69 réponses à ce sujet

[samurai crusade]

Kasumi and Zaeed are the only ones I feel might be thrown aside. Miri, Jack, Tali could have been romanced thus needing dialogue to further advance their relationship... bioware didn't give us romance options with the intention of wasting our time. Same for Garrus, Jacob, and Thane?? could romance be his will to live? Legion, Wrex, Mordin they're confirmed already and their plots are undoubtably crucial.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

Sounds promising. Looks like we have a potential candidate for topping Virmire. Perhaps Garrus paragon interupts Shepard and throws him into the escape shuttle?

Maybe.  But I have a feeling it will be one of those optional/preventable deaths.  Since, you know, he's already gotten pwn'd by a gunship (and possibly the Collectors).

However, Mercutio is possibly my favorite wise-cracking, hot-headed, best-friend-type voice of reason in all of fiction.  To have Garrus take that sort of role would make me very happy: absolutely brotastic, but the first to tell you you're doing it wrong.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Maybe.  But I have a feeling it will be one of those optional/preventable deaths.  Since, you know, he's already gotten pwn'd by a gunship (and possibly the Collectors).

However, Mercutio is possibly my favorite wise-cracking, hot-headed, best-friend-type voice of reason in all of fiction.  To have Garrus take that sort of role would make me very happy: absolutely brotastic, but the first to tell you you're doing it wrong.

True. I imagine (and hope) theres a point in the story where somebody has to bite the dust and the player can decide who. So Garrus is not bound to be killed and thereby preventing hordes of fangirls in tearing Casey Hudson apart.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

True. I imagine (and hope) theres a point in the story where somebody has to bite the dust and the player can decide who. So Garrus is not bound to be killed and thereby preventing hordes of fangirls in tearing Casey Hudson apart.

It's not so much the fangirls I'm concerned about--it's just this auto-killing nonsense.

I mean, seriously--how pissed off would you be if you saved Ashley's butt in ME1 and stayed loyal to her romance-wise in ME2, only for the plot to go LOL SORRY BRO U MAD in ME3?  Same goes for any old team member, really; having to choose is okay, but completely negating player effort is not.

There's drama and then there's trolling.

[Eudaemonium]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

There's drama and then there's trolling.

Well the game will include Harbinger.

[AdmiralCheez]

Eudaemonium wrote...

Well the game will include Harbinger.

god damn it ruined forever cancelling my pre-order i hate you bioware

(That was a joke.)

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 03 mai 2011 - 02:47 .

[WizenSlinky0]

Wait, I though I assumed direct control of Harbinger?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

True. I imagine (and hope) theres a point in the story where somebody has to bite the dust and the player can decide who. So Garrus is not bound to be killed and thereby preventing hordes of fangirls in tearing Casey Hudson apart.

It's not so much the fangirls I'm concerned about--it's just this auto-killing nonsense.

I mean, seriously--how pissed off would you be if you saved Ashley's butt in ME1 and stayed loyal to her romance-wise in ME2, only for the plot to go LOL SORRY BRO U MAD in ME3?  Same goes for any old team member, really; having to choose is okay, but completely negating player effort is not.

There's drama and then there's trolling.

What is with you thinking that if a squadmate dies it WILL end up being the pathetic half-arsed version that are just there to invoke cheap drama. Instead of being a great memorable moment?

Modifié par Lizardviking, 03 mai 2011 - 03:00 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

What is with you thinking that if a squadmate dies it WILL end up being the pathetic half-arsed version that are just there to invoke cheap drama. Instead of being a great memorable moment?

Books, movies, and television series all have set paths.  There's no audience investment other than to just sit there and watch/read/listen; you are nothing more than an observer.  Thus, the writers have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want so long as it's a good story.

But with Mass Effect, the writers have to consider how much work the player has put into developing a relationship, how losing a playable character would affect team balance, etc.  In fact, ME is supposed to be all about player choice and the outcomes of those choices, anyway--forcing a character to make a difficult choice adds to that.

In incredibly simplified terms: ME is a videogame, not a novel or movie.  Auto-killing the same squadmate no matter what would be akin to getting your Charizard up to level 100 only for the game to delete it.  In fact, let's play with the analogy a little more--your Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard will always die right before you get your last gym badge, but the people who picked Squirtle or Bulbasaur get away scott-free.  That's not exactly fair, is it?

Player effort has to be rewarded, you know?

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 03 mai 2011 - 03:11 .

[Wittand25]

Nohvarr wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

How could you worry about Garrus getting a backseat....? He's one of the first confirmed SQUADMATES for ME3, and even got his own Dev diary

Mhairi did have her own trailer during the promotion of DA:A, so I would suggest not to have too high hopes because of the GI preview.

So, because the Dragon Age team did something with a character that only appeared in one game (and an expansion) you think the ME team will do the same with a major character that's played a role in two games so far and is a confirmed squad mate, and in no way suggested to be just a temp?

