178 réponses à ce sujet

[Moogliepie]

4thofeleven wrote...

I kind of felt that there were a few too many characters - I mean, they were all interesting in their own ways, but some seemed a little superfluous to the story.

Thane in particular I thought ended up a little oddly handled - he's on the box art, he gets a really memorable intro, he's romanceable... and his skills are utterly useless to the mission. Grunt and Zaeed shouldn't be put in charge of things, but it makes sense Shepard would recruit some extra muscle, but Thane's skills are so specific I assumed he'd play a major role in the end-game.

I really don't understand how you consider him useless. Just because he isn't put in a specalist role or fireteam leader role on the suicide mission, doesn't make him useless. I found his sniping ability, combined with his biotics very useful on the last run. Is everyone forgetting that you still bring two party members with you, and your choice will be based on your own class, enemies you are facing, and personal preference? In the first game, as a soldier, I never needed anyone besides Liara and Tali, for pure combat reasons. In ME2, I often switched squad members according to the types of enemies. 

I just wish Bioware would get away from limiting you to 2 squad members.  I can just imagine what the rest of your squad is supposed to be doing when you decide to infiltrate a Geth base with a 3-man crew. Or at least, I was hoping we would have something like KOTOR where you get to take control of the other squad members when you split at the end. Instead, we only get to control Joker as he hobbles through the Normandy. 

[Myrmedus]

Have to agree with the OP, even if I like the characters in ME2 a hell of a lot I felt too much time was devoted to developing this gigantic cast of characters (11 is insanity) and not enough time invested in developing the main plot.

The parts of the game I enjoyed THE MOST were the main plot missions and developments but there was so little of it I felt like I was begging for crums. Anyone here played Kingdom Hearts 2? Mass Effect 2 felt like that - the core plot itself was great but you spent 90% of your time bouncing from world to world doing quests that were completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Having said that I liked Thane...I wouldve preferred them to come up with a way to tie him directly to the plot than cast him out of the game.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 05 février 2010 - 05:25 .

[Moogliepie]

Has the OP ever bothered to read Lord of the Rings? It's loaded with superfluous characters that are there to basically flesh out and give more depth to the world. There's plenty of great sci-fi/fantasy like this, so I'm really curious where you picked up this bogus criteria.



In fact, I have to wonder if you've actually played any other BioWare game, from all the way back to Baldur's Gate and including ME1, because they are ALL loaded with characters and tons of dialog and plot that has zero to do with the main antagonist.

[Nassegris]

I love that there are many characters. I love getting to know them, and I really like fitting them with my different Shepards. Some need Tali over Miranda, som prefer Thane over Garrus, some don't, you know. It's not all about what is ultimately most 'succesful' in the end mission, like some mention - how the heck would your character know? 

I like that Bioware try to satisfy as many people as possible, give us a choice of a lot of characters in case there are some we don't like. Having a great crew behind a hero is a GOOD idea, even if we don't get the physically see them perform miracles at the end fight, they're there to guard the door, they're there to offer support and comraderie - I didn't use Grunt at all there, for instance, but he helped my Shepard understand a lot about the Krogan race, and she was forced to take a lot of things into consideration after having met and saved him, and later got to know him.

Ultimately, the 'necessary' components for a game aren't really the only ones I want. It isn't necessary to have all the side-missions, it's not necessary to have romantic elements or even friendships with the NPCs. My Shepard could just as well strap a nuclear bomb to her back and hope for the best or done whatever precise, efficient and flawless method that would best completed the job (maybe not a nuclear bomb, yeah, but you know what I mean), just like Frodo could have catapulted the ring into Mordor - but what the heck kind of epic story does that make? 

A good story isn't about the bare necessities. Just because you don't think a character important doesn't mean it didn't play a major role in MY Shepard's story.

[smudboy]

Moogliepie wrote...

I really don't understand how you consider him useless. Just because he isn't put in a specalist role or fireteam leader role on the suicide mission, doesn't make him useless. I found his sniping ability, combined with his biotics very useful on the last run. Is everyone forgetting that you still bring two party members with you, and your choice will be based on your own class, enemies you are facing, and personal preference? In the first game, as a soldier, I never needed anyone besides Liara and Tali, for pure combat reasons. In ME2, I often switched squad members according to the types of enemies. 

