inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 3, 2019 18:09:06 GMT
I'm not really sure what BioWare could have done to better integrate the ME2 cast into the following game Make them squadmates. there's only so much content you can gate off if these characters don't exist What? I think overall ME3 did a more than serviceable job considering how you have about a dozen characters to account for I disagree. A lot of people disagree. A ton of people disagreed with that, back in the early release days of ME3 and actively asking for more engaged roles for ME2 squadmates. Maybe you don't remember it, but I do. There was no way they could return as shipmates, because the possibility of the bare minimum surviving companion, which could be virtually anyone, leaves you with the necessity for a fixed roster to fill enough spots to compose a squad that can cover most basics in terms of abilities, not to mention actual character content. Then you've got a non-viable product in your hands.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Jul 3, 2019 19:05:53 GMT
I'm not really sure what BioWare could have done to better integrate the ME2 cast into the following game Make them squadmates. there's only so much content you can gate off if these characters don't exist What? I think overall ME3 did a more than serviceable job considering how you have about a dozen characters to account for I disagree. A lot of people disagree. A ton of people disagreed with that, back in the early release days of ME3 and actively asking for more engaged roles for ME2 squadmates. Maybe you don't remember it, but I do. There was no way they could return as shipmates, because the possibility of the bare minimum surviving companion, which could be virtually anyone, leaves you with the necessity for a fixed roster to fill enough spots to compose a squad that can cover most basics in terms of abilities, not to mention actual character content. Then you've got a non-viable product in your hands. I'd say this just about illustrates why ME2 was where the poor planning for the trilogy began. Just about the only thing that the team seemed to really plan ahead on was leaving the Virmire Survivor and Liara out of the team so it was impossible for them to die in the 2nd game. -Making them squadmates again sounds simple enough, but this doesn't really address the alternative, or address player choice in who you want to reintroduce to the ship. Like, let's say I don't want Jacob, Thane, Samara, Kasumi, Zaeed or Jack on my ship anymore, because fuck those guys. Do they just stay anyway? Does their survival in ME2 essentially obligate you to stick with them to the end of the trilogy? Let's say that it does, and I decide to kill these suckers off because I'd rather do without them in 3. What do they replace them with? -The dual state of a character in the game means that some amount of content would be locked off from the player. Question is, how much content should this really be? It's tricky because things like quests or anything involving the main campaign that might include any of these characters would need substitutes if it's to function, otherwise it would just be gated. Geth VI is a prime example of how substituting a character can really start to stretch the story logic. Had Legion not been able to be killed or given to Cerberus, there'd be no need for that. -They can disagree all they like, but I'd bet most of them didn't really give it a whole lot of thought beyond moaning about how their favorite such-and-such got the shaft. If they were given the opportunity to go ahead and create a flow chart of outcomes that leads from the second game to the third, I would bet many would end up altering the suicide mission mechanic so a few more than one *had* to survive (or die), or simply scrap the suicide mission altogether to hold it off for the final game, which was a suggestion I also saw. I remember people going on about having ME2 cast members needing more active roles. My takeaway from it was that ME2's overabundance of followers to the point of glut led to this as a consequence. -In your opinion it's non-viable, but frankly I felt that at the very least, the characters with the most meaningful content had roles befitting their contribution to the overarching stories. Hopefully any project going forward, if BioWare ever tries this again, they don't overstuff their roster just to lack a roadmap on where to put them all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 23:07:22 GMT
