153 réponses à ce sujet

[Kenshen]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

The OP makes sense, unfortunately opinions like this are not welcome. Rabid fans of specific squad members will come in and say "No! _____ is too important to the storyline". If any one person was too important to the storyline, they would get the Alistair treatment - i.e. you couldn't get rid of them until the very end.

People point to optional characters and optional loyalty quests as proof of what is in store for ME3. Guess what? If resolving the Geth/Quarian problem or the Krogan Genophage was critical for ME3, then those loyalty quests would not have been optional! If they are too important to the ME3 storyline, then the decisions you made during ME2 on those optional quests would be whitewashed and insignificant. We have already seen main-storyline decisions have minimal effect on gameplay. What exactly can you expect from optional-storyline decisions like erasing the genophage data, rewriting the Geth, or conduct at Tali's trial?

The only one that matters is Shepard and the Reapers. Everything else is filler.

Sadly I think you are right but it would be very cool if BW is brave enough to make it so that those missions are important even though they are optional.  If you don't do them then the game becomes that much harder to finish the way one would want.  Of course I would also be floored if I actually was to find out that some of my paragon choices would come back to bite me in the behind. 

[Ray Joel Oh]

screwoffreg wrote...
Maybe they will get extreme and put in everything they ever wanted to...but were to afraid too!

Crossing fingers for hauntingly graphic human/hanar intercourse.

[contown]

I agree with the OP. Things don't look good.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Yup the game will SUCK! It will be the only bad game Bioware has ever made! GRAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!! Examining a game I know just about nothing about I can safely extrapolate that it will be a disappointment.

[DarthCaine]

It won't really be a disappointment for me 'cos that's basically what I expect from ME3, just like ME2 wasn't a disappointment for me since I knew EXACTLY what to expect (that your choices will have very little consequences) and I still say ME2>ME1 and that most likely ME3>ME1

Modifié par DarthCaine, 08 mars 2010 - 07:23 .

[Nyaore]

A game is generally only as disappointing as you allow it to be. Keep your expectations reasonable and don't allow yourself to dive head first into the hype that surrounds it, and most of the time you'll come out relatively unscathed. Again I stress the 'most of the time' bit. There are some games that just end up sucking no matter how reasonable you are about what you expect out of them.

Still I'm cautiously optimistic about Bioware's chances of pulling things off in the third and final installment. They have yet to let me down when it comes to delivering a good game, and I don't see why they would start now. That said however, I'm still keeping my expectations to a minimum until I finally have the game in my hands.

[DrunkenGoon]

This is really a useless arguement at this point.. I remember before ME 2 I was one of the people who was extremely worried about what was going to happen.. Then the game came out and I still can't believe how much fun I am having playing the game multiple times. I have faith in BioWare and that they will be bringing us a kick ass finale to the ME trilogy,,

[CmdrFenix83]

ME1->ME2 transition cannot be used as precedent for anything involving ME3. We're not going into a game that has another sequel that we have to import a save to. ME3 is the end. They're not going to reduce ME2 squadmates to cameos. Your ME3 squad will almost definitely be all of your survivors from ME2(possibly a few of them leaving, though most have no reason to go anywhere), and we'll almost definitely be adding back Liara and Ash/Kaiden.



If you killed people off, you simply miss out on them in that playthrough. That doesn't mean the dialogue goes to waste unless you kill them off on *every* playthrough.

[Vanaer]

Mass Effect 3 has some pretty big shoes to fill

Your whole comment can be summarized by the above statement. Yes, it has big shoes to fill, but there will be no disappointment if you keep your expectations realistic.

[madisk]

XX55XX wrote...

It's clear that people want a bigger, more expanded sequel that actually takes the player's decisions and dialogue choices into account. But let's say that BioWare was forced to rush ME3... Let us examine the possibilities:

Bioware aren't idiots. They won't rush it.

XX55XX wrote...

1. Squad makeup

Since any squad member can die in ME2, I doubt BioWare will take the time to flesh out each squadmate in ME2 any further. For example, let's say that Tali lives in my game, but doesn't live in someone else's game. Will BioWare really write extra dialogue for Tali just so that those who had her live in the end get to have her as a squadmate once again and listen to some extra dialogue? At best, BioWare may make that extra effort, but the more pessimistic side of me says that nearly every ME2 squadmate will be reduced to playing cameo roles because of this. If they live, then great! You get to see them for five minutes in ME3 before they disappear from Mass Effect forever! The transition from ME1 to ME2 and how ME1 characters were handled there is proof of this.

If they cut out existing characters or fall short on developing them and writing dialogue, the game will not sell. They won't be that stupid.

XX55XX wrote...

The remainder of the squad will be filled in by completely new squadmates or minor characters from either ME1 or ME2 who could not be killed in any way. Furthermore, any ME2 squadmates who lived will have small five to ten minute cameo roles.

