554 réponses à ce sujet

[EricHVela]

I like the post about Thessia being an opportunity to lose her. That's pretty much the last time she's an "essential". Yes? Am I missing a later point in the game where she's also an "essential" character?

That was a missed opportunity, IMHO.

[IanPolaris]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I like the post about Thessia being an opportunity to lose her. That's pretty much the last time she's an "essential". Yes? Am I missing a later point in the game where she's also an "essential" character?

That was a missed opportunity, IMHO.

Agreed.  There are two places where you should very logically and reasonable be allowed to tell Liara to take a hike:

1.  Right after Mars.  Hackett has just said he is trying to build this prothean device and Liara is one of the best if not THE best Prothean expert out there with unparalleled access to information and Alliance security clearance (and had worked with Adm Hackett before).  It's a little suprising that Hackett didn't expressly request her after Mars in fact.

2.  After Thessia especially when she nearly loses it.

I know that Liara is 'essential' for Eden prime, but honestly I don't get it.  Liara is actualy unnecessary for that mission given that Shepard's cipher makes him better at using and understanding Prothean technology than anyone else (Liara included).

-Polaris

[Barquiel]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I like the post about Thessia being an opportunity to lose her. That's pretty much the last time she's an "essential". Yes? Am I missing a later point in the game where she's also an "essential" character?

That was a missed opportunity, IMHO.

That's probably a gameplay thing. Even failShep (Tali, Garrus and VS dead, no DLC) needs a core squad.

[fainmaca]

Xion66 wrote...
Nº1 Kai Leng,
Nº2 Liara T'soni  
Nº3 The Illusive Man/Cerberus  
Nº4 Earth Kid/Catalawsgeuywrgz
Nº5 The Ending  

I'm going to weigh in on this discussion, as I feel some very valid points have been brought up, and this topic bears discussion. Thank you for bringing this up.

First of all, Kai Leng: I absolutely agree with you. Considering he had no kind of introduction previous to the third game, to give him such a significantly central position in the plot of ME3 is jarring, to say the least. Sure, he was implemented in the novels, but how many of the gamers who buy the ME games get the books? Sure, I have Retribution, so I've encountered Leng before, but I didn't buy Deception, which expands on him considerably, apparently. But ultimately characters introduced in this manner should have little to no bearing on the game. I mean, look at how central Feron was to the Redemption comics. His appearance in the game was satisfactory, as it was a major cameo that filled in a little bit of Liara's side story while not dominating any scenes. Considering this poorly thought out villain was injected into the story from the expanded universe, while other, more prominent characters among the pre-existing cast were killed off/forgotten about, it seems like a cheap move on the part of the writers to introduce a character purely because they thought it would be cool. While introducing characters for the coolness factor is okay, it shouldn't be done at the expense of other material that is already popular among the fanbase (Kal'Reegar, anyone? If you disagree with that, what about Feron? Gianna? Sha'ira? Hell, even Morinth! This list goes on).

Secondly, Liara: I think that the amount of clear favouritism and railroading around her is unforgivable. Her immortal nature really grates on me. It should have been possible to get her killed in some way. Not because I'm malicious, but because every other character you meet before ME3 can be killed by choices you make (I refuse to call them 'wrong choices', as almost every decision you make in the previous two games can be justified by a certain mindset. There are no good or evil Shepards before ME3, just a wide variety of moral outlooks). Hell, even Shepard can be killed by player choice.

However, her immortality aside, Liara is shoved in the faces of the player base whether they like it or not. And I don't mean just being in your squad no matter what. I'm talking about the way Shepard practically fawns over her in ME3. When they first met on Mars my ManShep, who has never been the slightest bit interested in her, greeted her by saying her name in a husky, lustful way that made it sound like he was desperate to jump her bones there and then. Then, throughout every conversation they've had together, they're always passing one another knowing looks and warm smiles that imply so much more than the working relationship I'm trying to get them to have. If I were an outside influence watching on, say in the instance of a TV show or a movie, I would say that it is clear they are in a romatic relationship. For a game series all about choice, and considering in the previous two games I could treat her like crap if I wanted to, suddenly having all choice about how to treat her taken away and replaced with autodialogued loving stares and warm sentiments leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I went from being excited to have her back in the squad to wishing she would get the hell off my ship.

