2915 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

JakeMacDon wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


First off, your the one coming off in here as to quote you "whiny b!tchiness", "squealing" and "howl of outrage" it is all coming from you. The immaturity and ranting again is what "you" are doing, the childish hissy fit and throwing your toys out the pram once more "you".

 

That's cute.  What you did here is called misdirection.  You turn it back on me as something I did, when I simply pointed out the general millieu of this thread.  This is an attempt to cheat on a discussion, and it's lame.  It's what you do when you can't actually refute anything - you make it personal, when it isn't.  Nice try, though.

 
Secondly you admit that as far as your concerned "That folks wanted one is completely understandable", then why are you throwing a hissy fit over that being exactly what is going on in this thread stating a disappointment that was not one and expressing a desire to have one even if (me personally) would be willing to buy DLC for it since cannot be added to the retail as already gone gold, or have you not actually bothered to even read it (this thread). Ignorance is bliss and you have overdosed on it.

 

Again, nice try in trying to obscure exactly what I said.  I've thrown no hissy fit and wanting a DLC of a trial is pointless. Why would they bother when it's already been dealt with in dialogue?  Either your ability to comprehend what you read is faulty or you are deliberately distorting what I said.  Again, this is a cheap ploy to obscure what I actually said and support your own baseless contentions.  You lose this way, before you even begin.  I'm jus' sayin.

 
Lastly the whole "not needed" argument is childish, do not "need" to be on Earth at all, do not "need" to see the Reapers attack and in fact do not "need" to even play the game. Need has nothing to do with it in the slightest, it is about subjective preference, desire and what people would "like" and not "need". Learn the difference before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Again, you obviously did not read what I wrote previously or have subsequently posted.  The trial was not needed, not even in the game itself, so it remains irrelevant.  It would have been nothing more than filler, and I stand by that contention.  That you and others want it is irrelevant.  It's simply unnecessary, in my opinion, and it has never been anything but my opinion.  I admit when I'm wrong, so CTFO.

Do you have a comprehension problem?

My response was in relation to what you said and how you said it using your own words. Contrary to your follow up reply using misdirection (of which I actually understand what it means unlike yourself) this was the case and still is. You keep saying we should use our imagination to fill in the missing links and blank spots in the story, this is not a dream where reliance on your imagination is required to the extreme, this is a video game where I would like to be shown, take part in those events and not have to make it all up as I got along to save them time and effort writing the story. That is not what I pay for. I pay to be shown and partake in events, make choices and see the consequences; not rely on my imagination to do their job for them.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 février 2012 - 04:16 .

[Hunter of Legends]

kylecouch wrote...

And aside from a few altered lines of dialogue and no armor or weapon changes...the DA2 demo was EXACTLY the same as the final product.

ME2's demo was exactly like this.

I see no reason for worry.

[Errationatus]

Halo Quea wrote...

No this is what happens when you have lack of clarity and high expectations. This where WE ALL are right now because Bioware won't simply come in and explain themselves. 

 

I'm going to assume you mean "you" in a general sense and not me specifically.  

 
So you have some expecting the full game to look, play and function alot like the demo.  You have others who think that the demo doesn't represent the game at all and that the full game is going to be a quantum improvement. lol!

 

I think it's safe to say that the full game will be distinct from the demo, how distinct is the worrisome part to a great many.  Personally, I'm not going to judge a finished game on it's demo.  That would be like judging a movie based soley on its trailer.

 
If the trial is out, just tell us.  If there never was a trial intended, then set us straight.  Most of us in here are adults and can handle it.  Sure there will be some grumbling, the point is that the matter would be CLOSED.

 

Agreed.  But many folks are stating it as a fact and arguing from there as if it were writ in stone when they don't know anymore than the rest of us.  I've been guilty of missing a thing or two myself, but I try to get my facts straight eventually.  Some simply refuse to acknowledge the bullet until it blows their brains out, I guess.

 
I'm starting to get that Dragon Age 2 feeling right now.  

 

Y'know, I didn't mind DA2.  But then, I hadn't played DA:O first.  My general feeling was that if you did play DA2 first, it didn't seem quite so crappy...