Fine. I'll still post what I please. Just don't respond. What the ... I'm saying I don't want to go back to the same conversation we had last time. You say what you want them to do, I say what I think they should do to get a more successful title, you'll insult Taoism or Buddhism this time, knowing you probably both, I will point it out and then a mod will delete the posts and you'll put me back on your ignore list. What's the point? And on top of that, you can't tell me what to do, you're not my dad. Fine. Respond then. Religion has nothing to do with it and it never did. Bioware can certainly wave off the ME2 cast. In effect, they already did in ME3... for all the reasons KaiserShep has been stating (which I happen to agree with). Plus it takes the impact away from making the decision that caused their deaths in the first place. Where's the tension in deciding between Kaidan and Ashley once you know that in ME5 both will be alive and on your squad again? Where's the tension in deciding who to put into the vents if you know that regardless of who you pick as leader of the alternate team will result in the vent person only being "knocked out" of two games (ME3 and ME:A) and will be on your squad in ME5 as if nothing happened in ME2. What's the point of doing a wonderfully crafted Suicide Mission when you know that the perfect run is already canon in a sequel game... you literally can't screw up. Ending decision aside, what's the point in accumulating any war assets in ME3 if you already know Shepard will live again regardless in ME5? Again, from a purely gameplay perspective, you literally can't screw up. With one sequel, you've managed to take all the "game" out of the previous 3 games.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:31:22 GMT
31,531
Hanako Ikezawa
22,965
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 4, 2019 0:02:03 GMT
I think overall ME3 did a more than serviceable job considering how you have about a dozen characters to account for I disagree. A lot of people disagree. A ton of people disagreed with that, back in the early release days of ME3 and actively asking for more engaged roles for ME2 squadmates. Maybe you don't remember it, but I do. Kelly should have still been on the Normandy helping the others, darn it!
|
|
inherit
1227
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:48:48 GMT
3,692
Phantom
2,664
August 2016
deathscepter
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Phantom on Jul 4, 2019 0:42:23 GMT
I disagree. A lot of people disagree. A ton of people disagreed with that, back in the early release days of ME3 and actively asking for more engaged roles for ME2 squadmates. Maybe you don't remember it, but I do. Kelly should have still been on the Normandy helping the others, darn it! Yeah Agreed, also have her able to switch from Cerberus Phantom and Cerberus Engineer Armors and function as a Cerberus Phantom/Engineer Hybrid.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 4, 2019 11:40:06 GMT
What do they replace them with? Ideally? Nothing. Player choice should also mean player consequence. No token substitutes. And be prepared that these loses might eventually result in a bad end or even a game over screen. When people bitched about the endings, this was part of the original complaint. The dual state of a character in the game means that some amount of content would be locked off from the player. Question is, how much content should this really be? As much as the devs want/can make. It's called replayability and adds to EA's desired player retention. They can disagree all they like, but I'd bet most of them didn't really give it a whole lot of thought beyond moaning about how their favorite such-and-such got the shaft It is not the consumer's fault that they weren't given the product they wanted. Especially when pre-release this wasn't the game they were marketed. Just like Anthem. Andrew Wilson in a recent interview also put the blame for Anthem's reception to the playerbase. So I take it you and Andrew Wilson are in agreement? In your opinion it's non-viable Following the events of ME3's release and on, I'd say it's more than an opinion. It's a demonstrable fact. Bioware can certainly wave off the ME2 cast They absolutely can and they can deal with the consequences of those actions again. It goes back to the old adage " just because you can, doesn't mean you should". Why are you so intent on making choices that are sure to raise ire and discontent from the gaming community and the ME fanbase? Do you understand the impact of such an action will have, not to the people that demand something, but to the people left at Bioware? Have you seen Ben Irving lately? After Anthem's launch all I see is the broken husk of a man. I don't know Ben personally and I'm too far removed from SW:ToR and Anthem to have any subjective opinion on the guy, but that last EA something something video they put up and had him on the panel, man did I feel sorry for him. I felt an intense pain in my chest, like I was seeing a mangled corpse that someone extracted from a horrible accident. People should not get that impression when they look at you. And if I get that impression, imagine being Ben. Kelly should have still been on the Normandy helping the others, darn it! It should have been an option, that's for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 13:13:37 GMT
