443 réponses à ce sujet

[Hexley UK]

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Stop using dollars m8 its units sold not dollars.

And if it cost more then EA expect it to sell more...it's simple economics.

DS3 and ME3 are both under EA's umbrella what on earth makes you think that they would hold 2 different studios beholden to them under different standards?

cost of development, for one, would be different.

Not to mention the team size, salary payments, development times being different, engine use and liscencing, marketing budgets, so on, and so forth. Considering this, why should they have the same budget, that would make no sense from a business standpoint. 

...I honestly don't get what you're trying to say now, or if you agree or disagree.

Did you not see we already pointed out budgets would be different?

I honestly have no idea whats going on now...it defies all logic.

[N7Gold]

Kamiloni wrote...

You don't want to betray the synthetics. That's okay. You can choose synthesis for example.

Nope, bad idea. Synthesis is the Reapers goal, and I have no intention of letting them reach it no matter how "beautiful" it looks and sounds, I'm afraid that the Leviathans will use the Synthesis DNA in themselves and other life forms to send their mind control signals to enslave everyone, reestablishing their dominance in the galaxy. Peace between organics and synthetics can be achieved without Synthesis, but the Reapers want us to choose the choices they give us and remain blind from alternative paths. Remember what Legion said about there being many paths to the same end? Think about it.

Modifié par N7Gold, 07 mars 2013 - 03:03 .

[LinksOcarina]

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Stop using dollars m8 its units sold not dollars.

And if it cost more then EA expect it to sell more...it's simple economics.

DS3 and ME3 are both under EA's umbrella what on earth makes you think that they would hold 2 different studios beholden to them under different standards?

cost of development, for one, would be different.

Not to mention the team size, salary payments, development times being different, engine use and liscencing, marketing budgets, so on, and so forth. Considering this, why should they have the same budget, that would make no sense from a business standpoint. 

...I honestly don't get what you're trying to say now, or if you agree or disagree.

If a game has a 20 million budget vs a 10 million budget, why should the target number to recoup losses be the same units sold to recoup the losses? Got to remember, budgets are sized, and often increased during development, and often include cost of development, overtime, team salary, use of liscence fees for engines, and so forth.

I am simply saying that UKs original point that declares each game needs to hit a specific number is abritary and false. He is essentially, full of ****. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 07 mars 2013 - 03:04 .

[Drewton]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

We don't know what Mass Effect 3's benchmark is, at the same time, Mass Effect as a series never made over $12 million as far I know, numbers wise. So it really doesn't matter how much money it makes, since it would likely never recoup the full budget. 

Are you saying EA happily makes games they lose money on?

Yes. Just like Valve. Activision. Ubisoft. Sony....

...Half-Life 2 sold over 12 million copies. What the hell do you think their budget was?

And Activision, I don't even...you think they spend $1 billion on their Call of Duty games?

Modifié par Drewton, 07 mars 2013 - 03:06 .

[AlanC9]

N7Gold wrote...

Nope, bad idea. Synthesis is the Reapers goal, and I have no intention of letting them reach it no matter how "beautiful" it looks and sounds, I'm afraid that the Leviathans will use the Synthesis DNA in themselves and other life forms to send their mind control signals to enslave everyone, reestablishing their dominance in the galaxy. Peace between organics and synthetics can be achieved without Synthesis, but the Reapers want us to choose the choices they give us and remain blind from alternative paths. Remember what Legion said about there being many paths to the same end? Think about it.

Who cares if it's the Reapers' goal?  Why is what they want of any interest either way?

[LinksOcarina]

Hexley UK wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

We don't know what Mass Effect 3's benchmark is, at the same time, Mass Effect as a series never made over $12 million as far I know, numbers wise. So it really doesn't matter how much money it makes, since it would likely never recoup the full budget. 

Are you saying EA happily makes games they lose money on?

Yes. Just like Valve. Activision. Ubisoft. Sony....

You know pretty much every game franchise outside of the major sellers. Do you know what the current distribution of sales is between publishers, distributors, and developers? 

So you think all those companies purposefully make games that don't make money?

I don't even....

Not purposefully, but its a certainty. 

[Drewton]

AlanC9 wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

Nope, bad idea. Synthesis is the Reapers goal, and I have no intention of letting them reach it no matter how "beautiful" it looks and sounds, I'm afraid that the Leviathans will use the Synthesis DNA in themselves and other life forms to send their mind control signals to enslave everyone, reestablishing their dominance in the galaxy. Peace between organics and synthetics can be achieved without Synthesis, but the Reapers want us to choose the choices they give us and remain blind from alternative paths. Remember what Legion said about there being many paths to the same end? Think about it.

Who cares if it's the Reapers' goal?  Why is what they want of any interest either way?

[Hexley UK]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Stop using dollars m8 its units sold not dollars.

And if it cost more then EA expect it to sell more...it's simple economics.

DS3 and ME3 are both under EA's umbrella what on earth makes you think that they would hold 2 different studios beholden to them under different standards?

cost of development, for one, would be different.

