337 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Bleachrude wrote...

Extra content that was the council insulting us? That is considered a plus? Really?

Face time is face time, continuity is continuity, and content is content, I suppose.

[AlexXIV]

And facts are facts and opinions are opinions. Just because you think that other people have it better doesn't make it so, and just because you think that you're having it worse doesn't make it so either.

Btw. we all have the same choices. If you let the Council die, you don't see it next game. Like with every other npc too. You don't get cameos of dead people. Now people want Bioware to create new NPCs to make up for all those people who you killed off? Can you behave a bit more childish people? Because we have still a couple of inches until we hit the bottom. It's simple as that, if you want more content, don't kill everyone. It's the same friggen thing in every game out there. Why don't you go to Obsidian or Bethesda forums and complain that you killed every NPC on sight and now can't finish as many quests as people who didn't do that. Seriously ...

[Troika0]

AlexXIV wrote...

You don't get cameos of dead people. Now people want Bioware to create new NPCs to make up for all those people who you killed off?

No one has asked for this, despite the fact that this is exactly what Bioware has done on several occasions.

Modifié par Troika0, 26 décembre 2011 - 11:20 .

[AlexXIV]

Troika0 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

You don't get cameos of dead people. Now people want Bioware to create new NPCs to make up for all those people who you killed off?

No one has asked for this, despite the fact that this is exactly what Bioware has done on several occasions.

For example?

Also lol on no one asked for this. People want a new council if they killed the old one, for example.

[Troika0]

Of course they want a new council. That's what happens in the real world when leaders die, they get replaced.

As for where they've created new characters to fill the place of old ones, they did it with Wrex and Wreav.

The point is people want diverging content, not just the same content with characters and content missing.

Modifié par Troika0, 26 décembre 2011 - 11:29 .

[AlexXIV]

Troika0 wrote...

Of course they want a new council. That's what happens in the real world when leaders die, they get replaced.

So you realize Bioware has to put extra work in this kind of thing? They have an established character, you kill him and want a new one. Why would they do that for people who kill off the characters they make? It's a game, not real life. Stuff like this costs ressources. That's why I say stop thinking like children under the christmas tree.

And where are the examples for the several times Bioware has done it before? I don't get any, do I?

[Seboist]

AlexXIV wrote...

And facts are facts and opinions are opinions. Just because you think that other people have it better doesn't make it so, and just because you think that you're having it worse doesn't make it so either.

Btw. we all have the same choices. If you let the Council die, you don't see it next game. Like with every other npc too. You don't get cameos of dead people. Now people want Bioware to create new NPCs to make up for all those people who you killed off? Can you behave a bit more childish people? Because we have still a couple of inches until we hit the bottom. It's simple as that, if you want more content, don't kill everyone. It's the same friggen thing in every game out there. Why don't you go to Obsidian or Bethesda forums and complain that you killed every NPC on sight and now can't finish as many quests as people who didn't do that. Seriously ...

FYI BW didn't need to create new characters as there were already plenty of logical replacements or ways to acknowledge that Renegade Shepard wasn't on one big acid trip in ME1.

Killed Shiala? Liz/Juliana Baynham show up.

Killed Gianna or didn't assist her? Maeko Mutuso, Lorik Quinn or Anolois show up.

Killed Fist and/or Helena Blake? A news report or a mention by Bailey that crime has gone down in the wards.

Killed Rachni Queen? Shepard could have the option to boast about it to the Urdnot Shaman when he asks her/him about what dangerous foe they've taken down.

Council dead? New one shows up(as it stands the three little pigs could be the new council for all my Shepard knows).

[Troika0]

If they didn't want to do the extra work, they shouldn't have offered the choice. And if Bioware doesn't want to do choice and consequence, they should stop selling their games as though that were a feature and just make linear games.

As for pallet swap character, Wrex and Wreav is the most salient example, but there are several others in the ME3 script (including Ashley and Kaiden, imo).

Modifié par Troika0, 26 décembre 2011 - 11:41 .