What do they replace them with? Ideally? Nothing. Player choice should also mean player consequence. No token substitutes. And be prepared that these loses might eventually result in a bad end or even a game over screen. When people bitched about the endings, this was part of the original complaint. The dual state of a character in the game means that some amount of content would be locked off from the player. Question is, how much content should this really be? As much as the devs want/can make. It's called replayability and adds to EA's desired player retention. They can disagree all they like, but I'd bet most of them didn't really give it a whole lot of thought beyond moaning about how their favorite such-and-such got the shaft It is not the consumer's fault that they weren't given the product they wanted. Especially when pre-release this wasn't the game they were marketed. Just like Anthem. Andrew Wilson in a recent interview also put the blame for Anthem's reception to the playerbase. So I take it you and Andrew Wilson are in agreement? In your opinion it's non-viable Following the events of ME3's release and on, I'd say it's more than an opinion. It's a demonstrable fact. Bioware can certainly wave off the ME2 cast They absolutely can and they can deal with the consequences of those actions again. It goes back to the old adage " just because you can, doesn't mean you should". Why are you so intent on making choices that are sure to raise ire and discontent from the gaming community and the ME fanbase? Do you understand the impact of such an action will have, not to the people that demand something, but to the people left at Bioware? Have you seen Ben Irving lately? After Anthem's launch all I see is the broken husk of a man. I don't know Ben personally and I'm too far removed from SW:ToR and Anthem to have any subjective opinion on the guy, but that last EA something something video they put up and had him on the panel, man did I feel sorry for him. I felt an intense pain in my chest, like I was seeing a mangled corpse that someone extracted from a horrible accident. People should not get that impression when they look at you. And if I get that impression, imagine being Ben. Kelly should have still been on the Normandy helping the others, darn it! It should have been an option, that's for sure. You say they should replace them with nothing... except when it suits you to want to have people who died reappear in a sequel, eh? Then, you'll issue what is clearly an ultimatum:
As you say, there is a difference between "cannot' and "should not" and YOU clearly said, not only that they "cannot" but strenthened it by saying "They absolutely, positively, definitely cannot..." So, don't preach at me about the difference.
Bioware made the choice of creating an impactful choice to be made by players of deciding who lived and who died; and there are consequences to having that impactful choice in the prequel games. They chose to allow for save imports and to accommodate those choices in ME3 as best they could... and that's what gave those choices their "punch." For example, if I chose to send Legion to Cerberus in ME2, it had the consequence of making it impossible to resolve the geth/quarian war peacefully. If I couldn't use a persuade option on the Quarians but chose to not release Rael's data to get Tali exonerated, I also could not resolve the geth/Quarian war peacefully. That impactful moment IS undermined by the notion that it will just be undone in a future game.
Why are you so intent on taking any meaningful choice given in the earlier games and turning it into a mere poll vote to determine what appears in a future game?... particularly since that "vote is ruled by what amounts to a vocal minority essentially of "dissatisfied" people who play the game, since the majority, and particularly those who are just content, never speak up (and that's a statistical fact). That doesn't enhance replayability of those earlier games, it diminishes it.
So, again, why would I bother to even play the SM if I can count on Bioware to just make it so everyone lives and returns to the squad in a sequel game regardless of anything I do in ME2?
