297 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Freestate2nd wrote...

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.

Jeez...maybe I shouldn't play arrival then, I would rather be tried for associating with a terrorist group than genocide...

[alperez]

kidbd15 wrote...

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.

LOL. too bad game over.

But this exactly is the point the OP was trying to make, unlike the other DLC's Arrival has to take place exactly as if you played it, it becomes a canon action that Shepard takes no matter what.

All the other actions taking in DLC's can happen without Shepard playing a role in them, arrival though if Shepard plays no role leads exactly to the point you make, its basically a game over screen which makes it a forced action.

So don't buy it, it happens anyway exactly as if you have, do buy it and it happens but at least you know the reason why.

Bridging a story can be done without it affecting the main character, arrival doesn't allow this.

[sedrikhcain]

Goodness, y'know companies are allowed to make money for all the hard work and creativity they put into these things. You get quite a cohesive ME experience if you play only the three main games and not a single DLC. Those who choose to pay extra get extra content. Those who don't will just have to be satisfied with exposition. There is nothing wrong with that. Bioware and EA have not ripped you off.

C'mon people, it takes a lot to get me to start arguing the corporate side of things.

[el master pr]

This is the way I see it:

Arrival and LotSB happen, whether you buy the DLC or not. But if you buy them, you get to play and see how the event unfolds. There are really no plot-changing, mega-important choices in either of the DLCs, but you get to play it. As for how will those who didn't buy the DLCs will know what happened in them, I guess it will be as simple as every action Shepard has made on the time between ME2 and ME3 being outlined on the trial at the beginning. Also, you must know that BW is making ME3 as a good entry point to new players. That goal tells me that not only will LotSB and Arrival be fully explained, but the actions of the first two games entirely. Imho, your complaint has no argument whatsoever.

[alperez]

sedrikhcain

I have no problems paying for the dlc, i've said i feel they add something to the games and are well worth the money spent imo.

My issue is when it gets to the stage that not buying the dlc impacts on the games themselves, when choices and actions are taken that impact the main character in a dlc, then it gets close to the point that you must buy the dlc in order to fully appreciate the game.

Arrival imo comes perilously close to this, the other dlcs do not.

[kidbd15]

alperez wrote...

kidbd15 wrote...

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.

LOL. too bad game over.

But this exactly is the point the OP was trying to make, unlike the other DLC's Arrival has to take place exactly as if you played it, it becomes a canon action that Shepard takes no matter what.

All the other actions taking in DLC's can happen without Shepard playing a role in them, arrival though if Shepard plays no role leads exactly to the point you make, its basically a game over screen which makes it a forced action.

So don't buy it, it happens anyway exactly as if you have, do buy it and it happens but at least you know the reason why.

Bridging a story can be done without it affecting the main character, arrival doesn't allow this.

I completely see and understand your point, as well as the point of the OP. Thing is, as I recall, after ME2 was released, people wanted to see canon story heavy DLC. BioWare delivered. Arrival is as canon as can be. They wanted players to know the Reapers were coming.  Yes, it SHOULD have been a free DLC that was an automatic update to the game, but $$ drives business.  Just the way it is.  

Now I guarantee you the people on this forum already understand, but most likely don't care.  I, for one, am content with how the DLC is a forced action.  Not so happy it cost $$ since it was a forced action, but hey, business right? 

[sedrikhcain]

alperez,

I understand the argument but I just disagree with it. It's a very small episode that is just linking material between the two main games. There aren't any choices to make in the DLC that change things and everyone starts in exactly the same place in ME3. Now, if they decided to make, say, the final battle with the Reapers DLC, then I would be upset.

[ODST 3]

I don't like it either, primarily because Arrival was absolutely horrible. It completely lacked suspense and emotional engagement. I didn't care about any of it and would have rather spent that hour torturing Amanda Kenson to death.

The Admiral Hackett character design was over the top, the lack of free choice throughout the quest was very disappointing, as was the lack of any physical appearance by the Reapers. It seemed like we were just killing a whole bunch of Batarians for no reason since the imminence and specificity of the threat was not clearly made known. Horrible DLC and I wish they could have come up with something better. <_<

I recommend that no one buy it but since it's a very important part of the story they better do something about explaining it to those who didn't waste their money on it.

[littlezack]

ODST 3 wrote...

I don't like it either, primarily because Arrival was absolutely horrible. It completely lacked suspense and emotional engagement. I didn't care about any of it and would have rather spent that hour torturing Amanda Kenson to death.

...I should go.

[Leonia]

el master pr wrote...