 
Anyone remember the DA2 demo?  Remember how there were almost NO images of Kirkwall, the main environment we were playing in?   Has anyone even bothered to notice how few screenies we've had of ME3? No other locations or levels.  And almost NO gameplay?  And how little Bioware wants to show us of it's final chapter of this epic trilogy?    Are they truly protecting us from spoilers.................or the truth?

 

What's the "truth"?  That it's sh!te and they know it?  Seems a little self-defeating, really.

 
Now before anyone lights a match and throws gas at me, I'm just wondering that's all.    That's all

Koolness. Wonder away.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 15 février 2012 - 04:21 .

[TheRevanchist]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And aside from a few altered lines of dialogue and no armor or weapon changes...the DA2 demo was EXACTLY the same as the final product.

ME2's demo was exactly like this.

I see no reason for worry.

ME2 was already out when that demo was made...

[Errationatus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Do you have a comprehension problem?

 

Not in the slightest.  Anyone can read what I said, and read how you reply and see for themselves.

 
My response was in relation to what you said and how you said it.

 

Your response was designed entirely to support your own contention of something that doesn't exist because you are either too dense or obdurate to see past your own desires and the buttresses you throw up to support what you cannot logically defend.  This, however, is not my problem.

 
Contrary to your follow up reply using misdirection (of which I actually understand what it means unlike yourself) this was the case and still is.

 

See, now you're confused.  Attempting that sentence again in English might help.  Or it might not.

 
You keep saying we should use our imagination to fill in the missing links and blank spots in the story,

 

No, I did not say that.  I said it is not unreasonable to use inference to fill in a few things for ourselves.  You do know what "inference" means, yes, English Major?  It's what intelligent people do when not presented with the full story.  It's kinda hardwired into our brains - unless they're damaged in some way, of course.

 
this is not a dream where reliance on your imagination is required to the extreme, this is a video game where I would like to be shown, take part in those events and not have to make it all up as I got along to save them time and effort writing the story. That is not what I pay for. I pay to be shown and partake in events not rely on my imagination to do their job for them.

So, you would rather be taken by the hand and told how everything plays out?  That paints you as the kind that needs laugh tracks to know when to laugh and music stings to know when to be startled.  

Let me fill you in on something:  they do that when they think their audience is made up of morons.  If you're that lazy, you should probably stay away from adult-oriented material.

Just a suggestion.

[Rickin10]

 Don't worry guys, EA has this all under control.  
The trial was cut for fina- sorry, pacing reasons.  But it's okay!
For those that want it, 'The Trial of Sheperd ' will be available as a surprise 1st day DLC !
Concerned by strangely absent information at the beginning of Mass Effect 3? Don't fear! Learn what happens after their last  DLC Arrival, and leading up to Mass Effect 3 that you paid full price for.
Introducing their revolutionary new dialogue system where, rather than having to deal with all those troublesome, pesky choices and moral conundrums while facing down your accusers, the game will actually make those choices for you!  So Sit back, put your feet up, and your controller down  and prepare for.. 'The Trial of Sheperd'.
Available for just 3200 microsoft points!!!    fullgamesoldseparately

[Halo Quea]

JakeMacDon, I hope all of your assumptions and estimations turn out to be true. Because I would rather your views on ME3 be the reality vs my concerns and wondering. But my wonderings are not without merit.

Unless I have to remind people that the most talented people in this studio are NOT working on Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Their efforts are totally concentrated on TOR right now.

[Hunter of Legends]

kylecouch wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And aside from a few altered lines of dialogue and no armor or weapon changes...the DA2 demo was EXACTLY the same as the final product.

ME2's demo was exactly like this.

I see no reason for worry.

ME2 was already out when that demo was made...

Exactly my point.

Why are we worrying? ME2 was fine. ME3 will be fine.

[YankeeBravo]

JakeMacDon wrote...

In the demo, Yankee.  I've yet to see proof that anything made was cut at any point.  A script is not actual content.

It may not have been rendered in the game engine, sure.

However its existence in an apparent leaked script (which I've never seen prior to the snippet that was posted) is still telling. After all, the script is the backbone of a story-driven game. That's where the writers work out all the pesky details of pacing, plot and character development, throughlines, etc.

And that's why I said the trial was apparently axed relatively late in development because you obviously see the structural and plot holes that have been opened up by the removal of what might have been a five minute in-game scene had it been rendered. Mac Walters apparently never got around to going back over that scene to patch the holes created when it was cut from the script.

