commanderjst wrote...
Ok so is the trial in the retail version exactly like the demo???? Because I would like to debate for a good amount of length. Not 5 minutes in the trail before being pushed into battle.
So is the trial a good length or rushed??
Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 février 2012 - 02:58 .
Mendelevosa wrote...
OK, this thread has gone to hell. So I officially declare that this thread is now about llamas.
Modifié par Mendelevosa, 15 février 2012 - 03:00 .
txgoldrush wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
And I can talk to Priestly to gain info on Anderson. I can talk to Anderson, Dr. Chackwas. The marine who's killed and Joker and Kaiden briefly before, I talk to Nhilus and recieve my mission. Again there is a misapprehension that there is a demand for Vega's life story in the first 10 minutes. It would'nt kill you to know his thoughts on the committee he's escorting you to, nice way of leading shep into what has been going on for the last few months whilst you've been grounded, wouldn't it?
And you can't wait 10 minutes to properly introduced normally....its making a HUGE deal out of something small.
This is such a nonissue.
Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 février 2012 - 03:01 .
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Dragoonlordz wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
does everything have to be spoon fed to you right away....lol
Why don't you play te game and BE PATIENT. Storytellers like to...umm...delay character development and not force character establishment when its not appropriate.
We've been here before haven't we. You're being obtuse again. chracter development is not determined in the first 10 minutes and no one said it should be. And establismnet does not require a fixed characterisation, but a simple explaination of who he is and how he knows Shepard might help.
Are you going to continue to be disengenuos?
And where is the rule that characters require a simple explanation when they are introduced? There isn't.
Once again, play by the story's rules, not by yours. It is so bad that you aren't properely introduced now but are 10 minutes later after you leave Earth??? This is so ridicoulous.
So we've gone from You claiming, that people demanding character development and establishment to a simple explaination being the rule, would you care to distort your stance any more?
Considering having the reader understand what and who are the characters in question, in the context of events is something which lends itself to a cohesive narrative. Depth and development can come later.
And rules? What rules? The story has no rules, there a hallmarks of good writting in literary pieces, and general rules that are abided by in literature because they work. That's it. Claiming a single story has rules is a bizzare non sequiter.
So if I try to view Planescape Torment as a traditonal fantasy tale, and then pan it (when it clearly isn't trying to be), is that fair?
Sometimes to get enjoyment, you have to go along with how the storytellers tell the story. That means even going along with characters not introduced fully until later. That can also mean following along a not so traditionally told frame narrative.
Hell, proving my point, in FFVI, Celes was actually the second party character shown (at the very beginning), but they don't even introduce or even name her until you rescue her later a good ways into the game. And no one criticizes this.
As for rules, the writers set them, not the fans.
Do you realise how ignorant you even sound, what you enjoy is not what others might enjoy. It has already been established this aspect would have made the game more enjoyable for others except you. You have already shown that you are too arrogant to understand other peoples feelings on this matter hence why you have been trolling this thread for past 50 pages arguing with every single person in it. Honestly I am quite surprised how you have not been suspended yet.
And how is it "established"?
What if the trial was done poorly? Or disrupts the pacing of the game? You are just not taking these things into account.
Why don't you take the logical and sane thing, and judge AFTER the game is released?
Its that simple.
if the beginning and Sheps situation isn't fleshed out later, then that is a problem....but we do not know that it won't be.
And is it a fair opinion to judge a drama as a comedy? Or judge the story by its own merits on what it tries to do, judging a drama as a drama? I say the latter.
That is a glarring logical fallacy. What if this mission was done poorly, oh we'll take it out. Oh Reapers are portrayed poorly we'll take them out. Your assertion is utterly asinine.
And as to judging the game, who is? Don't deviate from the topic at hand. The introduction and the issues of cohesion.
Dragoonlordz wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
UltraBoy360 wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
Uezurii wrote...
Dude You played 8 minutes of the beginning, trust me, after those 8 minutes, and the real intro will start on the Normandy, you'll be able to talk to Vega and hear all about how we met him and who he is.billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
does everything have to be spoon fed to you right away....lol
Why don't you play te game and BE PATIENT. Storytellers like to...umm...delay character development and not force character establishment when its not appropriate.
We've been here before haven't we. You're being obtuse again. chracter development is not determined in the first 10 minutes and no one said it should be. And establismnet does not require a fixed characterisation, but a simple explaination of who he is and how he knows Shepard might help.