I just wish Bioware would get away from limiting you to 2 squad members.  I can just imagine what the rest of your squad is supposed to be doing when you decide to infiltrate a Geth base with a 3-man crew. Or at least, I was hoping we would have something like KOTOR where you get to take control of the other squad members when you split at the end. Instead, we only get to control Joker as he hobbles through the Normandy.

The point of the story is to fight the Collectors.  Thane's in the wrong story.  If your argument is gameplay-Thane is useful, well, then that has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.  You've essentially reduced every character you recruit (because we need to fight the Collectors!) to a simple team-mate, the entire strategy to the suicide mission to a 3 man operation (which it isn't), and now makes everyone replaceable.  If that's the case, Shepard, Miranda and Jacob would do just fine.

We pick up Thane because TIM said so.  He contributes nothing to the suicide mission.  He's token RPG cliche #140.

[smudboy]

Moogliepie wrote...

Has the OP ever bothered to read Lord of the Rings? It's loaded with superfluous characters that are there to basically flesh out and give more depth to the world. There's plenty of great sci-fi/fantasy like this, so I'm really curious where you picked up this bogus criteria.

In fact, I have to wonder if you've actually played any other BioWare game, from all the way back to Baldur's Gate and including ME1, because they are ALL loaded with characters and tons of dialog and plot that has zero to do with the main antagonist.

I got up to the 3rd book and then got bored beyond belief.  I was expecting ME2 to be like TtT, as that had some interesting stories in there.

LotR is a journey.  ME2 is an optional side-quest extravaganza.

I've played BG, BG2, Fallout 1/2, Planescape (heck, any Infinity Engine game), and DA:O.  All of which have superior plots to ME2.  Luckily we're only arguing about ME2.

[smudboy]

Nassegris wrote...

A good story isn't about the bare necessities. Just because you don't think a character important doesn't mean it didn't play a major role in MY Shepard's story.

A good story involves the basics of literature, that have been going on for centuries.  Main character development.  A sensible and believable plot, and a story that doesn't derail from that.  Characters central to that plot, doing things out of motives that make sense.  Conflict, struggle, change, hope, pain, redemption, love, etc.

I can assure you: Thane, Grunt and Zaeed did not play any major role in (your) Shepard's story.

[Nassegris]

smudboy wrote...

Nassegris wrote...

A good story isn't about the bare necessities. Just because you don't think a character important doesn't mean it didn't play a major role in MY Shepard's story.

A good story involves the basics of literature, that have been going on for centuries.  Main character development.  A sensible and believable plot, and a story that doesn't derail from that.  Characters central to that plot, doing things out of motives that make sense.  Conflict, struggle, change, hope, pain, redemption, love, etc.

I can assure you: Thane, Grunt and Zaeed did not play any major role in (your) Shepard's story.

Wow, you're making a whole lot of assumptions. A good story could be about a good number of things. Some are driven by a storyline, some by characters, some by random events or catastrophes that bring people together. Not all stories have a designed main character, not all have a believable plot that is easy to follow. Some start at the end and end at the beginning. You read enough book and you come across them all.

Fun thing about roleplaying games is, you get to create your own story, to a certain degree. Who are you to tell mee that Thane didn't play a major role in my Shepard's story? Or Grunt, or Garrus, or Tali? I'm only vaguely interested in the battles, more so interested in the characters I come across - and the little stories inside the big story that they all supply me with, more information about the surrounding world, about their own woes and worries, about what's going on around Shepard, some of what they say maybe changing her mind about a thing or two. I get it, you're not interested in some of them, well, tough luck - I am. I found all of them fascinating with the exception of Zaeed, and they all played parts of my Shepard's story, maybe not all of them all at once and for the same person, but they offer replayability and spice, a way for my character to get more grounded in the universe she lives in.