At least, not by the time that the demo build was created, so...

Of course, there's one other option; that Bioware's been lying to us about how the game starts and they cut off the first 5-10 minutes from the demo (despite what Chris said) to get to the "bang bang sparkly explosions" part faster and that the full game will make a lot more sense with that restored.

Not holding out much hope that that's the case, but it's an option, I guess.

I just hope that this is a very early build that was used and the final release does have the structural plot problems fixed if nothing else.

[billy the squid]

JakeMacDon wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Yes, because if one has a problem you roll over and take it.

 

I'm not rolling over on anything.  This thread is predicated on one thing:  how many people can completely miss a simple point:  there was no trial intended to be in the game.  Period.  All the proceeding whiny b!tchiness stemming from that one simple point is utterly irrelevant because the trial was never there.  This is not rocket science.  That folks wanted one is completely understandable.  Wanting and getting are two different things and it is entirely Bioware's fault for assuming the bulk of their fandom have functioning intelligences.

 
Instead of saying you did a bad job in providing context and explaination. But, it's okay, because it was never intended, it makes it all better? No, don't be stupid.

 

I didn't say it made it better.  I said it was irrelevant from the get-go because it would have simply told us what we already knew. New players have access to vast amounts of exposition in wikis and the like, and will likely get explanations as they require them in the game.  It's called "backstory" and it's not hard to do.  Old players don't need it.

 
The trial was irrelevant because it has been made so, it is a throw away scene to steer the player into an action sequence, frankly you could have removed the entire part and it would have made no difference. If you are going to create a scene which has the potential to ease new players into the game, as Silverman has said ME3 was attempting to do by making it a starting point, then they did a poor job of it.

 

Nor did I disagree that the opening was poor.  But let's keep one thing at the forefront of any discussion about what we've seen so far:  

THIS IS THE DEMO.  Not the final game.  Not even remotely, and I don't care what "they" said about the openings being identical.  Taking a dump on an unrelased game based on a short edited demo is unadulteratedly stupid. Squealing about as if it were actually the finished product is also stupid.  The howl of outrage of "destroyed muh game!" over this tiny-ass demo is unbelievable.  I cannot imagine from whence it came, because from what I can see, it is for the most part groundless.

 
I've played the previous instalments and it is not an issue of understanding the sequence it is an issue of it being poorly executed and rushed. Is that sufficiently clear, or must I illustrate it for you, as you clearly missed the point and went wandering of on your own irrelevant tangent, congratualtions.

 

As if I have never played either game.  Yeah, okay.  

One more time:  DEMO.  By it's very nature, rushed and quickly done.  You are b!tching about a game you have not played based on a short, spoiler-edited DEMO.  I am not having the problem here, but a great many of us surely are.

 
Yes he is on Earth and we see the end of the Trial, great so what's been going on for the last 6 months? What were the effects of the destruction of the relay on Batartians and Alliance space, The Council. What does Anderson or Vega think, what does the Alliance think of the act and the current context. What of the Colonies going quiet, how has this not been noticed or has the Alliance been sitting around for over 6 months with that information and only now brought it up. Alternatively, if they only just realised, then the issue is the Reapers have exterminated the outer colonies moved to the moon base and landed on Earth and killed everything inbetween in a matter of hours.

 

Did you not pay attention to the opening?  It took the Reapers six months to arrive.  They arrived just at the end of Shep's trial.  Did you not pay attention to Hackett at the end of Arrival?  "When you're done out here I expect you to turn yourself in."  How long did it take Shep - in-game - to finish all he had to do?  Just because you might have played Arrival last didn't mean everyone did and timelines in ME2 are funny things.  Just because 6 months passed bettween ME2 and 3 does not mean Shepard was anywhere near Earth for those six months.  

Boy.  That was hard.  

 
I expect these things to have refrences made to them, in a more adult game, to give explaination and context to the situation. Not simply glossed over in favour of an action sequence and hammy dialogue. If you are happy with sub par and simplistic exposition on introductory sequences then there is little I can do to further explain the issues arising as it will be clearly lost on you.

Once more:  DEMO.  DEMO.  DEM-OH. Compressed and heavily edited DEMO.  

