6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Isichar]

Modifié par Isichar, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:33 .

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote... 
All the EC did was add pictures, cool sounding narration, kid dialogue, and more flesh getting ripped from Shepard's face.  Shepard can't ask the tough questions, the kid doesn't fully answer questions asked-he answers the questions he wanted to be asked (anyone in PR would say he did an average job of deflection), and so on.

The EC was far from just pictures, narration, Catalyst diaogue, flesh being torn from Shepard, and so on.
e.

How... Wait... What?! Did I miss the something else in EC? Because to me it was just pictures with narrations and Catalyst dialogue. Even Shepard's breath scene was in the original endings anyway. Why would you possibly say that it was something more?

P.S. Oh yes, the good-bye scene, I admit, it was added too. Besides that... I don't know, maybe I had to replay ME3 from start to see the "great value" EC has added to the game?

The EC started with the assault on Cerberus's headquarters.

Yes, I think he was being facetious, saying maybe you need to start from the beginning to understand the value added at the end.   The point being it does nothing to help replayability for many people so it is just a lot of pictures, dialogue, and flesh.  In fact, the other added elements made it seem a bit childish even if they do offer some great tidbits.  The evacuation scene is one.  Great dialogue with an LI, if you have one, but rather contrived.  Harby may not see the Normandy, but he's been trying to shoot the hell out of the people.  And it does nothing to explain how the others got from the FOB or even how they all got to the FOB in the first place. 

The memorial wall scene is great, but other than Liara who could have a connection to Shepard, I'm not sure how everyone became psychic.  They seem positive Anderson is dead, but not Shepard in Destroy.  Well, why are they so positive Shepard is dead then in the other endings.  Again, I understand it for Liara, but for anyone else? 

[Ozida]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...
Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

It's interesting that you mentioned the base, though. It all starts coming back to me now, as I remember that I was expecting more changes after I started playing at Cerberus base. I did not see any difference and was worried if my EC was installed correctly. Then I got extended dialogue and pictures at the end, so my EC was there. Maybe it was because I was playing for full-Paragone Shep?  So, hm, back to my original statement, it was kind of just dialogues and pictures for me, sorry.

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

Wait a second here.  If you have no idea what the EC shows then how can you even attempt to talk about it?  If you started at the beam you didn't have the EC effects added in.  You have to start before Cerberus base for the EC to kick in.

[Isichar]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

Wait a second here.  If you have no idea what the EC shows then how can you even attempt to talk about it?  If you started at the beam you didn't have the EC effects added in.  You have to start before Cerberus base for the EC to kick in.

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes, I think he was being facetious, saying maybe you need to start from the beginning to understand the value added at the end.   The point being it does nothing to help replayability for many people so it is just a lot of pictures, dialogue, and flesh.  In fact, the other added elements made it seem a bit childish even if they do offer some great tidbits.  The evacuation scene is one.  Great dialogue with an LI, if you have one, but rather contrived.  Harby may not see the Normandy, but he's been trying to shoot the hell out of the people.  And it does nothing to explain how the others got from the FOB or even how they all got to the FOB in the first place. 

The memorial wall scene is great, but other than Liara who could have a connection to Shepard, I'm not sure how everyone became psychic.  They seem positive Anderson is dead, but not Shepard in Destroy.  Well, why are they so positive Shepard is dead then in the other endings.  Again, I understand it for Liara, but for anyone else?

The EC does start withextra content at the assault on Cerberus's headquarters.  Replayability is the same in ME3 as much as it was in ME1 and ME2 by either playing your character over again or choose another character.

Traynor did well at the end but who did well or bad is still a matter of opinion.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Wait a second here.  If you have no idea what the EC shows then how can you even attempt to talk about it?  If you started at the beam you didn't have the EC effects added in.  You have to start before Cerberus base for the EC to kick in.

Bioware announced enough times that the EC started at the assault on Cerberus's headquarters and they have no reson to lie. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:45 .

[Blueprotoss]

Ozida wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...
Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

It's interesting that you mentioned the base, though. It all starts coming back to me now, as I remember that I was expecting more changes after I started playing at Cerberus base. I did not see any difference and was worried if my EC was installed correctly. Then I got extended dialogue and pictures at the end, so my EC was there. Maybe it was because I was playing for full-Paragone Shep?  So, hm, back to my original statement, it was kind of just dialogues and pictures for me, sorry.

No problem.

[3DandBeyond]

Ozida wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...
Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

It's interesting that you mentioned the base, though. It all starts coming back to me now, as I remember that I was expecting more changes after I started playing at Cerberus base. I did not see any difference and was worried if my EC was installed correctly. Then I got extended dialogue and pictures at the end, so my EC was there. Maybe it was because I was playing for full-Paragone Shep?  So, hm, back to my original statement, it was kind of just dialogues and pictures for me, sorry.