It's so funny to hear someone spout information about what a good book is supposed to be about and what a character should mean in a story - especially in a game where you're supposed to partly make up your own story. I wouldn't have found the game half as much fun without Garrus, Thane and Tali, all of which are the favourites of my main Shepard, but according to you, one of the characters I spent the most time with is pretty much useless. Ever figure that maybe your opinion isn't the ultimate one? And that itt's actually very nice of Bioware to supply us with enough variety that more people than YOU can enjoy the game? 

Whatever, it's useless to have this discussion. You can hope for less characters in ME 3, I can keep hoping for just as many, and just as varied and entertaining to get to know.

[Tsumoro]

Quite frankly, I am happy with the amount of characters I got to control, in fact I want more characters in the third instalment. If your not a talkative person and just want to march onwards, then sure thing... but I like to talk to every NPC, every plant, insect or whatever that I find just to see what happens. I like to engage in their stories, histories and cultures.



I have to disagree strongly with OP on this occasion, reason being... this is an RPG. You do not have to pick up every single member of the team to progress, you only need to pick up a few, then the story progresses, then a couple of loyalty missions... then the story progresses.



You get out of the game what you put into it. If you don't want to get them all, or you would rather have a smaller squad...then do exactly that. You have the 'option' to do it. And that's what Mass Effect and all RPG's are about. Giving YOU the player the choices and for you to make decisions based on yourself, on what you would do if you were truly Shep.

[guru7892]

the point of all these characters is so the writers/executives don't get pissed off and feel like they are contributing some others were probably added for marketing and result from improper focus groups. I think some of the characters are pet projects and pure ego.



but then again some of the characters were pretty good. I think rating them on their combat effectiveness and stats is a mistake because that just shows how effective they are. rating them on their side mission isn't fair either because that is a level design issue and not a character issue. characters should be judged by how interesting they are (hell it might be better to design the combat roles of the NPCs away from the characters, to make sure both are interesting).



as far as writing the ending first, the optimum number of characters in a game is around 7. Ten characters is too much. honestly I would prefer to have around 5 squad mates at any time (remember there are other characters like Chakwas, EDI, and Joker). when the ending is written probably has nothing to do with how interesting the characters are.



However, I do share the sentiment that there are two many characters in ME2 and bioware games in general. While Smud may have arrived at the same conclusion using methods reasoning that I didn't consider, He's Illuminated additional problems with regards to the same perceived problem.



all the reason to have less characters/ squad-mates in ME3.

[smudboy]

Nassegris wrote...

Wow, you're making a whole lot of assumptions.

Such as?

A good story could be about a good number of things. Some are driven by a storyline, some by characters, some by random events or catastrophes that bring people together. Not all stories have a designed main character, not all have a believable plot that is easy to follow. Some start at the end and end at the beginning. You read enough book and you come across them all.

True.  However, due to the nature of the medium, the size and scope of the universe, and the skill of our author, it's best to stick to basics.  (This is not a highly dynamic or avant garde storytelling method where we change POVs, characters, and play with thematics.  It's a sequal.)  This kind of story requires a clearly definable villain with clear motives (why does Harbinger want to capture, and then later want to kill Shepard?  Why are they building a human reaper?)  A main plot that isn't backseat to random side-characters family problems to include them not dying/not killing others when you give them orders.  A story that's focused and makes sense.  Since recruitment increases success toward the goal, as Jacob gets a status of the crew, we strive to do as best we can.  We want more story.  But, we're stuck with useless, replaceable side-characters who are just along for the ride.

Fun thing about roleplaying games is, you get to create your own story, to a certain degree. Who are you to tell mee that Thane didn't play a major role in my Shepard's story? Or Grunt, or Garrus, or Tali? I'm only vaguely interested in the battles, more so interested in the characters I come across - and the little stories inside the big story that they all supply me with, more information about the surrounding world, about their own woes and worries, about what's going on around Shepard, some of what they say maybe changing her mind about a thing or two. I get it, you're not interested in some of them, well, tough luck - I am. I found all of them fascinating with the exception of Zaeed, and they all played parts of my Shepard's story, maybe not all of them all at once and for the same person, but they offer replayability and spice, a way for my character to get more grounded in the universe she lives in.

