55528 réponses à ce sujet

[EpyonX3]

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

estebanus wrote...
And what about when she said it's not a plothole that EDI survives in destroy?

I have yet to see this happen.

That makes......several of us, I've lost count how many times I've replayed the destroy ending with high EMS and different combinations of squad members, EDI has never once stepped off the crashed Normandy, and so far as I know, not one person who has claimed has ever shown proof, that's not to say they are lying, but with something that big it's better to have the proof to your claim before saying anything.

I've only had it happen to me once, and that was on my 1st playthrough. I had used EDI for almost each mission, and I talked to her each time I returned to the Normandy. Unfortunately, I don't have a youtube account, so I can't post it!

Sorry estebanus, I did not mean to offend, but you have to admit it's a biggy if not a glitch.

Yeah, that's the same way I view it, too. I don't think i means anything. I was just pointing to the fact that Jessica Merizan said that it's not a bug or plot hole as a way to explain that her comments shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Well I see it this way. If Shepard can survive the destroy and the reapers are a specific target and not all technology, then EDI can survive. Along with the geth. And yes I believe that the Catalyst does lie or at least stretch the truth about what destroy actually does. Understandable, since it wants to survive.

[Arian Dynas]

byne wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Gernbuster wrote...

Iam still not in this list =(

Yes you are. Look again. social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/12047832/335#12284879

He may be...but

D.Sharrah wrote...

@Arian: Is that the final? I saw the original post and the later post saying that it would be updated...but I assumed that it was not done (since I can't seem to find myself at all - and I could have sworn that I made a few meager attempts at involving myself in the discussion on the old thread - but it wouldn't be the first (or last) time I was wrong...okay enough of my parenthetical rant).
 

Although not that this is your fault...

and @ Byne: Now that there is a link for this, what do you think about adding it to the OP?

A link to the memorial wall? Depends on what Arian thinks, since its his list.

It's everyone's list.

And I will now be honest and reveal my secret.

I am not some all knowing god who includes the name of everyone in the list.

I just get everyone I can and when someone mentions not being on the list, I go back and surruptitiously add them before letting them know.

[Arian Dynas]

TSA_383 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

This machine is still under warranty.

Due to an unconscionable degree of suck, I am going to have to send it to a service center.

Since I live in Alaska, and Hewlett Packard sucks, even though the population here rivals that of the largest city in Montana, due to not being in the lower 48 I have to mail it there.

Even though they are footing the bill since the fan was faulty and it was their **** up, I now will not have the option to collect my computer before I leave town.

Meaning that more than is likely, I will be completely off the grid for the next week.

This sucks.

This really REALLY sucks.

This sucks so much I can't even describe the quantities of suckitude.

Right now the only thing I even have access to is my old, nearly 7 year old desktop. Which has difficulty running GIFS.

Ah, HP...

Yeah, if you send it away you'll have it back by... August?
If you do it yourself you could have it working in a few minutes.
Hell, most laptops are possible to open up without breaking warranty seals

Yep. This is the single largest possible quantity of suck I could find in one day.

PM me the model then and I'll find you the parts you need and instructions on disassembly/reassembly avoiding warranty seals

Also folks, I've got my main PC/temp studio setup working, ended up
switching to Presonus Studio One after having a total nightmare with my
Cubase license.
The long and short of which is that I now have an
even better setup for looking at audio stuff. So, if there's anything
anyone wants me to look into, post here and I'll do it tomorrow after
work (UK time).

I know you're trying to help, but my father is the man I listen to on all computer repair, and he would kill me if I did so.

[Dwailing]

Arian Dynas wrote...

And I will now be honest and reveal my secret.

I am not some all knowing god who includes the name of everyone in the list.

(Presidium Fish Krogan Voice) What?

Modifié par Dwailing, 12 juin 2012 - 11:55 .

[paxxton]

Rankincountry wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Take a look at the jaw-dropping result of my poll.

