57 réponses à ce sujet

[Ianamus]

I don't get it either. I've tried to remind people many times that the likes of Kaidan, Ashley, Alistair, Morrigan and all of those other NPC's were only there for one game, but were still some of the most engaging and memorable charcters from recent Games.

Yes we already know all of those other people, and we all have our favoutites and least favourites, but wouldn't it be cool to see how they would react and interact with new people?

EDI not only became a strong character on her own, but actually added to Jokers character as well.

Legion allowed us to see brilliant examples of Quarian/Geth animosity on Tali's loyalty quest and conflict

New charcters can work with older charcters to create a more enjoyable experience. Having only old characters limits their development as well.

Modifié par EJ107, 26 juin 2011 - 11:15 .

[Raiil]

IndigoWolfe wrote...

King Zeel wrote...

So new characters are pointless, time consuming, unnecessary and a waste of resources.

Tell that to the Thane fangirls.

I'm pretty sure we're one of the quieter aspects of these forums, don't drag us into the fight. <_<

I don't care one way or another. I'll wait until I actually play with the Vega character before I decide whether I like him or not. For all we know, he's there solely so we can sacrifice someone without feeling too bad. Or he could be amusing, or poignant, etc. Vega's purpose is to 'represent' the new player, so it's not just 'stick another human d00d there' aspect.

[Repearized Miranda]

alperez wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Spot on with alperez's point. However, they may as well used only the characters from ME1, but then we wouldn't have gotten to like/not like the characters from ME2 (including returns).

I think the biggest problem is again, how the new characters are written. AAMOF, when we first popped in ME1, we were seeing/playing new characters. It didn't seem to be an issue from ME1-ME2 either as we got used to them as well. It'll happen again in ME3.

I agree adding characters in me2 (a lot of who i liked) added to the experience but i didn't mean to suggest that they were wrong to do so and should have just stuck with the me1 characters. More that by adding 10 characters in me2 plus the ones they already had in me1 they created a situation where most enough characters were already involved, adding in more after that is where i think things become redundant.

Bioware can create great characters (which is why a lot of people are attached to those from me1 and me2) and no doubt they may do it again, to me though this isn't the issue but more the relegating of characters to smaller appearances. It worked to an extent in me2, We lost 4 out of 6 and some of it made sense, what i don't think would work is if in me3 we lose most if not all of the me2 crew to make room for new characters (some yes i can live with all not so much).

Plus i think bioware have a bigger problem this time round, people accepted what happened with me2 because me3 was another opportunity for the characters from me1 to return, this won't be the case for me2 crewmembers, so if the vast majority or all of them have reduced roles then no matter how cool or interesting a new character might be i'm not sure people will accept it the same way, i know i for one won't.

But look at this:

Depending on what you did in ME1 (ie: Saved/Killed Wrex), some were regulated to smaller roles. (Grunt had a bigger role than Wrex even if you didn't kill him in ME1. Not to mention the VSs - (Ash/Kaidan) - who had essentially no role except to voice their displeasure. Yet, folks are thrilled to have them back in ME3.

Yeah, I don't like mainstays being brushed asides for newcomers, but even you had a "replacement" act in ME2 (Samara/Morinth), but that is moot since neither appear to be coming back. It's insulting to build up and around a character to have no kind off payoff! (ie: While I wanna know about Oriana and their father, a little more, DO NOT upstage/sacrifice Miranda's character to do it unless there's a reason she must absolutely be sacrificed!)

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 26 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[alperez]

EJ107 wrote...

I don't get it either. I've tried to remind people many times that the likes of Kaidan, Ashley, Alistair, Morrigan and all of those other NPC's were only there for one game, but were still some of the most engaging and memorable charcters from recent Games.

Yes we already know all of those other people, and we all have our favoutites and least favourites, but wouldn't it be cool to see how they would react and interact with new people?

EDI not only became a strong character on her own, but actually added to Jokers character as well.

Legion allowed us to see brilliant examples of Quarian/Geth animosity on Tali's loyalty quest and conflict

New charcters can work with older charcters to create a more enjoyable experience. Having only old characters limits their development as well.

If it was just a case of adding then i have no problem with it, unfortunately to add you have to take something away.

