297 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

While personally i bought and played Arrival, the OP makes a valid point that people here completely dismiss, whether its because of fanboyism or just because they see nothing wrong with what bioware did in arrival.

Unlike forced actions that defined me2, such as shepard's death or being sent to patrol where it led to shepard's death, arrival is a forced action that relates directly to the events of me3 and if you haven't bought it your missing out on content that directly relates to what is essentially your character.

While the other dlc's can take place without shepard, arrival cannot it requires shepard to actually do an action that has consequences to be shown later.

What happens between me1 and me2 is exactly the same for every player and we have absolutely no input into the actions that shepard takes, basically though shepard takes no real action of consequence during this time and no matter what ends up in the same place and position come me2.

Arrival though changes this, shepard takes a particular action, yes its forced and can't be avoided but it's still an action that is taken by shepard, however if you don't buy arrival instead what may happen is that your told you took the same action, all to explain why shepard in me3 is in the starting position of a trial on earth.

Why people can't see how for someone who didn't buy arrival this would be a major bone of contention is beyond me, its completely different to the other dlcs and forces an act upon shepard that a cutscene or explanation of doesn't do justice too.

So in essence by not buying arrival your missing out on a piece of content that dramatically impacts what is supposedly your character and forces you into a position that you have no control over. By buying it you still get no control but you at least have the experience of those events and the reasoning of playing through them to justify why in the end you take the action you do.

Unlike me2, we won't all be starting from the exact same starting point, as some people will instead be trying to understand why the hell there shepard blew up a mass relay and why they have no memory of this.

By making arrival as a dlc and also an event that happens to shepard regardless of how you play bioware have changed the goalposts big time.

Modifié par alperez, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:22 .

[Leonia]

Like it or not, bridging story DLC is.. well, bridging story DLC. You can complain about Arrival all you wsh but it won't change its impact on Shepard's story. This has been known information for quite some time now, just as LotSB is.

The beginning of ME3 will reference the events of Arrival, it will make more sense to people who actually played it but it will still recap events for those who didn't so I'm not sure what the fear is. It's no different than the opening of ME2 talking about patrolling the Terminus system for geth activity.. only there was no DLC that happened to fill in the gaps between ME1 and ME2 and you just take it on faith that that's what was happening between games. This time we actually get to experience what was happening between games. Some of us thought that was worth $5 to experience and some people didn't want to bother.

But to cry ignorance that you never knew that Arrival was actually important to the story line is just.. well, crying ignorance when you've had the facts since Arrival's release. So you miss out on experiencing the events first-hand, big deal, that's what happens when you are unwilling to fork over $5 for a semi-decent piece of content that the devs have said OVER AND OVER is part of Shepard's story. 

You get what you pay for, funnily enough. Those that didn't play it will have it explained to them in a context that makes sesne to them in ME3 but won't have had first-hand experience with the events. What's the big worry?

Modifié par leonia42, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:27 .

[spirosz]

You'll have the trail regardless of you doing the DLC or not, but I believe there will be different circumstances depending on if you do the DLC and what you have done in it.

[alperez]

The problem though is without shepard taking an action in arrival, the reapers arrive, so whether you play or not the events still take place exactly as if you did.

[Sundance31us]

alperez wrote...
*snip*

The same could be said for people who played ME2 w/o playing ME1, but you don't hear anyone complaining about that even though ME1 costs a little more than the Arrival DLC.

[Bluko]

Well I sort of see where you're coming from, but at the same time I think you're trolling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

It is a tad annoying that in order to experience content relative to the story that you have to shovel out more money. Honestly it's getting so bad that I just wait to buy new games nowadays as it'll be a few months before all the "extra" DLC comes out. Although on the other hand Bioware pretty much said the DLC was intended to bridge the story so at least they've kept that promise with Arrival. I ain't a fan of DLC because it's quickly becoming more profitable then selling the actual games it seems. I also like to have physical copies of thing myself because hard drives and web services tend to come and go. I'd still much rather have expansion packs you know so that if for some crazy reason 20 years later I want to play the game and all the extra content I still can.

I also doubt EA will ever make a trilogy package that includes all the DLC with it.

As for Arrival itself, yeah it's a bit annoying that the DLC is more relevant to the conflict at hand then ME2's little Collector fiasco. Honestly something like Arrival should have been the main plot of ME2, with the Collectors being an additional threat we experience through DLC.

