220 réponses à ce sujet

[aznsoisauce]

I'm still trying to stop flipping tables for not having Grunt in ME3.

Story-wise, what was the point of Mass Effect 2? Just for the sake of having a trilogy?

[saracen16]

aznsoisauce wrote...

I'm still trying to stop flipping tables for not having Grunt in ME3.

Story-wise, what was the point of Mass Effect 2? Just for the sake of having a trilogy?

No. The point of ME2 was to explore the universe and give it a justification of sorts that it is worth saving. That was essentially the story: you discover the many races and places that make the ME universe worthwhile. This purpose was fulfilled by having a multi-racial crew who joined you for the sake of stopping the Collector threat. The reason Grunt isn't in ME3 is because - unlike Garrus - he only cares about killing, and not stopping the Reapers.

On another note, not in response to your post, the "Garrus-fans and Tali-mancers" argument is getting old. The reason they get a so-called "free pass" is because out of all the squadmates, they know Shepard the most and have been with him since the beginning. It's only fitting that they see their fight against the Reaper threat to the end. As for the rest of the ME2 squad, they'll all be in ME3, and their roles will be important for specific missions.

[Tumedus]

The interesting thing about all of this to me is that there is an obvious solution to the issue. BW could have just set it up so you can select at least 2 of your squadmates from the previous pool.

They already have to account for many possible deaths in the non combat plot so they could just have in-squad toggles for how the story plays out if they are with you rather than off doing their cameo stuff.

There are obvious headaches to this approach, like all of the combat dialog you would need to record and making sure that every body type has proper gear models (although most are similar enough anyway), but that seems like a far better alternative to alienating past fans.

That way everyone would get to play the finale with their faves and it would add tremendous replay value as you can have a multitude of different squads to mess with. But it seems more and more, BW is opting for the lazy way out.

Modifié par Tumedus, 16 février 2012 - 09:20 .

[aznsoisauce]

saracen16 wrote...

aznsoisauce wrote...

I'm still trying to stop flipping tables for not having Grunt in ME3.

Story-wise, what was the point of Mass Effect 2? Just for the sake of having a trilogy?

No. The point of ME2 was to explore the universe and give it a justification of sorts that it is worth saving. That was essentially the story: you discover the many races and places that make the ME universe worthwhile. This purpose was fulfilled by having a multi-racial crew who joined you for the sake of stopping the Collector threat.

Honestly, that was achieved with Mass Effect 1.

But ME1 is not available to Playstation 3 players. 

aLucidMind wrote...

aznsoisauce wrote...

I'm still trying to stop flipping tables for not having Grunt in ME3.

Story-wise, what was the point of Mass Effect 2? Just for the sake of having a trilogy?

Also to give us another little bit of information towards the fate of the Protheans, found out one of the reasons why the harvest is important to the Reapers, that the Reapers want Shepard's body intact for some reason, what the Reapers really are and that they're not the ship itself (they're the core, the ship is the shell), and to introduce the primary guardians of humanity (Cerberus).

I'll admit this is information learned or at least expanded upon in Mass Effect 2, but it did not make up the game itself. The majority of ME2 was recruitment and earning loyalty practically to the point where the Collectors being Protheans felt like a footnote. It just didn't seem like these bits of information warranted its own game.

[gearseffect]

I honesty don't give 2 sh!ts what people think of my rants.

As you can tell from my rants I don't hold back and say it like I see it. So if I had a problem with any member(s) they'd know it because I'd either send them a Pm about it or I would call them out when it happened.

It's too bad BW took the easy way out given how much they brag about the massive fan base ME has and The fact it is unrivaled by any video game fan base. It's like their achievement that they boast about when it's convenient, but then tend to forget about when going about things with the universe they started but the fans had a big part in seeing it come to fruition.

BW could have done many things different but didn't it all falls on their shoulders at the end of the day,

I totally agree with Tumedus statement about letting the players choose some of their squad. That's why I say making Liara a non-Squadie and just the mind managing the store front while everyone is away should have been done to weed out the huge squad issues and give BW her plot armor they want her to have.
I think BW should have let us choose at least half the squad mates from a roster of non Plot Story-centric characters.

Modifié par gearseffect, 16 février 2012 - 10:16 .

[Enmystic]

Tumedus wrote...

