591 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Random Nobody wrote...

BSN confirmed for clingy, jealous LI.

News at 11.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 28 novembre 2011 - 01:26 .

[Someone With Mass]

Ticktank wrote...

BW isn't mad because of the leak.

They're mad because people were upset after reading it. I bet they were so confident and proud that their story will be showered with praises, and totally didn't expect to receive such a strong negative reaction.

They probably assumed that 90% of their players are Tali & Garrusmancers and will therefore like what they wrote. Oh well, thats what you get for drinking too much Dextromancer kool aid.

Its been quiet because they're busy negotiating deals with the VA's, trying to get them back for some last minute work.

Are you always this boring and predictable?

"Whaaa, they gave Tali and Garrus a spot in ME3 and I don't like it!"

We all get it.

It doesn't mean that every other character is diminished in any way if they didn't get that permanent spot on the squad, which is so ungodly overrated, since all they did was to put back the ME1 squad minus Wrex plus three new squadmates, because they can't have every single character on the squad, since that was one of the big problems with ME2. 

Every other squadmate from ME2 will show up in some capacity, which I believe is pretty true to their nature and character.

I mean, do you really think Grunt would just sit near his tank and not do a damn thing while his people are being attacked by the Reapers? Or the same thing with Samara and her Code that pretty much motivates her to go and help them? Or Thane and his illness?

Most of the squad even loudly announced that they were going to leave after the mission was done too.

[shepskisaac]

Random Nobody wrote...

BSN confirmed for clingy, jealous LI.

Will cheating with NeoGAF have consequences?

[goofyomnivore]

I would imagine they're changing some of their marketing schemes to not confirm/deny any of the leak's contents. I doubt a company of BioWare/EA's status would be "mad" at a fanbase over a leak they had no control over.

Modifié par strive, 28 novembre 2011 - 01:33 .

[Ticktank]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Are you always this boring and predictable?

"Whaaa, they gave Tali and Garrus a spot in ME3 and I don't like it!"

We all get it.

"Boring and predictable" enough for you to still respond to me with such passion, apparently. I hope you at least show half of that passion to your parents. They brought you into this world after all. Not Tali.

If you seriously think that I'm upset because the Dextros 'got a spot' in ME3, you're dumber than I thought.

Run along now!

Modifié par Ticktank, 28 novembre 2011 - 01:40 .

[ZLurps]

strive wrote...

I would imagine they're changing some of their marketing schemes to not confirm/deny any of the leak's contents. I doubt a company of BioWare/EA's status would be "mad" at a fanbase over a leak they had no control over.

Yep, they have been in business since 1995. While some things players can still surprise them, how popular the whole LI aspect came and strip mining of galaxy for example, I think they have seen pretty much it all over the years. I think one thing that speaks behalf of it is how well the community is managed after all.

[Someone With Mass]

Ticktank wrote...

"Boring and predictable" enough for you to still respond to me with such passion, apparently. I hope you at least show half of that passion to your parents. They brought you into this world after all. Not Tali.

If you seriously think that I'm upset because the Dextros 'got a spot' in ME3, you're dumber than I thought.

Run along now!

Well, you certainly come across as a butthurt little whiner when you're throwing a jab at Tali and Garrus in every single post you make, so...you have only yourself to blame for that one.

Then again, that's your entire gag on this forum, so I was dumb to expect anything more from you than insults.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 28 novembre 2011 - 01:48 .

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

Yeah, you know that this has nothing to do with ME3, and you just keep on at it. ME3 imports the same choices from ME1, just like ME2 did. It doesn't just discard the previous imported data. Regardless of that, your rant is highly subjective. Comparatively speaking, ME2, just as any post-BG BioWare game, doesn't alter the universe as drastically as other games, whether that has to do with imports or not.

There's a difference between what you're importing from and what you're actually doing with it. My issue isn't what's being imported, it's that the consequences of prior actions don't seem to change as much as they should do, IMO.

Having played most of the big-name RPGs of the 2000s (and a couple from the 90s), I can definitely question your opinion that "choices don't matter". I recognize ME2 as one of the most personalized games of its time. True, maybe the universe itself won't change too drastically when you sacrifice the Council (well, it does, we just don't see too much of that in-game), but your personal interactions with NPCs definitely do. And what BioWare has achieved is to create a franchise where you actually care for what you do.