Yes, it's the point that the EC did add some decorative items-the focus for many was the endings.  London was mainly a lost cause, but with more money I'd start the change there and go for real change.  With unlimited money I'd start the game over again.  I would.  I'd say it needs to be at least 2 games without MP content on disk.  I'd split it up and make it about the realization the reapers are coming-that more in the galaxy begin to see the threat as real and start asking what to do to prepare.  Then, it would be a preparation for war and then end with the invasion and some losses and victories against reapers (not just variants, but reapers).  I'd then create the second game to be about the fight and the first game could have introduced the need to find out why the reapers are here.  So, in the second game there could be many prongs in the attempt to get rid of the reapers.  Understanding them would be more important if it would stop them.

However, the EC was mostly directed at the endings and other than adding refuse, it mostly is decorative material.  Casey Hudson said it would not fundamentally change anything and on that he was right.

[Blueprotoss]

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:47 .

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes, I think he was being facetious, saying maybe you need to start from the beginning to understand the value added at the end.   The point being it does nothing to help replayability for many people so it is just a lot of pictures, dialogue, and flesh.  In fact, the other added elements made it seem a bit childish even if they do offer some great tidbits.  The evacuation scene is one.  Great dialogue with an LI, if you have one, but rather contrived.  Harby may not see the Normandy, but he's been trying to shoot the hell out of the people.  And it does nothing to explain how the others got from the FOB or even how they all got to the FOB in the first place. 

The memorial wall scene is great, but other than Liara who could have a connection to Shepard, I'm not sure how everyone became psychic.  They seem positive Anderson is dead, but not Shepard in Destroy.  Well, why are they so positive Shepard is dead then in the other endings.  Again, I understand it for Liara, but for anyone else?

The EC does start withextra content at the assault on Cerberus's headquarters.  Replayability is the same in ME3 as much as it was in ME1 and ME2 by either playing your character over again or choose another character.

Traynor did well at the end but who did well or bad is still a matter of opinion.

Ok, you make no sense at all.  There was no extra content at Cerberus, but even so you said you started at the beam so you are contradicting yourself.  You must think this is funny, but it really makes you look pretty foolish.  You were asked what added content there was at Cerberus and said you really didn't know, but now you know what does not exist and you never played or saw?  Yeah, this is funny, but not in the way you think.

[MegaSovereign]

Wasn't the EC based off of the massive pre-EC ME3 survey?

IIRC the most voted problems were the Mass Relays blowing up, the fleets starving at Sol, and the Normandy being stranded. The EC addressed those issues.

[Isichar]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

Theres no discussion going on with you. Just people talking about how they viewed the situation and you bashing them without reason.

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...
Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

It's interesting that you mentioned the base, though. It all starts coming back to me now, as I remember that I was expecting more changes after I started playing at Cerberus base. I did not see any difference and was worried if my EC was installed correctly. Then I got extended dialogue and pictures at the end, so my EC was there. Maybe it was because I was playing for full-Paragone Shep?  So, hm, back to my original statement, it was kind of just dialogues and pictures for me, sorry.

Yes, it's the point that the EC did add some decorative items-the focus for many was the endings.  London was mainly a lost cause, but with more money I'd start the change there and go for real change.  With unlimited money I'd start the game over again.  I would.  I'd say it needs to be at least 2 games without MP content on disk.  I'd split it up and make it about the realization the reapers are coming-that more in the galaxy begin to see the threat as real and start asking what to do to prepare.  Then, it would be a preparation for war and then end with the invasion and some losses and victories against reapers (not just variants, but reapers).  I'd then create the second game to be about the fight and the first game could have introduced the need to find out why the reapers are here.  So, in the second game there could be many prongs in the attempt to get rid of the reapers.  Understanding them would be more important if it would stop them.

However, the EC was mostly directed at the endings and other than adding refuse, it mostly is decorative material.  Casey Hudson said it would not fundamentally change anything and on that he was right.

To be fair if ME3 was remade then ME would have to be remade if that happened and London was always a lost before, during, and after the EC.  

Casey isn't the Lead Writer and the Lead Director still has to follow a chain of command because its far from the highest authority.