This is the way I see it:

Arrival and LotSB happen, whether you buy the DLC or not. But if you buy them, you get to play and see how the event unfolds. There are really no plot-changing, mega-important choices in either of the DLCs, but you get to play it. As for how will those who didn't buy the DLCs will know what happened in them, I guess it will be as simple as every action Shepard has made on the time between ME2 and ME3 being outlined on the trial at the beginning. Also, you must know that BW is making ME3 as a good entry point to new players. That goal tells me that not only will LotSB and Arrival be fully explained, but the actions of the first two games entirely. Imho, your complaint has no argument whatsoever.

This one understands.

[alperez]

sedrikhcain wrote...

alperez,

I understand the argument but I just disagree with it. It's a very small episode that is just linking material between the two main games. There aren't any choices to make in the DLC that change things and everyone starts in exactly the same place in ME3. Now, if they decided to make, say, the final battle with the Reapers DLC, then I would be upset.

Its not so much that there are choices to be made (as you rightly point out there aren't any) but its more the fact that its an imposed canon position on the character.

Whether or not you play arrival the events take place as if you did, so your Shepard or my Shepard both cause the deaths of the batarians in order to stop the arrival.

Come me3 we both start off in the exact same position as if this event has taken place, now in order to experience the event we have to buy the dlc, we can choose not to but the event happens anyway. So when we get to me3 my shepard has killed the batarians to stop the arrival (but that's fine i bought the dlc and know why) your shepard however is told this is what happened.

So for immersion purposes someone who has played me1, me2  (but not arrival) and starts up me3 is faced with an action taken in game by the main character that they have no recollection of making and no understanding of why the character they've played thus far would do such a thing.

With the other DLC's, those actions can happen without the main character so can be explained in game as things that happened while you were not playing, but to have an event like arrival happen to Shepard specifically and then when you begin your playthough this event is forced upon you as having already happened it becomes something completely different.

Again i'm talking not as someone just joining in at me3 but someone who's being playing from me1, all the other dlc's just simply effect the universe around you and the people within that universe, these actions can happen with shepard (if you play dlc) or without (if you don't) arrival cannnot so its different.

I'll give you another example, the collector base, you destroy or you don't, come me3 the choice you made has a different flavour based on what you did, however the outcome of that choice (cerberus still ending up with the base destroyed or not) doesn't change, so the storyline flows and the main characters intrepretation of that storyline is only different based on the choice you made.

Arrival takes this choice away from you, it explains the reasoning if you've played it but if you haven't it forces a choice and action without context upon you, unlike moving the storyline forward with or without your participation in it, it forces your participation even if you don't play it.

In an rpg this crosses a line imo, which is where i take issue.

However since i played arrival its a lesser issue to me personally than if i had not, which was the OP's main point.

[Moonshadow_Dark]

alperez wrote...

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.

Ummmm think that bit is kind of the point of the game itself.

[Tasker]

OP should get back under his bridge.

But having said that...

To be honest, i'm still trying to work out how Arrival is the reason for Sheps trial in the first place.

The only living people that know Shep was even there are Shep him/herself, Hackett and a couple of crew on the Normandy that looked out of the window when Joker picked Shep up at the end.

The only living people that know WHY Shep was there are Shep and Hackett. And as it was a covert black op for Hackett neither of them should even be mentioning the fact that they talked, let alone what it was they talked about.

The only Living person that should know that it was Sheps fault the system blew up is Shep, and why the hell would he/she tell anybody? For all anyone else knows it was going to happen no matter what or somebody else did it and Shep tried to stop it.

Yes, there were Reapers and Reaper artifacts involved, but as there's no longer any proof to back Shepard's story should he/she tell it, there's no point in telling anyone.

The events of Arrival shouldn't even be mentioned at Sheps trial and the trial should be based purely on the fact that Shep has suddenly reappeared alive and well after 2 years of being dead and was working with Cerberus - a known terrorist organisation.

So in my opinion the Arrival "events" didn't even happen as far as the rest of the universe is concerned. Which doesn't make the DLC a "major event".

Modifié par Orkboy, 06 septembre 2011 - 05:49 .

[ODST 3]

littlezack wrote...

ODST 3 wrote...

I don't like it either, primarily because Arrival was absolutely horrible. It completely lacked suspense and emotional engagement. I didn't care about any of it and would have rather spent that hour torturing Amanda Kenson to death.

...I should go.

Hello, Admiral. Sorry about your friend, there was nothing I could do.

[alperez]

Think of it like this, forget arrival existed, that the dlc itself was never available.

So we all get to me3, having played from the very beginning, find out we're on trial for the murder of 300'000 batarians which we did sometime during me2's end and me3's beginning.

How many people on this forum would be seriously pissed with being told that while we weren't playing our Shepard took it upon themselves to destroy a mass relay in order to stop the early arrival of the reapers, killed 300'000 batarians and was now on trial because of it.

