What are your thoughts on the fact that some companions from ME:1 were not present in ME:2? Do you think it impacted their storylines negatively? Did you feel less attached/connected to them than characters that were present in all 3 games?
Should ME:A keep the companion roster constant and present in every game (death of course can and should happen)
TL;DR: Should ME:A avoid the Kaidan/Ash, Liara situation/break in character presence in the crew?
Characters can go away for a bit but under no circumstances should they ever again make the second installment a side story gimmick where your previous crew is removed because of an overall preferential sentiment, to be replaced by a more interesting but expandable one, which renders them incapable of reconciling the branching choices appropriately, resulting in the sidelining of anyone who isn't the writer's pets and/or doesn't have a raging legion of fanboys/girls behind them.
Other that that, whatever.
I don't really care one way or the other as long as they have a plausible reason for their presence/absence.
I don't mind a bit of switch, the same companions can be boring and it means not even having a chance of getting rid of that one that bugs the hell out of you, but I like continuity too.
So rather than all new companions each game I'd rather some are swapped out especially when it make sense for that character to be off doing their own thing. For example I don't think Liara should have been a squadmate in ME3 but I've no problem with her being onboard the Normandy. I like that Garrus and Tali came back in ME2, we learn more about them as people and even start a romance if we wanted.
A mix of old and new basically.
Hopefully each game is a self-contained, standalone story from here on out. So, no to companion continuity. Same goes for the protagonist.
Well, they were all present in ME2, just not as squad mates. I have to admit, at the time, I was a bit upset that they removed almost my entire ME1 team. In retrospect though, it was not a bad call IMO. It made the world seem bigger and less focused on Shepard when this happened. It also made sense (for the most part) that they wouldn't join you. Wrex especially was handled very well in EM2, I think. The game has many problems but taking your squad mates and having them go their own ways was not one of them.
BTW, I'd say the same of ME3. A lot of people were upset that we couldn't re-recruit all the EM2 companions anymore but IMO, for almost all of them, it made sense that they had other priorities and responsibilities now. I thought it was great that we had a lot of friends out there and that life was not condensed to the Normandy.
Similarly, I liked the approach in DA:I that you had companions and friends that were not necessarily coming on missions but had other duties or specializations. I hope we'll see such an extended social circle of the protagonist in ME:A as well.
I do not mind them being unavailable/gone. I was fine with the Virmire survivors in ME2 until I realized that they had identical dialogue (lazy much, Bioware?) AND then Liara got her own DLC where one could continue the romance. THAT was a bit like a boot in the face to those who romanced Ash/Kaidan.
And no more insulting romances like Jacob.
I do like temporary companions or those that come and go. I LOVED teaming up with Aria on Omega!
I would really like to see more NPCs that aren't fixed squadmates, who have other things to do but do join when a mission calls for it. Maybe they are experts on a certain problem? Like mining certain resources. Wouldn't mind an NPC you can team up with to go space tiger hunting or something. And then you get lots of specific banter with just that person.
If characters join the mission temporarily, I'd like the rest of the crew to be curious about said character, ask questions, especially if that person isn't a soldier or maybe a rookie.
Characters can go away for a bit but under no circumstances should they ever again make the second installment a side story gimmick where your previous crew is removed because of an overall preferential sentiment, to be replaced by a more interesting but expandable one, which renders them incapable of reconciling the branching choices appropriately, resulting in the sidelining of anyone who isn't the writer's pets and/or doesn't have a raging legion of fanboys/girls behind them.
Other that that, whatever.
The distaste is strong here: I agree entirely.
To put it in layman's terms: the writer's clearly played favorites with the ME1 team over the ME2 team.
This is a problem for people like Crutch and I who preferred the ME2 squadmembers, and were heavily disappointed when their storylines, appearances, and characterization were severely underdeveloped, and in some cases, even full on derailed and shafted.
I only didn't like the VS situation in ME3, because how they were handled in the first 1/3 of the game. They were not in the squad in ME2 (in fact, they barely made an apparance) and then in ME3, Bioware puts them in the hospital for almost half the game.
Well, they were all present in ME2, just not as squad mates. I have to admit, at the time, I was a bit upset that they removed almost my entire ME1 team. In retrospect though, it was not a bad call IMO. It made the world seem bigger and less focused on Shepard when this happened. It also made sense (for the most part) that they wouldn't join you. Wrex especially was handled very well in EM2, I think. The game has many problems but taking your squad mates and having them go their own ways was not one of them.