Should Mass Effect 4 continue Shepard's story?
http://social.biowar...466/polls/34384

Interesting - almost a 50-50 split. Personally, for what it's worth I think that ME3 is the right place for Shepard's story to end. The character arc would be overstretched going into a 4th game that picks up after ME3 and there is a risk of the character becoming a bit of a self-parody. Meanwhile a prequel would be pointless given that Shep's past is pretty well fleshed-out and there would be no sense of mystery or surprise.

Also, the number of variables that would need to carry over from ME3 to a potential ME4 would be a bit unreasonable given the level of divergence across 3 long games - with a new hero, just the major decisions could be imported. Of course, this assumes that IT is true (or at the very least that the current ending is a a  major piece of misdirection).

A new hero, with a new crew helping rebuild the galaxy after the reaper war would be a fine basis for the story and it would be interesting to explore the politics and the human (and turian, asari, salarian, krogan etc etc) cost of the war, maybe drawing some parallels to the aftermath of WWII with a new political order emerging while the population try to put their lives back together amidst a broken economy and smashed infrastructure.

There's other possibilities of course, this was the first one that occurred to me.

I agree for the most part. The prequels would be rather uninteresting and boring. On the other hand, BioWare could shift the focus from Role-playing to Action and make something that more closely resembles Call of Duty: MW series. They could also link the current story with a prequel by using a time travel device or like someone suggested in this thread creating ME4 as a hallucination in Shepard's mind involving reliving his past.

As for Shepard becoming a self-parody, Lara Croft had multiple games and is still vigorous and fresh.  Although for some people that take BioWare's announcement about ME3 being the end of Shepard's story too seriously he could become that.

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

[Rifneno]

Dwailing wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

And I will now be honest and reveal my secret.

I am not some all knowing god who includes the name of everyone in the list.

(Presidium Fish Krogan Voice) What?

God.  That poor krogan.  I felt so bad for him.  He sounded like you just crushed all his hopes and dreams.  I'd expect a cheerier "what?" if I'd just told him his wife was leaving him.  For a salarian.

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 13 juin 2012 - 12:03 .

[byne]

So, after 4 hours and 50 arcane crystals, I'm halfway to my goal in WoW!

Whats goin on in here?

[Big Bad]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

I think ME4 should be set far into the future so that they can tell new stories but without divergence being as big of a problem.

[byne]

Big Bad wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

I think ME4 should be set far into the future so that they can tell new stories but without divergence being as big of a problem.

No matter how far in the future you set it, if they base ME4 off the literal endings, they'd need to include two models for every character, depending on if you picked synthesis or not.

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

So, after 4 hours and 50 arcane crystals, I'm halfway to my goal in WoW!

Whats goin on in here?

Uh, Arian is creating a memorial wall for the IT thread, and they've been discussing what should happen in ME4 (I put in my two cents a minute ago, but I'm not part of the active discussion.)

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

I think ME4 should be set far into the future so that they can tell new stories but without divergence being as big of a problem.

No matter how far in the future you set it, if they base ME4 off the literal endings, they'd need to include two models for every character, depending on if you picked synthesis or not.

Yet ANOTHER reason why IT makes more sense, right?

Modifié par Dwailing, 13 juin 2012 - 12:11 .

[Big Bad]

byne wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

I think ME4 should be set far into the future so that they can tell new stories but without divergence being as big of a problem.

No matter how far in the future you set it, if they base ME4 off the literal endings, they'd need to include two models for every character, depending on if you picked synthesis or not.

True, but I am assuming that the literal endings are not real. 

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

Procedural algorithms wouldn't require the designers to model everything in a 3D package and then import it to the game. Such algorithms just need tweaks to their parameters. Though I don't know if there is a sufficient divergence in such algorithms to make the visuals realistic and the environments natural and believable. I'd like to see one day a realistically synthesized computer voice used as VO.

The fact that they chose to swap characters and some dialogue between different playthroughs is more of a design choice than a necessity. Doing something more would just require more work, time and money. There is also a psychological factor. The dev team would know that the big chunks of what they create would never be seen by many players. They could perceive it as a wasted effort.

[paxxton]

Big Bad wrote...

byne wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

I think ME4 should be set far into the future so that they can tell new stories but without divergence being as big of a problem.

