BioWare can't afford to let any squadmates die.

I just wish they hadn't revealed it.

The fact that they did it so casually baffles me.

Wait, is it revealed/confirmed? I would love to see confirmation!

And yes I agree. ME2 squadmates got the shaft in ME3. Oh I can't join becaaause I'm hunting my dad/my wife is pregnant/my code wants me in the frontlines/i'm a teacher now/i'm not going to be roped back in/I need to put clothes in the dryer etc etc.

Story-telling purposes, there was no reason ME2 squadmates shouldn't return aside from I suppose the difficulty it would be as others would have them alive and others dead. They had to prioritize Garrus and Tali for that reason

We've only got about 6 this time so we as players can't really afford to loose any.

I don't think character deaths need to be squad mates to be impactful - see Anderson's for proof of that.

I think the problem with me2 squad mates in me2 & me3 was that there was just too many of them to do any of them justice in terms of screen time - they tried to be fair but that invariably meant every optional one only had about a 2 minute cameo rather than focusing on a couple that could have had a more meaningful role in the story like Mordin or Legion.

I felt the same way. They dropped a massive spoiler so casually, like, no big deal. And now every time there's some tension in the game, I'll think "Nah, none of my teammates can die, no big deal." Terrible.

Remember how in ME3 Grunt stays behind to buy you time, and you feel proud of his sacrifice but you're thinking, Wow, he's gone? And then he's fine and it feels amazing? Well you're not going to feel that way in ME:A since you know squadmates are immune to death. I really don't understand why they would spoil such a huge part of the narrative.

It's a false equivalence, since ME:A is not a part of a trilogy. ME:A (presumably) will be a self-contained story so there will be no potential character degradation because of the character being "optional" in subsequent games.

In a self-contained story the character arc may end with this character dying. Wrex in ME1 can die on Virmire and it is done right; it's a logical consequence of your action. Then you get a reward of his character returning (provided that he lived) in ME2 and ME3 which feel good because he is not a companion - so his presence is limited enough to still feel natural.

I'd also say that Kaiden Alenko in ME3 still feels like Kaiden from ME1. Ash loosing her character to some stupid drunk jokes and one-liners is just a fault of BioWare writers, not the fact that she is allowed to die in game one. So I disagree with you on that also.


The decision to keep all the cast of ME:A alive is not inherently bad or good; the decision to casually reveal it is bad. That just tells me that the characters will NEVER be in a situation of true danger and peril. I'd still want the characters to be able to die, not only as an option to "get rid of" ones I will find annoying but as a player to feel rewarded for making right choices that kept my team alive and feel the emotional impact and regret for making (knowingly or not) the bad ones. But it's the creator's story to tell, and if the story doesn't naturally go into those places then there are no reasons for them to be there just for the sake of it.

Hmn.. Given that we will only have 6 or 7 companions, so they could make them die if your choices in the game could make them die, and even if they would be in the Andromeda 2 that would be not as big problem like going from ME2 to ME3 (12 squadmates plus some from ME1 lol), but mostly I'm disappointed that they did revealed this info before the game release but other informations are scarce..

It's worth pointing out that just because there isn't a planned "trilogy" does not mean there won't be a sequel. To the contrary, Mac Walters has more or less confirmed there will be a sequel to Andromeda. He's even gone as far as saying that this game will not be the end of the Ryder story. So, I believe it's inaccurate to consider this a "self-contained story," even if it doesn't necessarily need to continue like the previous games. BioWare is leaving their options open.

My point was that Ash has no actual depth in terms of dialogue on the ship in ME3, compared to the other companions. I was merely stating that any depth was replaced with one-liners and the drunken stupor likely because BioWare wasn't going to invest more time and money in a potentially dead character. Of course, it was BioWare's choice to come up with the few lines that Ash did have on the ship.

"Leaving their options open" is what this game screams out, so far. And not just for this subject, but really everything. Even more than the case with ME1 (which at least had trilogy format constraints).

Also, the developers could be lying and at least one death or option of death will be a surprise to many players.

Also, deaths not happening in MEA doesn't mean them not happening in a sort of DLC.

Also, deaths not happening in MEA doesn't mean us not coming to be worried about the fates of any of them for the next game.


Indeed this seems to be the most optimistic of any Mass Effect game, including even ME1. But this is still the Mass Effect series and the concept of squadmate deaths probably isn't going away, even IF it is true that there will not be a squadmate death RP outcome in this MEA base game.

I think Bioware at least just wants a break from certain accountability, and certain expectations. Whether it is choices going from game to game, or squadmate deaths in story, or setting (Milky Way) and timeline (ME3) and character (Shepard?) and race (Quarian/Geth? etc?) hopes.

It doesn't mean these things won't be hinted, or happen as surprises, or be considered strongly for the future. But I think Bioware wants a sort of new start, and that can mean trying to situate characters that may last in the longer term, until maybe DLC this/next year, until maybe a game a few years from now, or a game several years from now.

Consider Wrex. One of the most popular characters in the series, but some people who played ME1 had him killed, many people who played ME2 never knew him, many people who played ME3 never knew him.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Wrex and Wreav draw contrasts between how rather good the Krogan could be if given a chance, and how rather bad the Krogan can have the desire to be if allowed.
But it also means a lot more work than it may have been necessary, and it also means that a lot of people don't get to see that fan favorite character.

At least in MEA, Bioware writers can sit down and just try their best to make characters we'll hopefully like (we'll see!), with knowledge that we may see some to all of them again in the future (and then the characters can die/resolve/leave/etc at that point). This isn't a bad thing to try.

What *would* drive me nuts is if Bioware announced that squadmate character deaths isn't a thing they want to do at all anymore. The 'Dirty Dozen' on the 'Suicide Mission' of ME2 was one thing (and it was a thing that I don't want to constantly see; though a DA game with similar approach could be cool!), but I DON'T want the opposite where I basically KNOW that all (or at least just nearrrly all) these characters are going to make it and that I have nothing to fear.

But MEA, by itself as a chance for Bioware to focus on trying to make lasting, liked characters, in a singularly relatively optimistic story? Cool, really, go for it. But don't make it an increasing trend. I don't want to expect Bioware games to be more and more fluffy cartoons. I have enough of that in much (not all, thankfully) of SWTOR.

You see this illustrates one of the reasons why I'm not sorry to see it go. That idea that unless it's life or death it doesn't count. It is perfectly possible for people to hate everything you do, turn against you, like you, love you or loathe you without it requiring Someone May Die! I'm not averse to someone occassionally dying, but if you're writing a story and it seems everything is meaningless without the spectre of death then you've turned into a Christmas episode of Eastenders and it's time to hit the brakes, sit down and have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit.

Ooh and that articulates to me why I loathe the who will die routine. It's soap opera ratings grab fare. My grandmother used to watch every one of those going when I was a kid, and my mother still inflicts them on me every Christmas. I used to hide from them in computer games, I don't need it becoming endemic here too.

It was moronic to reveal it. It kills a significant amount of the dramatic tension necessary for storytelling. I also disagree with the assertion that it's better in the long run if companions can't die, in part because of the dramatic tension lost but also all the nuance and permutations created was part of what made the trilogy worth replaying over and over. Now, I don't know what to think moving forward.

It will no doubt make writing (and coding) future installments easier when they don't have to take potential deaths into consideration, but I would have definitely preferred if they didn't reveal the fact ahead of time.