We're getting a smaller squad this time than we had in me2, so there are fewer spaces available from the start, then you add more new characters and the spaces become even more limited. Characters can only have an impression on other characters if they are there, the examples you use worked because of that fact, if however its a case of getting Edi means losing Joker then that growth in Joker's character doesn't happen.

[Ianamus]

alperez wrote...

If it was just a case of adding then i have no problem with it, unfortunately to add you have to take something away.

We're getting a smaller squad this time than we had in me2, so there are fewer spaces available from the start, then you add more new characters and the spaces become even more limited. Characters can only have an impression on other characters if they are there, the examples you use worked because of that fact, if however its a case of getting Edi means losing Joker then that growth in Joker's character doesn't happen.

But we have no idea whether that comment only included "permanant" squadmates, not accounting for all of the temporary squadmembers, optional squadmembers and major NPC's (like my example of Joker and EDI: they are strong characters but not Squadmates). We may not actually get any "permanants" at all.

It's too early to say that they're dropping older characters in favour of new ones. I think they'll be a rotation, and an increase in NPC's on the normandy that you can have long conversations with and good interaction, but are not Squadmembers.

Using this model the charcter growth I was speaking of could still happen. We don't know enough yet to say anything for certain.

Modifié par EJ107, 26 juin 2011 - 11:38 .

[Ianamus]

-

Modifié par EJ107, 26 juin 2011 - 11:38 .

[alperez]

Repearized Miranda wrote...



But look at this:

Depending on what you did in ME1 (ie: Saved/Killed Wrex), some were regulated to smaller roles. (Grunt had a bigger role than Wrex even if you didn't kill him in ME1. Not to mention the VSs - (Ash/Kaidan) - who had essentially no role except to voice their displeasure. Yet, folks are thrilled to have them back in ME3.

Yeah, I don't like mainstays being brushed asides for newcomers, but even you had a "replacement" act in ME2 (Samara/Morinth), but that is moot since neither appear to be coming back. It's insulting to build up and around a character to have no kind off payoff! (ie: While I wanna know about Oriana and their father, a little more, DO NOT upstage/sacrifice Miranda's character to do it unless there's a reason she must absolutely be sacrificed!)

The me1 characters being relegated to smaller roles was explained off that they were being held back in order to play larger roles in me3, so while technically they were replaced it may not affect them in the same way considering they look like returning to carry forward their arcs, a lot of people were upset with this at the time but accepted it and that's why they're thrilled to have them back in me3.

We won't get that same opportunity with the me2 crew, its me3 or nothing for them, so while people can be thrilled the me1 crew returns, the me2 fans get kinda shafted, instead of the proper payoff they get reduced roles for a lot if not all of the characters and the intro of new characters that whether they like it or not are taking the space of some characters they actually like.

The example you make regarding Miranda is a good one, there are a lot of parts of her character arc that need to be fleshed out and finished, in a full squadmate role this would be easily accomplished, in a temp or reduced role it becomes that much harder. So we may get either unaswered questions in relation to her arc or a rushed version that answers everything unsatisfactorily.

All of this because her space as a full squadmember is taken by a new character, no matter how cool and interesting that character may be, a lot of people would prefer if they instead concentrated on finishing the arcs they already started. We seem to be getting this with the me1 crew which is why fans of those characters accepted what happened in me2 and why they are now thrilled by their return in me3.

Like i said that can't be the case for the me2 crew in me3, so any new character such as Grunt was in me2 would be viewed that much more harshly and has that particular cross to bear.

[King Zeel]

Valentia X wrote...

IndigoWolfe wrote...

King Zeel wrote...

So new characters are pointless, time consuming, unnecessary and a waste of resources.

Tell that to the Thane fangirls.

I'm pretty sure we're one of the quieter aspects of these forums, don't drag us into the fight. <_<

I don't care one way or another. I'll wait until I actually play with the Vega character before I decide whether I like him or not. For all we know, he's there solely so we can sacrifice someone without feeling too bad. Or he could be amusing, or poignant, etc. Vega's purpose is to 'represent' the new player, so it's not just 'stick another human d00d there' aspect.