In addition to this, I dislike the way the Shadow Broker commitment is handwaved away. Sure, I could accept losing the ship to a Cerberus attack, but it needed to happen on camera. As it is, you could have helped Liara claim the immense resource of the Shadow Broker hub as little as an hour ago from your perspective, and then you get that resource whipped out from under your feet with a single throwaway comment. LotSB set us up with the hope that Liara would fuel us with information from her ship for at least a portion of the game before joining us, potentially putting her in TIM's position from ME2, feeding us intel and giving us missions. But then this was torn away to shoehorn her into the game as early as possible.

Third, TIM/Cerberus: I cannot tell you how poorly I think Cerberus was handled in this installment. They went from the darker side of Humanity that Shepard would rather not admit dwells within every Human, a representation of our drive for survival at any cost, just how much we need to be willing to sacrifice to keep our people strong, to a series of cackling jackasses who make Saren look like an all-round nice guy. ME2's power was partly because in the course of the narrative Shepard had to work with this organisation for the greater good out of necessity, even though it brought shame to his cause and himself. I like the idea of the hero being forced to sacrifice his respect, his credibility, in the name of stopping a greater evil. Its kind of like the premise of Batman.

In my opinion, Cerberus should have been treated as, neither a full-blown ally nor an avowed enemy , but rather a 'contagonist', a term which I think truly conveys their shadowy nature. Dramatica describes the Contagonist as follows:

Because the Contagonist and Antagonist both have a negative effect on the Protagonist, they can easily be confused with one another. They are, however, two completely different characters because they have two completely different functions in the Story Mind. Whereas the Antagonist works to stop the Protagonist, the Contagonist acts to deflect the Protagonist. The Antagonist wants to prevent the Protagonist from making further progress, the Contagonist wants to delay or divert the Protagonist for a time.

As with the Sidekick, the Contagonist can be allied with either the Antagonist or the Protagonist. Often, Contagonists are cast as the Antagonist's henchman or second-in-command. However, Contagonists are sometimes attached to the Protagonist, where they function as a thorn in the side and bad influence. As a pair, Guardian and Contagonist function in the Story Mind as Conscience and Temptation, providing both a light to illuminate the proper path and the enticement to step off it.

Here we see what I would have liked to have seen from Cerberus. An organisation that does not necessarily side with either the hero or the villain, but rather someone who may offer a level of temptation, guidance towards a darker path. Perhaps later this organisation is shaped to become more heroic, moving from contagonist to a sort of secondary protagonist, or they could be alienated to the point where they become true antagonists, depending on Shepard's choices in regards to them. Further down the line, they could be seen to sabotage the efforts of the Commander to broker peace between his allies, an attempt to keep the aliens weak and fractured so Humans can remain supreme, but not before they are certain victory over the Reapers is possible without that much-needed unity. Choosing to just indoctrinate them all instead was a weak move.

Speaking about Cerberus' newfound strength, I do find this hard to believe. Rather than being just another enemy army Shepard had to fight, they should have been reduced to a select few Black Ops units. Maybe, rather than having to fight them, Shepard suddenly has to fight someone who they have turned into an enemy, either through manipulation or betrayal. Perhaps Cerberus were attempting to awaken a newfound species of synthetics, only to anger them and now Shepard has to put down the rising force. Maybe Cerberus made peace talks between the Krogan and Turians break down by manipulating a Krogan Warlord into thinking he could take out the Turian ambassadors and the 'traitorous' Urdnot leader in one quick strike, hoping to keep the Krogan and the Turians weaker and forcing Shepard into a defence mission. Stuff like that.

Fourth, the Kid/Catalyst: I really, really, REALLY take issue with this plot device. Sure, having Shepard be unable to save the kid in the opening was a powerful moment, but it was enough on its own. Having the kid bother Shepard in his/her dreams and then turn up in the end as the face of the enemy made a critical error: It forced an emotional response on Shepard rather than allowing the players to choose on their own how they would respond. My Shepard grew up in the rough slums of Earth, then went on to survive losing his whole team on Akuze. He can deal with seeing one kid die. What about Ashley, on Virmire? He never sees her in his dreams, ghostly form accusing him. What about losing Pressly, or the twenty-odd crewmen of the first Normandy that never made it out?