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 4, 2019 13:25:56 GMT
you to want to have people who died reappear in a sequel Potentially died. Just like Garrus and Tali, which you could recruit regardless. Of course, the ones that canonically, inescapably died, like Legion, Thane and Mordin cannot return, I thought that went without saying. Unless, like I said, you start up Projects Lazarus 2-4, but while you can do that, it doesn't really make much sense to do it for them. The choice of creating an impactful choice of deciding who lives and who died was made and there are consequences to having that impactful choice in the prequel games What? Why are you so intent on taking any meaningful choice given in the earlier games and turning it into a mere poll vote to determine what appears in a future game Success. Success is what makes me so intent. Success of a future title, or failure due to lack of capitalizing on player interest, appeal to emotion and untapped potential. particularly since that "vote" is ruled by what amounts to a vocal minority of people who play the game (since the majority never speak up) That isn't quantifiable and there are no statistic to back up your claim. That doesn't enhance replayability of those earlier games, it diminishes it. So choices having consequences and different choices having different consequences harms replayability. How exactly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 14:06:37 GMT
you to want to have people who died reappear in a sequel Potentially died. Just like Garrus and Tali, which you could recruit regardless. Of course, the ones that canonically, inescapably died, like Legion, Thane and Mordin cannot return, I thought that went without saying. Unless, like I said, you start up Projects Lazarus 2-4, but while you can do that, it doesn't really make much sense to do it for them. The choice of creating an impactful choice of deciding who lives and who died was made and there are consequences to having that impactful choice in the prequel games What? Why are you so intent on taking any meaningful choice given in the earlier games and turning it into a mere poll vote to determine what appears in a future game Success. Success is what makes me so intent. Success of a future title, or failure due to lack of capitalizing on player interest, appeal to emotion and untapped potential. particularly since that "vote" is ruled by what amounts to a vocal minority of people who play the game (since the majority never speak up) That isn't quantifiable and there are no statistic to back up your claim. That doesn't enhance replayability of those earlier games, it diminishes it. So choices having consequences and different choices having different consequences harms replayability. How exactly? 1) Only possibly lived and only because you decided they should is the flip side of that coin. Having them universally live regardless means that choice is made moot, same as if Bioware chose to make the entire squad dying canon. Legion does not "canonically" die in ME2. If he dies in ME2, it makes a huge difference in how ME3 can be played. The only difference is that you don't object personally to his "being sidelined" in ME3.
2) I edited the original post to make that sentence clearer. In essence... Bioware has already made choices to allow for choices in their RPGs. It's not a poll vote to determine what the majority will choose (and again the majority of those who are inclined to vote is NOT necessarily the majority of players). It's an RPG (role playing GAME) with player choices enabled.
3) & 4) Millions buy these games. A few thousand participate here or tweet their opinions. The opinions of the millions who don't speak up is unknown. Yet, you continually claim that your opinions represent the sole difference between "success" and "failure' for the whole game... even an immensely popular game like ME2 based on limited complaints about sidelined ME2 squadmates (because only a minority of those millions ever said anything about it). It's your argument - YOU statistically prove that a majority of those millions who bought ME2 and ME3 were unhappy specifically about ME2 squad members they allowed to die not reappearing in ME3.
5) What choice is left after Bioware overrides it all? None. What different consequences are there once Bioware homogenizes everything in a sequel game? None. Bioware might as well make only 1 game in each franchise and forget about allowing player continuity altogether.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 4, 2019 14:50:04 GMT
Only possibly lived only because you decided they should is the flip side of that coin. Having them universally live regardless means that choice is made moot, same as if Bioware chose to make the entire squad dying canon. Legion does not "canonically" die in ME2. If he dies in ME2, it makes a huge difference in how ME3 can be played. The only difference is that you don't object personally to his "being sidelined" in ME3. Huge difference isn't what I'd be going with, but sure. Anyway, ideally, what I'm advocating is that dead party members should stay dead, according to your save state. From that point on, if you want to start a new game with only Liara surviving, as is canon, or not, should be up to you, as is the option to import a perfect save, or anything in between. But that is player choice. Dead squadmates that would otherwise trigger conversations between surviving members means that a different playthrough, with them surviving, would offer a different game experience. If that makes the game more difficult or easier to play, because certain squadmates are dead, that is also player choice. In the years since ME3, you'd have the chance to import all variations of save imports. But as I said before, certain save states would be game overs. Chose Control? Sorry, that results in a game over. Syntethis? Game over. Low EMS Destroy? Game over. Shepard survives high EMS Destroy? Play ball. Easy as that: player choice and player consequence. I edited the original post to make that sentence clearer. In essence... Bioware has already made choices to allow for choices in their RPGs. It's not a poll vote to determine the what the majority will choose. It's an RPG (role playing GAME) with player choices enabled. I'm 100% with you there. Millions buy these games. A few thousand participate hear or tweet their opinions. The opinions of the millions who don't speak up is unknown. Yet, you continually claim that your "opinions" represent the sole difference between "success" and "failure' for the whole game... I'm going by what I'm seeing in the gaming community's reception and reaction to Bioware titles. If what you perceive as successful is the norm, then why doesn't that align with the reception of other games? Is the 73% average reception score of Andromeda equal to Mass Effect 2's 95% average? or God of War's 94%? Where are the clickbait youtube videos and gaming site articles about God of War, then? Something here isn't lining up and unfortunately, in so far, it doesn't seem to be me. What choice is left after Bioware overrides it all? None. What different consequences are there once Bioware homogenizes everything in a sequel game? None.
