2338 réponses à ce sujet

[ADLegend21]

I like how people are guarenteeing that no one in Me2 is returning as a squadmate. me must have some New Devs on the ME3 team.

[M.Erik.Sal]

smudboy wrote...

Sapienti wrote...

smudboy wrote...
You're wrong and you can't admit it.

Nah, again you missed the point and fell back on place holders and stuff, there may be place holder NPCs but the point he made was there haven't been place holder squad mates before. Like, you either have Garrus as a squadmate your you get Turian Wallus in place of Garrus, which was something you implied earlier, which was his point. Rather than concede to that, you went off on a tangent about NPC place holdings and different variations.

What point?  He never made the point that "there may be place holder NPCs."  Never.  Not once did he describe it as such.

The point PLACEHOLDERS EXIST.

The moron said they didn't.

Therefore, he is wrong.

I am not missing the point.

Ashley/Kaidan and Wrex were both squadmates in ME1.  Guess what?  ME2?  PLACEHOLDERS.

Not saying that's what's definitely going to happen in ME3 with ME2 squadmates...

But.

You know.

...


Do people seriously not know what a placeholder is? What you've described previously is not a placeholder. A placeholder, by definition is an impermanent thing. It occupies spoace until the genuine article arrives. What you are describing, is true, but the word you're using to identify the concept you're describing is incorrect.

[Fiery Phoenix]

smudboy wrote...

Sapienti wrote...

smudboy wrote...
You're wrong and you can't admit it.

Nah, again you missed the point and fell back on place holders and stuff, there may be place holder NPCs but the point he made was there haven't been place holder squad mates before. Like, you either have Garrus as a squadmate your you get Turian Wallus in place of Garrus, which was something you implied earlier, which was his point. Rather than concede to that, you went off on a tangent about NPC place holdings and different variations.

What point?  He never made the point that "there may be place holder NPCs."  Never.  Not once did he describe it as such.

The point PLACEHOLDERS EXIST.

The moron said they didn't.

Therefore, he is wrong.

I am not missing the point.

Ashley/Kaidan and Wrex were both squadmates in ME1.  Guess what?  ME2?  PLACEHOLDERS.

Not saying that's what's definitely going to happen in ME3 with ME2 squadmates...

But.

You know.

Wow! Way to be mature, Smud...

[Zulu_DFA]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Zulu, is it OK if I say that I almost always find your posts rather amusing and hilarious?

Not because you're wrong or anything; but there's something about the way you converse.

That's OK, and it's intentional. My last will (if any) probably will be all in one line: "Don't forget to put my sense of humor in the coffin. I'm not letting you bastards have it!!!"

[Jaron Oberyn]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...





Another addition. This was from Christina Norman. Take a look at the left circle. Yeah... Once again. 

-Polite

Do you ever fail at failing, PoliteAssasin?

Christina Norman refers to her gameplay designing team of BioWare employees, not to Shepard's fictious team of kewl alians.

Oh of course, because Bioware cuts jobs after a project has been finished, and she was hoping they wouldn't do that this time. And the same development team really fits with core gameplay, combat narrative, etc... You never cease to amaze me with your level of intelligence.  

-Polite

[Harley_Dude]

ADLegend21 wrote...

I like how people are guarenteeing that no one in Me2 is returning as a squadmate. me must have some New Devs on the ME3 team.

I think the debate is more around who is the most likely to return. Miranda has a clone sister and Legion is one of many so they can be easily replaced if they died. The others are more expendable. But it is all speculation.

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Oh of course, because Bioware cuts jobs after a project has been finished, and she was hoping they wouldn't do that this time. And the same development team really fits with core gameplay, combat narrative, etc... You never cease to amaze me with your level of intelligence.  

-Polite

www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/01/13/mass-effect-2-christina-norman-interview/


RPS: There have been a number of changes made to various aspects of using equipment, from the heat sinks for weapons to the removal of weapon and armour skills. How did you go about making decisions over which elements to change?

CN: Our design process involves identifying a problem, brainstorming possible solutions, and then discussing in detail the impact of those solutions. We then quickly prototype the solution (get it in game) and try it out. Fast iteration lets us quickly test and improve changes. Nothing is sacred. If it doesn’t make the game better, it gets axed. We accept ideas from the anyone on the team. Some ideas I was initially skeptical of were proven fun by this process, and made it into the final game!

RPS: Having created a world that’s entirely BioWare’s own, do you find the lack of the confines of a pre-established IP gives you greater freedom? Or can the lack of boundaries make creating and controlling the game’s fiction more challenging?

