80611 réponses à ce sujet

[RavenEyry]

demersel wrote...

Origin = money in the long run. No surprise in that. It is called investing.

But they seem to think the best way to make origin more popular is to force it on people, instead of making it, y'know, good.

[byne]

demersel wrote...

- EA is evil, in a sense that it only cares about money.

I will agree that EA sucks, but a corporation that cares only about money is not evil, but is one doing its job for its investors.

I will give you amoral at best.

[demersel]

Fact - before ME3's realease, Mass Effect was the only major original IP Bioware had left.
Fact - EA really would like ME3 be as big as possible. I think we can all agree, that they would never sabotage an original multimillion intellectual property, for what ever reaseon, especially if you take into account that they already own it.
Fact - we know that ME3 will NOT be tha last AAA game in the Mass Effect universe. We can all be sure, that at least 1 more major game is coming.

So far so good?

[demersel]

byne wrote...

demersel wrote...

- EA is evil, in a sense that it only cares about money.

I will agree that EA sucks, but a corporation that cares only about money is not evil, but is one doing its job for its investors.

I will give you amoral at best.

I'll re-phrase that - can we agree that EA is a corporation, and it cares about money and profit? 

[byne]

demersel wrote...

byne wrote...

demersel wrote...

- EA is evil, in a sense that it only cares about money.

I will agree that EA sucks, but a corporation that cares only about money is not evil, but is one doing its job for its investors.

I will give you amoral at best.

I'll re-phrase that - can we agree that EA is a corporation, and it cares about money and profit? 

Very well.

[demersel]

RavenEyry wrote...

demersel wrote...

Origin = money in the long run. No surprise in that. It is called investing.

But they seem to think the best way to make origin more popular is to force it on people, instead of making it, y'know, good.

They are just using proved and tested Steam business model. First force it on people, only after make it good. And to their credit origin at launch is immensely better that steam at launch. Never forget that.  

[byne]

demersel wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

demersel wrote...

Origin = money in the long run. No surprise in that. It is called investing.

But they seem to think the best way to make origin more popular is to force it on people, instead of making it, y'know, good.

They are just using proved and tested Steam business model. First force it on people, only after make it good. And to their credit origin at launch is immensely better that steam at launch. Never forget that.  

I have never used either, so I'll take your word for it.

[Uby]

demersel wrote...

byne wrote...

demersel wrote...

- EA is evil, in a sense that it only cares about money.

I will agree that EA sucks, but a corporation that cares only about money is not evil, but is one doing its job for its investors.

I will give you amoral at best.

I'll re-phrase that - can we agree that EA is a corporation, and it cares about money and profit? 

Yep!

[Norlond]

Gabe Newell in an interview with New York Times...

Mr. Newell said that there was a better chance that Valve would
“disintegrate,” its independent-minded workers scattering, than that it
would ever be sold.
“It’s way more likely we would head in that direction than say, ‘Let’s
find some giant company that wants to cash us out and wait two or three
years to have our employment agreements terminate,’ ” he says.

link
He doesn't like the idea of having EA as boss

*edit* hey paxx

Modifié par Norlond, 11 septembre 2012 - 06:49 .

[paxxton]

Hi!

[paxxton]

Uby wrote...

demersel wrote...

byne wrote...

demersel wrote...

- EA is evil, in a sense that it only cares about money.

I will agree that EA sucks, but a corporation that cares only about money is not evil, but is one doing its job for its investors.

I will give you amoral at best.

I'll re-phrase that - can we agree that EA is a corporation, and it cares about money and profit? 

Yep!

But their need for money makes them innovate. Or release new products that are a lot of fun for many people.

Modifié par paxxton, 11 septembre 2012 - 07:01 .

[demersel]

Mass Effect universe, as an ip so has only been all about reapers. his is the heart of the story. It's core theme. You could even argue, that after the reapers are defeated, there is no more story to tell in ME universe, but that is highle debatable, and i not stating that.

All i'm saying that everything that ever happened in the ME universe before ME1 start - it is all just back story. and it is all about leading the universe to one point (you could call it an omega point of sort in relation to fiction) - the defeat over the reapers.

ME3 - is when the reaper war proper starts. And in literal endings it is also where it ends. Once and for all.

No, there are possible stories to be told, and played through, after the reapers are defeated (there can ba a war against leviathans, there can be a struggle to stop the dark matter, whatever, BUT, not after the literal conclusion that we've got in ME3.)