BTW, I'd say the same of ME3. A lot of people were upset that we couldn't re-recruit all the EM2 companions anymore but IMO, for almost all of them, it made sense that they had other priorities and responsibilities now. I thought it was great that we had a lot of friends out there and that life was not condensed to the Normandy.
Similarly, I liked the approach in DA:I that you had companions and friends that were not necessarily coming on missions but had other duties or specializations. I hope we'll see such an extended social circle of the protagonist in ME:A as well.
This didn't work for some characters. Miranda, Jacob, Kasumi (as much as I'm ambivalent to her), Samara, and Zaeed were all given rather shallow excuses not to rejoin you. We never get to outright see them doing anything spectacular: Kasumi at first refuses to join you just because she doesn't want to do anything more than relive her Keiji fantasy, Jacob has to "protect" the Cerberus scientists, Samara has to fight the war off on her own, Zaeed has to talk to some old buddies and hang out in the refugee sector of the Citadel. And don't get me started on Miranda. It's great that she's the only squadmate capable of dealing with her own problems on her own, that's one of the reasons why I love her. But to retread her entire story from ME2 and outright ignore her contribution and role in Cerberus (and how it could affect her position in ME3)? Going by this portrayal in the game and developer statements (Hudson explicitly described Miranda as a "temptress figure") makes one conclude that they really weren't that fond of her character, though to be fair, I'm grateful for what we ended up getting in Citadel (which in all honesty actually enhances her to being probably the best romance for Male Shepard)
I'd be more receptive to this point of view if it didn't mean that every character sans the Dextro's (who I count as part of the ME1 team) weren't all absent.
It seems in many ways that the Dextro's were put onto us without reason (Why wouldn't Tali be working more with her people or on the Crucible? Why isn't Garrus working on the Turian war effort instead of following us around again?).
Shoot, Liara was all but forced on us as well. She's the Shadow Broker, and she has a huge, vital intelligence organization to run, coordinating her resources to work on the war effort, yet she's totally available to go on every mission with you.
The thing is, I disagree with you not because I don't think you're right, but because I think that as far as the game context goes, the ME2 squadmates are in some cases pushed aside to make room for the return of the ME1 characters.
If this was the case, I'd have advocated for a completely new team in ME3.
Well, they were all present in ME2, just not as squad mates. I have to admit, at the time, I was a bit upset that they removed almost my entire ME1 team. In retrospect though, it was not a bad call IMO. It made the world seem bigger and less focused on Shepard when this happened. It also made sense (for the most part) that they wouldn't join you. Wrex especially was handled very well in EM2, I think. The game has many problems but taking your squad mates and having them go their own ways was not one of them.
BTW, I'd say the same of ME3. A lot of people were upset that we couldn't re-recruit all the EM2 companions anymore but IMO, for almost all of them, it made sense that they had other priorities and responsibilities now. I thought it was great that we had a lot of friends out there and that life was not condensed to the Normandy.
Similarly, I liked the approach in DA:I that you had companions and friends that were not necessarily coming on missions but had other duties or specializations. I hope we'll see such an extended social circle of the protagonist in ME:A as well.
I agree on Wrex, and if all the missing of ME:2 - returnees of ME:3 were handled like Wrex, I would be more satisfied than having them as followers.
If Liara, after becoming shadowbroker kept her ship, had her own thing and goals, but helped us or we could visit her every so often like we could Wrex, I would be perfectly satisfied. I guess what I want to say in the opening post is, if a character/companion goes away for an entire game, then dont give him back as a companion, but let them form their own independent story, and if you are giving us completely new characters, then dont just give them to us at the start, a-la James Vega. I felt no connection to the guy
This didn't work for some characters. Miranda, Jacob, Kasumi (as much as I'm ambivalent to her), Samara, and Zaeed were all given rather shallow excuses not to rejoin you. We never get to outright see them doing anything spectacular: Kasumi at first refuses to join you just because she doesn't want to do anything more than relive her Keiji fantasy, Jacob has to "protect" the Cerberus scientists, Samara has to fight the war off on her own, Zaeed has to talk to some old buddies and hang out in the refugee sector of the Citadel. And don't get me started on Miranda. It's great that she's the only squadmate capable of dealing with her own problems on her own, that's one of the reasons why I love her. But to retread her entire story from ME2 and outright ignore her contribution and role in Cerberus (and how it could affect her position in ME3)? Going by this portrayal in the game and developer statements (Hudson explicitly described Miranda as a "temptress figure") makes one conclude that they really weren't that fond of her character, though to be fair, I'm grateful for what we ended up getting in Citadel (which in all honesty actually enhances her to being probably the best romance for Male Shepard)
I'd be more receptive to this point of view if it didn't mean that every character sans the Dextro's (who I count as part of the ME1 team) weren't all absent.