Saving The Council or not is basically reduced to little but a line during the opening, what happens when you visit Anderson/Udina and how some of the aliens on The Citadel act. That's about it. Granted, we're mostly in the Terminus Systems in ME2, but overall the universe seems exactly the same place in either case. It's a major factor and yet all it does is flavour some dialogue here and there, when it should have widespread galactic implications. The same people are all in the same places, the same stuff happens and it doesn't really change much at all when you really look down to it. It's about the same as changing a dust cover on a book: it looks slightly different, but everything inside is exactly the same. And we're supposed to just accept that with a throwaway line from Jacob on Minuteman about politics never changing anything? That's pretty weak.

Most games, especially RPGs, which are filled with tropes and uninteresting ideas fail miserably at that. In the end, even I, with my very limited knowledge on game design could create a text-based game with more choices and effects than all BioWare games combined.  But there's a HUGE difference between choices that matter to you, and choices that the game tells you that matter.

So the game is supposed to just dictate what matters, even when it defies logic? I'm supposed to just accept that everything I do is superficial and cosmetic at best? How is that a case of "choices really mattering" at all? Especially when BioWare specifically noted your choice regarding The Council as being a "choice that matters" in the first place.

The problem is that the whole game pulls a bait and switch on you. It sets up things with big flags that scream at you that this change will have a big impact, but then you simply end up with a half-assed, weaksauce outcome filled with lazy cop-outs and trivialisation of the issue that was so built up. Like I said in an earlier post, it's like the choice to set off a nuclear bomb in a city resulting in you discovering two years later that all it did was make some people's clothing a little more dusty than the others. Or like somebody comes along and says, "Oh, you saw an explosion, yes. But that was something else, and you didn't really destroy the town at all. And now that this little banter of revelation is done, everything here on in will be as if you'd never done it at all anyway."

See, I don't get this at all. VS could have been much worse, and I am personally wondering if the "disappointment" came from hardcore VS fans who were disappointed that they couldn't have VS as squadmates, rather than fans of the game itself. The VS would just not fit in ME2's storyline.

I didn't expect the VS to be a squaddie in ME2. In fact, I applauded that they weren't, especially when I heard they were basically being saved for ME3. And while Horizon could have been worse, it could have been a lot better than a weakass cameo where the two characters basically substitute for each other and deliver the same basic lines. There's no real unique content for either of them, and that personally diminishes their characters, IMO. It's basically the devs saying, "Kaidan and Ashley are interchangable in every sense, and just little pawns with no real individual points worth bringing to the fore!" I know given the situation surrounding their involvement in the plot it wouldn't have made sense, but I would have personally found a way to give them both unique missions, locations and situations instead of lumping them together like that.

I'll agree partially with you on Liara, though the problem is a poor application of the comic story arcs, rather than anything else. LotSB was the biggest example of fan service I have seen in a while, but I thoroughly enjoyed it due to the high production values it had.

And LotSB was, IMO, the best thing to come out of ME2. To me it was just better in almost every way than the main story and game. Better written and structured, more focused and more interesting. Even the combat and level design outshone the original, vanilla game.

Here is where you are wrong: Your squadmates already matter in ME3.
Maybe not to you, but you are definitely among the group BioWare would logically cater to. Yes, Wreav WILL have to have a similar role to Wrex in ME3. You won't just miss an entire story arc because you didn't have enough paragon points 4 years ago. But no, Wreav won't have the same interaction with you, Liara, or Garrus, as we have seen in the demo. There's a huge difference when it comes to the emotional effect, and some of the consumer base appreciate that greatly.

That's pretty weak, IMO. It was bad enough that the only thing that really changed about Tuchanka in ME2 was who sat on the throne and some dialogue here and there, but for Wreav to just slot in as Wrex II again in ME3 is even worse. Especially given what we've seen the stuff involving Wrex, the krogan and the salarians is. Given Wreav's opposing policies and the fact that he's the anti-Wrex essentially, it makes no sense for him to just slot in doing the same thing with nothing different beyond a little less friendly banter and a bit more antagonism. I also don't want to see Mordin just replaced with "Random Salarian #5" mimicking Mordin's lines and doing almost exactly what Mordin would do, but with less banter either. These are supposed to be different characters with different personalities, and it's a disservice and insult to all the characters involved to just trade and swap them in identical circumstances so cheaply, not to mention cheapens the whole concept of choices actually mattering for the player. If Wrex and Mordin are dead, the entire structure of the mission on Sur'kesh should be different than if they are alive. Otherwise it's just a cheap cop-out and lazy way out.