You can take certain options into account. Arguably, some are too complicated to calculate, but I'm sure we could come up with something to accommodate them, given enough brainstorming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 15:29:37 GMT
Only possibly lived only because you decided they should is the flip side of that coin. Having them universally live regardless means that choice is made moot, same as if Bioware chose to make the entire squad dying canon. Legion does not "canonically" die in ME2. If he dies in ME2, it makes a huge difference in how ME3 can be played. The only difference is that you don't object personally to his "being sidelined" in ME3. Huge difference isn't what I'd be going with, but sure. Anyway, ideally, what I'm advocating is that dead party members should stay dead, according to your save state. From that point on, if you want to start a new game with only Liara surviving, as is canon, or not, should be up to you, as is the option to import a perfect save, or anything in between. But that is player choice. Dead squadmates that would otherwise trigger conversations between surviving members means that a different playthrough, with them surviving, would offer a different game experience. If that makes the game more difficult or easier to play, because certain squadmates are dead, that is also player choice. In the years since ME3, you'd have the chance to import all variations of save imports. But as I said before, certain save states would be game overs. Chose Control? Sorry, that results in a game over. Syntethis? Game over. Low EMS Destroy? Game over. Shepard survives high EMS Destroy? Play ball. Easy as that: player choice and player consequence. I edited the original post to make that sentence clearer. In essence... Bioware has already made choices to allow for choices in their RPGs. It's not a poll vote to determine the what the majority will choose. It's an RPG (role playing GAME) with player choices enabled. I'm 100% with you there. Millions buy these games. A few thousand participate hear or tweet their opinions. The opinions of the millions who don't speak up is unknown. Yet, you continually claim that your "opinions" represent the sole difference between "success" and "failure' for the whole game... I'm going by what I'm seeing in the gaming community's reception and reaction to Bioware titles. If what you perceive as successful is the norm, then why doesn't that align with the reception of other games? Is the 73% average reception score of Andromeda equal to Mass Effect 2's 95% average? or God of War's 94%? Where are the clickbait youtube videos and gaming site articles about God of War, then? Something here isn't lining up and unfortunately, in so far, it doesn't seem to be me. What choice is left after Bioware overrides it all? None. What different consequences are there once Bioware homogenizes everything in a sequel game? None.
You can take certain options into account. Arguably, some are too complicated to calculate, but I'm sure we could come up with something to accommodate them, given enough brainstorming. Then you're advocating a save import. I should then be able to extend that save import to whatever choices I made in ME3... but what prevents it is the practicality of dealing with all those variables in a fifth game with all the permutations of a changing squad involving all or any number of 11 squad mates from ME2, 3 from ME1 (being Ashley, Kaidan and Wrex) and Liara, James and Javik from ME3 (excluding Legion who is the only one who is canonically dead after the end of ME2) combined with the various permutations of choices and consequences of those choices in all the previous games (excluding only the ME3 endings because that's what you perrsonally want expunged except for Shepard Lives destroy along with all of ME:A). THAT IS not a viable product... too many variables (to quote Mordin). The ME2 squad was "sidelined" in ME2 because there were already at that time too many variables to deal with them. As I stated, I agree with KaiserShep. They absolutely can and they should keep the ME2 squad sidelined regardless of what they do with the rest of it.
