213 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...
Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

A tactic is "an action or strategy carefully planned to acheive a specific end". If I find it necessary in DA2 to plan carefully, then DA2 is a tactical game, by my own estimation. You do not get to decide the definition of tactics for everybody, so your claim that DA2 was not tactical is erroneous.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

Again, you're imposing criteria for judgement that I do not subscribe to. You say that for choices to matter, the ending of the game has to be "different". I do not support that notion at all, nor do I agree with your criteria for determining the scale of "difference" between endings.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 décembre 2012 - 12:29 .

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

A tactic is "an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end". If I find it necessary in DA2 to plan carefully, then DA2 is a tactical game, by my own estimation. You do not get to decide the definition of tactics for everybody, so your claim that DA2 was not tactical is erroneous.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

Again, you're imposing criteria for judgement that I do not subscribe to. You say that for choices to matter, the ending of the game has to be "different". I do not support that notion at all, nor do I agree with your criteria for determining the scale of "difference" between endings.

So what you are saying is that you can`t answer that, and therefore refuse .

[addiction21]

Rawgrim wrote...


I belive the devs said "In this game you have to think like a general, and fight like a spartan".
Meaning...tactics is required. Wich is wasn`t at all.

Now where does that quote mention you being required to do either.  Tactical thinking are not required for either DA:O or DA2 but you will excel if your practice some.
But then it is up to the individual to decide to employ them or face roll everything with storm of the century or Arcane warrior and pot spamming.
Just like choices mattering to your character. Whose father was an apostate and is one themselves or sibling to another. You can't tell me choosing Templar or Mage at the end results in the same character you have built thru out. There has to be reasons as to why a decision was made and what led to it.

Tactics, strategy and choices exist. They my not be your preferred type but they are there. Repeating the same tired rhetoric for 20 months while ignore all evidence to the contrary does not make you right... just delusional.

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

A tactic is "an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end". If I find it necessary in DA2 to plan carefully, then DA2 is a tactical game, by my own estimation. You do not get to decide the definition of tactics for everybody, so your claim that DA2 was not tactical is erroneous.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

Again, you're imposing criteria for judgement that I do not subscribe to. You say that for choices to matter, the ending of the game has to be "different". I do not support that notion at all, nor do I agree with your criteria for determining the scale of "difference" between endings.

So what you are saying is that you can`t answer that, and therefore refuse .

No. I am saying that your questions are the wrong qquestions to ask, because they are based on false, arrogant presumptions about the way people should judge games. I dont judge on the same scale that you do, or use the same criteria for judgement that you do, so my answers can only be "wrong", and you'll use your preconceived bias as justification for disregarding my opinions.

You might as well be stuffing your fingers in your ears and singing 'Camptown Races' at the top of your lungs, to drown me out.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 décembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[Rawgrim]

addiction21 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...


I belive the devs said "In this game you have to think like a general, and fight like a spartan".
Meaning...tactics is required. Wich is wasn`t at all.

Now where does that quote mention you being required to do either.  Tactical thinking are not required for either DA:O or DA2 but you will excel if your practice some.
But then it is up to the individual to decide to employ them or face roll everything with storm of the century or Arcane warrior and pot spamming.
Just like choices mattering to your character. Whose father was an apostate and is one themselves or sibling to another. You can't tell me choosing Templar or Mage at the end results in the same character you have built thru out. There has to be reasons as to why a decision was made and what led to it.

Tactics, strategy and choices exist. They my not be your preferred type but they are there. Repeating the same tired rhetoric for 20 months while ignore all evidence to the contrary does not make you right... just delusional.

Uhm the qoute says "in this game you HAVE to think like a general". Sure this could mean a general justpresses buttons and drops nukes right onto his own troops, who are magically immune, of course. Or just mashes buttons fiercly in general.

Personal choices. Sure. i agree there. But the other fellow was disputing that choices didn`t matter in how that choice affects the end of the story. Not the characters behavior or change.

Tactics and strategy excist in an optional "pretend they are needed at all" kind of way. You can add that sort of thinking to any games. Making The Sims seem like chess etc. Being able to pretend you are beating a game while using clever "tactics" isn`t evidence to the contrary, when the same can just as easily be achieved by mashing a button.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

A tactic is "an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end". If I find it necessary in DA2 to plan carefully, then DA2 is a tactical game, by my own estimation. You do not get to decide the definition of tactics for everybody, so your claim that DA2 was not tactical is erroneous.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

Again, you're imposing criteria for judgement that I do not subscribe to. You say that for choices to matter, the ending of the game has to be "different". I do not support that notion at all, nor do I agree with your criteria for determining the scale of "difference" between endings.

So what you are saying is that you can`t answer that, and therefore refuse .