I can tell you, because that's not how the game, Thane's story, and the main story, was constructed.  Thane is a side character that has nothing to do with the main plot.  Now if you used him in one of the roles in the suicide mission, hey, good for you.  I don't think he's a team leader, or a tech expert, but that's just how I read the character.  And if your idea of getting him killed or causing him to kill others, by putting him in such a role, and you call this being a "major role", well, again, good for you.  That's how that scene will play out (yay writer.) I do not see how else he, or any other side-character, can be a "major role" in the story.  And since you're only vaguely interested in battles, then the argument for "he's always in my squad" is moot, and I think I've stated that to others in previuos posts.

I'm interested in all the side-characters.  They're all likable.  They're also all useless/replaceable.

It's so funny to hear someone spout information about what a good book is supposed to be about and what a character should mean in a story - especially in a game where you're supposed to partly make up your own story. I wouldn't have found the game half as much fun without Garrus, Thane and Tali, all of which are the favourites of my main Shepard, but according to you, one of the characters I spent the most time with is pretty much useless. Ever figure that maybe your opinion isn't the ultimate one? And that itt's actually very nice of Bioware to supply us with enough variety that more people than YOU can enjoy the game? 

I see nothing wrong with arguing the points of what makes a quality work, story writing, telling or otherwise, when I know what I'm talking about.  This is not some subjective opinion: the story of ME2 is flawed.  The player cannot "make up his own story."  We take what we are given.

I don't think my opinion is perfect or the only one out there.  But you've yet to change my mind with whatever you're trying to tell me.

This is not about enjoying/not enjoying the game.  Nor is it about variety.  There is no point to some of these characters, they're all replaceable, in relation to the main plot.  Which is the point of the story.  If we knew the nature of the suicidal mission, if we knew why we needed a certain role filled (e.g. assassin), if the side-characters had motives intrinsically related to the plot, then I could buy why they're there.  All we got is continuity from some, "hey this guy sounds cool, thanks TIM," and Mordin used as a plot device.

Whatever, it's useless to have this discussion. You can hope for less characters in ME 3, I can keep hoping for just as many, and just as varied and entertaining to get to know.

Then ME3 will be a failure of storytelling, of shallow plots, mindless side-quests, and even more crap.  It'll be the equivalent of the Star Wars prequel films: put as much crap on the screen as possible, make an insane number of marketing videos that downright lie to the consumer, and don't focus on what really counts: the story.

[smudboy]

Tsumoro wrote...

Quite frankly, I am happy with the amount of characters I got to control, in fact I want more characters in the third instalment. If your not a talkative person and just want to march onwards, then sure thing... but I like to talk to every NPC, every plant, insect or whatever that I find just to see what happens. I like to engage in their stories, histories and cultures.

You want more PCs?  If there are more than 12 next game, there wouldn't be room for anything else.

I have to disagree strongly with OP on this occasion, reason being... this is an RPG. You do not have to pick up every single member of the team to progress, you only need to pick up a few, then the story progresses, then a couple of loyalty missions... then the story progresses.

And how are you strongly disagreeing with me?  Generally, when one plays a game they like to experience everything in it.  The goal of the game is to build a team to fight the Collectors.  In doing so, we want to be as successful in that quest as possible.  The actual fight, however, is scripted in such a way, that most characters are replaceable, and some are completely useless.  (This says nothing of cleaning up plot holes, effective story telling, etc.)

You get out of the game what you put into it. If you don't want to get them all, or you would rather have a smaller squad...then do exactly that. You have the 'option' to do it. And that's what Mass Effect and all RPG's are about. Giving YOU the player the choices and for you to make decisions based on yourself, on what you would do if you were truly Shep.

So your argument is because you play a certain way, you get a certain outcome?  Yes, that's true.  This does not change the fact that the characters are mostly replaceable, and some are completely useless.  We cannot choose how to fight the Collectors: the game railroads us into a certain role-selection end scenario.  If we could choose the way we fight the Collectors, then your argument of me "playing a certain way" would have merit.