The interesting thing about all of this to me is that there is an obvious solution to the issue. BW could have just set it up so you can select at least 2 of your squadmates from the previous pool.

They already have to account for many possible deaths in the non combat plot so they could just have in-squad toggles for how the story plays out if they are with you rather than off doing their cameo stuff.

There are obvious headaches to this approach, like all of the combat dialog you would need to record and making sure that every body type has proper gear models (although most are similar enough anyway), but that seems like a far better alternative to alienating past fans.

That way everyone would get to play the finale with their faves and it would add tremendous replay value as you can have a multitude of different squads to mess with. But it seems more and more, BW is opting for the lazy way out.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I thought it would be a great way for people to have the squad they wanted without it being hugely detrimental to BioWare telling their story.  Once that particular character's mission is completed, and if they're still alive, Shepard could "request their presence" on the Normandy, and there they are. 

[scpulley]

In the end, this debate really points to one thing. In that respect it's sort of like what happened with DA 2. The biggest downfall that game had was how the story dealt with previous events and characters. It also was marketed one way, and turned out completely different. From the very beginning, they said there would be choices that carried through all the games. We saw how much that mattered in ME 2 as really, you could almost not play ME 1 at all and except a few lines of script would never know the difference. People let it slide basically because we had a wealth of new things to enjoy, Specifically, new characters you actually got to know instead of the crap interaction we got in ME 1. ME 3 is basically being marketed as this great conclusion, but clearly that's only in the general sense. There may be 1000 variables they included, but in reality all variables weren't treated equal at all. Characters are being benched, I don't care if they got 1 crappy mission to 'wrap things up'. Basically Bioware is saying ME 2 was just setup, nothing really mattered in that you had to earn loyalty. It means nothing at all from what we can tell because they won't follow you into hell and finish what they took part in. They may do their part, but that is not the same thing. Instead we are strapped with new characters we don't know anything about.

Look at it this way, imagine if in Return of the Jedi, Han Solo was no where to be found because he was 'helping the war' somewhere else. How much would people have cared? Or imagine if instead of Han we get some new random person introduced to act as the 'new face' to introduce the story. It's straight up insulting because they spent too much time in ME 2 making it all about the squad to have them suddenly be knocked out of the spotlight for new characters we don't know and don't care about. The only reason it worked in ME 2 because it wasn't wrapping up the trilogy so it was easier to gloss over. This is the end of the fight, why are we being strapped with characters with ZERO history with Shepard instead of people that already are trusted companions?

Oh, one final question for those argueing the 'too many variables since you could kill your companions in ME 2'. What is going to happen if you have a game where Garrus and Tali died? Do we just have 2 slots down? It seems entirely unfair you get them or nothing in those slots. Not saying they aren't important, but its straight up bad logic that they should be forced on you or you get nothing.

Modifié par scpulley, 16 février 2012 - 11:16 .

[saracen16]

aznsoisauce wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

aznsoisauce wrote...

I'm still trying to stop flipping tables for not having Grunt in ME3.

Story-wise, what was the point of Mass Effect 2? Just for the sake of having a trilogy?

No. The point of ME2 was to explore the universe and give it a justification of sorts that it is worth saving. That was essentially the story: you discover the many races and places that make the ME universe worthwhile. This purpose was fulfilled by having a multi-racial crew who joined you for the sake of stopping the Collector threat.

Honestly, that was achieved with Mass Effect 1.

Not in its entirety. We discovered more about the genophage in ME2 and from it the relationship between the salarians and the krogan. We also got to interact with the migrant fleet, the quarian flotilla, a chance we only had in the form of dialogue with Tali in ME1. We also got to explore the darker side of the galaxy, namely Omega, and learn more about the society in the Citadel. We visited an asari colony world, Ilium, and got a glimpse of their culture. To say that all of this was achieved in ME1 is laughable.

[kainee]

scpulley wrote...