Not to mention the team size, salary payments, development times being different, engine use and liscencing, marketing budgets, so on, and so forth. Considering this, why should they have the same budget, that would make no sense from a business standpoint. 

...I honestly don't get what you're trying to say now, or if you agree or disagree.

If a game has a 20 million budget vs a 10 million budget, why should the target number to recoup losses be the same units sold to recoup the losses? Got to remember, budgets are sized, and often increased during development, and often include cost of development, overtime, team salary, use of liscence fees for engines, and so forth.

I am simply saying that UKs original point that declares each game needs to hit a specific number is abritary and false. He is essentially, full of ****. 

My point is that you would expect the game that had a $20 million budget to make more than the one with a $10 million budget though yes?

And no need to be insulting m8, calm down.

[LinksOcarina]

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

We don't know what Mass Effect 3's benchmark is, at the same time, Mass Effect as a series never made over $12 million as far I know, numbers wise. So it really doesn't matter how much money it makes, since it would likely never recoup the full budget. 

Are you saying EA happily makes games they lose money on?

Yes. Just like Valve. Activision. Ubisoft. Sony....

...Half-Life 2 sold over 12 million copies. What the hell do you think their budget was?

And Activision, no offence but I can't believe you're serious. You think they spend $1 billion on their Call of Duty games?

The budget for Half-Life 2 was likely $20 million, since that is average for game budgets at the time.

Call of Duty is the exception to the rule. 

[LinksOcarina]

Hexley UK wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Stop using dollars m8 its units sold not dollars.

And if it cost more then EA expect it to sell more...it's simple economics.

DS3 and ME3 are both under EA's umbrella what on earth makes you think that they would hold 2 different studios beholden to them under different standards?

cost of development, for one, would be different.

Not to mention the team size, salary payments, development times being different, engine use and liscencing, marketing budgets, so on, and so forth. Considering this, why should they have the same budget, that would make no sense from a business standpoint. 

...I honestly don't get what you're trying to say now, or if you agree or disagree.

If a game has a 20 million budget vs a 10 million budget, why should the target number to recoup losses be the same units sold to recoup the losses? Got to remember, budgets are sized, and often increased during development, and often include cost of development, overtime, team salary, use of liscence fees for engines, and so forth.

I am simply saying that UKs original point that declares each game needs to hit a specific number is abritary and false. He is essentially, full of ****. 

My point is that you would expect the game that had a $20 million budget to make more than the one with a $10 million budget though yes?

And no need to be insulting m8, calm down.

EDIT

That is irrelvent to what was said honestly. Your charge is the game made $3 million right? In what exactly? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 07 mars 2013 - 03:10 .

[Hexley UK]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Stop using dollars m8 its units sold not dollars.

And if it cost more then EA expect it to sell more...it's simple economics.

DS3 and ME3 are both under EA's umbrella what on earth makes you think that they would hold 2 different studios beholden to them under different standards?

cost of development, for one, would be different.

Not to mention the team size, salary payments, development times being different, engine use and liscencing, marketing budgets, so on, and so forth. Considering this, why should they have the same budget, that would make no sense from a business standpoint. 

...I honestly don't get what you're trying to say now, or if you agree or disagree.

If a game has a 20 million budget vs a 10 million budget, why should the target number to recoup losses be the same units sold to recoup the losses? Got to remember, budgets are sized, and often increased during development, and often include cost of development, overtime, team salary, use of liscence fees for engines, and so forth.

I am simply saying that UKs original point that declares each game needs to hit a specific number is abritary and false. He is essentially, full of ****. 

My point is that you would expect the game that had a $20 million budget to make more than the one with a $10 million budget though yes?

And no need to be insulting m8, calm down.

That is irrelevent to what you said. Either that, or you said it wrong. 

No go read it again, that's exactly what me and Drewton have been saying all along.....I think we might have crossed wires here somehow.

[Drewton]

LinksOcarina wrote...

That is irrelvent to what was said honestly. Your charge is the game made $3 million right? In what exactly? 

Again, copies not $.

[LinksOcarina]

Drewton wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

That is irrelvent to what was said honestly. Your charge is the game made $3 million right? In what exactly? 

Again, copies not $.

Ok.

DLC and multiplayer sales? Trilogy box set sales? Do we have these numbers as well? Also, use of microtransactions via the multiplayer?  How many units, exactly? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 07 mars 2013 - 03:14 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Drewton wrote...

I pointed out one reason why the literal endings are idiotic. Neither of you have said anything to  counter that. So your argument's seeming pretty idiotic too.

We are well aware that the literal endings are idiotic. You don't need to convince us of that.

That however, does not explain, how the IT is supposed to be any less idiotic.

[IntoTheDarkness]

Come on, this DLC was funny as hell. Yes, plots sucked but otherwise it was damn good in almost any measure you can think of.

Just admit it. Bioware makes good games. They only need one good story writer to figure plotholes out, and if that's all it takes to make the best RPGs on markets they are pretty damn good.

[KevShep]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Drewton wrote...

I pointed out one reason why the literal endings are idiotic. Neither of you have said anything to  counter that. So your argument's seeming pretty idiotic too.