Finally, if you're indeed advocating that dead squad mates stay dead, it should be possible to keep Shepard dead by choice... and EDI alive by choice.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 4, 2019 16:25:19 GMT
excluding Legion who is the only one who is canonically dead after the end of ME2 You mean ME3. And also Thane. Thane dies regardless. The ME2 squad was "sidelined" in ME2 because there were already at that time too many variables to deal with them I disagree. Compartmentalization of development can keep them secluded from the greater plot and only keep them relevant for character specific plots and certain interactions for characters they share a dynamic with. Provided you have a cohesive vision for a character you absolutely can implement them in a tasteful and meaningful manner. I can do it. Finally, if you're indeed advocating that dead squad mates stay dead, it should be possible to keep Shepard dead by choice... and EDI alive by choice. That depends if the save state is considered a game over or not. My example sets dead Shepard as a game over, therefore EDI would be " dead".
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Sept 16, 2024 15:46:24 GMT
9,324
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,875
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Jul 4, 2019 17:47:22 GMT
How would your approach actually differ from ME3's approach?
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 4, 2019 18:23:02 GMT
How would your approach actually differ from ME3's approach? Am I the person being asked?
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:31:22 GMT
31,531
Hanako Ikezawa
22,965
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 4, 2019 18:58:05 GMT
Kelly should have still been on the Normandy helping the others, darn it! Yeah Agreed, also have her able to switch from Cerberus Phantom and Cerberus Engineer Armors and function as a Cerberus Phantom/Engineer Hybrid. I don't think she should have been a squadmate, but with her skills she could have helped the others in the squad and crew deal with all the emotional things they went through in the game.
|
|
inherit
1227
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:48:48 GMT
3,692
Phantom
2,664
August 2016
deathscepter
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Phantom on Jul 4, 2019 21:40:29 GMT
Yeah Agreed, also have her able to switch from Cerberus Phantom and Cerberus Engineer Armors and function as a Cerberus Phantom/Engineer Hybrid. I don't think she should have been a squadmate, but with her skills she could have helped the others in the squad and crew deal with all the emotional things they went through in the game. I do see that working as well for her. Also having her as an optional squad mate for roleplaying options will be nice. Also I would love to see a different character(any species any factions) going thru the Reaper War and see that character surive into a Post Reaper War Galaxy. Also a Post Reaper War galaxy with a twist would be nice.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Sept 20, 2024 23:47:36 GMT
25,376
themikefest
15,310
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 4, 2019 22:33:29 GMT
I'm not really sure what BioWare could have done to better integrate the ME2 cast into the following game. According to @straycat, who hasn't been on the forum in quite sometime, said that Kasumi and Thane were to have a bigger role during the coup. Grunt, Zaeed, and Jack had dialogue content for priority Earth that was cut. Yet Bioware had no problem having the turian and quarian as squadmates. What did the turian add to the game that the other ME2 squadmates, not from ME1, couldn't have added to the game? From what I recall, Tali was not to have been a squadmate, but because Weekes put up a big fuss about that, she was made a squadmate.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Sept 20, 2024 23:47:36 GMT
25,376
themikefest
15,310
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 4, 2019 22:38:27 GMT
I disagree. A lot of people disagree. A ton of people disagreed with that, back in the early release days of ME3 and actively asking for more engaged roles for ME2 squadmates. Maybe you don't remember it, but I do. Kelly should have still been on the Normandy helping the others, darn it! I agree with the number of times I posted how it was possible for her to be on the ship. I would also include the Honorable Mr.Rupert Gardner, the greatest cook in the universe to make his famous calamari gumbo for the Commander
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Jul 6, 2019 6:37:48 GMT