No. I am saying that your questions are the wrong qquestions to ask, because they are based on false, arrogant presumptions about the way people should judge games. I dont judge on the same scale that you do, or use the same criteria for judgement that you do, so my answers can only be "wrong", and you'll use your preconceived bias as justification for disregarding my opinions.

You might as well be stuffing your fingers in your ears and singing 'Camptown Races' at the top of your lungs, to drown me out.

I did say the choices you make in game doesn`t affect the end of the game. How is this false or arrogant?  The game ends with a fight vs Orsino and then Meredith. Thats just a fact. Nothing I did earlier in the game changed that bit at all. You contested this, and I asked how this could be. Seemed to me you were getting a third or fourth type of ending to the story.

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...
I did say the choices you make in game doesn`t affect the end of the game.

No, you said that because the choices don't affect the ending, they do not matter. I disagree. I think the choices matter for their own sake, and any impact they may or may not have on the ending is irrelevent.

How is this false or arrogant?

That's not what I was referring to at all. Please read the words I am actually typing.

The game ends with a fight vs Orsino and then Meredith. Thats just a fact.

Yes.

Nothing I did earlier in the game changed that bit at all.

But that doesn't mean your earlier actions didn't matter. If your criteria for choices "mattering" is that they impact the ending of the game (a criteria with which I strongly disagree), then I would argue that, according to your criteria, DA2 and DA:O both only have one choice that actually "matters" at all.

[addiction21]

Rawgrim wrote...


Tactics and strategy excist in an optional "pretend they are needed at all" kind of way. You can add that sort of thinking to any games. Making The Sims seem like chess etc. Being able to pretend you are beating a game while using clever "tactics" isn`t evidence to the contrary, when the same can just as easily be achieved by mashing a button.

Which is exactly what you are and have been doing. Arbitrary choosing when and where they matter. You like DA:O therefore its "tactical"  even if its not needed. You do not like DA2 so there are no tactics even if it is no different then the game you like.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
I did say the choices you make in game doesn`t affect the end of the game.

No, you said that because the choices don't affect the ending, they do not matter. I disagree. I think the choices matter for their own sake, and any impact they may or may not have on the ending is irrelevent.

How is this false or arrogant?

That's not what I was referring to at all. Please read the words I am actually typing.

The game ends with a fight vs Orsino and then Meredith. Thats just a fact.

Yes.

Nothing I did earlier in the game changed that bit at all.

But that doesn't mean your earlier actions didn't matter. If your criteria for choices "mattering" is that they impact the ending of the game (a criteria with which I strongly disagree), then I would argue that, according to your criteria, DA2 and DA:O both only have one choice that actually "matters" at all.

The choices don`t matter when it comes to the end of the story. Thats what i meant. No choices i made earlier in the game affects the outcome of the story in DA2. Choices for the sake of choices, earlier in the game, i have no problems with at all. Picking who to help out and stuff like that was fun. Still none of those affected the ending of the story. But in DA:O alot of them did. The end fight had 4 possebilities for the outcome alone.Pluss a bunch of the epilogue stuff was important for the world itself.

[Rawgrim]

addiction21 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...


Tactics and strategy excist in an optional "pretend they are needed at all" kind of way. You can add that sort of thinking to any games. Making The Sims seem like chess etc. Being able to pretend you are beating a game while using clever "tactics" isn`t evidence to the contrary, when the same can just as easily be achieved by mashing a button.

Which is exactly what you are and have been doing. Arbitrary choosing when and where they matter. You like DA:O therefore its "tactical"  even if its not needed. You do not like DA2 so there are no tactics even if it is no different then the game you like.

Where did I say DA:O was a very tactical game, exactly? The only difference i see, tactically, between those games was when I had to position my characters about in DA:O to avoid friendly fire. And make sure I equipped my companions in good armour.

[Ponendus]

I am going to be unpopular for this I'm sure, but I had no problem with Mass Effect 3 at all, I thought it was brilliantly done and I thought the original ending was excellent.

If BioWare has anything to learn from the 'reception', which was frankly pretty extreme and largely unfair, it is that you can't please people and they should go with their gut and enjoy the development process; because it's likely that everyone will scream murder and be up in arms regardless.

BioWare started to make mistakes when they started to please the fans in my opinion. They forgot the fans were already pleased just by them being them.

End rant.

[sully.nathan]

Ponendus wrote...

I am going to be unpopular for this I'm sure, but I had no problem with Mass Effect 3 at all, I thought it was brilliantly done and I thought the original ending was excellent.

If BioWare has anything to learn from the 'reception', which was frankly pretty extreme and largely unfair, it is that you can't please people and they should go with their gut and enjoy the development process; because it's likely that everyone will scream murder and be up in arms regardless.

BioWare started to make mistakes when they started to please the fans in my opinion. They forgot the fans were already pleased just by them being them.

End rant.