[smudboy]

guru7892 wrote...

the point of all these characters is so the writers/executives don't get pissed off and feel like they are contributing some others were probably added for marketing and result from improper focus groups. I think some of the characters are pet projects and pure ego.

I think this as well.  I think the designers went overboard with brainstorming.  "Hey this would be cool" and everyone went with whatever they came up with, while no one bothered to argue or challenge the writer/designer on why it's there.

but then again some of the characters were pretty good. I think rating them on their combat effectiveness and stats is a mistake because that just shows how effective they are. rating them on their side mission isn't fair either because that is a level design issue and not a character issue. characters should be judged by how interesting they are (hell it might be better to design the combat roles of the NPCs away from the characters, to make sure both are interesting).

I know, but I can't think of any other way to score them if not for how effective their loyalty skill is to game play, since no side character has any relevance to the main plot.  (You could argue that Tali joined Shepard out of loyalty, and since he's the protagonist, she wouldn't be there otherwise.)  It would make Thane, Grunt and Zaeed completely useless if their unlockable loyalty ability wasn't used/can be used by Shepard.  And I don't want to get into the reductionist argument of making everyone a squad made, and going nuts with the combinations and saying how balanced and thus effective game play (and thus story, end run) is with such-and-such a team.

as far as writing the ending first, the optimum number of characters in a game is around 7. Ten characters is too much. honestly I would prefer to have around 5 squad mates at any time (remember there are other characters like Chakwas, EDI, and Joker). when the ending is written probably has nothing to do with how interesting the characters are.

However, I do share the sentiment that there are two many characters in ME2 and bioware games in general. While Smud may have arrived at the same conclusion using methods reasoning that I didn't consider, He's Illuminated additional problems with regards to the same perceived problem.

all the reason to have less characters/ squad-mates in ME3.

I think if they spent time on how characters were introduced (like how Mordin was), and their actual usefulness in the end game, things would be so much clearer.  (Says nothing of the plot holes and main story, but we're focusing on the side characters here.)  For example, I get the idea of needing a leader aside from Shepard and a tec expert.  But an escort? Anyone can do that.  But how about a scout?  Or a zapper?  Or a bad ass grunt?  See, now, suddenly, these characters would be integrated into the mission and have purpose -- simply by having a role for them to do (whether or not we see or hear of that role.)  Replaceable and useless would become just replaceable (as per the nature of selecting team mates fro the suicide mission.)

Wouldn't it have been wonderful to see Zaeed act as a distraction, getting Collectors to chase him, tricking them into a lethal trap?  Or Grunt just charging everyone?  Or Thane silently killing off Collectors as they were distracted?  If these type of side missions, or roles, were in the end run, these characters would have purpose.

Modifié par smudboy, 06 février 2010 - 11:40 .

[SSH83]

Companion characters in an RPG serves the same purpose of companions in real life. You can live without them, but life would be a lot less interesting. You can’t just rate person by how much they contribute to the society. Try rating yourself that to see if you can determine if you deserve to be alive...



It’s not fair rate Mass Effect characters by how much they contribute to the game mechanics. They’re in the game because they’re unique individuals who are awesome! (except maybe Jacob.)

[jgoemat]

smudboy wrote...
The scoring only goes up to +1.  Legion would've gotten a +1, if this was ME1.  The geth are not the main enemy force in ME2.  This is why Mordin got +1.

I think your interactions with the Geth and Quarians will be important come ME3...  Did you send them to war with each other or push them towards peace?  Did you brainwash the rebel Geth?

[Amethyst Deceiver]

edit.nvm

Modifié par Amethyst Deceiver, 10 février 2010 - 07:17 .

[smudboy]

jgoemat wrote...

smudboy wrote...
The scoring only goes up to +1.  Legion would've gotten a +1, if this was ME1.  The geth are not the main enemy force in ME2.  This is why Mordin got +1.

I think your interactions with the Geth and Quarians will be important come ME3...  Did you send them to war with each other or push them towards peace?  Did you brainwash the rebel Geth?

I think they will too, considering how much detail they put to it.

That, unfortunately, has no relevance toward the plot of ME2.  (Same with the rachni queen and ME2.)  Again, the recruit (save Mordin) and loyalty missions have little (see: replaceable) to no bearing on the main plot of ME2.