[sdinc009]

The "Cleansing Fire" argument is BS. For starters, fire lacks sentients and a will of its own. IT is a thermal reaction on dead plant matter created from overgrowth triggered by sun light being magnified off of the atmosphere. The Reapers are sentient and intelligent being, though I use that term very loosely when refering to Glow boy. His IQ exists in the "needs to wear a helmet 24/7" spectrum of the Intelligence Quotient ratings. Furthermore, the current state of the Galaxy is not in an overgrown state or technologically stagnant. This kind of argument might be viable if placed in a dystopic setting, but this is not the case in ME 3. All this argument does is deflect guilt from Starboy by stating, "We're a Cleansing Fire so we're not killing everyone even though we are killing everyone, but not really so it's ok". Wait... WHAT!? The fact is that this is a Strawman argument. The Reapers and Mr. Glowy Dumb-Dumb are not comparible to a cleansing fire and they are, in fact, killing people on a galactic scale. There is nothing good or justifiable in what they are doing in any way of thinking. They are the problem not the solution. Basically, Sparkles is everything that is wrong with the ending and simply retconning that SOB out of existence fixs almost everything that is wrong with the ending. It is a useless character with flawed "logic" and a trite backstory. It doesn't need to exist and shoudn't

[Blueprotoss]

Isichar wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

Theres no discussion going on with you. Just people talking about how they viewed the situation and you bashing them without reason.

If there was no discussion then I wouldn't be here and its ironic when you're currently the only one that insults me and I love how you aren't on topic.

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

You're hoping someone will insult you.  On other forums you'd be banned for this.  You say one thing and someone tries to discuss it and then say something contradictory to get people started and you are trying to inflame.  It's obvious.  You do it in every thread you visit.  You rely on no one paying attention to this behavior. 

The point isn't about whether or not you've seen what you say you haven't seen or anything else.

I'd prefer at least one ending that made real sense for a lot of people and that didn't require that they force their Shepard to go against the way they played Shepard.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

You're hoping someone will insult you.  On other forums you'd be banned for this.  You say one thing and someone tries to discuss it and then say something contradictory to get people started and you are trying to inflame.  It's obvious.  You do it in every thread you visit.  You rely on no one paying attention to this behavior. 

The point isn't about whether or not you've seen what you say you haven't seen or anything else.

I'd prefer at least one ending that made real sense for a lot of people and that didn't require that they force their Shepard to go against the way they played Shepard.

Let's cut to the chase: why engage him at all? Based on his posting history, he's either an idiot or a troll and in either case, no productive discussion will be had.

[Archonsg]

I have.
Replayed before we hit Ceberus' base.

Only "major" thing I noticed was that the recovered human Reaper larvae is now all shot to hell. If you gave the base to TIM, that same larvae is more or less intact.
It was originally "intact" regardless of whether or not you destroyed the Collector's base.

That's about it.
Oh, and slight differences when Sword Fleet hits earth.

No dino riding krogans, no geth primes giving covering fire for quarian engineers, no vorchas rampaging against husks.
Just minor cosmetic changes.

I wished I kept that link that showed the leaked footage of Sword Fleet's arrival (was on youtube ... about a few weeks / a month before ME3 was released) since it had parts CUT from it, that later became part of the EC.

In any case, please Bioware, optional DLCs that the original writing team came up with, not Hudson and Walter's nihilistic "artistic vision"?
We' ll pay. :happy:

Modifié par Archonsg, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:55 .

[Isichar]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

Theres no discussion going on with you. Just people talking about how they viewed the situation and you bashing them without reason.

If there was no discussion then I wouldn't be here and its ironic when you're currently the only one that insults me and I love how you aren't on topic.

Just doing you a favor and showing you the error of your logic (or rather lack of...), no need to thank me.

and saying "your wrong" over and over again without backing it up may qualify as a discussion where you come from, but here we call that trolling.

Modifié par Isichar, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:57 .

[Archonsg]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

You're hoping someone will insult you.  On other forums you'd be banned for this.  You say one thing and someone tries to discuss it and then say something contradictory to get people started and you are trying to inflame.  It's obvious.  You do it in every thread you visit.  You rely on no one paying attention to this behavior. 

The point isn't about whether or not you've seen what you say you haven't seen or anything else.

I'd prefer at least one ending that made real sense for a lot of people and that didn't require that they force their Shepard to go against the way they played Shepard.

Let's cut to the chase: why engage him at all? Based on his posting history, he's either an idiot or a troll and in either case, no productive discussion will be had.

3D's a patitent grandma. 

You should see her and "Bubbles" 

20 (or so I think) pages of her explaining why Synthesis is a bad joke and a failed attempt that tried to foster the "sacrificial messiah" (think of Jesus, as an example) theme but fails because Shepard's death wasn't a sacrifce in any of the three "choices". 

[sdinc009]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

That's fine, but I can since I did start from before the Cerberus base. In fact I waited till the EC DLC to go through my Nightmare difficulty run. And the answer is "NO" there are no changes at the Cerberus base. The only time any differences, even on the minute level, begins is during the Victory fleet arrival cinematic seems like it has maybe a few extra scenes.