In the end, this debate really points to one thing. In that respect it's sort of like what happened with DA 2. The biggest downfall that game had was how the story dealt with previous events and characters. It also was marketed one way, and turned out completely different. From the very beginning, they said there would be choices that carried through all the games. We saw how much that mattered in ME 2 as really, you could almost not play ME 1 at all and except a few lines of script would never know the difference. People let it slide basically because we had a wealth of new things to enjoy, Specifically, new characters you actually got to know instead of the crap interaction we got in ME 1. ME 3 is basically being marketed as this great conclusion, but clearly that's only in the general sense. There may be 1000 variables they included, but in reality all variables weren't treated equal at all. Characters are being benched, I don't care if they got 1 crappy mission to 'wrap things up'. Basically Bioware is saying ME 2 was just setup, nothing really mattered in that you had to earn loyalty. It means nothing at all from what we can tell because they won't follow you into hell and finish what they took part in. They may do their part, but that is not the same thing. Instead we are strapped with new characters we don't know anything about.

Look at it this way, imagine if in Return of the Jedi, Han Solo was no where to be found because he was 'helping the war' somewhere else. How much would people have cared? Or imagine if instead of Han we get some new random person introduced to act as the 'new face' to introduce the story. It's straight up insulting because they spent too much time in ME 2 making it all about the squad to have them suddenly be knocked out of the spotlight for new characters we don't know and don't care about. The only reason it worked in ME 2 because it wasn't wrapping up the trilogy so it was easier to gloss over. This is the end of the fight, why are we being strapped with characters with ZERO history with Shepard instead of people that already are trusted companions?

Oh, one final question for those argueing the 'too many variables since you could kill your companions in ME 2'. What is going to happen if you have a game where Garrus and Tali died? Do we just have 2 slots down? It seems entirely unfair you get them or nothing in those slots. Not saying they aren't important, but its straight up bad logic that they should be forced on you or you get nothing.

I agree.

And the Han Solo example is exactly what I have in mind. If Bioware can't understand this, then they should make only standalone games.

Modifié par kainee, 17 février 2012 - 06:41 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Unschuld wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

I'm more assuming he's a long time BSNer who remembers the mountain of ****ing about how Ashley, Kaidan, and Liara wouldn't be in ME2 and all the ****ing about "My Shep wouldn't work with criminals derp derp!" from a couple years ago, when juxtaposed against the ****ing about how none of these criminals are in the ME3 squad. 

Lol, I guess it could be that too. I (thankfully) didn't frequent the forums until a few months ago, but from what I've seen since I can sure imagine it.

Oh believe me, it was a sight to behold. The Liara fans were particularly vitriolic as LotSB hadn't come out yet and all they had of their cute, awkward, friendly, and downright adorable blue space alien was a vicious information broker.

They had to take out the emotions they felt as a reaction on someone, so they did it to people who were fans of Tali and Garrus (but mostly Tali since the Tali fans made it easy).

Yes, the irony could indeed be used as a building's foundation.

[gearseffect]

The only character I had die in the SM was Tali and the reasons were as follows
1.Tali Sent to pipes and Mordin lead Fire team Tali dies
2.Tali LM she was exiled I never talked to her it was over. SM Tali sent to Pipes and Miranda led Fireteam Tali Died
3,Tali LM Gave evidence of her dad over, never talked with her after before SM, Tali Sent to Pipes Miranda leads FT Tali Dies
4.Tali's LM got her to be allowed back the the fleet, Sided with Legion instead of nobody SM Tali Sent to Miranda leads FT Tali Dies
5.Didn't do Tali's LM same thing as other SC Tali dies in pipes
6 Tali is loyal,.Sent Tali to the Pipes Zaeed leads FT Tali dies
7.Tali Loyal SM Tali pipes Garrus FT Tali dies
8.Tali Loyal SM Tali Pipes Jacob T. Fire team Tali Dies

Tali can die a lot just by being sent to the pipes and she is supposed to be an expert hacker but gets shot in the face a lot and dies a lot.

[kainee]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Han Solo was introduced in the first installment of a trilogy. This thread is about people introduced in Part 2 of one; Lando Calrissian fits the analogy better.

Now, refresh my memory; did Lando go to Endor with Luke, Han and Leia?

No but he's with them to rescue Han during the first part of the film and he's leading the assault on the Death Star with the Milenium Falcon.
He's not replaced by a random guy, he has a significant role, and he has a fair amount of screentime.

Modifié par kainee, 17 février 2012 - 07:26 .

[GuardianAngel470]

kainee wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Han Solo was introduced in the first installment of a trilogy. This thread is about people introduced in Part 2 of one; Lando Calrissian fits the analogy better.

