Xilizhra wrote...
It doesn't have to. Twitter clarified something left out of the ending.
It's not as though I'm urging Bioware to not change the endings or something. I doubt I'm harming your cause.
Maxster_ wrote...
Reapers pawns are indoctrinated
Well, there must be a reason, why gaming industry makes dumbier and dumbier games every year(with some rare exceptions like witcher or ME1 or DAO).wantedman dan wrote...
Maxster_ wrote...
Reapers pawns are indoctrinated
The thought that people are cool with paying extra money to complete a story that should have already been completed at the initial release is troubling, to say the least.
Modifié par Maxster_, 10 octobre 2012 - 03:10 .
Maxster_ wrote...
Well, there must be a reason, why gaming industry makes dumbier and dumbier games every year(with some rare exceptions like witcher or ME1 or DAO).
Modifié par wantedman dan, 10 octobre 2012 - 03:12 .
You are. It's canon in a different format, but is still canon.So I'm not ignoring canon after all. Thank you for clarifying.
If I'm paying more, I want to be paying for more story. Why would I want to pay for just another random N7 mission with no bearing on anything?So you think that your contentedness in no way translates into an interpretation that you're fine with paying extra to complete your story at a later date.
wantedman dan wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
I'm happy you're content with sub-quality production, glaring holes in the plot and storyline, and retroactive continuity to make sense of an abhorrance of a storyline via paid DLC AFTER the initial release.
Congratulations. You're part of the problem.
The Leviathan DLC was planned even before the Extended Cut/fan outrage.
And it was still crucial to the storyline, still released after the initial game drop.
Modifié par MegaSovereign, 10 octobre 2012 - 03:28 .
Xilizhra wrote...
You are. It's canon in a different format, but is still canon.
If I'm paying more, I want to be paying for more story. Why would I want to pay for just another random N7 mission with no bearing on anything?
Bioware's word is.Interpretation by one person is not canon.
If there are narrative gaps, better to fill them than for DLC to leave them unaddressed.Not questioning that. I'm questioning your propensity to be content with paying for more story to fill in narrative gaps from the initial release.
MegaSovereign wrote...
I agree that it should have been in the game, like the From Ashes DLC.
However I don't see it the way you are describing. You're acting like the only purpose of the Leviathan DLC was to retroactively try to paint over the endings. TBH, it didn't change or add anything. We already knew about how and why the Catalyst/Reapers were created before the Leviathan DLC. All the DLC does is reiterate those concepts and give a face to the creator race that the Catalyst mentioned.
Not at all. An Asari is still an Asari. After Synthesis, the Asari is just an Asari and something more.Fandango9641 wrote...
Lord Aesir wrote...
There is no evidence that Synthesis is brainwashing.
An Asari is an Asari and a Krogan is still a Krogan.
Synthesis provides additions, it does not eliminate existing traits of the species.
Combining all synthetic and organic life into a new 'framework', with new DNA no less, literally precludes most of what you just said. I mean, how can an Asari still be an Asari post synthesis if the process represents 'the final evolution of all life'?
And all this mad work done without the permission of a single, solitary person. How dare you.
Modifié par Xilizhra, 10 octobre 2012 - 03:37 .
Retroactive continuity would require a change to existing explanations. Leviathan doesn't do that, it adds something new without painting over anything preexisting.wantedman dan wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
I agree that it should have been in the game, like the From Ashes DLC.
However I don't see it the way you are describing. You're acting like the only purpose of the Leviathan DLC was to retroactively try to paint over the endings. TBH, it didn't change or add anything. We already knew about how and why the Catalyst/Reapers were created before the Leviathan DLC. All the DLC does is reiterate those concepts and give a face to the creator race that the Catalyst mentioned.
It was retroactive continuity to make the ending seem more relevant within the storyline before the ending.
There is a military principle that covers that.Maxster_ wrote...
...
"necessity" is a very interesting thing.
You order a massive MIRV artillery strike at town, where is some enemy presense, knowing that this artillery strike is going to level the city with all it's inhabitants; to lesser losses of your divison. Is this a necessity?
Xilizhra wrote...
Bioware's word is.
If there are narrative gaps, better to fill them than for DLC to leave them unaddressed.
wantedman dan wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
I agree that it should have been in the game, like the From Ashes DLC.
However I don't see it the way you are describing. You're acting like the only purpose of the Leviathan DLC was to retroactively try to paint over the endings. TBH, it didn't change or add anything. We already knew about how and why the Catalyst/Reapers were created before the Leviathan DLC. All the DLC does is reiterate those concepts and give a face to the creator race that the Catalyst mentioned.
It was retroactive continuity to make the ending seem more relevant within the storyline before the ending.
He's a Bioware representative giving the official answer.Mike Gamble's word is not Bioware.
Well, I'd hardly advocate piracy on Bioware's own forum, would I?Yet you're happy with paying for it.
Lord Aesir wrote...
Retroactive continuity would require a change to existing explanations. Leviathan doesn't do that, it adds something new without painting over anything preexisting.
What do you mean?wantedman dan wrote...
Lord Aesir wrote...
Retroactive continuity would require a change to existing explanations. Leviathan doesn't do that, it adds something new without painting over anything preexisting.
In one aspect.
Xilizhra wrote...
He's a Bioware representative giving the official answer.
Well, I'd hardly advocate piracy on Bioware's own forum, would I?
Lord Aesir wrote...
What do you mean?
More of a fact, really, him being privy to how the story actually worked.But is not Bioware. He is Mike Gamble giving Mike Gamble's opinion.
Well, I can buy it, I can steal it, or I can miss out on a story aspect. I suppose I could do any of those and complain about having to buy it, but honestly, I can't imagine Bioware giving it for free, given the extra work those things require.Missing the point = check
MegaSovereign wrote...
They don't even talk about the Crucible. Besides, any DLC about the Reaper conflict is going to make the ending "seem more relevant."
Xilizhra wrote...
More of a fact, really, him being privy to how the story actually worked.
Well, I can buy it, I can steal it, or I can miss out on a story aspect. I suppose I could do any of those and complain about having to buy it, but honestly, I can't imagine Bioware giving it for free, given the extra work those things require.
It covers nothing. You still have to prove that in court, and given something like attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation toObadiah wrote...
There is a military principle that covers that.Maxster_ wrote...
...
"necessity" is a very interesting thing.
You order a massive MIRV artillery strike at town, where is some enemy presense, knowing that this artillery strike is going to level the city with all it's inhabitants; to lesser losses of your divison. Is this a necessity?
Modifié par Maxster_, 10 octobre 2012 - 03:48 .
I see no indication of this.And his interpretation is still only that. An interpretation.
Then... I suppose I'll just have to deal with being "part of the problem." Oh well.Not my problem if they can't do it based on the fiscal aspect. They screwed up and they refuse to deal with it.
Retour en haut