No I am pointing out that "somewhat playable" does neither promise that the character is there from the start or longer playable than Joker was in ME2.
And that Bioware has proven in the past that it is best if you take their marketing with a pinch of salt and not get your hopes up on everything you hear.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Books, movies, and television series all have set paths.  There's no audience investment other than to just sit there and watch/read/listen; you are nothing more than an observer.  Thus, the writers have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want so long as it's a good story.

But with Mass Effect, the writers have to consider how much work the player has put into developing a relationship, how losing a playable character would affect team balance, etc.  In fact, ME is supposed to be all about player choice and the outcomes of those choices, anyway--forcing a character to make a difficult choice adds to that.

In incredibly simplified terms: ME is a videogame, not a novel or movie.  Auto-killing the same squadmate no matter what would be akin to getting your Charizard up to level 100 only for the game to delete it.  In fact, let's play with the analogy a little more--your Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard will always die right before you get your last gym badge, but the people who picked Squirtle or Bulbasaur get away scott-free.  That's not exactly fair, is it?

Player effort has to be rewarded, you know?

Of course they have to consider balance as well. Thats why they are adding a couple of new squadmates right? And while players should have some control over the story, no-win scenarios work because they take away our control over a situation and forces the player to do something they may not like. Granted it has to be done well, or it winds up just pissing people off and feel contrived.

And that pokemon analogy does not exactly work. Because in your version only a select few people faces the no-win scenario and only one certain character gets killed.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

Of course they have to consider balance as well. Thats why they are adding a couple of new squadmates right? And while players should have some control over the story, no-win scenarios work because they take away our control over a situation and forces the player to do something they may not like. Granted it has to be done well, or it winds up just pissing people off and feel contrived.

Virmire was still a no-win situation.  You will suffer casualties, people you care about will die, and life will seriously suck =/= SAME GUY DIES EVERY TIME REGARDLESS OF YOU 
WORKING YOUR ASS OFF TO KEEP HIM/HER ALIVE LOL LOL LOL

And that pokemon analogy does not exactly work. Because in your version only a select few people faces the no-win scenario and only one certain character gets killed.

Suicide mission survivors.  LI choices.  Team builds.  Analogy valid.

[Eudaemonium]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
And that pokemon analogy does not exactly work. Because in your version only a select few people faces the no-win scenario and only one certain character gets killed.

Suicide mission survivors.  LI choices.  Team builds.  Analogy valid.

You romanced Charizard?

[Destroy Raiden_]

Everyone can use less loyalty missions the only ones who need favor mission would be Tali, Mordin, Wrex, Kasumi, and possibly Legion if you're pro geth. Everyone else doesn't need them but I have to admit Miranda and her dad, Garrus and his family, Shep and his past on all backgrounds, and kicking Kaiden's ass or a plain old dumping of Ash would make for entertaining favor or help quests.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 03 mai 2011 - 03:52 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
 SAME GUY DIES EVERY TIME REGARDLESS OF YOU 
WORKING YOUR ASS OFF TO KEEP HIM/HER ALIVE LOL LOL LOL

When have I even stated that is what I want?

Suicide mission survivors.  LI choices.  Team builds.  Analogy valid.

Erhh. No? You analogy implied that Charmanda/Chameleon/Charizard and only that pokemon would get removed. When a more accurate analogy would be that as some point you would have to sacrifice a pokemon, but the chose of who to sacrifice is left up the player.

And what the hell does the romances even have to with this?

[AngelicMachinery]

Eudaemonium wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...
And that pokemon analogy does not exactly work. Because in your version only a select few people faces the no-win scenario and only one certain character gets killed.

Suicide mission survivors.  LI choices.  Team builds.  Analogy valid.

You romanced Charizard?

[Chuvvy]

SSJ5 wrote...

Bioware has stated that they didn't include some characters in ME2 (Kaidan/Ashley, Liara) so
that they could focus on them more in ME3. I hope this does not mean
that some characters will have less dialogue or loyalty mission content
just because they could have died in Mass Effect 2 (I get why they would be doing that, but I doubt that a bulk of the players will have their suqadmates dead in the first playthrough of ME3). But I kinda got that
feel from the interviews, and I don't like it one bit. Thoughts?

I swear to christ if Shepard has to play moderator in some father son/daughter drama while the reapers are destroying the galaxy I'm going to stab something.

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

Erhh. No? You analogy implied that Charmanda/Chameleon/Charizard and only that pokemon would get removed. When a more accurate analogy would be that as some point you would have to sacrifice a pokemon, but the chose of who to sacrifice is left up the player.