Now, refresh my memory; did Lando go to Endor with Luke, Han and Leia?

No but he's with them to rescue Han during the first part of the film and he's leading the assault on the Death Star with the Milenium Falcon.
He's not replaced by a random guy, he has a significant role, and he has a fair amount of screentime.

The whole analogy sucks. Video games are an interactive medium, what a film series did or did not do is irrelevant because the story is entirely dictated to the viewer and cannot be changed (except by the creators).

Was it possible for the viewer to kill of Lando in Empire? Could we decide that Darth Vader's force choke killed him instead of Darth stopping? No, we couldn't.

People, what films, TV, and books do is not applicable to what games do, especially not ones like ME. As the industry is starting to figure out, not everything those other mediums have got figured out to a science is applicable. Video games are an evolution of those mediums and there are things about video games that change how you approach developing for them.

[scpulley]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

kainee wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Han Solo was introduced in the first installment of a trilogy. This thread is about people introduced in Part 2 of one; Lando Calrissian fits the analogy better.

Now, refresh my memory; did Lando go to Endor with Luke, Han and Leia?

No but he's with them to rescue Han during the first part of the film and he's leading the assault on the Death Star with the Milenium Falcon.
He's not replaced by a random guy, he has a significant role, and he has a fair amount of screentime.

The whole analogy sucks. Video games are an interactive medium, what a film series did or did not do is irrelevant because the story is entirely dictated to the viewer and cannot be changed (except by the creators).

Was it possible for the viewer to kill of Lando in Empire? Could we decide that Darth Vader's force choke killed him instead of Darth stopping? No, we couldn't.

People, what films, TV, and books do is not applicable to what games do, especially not ones like ME. As the industry is starting to figure out, not everything those other mediums have got figured out to a science is applicable. Video games are an evolution of those mediums and there are things about video games that change how you approach developing for them.

I've said it before, whether you can kill them apparently matters because of Garrus and Tali carry over. If it doesn't matter for them, why does it matter for the other characters? I understand movies are not as interactive as a video game will be, but story wise the same rules apply. Bioware of all people I would hope see this since they have historically been excellent story tellers first, gameplay mechanics sort of sitting well behind that. Waving away characters you put a lot of time developing previously is bad story telling, it doesn't matter if it's a movie or video game, the idea is the same. 

[GuardianAngel470]

scpulley wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

kainee wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Han Solo was introduced in the first installment of a trilogy. This thread is about people introduced in Part 2 of one; Lando Calrissian fits the analogy better.

Now, refresh my memory; did Lando go to Endor with Luke, Han and Leia?

No but he's with them to rescue Han during the first part of the film and he's leading the assault on the Death Star with the Milenium Falcon.
He's not replaced by a random guy, he has a significant role, and he has a fair amount of screentime.

The whole analogy sucks. Video games are an interactive medium, what a film series did or did not do is irrelevant because the story is entirely dictated to the viewer and cannot be changed (except by the creators).

Was it possible for the viewer to kill of Lando in Empire? Could we decide that Darth Vader's force choke killed him instead of Darth stopping? No, we couldn't.

People, what films, TV, and books do is not applicable to what games do, especially not ones like ME. As the industry is starting to figure out, not everything those other mediums have got figured out to a science is applicable. Video games are an evolution of those mediums and there are things about video games that change how you approach developing for them.

I've said it before, whether you can kill them apparently matters because of Garrus and Tali carry over. If it doesn't matter for them, why does it matter for the other characters? I understand movies are not as interactive as a video game will be, but story wise the same rules apply. Bioware of all people I would hope see this since they have historically been excellent story tellers first, gameplay mechanics sort of sitting well behind that. Waving away characters you put a lot of time developing previously is bad story telling, it doesn't matter if it's a movie or video game, the idea is the same. 

And I've already pointed out in this thread why the only logical choice Bioware could make was to bring back only Garrus and Tali. They knew that, because of design decisions they had made in ME2, they were going to ****** people off no matter what they did. They couldn't have 16 characters because they couldn't even get 10 to work properly.

You may believe that it was stupid for them to bring in all new characters for ME2 and to make ME2 about a suicide mission. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But Bioware made that decision, good or bad, and now they have to deal with the fallout.