Basically for anyone who hasn't played arrival this is the sceanrio they're faced with.

[littlezack]

alperez wrote...

Think of it like this, forget arrival existed, that the dlc itself was never available.

So we all get to me3, having played from the very beginning, find out we're on trial for the murder of 300'000 batarians which we did sometime during me2's end and me3's beginning.

How many people on this forum would be seriously pissed with being told that while we weren't playing our Shepard took it upon themselves to destroy a mass relay in order to stop the early arrival of the reapers, killed 300'000 batarians and was now on trial because of it.

Basically for anyone who hasn't played arrival this is the sceanrio they're faced with.

You're assuming that, if you don't play ME3, the game will do nothing at all to recap the events that led up the trial. Which is an odd assumption, given Bioware's eagerness to not want new players to be completely lost with the third installment.

And aside from that, it's not like Arrival is some super-secret DLC - I think it's safe to say that everyone here knows about it, even if they didn't play it. The beginning of ME3 won't be a surprise for anyone here.

In the scheme of things, Arrival is a relatively small event in ME - it sets up the beginning of ME3, but the trial gets shot to hell when the Reapers show up. I just don't see the point in getting your panties in a bunch over a small DLC with an outcome you can't avoid depicting events that you could watch for yourself on a computer.

[didymos1120]

alperez wrote...

Think of it like this, forget arrival existed, that the dlc itself was never available.

<snip>

Basically for anyone who hasn't played arrival this is the sceanrio they're faced with.

Um, no it's not the scenario they're faced with because the DLC exists and is available.  You can't just excise that context.

[Moonshadow_Dark]

alperez wrote...

Think of it like this, forget arrival existed, that the dlc itself was never available.

So we all get to me3, having played from the very beginning, find out we're on trial for the murder of 300'000 batarians which we did sometime during me2's end and me3's beginning.

How many people on this forum would be seriously pissed with being told that while we weren't playing our Shepard took it upon themselves to destroy a mass relay in order to stop the early arrival of the reapers, killed 300'000 batarians and was now on trial because of it.

Basically for anyone who hasn't played arrival this is the sceanrio they're faced with.

They'd probably have the option to say "I tried to warn them but it was too late" or "I did what was needed so you can bit my left one". Thereby, getting a say in how it turned out. But again, it wouldn't matter. Bioware has made it clear the trial means nothing because before you are sentenced, the Reapers invade. So it really has no impact what so ever, like I stated before. It's just a nod. It has no significence. The Reapers invade, wheter you saw Arrival or not.

[essarr71]

I find it cute when people complain about these bridging dlc. If you're THAT into the story, you're going to invest in the content, if you're not, then what difference does it make?

And anyone who complains about price can chose not to play it or, I dunno, pack a lunch one day for work instead of buying. Or not grab a pack of smokes that day. Or have one less beer at the bar that weekend.

If you're upset that Arrival wasn't to the standard you set for games, or if you feel Bioware isn't doing a good job with ME3, then don't buy it. For some reason, this isn't acceptable logic here tho.

[Moonshadow_Dark]

essarr71 wrote...

I find it cute when people complain about these bridging dlc. If you're THAT into the story, you're going to invest in the content, if you're not, then what difference does it make?

And anyone who complains about price can chose not to play it or, I dunno, pack a lunch one day for work instead of buying. Or not grab a pack of smokes that day. Or have one less beer at the bar that weekend.

If you're upset that Arrival wasn't to the standard you set for games, or if you feel Bioware isn't doing a good job with ME3, then don't buy it. For some reason, this isn't acceptable logic here tho.

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

[essarr71]

alperez wrote...

Think of it like this, forget arrival existed, that the dlc itself was never available.

So we all get to me3, having played from the very beginning, find out we're on trial for the murder of 300'000 batarians which we did sometime during me2's end and me3's beginning.

How many people on this forum would be seriously pissed with being told that while we weren't playing our Shepard took it upon themselves to destroy a mass relay in order to stop the early arrival of the reapers, killed 300'000 batarians and was now on trial because of it.

Basically for anyone who hasn't played arrival this is the sceanrio they're faced with.

Execpt it does exist and you can play it.  If you chose not to play content DLC, I fail to see why you can complain you haven't participated in the content.  At the end of the day, your arguement is "I want this for free" - which has been debated to death.

[alperez]

didymos1120 wrote...



Um, no it's not the scenario they're faced with because the DLC exists and is available.  You can't just excise that context.

Yeah i know it does and my context was incorrect for a specific reason.

SImply being this, unlike any other dlc arrival forces a position on you the player as having taken part in an event that happens in the dlc. So if you choose not to buy it the event itself still happens, the position your forced into still occurs.

