554 réponses à ce sujet

[Federally]

Good post OP.

[Costin_Razvan]

Sparatus wrote...

My favorite thing about not recruiting Garrus in Mass Effect is how he starts acting like we are best friends after the first conversation in Mass Effect 2.

WE JUST MET FIVE MINUTES AGO!

You always meet him in ME1 even if you don't recruit him, it's still bad though.

[Aeowyn]

Sparatus wrote...

Oh, I get why they did it. The majority of players in Mass Effect probably recruited him and it probably just wasn't feasible to rewrite his dialog to reflect not recruiting. Budget and all.

Doesn't really excuse stuff like the Collector Base though which is like, what? a ten point difference in war assets?

I guess the only difference in Garrus if you didn't recruit him in ME1 is shown in the romance. You can't romance him if you didn't recruit him in ME1.

[Costin_Razvan]

Collector Base choice is a bit more important then that.

If you have very low EMS you either get forced down Destroy if you destroyed the Based or Control if you preserved it. With it preserved Henry Lawson was also able to take control of Reaper Husks on Sanctuary, whereas with it destroyed I think he only was able to create the Cerberus soldiers?

[IanPolaris]

Sparatus wrote...

Oh, I get why they did it. The majority of players in Mass Effect probably recruited him and it probably just wasn't feasible to rewrite his dialog to reflect not recruiting. Budget and all.

Doesn't really excuse stuff like the Collector Base though which is like, what? a ten point difference in war assets?

I am willing to forgive the writers overlooking the "didn't recruit Garrus" option.  After all, it had to be a very low probability option given that in ME1 Kaidan was virtually worthless as a combat squaddie and the assault on Chora's Den wasn't exactly easy, and outside of Kaiden (before you meet Tali) Garrus is the only engineer option you have (unless you also had decrypt and electronics), and having an "engineer" in the party (or more to the point having both decrypt and electronics in the party) was vitally important in ME1.

-Polaris

[Vexille]

"Was your expectation of her dying there fueled by anything else aside
from the fact that every other character could die in the game, so in a
sense of equality she'd be killable as well?"

2 things made me think that there would be a chance she could die. One was as you said, when I tried LOTSB I had beat ME2 already and I knew every squadmate in the game could die, I figured maybe this would be where Liara could. 2 was that she really seemed to want revenge, I thought there was a chance in that scenario where things could go bad. It was very well done DLC so I wasnt upset or anything (Probably the DLC ive enjoyed most since Witch Hunt).

"Good point.  I completely forgot about the scenario on the Citadel with
Udina!  And you can refuse them after the sequence if they survive (i.e.
death isn't essential)"

Yea, I figured if the VS could be refused and sent to the Crucible project that there wasnt a good reason Liara couldnt. I mean she IS a prothean expert after all and running things as the shadow broker at a perment base would likely be easier then from a ship. I dont think sending her to work on the crucible after Mars or Thessia would have been that far fetched.

[IanPolaris]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Collector Base choice is a bit more important then that.

If you have very low EMS you either get forced down Destroy if you destroyed the Based or Control if you preserved it. With it preserved Henry Lawson was also able to take control of Reaper Husks on Sanctuary, whereas with it destroyed I think he only was able to create the Cerberus soldiers?

Not that I've noticed (regarding Sanctuary/Henry Lawson).  That mission played the same to me whether you destroyed the base or not.  You're right about the low EMS option though.

-Polaris

[Seboist]

They should have had Garrus return as an enemy in ME2 if you didn't recruit him with the rationale being that he sees it as his second chance to take down a rogue Spectre. Now if he was recruited then he would be part of some C-Sec or Spectre plot depending on the players' past choices with him.

When it comes to his former recruitment mission I'd have that become Zaeed's. With just a few simple rewrites it would easily tie-in with his original concept of having a death wish

[IanPolaris]

Vexille wrote...

Yea, I figured if the VS could be refused and sent to the Crucible project that there wasnt a good reason Liara couldnt. I mean she IS a prothean expert after all and running things as the shadow broker at a perment base would likely be easier then from a ship. I dont think sending her to work on the crucible after Mars or Thessia would have been that far fetched.

