181 réponses à ce sujet

[NRieh]

the books, movies, tv shows whatever medium its not important. IF you are building a long series you want your subsequent titles in that series to tie in with the previous works.

Once again, I was offered an example (LotR), which was NOT ever "built as series", and it never supposed to have any kind of "titles". It was completely written as ONE book, from first to last page, from the very start, before anything was published.

So it can not be considered as any kind of "series", else you should start calling "series" each and every book that has chapters division within.

Modifié par Nrieh, 24 juillet 2012 - 08:18 .

[robertthebard]

Nrieh wrote...

Would Return of the King be as strong as it is if Fellowship and Two Towers didnt exist?

You were talking about the book, I assume...
Profesor J.R.R. Tolkien never wrote LotR as 3 DIFFERENT books, neither he tried to sell them each separately and make more money. Neither he wrote last part afterwhile selling first two ones, knowing that people will buy it anyway, just to know how it ends.

From his point of veiw - it were just chapters of ONE single book (with Silmarillion as a prequel), and that's how he wanted to publish it. It was publisher's idea to split LotR into 3 volumes (for several reasons, including post-war economical ones) and give each part separate title (and aslo leave "Silmarillion" totally aside - probably for good, it was much revised and rewritten later). It was either this or cuting texts, so Tolkien agreed to make 3 books instead of 1.

This example fits videogames and ME trilogy even less then any movie. 

ME3 has more of an RPG system than 2 does.

Specify "RPG system"?..

Which doesn't, of course, answer the question posed.  Since you want to lay out The Return of the King as a chapter in a story, which, for the record, I can buy into, the series is called The Lord of the Rings, even if it does say trilogy in the description, however, the question is, would Return of the King be the same narrative without any backstory to it, or would there be a real disconnect to the story since, you have no idea who any of these people are.  It's an amazing work on it's own, but when combined with the first two chapters, and the prologue, aka The Hobbit, it's a literary masterpiece.  However, the point here is, just because somebody doesn't own The Two Towers, or The Fellowship of the Ring doesn't mean that events in those works, or events in the Hobbit shouldn't be mentioned.  Just because somebody didn't buy them doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Nrieh wrote...

ME3:
*A good, multi-pronged main plot

I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but 34 of that "main plot" consists of 1-2 characters.

If one of those isn't Shepard, you're making things up, and since Shepard is in all of the games, it doesn't make sense to pretend Shepard wasn't for the sake of people that only bought 3.

Nrieh wrote...

If you don't play Mass Effect 3 with a ME>ME2>ME3 import, then you are playing it wrong.

Is there anything written on a gamebox or in origin description, that tells those who use imports get more from game then those who don't, while all pay same $$?...

Yes?  It's fairly obvious there is, but I'll spell it out for you for clarity:  The title is Mass Effect 3.  Pretty clear that there were two games in front of it, isn't it?  Which means the straw man of "while all pay the same $$" is pretty obviously a fallacy, if you hadn't purchased ME 1 and 2, or any of the assorted DLC's that can change the stories in those games.  If you played Arrival in 2, the opening dialog with Anderson is different than if you didn't.  I have experienced both, so I can tell you that first hand.  I didn't feel cheated by not being credited with something I didn't do when I didn't have Arrival.  How I feel after is a subject for another thread.  However, the point remains, I didn't pay for content in another game, so not having it's affects in the current game doesn't mean I was cheated.  I paid less to get that point in the series, and I got less.

[XavierHollywood]

Nrieh wrote...

the books, movies, tv shows whatever medium its not important. IF you are building a long series you want your subsequent titles in that series to tie in with the previous works.

Once again, I was offered an example (LotR), which was NOT ever "built as series", and it never supposed to have any kind of "titles". It was completely written as ONE book, from first to last page, from the very start, before anything was published.

So it can not be considered as any kind of "series", else you should start calling "series" each and every book that has chapters division within.

I also used A Song of Ice and Fire in my initial post as a series but you ignored that.  Fine, LotR was initially planned as one book, but you are entirely missing the plot here.  Forget the example of LotR, its a moot point now.  In my last post (the part you quoted) I said any book, movie, TV show etc that has a main story arc with the same characters and conflicts will need to be strongly grounded and tied to the previous entries in the series.  To make the subsequent parts of a series completely independant with no connection to the previous parts would simply be bad writing and make all the events in the previous entries irrelevant unless the developer is going for the Final Fantasy/ Elder Scrolls thing.

[JimTasty]

What's with this LotR comparisons?

[NRieh]

the series is called The Lord of the Rings

*sigh* There is NO "series" called "Lord of the Rings". There is ONE book, called so.
If you still treat LotR as some kind of "series" - then we should call Mass Effect: Revelation "series" as well, which consists of 22 "volumes" and talk a little bit about how much sense will remain if someone reads just final 5.

Final attempt to make things clear for you. LotR is ONE single book. ME3 is "series", it consists of 3 games. Each game is ONE single game. But you're trying hard to compare 1\\3 of LotR book, and playing 1 full volume of ME series. Don't ask me why. It was not me who gave this example.

And also, if Tolkien was mentioned - Silmarillion, "the Hobbit" and LotR - are 3 all-sufficient books. You can even call them "series", if you like this word. But you don't need "Hobbit" to read LotR, and you don't need Silm to read "Hobbit". But yes, they all happen in same world, and even share some characters. Each book is different and complete. They are 100% independant.
But some say that:

To make the subsequent parts of a series completely independant with no connection to the previous parts would simply be bad writing and make all the events in the previous entries irrelevant

[about Arrival] If you played Arrival in 2, the opening dialog with Anderson is different than if you didn't. I have experienced both, so I can tell you that first hand.....I didn't pay for content in another game, so not having it's affects in the current game doesn't mean I was cheated. I paid less to get that point in the series, and I got less.

