596 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

I'm not against having 6 squadmembers, mass effect was great with that number (and it's less frustrating than having twelve and never playing most of them), but the problems are that neither there is one squadmate of each class, and why with so little space do we have another NEW character of an already existing class instead of develloping an existing one?

Oh, but the old ones are developing. They just happen to do it in other places where Shepard simply isn't present.

Not to mention that some of them are too busy to be at Shepard's side all the time. They have their own problems, you know.

Like Thane, for example. His time is almost up.

[wright1978]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, but the old ones are developing. They just happen to do it in other places where Shepard simply isn't present.

Not to mention that some of them are too busy to be at Shepard's side all the time. They have their own problems, you know.

Like Thane, for example. His time is almost up.

Developing, that had me rolling in the aisles. I call a spade a spade and sidelining as sidelining, not development.

[Junthor]

I am hoping that the smaller squad will mean deeper squad interaction and banter. I'm pretty excited about getting closer to ME1 squad numbers.

[rolson00]

Junthor wrote...

I am hoping that the smaller squad will mean deeper squad interaction and banter. I'm pretty excited about getting closer to ME1 squad numbers.

same                                                                                           









                                                                                                              

Modifié par rolson00, 19 janvier 2012 - 01:15 .

[SNascimento]

I don't think a squadmate need to be in the permanent roster to have a proper and satisfactory role in ME3, so the only I can do is wait and see how Bioware will handle all other squadmates.
.
I've already said how big of a challenge Bioware set on themselves with the Suicide Mission, a much bigger one than the were expecting from the looks of it. And handling this is one of the key points to make the Mass Effect series have a proper ending. Let's hope they live up to it.

[Exia001]

But they would develop outside of the squad, just because you dont see someone it doesnt mean they cease to be. Eitherway people would complain that someone somewhere is being sidelined

[FDrage]

Mesina2 wrote...

Less is more.

LPPrince wrote...

More is less.

It has the potential to be just that ... unless less is less due to other constrains. Less squad members has the potential to make them more in-depth unless the reason for less squad members has nothing to do with depth (of the game).

[rolson00]

FDrage wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Less is more.

LPPrince wrote...

More is less.

It has the potential to be just that ... unless less is less due to other constrains. Less squad members has the potential to make them more in-depth unless the reason for less squad members has nothing to do with depth (of the game).

i seem to remember casey saying they had less so they could go in depth

[Sinnerj117]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Budget. Time constraints. Content cuts.

Limited amounts of dialogues. Character builds. New exclusive powers. Balancing.

Both of these. Plus a flustered squad selection screen.

[Someone With Mass]

wright1978 wrote...

Developing, that had me rolling in the aisles. I call a spade a spade and sidelining as sidelining, not development.

Call it what you want, they're all in ME3 and the majority of them have some pretty good reasons to not lick Shepard's boots. Take Mordin, for example. He's a little too busy developing a cure for the genophage virus. 

Some recent developments have forced other characters to keep a low profile as well.

[Praetor Knight]

Well, I just hope it's a rumor, for the number to be that small.

Eight seems like a solid number to have, IMHO.
So, Zaeed, Grunt and Jacob would be on my shortlist to hit eight permanent.

[Ieldra]

I have an issue with some members of the team. Namely Garrus and Tali should not be favored over the other ME2 team members, one of the spoiler characters is totally superfluous and Miranda should've been too important to be left out.

But I agree with a size of 6 to 8.

@Praetor:
It's for you like it is for me then. None of our favorites are on the team.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 janvier 2012 - 01:40 .

[wright1978]

Someone With Mass wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Developing, that had me rolling in the aisles. I call a spade a spade and sidelining as sidelining, not development.

Call it what you want, they're all in ME3 and the majority of them have some pretty good reasons to not lick Shepard's boots. Take Mordin, for example. He's a little too busy developing a cure for the genophage virus. 

Some recent developments have forced other characters to keep a low profile as well.