If they knew that that couldn't bring back everybody then they had to make a choice. They had to decide who to bring back and who to give cameos. Of all the characters in both games, Garrus and Tali are the most popular. Of the remaining characters, VS and Liara deserved to be brought back the most because they weren't available in ME2. None of the rest of the possible squadmates had as large or as passionate of fanbases.

If Bioware knew they were going to ****** people off because of past decisions, the only logical thing is to minimize the number of people. They picked Garrus, Tali, VS, and Liara to return because those five characters had the largest fanbases.

You have a right to be pissed. But don't willfully ignore the things that explain why you had to be pissed.

[YoItsThomas]

Not sure if it's mentioned cause I don't wanna read all the posts. But I believe bioware started working on me3 before me2 was even released, possibly even finished? So I don't think they took too much time to see which characters became popular. They already had much of their story set up. Can't remember where I read that. But I agree with what someone posted, not sure why the writers would be fine losing characters when they could be love interests, I'd hate to see another liara type romance for some of the characters. But doesn't matter too much to me cause my LIs are liara and tali

[GuardianAngel470]

YoItsThomas wrote...

Not sure if it's mentioned cause I don't wanna read all the posts. But I believe bioware started working on me3 before me2 was even released, possibly even finished? So I don't think they took too much time to see which characters became popular. They already had much of their story set up. Can't remember where I read that. But I agree with what someone posted, not sure why the writers would be fine losing characters when they could be love interests, I'd hate to see another liara type romance for some of the characters. But doesn't matter too much to me cause my LIs are liara and tali

I think you're confusing concurrent development of the ME2 DLC and ME3. At most you had writers developing the groundwork for the story.

But it's possible.

[gearseffect]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

gearseffect wrote...

The only character I had die in the SM was Tali and the reasons were as follows
1.Tali Sent to pipes and Mordin lead Fire team Tali dies
2.Tali LM she was exiled I never talked to her it was over. SM Tali sent to Pipes and Miranda led Fireteam Tali Died
3,Tali LM Gave evidence of her dad over, never talked with her after before SM, Tali Sent to Pipes Miranda leads FT Tali Dies
4.Tali's LM got her to be allowed back the the fleet, Sided with Legion instead of nobody SM Tali Sent to Miranda leads FT Tali Dies
5.Didn't do Tali's LM same thing as other SC Tali dies in pipes
6 Tali is loyal,.Sent Tali to the Pipes Zaeed leads FT Tali dies
7.Tali Loyal SM Tali pipes Garrus FT Tali dies
8.Tali Loyal SM Tali Pipes Jacob T. Fire team Tali Dies

Tali can die a lot just by being sent to the pipes and she is supposed to be an expert hacker but gets shot in the face a lot and dies a lot.

Ignoring the fact that your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand, how did you get a loyal Tali sent into the vents with Garrus as fire team leader and have her die? That's the combination I always use and it works out fine.

I think the reason Tali ends up dead for me is once I do her LM I never go back and talk to her So my only guess is due to me not talking to her like the other squadies about the after effects of her LM it somehow reads as it's not been complete. A friend of mine has the same thing happen only with Jacob T. and he never goes and talk with Jacob T. after his LM. I also read some place that the same thing can happen with Samara if you don't talk to her after her LM.
My post was I guess more in the vian of Tali ends up dead for me a fair share of the time and given some of the things I've heard happens in ME3 if she is dead really irks me because I can't stand her anyway so when She dies It's no skin off my back, but now I feel like I have to save her just for the sake of ME3. Which god dangit I really don't want her back.

Oddly I like the design that was put into her look in both ME1 and 2 but her umm I don't want to P!ss to many people off with saying this wrong, her whole talking and voice and how she presents herself when talking really make her so anoying to me.

I guess my point of that was I still see no reason why BW is not adding many of the ME2 cast and is doing a rather bad job of it all IMO.

