290 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

killerrabbit1996 wrote...

Yannkee wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Yannkee wrote...

Yeah the sidelined ME2 characters is the main reason why I don't like ME3. Not the ending.

Awww poor baby. You should have knowen this would be the case when everyone was killable and fater how Bioware treated the ME characters in ME2.

Awww and what about Tali and Garrus special treatment ?
Bioware could have done a better work with all the ME2 characters, even with the problem of the alive/death variable. It was just a matter of time and ressources (and probably some willingness).

Tali and Garrus were favourites among the writers. During PAX 2013 Conbrow said that Tali wasn't even meant to be a permanent squadmate, but Weekes persisted that he could manage to write her as a permanent member of Shepard's squad. Hence the reason she became one. 

It rather sucks, because I view Tali as an obnoxious bug. Garrus was never that impressive to me. I've never understood his appeal.

[SwobyJ]

Baelrahn wrote...

Well, I obviously like Thane, but as a HSM who can't play immersive games as the opposite gender, I have never romanced him.

The real stupidity here is making him availible for romance in the first place; even more so, create his face with the intention to look attractive enough to be desireable - yet the major part of his character arc is his undying (sike) love for his deceased wife and the regret about not having spent enough time with his family.

And here comes Shepard!

If I had undying love for someone, I'd want them to be happy with someone else, even for just a while, after I die. You know - moving on. A major theme for Thane.

[SwobyJ]

SNascimento wrote...

Also, I'm yet to play the Citadel DLC in this playthrough (and I never threw they party), so I still have too see about that, but I don't think it strikes the main problem I'm talking about here. It's true it tries to patch somethings up, but it's just to little.

Using Miranda as an example, a character that I spent more time with. I found her role in ME3 to be terrible, and again, it's not about romance, it's not about personal moments only. It's about the fact she was this top Cerberus Operative, TIM's second in command, and that amounts to almost nothing in the game. I mean, she doesn't even have a confrontation with The Illusive Man. It's like only a piece of the character made it to the game, and the rest was utterly forgotten.

I agree with this. The ME2 characters seemed set up for specific, interesting, confrontations and roles in the next game, only for that to be dropped down to just Mordin, Legion... then whatever.

TBH ME3 is only 1/2 of what it could have been, and after all DLC, that only raised it to 2/3 of what it could have been. It's why, while I consider many parts of it to be real improvements over ME3, ME2 remains me favorite game, because except for some gameplay issues, it was pretty much all it could be.

[SwobyJ]

StreetMagic wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Thane's role was fine. Did you really expect characters who were 1) unimportant to the plot

I think the shift back and forth between "plot" and character focus is what the real issue is.

Here's Hudson on ME2: "the funny thing is that people will say 'other than gathering
your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission,
there's not much story there.' But that is the story."


I think just when people started to getting used to and loving that formula, they pulled that ground out from underneath.. and went back to plot. Except that middle game coaxed you into growing some attachement to the characters. Attachement that might have been less if it was also a plot driven game.

That's actually a very good way of putting it.

For example, they might have had original plans to involve everyone and all factions in the fight on London. By involve, I mean outright INVOLVE, instead of comm conversations and meeting a few leaders. The stuff that the Marauder Shields comic is largely dealing with.

But when it comes down to cutting character involvement vs cutting central story, in ME3, central story got the priority. In ME2, the characters ARE the story you're experiencing, so curring main plot makes more sense to do, if anything.

In this way, I kinda understand Hudson+Mac explaining that they underestimated attachment to characters. Heck, it's attachment to characters that kept us from paying too much attention to the iffyness/issues with ME2's details (hi Smudboy). With ME3 seemingly only doing what was necessary (in order to avoid total playerbase rage lol) and nothing more with characters, it means that when we got to Catalyst, we're just flabbergasted and wondering:

"What about everyone on Earth? What are THEY doing? Wait, this doesn't make any sense!"

[SwobyJ]

CronoDragoon wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
I think just when people started to getting used to and loving that formula, they pulled that ground out from underneath.. and went back to plot. Except that middle game coaxed you into growing some attachement to the characters. Attachement that might have been less if it was also a plot driven game.

The real issue is ME2 introducing too many new characters that were irrelevant, if it even is an issue. It isn't for me because I'm perfectly fine with the level of involvement ME2 squadmates had in ME3, Miranda aside.

I'm fine with it myself. I just think it's a design issue that keeps ME3 from being all it could have been. A 8.5/10 game to me instead of 9+/10 (what I view ME2 as; ME1 is a 8/10 due to clunkyness but don't get me wrong, I love it).

