269 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EMS almost needed to be incorporated into some sort of Turn-based Strategy mini-game you played on the Galaxy map between main quests (yes I said quests - this is an RPG dammit! Or, at least, it's supposed to be...), where you would collect, produce, and deploy units to defend areas being attacked, your goal being to keep vital systems under control (Thessia and Earth fall completely, but you might be required to hold, say, Tuchanka, which would end up being your main source of troops - you lose it, you start losing territory FAST) and keeping the Reapers, above all, away from the Crucible. The more EMS you have, the easier it is to hold them back.

Also think the Battle of Earth should have been some sort of RTS mini game with the war assets you'd managed to acquire, where you have to command them around. A break from the standard gameplay? Sure. But a war on this massive a scale begs for this, and variety never hurt anyone.

See, this or the "suicide mission on steroids" thing would have made a lot of sense.  think about it: we are put essentially in the position of supreme allied commander here, but Shepard never does anything with that authority, never makes any tactical decisions.  This should have been what the suicide mission was prepping him/her for.  Being a proper military leader.  "you might make a good general some day" as Septimus once said.  All that sort of thing.

That's an issue with priority earth not ems.

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

"been well been countered "

No they bloody have not, and learn to use basic gramar.

I missed a word. So what? My point is the your points already been countered.

No, they have not, I've offered counter-points to all legitimate rebuttals, and the only other counters I've seen have been blatant straw-manning of my points.  For instance turning "I can see why they would be tempted to use it" into "I know exactly why they did it, this is why, and I am right.".

Leave.

The point don't counter anything.
Your still not seeing that you complints don't have anything to do with ems but the value of resources, which is nothing more then argueing why one gun is better then another. I was down this way as a issue of balancing...Nothing more. Arguing on this point is just a nick pick.

Your secound point is an exploration issue not ems.
Your third point is an issues of priority earth and seeing them and not seeing make no difference.
Your last point is an issue the you not get the fact that the system is also based on past choices in which you don't know what the value of will be later on.

How can action you do in past game becoming a value toward defeating the reapers mean the ME3 is only focus to it's own conclusion instead of the entire series when the series story is about stopping the reapers from day one? 

Read very, very carefully, and learn to speak english.

The first problem IS an EMS problem, it is a problem with the very concept of a single universal "currencey" of strength, it makes no sense.

The second point is likewise a problem with EMS, as it forces such trivial and arbitrary actions to take place.

And I have already stated why this is a problem, and why it makes choices inconsequencial, re-read my points to see why.

READ, do not just post "yer whinin!"  and "yer jus a hater!" multiple times.  Do not say "your points aren't relevant" without stating a proper reason why.  And just saying "they don't matter" isn't a proper reason.

If you can do none of those things, then you have nothing to contribute, and should get out.

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EMS almost needed to be incorporated into some sort of Turn-based Strategy mini-game you played on the Galaxy map between main quests (yes I said quests - this is an RPG dammit! Or, at least, it's supposed to be...), where you would collect, produce, and deploy units to defend areas being attacked, your goal being to keep vital systems under control (Thessia and Earth fall completely, but you might be required to hold, say, Tuchanka, which would end up being your main source of troops - you lose it, you start losing territory FAST) and keeping the Reapers, above all, away from the Crucible. The more EMS you have, the easier it is to hold them back.

Also think the Battle of Earth should have been some sort of RTS mini game with the war assets you'd managed to acquire, where you have to command them around. A break from the standard gameplay? Sure. But a war on this massive a scale begs for this, and variety never hurt anyone.

See, this or the "suicide mission on steroids" thing would have made a lot of sense.  think about it: we are put essentially in the position of supreme allied commander here, but Shepard never does anything with that authority, never makes any tactical decisions.  This should have been what the suicide mission was prepping him/her for.  Being a proper military leader.  "you might make a good general some day" as Septimus once said.  All that sort of thing.

That's an issue with priority earth not ems.

You won't adress any problems with EMS, so I don't see why it matters to you, LEAVE.

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

If every road you take leads you to the same spot, what's the point in replaying, but if each road takes you someplace different it gives the game depth and replayability.

Yep. The way ME1 is unreplayable because whatever you do, you end up in the same place. Oh, wait....

Same consept of ME2 as well.

A) I didn't say it's unreplayable, I said it ruins replayability and it does. You play through 2, maybe 3 times, and you've basically done and seen everything while getting the same ending.
ME2 is a lot more replayable than either ME1 or ME3 because you can not recruit some squad members, you can not do loyalty mission, and you can purposely get people killed. While the ending is pretty much the same, there is only one perfect ending, something only ME2 did.

