2915 réponses à ce sujet

[Destroydacre]

kylecouch wrote...

Destroydacre wrote...

I'm actually glad that the trial was cut as Shepard being on trial at earth for crimes committed against the batarian hagemony in batarian space made absolutely zero sense. Now I can just pretend like he's on earth for some other reason. I hope there is no reference to the trial at any point in the game.

Yes...because it makes zero sense to arrest Balak for trying to destroy a human planet in human terrirtory.

Except Shepard was not arrested by batarians.

TMA LIVE wrote...

Destroydacre wrote...

I'm
actually glad that the trial was cut as Shepard being on trial at earth
for crimes committed against the batarian hagemony in batarian space
made absolutely zero sense. Now I can just pretend like he's on earth
for some other reason. I hope there is no reference to the trial at any
point in the game.

Meh. Being on Earth could be
explained. If the trial was on the Batarian home would, they'd rip
Shepard apart. The Alliance could force the trial on Earth for the sake
of protecting Shepard, and force the Batarians to play ball if they want
Shepard, period, without going to war to obtain him.

They would rip Shepard apart and rightfully so from their perspective. I agree that the point was to protect Shepard but what exactly are they going to put Shepard on trial for? He didn't do anything, not against the Alliance. And aside from being relieved from duty (which was an odd choice of words seeing as he's no longer part of the alliance, but that's a separate issue) I don't see there being any consequences from the trial. Shepard's definitely not in prison. I can't imagine the batarians would be OK with that. I'll admit it's not a huge deal. The whole premise of Shepard going to earth for a trial just struck me as very odd.

[Hunter of Legends]

kylecouch wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And you could always...ya know...skip it...if it bothers you.

If it's skippable then it is the very definition of irrelevant.


A good case for some DLC though, as an optional prologue, if it is worth the expense of all the VA.

All conversations in the game are skipable...I guess that makes all conversations irrelevent? 

No, but for someone who likes to not miss ANYTHING on a first playthrough If I am needing to skip something it MOST likely is irrelevent or pointless.

[txgoldrush]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

DJBare wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

There's a reason they tend to save the trial scene for the end.

Also the only votes that matter are the sales figures.  All this moaning over a scene that was a stupid idea to begin with is irrelevant.

Opinion, to which you are of course entitled.

I'd argue that it's hard to dispute that it's a heavily flawed idea, since the entire Arrival plotline was nothing more than an excuse to have Shepard on Earth, and has been otherwise irrelevant.

If Arrival had played into the Batarian plotline, that would have made it relevant to the wider plot, but if the Leaks were true then the Batarians are irrelevant. Arrival was entirely unnecessary, and Shepard being on Earth could have been an entirely separate trial (working with Cerberus, canonical ME2 experience), or just briefing people on the Reapers because Anderson convinced some people (working with Retribution).


Getting Shepard in Big Trouble only to forget the Big Trouble and wave aside not only the consequences, but the process, is pretty stupid.

In the leak it was Cerebrus activities not Arrival which is why he was "tried".

[DJBare]

TMA LIVE wrote...
Where is it implied?

We see Shepard in a detection room. That's it.

I dunno, maybe the big fraking letters saying "COURT ROOM A"; or Hackett say there WILL be a trial, or....., wait for it....;

Chris Priestly saying "the game begins at the end of the trial."

[TheRevanchist]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And you could always...ya know...skip it...if it bothers you.

If it's skippable then it is the very definition of irrelevant.


A good case for some DLC though, as an optional prologue, if it is worth the expense of all the VA.

All conversations in the game are skipable...I guess that makes all conversations irrelevent? 

No, but for someone who likes to not miss ANYTHING on a first playthrough If I am needing to skip something it MOST likely is irrelevent or pointless.

No...that simply means your tastes are different from most other people here.

[izmirtheastarach]

kylecouch wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

No, but for someone who likes to not miss ANYTHING on a first playthrough If I am needing to skip something it MOST likely is irrelevent or pointless.

