121 réponses à ce sujet

[LN19]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...

They aren't going to do the Liara/Ash/Kaidan thing in ME3. Reasons?

• ME2 was all about building a team, thus making it easier to go straight into the plot in the next game. There's no point to ME2 otherwise and ME2 was developed with the next part in mind, so this makes sense.
  
  
  
• Restricting ME2 characters to cameos means not only wasting time, but rewarding people who only played the bare minimum of ME2 and punishing those that did it right. That makes no sense because those people are obviously not going to care about new characters in ME3 anyway, so why waste resources developing them?
  
  
  
• ME3 is the end of the trilogy. It's all about concluding plotlines. That includes love interests.
  The ME1 characters had a game to develop their romance. The ME2
  characters had a game to develop their romance. They're on even ground
  moving into ME3, so the only fair move -- especially considering the vast amount of people that went for the new ones over the old -- is to give Shepard equal time with their LI no matter which game they came from.

This whole 'ME1 LIs got screwed, so ME2 fans should get screwed next time!' attitude is stupid. Common sense regarding trilogies says that ME2 and ME3 are not going to be even remotely the same game.

- Not every player saves the whole team, in some Shep dies, despite building a team. So that's out of it.

- BioWare intends to reward everyone by making ME3 and making it fit to how people have played the previous TWO games, ME1 & ME2, you're talking like ME2 is the only game that effects ME3. And so what if someone didn't play every sidequest or get every upgrade? How does that equate to them not caring about characters in ME3?

-ME3 is the end of the trilogy. It's all about concluding plotlines. The includes love interests...like the ones in ME1 that carried (cameo-ed) into ME2 that have yet to be concluded?

So why aren't they going to do Kaidan/Ashley/Liara in ME3?

Modifié par LN19, 09 février 2010 - 04:33 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Railstay wrote...

Wrex, Kaiden and Ashley could all be killed in the original game.  Does that mean these characters are expendable and forgettable as well?

Kaidan and Ashley aren't the same as Wrex.

Wrex is expendable. We see that clearly in ME2.


Ash and Kai can both die, yes, but if one dies then the other is GUARANTEED to be alive. And as we see in all post-Virmire content, Ash and Kai fill a nearly identical role.

[ODST 3]

Kuari999 wrote...
Well obviously they don't need to be alive to complete the story, but that doesn't mean not having them can't have extreme consequences that may cause issues and make things a bit harder one way or another.

Right, I trust Bioware to make all surviving characters play some sort of role. Like Tali will help us with Quarian relations, Legion with geth, and so forth.

[ThatDancingTurian]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Maybe they didn't have enough plot to focus on anything else?

Would have been a 3 hour game if they didn't throw the squad-building at us. And since they can all die, clearly they aren't uber important characters. If what Casey says is true (I have my doubts after everything, though...) then Liara and them weren't in the squad because they need to be kept alive to finish the story.

That's clearly not the case with ME2 squaddies.

So basically they just said, 'Hey, we need to make a Mass Effect game.' 'Okay, what'll it be about?' 'I dunno, let's just throw something together and put a bunch of people in there.'

That makes no sense. There was obviously thought and purpose put into ME2, and many, many people working long hours to create it. Just because you think little of the ME2 characters does not make them an afterthought.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...
]So basically they just said, 'Hey, we need to make a Mass Effect game.' 'Okay, what'll it be about?' 'I dunno, let's just throw something together and put a bunch of people in there.'

That makes no sense. There was obviously thought and purpose put into ME2, and many, many people working long hours to create it. Just because you think little of the ME2 characters does not make them an afterthought.

You're exaggerating what I said an awful lot. I like quite a few of the ME2 characters.

I'm just banking on the BioWare-established principle that potentially dead seems to = cameo or lower status.

[ThatDancingTurian]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

You're exaggerating what I said an awful lot. I like quite a few of the ME2 characters.