[SwobyJ]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Personally, I'd rather have sidelined the ME1 characters to my ME2 team. To my Shepard, Kaidan was that former squadmate who died on Virmire. He doesn't really remember or care about him much. Liara was the scientist the ship had, nothing more. Tali was the young engineer who was Quarian, Garrus was that cop, and Wrex was the mercenary. Ashley was the only one who was once more than that, and now Shepard holds nothing but contempt and disgust for her.

I'm not with you on that. Overall, I view ME1 characters with more importance. Not in themselves, but because they establish more of a continuity to the trilogy. A lot of ME3 is "Ok, this is ME2, but remember the lessons and experiences of ME1." imo. It's optional, but it is like the game speaks that to me. I found it very appropriate to have almost everyone back (and Wrex heavily involved, eventually to temp join in Citadel DLC).

[SwobyJ]

grey_wind wrote...

Thane was butchered horribly, and his death is the least of the problems. All his development and depth from ME2 is dropped in favour of reducing him into a caricature of himself and his terminal illness (a disease whose effects aren't even consistent between games). And for some reason the person who wrote him in 3 seems to insist that Thane was on some redemption arc for his guilt (even in the Citadel DLC), a guilt the character never possessed or even thought about atoning for. The most Thane ever sought redemption for was abandoning his family.

Though this is true for nearly all the ME2 exclusive squaddies. It's far more merciful to let them all die in the Suicide Mission than have them suffer through terrible writing in the sequel.

I think a problem was that it seems like the ME2 characters were designed to act more as 'reflections of Shepard' in ME3, instead of full characters in their own right (like they were in ME2). It's like everything had to revolve back on Shepard and how he's going to make his decisions, and only that.

While I love the symbolism that comes with that, I also recognize that it starts to mesh characters into the crowd, instead of letting them stand out and be interesting in their own right.

[Argentoid]

crimzontearz wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
the death scene was idiotic, not in its execution (I liked that) but in its needlessness given what caused it

It's really irrelevant to me how things play out. Perhaps they could have choreographed the fight with Leng better but the bottom line would not have changed: Thane sacrificed himself to save the salarian.

how things play out is very relevant. If Shepard arrived to the scene after to find Thane wounded and dying after defending the councilor with his very last breath I would have been 100% ok with it


 
As it is that scene makes me feel Shepard, Garrus and Liara were completely incompetent

As per the military, one does not simply shoot at a CQC situation. But yes, I like the way you would have liked it to play out.

[Han Shot First]

Bizantura wrote...

There just to many npc's to get involved with romantically. In the next game, if Bioware learned anything, a lot of us can moan there are to few.

If the next game ends up being the first part of a duology or a trilogy, I would hope  the devs would keep the main cast smaller. There was simply too many squadmates and LIs to account for in Mass Effect 3, guaranteeing that some were not going to get much content. Less is sometimes more.

Some fans would complain about the smaller cast of course, but they'll complain even louder if their favorite LI ends up with a cameo in the sequel. And fans rarely see the big picture anyway. If they gripe about a smaller cast they are best ignored.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 24 octobre 2013 - 10:54 .

[crimzontearz]

Argentoid wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
the death scene was idiotic, not in its execution (I liked that) but in its needlessness given what caused it

It's really irrelevant to me how things play out. Perhaps they could have choreographed the fight with Leng better but the bottom line would not have changed: Thane sacrificed himself to save the salarian.

how things play out is very relevant. If Shepard arrived to the scene after to find Thane wounded and dying after defending the councilor with his very last breath I would have been 100% ok with it


 
As it is that scene makes me feel Shepard, Garrus and Liara were completely incompetent

As per the military, one does not simply shoot at a CQC situation. But yes, I like the way you would have liked it to play out.

In that situation, with THAT long to take the shot and the weapons and squadmates I take (Garrus and Liara) yeah....They would


 
Also....Thane Derps in that scene too

[David7204]

Storytellers are not obligated to give characters equal screentime for the purpose of giving them equal screentime.

That's really the end of it.

Also, considering the immense amount of whining anytime any kind of mandatory interaction with a friendly characters comes up, the hypocrisy of complaining about ME 2 squadmates (or squadmates in general) not being involved in the central plot is, at best, incredibly flimsy and childish.

The more freedom you have to kill or dismiss characters, the less impact they can have on the story.

Modifié par David7204, 25 octobre 2013 - 01:16 .

[David7204]

Uh, no. I'm talking about the immense amount of whining over Liara, EDI, and the Alliance. Anytime there's a mandatory interaction with a friendly character, we have droves of people shrieking how much they want to kill them, kick them off the ship, replace them, so on and so forth. It's very tedious and irritating. And then the same people go and whine that characters don't have enough of a role in the central plot.

I wish I was exaggerating btw.

Modifié par David7204, 25 octobre 2013 - 01:28 .