No...that simply means your tastes are different from most other people here.

Yes, it only means that it's irrelevent for you personally.

[Hunter of Legends]

kylecouch wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And you could always...ya know...skip it...if it bothers you.

If it's skippable then it is the very definition of irrelevant.


A good case for some DLC though, as an optional prologue, if it is worth the expense of all the VA.

All conversations in the game are skipable...I guess that makes all conversations irrelevent? 

No, but for someone who likes to not miss ANYTHING on a first playthrough If I am needing to skip something it MOST likely is irrelevent or pointless.

No...that simply means your tastes are different from most other people here.

I disagree with that. I don't miss things unless they are irrelevent or pointless.

I understand people want a chance to defend their actions...and you're gonna get the chance to do that else where.

NAmely the VS.

[izmirtheastarach]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

I understand people want a chance to defend their actions...and you're gonna get the chance to do that else where.

Namely the VS.

That sounds great, but it's not really what we were told, which is the source of people's disappointment.

[TMA LIVE]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Because if that is not what your saying then you have lost me because
makes no sense. You said originally "But after destroying an entire
batarian colony, the Commander was placed on house arrest. Awaiting his
trial." in the text crawl. My response was would not work unless trial
is present in ME3.

Again, I simply want a trial to be more implied.

What's so confusing about Booting up ME3 for the first time.

Seeing a text crawl saying Shepard is on Earth, awaiting a trial.

Then seeing Shepard on Earth, awaiting his trial.

Then have Anderson, reference what you did, like so: http://www.youtube.c...ldfbDuEA#t=333s

Maybe even saying "Seems your trial has been postponed."

What part of this would be too confusing?

[Dragoonlordz]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And you could always...ya know...skip it...if it bothers you.

If it's skippable then it is the very definition of irrelevant.


A good case for some DLC though, as an optional prologue, if it is worth the expense of all the VA.

All conversations in the game are skipable...I guess that makes all conversations irrelevent? 

No, but for someone who likes to not miss ANYTHING on a first playthrough If I am needing to skip something it MOST likely is irrelevent or pointless.

No...that simply means your tastes are different from most other people here.

I disagree with that. I don't miss things unless they are irrelevent or pointless.

And yet you 'miss' the point he or she was making. That of your point being subjective and personal preference. To you it would be pointless or irrelvant. To others there is a point to it and having such a point makes it relevant.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 16 février 2012 - 04:00 .

[TMA LIVE]

Destroydacre wrote...

They would rip Shepard apart and rightfully so from their perspective. I agree that the point was to protect Shepard but what exactly are they going to put Shepard on trial for? He didn't do anything, not against the Alliance. And aside from being relieved from duty (which was an odd choice of words seeing as he's no longer part of the alliance, but that's a separate issue) I don't see there being any consequences from the trial. Shepard's definitely not in prison. I can't imagine the batarians would be OK with that. I'll admit it's not a huge deal. The whole premise of Shepard going to earth for a trial just struck me as very odd.

Oh, I sure the Alliance can come up with something. He did kill Dr. Kenson (and her employees who I'm guessing were also Alliance). He did work for a Terrorist Organization that has done crimes against humanity.

[izmirtheastarach]

I learned something a long time ago while working union elections.

When we'd be counting ballots manually in the case of a recount, sometimes there would be disagreement on whether a ballot was valid or not. The candidate's people would argue that it was, while some of the union people argued it wasn't. The thing to learn is, that if you can't agree, then obviously the ballot it not clear. It couldn't be otherwise. If it was clear, everyone would be able to see that.

For those that seem to have been able to read the events in the intro, and thought they made sense (that a trial was implied, or whatever), just take a moment and think. If it was clear to you, but not clear to many other people, then was it clear? If your answer is yes, all you are really saying is the everyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Is that really the answer?

If it was clear, it would be clear. But it isn't. This thread is proof of that. This whole argument is proof.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 16 février 2012 - 04:03 .

[Hunter of Legends]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And you could always...ya know...skip it...if it bothers you.