You know what I agree. I bear your fanbase no ill will, Keep it up.



EDIT: I TAKE THIS BACK!! Further thought has brought me to an interesting conclusion.

Modifié par King Zeel, 27 juin 2011 - 12:04 .

[Time4Tiddy]

EJ107 wrote...

We don't know enough yet to say anything for certain.

^^^This.  They know that people were disappointed by the handling of Kaidan and Ashley with a 2 minute conversation and an email.  No doubt they will learn their lesson and even if a character doesn't return, we'll get some kind of significant wrap-up with them, a la Liara in LOSB.

I also agree that a rotating cast is much more likely so that they give time for everyone, or having past squadmates in a Kelly/Joker/EDI type role where we interact with them frequently. 

Personally, I like getting new characters.  It's hard to bring back old characters and find new subplots/sidequests for them, without feeling like a retcon.  Oh, suddenly there is a super important situation that you demand I help you with, but somehow it's slipped your mind for the past three years?  Let's get on that!

[alperez]

EJ107 wrote...



But we have no idea whether that comment only included "permanant" squadmates, not accounting for all of the temporary squadmembers, optional squadmembers and major NPC's (like my example of Joker and EDI: they are strong characters but not Squadmates). We may not actually get any "permanants" at all.

It's too early to say that they're dropping older characters in favour of new ones. I think they'll be a rotation, and an increase in NPC's on the normandy that you can have long conversations with and good interaction, but are not Squadmembers.

Using this model the charcter growth I was speaking of could still happen. We don't know enough yet to say anything for certain.

We know so little thats right, but what we do know shows little things that can point us in certain directions.

For example we know that no matter what we have a smaller squad this time round, which means however you look at it there will be less space for characters.

We know that they're doing different things with squadmembers this time round, inc temp roles etc. But we also know that some will be permanent (they originally said Vs.Vega,Liara) and if you don't think Vega who is supposed to represent a new players perspective (or Liara and the Vs) who are guranteed to be alive in every playthrough therby allowing them to play major plot roles will be permanent then i couldn't disagree with you more.

Do you really think what we'll get is lots of NPC's on the normandy, that all of these characters will just be sitting around waiting for long conversations to finish off their character development (seriously that makes even less sense than reducing their roles in the first place). Having former squadmates on board, people who you fought with and not allowing them to be used as squadmembers just doesn't ring true, can you imagine how it'd look?

Oh look there's Grunt, whats that you want a long conversation, but dammit Grunt we have to go down and stop the reapers, What's that you can't come with me, your off to do some calibrations, Hey wait a sec isn't that Garrus's job.

Much more likely we'll meet up with a former squadmember, do a mission or 2 with them and then they'll hit us with a reason why they can't come with (yes they may return at the end) but either way its reducing their roles.

Interactivity is what drives character development, the more of it you have the more the character grows, once you reduce that your reducing the development of that character. By making any or all squadmembers temp your reducing the level you can interact with that character and that means you have to either rush the development forward or just take it to a lesser point.

So while we don't know much about how they intend to treat characters and their roles, we can infer that what we may get is less than what we would like to get, i could of course be completely wrong on this, but thats how it looks to me.

[alperez]

Time4Tiddy wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

We don't know enough yet to say anything for certain.

^^^This.  They know that people were disappointed by the handling of Kaidan and Ashley with a 2 minute conversation and an email.  No doubt they will learn their lesson and even if a character doesn't return, we'll get some kind of significant wrap-up with them, a la Liara in LOSB.

I also agree that a rotating cast is much more likely so that they give time for everyone, or having past squadmates in a Kelly/Joker/EDI type role where we interact with them frequently. 

Personally, I like getting new characters.  It's hard to bring back old characters and find new subplots/sidequests for them, without feeling like a retcon.  Oh, suddenly there is a super important situation that you demand I help you with, but somehow it's slipped your mind for the past three years?  Let's get on that!

Like i've said though Ash/Kaiden were excused because of the whole saving them for me3 line, so bioware always had that in the bank regarding those characters, they don't with the me2 crew, its me3 or nothing.

Rotating the cast does mean they give time for everybody but it also means everybody gets less time.