Are you going to continue to be disengenuos?
First anyone who says trust me, doesn't put themselves on a solid footing. Secondly the entire first element when an explaination of what had occured in the previous period and how I know this Vega charater would have helped. It didn't have to be deep, nor expansive. That can come later, but I stand talking to this character and I haven't the slightest idea who he is despite shepard seemingly knowing him.
He's an Alliance soldier sent to escort Shepard to the committee - at this stage why would you need to know more. How is ME1 any different? When you concerned/angry when Shepard says to Joker: "you always expect the worst". Did that break immersion because clearly Shepard already knew Joker (and Anderson and Kaidan) but you didn't? Would you have prefered Joker to explain he was a disabled Alliance pilot in his first dialogue?
I seriously do not understand this frustraition.
wow...good point. The entire ME1 opening was like this and this was all OK, now one little space marine in ME3 and EVERYBODY GOES NUTS!!!!!!
So yet again your contradicting yourself for the third time in this thread. Youmoaned(correction) ranted on about how it is better for games to not use the same tropes and methods each time and now you have switched around again to the otherside trying to use other games which use same methods to somehow enforce your argument that different is better oand at same time the same is better all because it was not disappointed then so as far as your concerned should not be now because they did same thing?
So far we have established in this thread you are ignorant, arrogant and now a hypocrite again for third time. Feel free to keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. Does it occur to you that peoples expectations increase over time or that hell they might just have a change of heart and now would have enjoyed to have taken part in something that to you would not?
Its the difference between adding a few minutes of extra content to the game to please many other people while at same time you still get your "splosions" moment only few minutes later and followed by 40-120 hours+ of shooting stuff which you seem to desire. You lose nothing in having it as everyting you want still happens only a couple minutes later while everyone else gains because as shown in this thread and the stickied one by Chris most here would/do want to have had that extra content.
Can't you even see how selfish you are coming across?
txgoldrush wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
UltraBoy360 wrote...
He's an Alliance soldier sent to escort Shepard to the committee - at this stage why would you need to know more. How is ME1 any different? When you concerned/angry when Shepard says to Joker: "you always expect the worst". Did that break immersion because clearly Shepard already knew Joker (and Anderson and Kaidan) but you didn't? Would you have prefered Joker to explain he was a disabled Alliance pilot in his first dialogue?
I seriously do not understand this frustraition.
And I can talk to Priestly to gain info on Anderson. I can talk to Anderson, Dr. Chackwas. The marine who's killed and Joker and Kaiden briefly before, I talk to Nhilus and recieve my mission. Again there is a misapprehension that there is a demand for Vega's life story in the first 10 minutes. It would'nt kill you to know his thoughts on the committee he's escorting you to, nice way of leading shep into what has been going on for the last few months whilst you've been grounded, wouldn't it?
And you can't wait 10 minutes to properly introduced normally....its making a HUGE deal out of something small.
This is such a nonissue.
Modifié par billy the squid, 15 février 2012 - 03:06 .
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
And how is it "established"?
What if the trial was done poorly? Or disrupts the pacing of the game? You are just not taking these things into account.
Why don't you take the logical and sane thing, and judge AFTER the game is released?
Its that simple.
if the beginning and Sheps situation isn't fleshed out later, then that is a problem....but we do not know that it won't be.
And is it a fair opinion to judge a drama as a comedy? Or judge the story by its own merits on what it tries to do, judging a drama as a drama? I say the latter.
That is a glarring logical fallacy. What if this mission was done poorly, oh we'll take it out. Oh Reapers are portrayed poorly we'll take them out. Your assertion is utterly asinine.
And as to judging the game, who is? Don't deviate from the topic at hand. The introduction and the issues of cohesion.
Inventory was done poorly in ME1, it was taken out. Exploration was done poorly, it was taken out. It happens all the time.
txgoldrush wrote...
So when did I switch...I didn't. I said that other successful RPGs have started fast. And you miss the part that even with starting fast, not every RPG uses the same techinique and notice I sad many classic RPGs start fast, not all. This therefore I can have cake and eat it too. In fact, I criticized Bioware for using the same start fast techinique in that the player has his life turned upside down by a sudden attack. I guess you didn;t read it...go back.
And yet, I can argue that a trial is stupid in other ways than just lets get to the 'spolisions...like opening (or make deeper) a plothole in which Shepard is a Spectre and therefore not legally bound by humanity's laws, but he is answering for it. Think about it. Sometimes an few extra minutes can harm a work.
Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 février 2012 - 03:14 .
txgoldrush wrote...
And yet, I can argue that a trial is stupid in other ways than just lets get to the 'spolisions...like opening (or make deeper) a plothole in which Shepard is a Spectre and therefore not legally bound by humanity's laws, but he is answering for it. Think about it. Sometimes an few extra minutes can harm a work.
Modifié par billy the squid, 15 février 2012 - 03:12 .
Dragoonlordz wrote...
And the Reapers could not have invaded 5-10 minutes later instead? Urgency has bugger all to do with it. He was there for 6 months, an extra few minutes could of been added before they showed up.
Rudy Lis wrote...
Dragoonlordz wrote...
And the Reapers could not have invaded 5-10 minutes later instead? Urgency has bugger all to do with it. He was there for 6 months, an extra few minutes could of been added before they showed up.
Remember what Sovereign said, that we can't even understand them? Well, I just thought... Maybe all those red rays... Well, maybe Reapers just needed to take a leak? And they can play laser not only on snow...
Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 février 2012 - 03:13 .
billy the squid wrote...
Blowing up a relay and destroying a system in the process tends to get one served up to the wolves in politics as a sacrificial lamb. Again somthing which could have done with explaination in the trial.
billy the squid wrote...
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
And how is it "established"?
What if the trial was done poorly? Or disrupts the pacing of the game? You are just not taking these things into account.
Why don't you take the logical and sane thing, and judge AFTER the game is released?
Its that simple.
if the beginning and Sheps situation isn't fleshed out later, then that is a problem....but we do not know that it won't be.
And is it a fair opinion to judge a drama as a comedy? Or judge the story by its own merits on what it tries to do, judging a drama as a drama? I say the latter.
That is a glarring logical fallacy. What if this mission was done poorly, oh we'll take it out. Oh Reapers are portrayed poorly we'll take them out. Your assertion is utterly asinine.
And as to judging the game, who is? Don't deviate from the topic at hand. The introduction and the issues of cohesion.
Inventory was done poorly in ME1, it was taken out. Exploration was done poorly, it was taken out. It happens all the time.
Story and narrative not game mechanics.
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
And yet, I can argue that a trial is stupid in other ways than just lets get to the 'spolisions...like opening (or make deeper) a plothole in which Shepard is a Spectre and therefore not legally bound by humanity's laws, but he is answering for it. Think about it. Sometimes an few extra minutes can harm a work.
Blowing up a relay and destroying a system in the process tends to get one served up to the wolves in politics as a sacrificial lamb. Again somthing which could have done with explaination in the trial.
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
And how is it "established"?
What if the trial was done poorly? Or disrupts the pacing of the game? You are just not taking these things into account.
Why don't you take the logical and sane thing, and judge AFTER the game is released?
Its that simple.
if the beginning and Sheps situation isn't fleshed out later, then that is a problem....but we do not know that it won't be.
And is it a fair opinion to judge a drama as a comedy? Or judge the story by its own merits on what it tries to do, judging a drama as a drama? I say the latter.
That is a glarring logical fallacy. What if this mission was done poorly, oh we'll take it out. Oh Reapers are portrayed poorly we'll take them out. Your assertion is utterly asinine.
And as to judging the game, who is? Don't deviate from the topic at hand. The introduction and the issues of cohesion.
Inventory was done poorly in ME1, it was taken out. Exploration was done poorly, it was taken out. It happens all the time.
Story and narrative not game mechanics.
You honestly think they wouldn't remove the trial section if they weren't able to get it right just because it's a story mechanic?
ergo, there is no trial in the game.Chris Priestly wrote...
Mass Effect 3 starts (roughly) 6 months after the end of Mass Effect 2. It starts with the end of the trial of Commander Shepard during which the Reapers first arrive on earth. This is the bit that starts the game and the demo.
{smilie}
Modifié par DJBare, 15 février 2012 - 03:25 .
billy the squid wrote...
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
And how is it "established"?
What if the trial was done poorly? Or disrupts the pacing of the game? You are just not taking these things into account.
Why don't you take the logical and sane thing, and judge AFTER the game is released?
Its that simple.
if the beginning and Sheps situation isn't fleshed out later, then that is a problem....but we do not know that it won't be.
And is it a fair opinion to judge a drama as a comedy? Or judge the story by its own merits on what it tries to do, judging a drama as a drama? I say the latter.