Would not sell.

XX55XX wrote...

2. Player Decisions

The decision of whether to save the council or not in ME1 had few ramifications in ME2. Likewise, destroying the Collector Base (or not!) will probably have few ramifications in ME3. If you destroyed the Collector Base, you will eventually get your hands on some vital Reaper technology anyways in ME3!

Both games have so far implied decisions that will have huge ramifications and intertwined results. If they don't deliver, the game simply won't sell as well and the ME trilogy would go down as mediocre. If they want to keep milking the ME franchise, then they better make ME3 into a role playing hallmark. All they need to do is make the decisions in previous games matter and affect other decisions directly. And to accomplish that they need to heavily focus on the writing. Once the dialogue and cutscene assets are there it's no big deal to make it into a truly interactive game - designing games like that on UE3 is ridiculously easy.

Conclusion: You're wrong.

Modifié par madisk, 08 mars 2010 - 07:34 .

[Nozybidaj]

madisk wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

The remainder of the squad will be filled in by completely new squadmates or minor characters from either ME1 or ME2 who could not be killed in any way. Furthermore, any ME2 squadmates who lived will have small five to ten minute cameo roles.

Would not sell.

ME2 proves you wrong.

[MassAffected]

So sick of all the doomsayers and the "sky is falling" crowd. I know I shouldn't even reply to threads like these, but its so hard sometimes.

[ZennExile]

Vanaer wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has some pretty big shoes to fill

Your whole comment can be summarized by the above statement. Yes, it has big shoes to fill, but there will be no disappointment if you keep your expectations realistic.

Realistic as in, EA controlled stuiods spend more money on marketing than development so there is no reason to expect Mass Effect 3 to be more than market driven cloned garbage?

Or realistic as in, anything is possible and Bioware might seperate from the EA cash cow in the very near future because of an accidental oversight in their merger agreement that went undetected until now, and somehow could not be rectified, resulting in Bioware returning to their original design theory and production standards?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Karstedt wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Karstedt wrote...

I'm more worried about the 'streamlining' of the game. It could turn into and outright FPS.

For that they'd have to do a complete engine rewrite, waste of time.

No they don't, they just have to further strip down features like they did from ME1 -> 2. It would be very easy to turn ME3 into an semi linear story drivens FPS with great dialog and minimal RPG elements.

Except the game is built around 3rd person cover based combat not first. Don't use words you don't understand.

Exactly.

[Mavkiel]

Honestly, I am just hoping the console crowd keeps their claws off of me3. Otherwise we will likely see more content stripped for more pew pew and chicks in spandex in space. I am hoping for me3, they keep planet scanning, keep hammerhead missions.

[ResidentNoob]

Valmy wrote...

I am pretty laid back about Bioware's games.

They make great games. Period. I will play it and enjoy it.

QFT.

However, to offer my two cents...

With the squadmates, I'm guessing (or hoping, whichever) that they will not introduce any new squadmates whatsoever.

Instead, your squad  will be made up of who you have managed to keep alive throughout the entire trilogy. That way, as a bare minimum, your squad will consist of:

• Liara
• Ashley/Kaidan
• The two (loyal) squadmates that you took to fight the Human-Reaper(otherwise, Shepard would've died).

Makes sense to me.

[Schneidend]

OP, are you high? I feel I must ask this, because your point about squad makeup is setting off all kinds of alarms, here. The squadmates that can die in ME2 aren't a major player-made decision like killing Wrex or saving Ashley/Kaidan is in the first game. They're not even remotely comparable. Granted, they'll probably cut down on the size of the squad in the third game and some people from ME2 won't make it, but the reason they won't make it isn't because "they can die in the suicide mission." The main metagame reason why most of the ME1 squad can't be recruited in ME2 is because they want Liara, Kaidan/Ashley, and Wrex/Wreave to be in the final installment no matter what happens on the suicide mission.

[BobbyTheI]

I'm sorry, I just don't get the argument of "Well, these people could die in ME2, so there's no way they'll get a big role in ME3."

Let me just, as an example, talk about Grunt.  Depending on how you play the game, he could be one of the first characters you recruit.  Depending on your squad makeup, he could be present for pretty much every single event in the entire game.  And you can have as many conversations with him as you can with every other squadmate.  I think that fairly well fits the definition of him having a "big role."

And yet... you can choose to never even let him out of his tank.  He can sit there down the entire game and never even speak once.  Does it influence the plot in any major way?  Are there any big branches that have to be changed because you never ended the warm liquid goo phase?

There are squadmates that take a major role in the plotline of the game.  And there are some who don't.  As has been mentioned, you can go through all of ME1 without ever recruiting Garrus.  Did the devs say, "Well, since some playthroughs of ME1 don't end with Garrus in your team, let's not even bother putting him into ME2?"