So you conceed that the introduction is poor, yet disagree when people call the dev out on it for making a rushed intorduction. Are you seeing the same conflict as I am? Its poor, but people shouldn't criticise it.

In addition using the wiki arguement is coping out and simply illustrates the holes in the narrative and writting. If I have to use an external source to gain the detail which the exposition and explaination should have provided in the first 10 minutes of the game. I don't read a book with an A-Z by my side to look up the relevant context and character involvement. That is the point of a cohesive narrative, not to jump around between sources. Any good piece of literature provides that.

The mantra of demo is a contrived excuse trotted out in defence of a product by confidence born of ignorance. Priestly has already said on this thread the trial is what is in the game. The demo is representative of the introduction. I really can't clarify that more.

Secondly Da2. I gave the dev. the benefit of the doubt on that one, that the demo was not representative of the introduction. Oh look, it unfortunately was. The trend seems to be par for the course lately. Cut introductory points and push in combat in the hope that people won't notice.

I'm going to explain very slowly on the point of Reaper's arriving. It took them six months to arrive, fine. So how did the committee not notice what was going on when losing contact with colonies for over six months? Yet, they only bring up that at the end of Shep's trial? When he has been aquitted. So what was the point of the entire return to Earth if they already knew the events were transpiring before hand. And why the removal of his ship. The threat of Court Marshal and discharge if they already knew the information before hand.

And playing Arrival does not present any timeline issue as doing it before completing the main game presents the Collector leader, not Harbinger. Reapers do not move until after the main game finishes.

So the two senarios are that the Committee either had the information proceeded with a trial as a farce inspite of the evidence to the contrary and then panicked when the Reapers turned up on their doorstep, despite knowing about losing colonies the whole time.

Or that they were taken completely by suprise as the Reapers zipped through the Alliance space in a couple of days and turned up on Earth.

Either way there remains a glaring logic whole in the sequence which has not been addressed, but seemed to be more a case of push in the action sequence in the hope that no one would notice, rather than try and explain the current context of the situation in the time between ME2 and ME3 and why there was no action, what has been going on. Or is the summation that the galactic community remained at a stand still after shep blew up a relay? 

Modifié par billy the squid, 15 février 2012 - 04:36 .

[Errationatus]

Halo Quea wrote...

JakeMacDon, I hope all of your assumptions and estimations turn out to be true.

 

So do I.  It would certainly make me feel better.  

 
Because I would rather your views on ME3 be the reality vs my concerns and wondering. But my wonderings are not without merit.

 

Not at all.  I merely advise caution and not to allow those fears to run away with us.  It's too easy to assume the worst, and we all make mistakes.  The difference between integrity and scaremongering is how readily we admit to those mistakes.

 
Unless I have to remind people that the most talented people in this studio are NOT working on Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Their efforts are totally concentrated on TOR right now.

i think the point about the devs not stepping in and clearing things up is intentional - it creates buzz, it gets people talking and the name "Mass Effect 3" gets heard - a lot.

 Any publicity is good publicity.

They'll still make tons of cash, sh!te game or not.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 15 février 2012 - 04:31 .

[Dragoonlordz]

JakeMacDon wrote...

-snip to prevent giant pyramid-

I will stop responding to you in order to not get this thread locked, but really?

Your sinking to that level now... Seriously? I used your sentences, your words and your phrases and yes they can and probably will go back and check which will lead most to the same result as myself which explained. 

Sorry if what I have said is too close for comfort for you and feel the need to throw your toys out the pram over it but such is life. If you can't take it then to again qoute you "you should probably stay away from adult-oriented material" and infer you do same with regard to the adult registration/discussions of these forums.

Anyways as stated I will ignore you from now on because all your doing is turning this thread into a pissing contest. Bare in mind when you come in ranting and raving about how it is all "whiny b!tchiness", "squealing" and "howl of outrage" which was not the case then don't expect people to react kindly to your false implications.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 février 2012 - 04:43 .

[Senior Cinco]

This was one of the more interesting threads. Until it was destroyed by bratty little children. Real classy guys way to show your butt and your age. I'm sure your parents are proud.

[RGFrog]

Not wanting to read through 67 pages of back and forth: is there a previous post that explains what Anderson meant when he said Shep was lucky because of all the crap he/she did would have anyone else court-martialed?