That is a glarring logical fallacy. What if this mission was done poorly, oh we'll take it out. Oh Reapers are portrayed poorly we'll take them out. Your assertion is utterly asinine.
And as to judging the game, who is? Don't deviate from the topic at hand. The introduction and the issues of cohesion.
Inventory was done poorly in ME1, it was taken out. Exploration was done poorly, it was taken out. It happens all the time.
Story and narrative not game mechanics.
You honestly think they wouldn't remove the trial section if they weren't able to get it right just because it's a story mechanic?
So then they left in the tail end which served no purpose whatsoever and then didn't explain or elaborate on any of the events which have taken place in the previous months. Despite them being able to do a similar trial scene in ME1 with the Council and ME2 with Tali. What changed in how it dialogue or narrative was set up?
It feels more like they wanted to engage players with action first. Hence it feels forced and rushed.
billy the squid wrote...
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
And how is it "established"?
What if the trial was done poorly? Or disrupts the pacing of the game? You are just not taking these things into account.
Why don't you take the logical and sane thing, and judge AFTER the game is released?
Its that simple.
if the beginning and Sheps situation isn't fleshed out later, then that is a problem....but we do not know that it won't be.
And is it a fair opinion to judge a drama as a comedy? Or judge the story by its own merits on what it tries to do, judging a drama as a drama? I say the latter.
That is a glarring logical fallacy. What if this mission was done poorly, oh we'll take it out. Oh Reapers are portrayed poorly we'll take them out. Your assertion is utterly asinine.
And as to judging the game, who is? Don't deviate from the topic at hand. The introduction and the issues of cohesion.
Inventory was done poorly in ME1, it was taken out. Exploration was done poorly, it was taken out. It happens all the time.
Story and narrative not game mechanics.
You honestly think they wouldn't remove the trial section if they weren't able to get it right just because it's a story mechanic?
So then they left in the tail end which served no purpose whatsoever and then didn't explain or elaborate on any of the events which have taken place in the previous months. Despite them being able to do a similar trial scene in ME1 with the Council and ME2 with Tali. What changed in how it dialogue or narrative was set up?
It feels more like they wanted to engage players with action first. Hence it feels forced and rushed.
billy the squid wrote...
So then they left in the tail end which served no purpose whatsoever and then didn't explain or elaborate on any of the events which have taken place in the previous months. Despite them being able to do a similar trial scene in ME1 with the Council and ME2 with Tali. What changed in how it dialogue or narrative was set up?
It feels more like they wanted to engage players with action first. Hence it feels forced and rushed.
Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 février 2012 - 03:45 .
txgoldrush wrote...
any why can't they fill us in with all the details after they escape Earth and are on their way to Mars? I mean like 15 minutes into the game instead of 5 minutes into it?
Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 février 2012 - 03:39 .
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
RSX Titan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
RSX Titan wrote...
Inventory was done poorly in ME1, it was taken out. Exploration was done poorly, it was taken out. It happens all the time.
Story and narrative not game mechanics.
You honestly think they wouldn't remove the trial section if they weren't able to get it right just because it's a story mechanic?
So then they left in the tail end which served no purpose whatsoever and then didn't explain or elaborate on any of the events which have taken place in the previous months. Despite them being able to do a similar trial scene in ME1 with the Council and ME2 with Tali. What changed in how dialogue or narrative was set up?
It feels more like they wanted to engage players with action first. Hence it feels forced and rushed.
I agree with you on that. I'm simply saying whether it's a story mechanic or a gameplay one, developers can and do cut content all the time if they don't feel it works.
I would have been happy with a hearing where Shepard has 2 or 3 choices but it's clear they wanted to get right into the action. It's debatable if there ever was a trial scene or not and we'll likely never know.
Chris Priestly wrote...
Gemini1179 wrote...
Then you're the kind of customer EA wants. No sense bogging players down with plot and character development when there are things to kill!
(Sorry I couldn't help it, I'm disappoineted at the opening- it's another bit of railroading and cut corners)
Ok, I know I'm a tool of the Man and all, but how so?
If you are a new player (haven't played ME1 or ME2) you learn who Shepard is, why he's on earth, what the Reaper threat is, and then the story begins.
If you are a continuing player (have played either or both of the previous games) you already know the plot and character development because you helped form it with your previous play throughs and the story picks up after ME2.
I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I'm not completely sure why?
Retour en haut