ME1 - linear
ME2 - mostly linear with variations
ME3 - linear with the only differences being the choices and they're pretty much the same...

As I said before...
Nothing you did mattered? So what happens in Low ems is exactly the same thing as what happens in High ems?

Add, how is it a system the lets you do less work to build it's meter based on importing from past games favoring new players? 

Also to add. Play tuchancka with out the genophage cure, the coup with out Thane and rannoch with out legion or tali....Big differance.

I have. And there's zero difference.
On Tuchanka, Mordin is replaced by Not-Mordin, and Wrex is replaced by Evil Wrex. All these characters do exactly what the originals dd with a few changes in dialogue.
Thane's death on the Suicide Mission is far more noble than the crap ME3 railroads him into. His absence in the coup actually works better.
On Rannoch, Legion is replaced by Not-Legion. Tali's absence is about the only noticeable thing. And even if I'm forced to kill one of these races, my N7 troops from mulitplayer are worth 10 times either of them.

1. Wreav gives a differnt tone to the events. Wrex attatude gets the player to what to help him. His brother does not and his action gets the player to second guess helping him. Added, having a tuchanaka mission with out the genophaghe cure gets Eve killed. All this changes the tone of the story line and variable leading to what the players decides to do. AKA, CHANGES THE TONE. AKA, DIFFERANCE. Heck, having both Wrex and Eve died allows the player to save Mordin.

2.And Thane death in ME3 is nobler...You just don't like how he died. That does not make it a worse death becasue you don't like it.

1. The tone changing is handled very well. But there are zero consequences to helping Wreave as opposed to Wrex. Hell, even if I cure the genophage with Eve dead and Wreave in charge, the EC tells me everything worked out for the Krogan exactly as it did under Wrex. What?!
2. In ME2 Thane dies to stop the Collectors. In ME3, Thane dies because the writers have no idea what to do with him, and they need to have Kai Leng kill someone so we think he's a badass (which he is the total opposite of).

1. The endings with Wreav and no Eve have the krogans go to war with the galexy agein.
2.Thane tells you at the first time you meet him He is die of a terminal illness. He did not die because the writers did not know what to do with him. Having him die was the plan all along.

Added, how is Thane dieing by bees, burning by explotion or lazer, support beams through chest, randon rock to the face , or overwhelmed by gun fire more noble then him using his last breath the pray for Shepards safety?

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EMS almost needed to be incorporated into some sort of Turn-based Strategy mini-game you played on the Galaxy map between main quests (yes I said quests - this is an RPG dammit! Or, at least, it's supposed to be...), where you would collect, produce, and deploy units to defend areas being attacked, your goal being to keep vital systems under control (Thessia and Earth fall completely, but you might be required to hold, say, Tuchanka, which would end up being your main source of troops - you lose it, you start losing territory FAST) and keeping the Reapers, above all, away from the Crucible. The more EMS you have, the easier it is to hold them back.

Also think the Battle of Earth should have been some sort of RTS mini game with the war assets you'd managed to acquire, where you have to command them around. A break from the standard gameplay? Sure. But a war on this massive a scale begs for this, and variety never hurt anyone.

See, this or the "suicide mission on steroids" thing would have made a lot of sense.  think about it: we are put essentially in the position of supreme allied commander here, but Shepard never does anything with that authority, never makes any tactical decisions.  This should have been what the suicide mission was prepping him/her for.  Being a proper military leader.  "you might make a good general some day" as Septimus once said.  All that sort of thing.

That's an issue with priority earth not ems.

You won't adress any problems with EMS, so I don't see why it matters to you, LEAVE.

I already did, 3 times.
None of yout problem direct ems out side of the value of resources and that is just something like arguing why one gun is better then another. This happened because BW had to set up a way to balace the system, like any points base system.
It's a nickpick.

[The Night Mammoth]

It's like I'm in Egypt.

[MegaSovereign]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It's like I'm in Egypt.

Took me a while but I got it.

lol.

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EMS almost needed to be incorporated into some sort of Turn-based Strategy mini-game you played on the Galaxy map between main quests (yes I said quests - this is an RPG dammit! Or, at least, it's supposed to be...), where you would collect, produce, and deploy units to defend areas being attacked, your goal being to keep vital systems under control (Thessia and Earth fall completely, but you might be required to hold, say, Tuchanka, which would end up being your main source of troops - you lose it, you start losing territory FAST) and keeping the Reapers, above all, away from the Crucible. The more EMS you have, the easier it is to hold them back.

