13369 réponses à ce sujet

[OdanUrr]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

STA>ST1>STU, personally could not stand STU. Too slow and too focused only bickering between people.

Even if more realistic if I want people bickering surely I can just log on to a forum of some kind. 

Not sure whether I'd put SGA before SG1 but SGU was too depressing for my tastes. Everyone backstabbing everyone else at every opportunity for the thinest of motives. Best episode was the last one in my opinion.

[chance52]

breadedpudding wrote...

Brownfinger wrote...

*snip*

If people are going to take a moral stand, why not take it all the way and use the money saved from your your game/DLC boycott for a small donation to the Red Cross or charity of your choosing? Turn your anger into something constructive.

That is an awesome idea, and I really hope people do consider taking that course of action! It would be a wonderful way to turn their actions into constructive actions, without a doubt.

I love this idea! But I know there have been more than a few people upset about the $10 price tag and mentions of money being tight for them.  For those people I would suggest donating their time.  I volunteer to a cause that is very important to me and while money is great for the organization, the people who donate their time are often needed a lot more.

[Travie]

Its too bad because STU had such an awesome concept...

but I digress.

[NeecHMonkeY]

TheOptimist wrote...

It's perfectly acceptable.  The character is not essential to the story.  He is, and always was, planned as an add on DLC, as we have known since the first advertisements for the collectors edition came out.  When they produced him is irrelevant.  They produced a game with content X that they will sell for $60.  This character is add on content Y, which is for sale for $10 more or included for free in the CE.  If they cut up the game into a bunch of little pieces, as you apparently fear, then it becomes unplayable and no one buys it.  IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE DLC, DO NOT BUY IT.  But you are not entitled to a piece of content they have deemed as extra just because of when it was produced.

Let me ask you a serious question.  If they'd kept this under raps and released it 3 months after the initial game, would you still be so upset?  I rather doubt it.  The only reason people care is because of when they THINK the DLC was made in conjunction with the real game (whether or not that has any basis in reality).  I predict that in the future, Bioware will do exactly that, denying us content we could have had earlier but for the whining of people like you, who apparently believe they have some god given right to content that the developer has decided is not part of the core game.

Optional.

An interesting word that many people seem to think is a valid argument when defending EA/Bioware's decision to separate this content and sell it to us as an additional package on release day.

"It's entirely optional. Yo don't have to buy it, you know."

I wonder how many people would have bought the original Mass Effect had it's 'optional' content been sold as additional content on release day?

- Planetary exploration and the side missions that accompany it: Optional
- Additional Armor found throughout the game: Optional
- Additional Weapons found throughout the game: Optional
- Armor and Weapon Upgrades: Optional
- Cutsomizable Commander Shepard: Optional
- Dialogue and Outcome Altering Choices: Optional
- Wrex, Garrus and Liara and any missions directly associated with them: Optional
- Various Game Difficulty Settings: Optional
- Anything in the Options/Settings Menu: Optional

Starting to look like a pretty bare-bones game, isn't it? The same could be said of Mass Effect 2 or pratically any other game... but most of all, RPGs. RPGs are all about options and optional content. It's what most people enjoy about them, getting lost in another world and living another life. One of the selling points of Skyrim for many people was the fact that it had an infinite amount of optional side-quests to keep people busy and playing the game straight out of the box and at no extra charge.

I have no problem with DLC. I love picking up a new mission after I've bought and finished a game that makes me go back to play it again. I also don't mind paying the price at that time for something that the Devs have worked on after they've finished the main game. The GTA IV, Fallout 3, Red Dead Redemption and Oblivion packs all come to mind as being well worth the extra coin.

What if development was finished a year before a game was actually released and that remaining time was spent developing 'Optional' content to be released on Day One?

When you defend 'optional' content (that is actual content, not just weapon and character skins) that is released for a price on Day One simply because of the fact that it's 'optional', you're telling the Publishers/Developers that it's ok to start removing some of the things I mentioned above and charge you  extra for them because they are after all, unnecessary to complete the game.

Is everyone ok with that?

Modifié par NeecHMonkeY, 27 février 2012 - 02:42 .

[Dragoonlordz]

NeecHMonkeY wrote...

TheOptimist wrote...