In short, this was a plot device that forced the player's Shepard to feel an emotion they didn't necessarily share, taking away yet more choice from a game that is supposed to be all about choice. Having it be a total stranger makes it even more difficult to swallow. Having it be the person you lost on Virmire would have been more poignant, but still raises the issue of lack of choice. In the end, this plot device had no place in a franchise built on the premise of choosing how you react to everything around you. Forcing it in there is a clear sign of writer bull-headedness.

Finally, the ending: There has been enough said on the matter. All I will say is that Bioware's refusal to even consider the fact that this wasn't what was wanted or deserved says it all. Writer's wishes over justice for the story being told.

Fainmaca Out.

[Phobius9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I did feel there was a strong Garrus and Liara focus in terms of crew interactions, especially on the Normandy (I didn't get quite the same feeling on the Citadel).  Though I did enjoy the improved interactions across the board while on missions.  I felt Ashley was lacking, especially since she was my LI.  I don't think I cared too much though as the parts I got from all the crew were enjoyable enough for me, and Garrus probably moved up to become my favourite NPC of the series as a result.

Interesting you mention this. Ash was my LI throughout all 3 games to. I thought that the writers really brought their 'A game' when it came to LI interactions in ME3. I personally thought that, whilst there was arguably less interaction with Ash in ME3, what we did get was of a higher calibre. Maybe it was because I've only ever had Ash as a LI, but I got the impression there was more of a sense of a continuing relationship with her in ME3 - more of a sense of feelings being rekindled. It just felt more natural somehow, compared to what I've seen of other LI scenes. Dunno.

My only real complaint was that Ash seemed almost abandoned on the Normandy. The rest of the crew moved around, interacted with each other and had a task or role they performed. Ash just sat in the observation lounge on her own. Aside from her hangover scene (which was great, btw) that was really all we got. I was disappointed there wasn't more a reunion with her, Garrus and Liara. Ash has been there since the start, but it was almost like the writers didn't know what to do with her when she came back.

[BeDotWe]

You know who's being pushed onto the player? That god damn Hackett.

[Calamity]

BeDotWe wrote...

You know who's being pushed onto the player? That god damn Hackett.

I loved Hackett almost as much as Anderson after reading the mail in LOTSB.

[JamesFaith]

fainmaca wrote...

First of all, Kai Leng: I absolutely agree with you. Considering he had no kind of introduction previous to the third game, to give him such a significantly central position in the plot of ME3 is jarring, to say the least. Sure, he was implemented in the novels, but how many of the gamers who buy the ME games get the books? Sure, I have Retribution, so I've encountered Leng before, but I didn't buy Deception, which expands on him considerably, apparently. But ultimately characters introduced in this manner should have little to no bearing on the game. I mean, look at how central Feron was to the Redemption comics. His appearance in the game was satisfactory, as it was a major cameo that filled in a little bit of Liara's side story while not dominating any scenes. Considering this poorly thought out villain was injected into the story from the expanded universe, while other, more prominent characters among the pre-existing cast were killed off/forgotten about, it seems like a cheap move on the part of the writers to introduce a character purely because they thought it would be cool. While introducing characters for the coolness factor is okay, it shouldn't be done at the expense of other material that is already popular among the fanbase (Kal'Reegar, anyone? If you disagree with that, what about Feron? Gianna? Sha'ira? Hell, even Morinth! This list goes on).

I'm must disagree with you about Kai. He's not only "gift" for readers of books, Kahlee was such gift. Someone like Leng was important for story itself. When one main antagonist standing aside whole game (TIM) and second is nameless force (Reapers), you need some other, specific character who will tread on the heals of main hero. Such person will meet or fight with you more then one time, he will become more then common boss, your relation will become little more personal. Remember how impressive was fight with Saren on Virmire, when he disabled your men and nearly got you? Or still returning Death's hand from Jade empire? Kai Leng has same purpose here. And why took him from book? Why not, he is part of ME Universe with his own history, he's fitting for this role and using him is better then create totally new character, which will be practically his copy, just with different name and face.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 14 avril 2012 - 01:16 .

[Xyos]

Great read, agree completely!

[nullobject]

JamesFaith wrote...

I'm must disagree with you about Kai. He's not only "gift" for readers of books, Kahlee was such gift. Someone like Leng was important for story itself. When one main antagonist standing aside whole game (TIM) and second is nameless force (Reapers), you need some other, specific character who will tread on the heals of main hero. Such person will meet or fight with you more then one time, he will become more then common boss, your relation will become little more personal.