I'll disagree with you there.
ME2 was wrong to fill itself with cameos and e-mails. They should have waited for ME3 to do that. It just doesn't make much sense to have that many subplots of the first act maintained in the second act, rather than resolved in the third act.

What, so you disagree that the quarians were well handled in ME2 and that Parasini's cameo was well done? Y'know, sometimes I just get the feeling you contradict me and disagree just for the sake of it. I rag on ME2 and you say I'm wrong, and then when I actually compliment it and point out some strong examples of where it did things right, you disagree and say I'm wrong then too. I can't win with you.

I agree that ME2 was wrong to fill itself with emails, and that there were too many cameos all in the same areas. But to say that ME2 should have almost ignored it entirely and just saved it for ME3 is nonsense, IMO. Though it sometimes feels that that's what it did anyway, given how shallow most of the consequences in ME2 from ME1 actually were.

There are some circumstances I do admit would have best been left to ME3. The Rachni is one of them, as I personally found the Rachni envoy a little too "fourth wall" to a degree and felt that the whole thing should have just been ignored until the final part, where it actually mattered. Again, Parasini was well done, so was Miss Al-Jilani. Conrad would have been had he worked properly. Shiala was good to see again, but overall butchered thanks to a weak substitute alternative that cheapened her. Helena Blake and Fist were hollow. Two that I thought would have made sense and I would have actually liked to see were Emily Wong and Dr. Michel on The Citadel. The emails from them wouldn't have been as bad had you been able to follow-up on their suggestions and actually meet them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Terror_K wrote...
That's pretty weak, IMO. It was bad enough that the only thing that really changed about Tuchanka in ME2 was who sat on the throne and some dialogue here and there, but for Wreav to just slot in as Wrex II again in ME3 is even worse. Especially given what we've seen the stuff involving Wrex, the krogan and the salarians is. Given Wreav's opposing policies and the fact that he's the anti-Wrex essentially, it makes no sense for him to just slot in doing the same thing with nothing different beyond a little less friendly banter and a bit more antagonism. I also don't want to see Mordin just replaced with "Random Salarian #5" mimicking Mordin's lines and doing almost exactly what Mordin would do, but with less banter either. These are supposed to be different characters with different personalities, and it's a disservice and insult to all the characters involved to just trade and swap them in identical circumstances so cheaply, not to mention cheapens the whole concept of choices actually mattering for the player. If Wrex and Mordin are dead, the entire structure of the mission on Sur'kesh should be different than if they are alive. Otherwise it's just a cheap cop-out and lazy way out.

Technicly, no one is irreplacable. With the galaxy at stake, very few would NOT work with Sheppard. So that someone else takes the position of Garrus/Wrex/Marordin/etc..ti's only normal.
Life goes on.

[this isnt my name]

Terror_K wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

I would actually extend this...

I'm quite sick of the entire industry warping every IP into a pure-shooter.  EA's studio for Syndicate claims that there's no market for anything but Shooters,  Ubisoft makes the same claim for X-com.  Neither one of those games should be Shooters.

Agreed. Hence why I'm basically sick of them going along with the crowd and making everything generic, shallow and action-focused. A proper remake of Syndicate with today's technology could be epic, and the same goes for UFO: Enemy Unknown, but instead we're getting more generic brown shooters, and more reboot remakes. To bring it back to BioWare, there's rumours that their teased "new IP" is a C&C reboot as a shooter. *Yawn* if true.

So right now,  the only things I plan on buying are Bioshock Infinity,  maybe ME3,  Diablo 3,  Starcraft,  and Dead State in 2012.  Mind you,  through the 90's I bought 4-5 games a month*,  in 2012 I expect to buy a grand total of 4 games,  maybe 5.

I've bought a fair amount lately, but granted most are older games I've waited to come down in price. The only games this year I've got on Day 1 are DA2 (massive regrets there), Deus Ex: HR and Skyrim (both thankfully pretty damn good, IMO). I'd have got Batman AC, but Xmas is coming and I'm saving up for my SWTOR Collector's Edition, which I have to import from the States because it seems BioWare and EA don't give a damn about New Zealand regarding that title.

