50 réponses à ce sujet

[Brainarius]

Why does everyone keep on complaining about too many squad mates in ME2? I liked them. Plenty of variety for firepower and theme. I wish ME3 had at least 2 more squadmates for the main game. I would have liked to have more fighting in Priority: Earth like in the Suicide Mission. Why do you all want to have a forced kill? Except for once when I picked Zaeed for team leader and got him killed, I have never lost any squad mate on the suicide mission.

[Dubozz]

I agree with OP, there was a good thread here about how it might happened.

 

Suicide Mission was great, Priority: Earth on the other hand was a f***ing disaster. The worst mission in the ME.

[AlanC9]

Why does everyone keep on complaining about too many squad mates in ME2? I liked them. Plenty of variety for firepower and theme. I wish ME3 had at least 2 more squadmates for the main game. I would have liked to have more fighting in Priority: Earth like in the Suicide Mission.

The typical argument is that they'd rather have had more content devoted to each squadmate, rather than break the content up so many ways.

Why do you all want to have a forced kill? Except for once when I picked Zaeed for team leader and got him killed, I have never lost any squad mate on the suicide mission.

What's the fun in that? It's not like getting everyone through the SM is a challenge or anything. All that means is that ME3 has that much less variety when you import.

[Mister J]

I have a feeling that the OP's idea is what Bioware wanted to do to begin with but couldn't or changed their mind, it's so obviously working towards it...

 

Considering forced deaths: if you want people to die in the suicide mission you can let them die. If you want them all to survive, you can make that happen. Having that freedom of choice is what makes Mass Effect to me.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I have a feeling that the OP's idea is what Bioware wanted to do to begin with but couldn't or changed their mind, it's so obviously working towards it...

 

Considering forced deaths: if you want people to die in the suicide mission you can let them die. If you want them all to survive, you can make that happen. Having that freedom of choice is what makes Mass Effect to me.

 

Yet at the same time, you have to compensate for this kind of branching narrative. While I support it (as does BW on a theoretical level), in practice, it's rather resource-exhaustive. BW doesn't have unlimited funds to take the story in every direction that becomes possible, and unfortunately, this came into play with the SM. While I support the mechanic for it, it showed its limitation in ME3 to a strong extent, with most of the characters involved with the SM being side-lined since their fates are much more unpredictable, and BW didn't want to waste resources on characters that might not be alive. That said, there was also a distinct flavor of favoritism towards the ME1 crew from BW, with the ME2 crew sort of viewed as the holdovers, and not the 'true' team that the ME1 team was. So to add on that, BW clearly didn't support the ME2 characters as much as the ME1 characters.

 

I think ME2 would have been best if it had 4 or 5 scripted deaths for characters (As in, those characters die no matter what), and 1 VS like choice. The SM mechanic could have been applied to the ME3 finally, with much more utility for all the elements taking place, not just the squadmates.

[Mister J]

Wasting resources on characters that may not be alive? I don't think it works that way: most of their roles in ME3 were integrated into the parts of the game that are there no matter what - if they are dead they are simply replaced by another person. Take Mordin for example: he plays a significant role in Me3. If he's dead he's simply replaced by Padok Wiks and everything else plays out the exact same way...

 

Having the choice about who lives and dies (amongst other things) is to me one of the greatest things about Mass Effect. When I go back playing Tomb Raider were my favourite characters die and the ones I hate survive I'm thinking like: damn, if only this game was made by Bioware...

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Wasting resources on characters that may not be alive? I don't think it works that way: most of their roles in ME3 were integrated into the parts of the game that are there no matter what - if they are dead they are simply replaced by another person. Take Mordin for example: he plays a significant role in Me3. If he's dead he's simply replaced by Padok Wiks and everything else plays out the exact same way...

 

Having the choice about who lives and dies (amongst other things) is to me one of the greatest things about Mass Effect. When I go back playing Tomb Raider were my favourite characters die and the ones I hate survive I'm thinking like: damn, if only this game was made by Bioware...

 

Yes, but look at the level of integration that goes into the ME1 characters, and then compare it to the roles of ME2 characters. Your post actually validates my point: characters in which you can choose the fate over end up having a meaningless role, since they're replaced by someone else. Miranda is really the only ME2 character that doesn't get this, and even then, her output is still considerably low. 

 

Having the choice on who lives and dies is theoretically an interesting trait to Mass Effect, I agree, but unfortunately, there are drawbacks to it as well. 

[Jukaga]

I think a 'Battle of Denerim' model would work best. Give the player a choice what reinforcements they will receive during setpieces, with some choices being better than others. Combine that with risking your SM like in the ME2 suicide mission and you'd have a much more fun and compelling climax.