CN: We have our own IP-experts on team to make sure everything we do fits the Mass Effect IP. It’s nice having these experts on the team. It makes working with them fast and easy. I enjoy working with the Mass Effect IP. It’s rich and inspiring, with endless possibilities for creating cool creatures, abilities and telling epic stories.

Modifié par smudboy, 19 août 2010 - 11:56 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

-snippy-

Another addition. This was from Christina Norman. Take a look at the left circle. Yeah... Once again. 

-Polite

Do you ever fail at failing, PoliteAssasin?

Christina Norman refers to her gameplay designing team of BioWare employees, not to Shepard's fictious team of kewl alians.

Ya Im sure thats exactly what shes talking about. mmmm hmmmm, because they discuss their inner workings with us around CORE GAMEPLY. Just sayin. Oh and Polite can you link me to the original cause I like that, makes me 

Here. We stupid kids are really fast with Google. Unlike you the wise and faithful.

Among other things, that short article clearly explains what is meant by the the word "team" in the picture:

"With that in mind, Norman decided that the team needed to focus on rebuilding the combat in its entirety for Mass Effect 2."

1st. Your quote is so ridiculous, it's not even funny. Just because the word "team" is in the article, it doesn't mean its referring to the chart. With that said, how does this quote even relate to keeping the same team? You don't make sense. I suggest you actually read what you write before posting. Maybe the common sense will start to kick in before you hit the submit button. 

2nd. In response to your post above, you say that Bioware can't keep the old squad because they could die. Well, Ashley/Kaidan could die, yet they'll be in the squad for the third game, or better yet, will have a plot relevant role given their LI status. Even without them being LI's, it will still be the same. Why? Because you have consequences for your decisions. Bioware isn't going to reward you for being careless during the suicide mission. The articles I've quoted specifically say that there will be a diverse amount of permutations for how Mass 3 will be depending on the decisions of the first 2 games. Diverse. Look it up. 

Your speaking about "recruiting" when the squad hasn't even left at all. The fact is, you have nothing to back up your claims, and with the "proof" you had above, I'd suggest you really analyze the information before you post it because the one you just quoted had nothing to do with what we were talking about. You made the same exact failure that smartboy did, you couldn't find evidence to support your reasoning, so you pulled some random crap out of an article, or linked to a video that doesn't prove anything in the least, nor does it have anything to do with what we're discussing. So I suggest you try harder next time. Bioware will announce information about Mass 3 sometime next year, and we'll see who's right. Better yet, we have post game DLC that's going to be bridging the story. Get that? Bridge? So theres no 2 year gap in between, so we know exactly what happened in between the games. You think we're going to drop our squad then too? No.

-Polite

[Zulu_DFA]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...





Another addition. This was from Christina Norman. Take a look at the left circle. Yeah... Once again. 

-Polite

Do you ever fail at failing, PoliteAssasin?

Christina Norman refers to her gameplay designing team of BioWare employees, not to Shepard's fictious team of kewl alians.

Oh of course, because Bioware cuts jobs after a project has been finished, and she was hoping they wouldn't do that this time. And the same development team really fits with core gameplay, combat narrative, etc... You never cease to amaze me with your level of intelligence.  

-Polite

Care to explain why would Christina Norman, the lead gameplay designer, who's task is to calculate damage and hit points, would even care if ME3 damage dealers and hit point carriers are called Garrus, Tali, Grunt and Mordin, or something else?

And the article is sort of explains the points the chart makes. So here you are, it's Christina Norman's Edmonton Panther's Team of gamplay designers. Deal with it.

PoliteAssasin wrote...
2nd. In response to your post above, you say that Bioware can't keep the old squad because they could die. Well, Ashley/Kaidan could die, yet they'll be in the squad for the third game, or better yet, will have a plot relevant role given their LI status.

The LI status has nothing to do with it. PS3 players will get the default ME1 story with no LI. And unlike the ME2 squad, only one of the Ashley&Kaidan pair can die, so the role which is filled by them in ME2 and will be filled in ME3 is and will always be filled by the one of them that lives. Just like Smudboy expains it. ME2 squadmates can die without anybody to back them up, do no such roles for them in ME3, sorry, lol.

PoliteAssasin wrote...
The fact is, you have nothing to back up your claims

You have nothing to back up yours. All your "evidence" works against you, if you analise it properly. But you refuse to see it, Fred, I mean friend, sorry, lol.

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Bioware will announce information about Mass 3 sometime next year, and we'll see who's right. Better yet, we have post game DLC that's going to be bridging the story. Get that? Bridge? So theres no 2 year gap in between, so we know exactly what happened in between the games. You think we're going to drop our squad then too? No.

-Polite

Ever heard the word "marketing"?