I have heard this from a lot of people that love mass effect 3 and the ending, but I would like to know why you and everyone thinks the ending was so brilliant and I would also like to know why you think Mass effect 3 was even better than its predecessors.

[LinksOcarina]

Ponendus wrote...

I am going to be unpopular for this I'm sure, but I had no problem with Mass Effect 3 at all, I thought it was brilliantly done and I thought the original ending was excellent.

If BioWare has anything to learn from the 'reception', which was frankly pretty extreme and largely unfair, it is that you can't please people and they should go with their gut and enjoy the development process; because it's likely that everyone will scream murder and be up in arms regardless.

BioWare started to make mistakes when they started to please the fans in my opinion. They forgot the fans were already pleased just by them being them.

End rant.

Bolded part for emphasis. 

Well said, madame/sir.

[Ponendus]

sully.nathan wrote...

Ponendus wrote...

I am going to be unpopular for this I'm sure, but I had no problem with Mass Effect 3 at all, I thought it was brilliantly done and I thought the original ending was excellent.

If BioWare has anything to learn from the 'reception', which was frankly pretty extreme and largely unfair, it is that you can't please people and they should go with their gut and enjoy the development process; because it's likely that everyone will scream murder and be up in arms regardless.

BioWare started to make mistakes when they started to please the fans in my opinion. They forgot the fans were already pleased just by them being them.

End rant.

I have heard this from a lot of people that love mass effect 3 and the ending, but I would like to know why you and everyone thinks the ending was so brilliant and I would also like to know why you think Mass effect 3 was even better than its predecessors.

It didn't answer any questions. I loved that. I like it when stories end with things up in the air, it was a brilliant move. It allows speculation and discussion about 'what if?' and 'I wonder what happened to...'. I like that Shepard became a legend, regardless of the decision that was made, that is satisfying to me that my adventures had an impact long into the future and that tales were told about me. I like that I don't know what happens to my friends, I am dead, why should I know? I can wonder and postulate instead. I thought the explanation for the reapers and the often-slandered 'space magic' was fantastic. I think its great that there is a quasi-spiritual and meaningful, poetic explanation for all the violence and despair that provides no real answers but raises more instead. I don't need to have perfect closure, I have an imagination and I am playing a role-playing game.

I was left completely and totally satisfied, and then I visited the forums and my jaw hit the floor when I saw everyone so up in arms! It really was a sad example of a herd mentality and a group of extremely whiny people (sorry but I was just embarassed by everyone frankly). Now the Doctors have left BioWare and I don't blame them, I wish I could shake them and say, 'Just ignore us!!! Do what you do, you do it just fine! Shut down the BSN if need be!'.

Anyway, this is off topic, but I just wanted to answer your question for you.

[sully.nathan]

Ponendus wrote...

sully.nathan wrote...

Ponendus wrote...

I am going to be unpopular for this I'm sure, but I had no problem with Mass Effect 3 at all, I thought it was brilliantly done and I thought the original ending was excellent.

If BioWare has anything to learn from the 'reception', which was frankly pretty extreme and largely unfair, it is that you can't please people and they should go with their gut and enjoy the development process; because it's likely that everyone will scream murder and be up in arms regardless.

BioWare started to make mistakes when they started to please the fans in my opinion. They forgot the fans were already pleased just by them being them.

End rant.

I have heard this from a lot of people that love mass effect 3 and the ending, but I would like to know why you and everyone thinks the ending was so brilliant and I would also like to know why you think Mass effect 3 was even better than its predecessors.

It didn't answer any questions. I loved that. I like it when stories end with things up in the air, it was a brilliant move. It allows speculation and discussion about 'what if?' and 'I wonder what happened to...'. I like that Shepard became a legend, regardless of the decision that was made, that is satisfying to me that my adventures had an impact long into the future and that tales were told about me. I like that I don't know what happens to my friends, I am dead, why should I know? I can wonder and postulate instead. I thought the explanation for the reapers and the often-slandered 'space magic' was fantastic. I think its great that there is a quasi-spiritual and meaningful, poetic explanation for all the violence and despair that provides no real answers but raises more instead. I don't need to have perfect closure, I have an imagination and I am playing a role-playing game.

I was left completely and totally satisfied, and then I visited the forums and my jaw hit the floor when I saw everyone so up in arms! It really was a sad example of a herd mentality and a group of extremely whiny people (sorry but I was just embarassed by everyone frankly). Now the Doctors have left BioWare and I don't blame them, I wish I could shake them and say, 'Just ignore us!!! Do what you do, you do it just fine! Shut down the BSN if need be!'.

Anyway, this is off topic, but I just wanted to answer your question for you.

