234 réponses à ce sujet

[arial]

The point of DLC is not to change to games ending, the point of DLC is to add more gameplay and a small bit of story to the game.

Did Bringdown the sky change the ending? no
Did Pinacle Station? no
Zaeed? no
Kasumi? no
Firewalker? no
Normandy crash site? no
Overlord? no
LOTSB? no


Seriously, you may not like the ending, but the purpose of DLC is to add more game content, not to change one part of the game (this case being the ending)

[AresKeith]

Blueprotoss wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

he's not being closed-minded and unreasonble, he''s stating his opinion and how he feels, when is that ever a problem?

He has a right to an opinion while lashing out at other people for a difference of opinion is what makes him closed-minded and unreasonable.

he's not lashing out, and he made a good point, playing a DLC for more war assets is completely pointless, unless it has its own story plot

[wantedman dan]

Blueprotoss wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

According to whom? I've already stated my piece on this topic.

 If thats the case then you haven't moved on

wantedman dan wrote... 

What have you done?

Pot calling the kettle black.

You're not a very good troll.

[DMWW]

The Tales of the Sword Coast expansion to BG1, and the Watchers' Keep part of the Throne of Bhaal expansion to BG2, made no difference whatever to the ending. They were still pretty popular. Come to think of it, Overlord made no difference to the end of ME2, and Bring Down the Sky made no difference to the end of ME1, and Leliana's Song made no difference to the end of DA:O.

[Blueprotoss]

wantedman dan wrote...

zsom wrote...

Not a single Bioware DLC has changed the ending of the games. Not the DAO, DA2, ME1/ME2 (yes, not even Arrival) DLC and neither the one we got for ME3 and yet there were several well worth buying. Expecting a DLC which by definition should be something optional and not essential to the main story is wrong.

Which of those has the same circumstances as ME3?

Yet you're contradicting yourself based on how the others didn't and there's no need in ME3.

[chemiclord]

zsom wrote...

Not a single Bioware DLC has changed the ending of the games. Not the DAO, DA2, ME1/ME2 (yes, not even Arrival) DLC and neither the one we got for ME3 and yet there were several well worth buying. Expecting a DLC which by definition should be something optional and not essential to the main story is wrong.

I've discovered that fans here really don't care about setting dangerous precedents.  They really don't care that creating a precedent where customers pay to "fix" the endings of a created work would set gaming down a very dark road in the future.

They want to be catered to, and don't care who in the end suffers for it.

[wantedman dan]

Blueprotoss wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

zsom wrote...

Not a single Bioware DLC has changed the ending of the games. Not the DAO, DA2, ME1/ME2 (yes, not even Arrival) DLC and neither the one we got for ME3 and yet there were several well worth buying. Expecting a DLC which by definition should be something optional and not essential to the main story is wrong.

Which of those has the same circumstances as ME3?

Yet you're contradicting yourself based on how the others didn't and there's no need in ME3.

I'm asking a question, Blue.

[arial]

Blueprotoss wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

zsom wrote...

Not a single Bioware DLC has changed the ending of the games. Not the DAO, DA2, ME1/ME2 (yes, not even Arrival) DLC and neither the one we got for ME3 and yet there were several well worth buying. Expecting a DLC which by definition should be something optional and not essential to the main story is wrong.

Which of those has the same circumstances as ME3?

Yet you're contradicting yourself based on how the others didn't and there's no need in ME3.

almost all his posts are like that

[Iakus]

DMWW wrote...

The Tales of the Sword Coast expansion to BG1, and the Watchers' Keep part of the Throne of Bhaal expansion to BG2, made no difference whatever to the ending. They were still pretty popular. Come to think of it, Overlord made no difference to the end of ME2, and Bring Down the Sky made no difference to the end of ME1, and Leliana's Song made no difference to the end of DA:O.

One could argue Throne of Bhaal did, in that it continnued the story past the original ending.  Much like Awakening did for Dragon Age Origins and Broken Steel did for Fallout 3

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

zsom wrote...

Not a single Bioware DLC has changed the ending of the games. Not the DAO, DA2, ME1/ME2 (yes, not even Arrival) DLC and neither the one we got for ME3 and yet there were several well worth buying. Expecting a DLC which by definition should be something optional and not essential to the main story is wrong.

Which of those has the same circumstances as ME3?

Yet you're contradicting yourself based on how the others didn't and there's no need in ME3.

almost all his posts are like that

LOL

[Blueprotoss]

 

wantedman dan wrote...

You're not a very good troll.

This is very ironic based on  don't know what "trolling" is.  Btw the meaning isn't when someone disagrees with you since this topic would be filled with "trolls". 

wantedman dan wrote...

I'm asking a question, Blue.

You already know the answer based on how ME3 has basically the same circumstances with 
DAO, DA2, ME1, and ME2.

[Blitzhawk65]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

I don't buy DLC to change a game's ending. I buy it to give me more content.