I'm just banking on the BioWare-established principle that potentially dead seems to = cameo or lower status.

A principle based on a single event which does not serve as a strong basis for any sort of pattern, and a principle that is thrown out the window when you consider that one game was a middle chapter and one game is the final chapter.

[ODST 3]

I didn't really consider Wrex a cameo. He's playing a major role in the future of the krogan. Without him, they're lost to war between tribes.

[ODST 3]

wtf, double post

Modifié par ODST 3, 09 février 2010 - 04:25 .

[ERJAK2]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

IMO people are just in denial because they're afraid their favorite characters will be reduced to a crappy cameo role.

Those fears are valid and justified, but petitions to "keep them alive" are useless, as BioWare isn't going to completely stop allowing player choices to carry over.

They came pretty close. Liara, Ashley, Kaidan. Most of the sidequests etc, were gone, why not just make a completely new game. It is a "Pre-defined" character after all so what do the decision you as the player mean really?

That's right, it means nothing.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...
A principle based on a single event which does not serve as a strong basis for any sort of pattern, and a principle that is thrown out the window when you consider that one game was a middle chapter and one game is the final chapter.

Despite it not being a BioWare game, I'm going to bring up KOTOR2 as another piece of evidence on sequel carry-overs.

It's common sense that if you want to have decisions carry over, then you need to write and design additional content to account for different decisions. Killing a character is a decision that becomes quite significant in a sequel.

If that character is going to play a vital role, then you have to write and design a lot of content. But if that character is dead for the person playing, then all that content is wasted. Granted, you can create a "replacement" character with the same role and dialogue, but you still need to record the dialogue and design the character on top of it.

Take Morinth and Samara. Morinth is optional content, but she's not much. She uses the same character model as Samara and even impersonates her voice.
Take Hanharr in KOTOR2. He's optional, but he uses cycles of generic wookiee noises for dialogue and only needs text for different results.


What am I saying? Simply that if BioWare wants to account for 11+ characters whoa re potentially dead, then logic would dictate that their roles will be lessened from what they were in ME2 in order to maximize disk space and resources.

Sure, I could be wrong, but what I'm saying certainly isn't a stretch of logic.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 09 février 2010 - 04:33 .

[Jackal904]

[quote]Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

[quote]Collider wrote...

If they're asking for something more than a cameo for those who [i]do[i] survive, then they're asking for a lot of work. I think they wouldn't be petitioning if they weren't worried, unless I misunderstand what they're asking for.
[/quote]

How is that asking for a lot? As long as they don't introduce new squadmates, which they shouldnt, then why would bringing them back in ME3 be a problem? All your squadmates from ME2 will be your squadmates in ME3, so they'll just focus on them.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Jackal904 wrote...

How is that asking for a lot? As long as they don't introduce new squadmates, which they shouldnt, then why would bringing them back in ME3 be a problem? All your squadmates from ME2 will be your squadmates in ME3, so they'll just focus on them.

They're all potentially dead.

Is someone who imports just going to NOT have those characters? Are the characters all going to be so generic that it doesn't matter who died in ME2 because someone else will fill the role?

Say Garrus died in my file, and Thane died in yours.

Are their roles going to be empty? Is Garrus's role jsut going to be empty for me? Will there be a replacement character for Garrus's role?

[ThatDancingTurian]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Despite it not being a BioWare game, I'm going to bring up KOTOR2 as another piece of evidence on sequel carry-overs.

It's common sense that if you want to have decisions carry over, then you need to write and design additional content to account for different decisions. Killing a character is a decision that becomes quite significant in a sequel.

If that character is going to play a vital role, then you have to write and design a lot of content. But if that character is doead for the person playing, then all that content is wasted. Granted, you can create a "replacement" character with the same role and dialogue, but you still need to record the dialogue and design the character on top of it.

Take Morinth and Samara. Morinth is optional content, but she's not much. She uses the same character model as Samara and even impersonates her voice.
Take Hanharr in KOTOR2. He's optional, but he uses cycles of generic wookiee noises for dialogue and only needs text for different results.