I think it's making Kai Leng be the "antagonist of Proximity" that's the 'gift'. Other characters could have, and would have, served better as the antagonist who "treads on Shepard's heels".

he's fitting for this role and using him is better then create totally new character, 

Nope. Creating a new character who is not so ridiculous as Kai Leng would have been much better. If people who buy Mass Effect fiction are content with space ninjas in their story that is their problem, but the lack of stupid anime characters like Kai Leng was one of the main things I liked about the Mass Effect game when it first appeared.

I guess I should have seen it coming, though. ME1 had the characters in practical cloth padded armor with a few ceramic plates. By ME2 even the Adepts were in metal shoulderpads.

[OchreJelly]

Besides the points brought up by everyone else which I mostly agree with, I was confused why I was supposed to care a lot about the dead Virmire-squadmate after Shep's first nightmare. I mean, I did care but it felt like Shep had sorted that out some time ago in game 2 (at least not to the point of grief in 3.)

They want me to care about them, but they don't even mention anything about current LIs which you'd think Shep would be wondering and caring a great deal about at that point. My AdeptShep had romanced Tali and you don't hear a word of concern out of Shep about her situation, and you don't even some info or correspondence in an email (the quarian ANN fleet mail doesn't count). I imagine it is similar with other characters.

In LotSB, Shep could tell Liara that was a major reason he was fighting. A simple "I'm concerned about *character*" with a response from someone that "I'm sure they're fine" would have gone a long way.

The lack of attention really bothered me on a character level.

That may have been a slight tangent. ._.

[Edolix]

I agree with all your points OP, especially Liara. I actually liked her until they started trying to shove her down your throat at every opportunity. Then I got sick of her, fast. The fact that she is unkillable and completely protected by plot-armor doesn't help either.

[lazuli]

If anyone believes the theory that the endings are so jarring because Bioware has specific plans in mind for the next entry in the series, then perhaps that's also why Liara can't be lost. Asari live for hundreds of years. Maybe we're destined to have her with us for as long as we remain invested in the series.

[Jassu1979]

If there's one thing I noticed, it's that I can interact too little with Liara (who's my Shep's LI) in ME3: most of the time, all she has to say to me is "Hello, Shepard."

[JamesFaith]

nullobject wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

I'm must disagree with you about Kai. He's not only "gift" for readers of books, Kahlee was such gift. Someone like Leng was important for story itself. When one main antagonist standing aside whole game (TIM) and second is nameless force (Reapers), you need some other, specific character who will tread on the heals of main hero. Such person will meet or fight with you more then one time, he will become more then common boss, your relation will become little more personal.

I think it's making Kai Leng be the "antagonist of Proximity" that's the 'gift'. Other characters could have, and would have, served better as the antagonist who "treads on Shepard's heels".

Two simply question: Who and why?

[SP2219]

[Xion66]

A slight update on some of the points I've read.

Joker: Joker is a writer's pet but he is at the same time a fan's pet, his role is small enough that he is not a mandatory plot agent, neither you get the feeling you have to deal with him, personality-wise he is one of the few who is not above bashing heads with Shepard, and yet he is not forced upon any situation, neither is any of his ramblings something that drives the plot, his biggest moment plot-wise is being one of the reason's Shepard gets killed in ME2 however I think he has the balance of being an optional character that both fans and writer's like.

Another important thing that has come up during the discussion is the existance of characters only due to being crowd favourites. This is most definetly true but I've found Bioware quite successful in this aspect of storytelling.

Tali who is clearly a minor character in ME1 after her initial appearence to drive the plot forward, was brought back with a whole new importance and was really fleshed out in ME2, the writer's made Tali's growth and behaviour cohese throughout the trilogy, justifying her being brought back in ME2 and giving her space to grow as a character, by the time ME3 arrives she is no longer simple fan service, she is relevant by the writer's own merits, and I can behind that, it's part of the balance between fanservice and creative vision that makes the ME games a truly engaging experience.

On the flipside we have Garrus, also minor, a bit less than Tali but still overshadowed by Wrex and the human crew in ME1, he's personality is ambiguous enough to allow development but when he was brought back in ME2 by the writer's, with a lot of fans backing it up, the writer's clearly don't really know what to do with him in ME2, his relevance outside of being a friendly face is null, he barely even gets to talk, still the game adds some of the cornerstones that make Garrus the "bro" character in ME3.