And THAT's what I don't mind seeing.  Auto-killing everyone's Charizard would be silly (and totally in favor of those of us who picked Squirtle and Bulbasaur, therefore basically forcing a "correct" choice on players--it'd be like saying there was an obviously better choice with Samorinth and Kaishley), but requiring the player to make a choice as to which team member they have to give up gives them the opportunity to weigh losses and cover for them.  It also adds replayability in that a player may be curious as to what should happen if they approach the situation differently, and actually welcomes attachment and involvement with the cast as opposed to hindering it. (By hindering attachment, I mean that as soon as people recognize that a certain character is going to die before it happens, they will often avoid getting "close" to that character because they don't want to deal with the grief.  I know I do this sometimes, and I can't be the only one.)

In short, yes to either/or and you-fail-at-playing-this-game deaths a la Kaishley/Samorinth and Wrex/Suicide Mission, but no to auto-kills in which the same squadmate dies no matter what.

Smells like miscommunication to me, here...

And what the hell does the romances even have to with this?

They are a player choice resulting in investment into certain characters and possible changes in story elements.

PS: I did not romance Charizard; I never liked that fire-breathing ruffian.  Venusaur and I, however, have been happily married for six years.

[ObserverStatus]

Slidell505 wrote...

SSJ5 wrote...

Bioware has stated that they didn't include some characters in ME2 (Kaidan/Ashley, Liara) so
that they could focus on them more in ME3. I hope this does not mean
that some characters will have less dialogue or loyalty mission content
just because they could have died in Mass Effect 2 (I get why they would be doing that, but I doubt that a bulk of the players will have their suqadmates dead in the first playthrough of ME3). But I kinda got that
feel from the interviews, and I don't like it one bit. Thoughts?

I swear to christ if Shepard has to play moderator in some father son/daughter drama while the reapers are destroying the galaxy I'm going to stab something.

You're in luck, i think that there is a new heavy melee class, and you can probably "borrow" a sword from one of those cerberus ninjas.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Erhh. No? You analogy implied that Charmanda/Chameleon/Charizard and only that pokemon would get removed. When a more accurate analogy would be that as some point you would have to sacrifice a pokemon, but the chose of who to sacrifice is left up the player.

And THAT's what I don't mind seeing.  Auto-killing everyone's Charizard would be silly (and totally in favor of those of us who picked Squirtle and Bulbasaur, therefore basically forcing a "correct" choice on players--it'd be like saying there was an obviously better choice with Samorinth and Kaishley), but requiring the player to make a choice as to which team member they have to give up gives them the opportunity to weigh losses and cover for them.  It also adds replayability in that a player may be curious as to what should happen if they approach the situation differently, and actually welcomes attachment and involvement with the cast as opposed to hindering it. (By hindering attachment, I mean that as soon as people recognize that a certain character is going to die before it happens, they will often avoid getting "close" to that character because they don't want to deal with the grief.  I know I do this sometimes, and I can't be the only one.)

In short, yes to either/or and you-fail-at-playing-this-game deaths a la Kaishley/Samorinth and Wrex/Suicide Mission, but no to auto-kills in which the same squadmate dies no matter what.

Smells like miscommunication to me, here...

Sounds like we got som miscommunication between us then.

PS: I did not romance Charizard; I never liked that fire-breathing ruffian.  Venusaur and I, however, have been happily married for six years.

What do you have against fire-breathing Lizard/dragons?

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

Sounds like we got som miscommunication between us then.

Yup.  Color me embarrassed. ._.;

What do you have against fire-breathing Lizard/dragons?

Nothing against lizard-dragons in general, but Charizard always came a cross as a bit of a dick.  Venusaur nowhere near as handsome, sure, but he's a much more reliable guy who takes the time to understand my feelings.

[Knight_47K]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Indeed. I just hope Bioware doesn't cross that line. Nothing cheapens a story faster than someone dying just because they needed a dramatic moment. Fans should be going, "Holy sh*t, did that just happen?!" D8 and not, "Seriously, Bioware, that didn't just happen." :|

This is what happened to me in the DAII. (Spoilers for DAII)

First my PC and his family are moaning about the death of their father but before their tears could dry, his brother/carver dies in the blightlands. Then his sister dies in the deep roads and at last his mother dies at the hands of a mad mage. It was almost comical.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Yup.  Color me embarrassed. ._.;

Don't worry. It's cool.

What do you have against fire-breathing Lizard/dragons?

Nothing against lizard-dragons in general, but Charizard always came a cross as a bit of a dick.  Venusaur nowhere near as handsome, sure, but he's a much more reliable guy who takes the time to understand my feelings.

Venusaur? Reliable? Not only is he ugly, but that loser can't even use an instant solarbeam if his life depended on it (unless the weather is good of-course). He also spends most of his time growing illegal plants when you are not wachting.

Sounds like Charizard was better off without you!

[AdmiralCheez]

Lizardviking wrote...

Sounds like Charizard was better off without you!

Jesus, Char, you could've just told me you were jealous.  You didn't need to troll me on the internet. ;3

[ObserverStatus]

You're both wrong, Blastoise is the best. The only time mine ever lost a fight was with that lvl 143 snorlax that attacked me near cinnabar island.