Turning former squadmembers into NPCs is limiting their importance, Kelly/Joker/Edi have much less lines and screentime than any of the squadmembers so as a result play a lesser role overall than any of them. Not to mention the simple fact that you can never use any of those 3 on your squad so you accept that, if you suddenly turn a former squadmember into an npc then logically it looks stupid. Garrus was so keen to fight for 2 games but come the end he prefers to stay on the normandy, what happend did he lose his nerve?

As for new subplots/sidequests well most of them kinda already have that, We're trying to unite the galaxy, Makes a lot of sense that this is where character subplots might come into play, Quarians/Tali, Krogan/Grunt-Wrex, Geth-Legion, Cerberus/Miranda-Jacob etc.

Not to mention the fact that the universe is under attack from the reapers, surely each of the former squadmembers could have a subplot sidequest in that regard.

Its not a simple oh its 3 years late and its something they forgot to tell us about situation, the world has changed, things have occurred that hadn't up to that point so why wouldn't there situations change also?

[Scy Lancer]

Bioware's strength has always come from good story and good characters. Any character added to 3 will be done extremely well. I'm sure they have taken into consideration the overwhelming fan base for characters they already have and will blend new characters in seamlessly. Be that squad members, Normandy staff, of other side characters.
Being that it's the 3rd act of the game I don't see to many new squad members coming up. There are few character types that the game hasn't thrown in yet. Most of the major character types are already established. Garus/Vigilante, Mordin/Genus, Grunt/Bread warrior, ect. It'll be interesting to see how they do more characters for 3.

[Ianamus]

alperez wrote...

Kelly/Joker/Edi have much less lines and screentime than any of the squadmembers

I don't think this is true at all. Quite the opposite. Joker and EDI speak to you a lot more than the Squadmates during missions, and can you honestly say that Joker and EDI have less dialogue than the eternal calibrater and engine cleaner?

Roles on the normandy don't have to have a negetive impact the characters at all. For example: say they wanted to add a new engineering squadmember because Tali can die and they want all roles covered. (assume Tali is not permanant in this scenario).
Tali could play a key role fighting along side you in the Quarian-related missions, but when on the Normandy she could be acting as chief engineer, upgrading the ship, talking to Shepard about the Normandy's performance and battle-readiness, or even conversing with the new engineer about the Normandy.

There would actually be more interaction and dialogue for Tali than in ME1/2, and the Normandy would be livelier as well. It may not work so well with certain characters, but it shows that this new system can work.

Modifié par EJ107, 27 juin 2011 - 12:17 .

[SennenScale]

The preemptive disparagement of new characters comes from the fear that they'll be reduced to an angry confrontation and an email. As it has been said, while Ash and Kaidan were being saved for ME3, you can't say the same for other characters should their role in ME3 feel inadequate. Also possible that many fans are still reeling from DA2 disappointment.

[Sjaddix]

Its simple i spent all of ME2 recruiting the "best of the best" and yet i can only have ME1 characters on my roster and noobs but none of the guys I spent a whole game getting. Not to mention more people played 2 then 1 anyway so u would think they would bring back more of the 2's.

[Time4Tiddy]

EJ107 wrote...

alperez wrote...

Kelly/Joker/Edi have much less lines and screentime than any of the squadmembers

Roles on the normandy don't have to have a negetive impact the characters at all. For example: say they wanted to add a new engineering squadmember because Tali can die and they want all roles covered. (assume Tali is not permanant in this scenario).
Tali could play a key role fighting along side you in the Quarian-related missions, but when on the Normandy she could be acting as chief engineer, upgrading the ship, talking to Shepard about the Normandy's performance and battle-readiness, or even conversing with the new engineer about the Normandy.

There would actually be more interaction and dialogue for Tali than in ME1/2, and the Normandy would be livelier as well. It may not work so well with certain characters, but it shows that this new system can work.

This is exactly what I was thinking.  Certain characters (Tali, Miranda, Mordin, for example) lend themselves to having significant roles on the ship (chief engineer, XO, science officer), and could be temporary squadmates.  Joker had a crapton of dialogue and even his own section where you directly control him (none of your "real" squadmates got that treatment).  