And take this as yet another amusing thing from me: "The Lair of the Shadow Broker" will be the only piece of "bridging" DLC that will come out (and the folks in Eastern Europe, as I hear, even won't be getting it). The rest of DLC (if any) will be some cheap non-canon job like "The Overlord" and "The Pinncale Station". And ME3 will start a couple of years after "The Lair of the Shadow Broker". Just mark my words. I have no "proof" for them now, but, yeah, as you say, when ME3 comes out that will be it.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 août 2010 - 12:41 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Oh of course, because Bioware cuts jobs after a project has been finished, and she was hoping they wouldn't do that this time. And the same development team really fits with core gameplay, combat narrative, etc... You never cease to amaze me with your level of intelligence.  

-Polite

www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/01/13/mass-effect-2-christina-norman-interview/


RPS: There have been a number of changes made to various aspects of using equipment, from the heat sinks for weapons to the removal of weapon and armour skills. How did you go about making decisions over which elements to change?

CN: Our design process involves identifying a problem, brainstorming possible solutions, and then discussing in detail the impact of those solutions. We then quickly prototype the solution (get it in game) and try it out. Fast iteration lets us quickly test and improve changes. Nothing is sacred. If it doesn’t make the game better, it gets axed. We accept ideas from the anyone on the team. Some ideas I was initially skeptical of were proven fun by this process, and made it into the final game!

RPS: Having created a world that’s entirely BioWare’s own, do you find the lack of the confines of a pre-established IP gives you greater freedom? Or can the lack of boundaries make creating and controlling the game’s fiction more challenging?

CN: We have our own IP-experts on team to make sure everything we do fits the Mass Effect IP. It’s nice having these experts on the team. It makes working with them fast and easy. I enjoy working with the Mass Effect IP. It’s rich and inspiring, with endless possibilities for creating cool creatures, abilities and telling epic stories.

Once again, third grade logic. Just because they have the word in there doesn't mean it's what she's referring to in the chart. Also take a look at the dates. Your article was January 13th, mine was March 16th. Big difference no?

http://www.mondofact...ary?mass effect

Mass Effect - <neurology> Damage to the brain due the bulk of a tumour, the blockage of fluid or excess accumulation of fluid withinthe skull.

Oh no, Mass Effect is going to end with brain damage due to the bulk of a tumour from excess fluid. Oh well.

See, I can do it too.

-Polite

[smudboy]

M.Erik.Sal wrote...
...

Do people seriously not know what a placeholder is? What you've described previously is not a placeholder. A placeholder, by definition is an impermanent thing. It occupies spoace until the genuine article arrives. What you are describing, is true, but the word you're using to identify the concept you're describing is incorrect.

Actually I don't.  Let's learn about google, folks:

proxy: a person authorized to act for another

Like the "Alliance Soldier" placeholder. (Ashley/Kaidan)
Or the "Krogan Leader" placeholder. (Wrex/Wreav)
Or the "Feros Representative" placeholder. (Shiala/Some other chick)

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Once again, third grade logic. Just because they have the word in there doesn't mean it's what she's referring to in the chart. Also take a look at the dates. Your article was January 13th, mine was March 16th. Big difference no?

http://www.mondofact...ary?mass effect

Mass Effect -  Damage to the brain due the bulk of a tumour, the blockage of fluid or excess accumulation of fluid withinthe skull.

Oh no, Mass Effect is going to end with brain damage due to the bulk of a tumour from excess fluid. Oh well.

See, I can do it too.

-Polite

3rd grade, yet you still can't comprehend it.

Hey, why don't you ask?  I'm sure she'll have a great answer for you.

Thanks.

[tonnactus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...


Care to explain why would Christina Norman, the lead gameplay designer, who's task is to calculate damage and hit points, would even care if ME3 damage dealers and hit point carriers are called Garrus, Tali, Grunt and Mordin, or something else?

Of course.Deciding if characters stay or leave is something the writers decide,not the game designers.Christina normans job is gameplay,not story.

Modifié par tonnactus, 20 août 2010 - 12:14 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...





Another addition. This was from Christina Norman. Take a look at the left circle. Yeah... Once again. 

-Polite

Do you ever fail at failing, PoliteAssasin?

Christina Norman refers to her gameplay designing team of BioWare employees, not to Shepard's fictious team of kewl alians.

Oh of course, because Bioware cuts jobs after a project has been finished, and she was hoping they wouldn't do that this time. And the same development team really fits with core gameplay, combat narrative, etc... You never cease to amaze me with your level of intelligence.  