[Mister J]

@doctor: I'm not sure I get what you're saying, and I don't understand how what I'm saying supports your point. But let me say this: Tali and Garrus are able to die in ME2 but if they don't they are available as squad mates in 3. So what reason is there not to include Samara, Grunt, Miranda and all the others as squad mates and Normandy crew if they survive the happenings of 2&3? That alone would make 3 a so much better game for me...

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

@doctor: I'm not sure I get what you're saying, and I don't understand how what I'm saying supports your point. But let me say this: Tali and Garrus are able to die in ME2 but if they don't they are available as squad mates. So what reason is there not to include Samara, Grunt, Miranda and all the others as squad mates and Normandy crew if they survive the happenings of 2&3? That alone would make 3 a so much better game for me...

 

Favoritism and tradition. BW openly said that that was the primary reason that Garrus and Tali were put on the team in ME3. As well, the Tali-fans nearly freaked out with epic proportions when there was fear she wouldn't be on the team.

 

The reason not to include the others? As I said, it's their fate, and the lack of support they got in comparison to the other characters. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but I'm telling you why BW doesn't feel the way we do, and why they can afford to be more liberal with how they treat some characters. 

 

My point though from my last post was to say that despite the characters role being intact for ME3 (notionally), the characters themselves are essentially replaceable. It undercuts them as characters to keep their role alive even if they themselves aren't alive. And to be fair, I am being a bit generous in calling the story a character's 'role'. Because most of them are just caught up in events and happen to be in the mission as an accessory, not a main focus on them personally.

[Mister J]

Oh, I get it now... But I disagree: it's more like they have to be replaced in order to not having to cut out huge sections of the game than that they are so dull that they can be easily replaced and the game won't suffer for it. No, I think it will definately suffer and it's a better idea to make everyone survive the suicide mission. Almost all of the replacing characters are not even half as interesting as the main ones. Padok Wiks I guess is the best out of them, but even he can't stand up to Mordin.

[Fixers0]

One of the issues with Mass Effect 2 was that there were too many side-characters to begin with, the fact that their ultimate goal was just to serve as ground soldier for a would be suicide mission didn't help either. A good place to start would be to cut the total amount of characters down by at least a third, this can be achieved by either merging these characters with others squadmates or by simply removing them from the game. The more difficult task would be to give the remainder of the cast better integrated roles in the plot. In my opinion, Characters that are at the top of the list for removal would be Kasumi, Grunt, Jacob, Jack and Thane.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Oh, I get it now... But I disagree: it's more like they have to be replaced in order to not having to cut out huge sections of the game than that they are so dull that they can be easily replaced and the game won't suffer for it. No, I think it will definately suffer and it's a better idea to make everyone survive the suicide mission. Almost all of the replacing characters are not even half as interesting as the main ones. Padok Wiks I guess is the best out of them, but even he can't stand up to Mordin.

 

The thing is, I don't think that they need to be replaced, or at least, that's not BW's rationale behind it. All the story missions that all the non-Garrus/Tali ME2 squad members appear in? Aside from Thane, Mordin, Legion, and Miranda (to an extent for all 4, because they still suffer from this), they're not actually the driving factor behind the mission they appear in. As I said, they're an accessory. That's how BW treats them. It's not that they're so dull that they're easily replaceable, it's that BW operated under the assumption that most of them were dead, and added them to a pre-existing mission that is unfortunatelty viewed as a perfunctory cameo of sorts. The thing is, they can be easily replaced and the game doesn't suffer for it. Which is the failing of putting the SM mechanic in ME2. Personally, I think the mechanic should have been held back for ME3.

 

However, I think the SM should not have been a mission where everyone survives. I've talked about this before; for starters, it ruins the point of calling it a Suicide Mission and the build up of 'there will be casualties' for the game. I think several characters could easily have their entire story told in ME2 and given a good send-off with death in the SM. And you can throw in one VS decision (even though I think its folly, as even that level of choice tended to constrain BW in the later games, since they'd basically have to write two story lines for two characters, with only one of them taking place in the story proper, which is what happened with the original VS. It's why their role in the game is considered lackluster.) 

 

The problem, the core issue IMO, is not that there's too much choice, but that the 'choice' was put into the wrong parts of the game and narrative.

[Mister J]

We're not gonna come to some agreement it seems, so I'm just gonna state my opinions and call it a day...

 

- I like having choices in all major matters in my game, especially in who lives and dies and who I can take along for the ride so I can exterminate the characters I don't like and have the ones I do like at my side when we're gonna shoot stuff.