There will be other games in ME universe.
BUT - at the current state of things -

- it cannot be set AFTER ME3, like deus ex 2: invisible war - the decision you made, makes drastic impact on the whole universe, to the point where you could agrue that it just as well might have destroyed it alltogether - that was the reason for the fan outcry. To make a game AFTER me3 literal endings - you'll have to make a separate game for each. (with totally different plots and characters)

- it cannot be set PRIOR to ME3. We already know how everything turned out iin every cycle before ME1 - not well. There is no material for INTERACTIVE entertainment there. You can have books, films, comics, but you cannot have games. - Who would by a game about some prior cycle, featuring creatures we cannot relate to, and plots we cannot care about, since we know that eventually they'll die anyway harvested by the reapers.

- it cannot be set DURING events of ME1, ME2 and ME3 - again same reason - if endings are literal - we already got everything we needed to defeat the reapers in ME3. No need for anything besides that, and the outcome of the events is fixed, so we cannot care about it - no possible INTERACTUAL expirience there - again, just comics, books, films, cartoons (like paragon lost) etc.

The only way ypu cpuld have A GAME in a ME universe, that peolple will pay money for - is for it to be set either during Reaper war, so you can have an impact on how it ends (and with endings being literal it is impossible), or after the reaper war, but the one ended with conventional means and in a difinitife way - not RGB. Both of those need IT to be true.

Since EA and Bioware is a business, and ME a multimillion dollar original intellectual property, that they both would like to make money for them - and thhere is defiinatly are going to be more AAA games in the universe, according to statements by both the EA and Bioware - the RGB endings could not happen for real - after them - no further business, no more money to be made, at least in gaming. - this means the endings are not real, and the IT is already implemented in the game to allow them to continue.

There you go . IT is true, cause there is no possibility of the alternative. )))

Modifié par demersel, 11 septembre 2012 - 07:29 .

[lex0r11]

[MaximizedAction]

demersel wrote...

*sofarok*

- it cannot be set PRIOR to ME3. We already know how everything turned out iin every cycle before ME1 - not well. There is no material for INTERACTIVE entertainment there. You can have books, films, comics, but you cannot have games. - Who would by a game about some prior cycle, featuring creatures we cannot relate to, and plots we cannot care about, since we know that eventually they'll die anyway harvested by the reapers.

...

The only way ypu cpuld have A GAME in a ME universe, that peolple will pay money for - is for it to be set either during Reaper war, so you can have an impact on how it ends (and with endings being literal it is impossible), or after the reaper war, but the one ended with conventional means and in a difinitife way - not RGB. Both of those need IT to be true.

Since EA and Bioware is a business, and ME a multimillion dollar original intellectual property, that they both would like to make money for them - and thhere is defiinatly are going to be more AAA games in the universe, according to statements by both the EA and Bioware - the RGB endings could not happen for real - after them - no further business, no more money to be made, at least in gaming. - this means the endings are not real, and the IT is already implemented in the game to allow them to continue.

...

You are also demanding that future ME games will be in the same level of interactivity as the previous trilogy.

This is not neccessarily the case. They can have the franchise continue in the action-y manner they did in ME3 -- as would be lucrative on its own given the cases of all current FPS games. Like, for example, the First Contact War between turians and humans. That one could even itself offer minor interactive storytelling.

There simply cannot be a proof of IT, only a likelyhood. As has been often enough said, we'd need the word of 'god', which in this case would be Bioware.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 11 septembre 2012 - 07:39 .

[RavenEyry]

I like the suggestions that the first contact war should be a film that are thrown around sometimes, but I don't like the idea of it being a game. Mostly because it was really short and had few major engagements.

[demersel]

MaximizedAction wrote...

You are also demanding that future ME games will be in the same level of interactivity as the previous trilogy.

Not at alll. It can be a shooter, or whatever. But it can't be set during firsts contact war. or whatever. No one will by that.
What would be the point in playing it? To shoot some turians? But everybody likes turians, and know they are really nice guys. 

[Eryri]

demersel wrote...

- it cannot be set AFTER ME3, like deus ex 2: invisible war - the decision you made, makes drastic impact on the whole universe, to the point where you could agrue that it just as well might have destroyed it alltogether - that was the reason for the fan outcry. To make a game AFTER me3 literal endings - you'll have to make a separate game for each. (with totally different plots and characters)

This is very true. This is why I can't understand those who claim to love the endings and resent IT because it may "invalidate their choice". We can never, ever see the consequences of the final choices in any possible sequel.

They're just too divergent. It would be logistically impossible to make a coherent plot to account for all 3.