-Polite

Care to explain what this phrase means, then:

"With that in mind, Norman decided that the [Shepard's] team needed to focus on rebuilding the combat in its entirety for Mass Effect 2." ?

And why would Christina Norman, the lead gameplay designer, who's task is to calculate damage and hit points, would even care if ME3 damage dealers and hit point carriers are called Garrus, Tali, Grunt and Mordin, or something else?

Once again, you are taking it out of context. It feels so weird explaining basic sentences to an adult, or a supposed adult. Ok lets begin. In the bubble on the left, the blue one with the even lighter blue circle around it, there are goals for what they should keep in Mass Effect 3. Notice the title is not goals for Bioware, it's goals for Mass 3. 
 
Ok lets proceed: In the bubble are Core gameplay, Combat narrative flow, Gameplay focus, listening to reviews and fans, and the same team. All of these have to do with the game, given the title in addition to each of the items listed. 

The Mass Effect 2 team is the same one that worked on the first game. Bioware doesn't drop people from their teams after each project. Some members may move throughout studios, but this is rare, because not only does it require relocation, but the DA and ME franchises use two 100% different engines. Engines that take a lot of time to learn. 

Still with me? I know, for someone with the attention span of a child it is pretty difficult, but this is where it gets interesting. 

Given the information above, all of the contents of this chart are about Mass Effect 3. Thus "Same Team" refers to the same Mass Effect 2 team. That's her goal, to keep the team. Bioware's Mass Effect team isn't going anywhere. The only team that could possibly be going anywhere, and that's possibly, is the Mass 2 team. If you don't believe, or are too ashamed to admit you were wrong, we can always ask her ourselves. She's very active on Twitter, and I'm more than confident that she'd be happy to clear it up.

Now take about 30 seconds to recuperate, I know that was hard.

-Polite

[Fiery Phoenix]

Or you can just PM her, Polite. She writes back to messages here, though it may take a few days since she doesn't visit here very often.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 20 août 2010 - 12:24 .

[Sapienti]

Zulu_DFA wrote...


Here. We stupid kids are really fast with Google. Unlike you the wise and faithful.

Among other things, that short article clearly explains what is meant by the the word "team" in the picture:

"With that in mind, Norman decided that the team needed to focus on rebuilding the combat in its entirety for Mass Effect 2."


@ Sapienti
So, basically what you are saying is basically that "some will leave and some will stay"? No offence, but I have yet another thread of my own about this sort of assertions: http://social.biowar...5/index/3068986. It's retarded. First, it's quite obvious that ME3 won't start "where ME2 ended", and almost as obvious that Shepard will be busted to the ground yet again in some way. ME3 will (and this is official) be a stand-alone game. You don't start a stand-alone game with half of your crew recruited in a prequel.

I don't face palm in real life often, but damn son.

No that isn't basically what I'm saying. I'm saying anything basically. I'm saying that the door can't be shut for any characters returning or barring their return at all. It is within reality for all characters to return in any combination of possibilities. Of course ME3 wont pick up literally where ME2 left off, but I addressed your assumption that Shepard would die again or wizards would come and put the crew to sleep til the Reapers showed up and all that stuff, in an earlier post. Bottom line is you don't think the squad will return, I've poked holes in all of your reasons and you keep coming back and pointing me in the direction of your dead threads. Just..nevermind, you wont get it, I don't know how to simplify anything for you anymore. Basically nothing, if you can't take in the whole paragraph and words there just forget I bothered lol.

I will say this though, you don't need to start this game with your crew recruited, of course its a standalone. You can't take your posters in your threads opinions as fact friend. Same as you go and pick up Garrus or Wrex in ME1 or the other optionals, Grunt, Legion in ME2, there can be similar things in ME3. Now, before you go and cut out two sentences in this post and make another random reply, take some time to read over this whole thing multiple times to be sure you get it. Please.

The Harley Dude wrote...

Your point stands in pile of BS.
Bioware has an RPG style as well as Bethesda has their own style. The
interaction between your squad and the ability to influence them is
consistent across many Bioware titles, ME1 is no exception as you can
choose to kill two of your squad. If ME3 has the squad set and there are
no squad related quests it would turn ME3 into something like
Borderlands in space.

I never said has the squad set. I just said you can't use ME2 and loyalty missions as a "typical Mass Effect" thing. I've said before that ME3 is going to have to have another base squad that is there for recruiting by default, so if they decide to bring old characters back in but people want to kill them all, they still have a squad to run with. Your implications were people could not have ME2 characters in ME3 because they wouldn't have done the loyalty quests in ME2. They'd be dead if you didn't do them. Then you say they can't be there because you need to reaffirm loyalty and that all ME have this. Then you say that they need to have interaction, but you give the simple example of being able to kill two. And what? That means you can't have similar basic interactions with them in 3? In ME1, you see Garrus "Hey take me with you Shepard" "Ok". That's that. No earning of loyalty, just conversations. Why change it up for ME3? "Hey Shepard" "Oh hey Garrus, wanna go save the universe some more?" "Sure." Same old same old.