I was looking forward to the justifications used to pull sheps ship, rank, status, etc. and this one line just doesn't do it.

As far as I'm concerned all shep's actions were justified both as aliance mil. and as a spectre. If anyone was to lose anything it would be adm. hacket.

Anderson's line in the demo was flippant, glib, superficial and really threw me off. It did nothing but raise more questions that should be already be answered, imo.

Sure, Hackett set up Shep to be the fall guy in the dlc, but that's something Anderson should also know about. So his line is just completely out of left field since Anderson would pretty much know all about shep's actions and it's a face to face not a politically charged c y a reply in front of others.

[hawat333]

Chris Priestly wrote...
...

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I'm not completely sure why?

Because we would have liked to see how the people back on Earth judge our actions and what we've done so far. It also couldn't hurt to get a little summary, I mean, with 12 imported characters, I'm not exactly sure about all of them. It would serve as a tool to recap the events and to introduce our reputation with the Alliance.
That's why.

[billy the squid]

RGFrog wrote...

Not wanting to read through 67 pages of back and forth: is there a previous post that explains what Anderson meant when he said Shep was lucky because of all the crap he/she did would have anyone else court-martialed?

I was looking forward to the justifications used to pull sheps ship, rank, status, etc. and this one line just doesn't do it.

As far as I'm concerned all shep's actions were justified both as aliance mil. and as a spectre. If anyone was to lose anything it would be adm. hacket.

Anderson's line in the demo was flippant, glib, superficial and really threw me off. It did nothing but raise more questions that should be already be answered, imo.

Sure, Hackett set up Shep to be the fall guy in the dlc, but that's something Anderson should also know about. So his line is just completely out of left field since Anderson would pretty much know all about shep's actions and it's a face to face not a politically charged c y a reply in front of others.

Priestly already confirmed what you see is what you get.

[TheRevanchist]

Am I the only one also wondering WHY exactly Anderson is an Admiral? I mean...he kinda just resigned from any post he held in the books,...he shouldn't be a Counsilar OR an Admiral...

[Errationatus]

YankeeBravo wrote...

It may not have been rendered in the game engine, sure.

 

Which, in my opinion, is where it matters most.  Ever hear the saying, "If it's not on the page, it's not on the stage."? It can also be along the lines of "If it ain't in the game, it didn't happen."

As you point out, the script - the leaked one - is an early draft.  Having written a few stories myself, I can tell you the mantra is "Revision, revision, revision!"  You never, ever, ever go with a first draft.  Ever. 

 
However its existence in an apparent leaked script (which I've never seen prior to the snippet that was posted) is still telling. After all, the script is the backbone of a story-driven game. That's where the writers work out all the pesky details of pacing, plot and character development, throughlines, etc.

 

Absolutely.  As I said, though: revision happens.  What we don't know is how much of the game was actually rendered when that script was outed.  Do we?'

 
And that's why I said the trial was apparently axed relatively late in development because you obviously see the structural and plot holes that have been opened up by the removal of what might have been a five minute in-game scene had it been rendered. Mac Walters apparently never got around to going back over that scene to patch the holes created when it was cut from the script.

 

Well, I still can only say:  in the demo.  We don't see it in the demo.  I have to see the finished game before I can let that go.

 
At least, not by the time that the demo build was created, so...

 

Exactly.

 
Of course, there's one other option; that Bioware's been lying to us about how the game starts and they cut off the first 5-10 minutes from the demo (despite what Chris said) to get to the "bang bang sparkly explosions" part faster and that the full game will make a lot more sense with that restored.

Not holding out much hope that that's the case, but it's an option, I guess.

 

Indeed.  Not impossible.  How likely is another matter.  

 
I just hope that this is a very early build that was used and the final release does have the structural plot problems fixed if nothing else.

Same.  Keep that hope.  It's kinda all we got, at this stage.  

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 15 février 2012 - 05:23 .

[DJBare]

RGFrog wrote...
Sure, Hackett set up Shep to be the fall guy in the dlc, but that's something Anderson should also know about. So his line is just completely out of left field since Anderson would pretty much know all about shep's actions and it's a face to face not a politically charged c y a reply in front of others.

Anderson would not know, it was an undercover mission on a need to know basis, Hackett had no idea that scientists were indoctrinated, the job was to retrieve Kensel(who is an agent herself), it's the reason Shepard had to go without any squad mates.