It's perfectly acceptable.  The character is not essential to the story.  He is, and always was, planned as an add on DLC, as we have known since the first advertisements for the collectors edition came out.  When they produced him is irrelevant.  They produced a game with content X that they will sell for $60.  This character is add on content Y, which is for sale for $10 more or included for free in the CE.  If they cut up the game into a bunch of little pieces, as you apparently fear, then it becomes unplayable and no one buys it.  IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE DLC, DO NOT BUY IT.  But you are not entitled to a piece of content they have deemed as extra just because of when it was produced.

Let me ask you a serious question.  If they'd kept this under raps and released it 3 months after the initial game, would you still be so upset?  I rather doubt it.  The only reason people care is because of when they THINK the DLC was made in conjunction with the real game (whether or not that has any basis in reality).  I predict that in the future, Bioware will do exactly that, denying us content we could have had earlier but for the whining of people like you, who apparently believe they have some god given right to content that the developer has decided is not part of the core game.

Optional.

An interesting word that many people seem to think is a valid argument when defending EA/Bioware's decision to separate this content and sell it to us as an additional package on release day.

"It's entirely optional. Yo don't have to buy it, you know."

I wonder how many people would have bought the original Mass Effect had it's 'optional' content been sold as additional content on release day?

- Planetary exploration and the side missions that accompany it: Optional
- Additional Armor found throughout the game: Optional
- Additional Weapons found throughout the game: Optional
- Armor and Weapon Upgrades: Optional
- Cutsomizable Commander Shepard: Optional
- Dialogue and Outcome Altering Choices: Optional
- Wrex, Garrus and Liara and any missions directly associated with them: Optional
- Various Game Difficulty Settings: Optional
- Anything in the Options/Settings Menu: Optional

Starting to look like a pretty bare-bones game, isn't it? The same could be said of Mass Effect 2 or pratically any other game... but most of all, RPGs. RPGs are all about options and optional content. It's what most people enjoy about them, getting lost in another world and living another life. One of the selling points of Skyrim for many people was the fact that it had an infinite amount of optional side-quests to keep people busy and playing the game straight out of the box and at no extra charge.

I have no problem with DLC. I love picking up a new mission after I've bought and finished a game that makes me go back to play it again. I also don't mind paying the price at that time for something that the Devs have worked on after they've finished the main game. The GTA IV, Fallout 3, Red Dead Redemption and Oblivion packs all come to mind as being well worth the extra coin.

What if development was finished a year before a game was actually released and that remaining time was spent developing 'Optional' content to be released on Day One?

When you defend 'optional' content (that is actual content, not just weapon and character skins) that is released for a price on Day One simply because of the fact that it's 'optional', you're telling the Publishers/Developers that it's ok to start removing some of the things I mentioned above and charge you  extra for them because they are after all, unnecessary to complete the game.

Is everyone ok with that?

Pointless post, for simple reason your comparing gameplay mechanics being removed to an additional (optional) character being added, the context plus exposition already present in the game without him which has already been explained. How all major points about Protheans relevant to plot and past is currently going to be cleared up in the main game in first place. The extra character is merely additional to the squad and adds possible further exposition on top of this.  

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 février 2012 - 02:49 .

[BaronIveagh]

I suppose it gets down to what things really are essential to the story. And what sort of story you are trying to tell

[Dragoonlordz]

BaronIveagh wrote...

I suppose it gets down to what things really are essential to the story. And what sort of story you are trying to tell

Sure he might tell you about what they ate in the past, what hobbies might enjoy as a species. But the main plot points that are about their past and such they did say would clear up in main game itself. There is the element of if you think they are lying but that you will not know until play the game for self.

[kr33g0r]

BaronIveagh wrote...

kr33g0r wrote...

How annoying! I love the Mass Effect universe and now I can't play the final one because I hate day 1 DLC and won't buy this game as a result!

You have made me very upset Bioware!

You now, it just dawned on me that the reason this thread is so cyclical is that as people get mad enough to start thinking about doing soemthing about it, they log onto the site to ****.  And as they straggle in, it resets the arguments.

Fair point. I just sat down and thought about it a bit more and I have decided to cancel my pre order and wait to see just how integral the Prothean DLC is to the main story. If it isn't important than I will buy the game. If it is.... well, I will just read what happens on the wiki.

[BaronIveagh]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BaronIveagh wrote...

I suppose it gets down to what things really are essential to the story. And what sort of story you are trying to tell

Sure he might tell you about what they ate in the past, what hobbies might enjoy as a species. But the main plot points that are about their past and such they did say would clear up in main game itself. There is the element of if you think they are lying but that you will not know until play the game for self.