Also think the Battle of Earth should have been some sort of RTS mini game with the war assets you'd managed to acquire, where you have to command them around. A break from the standard gameplay? Sure. But a war on this massive a scale begs for this, and variety never hurt anyone.

See, this or the "suicide mission on steroids" thing would have made a lot of sense.  think about it: we are put essentially in the position of supreme allied commander here, but Shepard never does anything with that authority, never makes any tactical decisions.  This should have been what the suicide mission was prepping him/her for.  Being a proper military leader.  "you might make a good general some day" as Septimus once said.  All that sort of thing.

That's an issue with priority earth not ems.

You won't adress any problems with EMS, so I don't see why it matters to you, LEAVE.

I already did, 3 times.
None of yout problem direct ems out side of the value of resources and that is just something like arguing why one gun is better then another. This happened because BW had to set up a way to balace the system, like any points base system.
It's a nickpick.

READ THE BLOODY POSTS!

They list how and why they are issues with the overall system of EMS. 

You seem obcessed with your idiotic analogy, which doesn't even work.

LEAVE, you have no interest in actual dialogue, so you have nothing to contribute.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And off the rails it goes... *sigh*

You points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week?

... What?

ENGLISH!  Do you speak it?

I'll repeat..
Your points been well been countered so ofcouse the topic gone off the rails. What do you expect to happen to one your off base soapbox topic of the week? 

What hard to understand about that? That means your points are baseless.

"been well been countered "

No they bloody have not, and learn to use basic gramar.

I missed a word. So what? My point is the your points already been countered.

No, they have not, I've offered counter-points to all legitimate rebuttals, and the only other counters I've seen have been blatant straw-manning of my points.  For instance turning "I can see why they would be tempted to use it" into "I know exactly why they did it, this is why, and I am right.".

Leave.

The point don't counter anything.
Your still not seeing that you complints don't have anything to do with ems but the value of resources, which is nothing more then argueing why one gun is better then another. I was down this way as a issue of balancing...Nothing more. Arguing on this point is just a nick pick.

Your secound point is an exploration issue not ems.
Your third point is an issues of priority earth and seeing them and not seeing make no difference.
Your last point is an issue the you not get the fact that the system is also based on past choices in which you don't know what the value of will be later on.

How can action you do in past game becoming a value toward defeating the reapers mean the ME3 is only focus to it's own conclusion instead of the entire series when the series story is about stopping the reapers from day one? 

Read very, very carefully, and learn to speak english.

The first problem IS an EMS problem, it is a problem with the very concept of a single universal "currencey" of strength, it makes no sense.

The second point is likewise a problem with EMS, as it forces such trivial and arbitrary actions to take place.

And I have already stated why this is a problem, and why it makes choices inconsequencial, re-read my points to see why.

READ, do not just post "yer whinin!"  and "yer jus a hater!" multiple times.  Do not say "your points aren't relevant" without stating a proper reason why.  And just saying "they don't matter" isn't a proper reason.

If you can do none of those things, then you have nothing to contribute, and should get out.

The just an issue of numbers. It like that way because bw had to balanced the system. Your argument is not differnt then why one level up did not give you as much points as another.

And no the second poitn is not an ems problem ether. It's exploration, nothing more.

And based on what you stated before...
"
As for the last two, well no, that IS NOT part of the ending.  It's part of the ending in the same way that the story of how I earned 5 dollars is relevant to me buying an icecream sandwitch with those 5 dollars.  5 other dollars would have done the job as well, and the original story is rendered inconsequencial. "

How do you not get that bw want s the player to have more then one way to get to their goal? The entire point of the ems system was for the player not to have to play the game one way to get to there goal or best ending.
This has been done bofore in there other games as well.

BG2 had the player get a certin ammount of money before moving on with the story and the player did not have a set in stone way to get it.
DA:O has the player have many ways to build an army and was not set in stone to get the elfd, droves, mages, and redcliff.

Your argument is that you can get the $5 in any way so whats the point. The point is the dev what you to have many ways to get that $5 in a game series the you can play more than once and see differnt out comes. They don't want you to get $5 one way, they want you to see all the ways you can get that $5.

[LucasShark]

And I quote:
"The just an issue of numbers. It like that way because bw had to balanced the system. "

Stopped reading, you are missing the point, and are incapable of the simple tasks I set out for you.

One of the many points you continue to consistantly miss is thisP: the numbers are fairly inconsequencial in and of themselves.  The problem you don't seem to understand is that converting all choices into a universally exchangable power currencey makes them in and of themselves, interchangable, and therefore individually meaningless.

Modifié par LucasShark, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:43 .

[Foolsfolly]

LucasShark wrote...