ME3 doesn't need to have the squad set in place to bring back old squad members. Nor does it need you to do a character specific mission to earn loyalty as evidenced by series tendencies. All I'm saying is, what reasons could there be for not having a character return. Individually, not as a whole, and then analyze why they COULD return, individually, not as a whole squad, but on an individual level.

[Jaron Oberyn]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Or you can just PM her, Polite. She writes back to messages here, though it may take a few days since she doesn't visit her very often.

Just did. Was going to do twitter, but either way. Sent it through the Social. 

Sapienti wrote...



I don't face palm in real life often, but damn son.

That was my reaction as well.

-Polite

[smudboy]

@BlindPeople

If you actually watched/went through the whole presentation, you'll notice she uses the terms "Team" and "Squad Members" when referring to her team of developers, and the squad members in the game.

This is evidenced by:


That, of course, being the "team" Christina is working with.

In this next slide, she's referring to a game play "team."  I'm assuming she needed a "team" of QA or developers to focus on making better game play.




In this example, we see her use of the term "Squad Members" several times.  This refers to "Squad Members."  In case you don't know what "Squad Members" are, they are "members" of your "squad."  You know, those "characters" that are going to "return" in "ME3" as "squadmembers" (or at least whatever you're dreaming of at night.)





Now she's using just the word "squad".  In regards to the abilities that certain "Squad Members" might have.  Don't be confused!  I know.  It's tricky.  Just one word, but we can discern from "squad" that she actually means "squad members"




Now this gets tricky. You see, Christina is talking about "we". That is, the "people" who worked on the game.  This was evidenced by the "team" she was referring to.  That "we", being that "team".  So essentially "we" = "team".  Am I going too fast for you?  The presentation is in regarding those people in the first picture, and perhaps more than that, too.





So, when we finally get to the second last slide, we can pretty much determine, by her use of the words "team" and "squad" and "squad mates", her reference to "we" and the "team" she's working for, and that this presentation was for the people in BioWare, that "same team" refers to the "Same team that worked on ME2."

Modifié par smudboy, 20 août 2010 - 12:51 .

[SmokePants]

Jesus Christ. Welcome to 6 months ago with that "Same Team" nonsense.The side proclaiming she was talking about the characters in the game was utterly annihilated in that thread, which is why the argument ended, and why that thread isn't a sticky/perma-bump and this one is.

I'm not going to waste my time revisiting that stupid argument. This whole debate is like an absurd game of whack-a-mole. You smack down one argument and it just comes up later, as if it was never addressed.

Modifié par SmokePants, 20 août 2010 - 12:57 .

[smudboy]

SmokePants wrote...

Jesus Christ. Welcome to 6 months ago with that "Same Team" nonsense.The side proclaiming she was talking about the characters in the game was utterly annihilated in that thread, which is why the argument ended, and why that thread isn't a sticky/perma-bump and this one is.

Don't worry.  Polite is incapable of admitting he's wrong, especially to me.

[Zulu_DFA]

Sapienti wrote...
Bottom line is you don't think the squad will return

Bottom line is I think all or most of the squad will return. In the form of cameos and second class DLC squadmates. Some, like Morinth, Kasumi and [sad panda face] Zaeed may get e-mail treatment.

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Given the information above, all of the contents of this chart are about Mass Effect 3. Thus "Same Team" refers to the same Mass Effect 2 team.

Yes. Exactly. The same Mass Effect 2 gameplay design team. As is explained in the adjacent article.

And all other things in that chart refer to the game's design, not to the game's content. The whole thing is about game design. Because Christina Norman is a gameplay designer. Not a writer.

[SmokePants]

Can we all just ignore him now? If a lunatic off the street wanted to engage with you about how mole-people have infiltrated the FBI so they can incite wars in South America and reclaim Mount Everest, would you bother to punch holes in his theory?

[smudboy]

SmokePants wrote...

Can we all just ignore him now? If a lunatic off the street wanted to engage with you about how mole-people have infiltrated the FBI so they can incite wars in South America and reclaim Mount Everest, would you bother to punch holes in his theory?

He's a trolling, lost cause.  The real tragedy are the people who believe him.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

I wish they'd just tell us one way or the other.

[Il Divo]

Agreed. It would at least settle this "debate" once and for all.