297 réponses à ce sujet

[RoboticWater]

Cluith wrote...


Oh, ok then. Next step: Why don't we just buy Episodic content a la Valve ?

Mass Effect 2 Episode 1 - 30$
Mass Effect 2 Episode 2 - 30$
Mass Effect 2 Episode 3 - 30$

Anyone ?

That would be an OK idea (though the wait between would be excruciating) if the money given was a reasonable ratio of money to game quality, as bioware's DLC usually is (LoTSB being on the good side and Arrival being on the less good side). With this logic you could debate that we are buying the Mass Effect seiries in episodes considereing they all  follow the same plot and add new things to the table each time.

[CaptainZaysh]

Amusingly Cluith has actually sold people on his nightmare scenario

[J. Finley]

http://objection.mrd...o.php?n=5218847

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

The only problem with them releasing episodic missions is, it would set a precedent and other companies would do it too [Yes I know Valve does it] and they would just start cutting crap out of the game to make more money, it seems cool but it would ruin game quality for future games and etc...

[Cluith]

littlezack wrote...

Cluith wrote...

littlezack wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Cluith wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Cluith wrote...

And basically, the ending of ME2 is a DLC and we, sheeps gamers, do have to buy and play it because it's part of the main story?

.. What a shame.

A - No, it's not the ending to ME2. It's more like a prologue to ME3.
B- You don't have to play it. ME3 starts the same way regardless of whether you played it or not.
C-...nevermind, I don't need a C.

A- It's a main event in the storyline. Don't you know that DLCs are supposed to be additional content, not prologues.
B- Thank you for telling me that I don't have to play it, I really did not know that. But my Shepard will start ME3 in a trial accused to have blown up a system but he does not remember because he did not play a DLC. " In your face b*tch !" - Bioware.

Bioware have never made a secret of their intent to deliver bridging content between games. Too bad you missed them repeatedly saying this. Pay attention next time.

I distinctly remember people being pissed off that ME1 didn't have more DLC, too. So what do they do with ME2? Make a ****-ton more DLC. And people complain.

Nothing against DLCs. Activison may sell map packs for 15$ to its fanboys = don't care.
Bioware "forcing" us to buy a DLCs because thay are "canon" ( And I suspect LOTSB and Katsumi too) . = No ok. It's supposed to be a RPG damnit, you can't say to your gamers " ok now your character has done has blown up a system while you were not watching, if you got a problem just buy our DLC, it's 15$ or stfu".



Arrival it's not just a plot device, it's a marketing device.

Bioware isn't forcing anyone to buy it. In fact, Arrival's about as optional as optional gets. You don't have to play it to get anything from ME2 or 3, it changes nothing for either game, and if you want to see it, you can just watch a Youtube video. And, yeah, it's a marketing device. Yes, it was made to make money - just like ME1, ME2, ME3, every DLC ever made by anyone, every game ever made by anyone...

- Optional ? The events on Arrival do happen, no matter what you do. You don't have any word to say on the matter ME3 considers that you have done Arrival. Do you really call this "optional"?
- And yes, everything is made to make money. It's just that no one ever had to buy DLC to get to main events of a story. Just tell me one other game who does this.
- A normal DLC = " You don't like it? Don't buy it"
Mass Effect 2 DLC = " You don't like it? Don't buy it, but you are gonna miss soooome content bit*h *trollface* "

[CaptainZaysh]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

The only problem with them releasing episodic missions is, it would set a precedent and other companies would do it too [Yes I know Valve does it] and they would just start cutting crap out of the game to make more money, it seems cool but it would ruin game quality for future games and etc...

The free market would sort it out.  If they were low quality people would stop buying them, and they'd go back to the old way.

[littlezack]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

The only problem with them releasing episodic missions is, it would set a precedent and other companies would do it too [Yes I know Valve does it] and they would just start cutting crap out of the game to make more money, it seems cool but it would ruin game quality for future games and etc...

When you really think about it, that's basically what Mass Effect as a whole is. Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 are three parts of an overall story.

[Ace of Dawn]

Atemeus wrote...

What's wrong with Episodic Content? That was a pretty innovative idea at the time, and now all of the Telltale games use it very succesfully. Sam and Max. Back to the Future. Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People. The upcoming Jurassic Park.

I think the piece-meal design in theory allows for more polish and quality to make it into the game overall, because there is less pressure from a monolithic deadline and more focus on the individual part of the game you're currently designing. It also lets your more quickly react to the player's experiences and thus reception of the game. You can adapt and shift the design of the game in a better direction. Before, the game would have been locked into what might in hindsight be a mistake because it was all constructed at the same time. There are advantages there.