If it's skippable then it is the very definition of irrelevant.


A good case for some DLC though, as an optional prologue, if it is worth the expense of all the VA.

All conversations in the game are skipable...I guess that makes all conversations irrelevent? 

No, but for someone who likes to not miss ANYTHING on a first playthrough If I am needing to skip something it MOST likely is irrelevent or pointless.

No...that simply means your tastes are different from most other people here.

I disagree with that. I don't miss things unless they are irrelevent or pointless.

And yet you 'miss' the point he or she was making. That of your point being subjective and personal preference. To you it would be pointless or irrelvant. To others there is a point to it and having such a point makes it relevant.

Perhaps it will be answered in the game regardless. Perhaps those who wanted the trial need to accept not everything will be in the game?

We will see in March 6th.

[txgoldrush]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

WRONG!!!!

It was altered because Bioware's story staff didn't like it.

Face it, they changed it for a reason.

Yes, and we all know what that reason is. Not the one you are peddling, but the real one.

and whats that? LOL

Quit whining, go with the flow, then criticize the game for it once its released if the beginning indeed doesn't work.

This whole damn topic is criticizing a 30 minute intro for being rushed and jarring when we do not know how it works in context for a 30 hour game.

Its so easy fo reverybody to criticize something without all the info.

[Klijpope]

kylecouch wrote...

All conversations in the game are skipable...I guess that makes all conversations irrelevent? 

Dialogue options are skippable - entire scenes are not.

Come on, let's be realistic about this.


What would a decent trial sequence need?


Just on the Cerberus question - 


1. Charges laid.


2. Shepard cross examined. + Interactions with defence team?


3. Witnesses cross examined by both sides. Who? Anderson. Joker. Hackett. Udina? Cpl Toombs? Jacob. Garrus. Tali. Kohaku's successor. EDI? Jack? And so on.


+ Adjournments? Objection/overuled?


As for Arrival, there's no evidence. Neither that Shepard caused the destruction of the relay nor of his/her justifications for doing so. How do you write a trial (how do you justify a trial in the first place?) sequence for that which also serves to properly open an epic space opera giant galactic bloodbath?


Even a fraction of that will take a long time in game. (Plus potentially requiring every voice actor. Very tough to justify from a resources point of view.)


A less than satisfying trial would be worse than no trial sequence at all. And certainly a cue for more complaining.

[Hunter of Legends]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

I learned something a long time ago while working union elections.

When we'd be counting ballots manually in the case of a recount, sometimes there would be disagreement on whether a ballot was valid or not. The candidate's people would argue that it was, while some of the union people argued it wasn't. The thing to learn is, that if you can't agree, then obviously the ballot it not clear. It couldn't be otherwise. If it was clear, everyone would be able to see that.

For those that seem to have been able to read the events in the intro, and thought they made sense (that a trial was implied, or whatever), just take a moment and think. If it was clear to you, but not clear to many other people, then was it clear? If your answer is yes, all you are really saying is the everyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Is that really the answer?

If it was clear, it would be clear. But it isn't. This thread is proof of that.

Perhaps they don't pay attention?

[Ashathor]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

I learned something a long time ago while working union elections.

When we'd be counting ballots manually in the case of a recount, sometimes there would be disagreement on whether a ballot was valid or not. The candidate's people would argue that it was, while some of the union people argued it wasn't. The thing to learn is, that if you can't agree, then obviously the ballot it not clear. It couldn't be otherwise. If it was clear, everyone would be able to see that.

For those that seem to have been able to read the events in the intro, and thought they made sense (that a trial was implied, or whatever), just take a moment and think. If it was clear to you, but not clear to many other people, then was it clear? If your answer is yes, all you are really saying is the everyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Is that really the answer?

If it was clear, it would be clear. But it isn't. This thread is proof of that. This whole argument is proof.

+1 for making a very logical post.

[TMA LIVE]

DJBare wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...
Where is it implied?

We see Shepard in a detection room. That's it.