[smudboy]

Myrmedus wrote...

Have to agree with the OP, even if I like the characters in ME2 a hell of a lot I felt too much time was devoted to developing this gigantic cast of characters (11 is insanity) and not enough time invested in developing the main plot.

The parts of the game I enjoyed THE MOST were the main plot missions and developments but there was so little of it I felt like I was begging for crums. Anyone here played Kingdom Hearts 2? Mass Effect 2 felt like that - the core plot itself was great but you spent 90% of your time bouncing from world to world doing quests that were completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Having said that I liked Thane...I wouldve preferred them to come up with a way to tie him directly to the plot than cast him out of the game.

I liked Thane's commentary if you bring him along Legion's loyalty mission.

Thane could've had his recruitment at the Citadel (if going to the Citadel was actually relevant.)

Did anyone else think it would've been nice to have Ashley/Kaidan collected?  Weren't they one of the first people at Horizon to get sweeper-swarm-frozen?  It would've been quite a told-you-so moment if you saved them at tne end run.

[Skilled Seeker]

How can you say Zaeed is useless on the suicide mission?! Along with Grunt he is the best for holding the line. You fail hard OP.

[smudboy]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

How can you say Zaeed is useless on the suicide mission?! Along with Grunt he is the best for holding the line. You fail hard OP.

Explain.  Do you mean Grunt and Zaeed are useful as squadmates?  Or do you mean they do the whole "defend" thing while your 3 man squad go fight Mr. Terminator?

[Skilled Seeker]

Um how about both? Judging by your language and posts you obviously don't like Bioware's direction.

[smudboy]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Um how about both? Judging by your language and posts you obviously don't like Bioware's direction.

I don't like BioWare's story or storytelling.

If both, then they're only relevant as game play characters, which is not what I'm arguing.  The point of them being in that story scene (the latter example) is to be a grunt off camera.  That means they're completely along for the ride, and you could've taken one of your 25 red shirt crew with you.

[Knoll Argonar]

smudboy wrote...

jgoemat wrote...

smudboy wrote...
The scoring only goes up to +1.  Legion would've gotten a +1, if this was ME1.  The geth are not the main enemy force in ME2.  This is why Mordin got +1.

I think your interactions with the Geth and Quarians will be important come ME3...  Did you send them to war with each other or push them towards peace?  Did you brainwash the rebel Geth?

I think they will too, considering how much detail they put to it.

That, unfortunately, has no relevance toward the plot of ME2.  (Same with the rachni queen and ME2.)  Again, the recruit (save Mordin) and loyalty missions have little (see: replaceable) to no bearing on the main plot of ME2.

Who cares?

ME is a trilogy.

In ME2 you make a team with the best of the best in the galaxy, to outcome any situation possible: even destroy a massive space station - reaper factory. Your recruiting experts, not experts-that-have-to-be-related-to-the-collectors-because-if-not-it's-not-cool.

Why would you need someone like Williams or Alenko when you can have Grunt or Jack instead? Just because they may be plot-related? that's just unrealistic crap. Facts are: you've got a mission, you don't know what you ill need, but it will be tough, almost impossible. Gather the best experts you can find, because there's only one chance. Even if it turns out to be that in the actual mission you need 1/3 of them. Real life works like this: sometimes you don't know what you need, so you may collect more than what really was necessary.

The fact that almost no character has real motivation-relation with the collector thread is because that's what's suposed to be. Because ME2 is about ONE mission. Characters aren't collector victims, they are just experts with their own individual lifes, feelings, ways of thinking and motivations you team up for that ONE mission. Period.

Don't like it? okay, but that's your problem, not a ME2 problem.

And, again, ME is a trilogy, so what wouldn't have any kind of impact in ME2, it will in ME3.

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Who cares?

Me.  And so should the writers.   Because it's their job to write well.

ME is a trilogy.

Exactly.  ME2 is a flimsy bridge at best.  Where's the plot development?  Shepard is in the same position and characterization he/she was in at the end of ME1.  We know Collectors (which are gone) were once Protheans.  We also learn that Reapers are really stupid, yet supposedly millions of years smarter.