However as an actual additional to the game Arrival is pretty lousy. It's about 45 minutes long and the whole scenario is pretty tacky with the plot twists being painfully obvious. Kenson may as well wear an "I'm Indoctrinated T-Shirt!". Nevermind the fact they didn't even bother to create any new or unique units with the Batarians and basically just used some retextured Merc models... again. It's also laughable that apparently the most challenging fight Shepard has to face comes from a bunch of Research Guards. So apparently Alliance security personnel are the most deadly and well equipped fighting force in the galaxy? It funny because early speculation of Arrival had people questioning how the Batarian Hegemony could stop Shepard and crew.

Look I hate to say it but you're probably doing yourself a favor by not buying Arrival cause honestly it's not worth it. I'm sure the prologue in ME3 will do as good a job explaining the events that occur so I really wouldn't fuss over not playing it as there really is no decision to be made in it.


And if you're trying to convince people here that they shouldn't waste their money on frivolous DLC you're wasting your time. People just aren't particularily bright when it comes to shopping these days (especially with game media) and will pay whatever the price tag is without a second thought. Apparently being thrifty makes you a bum. Sad that advertising has become that effective in warping people's minds.

[Leonia]

alperez wrote...

The problem though is without shepard taking an action in arrival, the reapers arrive, so whether you play or not the events still take place exactly as if you did.

How is that a problem?

Liara still becomes the Shadow-broker regardless if you played LotSB or not.

Some things just happen regardless.

Like the Reapers invading, no matter what you do.. they're still invading.

[alperez]

leonia42 wrote...

Like it or not, bridging story DLC is.. well, bridging story DLC. You can complain about Arrival all you wsh but it won't change its impact on Shepard's story. This has been known information for quite some time now, just as LotSB is.

LOSB can happen without shepard's input, Liara can still be the SB come me3 whether or not you've played LOSB.

Unless the same can be true of arrival, something i'm not sure is the case, i mean if shepard doesn't do the mission does someone else go?

Then the 2 things are completely different.

I get bridging dlc and i personally have no issue with them going this route, as you point out it was known well in advance that they would be doing so, however the problem is when that bridging dlc implacts directly on you character irrespective of whether or not you played that dlc.

The other dlcs impact on the world itself, arrival impacts on shepard in particular.

[littlezack]

alperez wrote...
So in essence by not buying arrival your missing out on a piece of content that dramatically impacts what is supposedly your character and forces you into a position that you have no control over. By buying it you still get no control but you at least have the experience of those events and the reasoning of playing through them to justify why in the end you take the action you do.

If you don't play Arrival, you miss out on the events that set ME3 into motion. So? So what? If I want to see it that bad, I can just watch a Youtube video. Playing it or not playing it doesn't have any bearing on how ME3 starts. It's not like you can avoid the trial based on anything you do in Arrival.

And stop acting like people are mindless fanboys just because they don't get into conniption fits over complete non-issues.

[Leonia]

alperez wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Like it or not, bridging story DLC is.. well, bridging story DLC. You can complain about Arrival all you wsh but it won't change its impact on Shepard's story. This has been known information for quite some time now, just as LotSB is.

LOSB can happen without shepard's input, Liara can still be the SB come me3 whether or not you've played LOSB.

Unless the same can be true of arrival, something i'm not sure is the case, i mean if shepard doesn't do the mission does someone else go?

Then the 2 things are completely different.

I get bridging dlc and i personally have no issue with them going this route, as you point out it was known well in advance that they would be doing so, however the problem is when that bridging dlc implacts directly on you character irrespective of whether or not you played that dlc.

The other dlcs impact on the world itself, arrival impacts on shepard in particular.

Shepard is responsible for 300,000 batarian deaths regardless if you play Arrival or not. Either play it and experience that for yourself or let the game tell you what you did between games because it happened.

[alperez]

leonia42 wrote...



How is that a problem?

Liara still becomes the Shadow-broker regardless if you played LotSB or not.

Some things just happen regardless.

Like the Reapers invading, no matter what you do.. they're still invading.

Liara can become the SB whether Shepard helps or not, the reapers will still invade whatever action shepard takes, however the difference is that if arrival doesn't take place they arrive sooner, so in order to explain why they arrive when they do, shepard must take the action taken in arrival.

If you haven't bought and played arrival then this action is forced and takes place anyway, but unlike the others the explanation is that SHepard stopped the arrival, something you may not actually have done.

[Leonia]

There is no real choice in Arrival, regardless if you warn the batarians or not, you still destroy the Alpha relay and sacrifice 300,000 lives. You stop the Reapers from invading early. It happens. It's canon. Deal with it.

You helped Liara become the new Shadow-broker as well, regardless if you bought the DLC.

THATS WHAT BRIDGING DLC DOES!

Modifié par leonia42, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:34 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

So first people complain about DLC being utterly pointless, and now they complain about DLC being TOO important?