Your examples are so cool, really...Your problem here is that I also exprienced both. And got SB on last run...
"Difference" between Arrival and "no Arrival" is two or three words from Anderson, which neither mean nor change anything. And (surprisingly) NO-Arrival version is harsher. Anderson swears. Oh, and how could have I forgotten about "vital" minor EMS value difference! Same for Shadowbroker. Difference is in Feron's EMS and one or two Liara lines. And she does not even remember your DLC romance (probably fixed).

So, I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with it, but it shows quite opposite, those who payed more for ME2 DLCs, actually, have same content, as those who did not play DLC or started from 3.

[robertthebard]

Nrieh wrote...

the series is called The Lord of the Rings

*sigh* There is NO "series" called "Lord of the Rings". There is ONE book, called so.
If you still treat LotR as some kind of "series" - then we should call Mass Effect: Revelation "series" as well, which consists of 22 "volumes" and talk a little bit about how much sense will remain if someone reads just final 5.

Final attempt to make things clear for you. LotR is ONE single book. ME3 is "series", it consists of 3 games. Each game is ONE single game. But you're trying hard to compare 13 of LotR book, and playing 1 full volume of ME series. Don't ask me why. It was not me who gave this example.

And also, if Tolkien was mentioned - Silmarillion, "the Hobbit" and LotR - are 3 all-sufficient books. You can even call them "series", if you like this word. But you don't need "Hobbit" to read LotR, and you don't need Silm to read "Hobbit". But yes, they all happen in same world, and even share some characters. Each book is different and complete. They are 100% independant.
But some say that:

To make the subsequent parts of a series completely independant with no connection to the previous parts would simply be bad writing and make all the events in the previous entries irrelevant

[about Arrival] If you played Arrival in 2, the opening dialog with Anderson is different than if you didn't. I have experienced both, so I can tell you that first hand.....I didn't pay for content in another game, so not having it's affects in the current game doesn't mean I was cheated. I paid less to get that point in the series, and I got less.

Your examples are so cool, really...Your problem here is that I also exprienced both. And got SB on last run...
"Difference" between Arrival and "no Arrival" is two or three words from Anderson, which neither mean nor change anything. And (surprisingly) NO-Arrival version is harsher. Anderson swears. Oh, and how could have I forgotten about "vital" minor EMS value difference! Same for Shadowbroker. Difference is in Feron's EMS and one or two Liara lines. And she does not even remember your DLC romance (probably fixed).

So, I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with it, but it shows quite opposite, those who payed more for ME2 DLCs, actually, have same content, as those who did not play DLC or started from 3.

The DLC's for 1 are meant to played in 1, and add to that game, the same for DLC's for 2.  DLC's for both can add to 3.  No, they do not change the game drastically, nor have I ever said they did.  However, I can see why we're having this disconnect in this conversation, you're having the same disconnect with yourself.  One one hand you argue that they make minor changes to 3, and on the other hand you argue that they don't change anything.  Since you are so conflicted within your own reasoning, there's no way you're going to be able to connect to what anyone else says.

You see, I was disappointed to the extreme with Arrival, and it was my own fault for not reading up anywhere but on this site.  Especially while watching the install progress, and seeing references to London and Paris.  I thought maybe I was going to get to go there as part of the DLC, but I guess it was for something else, since nope, you don't.  I was pretty upset at the lack of actually getting to turn myself in leading up to the events in 3 as a whole, not just DLC.  What I got was an illogically staged solo mission, illogical because, despite the fact that I'm technically a Cerberus operative, as much as I hated being stuck with that, it would have been logical for me to storm the prison with my squad, kill everyone, and get the agent out.  Then it just adds a couple of lines of dialog, or actually, just changes one line that I can point to for sure off the top of my head.

I digress, however.  Playing 3 with no import, you get the same lines you'd get if you didn't do Arrival/SB.  Playing with an import where you did one or the other or both, you get different content.  Nope, it's not anything major, but it does affect the game, and it should, since you played the game.  What should not happen, which is what you've said should happen, is that the games ignore the existance of eachother "in case somebody didn't play the previous game/games".  This is Shepard's story, and it doesn't take place in just one game, but 3, and you can't ignore any of the previous games simply to coddle somebody that didn't buy them/play them.  Leaving content that references previous games, including, but not limited to DLC encourages people to buy the previous games to see what they missed.  Just as reading The Two Towers might make you want to read The Fellowship of the Ring, and then the Hobbit, to what you missed.

You can't seem to grasp this.  You seem to think that being Stand Alone means that there are not references to anything that happened before, especially if there are things that happened before.  So by your own standards, none of the ME games are stand alone.  ME 1 references things that Shepard did that you, as a player, never did.  Therefore, it cannot be a stand alone game.  ME 2 builds on this by referencing things that happened prior to ME 1, and things that happened in ME 1, therefore it can't be a stand alone game.  This is the same logical process you use to say that ME 3 can't be a stand alone game.  Refuting this means that you refute your own position, which as I referenced earlier, seems to be what you're doing.  I can understand how you may be confused by this, since you seem to focus on one sentence in a post, and then go off on a tangent about that, despite what ever you may write about that sentence being conveyed in part of the post you snipped.  This is called cherry picking, and you can make anyone seem to say anything by taking one or two lines out of their posts out of context to support or argue against.  It does not make you look witty, or clever, but, as I have pointed out here, it just makes you look like you're not sure what you're saying.

[simonrana]

JimTasty wrote...

 

You sir are a jerk. I followed your link a couple of days ago and it has planted a persistent urge to replay ME1 in my head that won't going away!

Damn you!