[AlexXIV]

Seboist wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

And facts are facts and opinions are opinions. Just because you think that other people have it better doesn't make it so, and just because you think that you're having it worse doesn't make it so either.

Btw. we all have the same choices. If you let the Council die, you don't see it next game. Like with every other npc too. You don't get cameos of dead people. Now people want Bioware to create new NPCs to make up for all those people who you killed off? Can you behave a bit more childish people? Because we have still a couple of inches until we hit the bottom. It's simple as that, if you want more content, don't kill everyone. It's the same friggen thing in every game out there. Why don't you go to Obsidian or Bethesda forums and complain that you killed every NPC on sight and now can't finish as many quests as people who didn't do that. Seriously ...

FYI BW didn't need to create new characters as there were already plenty of logical replacements or ways to acknowledge that Renegade Shepard wasn't on one big acid trip in ME1.

Killed Shiala? Liz/Juliana Baynham show up.

Killed Gianna or didn't assist her? Maeko Mutuso, Lorik Quinn or Anolois show up.

Killed Fist and/or Helena Blake? A news report or a mention by Bailey that crime has gone down in the wards.

Killed Rachni Queen? Shepard could have the option to boast about it to the Urdnot Shaman when he asks her/him about what dangerous foe they've taken down.

Council dead? New one shows up(as it stands the three little pigs could be the new council for all my Shepard knows).

And of course there are no ressources involved doing all this. Also I don't think the Fist/Helena Blake example even deserves mention, at least not in ME2. Their cameos are neglectable. Yeah ... boasting to the Urdnot Shaman ... that you had a dangerous creature defenseless in a sort of cage and pressed a button to murder it ... that's probably MUCH MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN WHAT SHEP DID TO SOVEREIGN ... way to boost one's reputation that is already over the top. I don't even mention that Shepard's killing a Thresher maw on foot and has the probably most dangerous Krogan aside from Wrex in his crew and is Wrex's friend ... you didn't think much about this one did you?

The point is you want extra content, don't kill everyone. As I said before. It's silly to assume that you deserve replacement for things you break just because you can break things. It doesn't work like that in real life and neither should it in RPGs. In games that all about breaking stuff it is different mind you.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...
The point is you want extra content, don't kill everyone. As I said before. It's silly to assume that you deserve replacement for things you break just because you can break things. It doesn't work like that in real life and neither should it in RPGs. In games that all about breaking stuff it is different mind you.

Totally wrong.. kill someone and you go to prison... meeting a totally new cast of characters.

In real life, you get new content when you stop going to old content (for any reason).  Simple as that.



Secondly, in real life if you enter the "underworld" then you meet the characters of the "underworld."  If a Jedi becomes a Sith, there's a whole Sith empire that will favor him and his way of doing things.  Opposite stands true for Paragons.

To say any legitimate choice is grounds for not providing equivalent content (just on a divergent path) is completely unrealistic.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 décembre 2011 - 11:48 .

[AlexXIV]

Troika0 wrote...

If they didn't want to do the extra work, they shouldn't have offered the choice. And if Bioware doesn't want to do choice and consequence, they should stop selling their games as though that were a feature and just make linear games.

As for pallet swap character, Wrex and Wreav is the most salient example, but there are several others in the ME3 script (including Ashley and Kaiden, imo).

Well and then they do that, and what do they get? Complaints from people who say that Wrex and Wreav are too much alike, as are Kaiden and Ashley on Horizons. So you give people who complain alot something and they complain more, bascially. If you take this and the fact that it costs time and money to do it, it is not a big surprise that Bioware do it the way they do. If I had the choice to please many people who are rather easy to please or few who are extremely hard to people, I would also aim for those who are easy to please. Especially if I run a business and try to make money.

Also they are offering you to save the council or kill it. They don't offer you to meet a new council if you kill the old.

[Seboist]

Troika0 wrote...

If they didn't want to do the extra work, they shouldn't have offered the choice. And if Bioware doesn't want to do choice and consequence, they should stop selling their games as though that were a feature and just make linear games.

