Note: BSN's broken forum code keeps eating the formatting. If it appears retarded to you, please disregard the silliness. I've tried to fix it several times now.
Okay. I see a long, thought out, and organize block of text going over topics that have been beaten to death, cremated, stuffed in a flammable jar, and then lit on fire again. I'll do my best to provide you with an alternate point of view, as long as you can take a bit of debate. I know this entire thread is full of out-of-date topics, but I feel compelled to express counter-arguments.
This post assumes you (the player) have completed ME2 in its entirety. The idea of 'spoilers' for that game has long since passed. You have been warned.
Issue: Squadmates in ME2To start, I'm going to go ahead and point out that any character that can potentially be a romance option is indeed required. They cannot be filler, because they exist for a purpose, even if just one: to provide options to the player. With the VS unreachable and Liara absent until the PLANNED DLC (meaning that this was planned to be added onto the game post-release, it was not late), not one character from the previous roster of romance options was available. This adds variety to the cast in a very important way, because aside from the two returning squadmates (who also are justifiable romance options), there's nothing there to work with. That makes for a boring story.
Like you said, every character has the potential to die, but as BioWare has stated many, many times, this does not mean that things cannot get accomplished. Counter to this, the characters all still have a part to play in the plot, otherwise keeping them alive would be a horrible option. You make the mistake of thinking that Mass Effect is a game series where you can do everything in one playthrough. By design, you cannot. Additionally, the fact that every party member has the potential to be missing in ME3
does not diminish their roles. It means that if you did something in ME2 to cause them to die, then that fact will persist into ME3. This is called consistency, and I heavily applaud BioWare for taking on such a huge concept.
That said, let's revamp your list of essential characters. Keep in mind the fact that when Shepard decided to tear away from T.I.M., that also means that the once Cerberus operatives did as well, so the fact that they were part of the the organization is rendered completely moot by the end of the game. Additionally, DLC characters can still be used in the SM, such as Zaeed leading fireteams. This makes thee DLC characters situationally important, but important nonetheless. Let's look at the list AFTER all is said and done and assume you want everyone to live by this point:
(Note that I did not experiment with all the possible roles in the SM, so won't really get into that)
Miranda (Romance option, XO)
Jacob (Romance option)
Mordin (The all important inventor, can cure the genophage)
Samara (Biotic shield in SM)
EDI (The Normandy. Nuff said.)
Tali (Romance option, returning cast, Quarian contact, Tech in SM)
Legion (Geth contact, Tech in SM)
Jack (Romance option)
Morinth (Alternate to Samara, Biotic shield in SM)
Garrus (Romance option, returning cast)
Thane (Romance option, possible Drell/Hanar contact)
Grunt (Possible genophage stuff, krogan contact in Wrex's absence)
Joker (we named EDI, so I figured this went here too, also pilot with a license to screw up – IMPORTANT)
Did you see what I just did there? I just named the whole cast. The only one I can see here that might even be considered expendable is Grunt, but I don't know how his role is going to be played in ME3 regarding krogans and the genophage, so that's a shaky argument at best. Grunt CANNOT fill Mordin's role in any way, shape, or form. I'm surprised you even brought that up. I agree that Morinth seems thrown in at the last second, but we'll leave it at that.
You also do math about missions and playtime like you know how game development works. Unless you actively work in the game design industry, all these claims are null. I do believe that there were some issues when developing the game for the consoles, and as such, the game forced a moderately linear path in regards to recruitment. That's half the reason why Legion could only be recruited near the end of the game (if you wanted the best result).
Your statement of 'Less means more' works in some situations, and it would apply here if BioWare wasn't the innovator of big party RPGs. They aren't amateurs in this medium, so let's not throw them under a bus.
Issue: Plot holes in main story arcSocially Awkward Shepard - This issue is completely inconsequential to the big picture. Not once during the many playthroughs of the game did I ever wonder “Why doesn't this busy galaxy hero ever phone home?” This sort of empty corner is the kind that fanfiction writers fill with their creative minds, because it pertains to a different level of connection that the Shepard character does not and doesn't need to make with the players. This also has nothing to do with the main story arc, nor is it a plot hole. I'm going to borrow a phrase from The Princess Bride for a moment: “You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Death of Shepard – Shepard's death served three main purposes: A pass in time (two years) where Shepard has no legitimate knowledge of what happened; A need to keep things fresh, a new version of the Normandy, crew and squadmates, for example; and a reason for Shepard to cooperate with Cerberus.