Beyond that, next year is looking pretty dry for me outside of Mass Effect 3. Maybe Hitman Absolution. I was never big on BioShock and thought 2 sucked, so I'll skip Infinity unless I hear grand things or it drops in price. I'm avoiding Blizzard products since they teamed up with Activision and insist on their stupid Battlenet 2 "always online" DRM approach (which is why I haven't also bought a Ubisoft game in 3 years now). Dishonoured may be interesting. Oh, and I'll pick up Arkham City sometime next year. That's pretty much it for me so far.

ODST 3 wrote...

 I don't see that at all. Bioware are the only devs I trust to tell a decent story well. I missed certain RPG elements from ME1 in the second one but for the most part, I want to continue experiencing the story. The writing in all Gears of War games has been atrocious from Day 1, the only reason to play those games in for funny brutality and smooth gameplay. Mass Effect has a rich universe and fleshed out story that hasn't overtly disappointed me yet. I much preferred Mass Effect 2's inventory to the needlessly complex and micro-managing one of ME 1. The side-quests were better connected to the main story. The gameplay was way smoother and more rewarding with a much more intelligent controller interface. There's going to be the most action in ME 3 because the biggest war in 50,000 years is going on, that doesn't mean it's another mindless shooter.

Well, I disagree with a lot of your preferences regarding ME2. At the moment it really is only the universe, story, characters and import stuff that's keeping me interested in Mass Effect. I fell too hard in love with the IP originally for it to be killed yet, but after ME3 I'm not sure if I'll still consider Mass Effect to be "this Century's Star Trek and Star Wars" any more.

But I personally preferred a clumsy inventory that allowed me to play at least than no inventory at all and a system that did everything for me. I prefer sidequests that are actually sidequests so that things aren't solely focused on the one thing and prefer proper set-ups, dialogue and polish than just having my Shepard and his/her team running around silently shooting guys or doing a gimmicky little experiment with no consequences or threat that's only found by throwing down a probe. And I prefer a contoll interface that doesn't map sprint, take-cover, vault and use/interact to the same key. Just for some examples of how I don't agree with ME2 doing things better.

Add Kingdoms of Amalur to the list, looks like a great rpg imo. Dont know how many know of it, but damn im going to bring it up bewcause I have high hopes for the game.

Not all shoote transformations are bad, look at fllout new vegas. Its a shooter, but still an rpg, not like the original fallouts, its also a damn good game.

Yes I have my eye on dishonoured too, I am avoiding hype, but im definately pre ordering.
And the guys who made Bioshock 2 had nothing to do with Bioshock or Bioshock infinate.

Its not too bad there arent many interesting games, I still need to buy and play some other games... I hve yet to buy Okami

[DoNotIngest]

Ticktank wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Are you always this boring and predictable?

"Whaaa, they gave Tali and Garrus a spot in ME3 and I don't like it!"

We all get it.

"Boring and predictable" enough for you to still respond to me with such passion, apparently. I hope you at least show half of that passion to your parents. They brought you into this world after all. Not Tali.

If you seriously think that I'm upset because the Dextros 'got a spot' in ME3, you're dumber than I thought.

Run along now!

Hey, man. Passion's a good thing. It's sexeh. Like passionate Quarian pounces. Right Ticky?


And we all know that you're not really upset. You're just crushing so hard on Team Dextro, but you want to be different. It's understandable. Though, you should probably stop googling "Tali Nude" and "Garrus's Clawhammer" with safesearch off and look around for a nice girl IRL. It's more satisfactory, I should imagine.


And I don't run, maaan. Someone walked up to me and told me to run, you know what I did? I threw it on THA GROUND!
I prance.



*prances off*

Modifié par DoNotIngest, 28 novembre 2011 - 03:39 .

[lucidfox]

DoNotIngest wrote...

Though, you should probably stop googling "Tali Nude" and "Garrus's Clawhammer" with safesearch off and look around for a nice girl IRL.

You assume too much.

[Swampthing500]

ZLurps wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Most students are easy to evaluate based on their intelligence and ability. That's what teachers do when determining areas of improvement or marking. That's why classes are organized into subjects of differing complexity. There are many meat-heads without the inclination, maturity or capacity to learn advanced history or math in the same way there are meat-heads who do not play RPGs.

This is sort of interesting. Can you see social trends being a factor there. People playing whatever hot titles, would that be something like Call of Duty:Majestic Warfare, not because those games really appeal to them, but because everybody plays them and owning and having played the game have social meaning for them?

Gaming has reached the mass-market stage of music. Just like a specific artist or group is popular, so is a particular genre of game or a particular series.