That's going to be a bit of a controvercial title, but honestly how else do you keep something on these boards, and it's more or less the case in my eyes.  Hear me out here:

On paper, EMS seems like a good way of tieing in all the disparet plot threads of ME1 and ME2 into a single system.  By assigning what amount to scores to each choice, the game simplifies requirements for the victory conditions.  This does however, introduce problems which ME3 doesn't really adress.

The first is mechanical in nature: what exactly IS 1 unit of EMS?  This makes no sense, it is comparing actual hardware, to troops, to scientists, to reporters.  All of these things do work toward a total war style of strategy, but they aren't comperable on a uni-linier scale.  How for instance is one reporter worth 1/15th of an N7 operative?  And so forth.  It's not just comparing apples to oranges here, it's comparing apples, to goldfish, to spanners, to pocket-change.

The second problem is one of choices versus problems: giving a choice a score, makes it not a choice.  This is going to sound weird to some but hold on, I'll explain.  A choice and a problem sound simmilar, but are very different things.  You know when you chose what colour Shepard's hair was?  That was a choice.  You know when you chose whether to let Balek live, or sacrafice the colony to chase him in bring down the sky?  That was a good example of a choice.  Yes, one is the paragon, one is the renegade, but it was a choice.  There wasn't really (maybe in some loot) an objectively better choice.  When it comes to EMS, we suddenly turn most things into problems, at least as far as the game is concerned.  If a choice yeilds two different EMS scores, the technically (again, only mechanically) the "right" one is the one which yields the higher score.  It's like choosing gear in Diablo, does this raise my DPS?  Yes: equip, no: sell or recover crafting materials.

The third problem is one of contrivance: aka, the scavenger hunts we get sent on in leu of sidequests.  Scanning the galaxy not only has a risk now, but has no real reward of on-foot missions.  Rather the game has to contrive reasons to have EMS note-worthy things just laying about on planets somewhere.  Possibly the most hillarious incodent of this was a bloody alliance dreadnought just kind of sitting out there.  "hey fellas!  You found me!  I guess I'll join the fight."  How many dreadnoughts were there in the Alliance Navy again?  Less than a dozen!  I'd imagine those were kept track of.

The last, and biggest problem for ME3's ending, is that it divorces these sub plots from the overall plot, and most importantly, its resolution.  There's a reason we don't see our war assets in action: they are at this point, only a number.  The only way the ending really could include EMS is with a mono-linier "good" to "bad" result, with arbitrary numbers marking each.  By choosing this model over a "suicide mission style" ending, ME3 effectively made a lot of our choices meaningless in its own conclusion.  In this respect, the ending was no longer a culmination of all our choices up to that point (what was promised by the way), but down to us at the last minute, Fable II style.  This was not what we were promised.

It's down to this fact; that ME3 effectively produces a conclusion to its own story rather than to the ME story, which is a major contributer in my mind to the backlash.

I totally agree with this post.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

And I quote:
"The just an issue of numbers. It like that way because bw had to balanced the system. "

Stopped reading, you are missing the point, and are incapable of the simple tasks I set out for you.

One of the many points you continue to consistantly miss is thisP: the numbers are fairly inconsequencial in and of themselves.  The problem you don't seem to understand is that converting all choices into a universally exchangable power currencey makes them in and of themselves, interchangable, and therefore individually meaningless.

As I said before , arguing over it is nothing more then arguing over why one set of gear has more stats then another. It's just a game play device. All that matter is it  the end result is not off balance.

It matters not why what the value one thing is to another, as long as it does not disadvatage or over power the player.
Think of like any currency systhem in an rpg. If you get too much coin it becoames meaningless, if you get too little you can keep up with the gear you need to beat the game. 
All that matter is if it's balanced.
You only have a base to argue if the end results is off balanced.

As for the rest of my points, read it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And I quote:
"The just an issue of numbers. It like that way because bw had to balanced the system. "

Stopped reading, you are missing the point, and are incapable of the simple tasks I set out for you.

One of the many points you continue to consistantly miss is thisP: the numbers are fairly inconsequencial in and of themselves.  The problem you don't seem to understand is that converting all choices into a universally exchangable power currencey makes them in and of themselves, interchangable, and therefore individually meaningless.

As I said before , arguing over it is nothing more then arguing over why one set of gear has more stats then another. It's just a game play device. All that matter is it  the end result is not off balance.

It matters not why what the value one thing is to another, as long as it does not disadvatage or over power the player.
Think of like any currency systhem in an rpg. If you get too much coin it becoames meaningless, if you get too little you can keep up with the gear you need to beat the game. 
All that matter is if it's balanced.
You only have a base to argue if the end results is off balanced.