It's most likely that your core squad will be just a few from the first game, a few from the second, and a few new.  Remember Ashley/Kaidan is ONE slot, Wrex is highly unlikely to be a perma-squadmate since he's either dead or clan chief, and Liara is highly unlikely to be a perma-squadmate due to LOSB.  So if you add Garrus (pretty much guaranteed squadmate) and possibly Tali, you have at most three people from ME1.  If Tali moves into a support/temp role it's only two.

When you consider that Garrus and Tali subtract two from the possible ME2 carryovers, it's not unthinkable to have three or four of the other ME2 squadmates, still have room for two or three new ones and still have a significant reduction in total size of squad.

[alperez]

EJ107

When you add all the dialogue that Joker and Edi have and compare it to most of the squadmembers there is a lot less (It may not be true of Garrus, but it certainly is of a romanced Tali).

As for roles on the normandy, well there are 2 problems with the scenario you present. 1. Why is someone who fought through 2 games suddenly content to be an engineer only? 2. The fact that they are there but unselectable for combat makes them seem either placeholders or cowardly.

I'm not arguing in getting a new squadmember to replace someone who is dead, more they are replacing someone who is potentially alive. We're stepping into a Wrex/Wreav situation where a character death means minimal dialogue change and unknown consequences.

Besides if they can incorporate a situation where a character is on board the normandy at all times, then incorporating that character into squadmember status isn't a huge stretch forward.

Think about it, you imagine a scenario where a former squadmember returns for a temp mission with dialogue etc only then to revert to npc status on the normandy with lots of dialogue to allow that character development to continue. Then why not just make that person a full squadmember also, wheres the issue?

Its much more likely imo that the reasoning behind temp roles is less dialogue not more, that even if they became NPC's on the normandy they would have less dialogue thereby making it even more frustrating. Being able to see them and interact with them only for the dialogue to become more frustrating even than Garrus's calibrationg.

Its much more likely we'll see them, do a mission and for some reason be given a reason why they can't come with us just yet (see tali on freedom's progress) then later either meet them again (tali on Haestrom) allowing them to join up for the final mission.

[Eshaye]

To OP

Because it's a TRILOGY. You don't introduce a brand new cast mid show or in the last leg of it. That's some bad story telling in any medium. You will have new characters, but only a few and hopefully that CONTRIBUTE to the story and plot.

A lot of the criticism of the characterization of ME2 was that characters were added or made into LI's purely for fan service and while there's some exaggeration to these complaints there's a measure of truth as well.

ME3 should be about tying up loose ends and ending story arcs, adding a whole bunch of characters with their own backgrounds and stories will not help achieve this. It's too much baggage. When you read a series of books how many new important characters do you see revealed in the last book? Not many if any.

[ThatDancingTurian]

EJ107 wrote...

I don't get it either. I've tried to remind people many times that the likes of Kaidan, Ashley, Alistair, Morrigan and all of those other NPC's were only there for one game, but were still some of the most engaging and memorable charcters from recent Games.

Every one of those four was a 'lead' romance, meaning they had three times as much dialogue as some of the 'secondary' squadmates. With 9 different LIs and 16 different previous squadmates in all, whose final appearance going to be cut short so that Vega can have that content? Whose favorite character is going to have to get shafted with a cameo or a million 'calibrations' for that to happen?

I don't like new characters because I fear another Jacob, thrust in the spotlight in spite of having nothing to say, at the expense of far more interesting characters. Except this time, it's the final game, the last chance to get to know these characters better.

Modifié par Aris Ravenstar, 27 juin 2011 - 12:43 .

[ArcanaLegacy]

IndigoWolfe wrote...
"I don't want James Vega on the squad because he's a boring human"

..........

How can people say that when we practically know NOTHING about the guy!?
Wow.....

[DoNotIngest]

Knight of Dane wrote...

I want King Zeel as a fully romanceable character in the coming open RPG game World of Mass Effect.

...YES! THIS!



We can help him work on his inflammatory comments! We can introduce him to memes and annoying sayings to spice up his threads! Romance scene on the pizza box under the computer desk!!


Please, Bioware, just no "Can it wait a while? I'm in the middle of trolling." We need as much time with Zeel as we can get.