The fact that consoles have become more common is also a huge reason.

[ODST 3]

Terror_K wrote...

Shooting guys in ME 1 was actually a lot more silent because of a frequent lack of impact sound effects and poor physics. The interface in ME 1, rather than using one button to do multiple tasks, instead used three buttons to do one task, for example both triggers and X would draw weapons. I found this very unnecessary and wasteful.

One was draw weapon, the other was shoot weapon, which just also happened to draw it if it wasn't already drawn. I'd rather have redundant systems that putting too many functions on the same button. That may fly on an XBox contoller, but on a PC where you've got dozens of keys and aren't even using most of them, it's clumsy and lazy.

What specifically do you miss about ME 1? Which of these side sidequests added so much more to the ME1 world?

I miss exploring for one. I miss the vast, endless and epic feeling that the UNC worlds gave, which actually made the universe feel vast and showed you not everywhere was bustling, populated and small. I miss actually being given a sidequest via Admiral Hackett, Nassana Dantius, Helena Blake, Admiral Kahoku or some other contact and a proper set-up and conclusion for it. I miss having dialogue choices for it and Shepard and the squaddies commenting (and even being referred to directly in some rare cases) on what's going on. I miss sidequests that spanned mutiple places, had various options and felt like they had weight to them instead of just being more XP or resources, as well as being properly polished. ME2's sidequests (for the most part) were either little isolated experiments or linear little shooting galleries with no real story, set-up or dialogue to them where Shepard ran around silently from datapad to datapad or enemy to enemy with his/her equally silent squaddies. Either that or fetch quests where the items were slapped on an already well beaten path so hamfistedly you couldn't help but collect them (e.g. the trinket on Illium, the manifold on Tuchanka, etc.).

Simply put: I miss the fact that sidequests felt like they added to the world and were properly integrated into it naturally, rather than feeling slapped on as a bunch of gamey, forced content or cheap little gimmicky experiments on a bunch of linear little A to B areas. They wouldn't have been so bad had they been polished better, and actually had proper set-ups, some dialogue, some interesting NPCs and choices and overall were more than just a "to do" tick-list for completionists sake. I was interested in what was going on with Admiral Kahoku, Nassana Dantius, Helena Blake, etc. with the ME1 quests, even if the core gameplay was basically the same in most cases. In ME2 I can barely remember anything side mission-wise that made me care about what was happening. There was next to no effort made to properly integrate it into the rest of the game in a natural way or dress it up in the slightest.

I can understand why the keyboard caused you trouble with all features attached to one key. With a nice responsive controller however, I never had an issue. Gears Of War has the same feature and it's worked for them for three games.

I appreciate the variety sidequests brought in ME 1, coming from unexpected sources you might run into on a stroll through the Presidium or Wards, but in the context of Mass Effect 3's story, Shepard wouldn't just be strolling anywhere until the main quest is dealt with. It wouldn't make sense to play errand boy for an elderly gangster woman while the Reapers are busy ruining the galaxy. I felt silly enough settling a squabble between a worried mother and her brother in law in ME 1 while Saren was on the loose. The game HAS to change and evolve as the story does. Keep making your voice heard because I believe that you old school RPG fans are good for forcing balance into Bioware games but don't dismiss Mass Effect 3 without trying it or even Mass Effect 2 just because of a certain mindset. Appreciate it for what it is.

Modifié par ODST 3, 28 novembre 2011 - 06:15 .

[ZLurps]

Swampthing500 wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Most students are easy to evaluate based on their intelligence and ability. That's what teachers do when determining areas of improvement or marking. That's why classes are organized into subjects of differing complexity. There are many meat-heads without the inclination, maturity or capacity to learn advanced history or math in the same way there are meat-heads who do not play RPGs.

This is sort of interesting. Can you see social trends being a factor there. People playing whatever hot titles, would that be something like Call of Duty:Majestic Warfare, not because those games really appeal to them, but because everybody plays them and owning and having played the game have social meaning for them?

Gaming has reached the mass-market stage of music. Just like a specific artist or group is popular, so is a particular genre of game or a particular series.

The fact that consoles have become more common is also a huge reason.

Thanks for the reply. I have been wondering how it is at these days.

[felipejiraya]

Day after day this thread gets more bizarre.

I've really created a monster. lol

[Chris Priestly]

Well off topic now.


LOCKDOWN!