As for the rest of my points read it.

AND YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!

You are missing the point by the first line.

The problem is that it is like comparing gear, see my point on problems versus choices.  These should not be treated this way.  These are story elements, not add-onds for a gun, or other guns.  They are choices which you made which were supposed to have a direct effect upon the conclusion.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And I quote:
"The just an issue of numbers. It like that way because bw had to balanced the system. "

Stopped reading, you are missing the point, and are incapable of the simple tasks I set out for you.

One of the many points you continue to consistantly miss is thisP: the numbers are fairly inconsequencial in and of themselves.  The problem you don't seem to understand is that converting all choices into a universally exchangable power currencey makes them in and of themselves, interchangable, and therefore individually meaningless.

As I said before , arguing over it is nothing more then arguing over why one set of gear has more stats then another. It's just a game play device. All that matter is it  the end result is not off balance.

It matters not why what the value one thing is to another, as long as it does not disadvatage or over power the player.
Think of like any currency systhem in an rpg. If you get too much coin it becoames meaningless, if you get too little you can keep up with the gear you need to beat the game. 
All that matter is if it's balanced.
You only have a base to argue if the end results is off balanced.

As for the rest of my points read it.

AND YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!

You are missing the point by the first line.

The problem is that it is like comparing gear, see my point on problems versus choices.  These should not be treated this way.  These are story elements, not add-onds for a gun, or other guns.  They are choices which you made which were supposed to have a direct effect upon the conclusion.

That why you need to read the rest of my post before....It explain this aswell. This does not counter choice.In fact it opens it up.
I'll post it agien...

And based on what you stated before...
"
[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">As for the last two, well no, that IS ] "[/color]

How do you not get that bw want s the player to have more then one way to get to their goal? The entire point of the ems system was for the player not to have to play the game one way to get to there goal or best ending.
This has been done bofore in there other games as well.

BG2 had the player get a certin ammount of money before moving on with the story and the player did not have a set in stone way to get it.
DA:O has the player have many ways to build an army and was not set in stone to get the elfd, droves, mages, and redcliff.

Your argument is that you can get the $5 in any way so whats the point. The point is the dev what you to have many ways to get that $5 in a game series the you can play more than once and see differnt out comes. They don't want you to get $5 one way, they want you to see all the ways you can get that $5.

....
On point locking it to where you get the most ems one way narrows choice. BW has a system that lets the player have more then one way to get ems so the the player has more choice to how to get it. It does not dicounter what choice you did before.
Why? Because you do less work to get ems based on what you did. Of others they have other ways to get it but the have more work to do to get it and it's still up to them to do the work. This allows the player to see more outcome doing differnt things. This encorage the player to do differnt things.

In short, you looking at it like a player that plays the game one way.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:05 .

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And I quote:
"The just an issue of numbers. It like that way because bw had to balanced the system. "

Stopped reading, you are missing the point, and are incapable of the simple tasks I set out for you.

One of the many points you continue to consistantly miss is thisP: the numbers are fairly inconsequencial in and of themselves.  The problem you don't seem to understand is that converting all choices into a universally exchangable power currencey makes them in and of themselves, interchangable, and therefore individually meaningless.

As I said before , arguing over it is nothing more then arguing over why one set of gear has more stats then another. It's just a game play device. All that matter is it  the end result is not off balance.

It matters not why what the value one thing is to another, as long as it does not disadvatage or over power the player.
Think of like any currency systhem in an rpg. If you get too much coin it becoames meaningless, if you get too little you can keep up with the gear you need to beat the game. 
All that matter is if it's balanced.
You only have a base to argue if the end results is off balanced.

As for the rest of my points read it.

AND YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!

You are missing the point by the first line.

The problem is that it is like comparing gear, see my point on problems versus choices.  These should not be treated this way.  These are story elements, not add-onds for a gun, or other guns.  They are choices which you made which were supposed to have a direct effect upon the conclusion.

That why you need to read the rest of my post before....It explain this aswell. This does not counter choice.In fact it opens it up.
I'll post it agien...

And based on what you stated before...
"
[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">As for the last two, well no, that IS ] "[/color]

How do you not get that bw want s the player to have more then one way to get to their goal? The entire point of the ems system was for the player not to have to play the game one way to get to there goal or best ending.
This has been done bofore in there other games as well.

BG2 had the player get a certin ammount of money before moving on with the story and the player did not have a set in stone way to get it.
DA:O has the player have many ways to build an army and was not set in stone to get the elfd, droves, mages, and redcliff.