- I like being able to choose from a large selection of squad mates. I was disappointed in the number of squad mates in ME3 and I would be disappointed in ME4 if it didn't have the same number of squad mates in ME2, at the very least.

[Fixers0]

- I like being able to choose from a large selection of squad mates. I was disappointed in the number of squad mates in ME3 and I would be disappointed in ME4 if it didn't have the same number of squad mates in ME2, at the very least.

 

The number of teammembers in Mass Effect 2 was very high, and the cost for that high number was clearly visable in the game as well as it's sequel.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

We're not gonna come to some agreement it seems, so I'm just gonna state my opinions and call it a day...

 

- I like having choices in all major matters in my game, especially in who lives and dies and who I can take along for the ride so I can exterminate the characters I don't like and have the ones I do like at my side when we're gonna shoot stuff.

- I like being able to choose from a large selection of squad mates. I was disappointed in the number of squad mates in ME3 and I would be disappointed in ME4 if it didn't have the same number of squad mates in ME2, at the very least.

 

I'm sorry, but an agreement to disagreement doesn't mean your opinions are any more feasible. While it's fine to support the idea behind them (I support them theoretically), in practice thus far, it's a waste.

 

I like having choice in all major matters in my game as well. For the most part, Mass Effect delivers on that. However, it does not necessarily do well at delivering on it. Believe me, as I said, I support this, but for the time being, it's just not practical to have this. BW didn't handle it well at all though, with what they could have done. I'd like to take Liara's assets, give them to Miranda, and send her off as well, and be a much, much darker person to Ashley, calling out her views and telling her how full of crap she is before killing her. I can hardly be as negative as I'd like.

 

The second is something I don't support, since having a large pool of squadmates inevitably leads to the characters getting less content. This unfortunately isn't something like ASOIAF where you can have dozens of characters who all have great characterization, or even a film or tv series where everyone gets decent characterization. This is a game where you can pick and choose who your favorites are, but at the end of the day, there's a limited amount of resources to put into each character. The more characters you add, the less resources each will get. For the time being, you really can't have it both ways. Granted, I'd like to be able to pick and choose from my favorites too and have them on my team, but even then, you still have to put resources into each character. BW doesn't feel the same about the characters, so they put their favorites on top, leaving the people who like other characters like Miranda or Samara or whoever on the high and dry.

[themikefest]

ME3 is more like ME1 part 2

[Kel Riever]

Let's be honest, if Priority: Earth was like the suicide mission, people would've just complained that BioWare rehashed the mission and weren't being creative enough.

They may have complained.

 

But it wouldn't have sucked.

[shodiswe]

Priority earth sure could have been more interesting. It feelt very railroaded. Most missions were, but I was hoping the last mission would be memorable and interesting with extra care and creativity built into it to create a grand finnish for both the game and trilogy.

I was kind of dissapointed. But I guess it could have been worse. Somehow it feelt likt it was half finnished and that there might have been more to it before they decided to rush it and wrap it up.

[Orikon]

Priority earth sure could have been more interesting. It feelt very railroaded. Most missions were, but I was hoping the last mission would be memorable and interesting with extra care and creativity built into it to create a grand finnish for both the game and trilogy.

I was kind of dissapointed. But I guess it could have been worse. Somehow it feelt likt it was half finnished and that there might have been more to it before they decided to rush it and wrap it up.

 

It couldn't have been worse than it was.

[Nitrocuban]

I can always be worse, but we are talking about a AAA+ game and the epic conclusion of a trilogy here, it simply was a little  ... let's say underwhelming.

No big twist, no WTF moment, no hard decissions to be made.

Priority Earth II is one of the parts of the game where we can see how rushed ME3 was. I'm sure what we got was not for what BW aimed for. But it ios the best they could do in the given time.

[angol fear]

And what about Priority : Earth being made on purpose not to have an "epic" with the meaning of "cool" conclusion but something more serious, something more about how Shepard feels, something more about how desperate the situation is... I mean something that is written in the logic of the ending.

 

edit : The epic conclusion as the player meant it to be is out of context in the writing of Mass Effect 3.

[ZipZap2000]

"It couldn't have been worse than what it was"

 

Conrad Verner bowls Shepard out the way, chooses control.

 

Shepard is shooting the tube hears 'So be it!' Conrad Verner just shot the catalyst.

 

Conrad Verner stops Shepard from leaping into the beam. 'Wait a minute Commander Shepard are we really sure this makes sense? What if it's indoctrination? I mean thermal clips?'

[themikefest]

Could it of been worse? Yes.

 

If they had 12 more months development time would it be better? Most likely

[TurianRebel212]

Should have been on a galactic scale tho.