No, no, I was talkign about what elements of a game are 'essential' in a board sense, not specifcally ME3.

[Dragoonlordz]

BaronIveagh wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BaronIveagh wrote...

I suppose it gets down to what things really are essential to the story. And what sort of story you are trying to tell

Sure he might tell you about what they ate in the past, what hobbies might enjoy as a species. But the main plot points that are about their past and such they did say would clear up in main game itself. There is the element of if you think they are lying but that you will not know until play the game for self.

No, no, I was talkign about what elements of a game are 'essential' in a board sense, not specifcally ME3.

Okay my mistake.

[BaronIveagh]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Okay my mistake.

NP.  Just mulling over the issue.  You see, even subplots serve a role in telling the over all story, right?  So, the question is: how does a given subplot effect the overall story, and, more importantly, the view of the reader or viewer. 

All this talk of if, in this case, the Prothean, being essential or unessential is really at it's root a matter of personal opinion.  You see, no two readers ever carry away quite the same experiance, even from reading the same book.

Frankly, it's impossible to say 'this character is/is not essential, simply becasue that's a subjective perspective rather then an objective one. 

[oto]

Epic comment on youtube
Reapers: EA

Pre Ea Bioware: Protheans

Current Bioware: Collectors
so true though

[fropas]

BaronIveagh wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Okay my mistake.

NP.  Just mulling over the issue.  You see, even subplots serve a role in telling the over all story, right?  So, the question is: how does a given subplot effect the overall story, and, more importantly, the view of the reader or viewer. 

All this talk of if, in this case, the Prothean, being essential or unessential is really at it's root a matter of personal opinion.  You see, no two readers ever carry away quite the same experiance, even from reading the same book.

Frankly, it's impossible to say 'this character is/is not essential, simply becasue that's a subjective perspective rather then an objective one. 

Good point.

That's why I try to keep in mind the prothean's monetary value, rather than his subjective value, at the end of the day I'm paying more to get him so he's definitely valuable to me. 

[Dragoonlordz]

BaronIveagh wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Okay my mistake.

NP.  Just mulling over the issue.  You see, even subplots serve a role in telling the over all story, right?  So, the question is: how does a given subplot effect the overall story, and, more importantly, the view of the reader or viewer. 

All this talk of if, in this case, the Prothean, being essential or unessential is really at it's root a matter of personal opinion.  You see, no two readers ever carry away quite the same experiance, even from reading the same book.

Frankly, it's impossible to say 'this character is/is not essential, simply becasue that's a subjective perspective rather then an objective one. 

They can say he is not essential, I think it is right in that regard. To me essential means required to reach the end of the game. The non-essential is personal and subjective between each person and cannot be defined as start base to work from. Everyone has different preferences to how much they wish to know and for some it will never be enough. So using 'how much information' opens a can of worms which is infinite.

In order to retain sanity you have to put in context of what is quantifiable. Starting at most basic principle is where I mentioned, can you complete the game with him or without him. From there the next step is does the game cover all the major plot points brought up in past titles and current one without him. From the developers this seems to be the case. After that point all the additional exposition is to become subjective.

Thats how I see it. I expect people will not agree with me, some for valid reasons maybe and some without.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 février 2012 - 03:12 .

[fropas]

oto wrote...

Epic comment on youtube
Reapers: EA

Pre Ea Bioware: Protheans

Current Bioware: Collectors
so true though

EA: I am consuming control of your software.

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

oto wrote...

Epic comment on youtube
Reapers: EA

Pre Ea Bioware: Protheans

Current Bioware: Collectors
so true though

Pre EA Bioware created dlc by themselves when they were independent , so they certainly were indoctrinated to begin with.EA made the process happen faster when they bought them.

Bioware isn't  innocent because they were testing the waters with the first ME dlc.

[BaronIveagh]

oto wrote...

Epic comment on youtube
Reapers: EA

Pre Ea Bioware: Protheans

Current Bioware: Collectors
so true though

Methinks this may have been a case of the writers Getting Crap Past the Radar...

[BaronIveagh]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They can say he is not essential, I think it is right in that regard. To me essential means required to reach the end of the game. The non-essential is personal and subjective between each person and cannot be defined as start base to work from. Everyone has different preferences to how much they wish to know and for some it will never be enough. So using 'how much information' opens a can of worms which is infinite.