As for pallet swap character, Wrex and Wreav is the most salient example, but there are several others in the ME3 script (including Ashley and Kaiden, imo).

Indeed, Renegades getting screwed is just part of the larger issue of there not being any real difference between the two. It boils down to Paragon vs gimped troll Paragon.

Either do something right or don't do it at all.

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
The point is you want extra content, don't kill everyone. As I said before. It's silly to assume that you deserve replacement for things you break just because you can break things. It doesn't work like that in real life and neither should it in RPGs. In games that all about breaking stuff it is different mind you.

Totally wrong.. kill someone and you go to prison... meeting a totally new cast of characters.

In real life, you get new content when you stop going to old content (for any reason).  Simple as that.

I keep repeating myself, but that's ok. It's the BSN. It's a game, not real life. You will always have less options in a game than in real life. I could think of 10 different options in every choice, and of 10 different responses in dialogues, yet I get 2 or 3 in a game. But that's ok because it is a game. Giving people more options is expensive and if Bioware thinks it's too expensive (aka not efficient) they won't do it.

[AlexXIV]

Seboist wrote...

Troika0 wrote...

If they didn't want to do the extra work, they shouldn't have offered the choice. And if Bioware doesn't want to do choice and consequence, they should stop selling their games as though that were a feature and just make linear games.

As for pallet swap character, Wrex and Wreav is the most salient example, but there are several others in the ME3 script (including Ashley and Kaiden, imo).

Indeed, Renegades getting screwed is just part of the larger issue of there not being any real difference between the two. It boils down to Paragon vs gimped troll Paragon.

Either do something right or don't do it at all.

You mean like, if you don't like the way they are making games, don't buy them? Since you've probably bought both ME games already, includig DLCs and you will also buy ME3 plus DLCs. Which tells them they did everything right.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Simple solution to that is to make a true divergent path instead of a "replacement or cut" path. Have a totally new situation that still plugs into the main story. Yes, that can be done... and no, it was not done.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Troika0 wrote...

If they didn't want to do the extra work, they shouldn't have offered the choice. And if Bioware doesn't want to do choice and consequence, they should stop selling their games as though that were a feature and just make linear games.

As for pallet swap character, Wrex and Wreav is the most salient example, but there are several others in the ME3 script (including Ashley and Kaiden, imo).

Indeed, Renegades getting screwed is just part of the larger issue of there not being any real difference between the two. It boils down to Paragon vs gimped troll Paragon.

Either do something right or don't do it at all.

You mean like, if you don't like the way they are making games, don't buy them? Since you've probably bought both ME games already, includig DLCs and you will also buy ME3 plus DLCs. Which tells them they did everything right.

Liking a game doesn't make it flawless.  I'd be the first to tell you that I love the Mass Effect series... but that doesn't change anything about their heavy favoritism toward Paragon choices.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 26 décembre 2011 - 11:56 .

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Simple solution to that is to make a true divergent path instead of a "replacement or cut" path. Have a totally new situation that still plugs into the main story. Yes, that can be done... and no, it was not done.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I am saying Bioware probably has a reason for making it the way they do. It is obvious that Bioware always have ressources/budget issues. That's why there so much copy pase in their games. Whatever the reason is, it seems to be a big one.

[Troika0]

I bring up pallet swap characters because that is not what people think of when they hear "choice and consequence" and it's not what people want. Why are you arguing that it's what people demanded when they didn't. People wanted diverging content, meaning when you get to the fork and choose B instead of A, the B path isn't just the A path with less content or duplicated content.

Yes, it takes time and money to create diverging content and it would be cheaper to not create diverging content, so why doesn't Bioware just create linear games. It's easier and cheaper and they seem to want to do it anyway so why don't they just do that.

What are you even arguing, that Mass Effect should be more linear and choices should matter even less?

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Troika0 wrote...

If they didn't want to do the extra work, they shouldn't have offered the choice. And if Bioware doesn't want to do choice and consequence, they should stop selling their games as though that were a feature and just make linear games.