[izmirtheastarach]

It's not the demo is bad because the trial was cut. Just that the trial was mentioned many times early last year. As we've covered in this thread before, that's a marketing issues, not a content issue.

[YankeeBravo]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

It's not the demo is bad because the trial was cut. Just that the trial was mentioned many times early last year. As we've covered in this thread before, that's a marketing issues, not a content issue.

Actually, it kind of is a content issue.

Not in that the trial is missing when it should be playable in game, but rather the problems the apparent script change have created in terms of story structure early on (at least in the demo version).

As things stand right now we have Bioware who have said that Arrival would be integral in Mass Effect 3, that Shepherd would be called on to answer for his actions, etc. And what we have in game is a Shepherd being consulted on defense matters with no explanation of what happened, whether he faced court-martial (though it's suggested not, by Anderson's comment) and if he wasn't court-martialed, why he was apparently being held in a detention area, why he was relieved of his command and why he is apparently no longer a part of the Alliance military (although that changes too when dogtags are tossed to him).

So...It's extremely shoddy when you have a situation where noone really knows what's going on with Shepherd at the start of the game or what's happened over the past 6 months that Chris alluded to between Arrival and ME 3.

I suspect Bioware loves it, though. They're able to say 'See? Very accessible to new players since even returning players don't know what the hell's going on.  Great jumping in point'.

So....

Modifié par YankeeBravo, 15 février 2012 - 05:21 .

[Errationatus]

[quote]billy the squid wrote...
[/quote] 

Hello, Mr. Squid!

Please see where I corrected a few of my assertions as being incorrect and apologized for them.  Also see my current exchange with YankeeBravo.

[quote] 
So you conceed that the introduction is poor, yet disagree when people call the dev out on it for making a rushed intorduction.
[/quote] 

No, I've conceded that the introduction is not what it could be.  I'm reserving complete judgment until I have the finished product in my hands.

[quote] 
Are you seeing the same conflict as I am? Its poor, but people shouldn't criticise it.
[/quote] 

I don't believe I've ever stated nor alluded that people should neither nor be allowed to criticize it.  Go ahead, by all means.  I'm not criticizing the demo itself - well, not directly - I'm criticizing the initial premise that people seem to have that there was something we were gyped out of in the first place, when there is no real proof to that at all.

[quote] 
In addition using the wiki arguement is coping out and simply illustrates the holes in the narrative and writting.
[/quote] 

My apologies for being unclear.  I simply meant that there are alternate ways to get the information should they want it. Old timers don't require it.

[quote] 
If I have to use an external source to gain the detail which the exposition and explaination should have provided in the first 10 minutes of the game. I don't read a book with an A-Z by my side to look up the relevant context and character involvement. That is the point of a cohesive narrative, not to jump around between sources. Any good piece of literature provides that.
[/quote] 

Such had been my point about the books and comics and the influx of these new characters into the game.  Not everyone has read all the books and comics and knows who these people are.  We are forced to go to alternate media to find out.  I'm lucky I can afford the damn game itself, let alone another hundred or so for adjunct materials.  If I don't know nor care about the - for me - sudden appearance of these new major characters in the game, and I'm fairly certain I'm far from alone in this, then why were they shoehorned in there?  Were they always meant to be there?

[quote] 
The mantra of demo is a contrived excuse trotted out in defence of a product by confidence born of ignorance. Priestly has already said on this thread the trial is what is in the game. The demo is representative of the introduction. I really can't clarify that more.
[/quote] 

I meant the overall quality and people using it to trash a game they haven't actually played yet.

[quote] 
Secondly Da2. I gave the dev. the benefit of the doubt on that one, that the demo was not representative of the introduction. Oh look, it unfortunately was. The trend seems to be par for the course lately. Cut introductory points and push in combat in the hope that people won't notice.

I'm going to explain very slowly on the point of Reaper's arriving. It took them six months to arrive, fine. So how did the committee not notice what was going on when losing contact with colonies for over six months? Yet, they only bring up that at the end of Shep's trial? When he has been aquitted. So what was the point of the entire return to Earth if they already knew the events were transpiring before hand. And why the removal of his ship. The threat of Court Marshal and discharge if they already knew the information before hand.
[/quote] 

Who said the colonies have been disappearing for six months?  Who said he was acquitted?  He was called to account for his actions over the exploding of a relay and the deaths of 300 000 batarians.  His ship was taken away as a matter of course.  He's committed a crime as far as the galaxy is concerned.  There was no court martial, according at least to demo dialogue.  The rest could have been simply for the media and appearance sake.