Its good that you liked the game, but I used to like this game too. After my first playthrough I liked mass effect 3 but on my second playthroug hI played it and tried to analyze the game and payed attention to detail and it really spoiled the game for me. I felt like this spoiled the whole franchise for me because every reason I disliked Mass effect 3 was also in Mass effect 2 and it made me also hate mass effect 2.
But over that I love Dragon Age though and I think Origins was hands down Bioware's best game this gen nothing else they made topped it for me. As long as the DA team doesn't make the same mistake they made with DA2 and the same mistake ME3 made it will be pretty good.

[The Hierophant]

Ponendus wrote...

I thought the explanation for the reapers and the often-slandered 'space magic' was fantastic. I think its great that there is a quasi-spiritual and meaningful, poetic explanation for all the violence and despair that provides no real answers but raises more instead. I don't need to have perfect closure, I have an imagination and I am playing a role-playing game.

I saw nothing spiritual or fantastic about the creation of the Catalyst  as it was full of plot induced stupidity. The Leviathans who are the dominate race of their era noticed that their counquered races were being murked by their own AI,  fighting common sense the Levis decided to make an unrestricted AI to protect them from synthetics. With that level of decision making i'm surprised they survived pass their industrial age, and conquered the known galaxy of their time. Also it had to have been a hinderance to roleplaying with the auto dialogue, and Shep being a more defined character with his/her depression bit?

I was left completely and totally satisfied, and then I visited the forums and my jaw hit the floor when I saw everyone so up in arms! It really was a sad example of a herd mentality and a group of extremely whiny people (sorry but I was just embarassed by everyone frankly). Now the Doctors have left BioWare and I don't blame them, I wish I could shake them and say, 'Just ignore us!!! Do what you do, you do it just fine! Shut down the BSN if need be!'.

Most of it wasn't herd mentality as alot of it was passionate fanboys who felt like they were taken in by inaccurate statements, felt like the writing was inconsistant,  or a drop in quality for the series overall. Plus it seems pretentious to think that the posters of the BSN which are only a minority of the company's customers alone hold enough influence as to send Muzyka and Zeschuk running for the hills.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 28 décembre 2012 - 02:54 .

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

"What Dragon Age 3 needs to learn from Mass Effect 3's reception."

That BioWare's fans are hopelessly unpleasable? Yeah I think that's it.

[Dasher1010]

ME3 is winning GOTYs. I hardly call it a poor reception. The ending on the other hand was pretty bad and the game absolutely needs the EC.

[Ponendus]

The Hierophant wrote...

Most of it wasn't herd mentality as alot of it was passionate fanboys who felt like they were taken in by inaccurate statements, felt like the writing was inconsistant,  or a drop in quality for the series overall. Plus it seems pretentious to think that the posters of the BSN which are only a minority of the company's customers alone hold enough influence as to send Muzyka and Zeschuk running for the hills.

I would normally agree, but I am led to believe that the reaction to ME3's ending was one of the major catalysts for their decision to depart. From memory, this was quite widely reported. I don't see why it's difficult to believe either. Can you imagine something you are so invested in and passionate about getting the complete overreaction that got? If it were me I'd throw up my hands and give up too, these people are artists working in an industry driven by fandom and to get that childish reception to something they were so certain was excellent (and it was) would have been shattering. You may like to think of them as hard-headed businessmen, but they are still human.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Dasher1010 wrote...

ME3 is winning GOTYs. I hardly call it a poor reception. The ending on the other hand was pretty bad and the game absolutely needs the EC.

... and the EC pretty much fixed it for me. My problem wasn't with the ending challenging established lore or what the existence of the Catalyst or its revelations meant, but with the fact that the endings featured some real slapdash, rushed work where things best explained weren't and nothing resembling closure in any way was given. Yay for the EC and kudos to BioWare for winning GOTY, something they deserved for a damned good conclusion to a stellar trilogy!

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 28 décembre 2012 - 06:25 .

[Ponendus]

Dasher1010 wrote...

 I hardly call it a poor reception.

They felt so bad about it they put out a DLC to placate everyone. I am fairly sure they felt the fury...

[Twisted Path]

People tend to say that ME3 is good except for the atrocious ending, but I thought the game was pretty bad from start to finish, especially compared to ME2. The game felt really rushed and mostly empty, compared to Mass Effect 2's which was incredibly polished and full of nice little touches.

It's kind of looking like this game is going to end up having a longer development so maybe it won't be half-finished rush-jobs like the last two Bioware games. They just have to remember to plan an ending ahead of time and it'll be a step up.

[Rawgrim]

ME3 was a very good game. But the ending, and the auto-dialogue kept it from being great.

[Persephone]

Plaintiff wrote...

It's a good thing you're here to speak for all of the Bioware fans. I don't know how they'd ever articulate their opinions without you.

Notice I do not include myself. For I disagree with everything you've said and thus am no true fan of Bioware. You've exposed my deception and foiled my evil plot once and for all. Bravo, sir. Bravo.