Your argument is that you can get the $5 in any way so whats the point. The point is the dev what you to have many ways to get that $5 in a game series the you can play more than once and see differnt out comes. They don't want you to get $5 one way, they want you to see all the ways you can get that $5.

....
On point locking it to where you get the most ems one way narrows choice. BW has a system that lets the player have more then one way to get ems so the the player has more choice to how to get it. It does not dicounter what choice you did before.
Why? Because you do less work to get ems based on what you did. Of others they have other ways to get it but the have more work to do to get it and it's still up to them to do the work. This allows the player to see more outcome doing differnt things. This encorage the player to do differnt things.

In short, you looking at it like a player that plays the game one way.

Again, you are missing the problem I am raising here: the system is fundamentally flawed in a story in which individual choices are supposed to have individual outcomes which bear upon the narrative.  The problem is the fact that the system exists in the form it does, not that any individual element doesn't do what the designers intended it to do.

In case you have forgotten: there were supposed to be different endings, depending on how YOU played the gamne, upon the choices you made.  That means any player gets the ending they earned, no do overs, no re-rolls.  The fact that all endings are accessable regardless of action IS a problem.

[LucasShark]

For the really, really simple version:

A) the EMS system transforms previously made choices and choices in ME3, into a singular EMS score, universally convertable, and used to calibrate ending success.
in doing so, it makes individual choices, which were said to directly impact the story individually, actually impact it in an identical way
C) therefore, it renders individual choices meaningless in terms of which ending options you get at the conclusion of ME3
D) Therefore, The existance of the EMS system negatively effected ME3's ending.

Simple enough?

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And I quote:
"The just an issue of numbers. It like that way because bw had to balanced the system. "

Stopped reading, you are missing the point, and are incapable of the simple tasks I set out for you.

One of the many points you continue to consistantly miss is thisP: the numbers are fairly inconsequencial in and of themselves.  The problem you don't seem to understand is that converting all choices into a universally exchangable power currencey makes them in and of themselves, interchangable, and therefore individually meaningless.

As I said before , arguing over it is nothing more then arguing over why one set of gear has more stats then another. It's just a game play device. All that matter is it  the end result is not off balance.

It matters not why what the value one thing is to another, as long as it does not disadvatage or over power the player.
Think of like any currency systhem in an rpg. If you get too much coin it becoames meaningless, if you get too little you can keep up with the gear you need to beat the game. 
All that matter is if it's balanced.
You only have a base to argue if the end results is off balanced.

As for the rest of my points read it.

AND YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!

You are missing the point by the first line.

The problem is that it is like comparing gear, see my point on problems versus choices.  These should not be treated this way.  These are story elements, not add-onds for a gun, or other guns.  They are choices which you made which were supposed to have a direct effect upon the conclusion.

That why you need to read the rest of my post before....It explain this aswell. This does not counter choice.In fact it opens it up.
I'll post it agien...

And based on what you stated before...
"
[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">As for the last two, well no, that IS ] "[/color]

How do you not get that bw want s the player to have more then one way to get to their goal? The entire point of the ems system was for the player not to have to play the game one way to get to there goal or best ending.
This has been done bofore in there other games as well.

BG2 had the player get a certin ammount of money before moving on with the story and the player did not have a set in stone way to get it.
DA:O has the player have many ways to build an army and was not set in stone to get the elfd, droves, mages, and redcliff.

Your argument is that you can get the $5 in any way so whats the point. The point is the dev what you to have many ways to get that $5 in a game series the you can play more than once and see differnt out comes. They don't want you to get $5 one way, they want you to see all the ways you can get that $5.

....
On point locking it to where you get the most ems one way narrows choice. BW has a system that lets the player have more then one way to get ems so the the player has more choice to how to get it. It does not dicounter what choice you did before.
Why? Because you do less work to get ems based on what you did. Of others they have other ways to get it but the have more work to do to get it and it's still up to them to do the work. This allows the player to see more outcome doing differnt things. This encorage the player to do differnt things.

In short, you looking at it like a player that plays the game one way.

Again, you are missing the problem I am raising here: the system is fundamentally flawed in a story in which individual choices are supposed to have individual outcomes which bear upon the narrative.  The problem is the fact that the system exists in the form it does, not that any individual element doesn't do what the designers intended it to do.

In case you have forgotten: there were supposed to be different endings, depending on how YOU played the gamne, upon the choices you made.  That means any player gets the ending they earned, no do overs, no re-rolls.  The fact that all endings are accessable regardless of action IS a problem.

1. There are differnt ending base on your depending on how you played the game. The ending are not centered to your moral but logic of your actions. Which is why the low ems endign and high ems ends are differnt.
Your really are going to tell me low ems is no differnt then High ems and destroying all synthetic life in high ems is no different for changing all life in the galexy?