[quote] 
And playing Arrival does not present any timeline issue as doing it before completing the main game presents the Collector leader, not Harbinger. Reapers do not move until after the main game finishes.
[/quote] 

My point was that Arrival can be played anywhere in the timeline of ME2.  If played early, that leaves a fair amount of time between finishing the Collectors off and going to Earth to stand trial.  It's a bit subjective depending on where you are in the game, true.

[quote] 
So the two senarios are that the Committee either had the information proceeded with a trial as a farce inspite of the evidence to the contrary and then panicked when the Reapers turned up on their doorstep, despite knowing about losing colonies the whole time.
[/quote] 

I think this is unlikely.

[quote] 
Or that they were taken completely by suprise as the Reapers zipped through the Alliance space in a couple of days and turned up on Earth.
[/quote] 

I think this is also unlikely, for reasons I've already given.

[quote] 
Either way there remains a glaring logic whole in the sequence which has not been addressed, but seemed to be more a case of push in the action sequence in the hope that no one would notice, rather than try and explain the current context of the situation in the time between ME2 and ME3 and why there was no action, what has been going on. Or is the summation that the galactic community remained at a stand still after shep blew up a relay? 
[/quote]

I'm afraid I can't agree.  There are a few variables we don't know, true.  It's hard to say definitively.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 15 février 2012 - 05:25 .

[izmirtheastarach]

YankeeBravo wrote...

Actually, it kind of is a content issue.

Not in that the trial is missing when it should be playable in game, but rather the problems the apparent script change have created in terms of story structure early on (at least in the demo version).

As things stand right now we have Bioware who have said that Arrival would be integral in Mass Effect 3, that Shepherd would be called on to answer for his actions, etc. And what we have in game is a Shepherd being consulted on defense matters with no explanation of what happened, whether he faced court-martial (though it's suggested not, by Anderson's comment) and if he wasn't court-martialed, why he was apparently being held in a detention area, why he was relieved of his command and why he is apparently no longer a part of the Alliance military (although that changes too when dogtags are tossed to him).

So...It's extremely shoddy when you have a situation where noone really knows what's going on with Shepherd at the start of the game or what's happened over the past 6 months that Chris alluded to between Arrival and ME 3.

I suspect Bioware loves it, though. They're able to say 'See? Very accessible to new players since even returning players have no idea what the hell's going on either.  Great jumping in point'.

So....

Since none of us have seen the import of a playthrough where Arrival was completed,we don't really know exactly how the game will feel for an us. What we've seen is literally the experience for a new player. That's what the geared the demo for. So it remains to be seen how different it will be. If the leaked beta is any indication, there are a few small dialogue tweaks and not much else, but still.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 15 février 2012 - 05:22 .

[Errationatus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

-snip to prevent giant pyramid-

 

 - snip to avoid cluttering post with same inane accusations - 

You, sir, are the king of vapid reiterations that actually say very little.  

Congratulations.  I clap for you in a very manly fashion.

I shall attempt - yes I will! - to hold back my tears at being ignored by so august a personage.





... or something to that effect.

[Slayer299]

JakeMacDon wrote...
i think the point about the devs not stepping in and clearing things up
is intentional - it creates buzz, it gets people talking and the name
"Mass Effect 3" gets heard - a lot.

 Any publicity is good publicity.

They'll still make tons of cash, sh!te game or not.

You don't work in retail or anything to do with public perception/publicity with your business, do you? Because bad publicity/public perception is a nightmare you don't want on your business' doorstep. Why would anyone want to buy something from you if they think what you are selling is crap or your service sucks eggs? So, no, any publicity is *not* good publicity and negative publicity reduces your cash income quickly. 
Case in point, just look at DA2, lots of outrage (whether you think warranted or not), sales did decline there and it did not meet the double digit numbers they were looking for, much less other BW titles in same time span. Thusly, BW made money, but not the 'tons of cash' either.