Yeah, especially after Thessia.  Liara loses it on Thessia and jeapordizes herself and the mission because she can't get past her own emotions.  I can easily see a renegade Shep saying that Liara was a combat liability and sends her to Hackett where she can still be useful but won't endanger the lives of those who have their fecal matter together.

-Polaris

[Vexille]

Sparatus wrote...

I have noticed that you gradually lose more and more control over your Shepard's personality throughout the series.

In Mass Effect, you were able to play a racist that could basically be a jerk to everyone. A lot of the dialog options would just end up being Shepard saying the same thing no matter what though.

In Mass Effect 2, forced friendships with Garrus start popping up, and you lose the human first dialog options.

Mass Effect 3, has an awful lot of auto-dialog and forced friendships.

Is it horrible that I actually miss the human first racist Shep? I found him to be hilarious, being a giant D bag to everyone, hating on aliens.


What I miss most about ME1 though is hanging up on people... What I would give to hang up on the dalatress or the Asari councilar in ME3... (the scene where Joker mentions the hangups to Liara is PRICELESS)

[Foxcat]

I agree with the majority of what you said OP. The exception would be Liara. While I certainly understand the frustration from those who don't like Liara or never made her an LI there comes a point where we have to realize the reality that the game has to be made in a timely fashion. My point here relates to both Liara and the exclusion of ME2 characters as squad-mates. Like the rest of us I'd have loved to have the option of at least some of our ME2 pals back as squad-mates in ME3. Hell, it'd have even made more logical sense...if they wanted to help us stop the collectors they'd certainly want to help us save the galaxy. The problem, however, was that EVERYONE could die on the suicide mission.

EDIT: My point about Liara is that BioWare had certain scenes they wanted EVERY player to experience and in order to do that in a cost effective method they decided to protect one character from death so that certain messages could be conveyed.  And yes this came at the cost of immersion...but well sometimes I guess that's just how it goes.

To have to record mission/ship/citadel dialog for every single ME2 squad mate in addition to the current ME3 squad mates would have added substantially to the development time and cost. There are already so many scenarios/conversations that go unused on any particular playthrough I can see why BioWare didn't want to create so many more. If they had protected more of them with plot armor (like Liara) so that they could ensure their work didn't go unnoticed in ME3 we'd be happy at their inclusion and then upset about their inability to die in ME2 just like Liara

As for Kai Ling (or however it's spelled) he truly is awful having to watch and wait during his cut scenes makes me cringe every time. I'd pay to have him replaced with a generic phantom and have his dialog removed accordingly. He was meant for DLC. Including him in a self contained mission or dispersed throughout via DLC would have been the best way and the purest form of what DLC should be, OPTIONAL. For his fans it'd be perfect and it his story could be more fleshed out to compensate for the expense. For those of us who find him intolerable we'd be spared.

As for Cerberus...I'm undecided. I think with more exploration of their back-story...or side-story (what were they doing concurrently to the timeline we experienced as Shepard) the current unknowns could be satisfactorily resolved. Their money could be coming from any number of sources that could make narrative sense and make a compelling story. Unfortunately, like so much else the speculationz are only hurting.

Modifié par Foxcat, 14 avril 2012 - 09:15 .

[Allan Schumacher]

shodiswe wrote...

I liked liara but I got a sugestion, being the shadowbroker and kind of a protean expert and scientist...  Maybe peopel who didn't like her could assing her to Admiral hacket to help him with the crucible, turning her into a war asset? that way her role would still be there and peopel who didn't like liara wouldn't have to get that close, im sure people would prefer to send her off to hack rather than shooting or killing her. Or, do you really hate her that much?

That's fair feedback but I think the opportunity to put this into the game has passed unfortunately.  I think people would rather the efforts be focused on the ending DLC.


I'm more taking this discussion for myself so I can understand other perspectives to hopefully help make better games!

[Seboist]

Rojahar wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Sparatus wrote...

My favorite thing about not recruiting Garrus in Mass Effect is how he starts acting like we are best friends after the first conversation in Mass Effect 2.

WE JUST MET FIVE MINUTES AGO!