In ME2 you make a team with the best of the best in the galaxy, to outcome any situation possible: even destroy a massive space station - reaper factory. Your recruiting experts, not experts-that-have-to-be-related-to-the-collectors-because-if-not-it's-not-cool.

What is "every situation possible"?  I don't think that was ever mentioned, nor do I think this team has that capacity.  There's talk of people and their record being "great additions to the team", but we don't know in what capacity or to what end.  Nor do we know we're going to destroy a massive space station/reaper factory.

Here's a thought: get a demolitions expert.  Why?  Because you want to destroy the Collectors.  Oh wait, that's not part of the plot.  Nor is Mordin making some deadly Collector virus.  Or camping/mining the Omega-4 relay.

And all of this could've made sense if, (magically, but at least we could've seen they were valuable), everyone had a unique, if not interchangeable, role to play at the end.  Instead, we get 4 out of 11.

Why would you need someone like Williams or Alenko when you can have Grunt or Jack instead?

You're making my point for me.

Just because they may be plot-related? that's just unrealistic crap. Facts are: you've got a mission, you don't know what you ill need, but it will be tough, almost impossible. Gather the best experts you can find, because there's only one chance. Even if it turns out to be that in the actual mission you need 1/3 of them. Real life works like this: sometimes you don't know what you need, so you may collect more than what really was necessary.

Wait, what's your point?  If something is plot related, it's unrealistic crap?  So you don't want things to make sense?  Williams and Alenko are not plot related.  Secondly, plot related means something relevant or meaningful to the main plot.  Something that makes sense.  Because the mission is unknown does not mean it should remain so.  It does not mean "do whatever the shadowy figure says so" just because (or at least explain why; better still, allow options.)  We need to know what our goal is: where, what, who, when, how, etc.  Why we need these people.  All we know is who and how to get to where, and that they have a ship that comes into the Terminus system.  So that means we need a bunch of ground troop soldiers to potentially attack an enemy in an advanced warship?  What exactly are we attacking?

The story is about going to unknown place B and supposedly attacking something, somehow.  But when we get to B, we'll be prepared for anything, whatever that is?

Does the word contrived mean anything here?

If we knew what we were actually supposed to do, a la Guns of Navarone, what our taget was, then great (hint: it's the guns of Navarone).  We could have a meaningful plot with meaningful side characters who are picked up in whatever manner.  "Attacking the Collectors" could've been an entire planet, or solar system, or series of solar systems.  We could've needed the galaxies best navigator, or shoe salesman, or whatever.

Compare this to ME1's Saren.

The fact that almost no character has real motivation-relation with the collector thread is because that's what's suposed to be. Because ME2 is about ONE mission. Characters aren't collector victims, they are just experts with their own individual lifes, feelings, ways of thinking and motivations you team up for that ONE mission. Period.

Don't like it? okay, but that's your problem, not a ME2 problem.

And, again, ME is a trilogy, so what wouldn't have any kind of impact in ME2, it will in ME3.

So your argument is A=A?  Don't you think, just maybe, if they had better motivations and involvement, the massive stamp of "excess baggage" across all their foreheads would be less noticable?  That how you picked them up and why would have more meaning than from contrived utility, and *gasp* relevance to the main plot, aside from TIM just telling you what to do and when to do it?  In no way does any of this detract from anyone being their own character.

Again, the view that ME3 is an apologist to ME2's plot/that ME2 is a bridge, is a pathetic (and a shakey bridge at best) argument.  "Oh don't worry, it's a trilogy.  That's why ME2's story blew."  What?

ME2 could've had a simple plot, with 0 plot holes.  It would just have less characters.  Those present would have potentially several levels of relevance.  And the game play would've been exactly the same.  Although I bet you'd feel much more involved, because you might've actually understood wtf was going on.

[MonkeyLungs]

If the Bioware staff actually took a more focussed route in the way they integrated these characters into the storyline, all the poeople arguing, "but I love these characters they are great!", would be having an even greater experience and loving the characters even more.