What am I saying? Simply that if BioWare wants to account for 11+ characters whoa re potentially dead, then logic would dictate that their roles will be lessened from what they were in ME2 in order to maximize disk space and resources.

Sure, I could be wrong, but what I'm saying certainly isn't a stretch of logic.

KOTOR2 has nothing to do with this. It was made by another company, and is considered to be pretty much a train wreck due to the way it was handled. The only evidence that matters is what BioWare has done, and that evidence is not conclusive enough to point to anything.

With ME2 being based on the characters, they of course had a lot of dialogue. This will not be the case in ME3, it probably will be more story-driven, given the many plots and subplots that need to be wrapped up. So the idea that having the ME2 characters would break the programmers isn't true.

Morinth isn't even considered a full-fledged party member, for the most part. Like Kelly as a romance, it's just a little extra story. Will Morinth be back? Heck no. But the fact that they're 'potentially dead' has little to do with it when the whole point of the game was to assemble the team, and you have to be a pretty terrible player or not at all interested in characters to let them all die. Probably 80% of the ME2 players either saved everyone or saved all but one. That's a large number of characters with a large amount of time spent in their development and a large probability of being in the game.

I don't think they'll include every ME2 character as a squadmate. Every LI? Definitely.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...
KOTOR2 has nothing to do with this. It was made by another company, and is considered to be pretty much a train wreck due to the way it was handled. The only evidence that matters is what BioWare has done, and that evidence is not conclusive enough to point to anything.

I brought up KOTOR2 on its technical merits, not because of it being a BioWare game. I was saying that KOTOR2 was a sequel, so how were the carry-over characters (Bastila, Carth, etc) handled? Why were they handled in that way? Because from a technical standpoint it's easier to give a potentially dead character a lesser role. It's less work and maximizes disk space and resource usage.

With ME2 being based on the characters, they of course had a lot of dialogue. This will not be the case in ME3, it probably will be more story-driven, given the many plots and subplots that need to be wrapped up. So the idea that having the ME2 characters would break the programmers isn't true.

Morinth isn't even considered a full-fledged party member, for the most part. Like Kelly as a romance, it's just a little extra story. Will Morinth be back? Heck no. But the fact that they're 'potentially dead' has little to do with it when the whole point of the game was to assemble the team, and you have to be a pretty terrible player or not at all interested in characters to let them all die. Probably 80% of the ME2 players either saved everyone or saved all but one. That's a large number of characters with a large amount of time spent in their development and a large probability of being in the game.

I don't think they'll include every ME2 character as a squadmate. Every LI? Definitely.

You're assuming that Morinth won't be bck. She might be. And saying that "you have to purposely try to get X number of people killed" is a useless argument. Why is it a useless argument? Because no amtter how hard it is to do, BioWare still made it an option. So they'd have to purposely throw character decisions out the window in order to bring certain people back.
I hear there is a way to have only one single squadmate survive. BioWare's going to have to honor that playthrough. so, will that person only have 3 possible squaddies in ME3? Or is BioWare going to go the safe route and hand out small cameos with a mostly new squad? I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was the latter.

As for Love Interests, specifically, well, we have 9, 8 of whom are potentially dead.
So, again, if I get all these people killed will I end up with only Liara and Kaidan in my party because they're the only ones alive?
Will BioWare write replacement characters for each? If so that's a lot of work.
Will BioWare simply import only your LI as a squaddy and fill the rest with new guys? If so, that's a lot of content people aren't experiencing.

There's no reason to expect BioWare to put that much work into it imo.

[Collider]

Come on Mystranna. We already know Bioware does more than it has to. Like I said, the Tali and Garrus romances. They didn't have to, but they did because it would please the fans. You know what else would please the fans? ME2 squad mates as squad mates in ME3. We've plenty of reason to suspect this, if not expect. Writing minor NPC's as replacements isn't "hard work" in comparison to creating new squad mates.