In order to retain sanity you have to put in context of what is quantifiable. Starting at most basic principle is where I mentioned, can you complete the game with him or without him. From there the next step is does the game cover all the major plot points brought up in past titles and current one without him. From the developers this seems to be the case. After that point all the additional exposition is to become subjective.

Thats how I see it. I expect people will not agree with me some for valid reasons and some without.

Hmm... I think the fundimental difference we're seeing then is between people looking to experiance the story and people looking to experiance the game.  Since they are not always the same thing.

[fropas]

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...

oto wrote...

Epic comment on youtube
Reapers: EA

Pre Ea Bioware: Protheans

Current Bioware: Collectors
so true though

Pre EA Bioware created dlc by themselves when they were independent , so they certainly were indoctrinated to begin with.EA made the process happen faster when they bought them.

Bioware isn't  innocent because they were testing the waters with the first ME dlc.

That DLC was actually better than most of the side quest in the original game though--talk about a mission that "should" have been included in the main game.

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

fropas wrote...

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...

oto wrote...

Epic comment on youtube
Reapers: EA

Pre Ea Bioware: Protheans

Current Bioware: Collectors
so true though

Pre EA Bioware created dlc by themselves when they were independent , so they certainly were indoctrinated to begin with.EA made the process happen faster when they bought them.

Bioware isn't  innocent because they were testing the waters with the first ME dlc.

That DLC was actually better than most of the side quest in the original game though--talk about a mission that "should" have been included in the main game.

But it was still dlc , created because Bioware wanted it.EA hadn't bought them yet , so to me the Big Bad EA thing doesn't make too much sense when they were already doing it.

Modifié par LOST SPARTANJLC, 27 février 2012 - 03:17 .

[Xeranx]

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...

oto wrote...

Epic comment on youtube
Reapers: EA

Pre Ea Bioware: Protheans

Current Bioware: Collectors
so true though

Pre EA Bioware created dlc by themselves when they were independent , so they certainly were indoctrinated to begin with.EA made the process happen faster when they bought them.

Bioware isn't  innocent because they were testing the waters with the first ME dlc.

Wasn't the first piece of dlc released after Mass Effect was released on PC?  If so, EA had bought them out by then since my copy has EA's logo on it at startup.

[fropas]

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...

fropas wrote...

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...

oto wrote...

Epic comment on youtube
Reapers: EA

Pre Ea Bioware: Protheans

Current Bioware: Collectors
so true though

Pre EA Bioware created dlc by themselves when they were independent , so they certainly were indoctrinated to begin with.EA made the process happen faster when they bought them.

Bioware isn't  innocent because they were testing the waters with the first ME dlc.

That DLC was actually better than most of the side quest in the original game though--talk about a mission that "should" have been included in the main game.

But it was still dlc , created because Bioware wanted it.EA hadn't bought them yet , so to me the Big Bad EA thing doesn't make too much sense when they were already doing it.

LOL you know BW didn't make any money off it right? it was only worth like 80 MS points when I bought it. BW's not innocent but I think they knew they short-changed their fans in ME1.

[BaronIveagh]

Xeranx wrote...

Wasn't the first piece of dlc released after Mass Effect was released on PC?  If so, EA had bought them out by then since my copy has EA's logo on it at startup.

Yeah, come to think of it Bring down the Sky was actually produced post buyout

IIRC they used some enviroments that got cut and recycled them

Modifié par BaronIveagh, 27 février 2012 - 03:22 .

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

BaronIveagh wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Wasn't the first piece of dlc released after Mass Effect was released on PC?  If so, EA had bought them out by then since my copy has EA's logo on it at startup.

Yeah, come to think of it Bring down the Sky was actually produced post buyout

IIRC they used some enviroments that got cut and recycled them

Yeah , but that means somewhere on the disc half of the files were on the disc when it shipped.You have to remember dlc was a slower process vs now.Which means it was planned well in advance of a buyout.

Modifié par LOST SPARTANJLC, 27 février 2012 - 03:25 .

[BaronIveagh]

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...
Yeah , but that means somewhere on the disc half of the files were on the disc when it shipped.You have to remember dlc was a slower process vs now.Which means it was planned well in advance of a buyout.

That's a bit of a stretch though.  The enviroments were on the disk, but the actual story mission was cut, and not reused. The only thing that really got recycled was the shootout area at the end.  If they had cut it to make content, they'ed have reused more then they did.