No matter how far in the future you set it, if they base ME4 off the literal endings, they'd need to include two models for every character, depending on if you picked synthesis or not.

True, but I am assuming that the literal endings are not real. 

In the  future everyone's going to be partially synthetic, partially organic. This is inevitable. Deal with it.

If ME4 (with ME3's ending possibly being literal) is set thousands of years in the future, Synthesis will become canon. No need for double character models.

Modifié par paxxton, 13 juin 2012 - 12:21 .

[Rankincountry]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

I think ME3 did OK with some of the alternate characters - I haven't seen them all but the ones I have come across did put a different spin on the story. The Krogan situation and the genophage decision does feel different depending if it's Wreav or Wrex for example. I think where it was a bit of a let-down was that most of the surviving ME2 characters only got cameos (albeit Grunt's and Mordin's were brilliantly done).

The problem with ME4 as a continuation of Shepard's story is that the quantity of alternate dialogue and stand-in characters you'd need would be prohibitive in terms of cost and time even if you had a tool that could model every variation perfectly. I'd be interested to know how you could possibly work around that. Wouldn't it inevitably constrain the amount of variation in the ending (the real one, obviously ) and therefore possibly make the EC less satisfying than it might otherwise be?

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

Procedural algorithms wouldn't require the designers to model everything in a 3D package and then import it to the game. Such algorithms just need tweaks to their parameters. Though I don't know if there is a sufficient divergence in such algorithms to make the visuals realistic and the environments natural and believable. I'd like to see one day a realistically synthesized computer voice used as VO.

 

I dont follow. What exactly would be procedurally generated? Storylines and dialog cant be procedurally generated, and those are the two biggest components to Mass Effect games. Skyrim dabbled in procedural quests, and while I cant speak from personal experience, I've read that they are lackluster. Besides, that wouldnt fit the flavor of ME anyway. 

paxxton wrote... 
The fact that they chose to swap characters and some dialogue between different playthroughs is more of a design choice than a necessity. Doing something more would just require more work, time and money. There is also a psychological factor. The dev team would know that the big chunks of what they create would never be seen by many players. They could perceive it as a wasted effort.

Yeah, you're pretty much furthering my point there... Those are all results of dealing with an extremely ambitious amount of divergence. 

[D.Sharrah]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Snip...


It's everyone's list.

And I will now be honest and reveal my secret.

I am not some all knowing god who includes the name of everyone in the list.

I just get everyone I can and when someone mentions not being on the list, I go back and surruptitiously add them before letting them know.

LOL...fair enough...although given the reddit leak maybe we should not be so quickly inclined to dismiss the bolded...

Edit: Snipped the quote tree.  Those things can get unwieldy...

Modifié par D.Sharrah, 13 juin 2012 - 12:31 .

[Dwailing]

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The variables that carry on to ME4 would be a huge challenge for the dev team, especially the content creation division. But it can be done. Maybe they could use more procedural algorithms to not have to model everything. Anyway, the rewards for achieving success with this could be immense. Besides, they already have a well-developed toolset specifically tailored to the kind of "logistics" problems that pop up during Mass Effect's development. Someone mentioned a tool for managing plot variables and their dependencies during PAX panel in April.

How would procedurally generated content avoid the problem of needing to account for unprecedented amounts of divergence? Look at the problems ME3 faced as it is. They could not keep up with the amount of divergence already present, so we wound up with every playthrough doing the exact same missions with different characters swapped in where appropriate. It still felt great the first time through, but it was a tad disappointing. 

ME4 would experience that problem on an even greater scale. It just wouldnt work. 

Procedural algorithms wouldn't require the designers to model everything in a 3D package and then import it to the game. Such algorithms just need tweaks to their parameters. Though I don't know if there is a sufficient divergence in such algorithms to make the visuals realistic and the environments natural and believable. I'd like to see one day a realistically synthesized computer voice used as VO.

The fact that they chose to swap characters and some dialogue between different playthroughs is more of a design choice than a necessity. Doing something more would just require more work, time and money. There is also a psychological factor. The dev team would know that the big chunks of what they create would never be seen by many players. They could perceive it as a wasted effort.