They add the suave tongue-in-cheek vigilante facade, and altough they leave it at that in ME2 (thereby keeping him as little more than fanservice), in ME3 he clearly grows as a character and there is a lot more input into him acheiving the balance I mentioned with Tali, the only problem is it's noticeable that he's presence in all 3 games is a bit awkward compared to his importance to Shepard, gladly in ME3 with all the dialogues, tongue in cheek reference to his lack of dialogue in ME2, and his own growth he went from a fan's pet, to a balanced fan/writer input character and I can get behind that.

Liara: I'd just like to clear that Liara being unkillable for me is not the biggest faux-pas, but the fact that in ME3 a lot of her scenes could be, LI specific scenes, a former/current squadmate highlight but instead everything goes to her, it's jarring how some squadmates can get so little in terms of dialogue and relevance and yet Liara gets all the moments she get, her talk about Shepard's nightmares is the most glaring one, that scene could have been used during a date on the Citadel with any of the LI's from former games, with every single one putting their own input about the situation which in turn makes you realize why you romance that character, yet we get Liara moments, always Liara moments.

People arguing that I'm being a circlejerk/am mad about some characters I don't like being more relevant than I want while the ones I liked get shafted: While you're entitled to your opinion I am not here because I hate some of these characters, I love both TIM and Liara to a certain degree, and while I think both overused I can still like spending time with that, it does NOT make me above noticing narrative flaws or even journey/personal specific incoherence.

Also there are characters that I hate that I think should have been more prevalent in the game, characters I don't even like their scenes. Udina is one of them, he is part of an important plot point, one that has consequences for a lot of people involved in the game, and characters, yet he goes from genuinely relatable in ME3's beginning to a traitor/misunderstood minor villain without so much as a look into his concerns, he should have had more rotating dialogue in the first trips to the Citadel and he needed more foreshadowing.

Morinth, a character I do not find likable at all also needed a lot more presence for the players who kept her as a squadmate, she offers a POV and a dimension to the game that is largely unattached to most of your other squaddies and yet all she gets is an email and a name-drop, she should have an entirely unique storyline concerning her sisters as well as a speech check that either adds her as a war asset or turns her into a Banshee, she is needed in the Ardat-Yakshi plotline but she won't be there wether you saved her or not.

I could go on but I'd be doing an entirely new OP

Thank you all for replying to the thread.

Modifié par Xion66, 14 avril 2012 - 01:43 .

[Xion66]

Jassu1979 wrote...

If there's one thing I noticed, it's that I can interact too little with Liara (who's my Shep's LI) in ME3: most of the time, all she has to say to me is "Hello, Shepard."

You interact slightly less than with other characters in the Normandy Huba spect, but she has a fairly greater amount of cannon/highlight moments, as well as Citadel chatter.

[nullobject]

lazuli wrote...

If anyone believes the theory that the endings are so jarring because Bioware has specific plans in mind for the next entry in the series, then perhaps that's also why Liara can't be lost. Asari live for hundreds of years. Maybe we're destined to have her with us for as long as we remain invested in the series.

The main problem I see with that theory is that the current endings are the worst of both worlds.

From a player experience standpoint, they are pretty much identical, just pallette-swapped frustration.

But from a story setting standpoint, they are radically different. A post ME3 game set in the world of the synthesis ending would be drastically different to one set in the world of the destroy ending.

Or it should be drastically different. They could always retcon it to not matter, like they did with ME1's ending in ME2 (where the fellow who closes ME1 with a rousing "prepare for the Reapers" speech is in ME2 saying he doesn't think they exist).

Or they could somehow do an "all 3 choices happenned" option like Deus Ex : Invisible War

[nullobject]

JamesFaith wrote...

nullobject wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

I'm must disagree with you about Kai. He's not only "gift" for readers of books, Kahlee was such gift. Someone like Leng was important for story itself. When one main antagonist standing aside whole game (TIM) and second is nameless force (Reapers), you need some other, specific character who will tread on the heals of main hero. Such person will meet or fight with you more then one time, he will become more then common boss, your relation will become little more personal.

I think it's making Kai Leng be the "antagonist of Proximity" that's the 'gift'. Other characters could have, and would have, served better as the antagonist who "treads on Shepard's heels".

Two simply question: Who and why?

Who? Any new character who wasn't a 2-dimensional anime space ninja who clashed with the sci-fi setting and recharged his shields in the open while mooks parachuted in from.... somewhere..