I dunno, maybe the big fraking letters saying "COURT ROOM A"; or Hackett say there WILL be a trial, or....., wait for it....;

Chris Priestly saying "the game begins at the end of the trial."

Wow, again. Letters on the wall. I'm glad that's good enough for you. Especially when WE AREN'T EVEN GOING TO A TRIAL IN THAT ROOM. Just seeing the DEFENSE COMITY. To confirm information.

Same for reading Chris say it on a forum. I'm glad everyone who plays ME3 will do that.

Do we see a trial? Is it mentioned that we're in the middle of it? Or that it has already begun? Or hasn't happened yet?

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 février 2012 - 04:07 .

[izmirtheastarach]

txgoldrush wrote...
stuff

Again, if you ever payed any attention to what I say, you'd know that I am not criticizing the game. All I have ever said here is that I was disappointed with the lack of a trial. That's it, that's all. I've told you this directly multiple times. You're really quite dense.

Go attack someone who says the game is crap and Bioware is failing, or betraying their loyal fans, or whatever. I am not that person. For realls. I spent two hours today played ME3 Multiplayer. It's great. The game will be too. How clear can I be about this?

[TheRevanchist]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

izmirtheastarach wrote...

I learned something a long time ago while working union elections.

When we'd be counting ballots manually in the case of a recount, sometimes there would be disagreement on whether a ballot was valid or not. The candidate's people would argue that it was, while some of the union people argued it wasn't. The thing to learn is, that if you can't agree, then obviously the ballot it not clear. It couldn't be otherwise. If it was clear, everyone would be able to see that.

For those that seem to have been able to read the events in the intro, and thought they made sense (that a trial was implied, or whatever), just take a moment and think. If it was clear to you, but not clear to many other people, then was it clear? If your answer is yes, all you are really saying is the everyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Is that really the answer?

If it was clear, it would be clear. But it isn't. This thread is proof of that.

Perhaps they don't pay attention?

I think he just made your point Izmirth...

[Klijpope]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

If it was clear, it would be clear. But it isn't. This thread is proof of that. This whole argument is proof.

Thread is not about whether the intro was clear enough; it is about the idea the game would start with a trial, and that now it doesn't. There are other threads about whether the intro was clear. (And FYI, I agree with you that the demo is unclear - I'm just anticipating there to be some more lines in the actual game, so we'll see then).

[bluewolv1970]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

I learned something a long time ago while working union elections.

When we'd be counting ballots manually in the case of a recount, sometimes there would be disagreement on whether a ballot was valid or not. The candidate's people would argue that it was, while some of the union people argued it wasn't. The thing to learn is, that if you can't agree, then obviously the ballot it not clear. It couldn't be otherwise. If it was clear, everyone would be able to see that.

For those that seem to have been able to read the events in the intro, and thought they made sense (that a trial was implied, or whatever), just take a moment and think. If it was clear to you, but not clear to many other people, then was it clear? If your answer is yes, all you are really saying is the everyone who disagrees with you is dumb. Is that really the answer?

If it was clear, it would be clear. But it isn't. This thread is proof of that. This whole argument is proof.

QFT

[izmirtheastarach]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Perhaps they don't pay attention?

I myself have beaten the demo 6 times. I was paying attention every time. And I know a lot of us have replayed it specifically to see if we missed something. It's not an issue of paying attention. If it has to be explained outside of the game, then there is something wrong.

Ashathor wrote...
+1 for making a very logical post.

Thanks.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 16 février 2012 - 04:09 .

[Hunter of Legends]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Perhaps they don't pay attention?

I myself have beaten the demo 6 times. I was paying attention every time. And I know a lot of us have replayed it specifically to see if we missed something. It's not an issue of paying attention. If it has to be explained outside of the game, then there is something wrong.

Ashathor wrote...
+1 for making a very logical post.

Thanks.

And I have pointed out when these things will be explained.

Later on in the game. Specifically after Earth.

[TheRevanchist]

Which is the wrong time to explain them.