And disadvantages to a degree. What is defined as an episode? Mass Effect 2 is divided into three acts, should they all have been episodes? Act 1 is much longer than the second two, that mean they should all be 30?

Episodic. Full game. DLC. There are pros and cons with each, and in the end, the results will be the same:

People. Will. Complain.

In fact, for the OP claiming we're all sheep (Great word, btw. Anyone who uses it immediately describes the type of person they are. Also means this entire topic is moot since you only aim to find likeminded individuals rather than actually have proper discourse) and then suggesting episodic content is odd, since that is often a claim against that.

In the end, Arrival was good. Amazing? Not really, but it does its job. Bridge between Mass Effect 2 and 3. Sorry you feel that Bioware held a gun at your head, said to play it, or never know how ME3 is supposed to go.

Oh wait. They didn't. Not that anything I say matters, you'll just spin it or ignore it.

[RoboticWater]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

The only problem with them releasing episodic missions is, it would set a precedent and other companies would do it too [Yes I know Valve does it] and they would just start cutting crap out of the game to make more money, it seems cool but it would ruin game quality for future games and etc...

Well if developers do it correctly then it would not be a problem. If they do it like HL2 EP2 which had a slightly shorter campaign and the same quality story.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

littlezack wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

The only problem with them releasing episodic missions is, it would set a precedent and other companies would do it too [Yes I know Valve does it] and they would just start cutting crap out of the game to make more money, it seems cool but it would ruin game quality for future games and etc...

When you really think about it, that's basically what Mass Effect as a whole is. Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 are three parts of an overall story.

They have said from the begining it was a trilogy,it isn't the same as launching a mission a month kind of deal.

[Bcuz]

111987 wrote...

If you don't want to play Arrival, you don't have to. There are no major choices there, so if you don't do it, ME3 will just pretend like you did.

The DLC were always intended to 'bridge the gap' between Mass Effect 2 and 3.

Funny, it always occured to me that ME2 was bridging the gap between ME1 and 3.

Not saying I don't enjoy it, Arrival was money well spent, but it seems a bit odd to me that they'd still be a few bricks short of a bridge.

[Morroian]

Cluith wrote...

- Optional ? The events on Arrival do happen, no matter what you do. You don't have any word to say on the matter ME3 considers that you have done Arrival. Do you really call this "optional"?

Yeah and no matter what you die in between ME1 and ME2, what of it.

[Annihilator27]

BlahDog wrote...

Cluith wrote...


Oh, ok then. Next step: Why don't we just buy Episodic content a la Valve ?

Mass Effect 2 Episode 1 - 30$
Mass Effect 2 Episode 2 - 30$
Mass Effect 2 Episode 3 - 30$

Anyone ?

That would be an OK idea (though the wait between would be excruciating) if the money given was a reasonable ratio of money to game quality, as bioware's DLC usually is (LoTSB being on the good side and Arrival being on the less good side). With this logic you could debate that we are buying the Mass Effect seiries in episodes considereing they all  follow the same plot and add new things to the table each time.

Woah woah Valved doesnt do 3's lmao.

[Ace of Dawn]

Bcuz wrote...

111987 wrote...

If you don't want to play Arrival, you don't have to. There are no major choices there, so if you don't do it, ME3 will just pretend like you did.

The DLC were always intended to 'bridge the gap' between Mass Effect 2 and 3.

Funny, it always occured to me that ME2 was bridging the gap between ME1 and 3.

Not saying I don't enjoy it, Arrival was money well spent, but it seems a bit odd to me that they'd still be a few bricks short of a bridge.

More like the bridge was built with ME2, and Arrival simply removed the barriers.

ME2's story is pure and simple about the suicide mission. However, LotSB and Arrival don't actually deal with that story element, but other strands leading into ME3. They're really rather detached from the story unless they occur right after ME2, which means we needed to know they were bridging DLC.

[RoboticWater]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

The only problem with them releasing episodic missions is, it would set a precedent and other companies would do it too [Yes I know Valve does it] and they would just start cutting crap out of the game to make more money, it seems cool but it would ruin game quality for future games and etc...

When you really think about it, that's basically what Mass Effect as a whole is. Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 are three parts of an overall story.

They have said from the begining it was a trilogy,it isn't the same as launching a mission a month kind of deal.

You are saying that episodic content needs to be a short mission, and it does not. There is no concrete thing that separates episodes and DLC, but to me DLC is the mission a month and episodes are short games every few months.

[RoboticWater]

annihilator27 wrote...

BlahDog wrote...

Cluith wrote...


Oh, ok then. Next step: Why don't we just buy Episodic content a la Valve ?