Modifié par Collider, 09 février 2010 - 04:50 .

[ComTrav]

HelterSkelter89 wrote...

these threads are really annoying, you are not accomplishing anything. bioware has already shown they don't care about what their fans like about their games by adding ammo to the game and taking away the awesome amount of weapons, armor, upgrades, and skill points from the first one. do you really think having some fruity little online petition is going to affect anything?

Three pages, and no one's pointed out that story and character continuity vs. game systems is an apples and origins comparison?

[marshalleck]

Seems to me like keeping the main cast of ME2 would be less work than creating a new one. Each character has concept art sketched out, personal histories, and history with Shepard and reasons for being on the Normandy. We can jump straight into resolving everything in ME3.

For those who killed their entire squad, congratulations. You get a few one-dimensional characters with a handful of conversation options like all the squaddies in the first game. Or like Zaeed in ME2.

Modifié par marshalleck, 09 février 2010 - 05:00 .

[ThatDancingTurian]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I brought up KOTOR2 on its technical merits, not because of it being a BioWare game. I was saying that KOTOR2 was a sequel, so how were the carry-over characters (Bastila, Carth, etc) handled? Why were they handled in that way? Because from a technical standpoint it's easier to give a potentially dead character a lesser role. It's less work and maximizes disk space and resource usage.

Whatever KOTOR2's 'merits' may or may not be, it has no bearing on how ME3 will be handled. Considering how the entire game was without even a proper ending, they were likely cutting corners. Not exactly a good example of how games should be done or a game that was done efficiently and correctly.

You're assuming that Morinth won't be bck. She might be. And saying that "you have to purposely try to get X number of people killed" is a useless argument. Why is it a useless argument? Because no amtter how hard it is to do, BioWare still made it an option. So they'd have to purposely throw character decisions out the window in order to bring certain people back.
I hear there is a way to have only one single squadmate survive. BioWare's going to have to honor that playthrough. so, will that person only have 3 possible squaddies in ME3? Or is BioWare going to go the safe route and hand out small cameos with a mostly new squad? I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was the latter.

As for Love Interests, specifically, well, we have 9, 8 of whom are potentially dead.
So, again, if I get all these people killed will I end up with only Liara and Kaidan in my party because they're the only ones alive?
Will BioWare write replacement characters for each? If so that's a lot of work.
Will BioWare simply import only your LI as a squaddy and fill the rest with new guys? If so, that's a lot of content people aren't experiencing.

There's no reason to expect BioWare to put that much work into it imo.

BioWare gave us a lot of options that ended up hand-waved in ME2. The probability of the options chosen helps inform them what decisions to make for the game. Mass Effect isn't open-ended, they gear us to certain decisions to enable their storytelling. That's why it's so incredibly easy to save everyone at the end. Saying they'd make the characters unimportant in ME3 just because a few people got them killed is a useless argument. It's a waste of their time and it only hinders them from a creation perspective because they have to start from scratch.

And, as someone pointed out before during one of these inane debates, DA:O is an excellent example of a game where many of the characters could end up not recruited or dead, but they still have massive amounts of dialogue. Because the -obvious- choice is to take them with you. If you don't, you miss out.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Collider wrote...

Come on Mystranna. We already know Bioware does more than it has to. Like I said, the Tali and Garrus romances. They didn't have to, but they did because it would please the fans. You know what else would please the fans? ME2 squad mates as squad mates in ME3. We've plenty of reason to suspect this, if not expect. Writing minor NPC's as replacements isn't "hard work" in comparison to creating new squad mates.

And this is my point. You're only reason for disagreeing with me is hope that BioWare will go that extra mile.

But, for the record, Wrex was one of the most popular chars in ME1. He didn't come back. You can argue that he was "less popular than Tali and Garrus" and that it had nothing to do with the fact that he's dead in a lot of playthroughs, but I think that's a stretch.