Bioware sure is great at handling continuity and player choice aren't they?

I think it's a problem that the attitude of some of the writers at Bioware seem to be that they really just want to write a book, instead of writing a branching player-driven game. More and more, the choices players are offered seem like afterthoughts. Everyone can tell that there are clear choices you're "supposed" to make, which is unfortunate. I'd rather they focus on the strength of the medium, tying together story/gameplay and playing off the fact players have input (unlike in a book), instead of trying to marginalize it.

Bioware isn't even capable of writing a linear story WITHOUT player choice. There's tons and tons of subplots and foreshadowing that have nothing to do with player choice and they go absolutely nowhere in this series. 

[Grasich]

I thought Liara was quite well done, IF you romance her. They tried to "inject relevance" into a lot of characters, not just hers.

I would say the issue here isn't so much that Liara was overdone, as that the other LIs were underdone. Many of her appearances in ME3 should have gone to Shep's LI, or possibly Garrus if no LI is present. If Garrus is dead, then to Liara again as the final "default".

I just have this funny feeling that they had intended something like what I just described, but had to cut it due to time constraints.

[Grasich]

wiggles89 wrote...

Seboist wrote...
Bioware sure is great at handling continuity and player choice aren't they?

They sure are. They'd never do something like have Leliana show up in DA2 even if you killed her in Origins. No sir.

They really need to work on their planning.

I get the feeling a lot of the issues they hit are because they just don't plan ahead, and then they realize later that they screwed themselves.

[Calamity]

IanPolaris wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Vexille wrote...

Yes, Wrex, Tali, Garrus, Ashley, Kaidan can all die. Everyone in ME2 can die as well. Isnt it odd that she is the only one who cant die?

I like her character, I just think she should have been mortal like every other member of my squad through the 1st 2 games is all.

Again I liked Liara very much, I just think there should have been a scenario where she didnt survive.

I guess I'm just struggling to understand your perspective so please bear with me.  The way I saw it, party members can only actually die at very, very specific plot points in the trilogy.  Some might have alternate ways (ignore Tali's quest in ME2 it seems), but it seems to me that you're upset that Liara wasn't an active party member in ME2 and hence avoided the potential meat grinder that was the Suicide Mission.

It seems this situation also applies to fans that dislike both Ashley and Kaiden, correct?

Basically people want to be able to kill Liara because they are jealous of her screentime. typical really.

Disagree.  A lot of people don't like what they regard as heavy handed writing and Liara (even though I like her) is protected/favored by some very heavy handed writing.  The whole POINT of mass effect was that Commander Shepard was "ours" (as in the player's) and his or her outlook and impact on the galaxy should likewise be OURS.  That means that if we were a jerk to Liara in ME1 (which was easy to do), it should be reflected in ME2 and ME3...and our LI (if any) should be the one giving our Shepard advice/support not Liara (unless of course she is our Shep's LI of course).

-Polaris

This is it exactly, Polaris. I dont begrudge anyone who actually liked Liara and I really dont care that she doesnt die. I just wasnt close enough to her to have her come into my cabin every time I turn around when I wanted Garrus or Kaiden or even Tali to come in. Some variety would have been nice. And to force her into so many missions with me...  


<edited due to not finding the / quote

Modifié par Calamity, 14 avril 2012 - 09:33 .

[Vexille]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

I liked liara but I got a sugestion, being the shadowbroker and kind of a protean expert and scientist...  Maybe peopel who didn't like her could assing her to Admiral hacket to help him with the crucible, turning her into a war asset? that way her role would still be there and peopel who didn't like liara wouldn't have to get that close, im sure people would prefer to send her off to hack rather than shooting or killing her. Or, do you really hate her that much?

That's fair feedback but I think the opportunity to put this into the game has passed unfortunately.  I think people would rather the efforts be focused on the ending DLC.


I'm more taking this discussion for myself so I can understand other perspectives to hopefully help make better games!

thats great to hear! I fully understand that the Ship has sailed so to speak on things like Liara dying/ being sent to the crucible. In future games though, in my opinion, if you are gonna give us the option to kill/refuse the vast majority of squadmates, do it for all of them. I understand some characters are essential to the plot, but honestly Liara never really felt "essential" enough past ME1 for the amount of plot armor she had.