It seems in many ways that the Dextro's were put onto us without reason (Why wouldn't Tali be working more with her people or on the Crucible? Why isn't Garrus working on the Turian war effort instead of following us around again?).
Shoot, Liara was all but forced on us as well. She's the Shadow Broker, and she has a huge, vital intelligence organization to run, coordinating her resources to work on the war effort, yet she's totally available to go on every mission with you.
The thing is, I disagree with you not because I don't think you're right, but because I think that as far as the game context goes, the ME2 squadmates are in some cases pushed aside to make room for the return of the ME1 characters.
If this was the case, I'd have advocated for a completely new team in ME3.
I can see your points about the ME2 squad. Ultimately, for me it's not a question of "could they have joined?" rather then "do I buy the reasons why they do not join?". This is because even before the game came out, I realized that from a strictly technical point of view it was unlikely the dev team would bring them back. ME3 had so much divergence in plot that it was unlikely they could support the same amount of divergence in team mates as they could in ME2. As for the reasons themselves, I didn't think they were so bad but ti does depend on your interpretation of the characters. We had a good discussions about this topic in this thread (there are two posts of mine on the first page, that I stills stand by).
I also agree that reassembling the ME1 team took some twisting in the narrative. However, I consider those among the least offensive in the series. 
Finally, I find the frequent use of the term "writer's pet" very funny in this context. Aren't squad mates writer's pets by definition? Especially when Liara is concerned, I remember that there was an outcry by the fanbase, lasting from the release of ME2 until the release of LotSB that complained about how her character was mutilated and abandoned. Then, all of a sudden she became a writer's oet and the worst thing that ever got forced on the poor players.
I always wondered how people did not see this coming. She is one of the most central characters to the reaper plotline that could not die before. Of course they were going to make use of her. It's like saying that they forced Joker on us because he is always there as well. I am not saying that everything was handled perfectly but I do think that with the number of divergences that ME3 had to deal with, there is some reason in giving the devs a break when they choose one or two safe bets with your core team.
In any case, all of this will not be an issue for ME:A and as I said, I can see where you are coming from but actualy, in my first post, I was more arguing for the principle than the specific implementation during the trilogy. I do think that a more diversified cast with recurring characters that do live their own lives in the meantime is a good idea.
I don't think the break was very good in the original ME trilogy, but that's not to say it couldn't work in other games.
Liara and both VS were rather shoddily written in ME2, and while Liara was rectified somewhat in LotSB it's still pretty clear from ME3 that they didn't really have much of an idea what they were doing with the character. Meanwhile they also don't seem to have had much of a clue what they were doing with the ME2 cast, leaving them an awkward inheritance for the next game. Particularly since the LI status made it awkward to relegate characters to minor roles.
Better planning and avoiding a proliferation of potential LIs should be a priority if they plan to do the same sort of thing in ME:A. Of course, they may not even have a returning protagonist.
Fair enough. I would have preferred at least one or two ME2 squadmates joining the team (not counting Garrus or Tali, for which I think we could have left them out even), but I think the reasons given for them not joining the squad were total bunk in most cases.
Especially Miranda. Having read the response you put in the linked thread, in many ways I do disagree. We in the Miranda thread talked at length about the poor interpretation for her character and how it was negatively portrayed in ME3, where in essence, she focuses exclusively on finding Oriana. As well, I don't think the cameo argument works so well for her, considering that she was arguably the most prominent ME2 squadmate, as well as being the most difficult to kill in the Suicide Mission.
As for Liara, for me, there was never an issue prior to ME3. I really never cared for her in ME1; I found her to be the kind of character that tended to be pushed towards you to be irritating to an extent, especially with the 'connection' that you supposedly share, but I never pursued it and never bothered focusing on it to a point where it became an issue.
I don't think the break was very good in the original ME trilogy, but that's not to say it couldn't work in other games.
Liara and both VS were rather shoddily written in ME2, and while Liara was rectified somewhat in LotSB it's still pretty clear from ME3 that they didn't really have much of an idea what they were doing with the character. Meanwhile they also don't seem to have had much of a clue what they were doing with the ME2 cast, leaving them an awkward inheritance for the next game. Particularly since the LI status made it awkward to relegate characters to minor roles.