[alperez]

Again your missing the point completely, its not a question of the events happening or not its a question of forcing those events on what is essentially supposed to be your character in an out of game context.

Liara/SB if you don't play the losb dlc still happens, just not with shepard's direct help,the events of arrival happen because Shepard directly intervenes.

In one aspect the dlc still occurs no matter what shepard does, in the other it only occurs because of what shepard does, thats where the difference lies.

Bridging dlc can bridge the storyline without directly impacting on the main character, something that cannot happen with arrival.

[xassantex]

leonia42 wrote...

Like it or not, bridging story DLC is.. well, bridging story DLC. You can complain about Arrival all you wsh but it won't change its impact on Shepard's story. This has been known information for quite some time now, just as LotSB is.

The beginning of ME3 will reference the events of Arrival, it will make more sense to people who actually played it but it will still recap events for those who didn't so I'm not sure what the fear is. It's no different than the opening of ME2 talking about patrolling the Terminus system for geth activity.. only there was no DLC that happened to fill in the gaps between ME1 and ME2 and you just take it on faith that that's what was happening between games. This time we actually get to experience what was happening between games. Some of us thought that was worth $5 to experience and some people didn't want to bother.

But to cry ignorance that you never knew that Arrival was actually important to the story line is just.. well, crying ignorance when you've had the facts since Arrival's release. So you miss out on experiencing the events first-hand, big deal, that's what happens when you are unwilling to fork over $5 for a semi-decent piece of content that the devs have said OVER AND OVER is part of Shepard's story. 

You get what you pay for, funnily enough. Those that didn't play it will have it explained to them in a context that makes sesne to them in ME3 but won't have had first-hand experience with the events. What's the big worry?

agreed .

i never played ME1 and went happily and cluelessly through ME2 . Then i got Genesis and it helped put things in perspective and generated different  dialogues in ME2. Was it essential ? Not at all . Was it enlightening? Slightly yes.  There are people who will get into the franchise for the very 1st time with ME3 and won't think twice about it. 
Arrival will be the least of their concern. 

[Moonshadow_Dark]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

So first people complain about DLC being utterly pointless, and now they complain about DLC being TOO important?

http://objection.mrd...o.php?n=5219113

[Leonia]

alperez wrote...

Again your missing the point completely, its not a question of the events happening or not its a question of forcing those events on what is essentially supposed to be your character in an out of game context.

Liara/SB if you don't play the losb dlc still happens, just not with shepard's direct help,the events of arrival happen because Shepard directly intervenes.

In one aspect the dlc still occurs no matter what shepard does, in the other it only occurs because of what shepard does, thats where the difference lies.

Bridging dlc can bridge the storyline without directly impacting on the main character, something that cannot happen with arrival.

LotSB still happens with Shepard's help.. you just don't experience it if you didn't buy it, Shepard did it behind the scenes. Same for Arrival. They are identical. They are both bridging DLC. This is known and has been known since before these DLCs were released. Canon events are canon. Just like all Shepards become Spectres in ME1 even if you start with ME2 without an import file you were a Spectre before ME2. Just like you met Tali and Garrus in ME1 even if you never played the game. It's no different. I'm not sure why you insist that Arrival and LotSB are not the same in terms of the role they play in the story when the devs have said time and time againt that the events happen as they do in the DLC regardless if you bought it or not.

Shepard has about six or so months to kill between games, it's not hard to imagine him/her helping Liara and blowing up the Alpha relay during that time.. with or without the player's involvement.

You're just trolling at this stage, buddy, that or living in denial.

LotSB can't possibly happen without Shepard's involvement, the information Liara needs is sent from Cerberus to Shepard, there's no way she'd become the Shadow-broker on her own without that information or without Shepard's help to defeat the old Shadow-broker. Ergo: Shepard has to be involved. Just as Shepard is directly involved in Arrival.

Perhaps if you actually bought these DLCs and played them then you'd know what actually happens in them. Or not, you could just play ME3 like millions of others that will have skipped some content (ME1, ME2, LotSB, Arrival, BDtS) and just let the game tell you what you missed out on.

Modifié par leonia42, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:56 .

[alperez]

leonia42 wrote...



LotSB still happens with Shepard's help.. you just don't experience it if you didn't buy it, Shepard did it behind the scenes. Same for Arrival. They are identical. They are both bridging DLC. This is known and has been known since before these DLCs were released. Canon events are canon. Just like all Shepards become Spectres in ME1 even if you start with ME2 without an import file you were a Spectre before ME2. Just like you met Tali and Garrus in ME1 even if you never played the game. It's no different. I'm not sure why you insist that Arrival and LotSB are not the same in terms of the role they play in the story when the devs have said time and time againt that the events happen as they do in the DLC regardless if you bought it or not.