Yeah they are in ME3. You could say the VS was in ME2 too i suppose. Nope a lot of the reasons aren't very good. They are just a poor excuse to sideline them. In a world of finite development time what they've done is give a small group of characters deep content and in order to do so they've had to only give others a token amount. I don't agree with what they've done but it riles me even more when people try and claim it was done for the sidelined characters benefit.

[xentar]

jreezy wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Less is more.

LPPrince wrote...

More is less.

Both of these

Enough is enough.

[Jozape]

scyphozoa wrote...

No, its not. Having too many companions with too little content is a problem in ME2. There are too many companions who literally only say two or three things throughout the entire game.

I would much rather have fewer companions with deeper, more sophisticiated conversations, cinematics and story arcs. 

IMO, ME2 has proven depth is more important than breadth. 

"Can it wait for a bit? I'm in the middle of some calibrations."

I felt like half of the squad characters in ME2 were little more than generic NPCs following me around. Two or three two paragraph conversations does not make a character. In theory it is nice to have such a selection though, for combat tactics and the player character's development.

[superg30]

 Well I kinda dont like the idea of the lowered number of squadies in ME3 from ME2, but I found in ME2 that I only ever used 2-3 out of the wat? 12 squad members(including dlc)? And I also found myself running all over the ship to talk to every1 and experience every squad members full "story" they tell, in my opinion ME1 had to few(6 at start, 5 at finish) squad members with not enough "story" from them and left wanting to know more about them, whereas ME2 had way too many (10 without dlc, 12 with) squad members with too little story except for the dlc ones who had no conv. options at all other than just saying stuff and u couldnt say anything back(excluding their loyalty missions), If the 7(I've pre-ordered N7 edition) ME3 squadies have more story than the ME1 characters did and didnt take as long to hear all of the little "story" as in ME2 (after 2-3 times u tlak to them they started saying things like " I'm in the middle of some calibrations." and so on) was a pain in the ass with such little background depth, but the fewer number of squad members makes sense in ME3. Seeing as in ME3 Shepard doesnt rly have time to go around recruiting a sh** ton of people, seeing as the galaxy in being taken over and wat not, So anyways enough rambling from me so I'm gonna end with this, as long as the squad members "stories" are more indepth and fuller I'm happy with only 7 squadies (unless some dies on a mission again........O_O)

Modifié par superg30, 19 janvier 2012 - 02:12 .

[Someone With Mass]

wright1978 wrote...

Yeah they are in ME3. You could say the VS was in ME2 too i suppose. Nope a lot of the reasons aren't very good. They are just a poor excuse to sideline them. In a world of finite development time what they've done is give a small group of characters deep content and in order to do so they've had to only give others a token amount. I don't agree with what they've done but it riles me even more when people try and claim it was done for the sidelined characters benefit.

The alternative could have been to no include them at all, so in one way, it was for their benefit.

Because like it or not, not all of them can have the same level of importance to the plot without altering them or the plot in ways that feels forced.

I personally like it when the characters are written around the story and not the other way around.

[Mayhem br]

scyphozoa wrote...

No, its not. Having too many companions with too little content is a problem in ME2. There are too many companions who literally only say two or three things throughout the entire game.

I would much rather have fewer companions with deeper, more sophisticiated conversations, cinematics and story arcs. 

IMO, ME2 has proven depth is more important than breadth. 

"Can it wait for a bit? I'm in the middle of some calibrations."

[wright1978]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The alternative could have been to no include them at all, so in one way, it was for their benefit.

Because like it or not, not all of them can have the same level of importance to the plot without altering them or the plot in ways that feels forced.

I personally like it when the characters are written around the story and not the other way around.

Nope i would have preferred if they had followed through on their BS statements(squadmate system works differently/ no one's permanent). They could have created temp squaddies that actually felt like squaddies anchored to a decent portion of the game rather than compartmentalised glamorised cameos. Instead they've focused huge amounts of resource on 5 characters and then run scared regarding two other characters and artificially elevated them to full status.

[jcolt]

Mesina2 wrote...

Less is more.

this

[crimzontearz]

quality over quantity.