2.I think you need tounderstandthe concept of earned. BW does not wnat a black and white ending. Their many ways to earn things...Which is why bw has many ways to earn the ending in ME3. They don't want to lock the player to a spasific way. Why? because they don't want to single out renagade or paragon players. hey let you dicide how you get the ems. Having a spacific why locks the players choice to doing that soacific way. They don't want that. How do you not get that?

[LucasShark]

1) spelling and gramar are your friends
2) Again, you have failed to see my point

At no point have I said "lock the player into one way of doing things", I've stated that they should have made choices have direct consequences, the way they always outlined they would. Making choices interchangable cheapened the ending.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

For the really, really simple version:

A) the EMS system transforms previously made choices and choices in ME3, into a singular EMS score, universally convertable, and used to calibrate ending success.
in doing so, it makes individual choices, which were said to directly impact the story individually, actually impact it in an identical way
C) therefore, it renders individual choices meaningless in terms of which ending options you get at the conclusion of ME3
D) Therefore, The existance of the EMS system negatively effected ME3's ending.

Simple enough?

Then I'll simplify it for you.

1.The goal is to get ems, how does not matter. They don't want one specific way to get it. This does not undo you past choice because you do less ork based on what you did.
2.Also, all choices in the game were going to impact in a identical way. The entire point is to stop the reapers all you choice inheritly is going to tie in being part of stopping the reapers.
3. This does not make choice meaningless. This is say because in DA:O the elves and wolves are both willing to fight in my army it matter not who I pick.
4. It clear that you missed the fact that every choice in ME is tied to the quetion of stopping the reapers. If the choice you did add helping you in some way it's not negativly effecting the value of the ending.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

1) spelling and gramar are your friends
2) Again, you have failed to see my point

At no point have I said "lock the player into one way of doing things", I've stated that they should have made choices have direct consequences, the way they always outlined they would. Making choices interchangable cheapened the ending.

But that is exacly what's going to happen it ems was done the way you want it. This system was do in a way any player no matter the morality can get the best ending. Get it?
It does not cheapen the ending. It adds replayablitity. It only cheapens it if one way is ways easier then another way.

Aka, if you have more gold then you can spend by doing one thing only when youhave more then one way to get gold.
Which is my argument on balance.

In fact you get the most ems easier based on past choice. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:29 .

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

For the really, really simple version:

A) the EMS system transforms previously made choices and choices in ME3, into a singular EMS score, universally convertable, and used to calibrate ending success.
in doing so, it makes individual choices, which were said to directly impact the story individually, actually impact it in an identical way
C) therefore, it renders individual choices meaningless in terms of which ending options you get at the conclusion of ME3
D) Therefore, The existance of the EMS system negatively effected ME3's ending.

Simple enough?

Then I'll simplify it for you.

1.The goal is to get ems, how does not matter. They don't want one specific way to get it. This does not undo you past choice because you do less ork based on what you did.
2.Also, all choices in the game were going to impact in a identical way. The entire point is to stop the reapers all you choice inheritly is going to tie in being part of stopping the reapers.
3. This does not make choice meaningless. This is say because in DA:O the elves and wolves are both willing to fight in my army it matter not who I pick.
4. It clear that you missed the fact that every choice in ME is tied to the quetion of stopping the reapers. If the choice you did add helping you in some way it's not negativly effecting the value of the ending.

And once again, you have missed the point: the problem is not with the EMS apple, it is with the tree, this approach makes for an unsatasfying ending.  End of story. 

If all choices bare out precisely equal outcomes, then there may as well be no choices in the first place.

Modifié par LucasShark, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:32 .

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

For the really, really simple version:

A) the EMS system transforms previously made choices and choices in ME3, into a singular EMS score, universally convertable, and used to calibrate ending success.
in doing so, it makes individual choices, which were said to directly impact the story individually, actually impact it in an identical way
C) therefore, it renders individual choices meaningless in terms of which ending options you get at the conclusion of ME3
D) Therefore, The existance of the EMS system negatively effected ME3's ending.

Simple enough?

Then I'll simplify it for you.

1.The goal is to get ems, how does not matter. They don't want one specific way to get it. This does not undo you past choice because you do less ork based on what you did.
2.Also, all choices in the game were going to impact in a identical way. The entire point is to stop the reapers all you choice inheritly is going to tie in being part of stopping the reapers.
3. This does not make choice meaningless. This is say because in DA:O the elves and wolves are both willing to fight in my army it matter not who I pick.
4. It clear that you missed the fact that every choice in ME is tied to the quetion of stopping the reapers. If the choice you did add helping you in some way it's not negativly effecting the value of the ending.