[PwrdOff]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Thane's role was fine. Did you really expect characters who were 1) unimportant to the plot and 2) not ME3 squadmates to have much more than a mission dedicated to them? Hell, my friend was pissed off because it was simply too convenient that every side mission involved a new ME2 squadmate.

As for the quality of the content, I realize the shortcomings of the romance but I found his death scene beautiful.

Miranda wasn't butchered, either.

Edit: I do agree that she needed more ME3 content, though. She was plot-relevant and her ME2 character arc was underdeveloped to say the least. She should have been a squadmate.

Wait, are you saying that ME2 wasn't really about the Collectors?  I mean, they're such great villains, they collect stuff!  Kinda like Shepard actually, hmmm....

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Uh, no. I'm talking about the immense amount of whining over Liara, EDI, and the Alliance. Anytime there's a mandatory interaction with a friendly character, we have droves of people shrieking how much they want to kill them, kick them off the ship, replace them, so on and so forth. It's very tedious and irritating. And then the same people go and whine that characters don't have enough of a role in the central plot.

I wish I was exaggerating btw.

Is it irritating to you because people whine about characters they don't like? Or is it that people whine about characters you like?

Because you're painting everyone into the group that because people want to kill Liara, throw her off the ship, replace her, and so on must want no mandatory interaction of any kind with any character. Those characters aren't friendly or hospitable in my opinion. 

I wouldn't have a single complaint if the content for Liara and Miranda got switched, or having EDI be a disembodied voice again without the pinocchio story arc, or having the ability to be very scathing and negative towards the alliance while being able to be pro-Cerberus to a higher degree. I wouldn't complain at all if it was written well.

And you'd be whining and complaining about it.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...
The more freedom you have to kill or dismiss characters, the less impact they can have on the story.

Which is why I wish I had more freedom to kill Liara and ME3 EDI. I don't think they should have much of an impact on the story.

[Xilizhra]

Is it irritating to you because people whine about characters they don't like? Or is it that people whine about characters you like?

Well, I have no particular love for either VS, but I'm not fond of reading endless amounts of bashing on them when it happens to appear, either. Of course, it's never nice having other people advocate murdering those you happen to like, so I can see where irritation would arise.

Which is why I wish I had more freedom to kill Liara and ME3 EDI. I don't think they should have much of an impact on the story.

Because you personally dislike them, yes?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 25 octobre 2013 - 02:47 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

David7204 wrote...

Storytellers are not obligated to give characters equal screentime for the purpose of giving them equal screentime.

That's really the end of it.

Also, considering the immense amount of whining anytime any kind of mandatory interaction with a friendly characters comes up, the hypocrisy of complaining about ME 2 squadmates (or squadmates in general) not being involved in the central plot is, at best, incredibly flimsy and childish.

The more freedom you have to kill or dismiss characters, the less impact they can have on the story.

For once you are right, David.

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Storytellers are not obligated to give characters equal screentime for the purpose of giving them equal screentime.

That's really the end of it.

Also, considering the immense amount of whining anytime any kind of mandatory interaction with a friendly characters comes up, the hypocrisy of complaining about ME 2 squadmates (or squadmates in general) not being involved in the central plot is, at best, incredibly flimsy and childish.

The more freedom you have to kill or dismiss characters, the less impact they can have on the story.

For once you are right, David.

Except for where he isn't.

Dragon Age Origins is a fine example of a game where you can get along poorly, even kick out members of your squad, if they get kicked out ala Sten, their role is over, done, you miss out on their content.

Morrigan on the other hand still fulfills her function in the story, even if you kick her out of the team.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Which is why I wish I had more freedom to kill Liara and ME3 EDI. I don't think they should have much of an impact on the story.

Because you personally dislike them, yes?

What narrative purpose does Liara serve?

EDI actually has a role to play in the themes of the story.  So does Javik, Garrus, Tali, and James to a degree.

What role does Liara have that is inextricably tied to the important themes of the game?

Modifié par Steelcan, 25 octobre 2013 - 03:27 .

[PwrdOff]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Which is why I wish I had more freedom to kill Liara and ME3 EDI. I don't think they should have much of an impact on the story.

Some squaddies need to alive no matter so that you can still play the game.  Wouldn't be very fun just going through the game with Party Vega as your only ally.

[Steelcan]

BNN999 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Which is why I wish I had more freedom to kill Liara and ME3 EDI. I don't think they should have much of an impact on the story.

Some squaddies need to alive no matter so that you can still play the game.  Wouldn't be very fun just going through the game with Party Vega as your only ally.

But why EDI and Liara?

EDI serves a narrative purpose, she is the synthetic side of the "synthetics/organics" Javik is the counter.

What function does Liara serve beyond ****** material?