[Oneiropolos]

I actually cancelled my collector's edition preorder out of disappointment to where the plot was heading on this one. People can say not to read spoilers - but I would have been MUCH more upset playing the game and seeing that none of my favorites were backin any significant manner. Thane is BY FAR my favorite, with Kasumi falling in second place... and Legion third. The only character from ME1 I was really a fan of was Garrus, though I liked Tali okay, I just never really used her. I immensely dislike Kaiden and Ashley, and while I could stand Liara I was starting to get sick of her by LOTSB. I loved Wrex and Grunt for the personality they brought, and Mordin was genius for added humor. Samara was a very unique character with her code. I wasn't huge on Jacob or Miranda but I was sympathetic towards Miranda's situation. I get that the ME2 crowd might have been too big to bring back entirely, but the way the characters are actually handled leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I love Bioware but.. I guess this is where I stop on the ME franchise. Who knows, I may pick up the third game used or on a sale or something one day but I'm not eagerly awaiting it like I was. Several of my friends who had a pre-order in cancelled theirs as well. I'll have to wait to see what concretely occurs story wise. I know this game is more sleek with gameplay but.. honestly... as long as gameplay isn't flat out ridiculous or clunky, I'll put up with quite a bit for a good story. If the story disappoints me or makes me feel bitter, it doesn't matter how good the gameplay is, I'm just not interested.

[gearseffect]

YoItsThomas wrote...

Not sure if it's mentioned cause I don't wanna read all the posts. But I believe bioware started working on me3 before me2 was even released, possibly even finished? So I don't think they took too much time to see which characters became popular. They already had much of their story set up. Can't remember where I read that. But I agree with what someone posted, not sure why the writers would be fine losing characters when they could be love interests, I'd hate to see another liara type romance for some of the characters. But doesn't matter too much to me cause my LIs are liara and tali

Holy cow dude I forgot about this until you brought it up. But now that it has been brought uo If I'm not mistaken they were working on ME2 and ME3 around the same time to get the Callibrations worked out for the Suicide Mission thing. I'm fairly certain of that.

A friend of my had emailed me the leaked ME3 character scripts around the begining of Feb. I only looked at a few of the scripts and I don't want to spoil any of it for anyone, But from those leaks the way Bioware had handled a ME2 Character that has been a Huge  Fan favorite is just beyond stupid it's one of the things that upset me most considering everything BW should have yeah been able to know long ago that fans would be POed about handleing of said character. I hope it changed but I don't know that it will be.

Another character I liked Samara. I will admit that she is probally the most problamatic in getteing her in ME3 just off the Morinth or Samara choice alone.

Now if BW handles the ME3 ending  well enough and don't end it with something like a Shepard and LI wedding.

And treat the DLC as an epolugue where they planed to do DLC to come back around and kind of tie up some unresolved Character plots and tied them in with maybe say some cleaning up of Reaper loose ends and letting players come back a have some of the other squad mates in the DLC, epolouge thing where we get to take Some of the cast that is being tossed aside tactfully as full time crew members and let us explore where the Relationships may take us and see what our options are. Granted it would it would have to be very well done and not like the Shadow Broker DLC where they had ya chase Liara all over only to have a cheasy "Shepard you back I love you" thing. They'd have to consider allowing some fallout between chacters take place and it would have to feel like an Epologue where it ties up lots of loose Character ends after ME3's story is done

It could only take place after the end of the ME3 story and be treated as more of a full out add on that takes place after ME3 ends and ties things up and not only would this be a great way for BW to work Samara in (For her Fans) but also take care of my nagging Cliff hanger that I want to have taken care of one way or another.

And given Samara and Morinth are 2 completely different characters it could aso serve as a way for BW to conclude things for Morinths fans but I really don't see that being a happy ending.

It could also work to help bring some ending to Kasumi fans as well. Speaking of Kasumi any know what the deta on the Grey Box was that could hurt the Alliance so bad? Becuase I don't really rember if it was ever told what it was and for all I know it was a lie Kagi Okuda made up to get Kasumi to destory his Grey Box because it had deta that he cheated on her in it?

That still don't mean I'm happy with what I saw in the those scirps for other ME2 characters.

But now that my furstiration is out you can clearly see I'm rather level headed once I blow off all the steam becuase I can so much about MY SHEPARD's Storey and the Characters in it That I like.

Yeah Samara is probally the most problamatic to get in ME3 but could easly be taken care of if the end the game right and do the DLC right.

[saracen16]

I'm pretty sure BioWare will be open to DLC post-game for individual characters, but it's possible that some of them will have their stories finished during the campaign, so...