was handled good. I think to myself: What's the difference between killing him and not killing him? You get the exact same playthrough in ME2 regardless of which choice you picked; only difference being which pixels are used for the character, and a slight change of a few letters in the name of the person greeting you.

Bioware promised alot with the ME series. From the sounds of the released info, they aren't planning to fulfill on those promises.

Ok i admit it i got sloppy with my quoting, sue me, bash me over the head with a large object whatever floats your boat.

Now onto the points you made.

I never said i wanted a standalone game, anyone who knows me knows my views on mass effect and the series in general and how i personally think the characters should have been handled, you however don't know me so you assume because of how i answered in this thread.

I do not think the Wrex or VS. situations were handled well in me2., i think they shoehorned the cameos to suit the purpose of removing these characters from the equation.

What i have argued is that given the limited info people have already jumped to the conclussions that nothing that happened in me2 matters, that the characters will all be reduced to nothingness which is not the conclussion that i personally hold. There are genuine storyline reasons why its impossible for the characters to be immediately available to you at the beginning of me3. There are also simple logistical reasons why this would also be the case (standard rpg forumula etc).

We know from an article in Gi that not all of the me2 characters will be full squadmembers, that some of them will be temporary and some will be cameos and yet from that people have assumed we're getting screwed.

How they handle the integration of the characters from both me1 and me2 and how they handle the integration of overall choices will define how me3 will be perceived, if they foul it up then they deserve every single one of us to rant and rave. But ranting and raving about the fact that squadmember A is being handled so badly when you or i haven't even seen how they've handled the situation is presuming that either of us knows anything about how they will be handled.

Fair enough, and I'll retract some of my rancid comments then

Given how DA2 was handled, and the experiences in ME2 regarding the 'cameos' and even sloppy handling of material (can anyone say Jacobs loyalty mission?) or outright neglect of choice affecting bugs messing up ME1-ME2 imports; my expectancy for bioware is at an all time low.

Especially when they are starting to drone on in their PR talks in phrases that reminds me of their Pre-release PR talk about DA2...

Kudos on being able to still have faith in them, cause I lost it, and the cynic in me refuse to believe EA is going to act differently on how they manage subdivisions all of a sudden, just because the title is called ME3.

[crimzontearz]

say it all with me

push a button and something awesome happens

Think like a general fight like a spartan

[SalsaDMA]

I think the curent ones they use are

"The whole game is filled with really epic moments"

And

"it's going to be "spectacular"."

[Nohvarr]

Yes, such a shame they don't give away the entire plot now...

[crimzontearz]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I think the curent ones they use are

"The whole game is filled with really epic moments"

And

"it's going to be "spectacular"."

honestly their marketing is atrocious lately

[SalsaDMA]

Nohvarr wrote...

Yes, such a shame they don't give away the entire plot now...

They don't need to do that. They do need to give people proper asurance that the details are handled properly, which they aren't giving us.

Instead they are just flinging out random blurbs that literally mean nothing, but sounds 'cool'.

[crimzontearz]

Nohvarr wrote...

Yes, such a shame they don't give away the entire plot now...

there is a difference between saying "ZOMG at the end shepard becomes a reaper and ALONE fights all the other reapers and wins"

and being honest (maybe) and saying "yes, we admitt that most of your old crew will come back only as 1 shot missions companions, only 4 will return as full time squaddies whilke a couple of them will be on the normany if they survived with full/partial/minor dialogue and importance"

[Nohvarr]

Now since they've already said that they want a lot of the games plot to be a surprise (if memory serves they were upset about the threshermaw leak) what makes you think that they should do what you ask? The sheer suspense of not knowing which characters return will keep fans glued to game, which is exsactly what they want.

[SalsaDMA]

Nohvarr wrote...

Now since they've already said that they want a lot of the games plot to be a surprise (if memory serves they were upset about the threshermaw leak) what makes you think that they should do what you ask? The sheer suspense of not knowing which characters return will keep fans glued to game, which is exsactly what they want.

Or 'hopefully' (from their point of view) buy the cat in the sack.

That's what happened with DA2, if you recall...

[crimzontearz]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Nohvarr wrote...

Now since they've already said that they want a lot of the games plot to be a surprise (if memory serves they were upset about the threshermaw leak) what makes you think that they should do what you ask? The sheer suspense of not knowing which characters return will keep fans glued to game, which is exsactly what they want.

Or 'hopefully' (from their point of view) buy the cat in the sack.

That's what happened with DA2, if you recall...

agreed

with that in mind  remember what Bioware said before ME2 came out "Female quarian in the screenshots? Do not jump to conclusions, it might very well not be Tali"

[Nohvarr]

So one mistake from a different team means that another team, whose been working on a planned trilogy long before DA 2 was considered, will make the same mistake?

Modifié par Nohvarr, 04 mai 2011 - 04:58 .