Besides, did you expect that EVERYTHING would be different?  I mean, it would have been nice if everything COULD have been different, but game developement hasn't come THAT far yet.

[byne]

Anyways, back to farming for the next 4 hours, give or take a few hours.

Thunderfury will be mine!



Look how big that thing is!

[HellishFiend]

Rankincountry wrote...

I think ME3 did OK with some of the alternate characters - I haven't seen them all but the ones I have come across did put a different spin on the story. The Krogan situation and the genophage decision does feel different depending if it's Wreav or Wrex for example. I think where it was a bit of a let-down was that most of the surviving ME2 characters only got cameos (albeit Grunt's and Mordin's were brilliantly done).

 

Alternate characters are fine the first time through, but to quote James Vega, the actual divergence itself is "all just an illusion". Once you beat the game and find out that all of the missions occur and play out mostly the same regardless of divergent paths, it's a bit disappointing. The only significantly tangible way that your divergence applies to ME3 is in the resolution of the plot arcs themselves. That aspect is awesome, so I give them credit for that.

Rankincountry wrote... 
The problem with ME4 as a continuation of Shepard's story is that the quantity of alternate dialogue and stand-in characters you'd need would be prohibitive in terms of cost and time even if you had a tool that could model every variation perfectly. I'd be interested to know how you could possibly work around that. Wouldn't it inevitably constrain the amount of variation in the ending (the real one, obviously ) and therefore possibly make the EC less satisfying than it might otherwise be?

Yeah, thats another way of phrasing my doubt that a Shepard-based ME4 is not a realistic possibility. 

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Procedural algorithms wouldn't require the designers to model everything in a 3D package and then import it to the game. Such algorithms just need tweaks to their parameters. Though I don't know if there is a sufficient divergence in such algorithms to make the visuals realistic and the environments natural and believable. I'd like to see one day a realistically synthesized computer voice used as VO.

 

I dont follow. What exactly would be procedurally generated? Storylines and dialog cant be procedurally generated, and those are the two biggest components to Mass Effect games. Skyrim dabbled in procedural quests, and while I cant speak from personal experience, I've read that they are lackluster. Besides, that wouldnt fit the flavor of ME anyway. 

paxxton wrote... 
The fact that they chose to swap characters and some dialogue between different playthroughs is more of a design choice than a necessity. Doing something more would just require more work, time and money. There is also a psychological factor. The dev team would know that the big chunks of what they create would never be seen by many players. They could perceive it as a wasted effort.

Yeah, you're pretty much furthering my point there... Those are all results of dealing with an extremely ambitious amount of divergence. 

Of course the story can't be procedurally generated yet (though I heard that it is being researched). But the in-game content (visuals, sounds, maybe voices in the near future) for that story can be to some extent.

[HellishFiend]

Dwailing wrote...


Besides, did you expect that EVERYTHING would be different?  I mean, it would have been nice if everything COULD have been different, but game developement hasn't come THAT far yet.

Was that addressed to me? Because if it is, I think you missed my point. My point was that Bioware was already overtaxing their ability to handle the level of divergence present in ME3. That problem would increase exponentially the longer they try to extend those plot arcs. 

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

Of course the story can't be procedurally generated yet (though I heard that it is being researched). But the in-game content (visuals, sounds, maybe voices in the near future) for that story can be to some extent.

If anyone could pull it off, I'm sure Bioware could, but I dont see it happening anytime soon. I'd recommend that they start a new franchise to explore those new techniques and technologies, rather than trying to apply them to Mass Effect. 

[SackofCat]

I have trouble keeping up with what ITists consider evidence or not.

Could someone tell me what, according to consensus, ITists consider to be the most ironclad, indisputable evidence that Shepard is being indoctrinated at the end of ME3 and that the ending occurs only in Shepard's mind?

Disclaimer: I have watched the 2 main YouTube videos in their entirety, read parabolee's rather long list of evidence as well as various other sources (mostly on this forum). I am also very familiar with the Mass Effect universe as depicted in games, books, comics, and wiki.

I remain skeptical and would like to discuss whether the evidence is valid and accurate.
Thanks.