What do they replace them with? Ideally? Nothing. Player choice should also mean player consequence. No token substitutes. And be prepared that these loses might eventually result in a bad end or even a game over screen. When people bitched about the endings, this was part of the original complaint. When I ask this question, it’s under the assumption that the team makeup in this hypothetical follow-up would basically mirror ME2’s, leaving no room for additions or reintroduced characters like James, the Eva platform EDI occupies, the Virmire Survivor or Liara. The game has to function to permit the player to assemble a full squad, and from an in-world standpoint, the ship can’t just have Shepard being the sole combat-ready operative aboard. How would having nothing really work from a story perspective? Hackett would just assign some new guns to the Normandy anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2019 13:11:09 GMT
I'm not really sure what BioWare could have done to better integrate the ME2 cast into the following game. According to @straycat, who hasn't been on the forum in quite sometime, said that Kasumi and Thane were to have a bigger role during the coup. Grunt, Zaeed, and Jack had dialogue content for priority Earth that was cut. Yet Bioware had no problem having the turian and quarian as squadmates. What did the turian add to the game that the other ME2 squadmates, not from ME1, couldn't have added to the game? From what I recall, Tali was not to have been a squadmate, but because Weekes put up a big fuss about that, she was made a squadmate. It seems obvious that they had the budget to deal with 2 possible ME2 squad mates who may or may not be alive to fulfill their roles. Garrus and Tali won the draw... both of whom were potential LI's in ME2 and who were in ME1. They then opted to take all the other potentially alive ME2 LIs and give them off-ship roles where they could still be romances to a degree but where they wouldn't have to include so much other content (like battlefield chatter and on-ship chatter for those particular ME2 squad mates). I didn't mind the choice since it made the visits to the Citadel more interesting.
Of the crew, I would have opted to have Kelly rather than Gabby and Ken and developed that romance more completely; particularly since Kelly's replacement (Samantha) was a potential romance for only FemShep.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 8, 2019 11:31:57 GMT
Ideally? Nothing. Player choice should also mean player consequence. No token substitutes. And be prepared that these loses might eventually result in a bad end or even a game over screen. When people bitched about the endings, this was part of the original complaint. When I ask this question, it’s under the assumption that the team makeup in this hypothetical follow-up would basically mirror ME2’s, leaving no room for additions or reintroduced characters like James, the Eva platform EDI occupies, the Virmire Survivor or Liara. The game has to function to permit the player to assemble a full squad, and from an in-world standpoint, the ship can’t just have Shepard being the sole combat-ready operative aboard. How would having nothing really work from a story perspective? Hackett would just assign some new guns to the Normandy anyway. That is part of the consequence section. Maybe nobody wants to work with someone that consistently gets his entire fucking crew killed. So that Shepard, who cannot assemble a viable crew to man his ship, cannot continue on. It is a perfectly viable outcome.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 8, 2019 11:48:01 GMT
They then opted to take all the other potentially alive ME2 LIs and give them off-ship roles where they could still be romances to a degree but where they wouldn't have to include so much other content If I recall correctly, Jack in ME3 had about 2 minutes worth of audio in the entire base game. Including the special dialogues. It was barely a step above Jacob's and that's just because Jacob's was downright insulting. Let's not pretend Bioware was being gracious and doing people favours. MVP for Bioware stands for Minimum Viable Product and that's exactly what the ME3 SP was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 13:53:54 GMT
They then opted to take all the other potentially alive ME2 LIs and give them off-ship roles where they could still be romances to a degree but where they wouldn't have to include so much other content If I recall correctly, Jack in ME3 had about 2 minutes worth of audio in the entire base game. Including the special dialogues. It was barely a step above Jacob's and that's just because Jacob's was downright insulting. Let's not pretend Bioware was being gracious and doing people favours. MVP for Bioware stands for Minimum Viable Product and that's exactly what the ME3 SP was. It's not about "being gracious" though. It's about trying to fit the game into a budget (one probably dictated by their parent company). It's about making hard decisions between injecting new content and nodding to old content and their deciding (not us) about where they want to take the story overall.