[Isichar]

Archonsg wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Isichar wrote...

One might even say he is arguing for the sake of arguing

How is that when the basis of arguing is the same as debating and discussing, which means you're actually complimenting me,  Either way I'm not  someone that insults people.

You're hoping someone will insult you.  On other forums you'd be banned for this.  You say one thing and someone tries to discuss it and then say something contradictory to get people started and you are trying to inflame.  It's obvious.  You do it in every thread you visit.  You rely on no one paying attention to this behavior. 

The point isn't about whether or not you've seen what you say you haven't seen or anything else.

I'd prefer at least one ending that made real sense for a lot of people and that didn't require that they force their Shepard to go against the way they played Shepard.

Let's cut to the chase: why engage him at all? Based on his posting history, he's either an idiot or a troll and in either case, no productive discussion will be had.

3D's a patitent grandma. 

You should see her and "Bubbles" 

20 (or so I think) pages of her explaining why Synthesis is a bad joke and a failed attempt that tried to foster the "sacrificial messiah" (think of Jesus, as an example) theme but fails because Shepard's death wasn't a sacrifce in any of the three "choices". 

Which is why it is painful to see her well thought out responses go towards idiocy like "Your wrong and your contradicting yourself"

[3DandBeyond]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wasn't the EC based off of the massive pre-EC ME3 survey?

IIRC the most voted problems were the Mass Relays blowing up, the fleets starving at Sol, and the Normandy being stranded. The EC addressed those issues.

Not according to BW and panel discussions.  And not according to them pre-EC.  They created stickied threads for registered owners to voice concerns and suggestions and comments.  They stated that they used this feedback as well, but also said (implying that this was most of what they read as feedback) that if people didn't explain what they didn't like that they had no way to know what was wrong.  900 plus pages in one stickied thread that they created contained exhaustive explanations of what people thought was wrong.  Within those threads the relays were a part of it, as was the Normandy stranded and Joker running away thing. 

However, they started to retcon the relays on twitter and in the EC announcement they stated they didn't know how anyone could have even thought the galaxy was destroyed at the end of the original endings since they hadn't intended that to be so.  Well, if they had indeed been listening they would have known that people thought that because they said that in at least 2 places in the game and Mac Walters said it in a Feb. interview.  So, they addressed it, but didn't even really fix it.  Look at the Charon relay.  It's a mess.  Read the Desperate Measures codex.  Tell me that the Sol system still would not be screwed in the destroy ending.

The relays were a part of it, but by and large the biggest complaint was about the kid and having an ending based not on the major previous choices and things done in the game, but in an artificial choice tree set up at the end of the game-choices that everyone gets.  People rail against canon anything-well, 3 choices are canon.  1 non-choice that's canon.  Variation is only as to renegade (attitude slides and narration) and how many you get with the EMS you have.  And nothing fundamentally changes at the core what is wrong with the kid or the choices.  That was by far a much bigger issue than the relays alone.  Everything that happened after making a choice was all part of being forced into this funnel at the end.

Again, it's like watching a sporting event where your team and the other team are tied up and in the last few seconds of the game, all play stops and your team captain is offered 3 choices by the other team's captain-and each of them decides exactly how much the opposing team will win by.

The game is so contradictory and that has not been fixed - once I hit 3100 EMS I'm told my chances of winning are even-I'm also told by Hackett that we can win this thing and I'm told on my that my forces are winning in key locations.  But I can't win this thing.  The best I can hope to do is to kill people who are trying to help fight against these things and ensure that future conflict between organics and synthetics will occur-future synthetics will know that the geth were killed to save organics.  Or, I can damn the galaxy with some other flavor of reaper intervention for the foreseeable future-internally or externally.  That doesn't smell like victory with a whole lot of costs to me.

[pgcis136]

Direct intervention required, assuming direct control of this thread!
Your discussion is irrelivant, like dust before a cosmic wind.
The outcome is already decided, Bioware must reap a bitter harvest.
There will be no accension, only annilation.
They will fail, we will find another way.
Releasing control of this thread!

[Ozida]

sdinc009 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Hm, I must be really not paying attention then. I do not remember any drastic changes at Cerbers' base when I was re-playing it. Can you please give a quick summary of differences?

Thats okay, but I can't personally talk about the Cerberus base since I just started at the beam.

That's fine, but I can since I did start from before the Cerberus base. In fact I waited till the EC DLC to go through my Nightmare difficulty run. And the answer is "NO" there are no changes at the Cerberus base. The only time any differences, even on the minute level, begins is during the Victory fleet arrival cinematic seems like it has maybe a few extra scenes.

Are you serious? I though I was the only one who miseed "the changes" at base for some reason.
Ah, yes, "the changes" ...