[ThatDancingTurian]

ArcanaLegacy wrote...

IndigoWolfe wrote...
"I don't want James Vega on the squad because he's a boring human"

..........

How can people say that when we practically know NOTHING about the guy!?
Wow.....

Well, look at the precedent. Human male squaddies don't have a great track record of being awesome, IMO. Especially Alliance ones. Then you add in that he's for newbies, so he's probably going to be asking stupid questions purely for the sake of getting last-minute players into the story.

I'm not saying I'm not open to having my mind changed once I get into the game, but my initial thoughts on him aren't favorable.

[alperez]

[quote]Time4Tiddy wrote...

[quote]EJ107 wrote...



This is exactly what I was thinking.  Certain characters (Tali, Miranda, Mordin, for example) lend themselves to having significant roles on the ship (chief engineer, XO, science officer), and could be temporary squadmates.  Joker had a crapton of dialogue and even his own section where you directly control him (none of your "real" squadmates got that treatment).  

It's most likely that your core squad will be just a few from the first game, a few from the second, and a few new.  Remember Ashley/Kaidan is ONE slot, Wrex is highly unlikely to be a perma-squadmate since he's either dead or clan chief, and Liara is highly unlikely to be a perma-squadmate due to LOSB.  So if you add Garrus (pretty much guaranteed squadmate) and possibly Tali, you have at most three people from ME1.  If Tali moves into a support/temp role it's only two.

When you consider that Garrus and Tali subtract two from the possible ME2 carryovers, it's not unthinkable to have three or four of the other ME2 squadmates, still have room for two or three new ones and still have a significant reduction in total size of squad.
[/quote]

While its possible to have certain characters play a role on the Normandy, like i said 2 things go against it

1. If there on board and not fighting it looks stupid, they fought in one game but not the other because suddenly being an engineer or science officer is more important than stopping the reapers? These roles are filled by npcs to allow the other characters do what they supposedly are best at, fighting but now suddenly the best contribution they can make is fixing the ship or working in the science lab? really.

2. If you going to give them significant dialogue and put them in a place where they can be freely accessed so you can use that dialogue then why would you not make them full squadmembers? It just doesn't make sense imo. Your willing to expand all this time and resources to spend on creating a full character arc with lots of dialogue but your also unwilling to make them accessible as squadmembers. Why? to save on combat animations? which actually are less expensive than the cost your paying these highly paid VA's.

In terms of squadmakeup, it was orignally announced that Liara,VS and Vega would be squadmembers and that Garrus and Tali would be playable if they were alive (since then they've backtracked and clouded Tali's involvement and the whole nature of what a squadmate's role is) they've also said this time we'd get less. My issue is not that every single member from me2 isn't returning in a full squadmember role rather than by the looks of things we may not be getting any of them in this type of role.

There will no doubt in my mind be more new characters announced, my question would still be the same what is being done with the me2 crew?

If we get 3 or 4 of these back as full squadmembers also, then i have no problem with that, some of the me2 crew can play a reduced role and still be important and it would make storyline sense, if however we get them all back as temp and 3 or 4 new characters instead then thats where i really take issue.

For the simple reason that what would be happening is those characters are replacing characters that don't need to be replaced. Some yes, all i'm sorry but i can't get on board with that. With what little info we have now that's what seems to be how things are going and its not something i want to see happen.

I could of course be way off base or completely wrong, but we go with what we know and at the moment that's what we know.

[Ianamus]

@alperez:

well, I've made my thoughts on this clear. Bioware has confirmed that there will be new characters in ME3, so we can only hope that they will be introduced in a way that will keep everyone happy, and will not detract from previous characters.

Modifié par EJ107, 27 juin 2011 - 01:09 .

[Time4Tiddy]

Well, in a slightly different direction, let's consider the shift from ME to ME3 in the general usage of DLC. EA wants to make a ton of money, DLC is pretty much the way of gaming nowadays. So bring back the crew of ME1, add four new squadmates, and then force us to buy DLC like LOSB in order to reunite with the ME2 crew. If they add one DLC for every significant ME2 character, that's close to $100 on top of price of game. Don't be surprised if this is what they do. Everyone raves about LOSB.