I'm not saying it's the best writing technique. It's not, but it is a reality of business. They could only produce a game so large within the budget they were given and the time they were given by EA. Regardless, they did have a rationale for their choices that separated the ME2 squad into tiers - Tier 1 - Garrus and Tali - both ME1 squad and ME2 potential LIs, one for BroShep and one for FemShep, brought onto the ship; Tier 2 - Mordin and Legion - not ME2 LIs, but felt they were important to the genophage and Quarian story arcs and were brought onto the ship temporarily, as we Wrex from ME1. Tier 3 - Miranda and Thane - both ME2 LIs that they felt were suited for main story missions in ME3. Tier 4 - Jacob, Samara, and Jack - ME2 Li's given each a side mission; and Grunt - not an LI but given a side mission because he wasn't DLC; Tier 4 - Zaeed and Kasumi - DLC squad given each a side quest on the Citadel.
It's all water under the bridge though now. Just like you don't think they'll proceed with Andromeda, I really don't think they're going to go back and do a complete rewrite of ME3. I think it's more likely that they'd proceed with Andromeda than doing a rewrite of ME3.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,627
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 8, 2019 14:18:51 GMT
It's about trying to fit the game into a budget (one probably dictated by their parent company). Or a 18 month development period, as has been established for ME3 by several sources, which wasn't enough to accommodate outcomes for these decisions in a satisfactory way. I'm not saying it's the best writing technique. It's not, Ditto but it is a reality of business Bad business, if you consider the long term repercussions of it. It's all water under the bridge though now. I sincerely doubt it. If there was water under the proverbial bridge, then perhaps said bridge wouldn't be on fire right now. Just like you don't think they'll proceed with Andromeda I think they will proceed with Andromeda. I just don't think they should, at least not right now. It's like pretending that the aforementioned bridge, which is on fire, is suitable for crossing and that the people getting burned are exaggerating. Put the fire out, repair the bridge and then keep using it. I really don't think they're going to go back and do a complete rewrite of ME3 Neither do I. I think it's more likely that they'd proceed with Andromeda than doing a rewrite of ME3. Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 21, 2024 1:21:04 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 15:31:18 GMT
It's about trying to fit the game into a budget (one probably dictated by their parent company). Or a 18 month development period, as has been established for ME3 by several sources, which wasn't enough to accommodate outcomes for these decisions in a satisfactory way. I'm not saying it's the best writing technique. It's not, Ditto but it is a reality of business Bad business, if you consider the long term repercussions of it. It's all water under the bridge though now. I sincerely doubt it. If there was water under the proverbial bridge, then perhaps said bridge wouldn't be on fire right now. Just like you don't think they'll proceed with Andromeda I think they will proceed with Andromeda. I just don't think they should, at least not right now. It's like pretending that the aforementioned bridge, which is on fire, is suitable for crossing and that the people getting burned are exaggerating. Put the fire out, repair the bridge and then keep using it. I really don't think they're going to go back and do a complete rewrite of ME3 Neither do I. I think it's more likely that they'd proceed with Andromeda than doing a rewrite of ME3. Exactly. Budgets and deadlines are a reality of any business. Your assessment that the bridge in "on fire" is quite different from that same bridge still burning 3 or so years from now, which is most likely the earliest date a new Mass Effect game will be released. One effect I think we'll see is that they won't announce anything or leak anything until they are reasonably sure the game is very nearly complete (less than a year before release), so as to not re-ignite any bridges.
|
|