If you've played from the very beginning, through me1 and me2 and load up me3 your faced with a canon position of having the events in arrival having taken place, in order to experience these events you have choices. either purchase arrival or watch the events in a cutscene (youtube or read about them).

Your forcing people to accept that events will happen outside of the main game that affect your main characters experiences inside the main game, what i tried to use in my context was an extreme example of what that is like.

If you don't wish to buy the dlc or perhaps have no access to buying the dlc, then the mere fact it exists and is available doesn't change the fact that your main character will take an action outside of the main game you have no control over or context of, which would be similar to doing the same thing without the dlc existing.

[Moonshadow_Dark]

essarr71 wrote...

alperez wrote...

Think of it like this, forget arrival existed, that the dlc itself was never available.

So we all get to me3, having played from the very beginning, find out we're on trial for the murder of 300'000 batarians which we did sometime during me2's end and me3's beginning.

How many people on this forum would be seriously pissed with being told that while we weren't playing our Shepard took it upon themselves to destroy a mass relay in order to stop the early arrival of the reapers, killed 300'000 batarians and was now on trial because of it.

Basically for anyone who hasn't played arrival this is the sceanrio they're faced with.

Execpt it does exist and you can play it.  If you chose not to play content DLC, I fail to see why you can complain you haven't participated in the content.  At the end of the day, your arguement is "I want this for free" - which has been debated to death.

And it's not even that expensive, that's the real kicker.

Arrival costs what $10? You can make $10 in 30 minutes.

You can walk a neighbor's dog. Not dogs. DOG. One.

You could watch you toddler cousin for an hour.

You could sell a copy of Duke Nukem Forever.

And many other things. When did $10 become such a hassle to get?

[sedrikhcain]

alperez wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

alperez,

I understand the argument but I just disagree with it. It's a very small episode that is just linking material between the two main games. There aren't any choices to make in the DLC that change things and everyone starts in exactly the same place in ME3. Now, if they decided to make, say, the final battle with the Reapers DLC, then I would be upset.

Its not so much that there are choices to be made (as you rightly point out there aren't any) but its more the fact that its an imposed canon position on the character.

Whether or not you play arrival the events take place as if you did, so your Shepard or my Shepard both cause the deaths of the batarians in order to stop the arrival.

Come me3 we both start off in the exact same position as if this event has taken place, now in order to experience the event we have to buy the dlc, we can choose not to but the event happens anyway. So when we get to me3 my shepard has killed the batarians to stop the arrival (but that's fine i bought the dlc and know why) your shepard however is told this is what happened.

So for immersion purposes someone who has played me1, me2  (but not arrival) and starts up me3 is faced with an action taken in game by the main character that they have no recollection of making and no understanding of why the character they've played thus far would do such a thing.

With the other DLC's, those actions can happen without the main character so can be explained in game as things that happened while you were not playing, but to have an event like arrival happen to Shepard specifically and then when you begin your playthough this event is forced upon you as having already happened it becomes something completely different.

Again i'm talking not as someone just joining in at me3 but someone who's being playing from me1, all the other dlc's just simply effect the universe around you and the people within that universe, these actions can happen with shepard (if you play dlc) or without (if you don't) arrival cannnot so its different.

I'll give you another example, the collector base, you destroy or you don't, come me3 the choice you made has a different flavour based on what you did, however the outcome of that choice (cerberus still ending up with the base destroyed or not) doesn't change, so the storyline flows and the main characters intrepretation of that storyline is only different based on the choice you made.

Arrival takes this choice away from you, it explains the reasoning if you've played it but if you haven't it forces a choice and action without context upon you, unlike moving the storyline forward with or without your participation in it, it forces your participation even if you don't play it.

In an rpg this crosses a line imo, which is where i take issue.

However since i played arrival its a lesser issue to me personally than if i had not, which was the OP's main point.

Again, I understand this complaint, it just doesn't bother me. It's just not central enough to bother me, and I say that not just because I bought and played the dlc. Arrival is merely the plot device BW is using to bridge the gap between 2 and 3. In that regard, it's no different from what they did with the intro to me 2, only they've made it playable dlc this time, as opposed to an opening cinematic.  If you'll recall, Shepard was then "forced", if you will, to roam the terminus systems hunting Geth for 2 years. Is there really anyone's Shepard who actually would've done that after the events of 1? So I'd say that in both instances, they're guilty of a contrivance. THAT, I believe, is something to take issue with but the dlc/paid content element of it is immaterial to me.

[RocketManSR2]

7 f***ing pages.........

http://t3.gstatic.co...OhbIiEW1Dw3D2vw

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 06 septembre 2011 - 06:23 .