Hey, I hope you're happy with what happens in ME3. I'm not content to sit back and hope that BioWare will get it right because I honestly don't think they will. Yeah, I'm pessimistic, but I call them as I see them. I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong!", I'm simply defending my position.

[Verifying]

DrathanGervaise wrote...

Offtopic @Verifying: I love me some alien side boob as much as the next guy, but does Tali actually have cookies?

Lol.  Of course she does, fresh backed chocolate chip, straight from the oven!
She can't eat them, though ,  However, this allows you to eat them in her face and lol while she cries, watching you eat the amazing cookies that she worked so hard to bake but will never be able to taste.
*AHEM*
I like what's been mentioned about DA:O.  It gives hope about ME2 characters being in ME3 as more than small roles.
Zevran is an excellent example of someone who could've been passed up.  You could've killed him, but if you kept him around you'd learn that he's an interesting person.  You could ditch anyone in that game, actually, except maybe Allastair.

Modifié par Verifying, 09 février 2010 - 05:07 .

[ThatDancingTurian]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

And this is my point. You're only reason for disagreeing with me is hope that BioWare will go that extra mile.

Some could just as easily say that your only reason is resentment over the treatment of the ME1 LIs or jealousy over the giant fanbase for the ME2 LIs. But let's not get petty. How about we both assume the other is trying to form opinions based on their own reasoning and the given facts instead of playing superior over how much more 'logically' we're thinking than each other?

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...

There's no reason to expect BioWare to put that much work into it imo. BioWare gave us a lot of options that ended up hand-waved in ME2. The probability of the options chosen helps inform them what decisions to make for the game. Mass Effect isn't open-ended, they gear us to certain decisions to enable their storytelling. That's why it's so incredibly easy to save everyone at the end. Saying they'd make the characters unimportant in ME3 just because a few people got them killed is a useless argument. It's a waste of their time and it only hinders them from a creation perspective because they have to start from scratch.

If this was true then there would likely be characters who were unable to die. Since they can die, then BioWare is saying they don't need a necessarily large role in ME3. As Casey said in many interviews, the reason Liara wasn't in the squad was because they wanted to guarantee her role in ME3. How do you argue with that? ME2 squad can all die. It all implies that they won't be as important. Unless you think Casey was lying / pulling an inaccurate publicity stunt to justify Liara's crap role, then how do you counter that?

And, as someone pointed out before during one of these inane debates, DA:O is an excellent example of a game where many of the characters could end up not recruited or dead, but they still have massive amounts of dialogue. Because the -obvious- choice is to take them with you. If you don't, you miss out.

And as I said to this argument before, there is a difference between creating content in one game specifically for that game and creating content meant to span multiple games. What happens to people who didn't play ME1 or ME2? They could be given handouts and a handful of old characters just for kicks, but that seems unfair. A new player in ME2 who didn't play ME1 isn't missing out on much, and BioWare still needs to appeal to new players as well as players who want to import certain character deaths. The easiest way to do that is with a mostly new squad.

It's the player's choice within DAO whether or not get Zevran and Wynne. It's not their choice to get X character in ME3 because they didn't play ME2.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 09 février 2010 - 05:12 .

[Collider]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
And this is my point. You're only reason for disagreeing with me is hope that BioWare will go that extra mile.

It's not my only reason. I am certain this is part of it - wish fullfilment on my part. However, I do fundamentally disagree, separate from my own desires, that you are exaggerating the difficulty and unlikeliness of it. I've already given you examples of how Bioware has done more work than they need to. So as to the question of whether they will do "needless" work, there is already evidence that they might.

But, for the record, Wrex was one of the most popular chars in ME1. He didn't come back. You can argue that he was "less popular than Tali and Garrus" and that it had nothing to do with the fact that he's dead in a lot of playthroughs, but I think that's a stretch.