I think it's perfectly viable to include the squadmates from ME2 as squadmates for ME3.  There may not be as many situations where the plot hinges on their presence (like Liara in ME1 or Virmire) but as I said, a character with as much potential as Grunt to be around for the whole game can be completely left out without a major influence on the plot.

And most of all: if they did bring back most or all of the characters from ME2 as squadmates, they'd have to write around their potential deaths and focus more on the overarching plot than on your NPC buddies.  And wasn't that one of the major complaints about ME2, that it spent too much time on the squadmates and not on the plot? 

[Onyx Jaguar]

Mavkiel wrote...

Honestly, I am just hoping the console crowd keeps their claws off of me3. Otherwise we will likely see more content stripped for more pew pew and chicks in spandex in space. I am hoping for me3, they keep planet scanning, keep hammerhead missions.

The hell?

[GenericPlayer2]

I don't think ME3 will be a disappointment, since with all the faults of ME2 it was a great game (not to mention ME1). But choice is actually illusion of choice. One of the BW people said on a Sci Fi special that basically all the roads have to lead to the same destination for the development to be feasable.



The fact is, we don't know what the structure of ME3 will be. There could be "rotating door" team mates, i.e. if you do a mission on Tuchanka you get 2 random Krogans, or if Grunt and Wrex are alive, you get them. After that mission they move on and you go to your next task.



The problem is that people say things must be this way or that way because of some infatuation with a crew member. If any one of your crew was critical for ME3, there is no way they would have had their deaths in ME2. And BW is not going to penalize people with less content based upon the outcome of their previous game. If they did that it would anger more people than fan service would.



The fact is, ME2 has very little content with regards to the main story - only (4 missions). You can say why did they spend all this time on character development in ME2 only to throw it away. The fact is, ME2 is the character development game, without it there would be no sequel. You would instead have a 4 mission expansion pack of ME1. So there is no 'extra effort' in the character stories, since that is the story.



So I am confident that BW will turn out a quality product, like they always do, but I will take anything they say about important 'choices' with a grain of salt.

[Zulu_DFA]

XX55XX wrote...

It's clear that people want a bigger, more expanded sequel that actually takes the player's decisions and dialogue choices into account. But let's say that BioWare was forced to rush ME3... Let us examine the possibilities:

1. Squad makeup

Since any squad member can die in ME2, I doubt BioWare will take the time to flesh out each squadmate in ME2 any further. For example, let's say that Tali lives in my game, but doesn't live in someone else's game. Will BioWare really write extra dialogue for Tali just so that those who had her live in the end get to have her as a squadmate once again and listen to some extra dialogue? At best, BioWare may make that extra effort, but the more pessimistic side of me says that nearly every ME2 squadmate will be reduced to playing cameo roles because of this. If they live, then great! You get to see them for five minutes in ME3 before they disappear from Mass Effect forever! The transition from ME1 to ME2 and how ME1 characters were handled there is proof of this.

Thus, it only seems fitting that BioWare retire the current crop of ME2 squadmates and bring in some new people. The squad may end up looking something like this:

1. Ashley/Kaidan (depending on lived on Virmire)
2. Liara (obvious given, since she can't be killed)

The remainder of the squad will be filled in by completely new squadmates or minor characters from either ME1 or ME2 who could not be killed in any way. Furthermore, any ME2 squadmates who lived will have small five to ten minute cameo roles.

2. Player Decisions

The decision of whether to save the council or not in ME1 had few ramifications in ME2. Likewise, destroying the Collector Base (or not!) will probably have few ramifications in ME3. If you destroyed the Collector Base, you will eventually get your hands on some vital Reaper technology anyways in ME3!

Conclusion

Mass Effect 3 has some pretty big shoes to fill, and seeing how little decisions in ME1 mattered - like Ashley and Kaidan having the same lines, the Council still being douches regardless of who's in it, I have serious doubts that BioWare has the capacity to really make our choices count for the finale. Most likely, BioWare will be reduced to either using deus ex machinimas to bring back certain squadmates from the dead, or reduce them to cameo appearances only. Branching storylines that differ from game to game clearly is not BioWare's specialty, so be warned! Mass Effect 3 may be a disappointment.

1. Squad make-up. Screw Tali. That's all I have to say.
2. Decisions. That's easy, should BioWare have some gut for it. Click at the link at the right of my sig for details.

They still have to wire some sh*t together, like Zaeed = 40 years old and founded the Blue Suns 25 years ago. And bare breasts in UV-irradiated vacuum + high hells on the battlefield. But that's quite easily corrected too, should they have some will to do it.

Conclusion: I still keep hopes up for the epic conclusion of the epic trilogy, marred by cheesy middle part.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 mars 2010 - 08:35 .