Better planning and avoiding a proliferation of potential LIs should be a priority if they plan to do the same sort of thing in ME:A. Of course, they may not even have a returning protagonist.
That, I can sign. Goes for characters and plot by the way.
@Hrulj & God: I think Wulfram's post goes to the heart of the matter of our discussion as well. Because the technical reasons I mentioned before and that made me a bit more understanding towards the plot reasons they gave are mostly resulting from bad planning in the first place. For example, I loved the suicide mission but it may have been better off in ME3, rather than potentially dooming everyone b the end of ME2 already. Stuff like that is what caused the specific problems, I think. Maybe if they learn from these mistakes, we will see a better implementation of the principle in future MEs.
If the game is the first part of a duology or trilogy, they should keep the same core cast of companions throughout with the exception of perhaps a casualty or an addition or two along the way. The disappointing cameos for some of the companions in ME3 were caused by having too large a main cast, many of whom had varying fates depending on prior player choices. Sometimes also less is more. I'd rather have a smaller but better developed cast of companion characters than a large cast with limited character development.
If the game is the first part of a duology or trilogy, they should keep the same core cast of companions throughout with the exception of perhaps a casualty or an addition or two along the way. The disappointing cameos for some of the companions in ME3 were caused by having too large a main cast, many of whom had varying fates depending on prior player choices. Sometimes also less is more. I'd rather have a smaller but better developed cast of companion characters than a large cast with limited character development.
They could start with a cast of six like in ME1 and add one or two squadmates with every entry, especially if they need to replace losses. At the very least, I hope they avoid making an almost entirely new cast for the second game just to have them sidelined in the third one.
If the game is the first part of a duology or trilogy, they should keep the same core cast of companions throughout with the exception of perhaps a casualty or an addition or two along the way. The disappointing cameos for some of the companions in ME3 were caused by having too large a main cast, many of whom had varying fates depending on prior player choices. Sometimes also less is more. I'd rather have a smaller but better developed cast of companion characters than a large cast with limited character development.
I agree with this. If we have the same protagonist for multiple games, I'd rather not have our core group upheaved and be largely replaced like ME2 did, only to make the bulk of that group disposable. That should all be saved for the actual endgame.
Agreed.
Even though I'm really hoping Andromeda isn't the beginning of another trilogy, if it turns out to be, it'd benefit the experience if the core squad carried over until the bitter end. There'd be a much greater attachment to the characters and consequently a much bigger impact when we lose them one by one in the end run.
Agreed.
Even though I'm really hoping Andromeda isn't the beginning of another trilogy, if it turns out to be, it'd benefit the experience if the core squad carried over until the bitter end. There'd be a much greater attachment to the characters and consequently a much bigger impact when we lose them one by one in the end run.
I dont know if it should be saved till the end. I think that depending on our choices, we should be able to end up with just a skeleton or even alone. Or with all characters with us. I really dislike scripted deaths
Agreed.
Even though I'm really hoping Andromeda isn't the beginning of another trilogy, if it turns out to be, it'd benefit the experience if the core squad carried over until the bitter end. There'd be a much greater attachment to the characters and consequently a much bigger impact when we lose them one by one in the end run.
I think the fates of most characters should depend on our choices. It would be frustrating if they just start going off one by one no matter what you do.
I dont know if it should be saved till the end. I think that depending on our choices, we should be able to end up with just a skeleton or even alone. Or with all characters with us. I really dislike scripted deaths
nobody suggested we shouldn't lose people along the way. What we're saying is (if it's another trilogy) the squadmates from the first game, should be your squad throughout the course of the series (give or take an new individual with each game). None of this "ME1 crew, then a totally new crew, then cameos" bs.
I really liked having familar faces bop in and out. I probably wouldn't be as fond of Garrus as I am if he and Joker weren't such mainstays. That being said, I was a little (okay, a lot) bummed that more time wasn't spent with the ME2 cast. As much as I love having lots of characters -- and I do, gimmegimme -- I'd be happier if the love and screentime wasn't spread quite so thin.
I'd also like another trilogy. I love the slow burn on friendships instead of the problem DAI, particularly, falls into for me -- it sure seems like you have to figure out how your protagonist relates to a character and BAM, that's set. Not a lot of time for growth, which is probably a side-effect of its rather quick main story.
Retour en haut