Modifié par Vexille, 14 avril 2012 - 09:34 .

[Flextt]

Sparatus wrote...

Grasich wrote...

I get the feeling a lot of the issues they hit are because they just don't plan ahead, and then they realize later that they screwed themselves.

They don't plan ahead. Which is why there are so many dropped subplots.

Yeah, the "we make things up along the way"-interview was a fun read after the debacle.

OP you have valid points.
@ Kai Leng: No doubt. We weirded me out similar to Vega. Why was he there? He seems like a rip-off Shepard and his eagerness to please TIM by defeating Shepard borders on ridiculousness. Letting him get owned by a terminally-ill drell who cannot even run anymore didn't help.
@ The child: Again, I fully agree. Shepard made a lot of hard decisions and he ultimately overcame the doubts, only this child is too much to bear? After seeing humans get molten into goo? After seeing entire colonies getting abducted? Letting your  friend die on Virmire? Come on^^
@ Liara: I absolutely didn't mind it in the first playthrough where she was my LI. Her grief over my death was understandable and hence her personality change. The moments were adequately intimate and I was very moved by the black box moment. But when I romanced Tali in a later playthrough and not LIara in ME 1, it just weirded me out^^
@  Cerberus: Finally someone who has an issue with its development. While the ground forces get reinforced through Reaper tech modification on unsuspecting civilians, it's always remained sketchy. The Lazarus project seemed like a SERIOUS strain on Cerberus' funds, but in ME 3 we see Cerberus making tactical strikes all over the place with as much cruisers to challenge an Alliance fleet. They become a gimmicky villain through Reaper tech, that lets them find Surkesh with virtually unlimited ground forces through Integration. And after losing a cutting-edge frigate, he just dishes out a few cruisers. It's strange and it feels like they wanted TIM to play a bigger role and increase enemy diversity.

[Gorwyn87]

Great topic, it was nice to read. Before reading any other comments to this, my opinion:

Kai Leng: Having read only the first book (and not remembering much, if anything from that...) I didn't know anything about him. While I agree that he was introduced too fast and didn't really have much background, the role worked for me. You were supposed to hate him, and so I did. Actually I think your Cerberus complaint is the bigger problem - the story needed someone to act for the Illusive Man. And I think Kai Leng filled that role pretty good. If there's more about him in the books, even better. Would be cool to give the readers a little bonus.

Liara: I didn't like her in the first game either because everything related to her felt forced and the character itself just felt flat. However, the development made her into one of my favorites. I also thought it was okay to have her as the "lead comforter" - most of the other characters seem to have enough trouble with themselves while Liara always seemed to care more about others. So to me it was just how she is.

TIM/Cerberus: Yeah, definitely. Not only was the focus on this organization strange, I also felt like humanity was given way too much importance in ME3. Not really something that would destroy a game for me, but I was constantly asking "Why exactly should the other races use their forces to help earth instead of defending their own planet that is attacked as well?". Maybe I was missing something, but asking the Turians for example while they can barely defend themselves just felt so wrong. Why is saving earth more important than their planets?
And then it turns out the most dangerous organization is the only-human organization that can't even unite humanity for their cause. Probably nothing that was planned from the very beginning, which is a shame. But as with Kai Leng: They worked as a antagonists to complicate things. It was just strange that they had so much focus and ended up being pointless in the end. A little confrontation with TIM and making him do the Saren or shooting him wasn't really enough for me considering which importance the organization had in the whole game. Maybe that's just me.

Earth kid: Yep yep. While I enjoy things like this (The nightmare sequences in Max Payne were breathtaking for example, great stuff) it just didn't fit. Shepard had so much things to worry about, why did it have to be a strange kid that breaks his mind? I never cared for him, his actions seemed strange and out of place, the dreams didn't even nearly have a similar effect like in Max Payne.
I guess you meant the scene with Ashley that you enjoyed more? I totally agree that things like that would have had a better effect and would have been more believable.

The ending was discussed enough, so no further comment on that.