Why? Because he wasn't a 2-dimensional anime space ninja who...

EDIT: If we are to use existing characters, then making Miranda be TIMs enforcer would have been much better. Why? She has an existing history with both Shepard and the players; and we've had a whole previous game where she played a much milder version of that role.

Modifié par nullobject, 14 avril 2012 - 01:53 .

[LadyWench]

*applause*

I've never been as offended by Liara as you seem to be (she's not so bad as a friend to Shep) and I actually enjoyed her darker turn in ME2 and LotSB, but I agree that the favoritism you describe is definitely evident in the presentation of her character.

The Catalyst child, though...ugh, please. Right ****ing on, OP. I hated being force-fed that character, that OMGWTFBBQ guilt-trip nightmare fuel about him that Shepard suddenly had. ESPECIALLY if you played a sole survivor origin or a renegade, this sudden child-centered crisis of conscience made even less damn sense.

The people pushing for that plot device, which lead to the most unsatisfying ending it has even been my displeasure to experience, should have taken a writing 101 refresher course, because this is one 'baby' that should have been killed. So. Hard.

[Luiginius]

Xion66 wrote...
Liara: I'd just like to clear that Liara being unkillable for me is not the biggest faux-pas, but the fact that in ME3 a lot of her scenes could be, LI specific scenes, a former/current squadmate highlight but instead everything goes to her, it's jarring how some squadmates can get so little in terms of dialogue and relevance and yet Liara gets all the moments she get, her talk about Shepard's nightmares is the most glaring one, that scene could have been used during a date on the Citadel with any of the LI's from former games, with every single one putting their own input about the situation which in turn makes you realize why you romance that character, yet we get Liara moments, always Liara moments.

 

I have nothing against Liara. What I do object is what you mentioned here. There's so much dialog with Liara and every moment with her is moment taken away from someone else.
Compare the amount of her to Ashley. I honestly thought the lack of content with Ash after her getting back onboard was a bug. She has her oneliners and Liara has her conversations, sure am glad that i waited for a female Zaeed .

[Xion66]

Luiginius wrote...

Xion66 wrote...
Liara: I'd just like to clear that Liara being unkillable for me is not the biggest faux-pas, but the fact that in ME3 a lot of her scenes could be, LI specific scenes, a former/current squadmate highlight but instead everything goes to her, it's jarring how some squadmates can get so little in terms of dialogue and relevance and yet Liara gets all the moments she get, her talk about Shepard's nightmares is the most glaring one, that scene could have been used during a date on the Citadel with any of the LI's from former games, with every single one putting their own input about the situation which in turn makes you realize why you romance that character, yet we get Liara moments, always Liara moments.

 

I have nothing against Liara. What I do object is what you mentioned here. There's so much dialog with Liara and every moment with her is moment taken away from someone else.
Compare the amount of her to Ashley. I honestly thought the lack of content with Ash after her getting back onboard was a bug. She has her oneliners and Liara has her conversations, sure am glad that i waited for a female Zaeed .

Isn't this what I was saying: A lot of Liara moments could have been switched to Squadmate moments/LI moments? I'm sorry if my point came across differently  guess I'm kind of tired

[Luiginius]

@Xion66
Oops. bad choice of words. I meant my post as "i agree with this".

Modifié par Luiginius, 14 avril 2012 - 02:05 .

[Stalker]

You can't imagine how much I agree with with you, OP.

ME1 and especially ME2 introduced a lot of interesting characters: All seemed to have their own personal writer behind, because each one of their personalties and content was so perfectly worked out. You can choose to get to know them with a lot of talks and their personal loyalty mission, or you can ignore them and don't care. Even for Cerberus as a company, you could support them in many possible ways or exclude them from everything you do.
You had the freedom to support your favorites and ignore your disliked.

Now ME3 was really pushing you into certain roles. You tried to walk into your old ME2-squadmates and even with every option possible, they barely reach screen-time of 20 minutes each (excluding writer-favorites like Mordin and Legion).
Had your LI in your previous squad? Well, bad for you then.
You are pushed to love Liara and treat Garrus as your best friend. Cerberus are the evil guys and Kai Leng is that soulless bastard you have to kill.

The "interactive story-telling" is just not present anymore. You get what the writers want you to get, mostly ignoring that there are also other people.