Claiming that restoring established net memory (proteins in the brain) and neural connections nearly two hundred years into the future in a science fiction IP is based entirely on opinion. Sorry, this is also moot.
”My name is Morinth and I will act as if I were my own mother.” - I've already covered my opinion of Morinth, so we'll skip that. Also, this does not have anything to do with the main story arc, nor is it a plot hole.
The one who talked down Saren and Wrex fails when talking to the VS. - 'Failing' to talk down the VS gives substantial credibility to the character, both the survivor AND Shepard. The survivor knew Shepard better than Saren and Wrex (at the time of the event) did, so they have reason to be the way they were. I'm fairly certain that players on a whole would be upset if Shepard just winked and got them back to his side despite whatever loyalties they had before. Why do you think the 'Charm' stat got nuked? It (and the general assumption/want for absolute roleplay freedom) is not conducive to good storytelling or game development.
Regarding your question about Anderson potentially organizing a meeting, that's more out of character than your previous claims, especially since he was unwilling to let Shepard know much of anything due to his work with Cerberus.
Just because you don't see the results of your decisions the moment they are made does not mean that they have no impact. That's impatience for lack of instant gratification speaking.
Issue: Missing FeaturesFirst off, how can you possibly know which of these listed features were implemented last-minute? You have no sources. Regardless, I'll address each issue.
Planetary Exploration is not a half-hearted implementation. If anything, scanning for resources was. BioWare took the idea of planetary exploration from ME1, took feedback (“Landing on cookie cutter planets is boring!”), and enhanced it. This is a classic example of evolution of a game feature. Whether or not it was good enough is subjective.
The outfits is another example of this. “Cookie cutter armor is boring!” So they took each significant character and gave them a very unique and identifiable look. The fans still wanted more and nitpicked this to death as well. Remember when mage females could wander around a frozen tundra in naught but a bra, panties and a cloak? Nobody cared about immersion breaking then. I hope they do fix this for ME3, but it's hardly a 'missing feature'.
Simplification of weapon selection was likely an attempt to fix the irritating inventory system in ME1. I don't think it was implemented half-heartedly, just executed a bit wrong, but this is also merely opinion. Once BioWare realized the main issue was the inventory and not the weapon customization (through feedback) they decided to bring it back in ME3. Good call, BioWare.
The ability to reply to e-mails goes back to the “absolute roleplay freedom” issue. Such a thing is a huge developmental effort with very little return in the form of overall enjoyment. I personally wouldn't implement this either, were I a developer. Perhaps a solution could have been a conversation wheel with possible responses, but obviously it's a little late to be pointing this out now.
ConclusionIn the end, I think you are taking neutrality too far. You forget that each character is important because players invest emotions into them, relate to them, and enjoy their existence in general. You also seem to think that the highest form of sandboxing – absolute freedom – is how the Mass Effect series should be designed. None of the characters, in my experience, are pointless. They all serve to flesh out the galaxy and the big picture. If we left Grunt out, what reason would we have to visit Tuchanka? If Jack didn't exist, how else would we find out about the biotic experiments Cerberus started?
Plot holes will always exist in every story ever written. It is impossible to locate, rearrange, and suppress every potential angle. It's up to the consumers to let the small things slide. Unfortunately, the Internet makes for the perfect place to pick it all to bits. ME2 didn't get a record number of awards from critics because of game braking plot holes or a padded cast.
I understand your point of view, I just think it's too narrow and biased. I have a tendency to over-analyze things as well, but doing so ruins things for me. Again, letting the small things slide (and honestly, that's what all these issues are) makes a big difference, and doesn't drag everyone into spiraling debates about this or that.
- Severyx
Modifié par Severyx, 30 novembre 2011 - 10:30 .
Retour en haut