Buy another game off of Steam for $10 and get 30+ hours of new content/gameplay
or
Buy ME3 DLC for the same price and get 2 hours of content (30 minutes once you beat it once and click through the dialogue) 

I convinced myself to buy ME1 and ME2 DLC because I believed that it could have an effect in future games.  In restrospect, Arrival, Overlord, and Pinnacle Station were not worth it.  I can make an argument for the other paid DLCs, but it isn't a strong one.  Unless there is some hook to entice to me to buy ME3 DLC (Dinosaurs or ending change), then I don't have an incentive to buy it.  KOTOR was on sale on steam for $2.49 yesterday and KOTOR was a more enjoyable game to me than ME3 was.

Modifié par Blitzhawk65, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:10 .

[wantedman dan]

Blueprotoss wrote...

This is very ironic based on  don't know what "trolling" is.  Btw the meaning isn't when someone disagrees with you since this topic would be filled with "trolls".

So basically you take my argument and bastardize it for your own use now?

You already know the answer based on how ME3 has basically the same circumstances with 
DAO, DA2, ME1, and ME2.

And the next question is, how so?

[DMWW]

iakus wrote...

DMWW wrote...

The Tales of the Sword Coast expansion to BG1, and the Watchers' Keep part of the Throne of Bhaal expansion to BG2, made no difference whatever to the ending. They were still pretty popular. Come to think of it, Overlord made no difference to the end of ME2, and Bring Down the Sky made no difference to the end of ME1, and Leliana's Song made no difference to the end of DA:O.

One could argue Throne of Bhaal did, in that it continnued the story past the original ending.  Much like Awakening did for Dragon Age Origins and Broken Steel did for Fallout 3

Yes, the Bhaalspawn half of ToB did. But Watchers' Keep was a wholly separate sidequest, and made up half the expansion. 

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

he's not lashing out, and he made a good point, playing a DLC for more war assets is completely pointless, unless it has its own story plot

Insulting people for a difference of opinion would be under lashing out.  Playing a DLC for more story isn't pointless at all especialy when that happened with ME1, DA, ME2, and DA2.

[Blueprotoss]

Sion1138 wrote...

ME3 -> Last part of a trilogy.

DAO, DA2, ME1, and ME2 -> Not.

You seem to forget that ME3 isn't over yet just like how ME1, ME2, and DAO wasn't over.  Btw you also shouldn't forget that DA had 1 expansion pack and 3 DLCs.

[D24O]

dreamgazer wrote...

Could change the context of the ending without physically changing it.

Also, more time in the universe and an expansion of the story. That's worth spending a little money and having fun with the game.

Actually, I'm afraid that they'll retroactivly try to add justification for the catalyst in DLC, like they did with Javik. I won't pay to legitimize a character that I strongly dislike, so I have to look over what comes with the DLC. Honeslty, if it's a well done self contained story like LOTSB, I'd be more inclined to buy it than if it was related to the ending because they are comitted to what's there.

[chemiclord]

Sion1138 wrote...

Who would that be exactly?

Africans?

Customers.

Think about it... do you REALLY want video game publishers to get the idea in their heads that they can charge customers extra to "fix" a game?

Would you want to see the game pause right after the final boss fight with a pop-up panel saying, "Wanna know how it ends?  Buy the Resolution DLC for $10!!!"

Because that is where that road would lead... companies producing a substandard product INTENTIONALLY with the express purpose of charging customers later to "fix" it.

No thank you.  I'd rather just have a bad ending.

[zsom]

Sion1138 wrote...

There's one small but very important difference between all these titles and ME3.

and @wantedman dan

Irrelevant. A DLC should be a small addition to the game, a short mission expanding the universe, not  something game changing like a new ending.
I am and always have been a "believer" of the DLC model because it's a safe and easy way to keep games alive longer and add more depth to an interesting game. However the moment we go from this to a different model where you buy the actual game in small chunks, is the point where it gets iffy. Soon we will have games that end in a cliffhanger telling you to buy the rest or miss out on the experience.

@MassEffect762

I half agree. He does have a ton of interesting dialogue, far more than what Zaeed or Kasumi had, but he is in no way essential to the story.

[Blueprotoss]

wantedman dan wrote...

So basically you take my argument and bastardize it for your own use now?

You should have said that I used the truth to unravel your petty insult.

wantedman dan wrote... 

And the next question is, how so?

The endings didn't change in DA, DA2, ME1, or ME2 after their endings with DLC.

[wantedman dan]

zsom wrote...

and @wantedman dan

Irrelevant. A DLC should be a small addition to the game, a short mission expanding the universe, not  something game changing like a new ending.
I am and always have been a "believer" of the DLC model because it's a safe and easy way to keep games alive longer and add more depth to an interesting game. However the moment we go from this to a different model where you buy the actual game in small chunks, is the point where it gets iffy. Soon we will have games that end in a cliffhanger telling you to buy the rest or miss out on the experience.

The game is already complete. How are you "changing the model?"

[wantedman dan]

Blueprotoss wrote...

You should have said that I used the truth to unravel your petty insult.

And that, my friends, is the beginning of a delusion of grandeur.

The endings didn't change in DA, DA2, ME1, or ME2 after their endings with DLC.

Point: missed.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:20 .