As for pallet swap character, Wrex and Wreav is the most salient example, but there are several others in the ME3 script (including Ashley and Kaiden, imo).

Indeed, Renegades getting screwed is just part of the larger issue of there not being any real difference between the two. It boils down to Paragon vs gimped troll Paragon.

Either do something right or don't do it at all.

You mean like, if you don't like the way they are making games, don't buy them? Since you've probably bought both ME games already, includig DLCs and you will also buy ME3 plus DLCs. Which tells them they did everything right.

Liking a game doesn't make it flawless.

The point is if they can sell a game to you even if you don't like some things they have no reason to change anything. Because you will buy it and all the people actually like the way they do it buy it too. Sales are the most imporant thing for Bioware. They even admit it several times. They first and foremost are businessmen. So ... you know ... why spend money on something that doesn't help making more money?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

If someone from Bioware told me that the best outcome from big choices won't always stem from Paragon choices (ie:  sometimes the Neutral or Renegade choices produce better outcomes using a hero's criteria) so you'll need to actually think about your decision when faced with one, then I'd have nothing bad to say about ME3.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 27 décembre 2011 - 12:03 .

[AlexXIV]

Troika0 wrote...

I bring up pallet swap characters because that is not what people think of when they hear "choice and consequence" and it's not what people want. Why are you arguing that it's what people demanded when they didn't. People wanted diverging content, meaning when you get to the fork and choose B instead of A, the B path isn't just the A path with less content or duplicated content.

Yes, it takes time and money to create diverging content and it would be cheaper to not create diverging content, so why doesn't Bioware just create linear games. It's easier and cheaper and they seem to want to do it anyway so why don't they just do that.

What are you even arguing, that Mass Effect should be more linear and choices should matter even less?

No but I am wondering if you are argueing that.

I am not against linear games if they are executed well. That is that I as a player don't feel forced or dragged along by the plot. Of course that's a sort of subjective view. The examples you named showed that Bioware doesn't have much ressources for this kind of thing, because as I said, the difference of the 'old' and 'new' character are ... marginal. Would you really like a new council which says the same thing to you as the old council? Because then you would actually have no difference. Having no council is at least not the same as having the old council. Bioware's problem is that people always complain.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

When it's constant/exclusive Favoritism, it's a totally different scenario from "people always complain/haters gonna hate."

It's simply a fundamental design flaw... no choice is very interesting anymore from the perspective of the actual choice. You make a choice with the goal of achieving the best outcome possible (you'd think)... but that cannot exist with such Favoritism.

You ALWAYS know that the Blue button will ALWAYS produce superior results, superior story continuity (don't have to ask why Cerberus is after you if you played ME2), most lives saved, most love/praise, exclusive content, and cameos all while still achieving the same primary objective as any other choice. Those hold true regardless of the situation the blue button comes up in... and regardless of the stakes involved.  There is no "choice" to make in order to get that anymore... you already know what the answer is before even getting the question...

That doesn't seem like a problem to you?

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 27 décembre 2011 - 12:10 .

[AlexXIV]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

If someone from Bioware told me that the best outcome from big choices won't always stem from Paragon choices (ie:  sometimes the Neutral or Renegade choices produce better outcomes using a hero's criteria) so you'll need to actually think about your decision when faced with one, then I'd have nothing bad to say about ME3.

Well I know in dealing with that reporter chick does have a neutral option for better result. If I remember correctly, if you pick twice the paragon and as your last answer the neutral 'No comment' choice then you get the best commentary from Hackett as far as I know. And I think there are more like that. 'Paragon for auto-win' is an exaggeration used on this forum. Yeah, mostly you can't do much wrong picking Paragon decisions but I for one get better results not always using Paragon. Oh and btw, you get a quest from Hackett only if you are renegade. An actual assassination I think, because you are sent to 'parlay' with someone who isn't even interested to chat.

[Dave of Canada]

The diplomatic "assassination" quest is the Renegade's alternative to saving the scientists for Paragons.