Popularity has to do with it in part, but not completely. Who says that Wrex won't be a squad mate in Mass Effect 3? We don't know. What we do know that is that in part, Kaidan Ash and Liara were exempt from the suicide mission because Bioware wants them alive in Mass Effect 3, presumptively for bigger more important roles.

I still think that the emphasis of the mortality of your squad mates in ME2 is important. If they don't return at all or are just unimportant cameos, the suicide mission doesn't feel worthy of its name. Mass Effect 1 did not have this emphasis, players did not expect or have solid reason to suspect that Wrex may betray them and possibility die because of your actions. It was not the theme of game - but it was in Mass Effect 2, and we were given plenty of warning that squad mates (and Shepard) could die.

Hey, I hope you're happy with what happens in ME3. I'm not content to sit back and hope that BioWare will get it right because I honestly don't think they will. Yeah, I'm pessimistic, but I call them as I see them. I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong!", I'm simply defending my position.

That's fine, we are talking about speculative and subjective stuff anyway. Just defending my position as much as I am discussing yours. There's nothing wrong with hoping for it...I'm not saying it WILL happen as I describe, just that I disagree (seemingly) that it is as unlikely to as you appear to describe. Being pessimistic is sometimes the best way to go, because you aren't setting yourself up to be as disappointed as you would be if you expected something more. At the same time however, it can also needlessly make a person upset, annoyed, or disappointed prematurely. I'm haven't really been discussing you and whether you are pessimistic or not though.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Collider wrote...

I still think that the emphasis of the mortality of your squad mates in ME2 is important. If they don't return at all or are just unimportant cameos, the suicide mission doesn't feel worthy of its name. Mass Effect 1 did not have this emphasis, players did not expect or have solid reason to suspect that Wrex may betray them and possibility die because of your actions. It was not the theme of game - but it was in Mass Effect 2, and we were given plenty of warning that squad mates (and Shepard) could die.

That completely depends on what was more important. Is it more important that the job got done? Or is it more important that the squad survived?

Given that the final mission deaths are largely random, and that everyone can die, it seems that getting the job done is all that matters. Are they setting up the importance of these 11+ people in ME2? If so, then why can they all die? And why are their deaths randomized by a few different factors?

[ThatDancingTurian]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

If this was true then there would likely be characters who were unable to die. Since they can die, then BioWare is saying they don't need a necessarily large role in ME3. As Casey said in many interviews, the reason Liara wasn't in the squad was because they wanted to guarantee her role in ME3. How do you argue with that? ME2 squad can all die. It all implies that they won't be as important. Unless you think Casey was lying / pulling an inaccurate publicity stunt to justify Liara's crap role, then how do you counter that?

They were able to die because that was the big gimmick of ME2; ME2, the game where everyone can die! They made -everyone- able to die so when you lose one or two of them, it could be anyone. Not to imply you should kamikaze and start all over in ME3. They're going to put in options for people who do that, but they're not going to design ME3 from the perspective of that small percentage of players. It just doesn't make sense.

And as I said to this argument before, there is a difference between creating content in one game specifically for that game and creating content meant to span multiple games. What happens to people who didn't play ME1 or ME2? They could be given handouts and a handful of old characters just for kicks, but that seems unfair. A new player in ME2 who didn't play ME1 isn't missing out on much, and BioWare still needs to appeal to new players as well as players who want to import certain character deaths. The easiest way to do that is with a mostly new squad.

It's the player's choice within DAO whether or not get Zevran and Wynne. It's not their choice to get X character in ME3 because they didn't play ME2.

My point about the DA:O thing is that they've shown it is possible and something they're willing to do. And having designed ME2 with ME3 in mind, it is a similar idea to making one game. ME2 is set-up. This much is obvious.

Introducing the ME2 characters to new players in ME3 would not be difficult. It's the same as reintroducing them to Shepard. It's the same as has ever been done in any sequel, there are going to be characters from earlier installments, that's just a fact. If someone is buying a -sequel-, they know this.