And once again, you have missed the point: the problem is not with the EMS apple, it is with the tree, this approach makes for an unsatasfying ending.  End of story. 

If all choices ber out precisely equal outcomes, then there may as well be no choices in the first place.

Let me expline it one more time to you...In dragon age origins...My goal is to build an army. I'm given a choice to recuit the elves or werewolves...Ether side is willing to fight in may army but differnt things will happen on the short term based on my choice now but in the end in the long term they join my army.....Does it matter who I pick?

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:33 .

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

For the really, really simple version:

A) the EMS system transforms previously made choices and choices in ME3, into a singular EMS score, universally convertable, and used to calibrate ending success.
in doing so, it makes individual choices, which were said to directly impact the story individually, actually impact it in an identical way
C) therefore, it renders individual choices meaningless in terms of which ending options you get at the conclusion of ME3
D) Therefore, The existance of the EMS system negatively effected ME3's ending.

Simple enough?

Then I'll simplify it for you.

1.The goal is to get ems, how does not matter. They don't want one specific way to get it. This does not undo you past choice because you do less ork based on what you did.
2.Also, all choices in the game were going to impact in a identical way. The entire point is to stop the reapers all you choice inheritly is going to tie in being part of stopping the reapers.
3. This does not make choice meaningless. This is say because in DA:O the elves and wolves are both willing to fight in my army it matter not who I pick.
4. It clear that you missed the fact that every choice in ME is tied to the quetion of stopping the reapers. If the choice you did add helping you in some way it's not negativly effecting the value of the ending.

And once again, you have missed the point: the problem is not with the EMS apple, it is with the tree, this approach makes for an unsatasfying ending.  End of story. 

If all choices ber out precisely equal outcomes, then there may as well be no choices in the first place.

Let me expline it one more time to you...In dragon age origins...My goal is to build an army. I'm given a choice to recuit the elves or werewolves...Ether side is willing to fight in may army but differnt things will happen on the short term based on my choice now but in the end in the long term they join my army.....Does it matter who I pick?

From a story telling perspective?  Yes it should.

[Applepie_Svk]

LucasShark wrote...

For the really, really simple version:


Simple enough?

simple picture will maybe help...

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

For the really, really simple version:

A) the EMS system transforms previously made choices and choices in ME3, into a singular EMS score, universally convertable, and used to calibrate ending success.
in doing so, it makes individual choices, which were said to directly impact the story individually, actually impact it in an identical way
C) therefore, it renders individual choices meaningless in terms of which ending options you get at the conclusion of ME3
D) Therefore, The existance of the EMS system negatively effected ME3's ending.

Simple enough?

Then I'll simplify it for you.

1.The goal is to get ems, how does not matter. They don't want one specific way to get it. This does not undo you past choice because you do less ork based on what you did.
2.Also, all choices in the game were going to impact in a identical way. The entire point is to stop the reapers all you choice inheritly is going to tie in being part of stopping the reapers.
3. This does not make choice meaningless. This is say because in DA:O the elves and wolves are both willing to fight in my army it matter not who I pick.
4. It clear that you missed the fact that every choice in ME is tied to the quetion of stopping the reapers. If the choice you did add helping you in some way it's not negativly effecting the value of the ending.

And once again, you have missed the point: the problem is not with the EMS apple, it is with the tree, this approach makes for an unsatasfying ending.  End of story. 

If all choices ber out precisely equal outcomes, then there may as well be no choices in the first place.

Let me expline it one more time to you...In dragon age origins...My goal is to build an army. I'm given a choice to recuit the elves or werewolves...Ether side is willing to fight in may army but differnt things will happen on the short term based on my choice now but in the end in the long term they join my army.....Does it matter who I pick?

From a story telling perspective?  Yes it should.

Here the problem with your point...It a game where the dev wants the player to replay and see differnt thing and depends on choice. If one choice has a bad out come, the player does not pick it. The game is not there to punish the player but to debate the choice. It does not become irrelivent because it goes to the same goal. It put the player of an issue of morality vs logic...There moarlity vs the events on hand. If they set it so that choosing morality= badout come pushes the player to never consider morality over value. If you given two directions to go and on leads to a reward, the player always picks the path to the reward.
Having more then one wa to get to the reward allows the player a larger view of actions and morality. It does not make it valueless if another ways is avalible...Just like ether choices of the elves and wolves arenot valueless. Andin that case, nether was a hamper to DA:O final goal. the issue became one of morality because both can logicall be partof my army with no problems. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:52 .