The only thing they can affect is the colour palette of a 5 minute slide show. The ending choice is essentially the most trivial one in the entire game, because it affects the smallest part of the game. A choice that we can never see the consequences of, is a meaningless choice.

Bioware will have to choose a canon ending to continue the franchise into the future (please God not synthesis!). No one will be interested in prequels - sci-fi has a bad history with prequels (George Lucas I'm looking at you).

Modifié par Eryri, 11 septembre 2012 - 07:44 .

[RavenEyry]

Eryri wrote...
 it may "invalidate their choice".

I really hate that complaint. You can't import a failshep from ME2 to 3 but no one says that 'invalidates' their game.

[Jawsomebob]

IT or conventional victory option would save ME3!!!

[Eryri]

RavenEyry wrote...

Eryri wrote...
 it may "invalidate their choice".

I really hate that complaint. You can't import a failshep from ME2 to 3 but no one says that 'invalidates' their game.

Oh tell me about it. Especially when they complain that IT would make choosing their precious control or synthesis the "loser" endings because Shepard gets indoctrinated. You can "choose" to make Samara the Fire Team leader in the suicide mission. However as I found out to my cost that results in Tali getting a rocket to the face. Heck you can "choose" to use stasis and disruptor ammo on Brutes but it won't get you very far. Some decisions in ME just are bad ones. 

It wouldn't be a game if you were unable to lose. That's what makes winning meaningful.

Modifié par Eryri, 11 septembre 2012 - 08:00 .

[Restrider]

Eryri wrote...


Oh tell me about it. Especially when they complain that IT would make choosing their precious control or synthesis the "loser" endings because Shepard gets indoctrinated. You can "choose" to make Samara the Fire Team leader in the suicide mission. However as I found out to my cost that results in Tali getting a rocket to the face. Heck you can "choose" to use stasis and disruptor ammo on Brutes but it won't get you very far. Some decisions in ME just are bad ones. 

It wouldn't be a game if you were unable to lose. That's what makes winning meaningful.

Ah, I had my share of fun, when I insisted that Grunt should be the Fire Team leader... especially Miranda's reaction was priceless. Sometimes it is fun to play a total failshep in ME2 endmission .

[FFZero]

Eryri wrote...

demersel wrote...

- it cannot be set AFTER ME3, like deus ex 2: invisible war - the decision you made, makes drastic impact on the whole universe, to the point where you could agrue that it just as well might have destroyed it alltogether - that was the reason for the fan outcry. To make a game AFTER me3 literal endings - you'll have to make a separate game for each. (with totally different plots and characters)

This is very true. This is why I can't understand those who claim to love the endings and resent IT because it may "invalidate their choice". We can never, ever see the consequences of the final choices in any possible sequel.

They're just too divergent. It would be logistically impossible to make a coherent plot to account for all 3.

The only thing they can affect is the colour palette of a 5 minute slide show. The ending choice is essentially the most trivial one in the entire game, because it affects the smallest part of the game. A choice that we can never see the consequences of, is a meaningless choice.

Bioware will have to choose a canon ending to continue the franchise into the future (please God not synthesis!). No one will be interested in prequels - sci-fi has a bad history with prequels (George Lucas I'm looking at you).

They also couldn’t use any of the major conflicts from this cycle as a story base, unless they wanted to make a game like Halo Reach, since we already know the conclusion to pretty much every conflict they could use as a story. We know how the Krogan rebellions both start and end, we know how the Rachni wars start and end, we know how the Morning War starts and ends, we know how the first contact wars starts and ends. 

As for conflicts from previous cycles, while they certainly have potential for interesting stories, I don’t think they will really appeal to many people. None of the character we’ve fallen in love with will even exist, the races we’ve grown to like won’t exist. It would be like restarting the ME franchise all over again just with you playing the alien equivalent of Shepard. Also we’d know that everything we did within the game is pointless since we know they get eradicated by the Reapers in the end.

[401 Kill]

RavenEyry wrote...

Eryri wrote...
 it may "invalidate their choice".

I really hate that complaint. You can't import a failshep from ME2 to 3 but no one says that 'invalidates' their game.

The problem is that they think they made the "best choice" when in reality there is only one choice that is correct. (As IT is concerned)

[RavenEyry]

401 Kill wrote...
(As IT is concerned)

Many would argue there's only one 'right' choice at face value too. It's the same one interstingly enough.

[estebanus]

lex0r11 wrote...

Lex0r! Good to see you again!

Actually, I've also got a question for you: Do you know anything about the foreign legion?