Mass Effect 2 Episode 1 - 30$
Mass Effect 2 Episode 2 - 30$
Mass Effect 2 Episode 3 - 30$

Anyone ?

That would be an OK idea (though the wait between would be excruciating) if the money given was a reasonable ratio of money to game quality, as bioware's DLC usually is (LoTSB being on the good side and Arrival being on the less good side). With this logic you could debate that we are buying the Mass Effect seiries in episodes considereing they all  follow the same plot and add new things to the table each time.

Woah woah Valved doesnt do 3's lmao.

You could debate CS:GO is CS 3 because it was:
CS-1
CS Source-2
CS:GO-3

[Cluith]

Morroian wrote...

Cluith wrote...

- Optional ? The events on Arrival do happen, no matter what you do. You don't have any word to say on the matter ME3 considers that you have done Arrival. Do you really call this "optional"?

Yeah and no matter what you die in between ME1 and ME2, what of it.

Uhu, you die in ME2 not in a DLC. Ya know whut Im sayin?

[Luigitornado]

Sorry...if you are on an internet gaming fan forum...then you are already a sheep. Purchasing DLC is just redundancy to your point.

Modifié par Luigitornado, 06 septembre 2011 - 01:44 .

[Malanek]

Cluith wrote...
A- It's a main event in the storyline. Don't you know that DLCs are supposed to be additional content, not prologues.

DLCs are supposed to be additional content but after that what they are "meant" to be is very sketchy. ME is a story based game so to say the DLC should not have any story in the DLC is a bizzare thing to claim. You don't need to play any of them. But the events from each one are part of the greater story. You are really making an issue out of one that doesn't exist.

[Cluith]

Luigitornado wrote...

Sorry...if you are on an internet gaming fan forum...you are already a sheep. Purchasing DLC is just redundancy to your point.

So I guess everyone here is a Sheep and have all ME products, books, comics T-Shirts and all.

[Luigitornado]

Cluith wrote...

Luigitornado wrote...

Sorry...if you are on an internet gaming fan forum...you are already a sheep. Purchasing DLC is just redundancy to your point.

So I guess everyone here is a Sheep and have all ME products, books, comics T-Shirts and all.

Super Sheep, ahoy.

Modifié par Luigitornado, 06 septembre 2011 - 01:45 .

[BluSoldier]

Cluith wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Cluith wrote...

littlezack wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Cluith wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Cluith wrote...

And basically, the ending of ME2 is a DLC and we, sheeps gamers, do have to buy and play it because it's part of the main story?

.. What a shame.

A - No, it's not the ending to ME2. It's more like a prologue to ME3.
B- You don't have to play it. ME3 starts the same way regardless of whether you played it or not.
C-...nevermind, I don't need a C.

A- It's a main event in the storyline. Don't you know that DLCs are supposed to be additional content, not prologues.
B- Thank you for telling me that I don't have to play it, I really did not know that. But my Shepard will start ME3 in a trial accused to have blown up a system but he does not remember because he did not play a DLC. " In your face b*tch !" - Bioware.

Bioware have never made a secret of their intent to deliver bridging content between games. Too bad you missed them repeatedly saying this. Pay attention next time.

I distinctly remember people being pissed off that ME1 didn't have more DLC, too. So what do they do with ME2? Make a ****-ton more DLC. And people complain.

Nothing against DLCs. Activison may sell map packs for 15$ to its fanboys = don't care.
Bioware "forcing" us to buy a DLCs because thay are "canon" ( And I suspect LOTSB and Katsumi too) . = No ok. It's supposed to be a RPG damnit, you can't say to your gamers " ok now your character has done has blown up a system while you were not watching, if you got a problem just buy our DLC, it's 15$ or stfu".



Arrival it's not just a plot device, it's a marketing device.

Bioware isn't forcing anyone to buy it. In fact, Arrival's about as optional as optional gets. You don't have to play it to get anything from ME2 or 3, it changes nothing for either game, and if you want to see it, you can just watch a Youtube video. And, yeah, it's a marketing device. Yes, it was made to make money - just like ME1, ME2, ME3, every DLC ever made by anyone, every game ever made by anyone...

- Optional ? The events on Arrival do happen, no matter what you do. You don't have any word to say on the matter ME3 considers that you have done Arrival. Do you really call this "optional"?
- And yes, everything is made to make money. It's just that no one ever had to buy DLC to get to main events of a story. Just tell me one other game who does this.
- A normal DLC = " You don't like it? Don't buy it"
Mass Effect 2 DLC = " You don't like it? Don't buy it, but you are gonna miss soooome content bit*h *trollface* "

http://objection.mrd...o.php?n=5218897