Shepard has about six or so months to kill between games, it's not hard to imagine him/her helping Liara and blowing up the Alpha relay during that time.. with or without the player's involvement.

You're just trolling at this stage, buddy, that or living in denial.

The outcome of LOSB still happens, ie liara becomes the SB, but i'm not sure the events themselves as in shepard being the one who helps her become SB do still happen. If they do then i take back my point about Arrival and Losb being different.

The canon event is that Liara becomes the SB, not that Shepard helps her become the sb.

Which if true causes absolutely no issue with whether or not you played or didn't LOSB, however if the events of LOSB are that Shepard helped her become the sb regardless then its exactly the same as arrival.

In terms of events happening in me1 happening regardless again thats a different issue, my point was in response to the OP's assertion that having bought me2 played me2, he then gets to me3 and another event is thrust upon what is supposed to be his character.

Deciding to join the series at a particular point and having backstory and events having taken place pre that point are not an issue, playing from the beginning of a series and having your character take actions outside the main game of that series that impact on the game and the character itself is the issue.

You can bridge the story itself without impacting on the actions of the character, having events happen while other events are going on allows this to be the case, however having a bridging dlc directly impact on the character itself and then forcing those events to become canon despite whether you played or experienced them is a completely different thing altogether.

What shepard does between the end of one persons me2 and the beginning of another's me3  must be the same for every single person, to have shepard do things in a dlc that affects everyone regardless of whether or not you purchased that dlc changes the goalposts.

Having events happen without Shepard's direct involvement though doesn't change anything other than the story which is much easier to explain.

Liara becomes the SB on her own, or she becomes the SB because Shepard helped her, while both of these lead to the same starting point in me3, they each only impact directly on how you personally played the game. So someone can come to me3 without playing LOSB and still start with Liara as the SB, someone else who played and helped her be the SB has a slightly different story but one with the same starting point.

Arrival though unless shepard intervenes means the reapers arrive early, so it creates a different starting point, in order to create the same start point the events in arrival become canon and Shepard whether or not you played arrival takes an action that's forced.

So someone who played me1, played me2  and then goes to play me3 is then placed in a position where there character has taken an action off screen that's placed them in the position they are in  no matter what.

As for trolling well i'm simply stating a point, if it makes you feel better to accuse someone of trolling then feel free to do so.

[Morroian]

alperez wrote...

In terms of events happening in me1 happening regardless again thats a different issue, my point was in response to the OP's assertion that having bought me2 played me2, he then gets to me3 and another event is thrust upon what is supposed to be his character.

Deciding to join the series at a particular point and having backstory and events having taken place pre that point are not an issue, playing from the beginning of a series and having your character take actions outside the main game of that series that impact on the game and the character itself is the issue.

IMHO deciding not to buy a dlc is the same in principle.

[alperez]

leonia42 wrote...


Perhaps if you actually bought these DLCs and played them then you'd know what actually happens in them. Or not, you could just play ME3 like millions of others that will have skipped some content (ME1, ME2, LotSB, Arrival, BDtS) and just let the game tell you what you missed out on.

I have bought the dlcs, and played them, i did say so in my first post, however perhaps because i'm arguing a different perspective you've decided that it must be because of some pre conceived notion of yours that only someone who didn't would argue against something.

[alperez]

Morroian wrote...


IMHO deciding not to buy a dlc is the same in principle.

IMHO its not.

Simply because the dlc's don't have to change the main characters own interpretation of events only those events themselves.

Liara can become the SB, Kasumi can go on her own merry little way, Overlord can crash and burn all of these things can happen with or without Shepard's direct involvement. But by playing the dlc it changes only your own personal experience of those events, so you help Liara be the SB, you helped Kasumi or Shut down overlord, then your game is different than someone elses.

[kidbd15]

You know what would be best in this situation? If you didn't play Arrival and you import your ME2 save file into ME3, the intro video is the galaxy being destroyed (similar to if you let the time run out in Arrival), and the game says "YOU LOSE!"... that's what should happen...

But then all a bunch of b*tching and moaning would happen then as well.

[Freestate2nd]

Remember that the normandy SR2 is confiscated and rebuild by the alliance.The trial may be for partnership of shepard with cerberus.Arrival is only a introduction and a extra charge.

[ItsFreakinJesus]

I wouldn't be surprised if Arrival is played out in a cutscene for those who didn't play it, hence making OP's complaint worthless.