We are well aware that the literal endings are idiotic. You don't need to convince us of that.

That however, does not explain, how the IT is supposed to be any less idiotic.

How is the IT idiotic?...Its brilant in that it indoctrinates the player along with there shep by the player giving into the reapers "suggestions" and warpping the mind(indoctrination) of shep's own motives of killing the reapers.

It makes us see how many of us would actually fall to indoctrination if we were REALLY in shep shoes. Indoctrination NEEDED to be a focus point in ME3 as that is the reapers main weapon after all.

[N7Gold]

AlanC9 wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

Nope, bad idea. Synthesis is the Reapers goal, and I have no intention of letting them reach it no matter how "beautiful" it looks and sounds, I'm afraid that the Leviathans will use the Synthesis DNA in themselves and other life forms to send their mind control signals to enslave everyone, reestablishing their dominance in the galaxy. Peace between organics and synthetics can be achieved without Synthesis, but the Reapers want us to choose the choices they give us and remain blind from alternative paths. Remember what Legion said about there being many paths to the same end? Think about it.

Who cares if it's the Reapers' goal?  Why is what they want of any interest either way?

We should care, because as long as we continue to believe that the Reapers are the typical evil genocidal machines, we will never understand why BioWare chose to keep the main three endings. The endings represent the controlling nature of the Reapers, something we should not embrace. The Catalyst said that the reason why it couldn't manifest a solution similar to Synthesis is because he never gave the organics and synthetics a choice, he tried to force them to make the solution happen and they refused, they knew there is a catch. So the Catalyst came up with the idea of making two more solutions, Destroy and Control, based on the solutions organics would generally choose when dealing with hostile synthetics. An organic that intends on using the Crucible faces the Catalyst's illusion of choice, allowing the organic to think about its actions other than immediately rejecting the choice when being forced to choose it.

When you think about it, The Catalyst ran into the same problem as The Architect from The Matrix movie.

Modifié par N7Gold, 07 mars 2013 - 03:27 .

[Legion of 1337]

N7Gold wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

N7Gold wrote...

Nope, bad idea. Synthesis is the Reapers goal, and I have no intention of letting them reach it no matter how "beautiful" it looks and sounds, I'm afraid that the Leviathans will use the Synthesis DNA in themselves and other life forms to send their mind control signals to enslave everyone, reestablishing their dominance in the galaxy. Peace between organics and synthetics can be achieved without Synthesis, but the Reapers want us to choose the choices they give us and remain blind from alternative paths. Remember what Legion said about there being many paths to the same end? Think about it.

Who cares if it's the Reapers' goal?  Why is what they want of any interest either way?

We should care, because as long as we continue to believe that the Reapers are the typical evil genocidal machines, we will never understand why BioWare chose to keep the main three endings. The endings represent the controlling nature of the Reapers, something we should not embrace. The Catalyst said that the reason why it couldn't manifest a solution similar to Synthesis is because he never gave the organics and synthetics a choice, he tried to force them to make the solution happen and they refused, they knew there is a catch. So the Catalyst came up with the idea of making two more solutions, Destroy and Control, based on the solutions organics would generally choose when dealing with hostile synthetics. An organic that intends on using the Crucible faces the Catalyst's illusion of choice, allowing the organic to think about its actions other than immediately rejecting the choice when being forced to choose it.

When you think about it, The Catalyst ran into the same problem as The Architect from The Matrix movie.

The Catalyst basically is  the Architect. Methinks Casey and Mac had played Deus Ex too many times and watched the Matrix too many times.

That said, I still just think the ending is dumb and nothing more. There is no point in complaining about it, no more than continuing to complain about George Lucas ruining everything he's ever made - it's done, laugh at the terribleness and enjoy what's good (which as most of it).

[Seboist]

KevShep wrote...

How is the IT idiotic?...Its brilant in that it indoctrinates the player along with there shep by the player giving into the reapers "suggestions" and warpping the mind(indoctrination) of shep's own motives of killing the reapers.

It makes us see how many of us would actually fall to indoctrination if we were REALLY in shep shoes. Indoctrination NEEDED to be a focus point in ME3 as that is the reapers main weapon after all.

Yeah no, "IT" as it exists is just a desperate hope for a "get out of bad endings" free card.

It wouldn't even exist in the first place if the "literal" endings were good.

Modifié par Seboist, 07 mars 2013 - 03:31 .

[christrek1982]

Chris Priestly wrote...




I kid. I hope you stay.

that was kinda funny

[The Heretic of Time]

KevShep wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Drewton wrote...

I pointed out one reason why the literal endings are idiotic. Neither of you have said anything to  counter that. So your argument's seeming pretty idiotic too.

We are well aware that the literal endings are idiotic. You don't need to convince us of that.

That however, does not explain, how the IT is supposed to be any less idiotic.

How is the IT idiotic?...Its brilant in that it indoctrinates the player along with there shep by the player giving into the reapers "suggestions" and warpping the mind(indoctrination) of shep's own motives of killing the reapers.

It makes us see how many of us would actually fall to indoctrination if we were REALLY in shep shoes. Indoctrination NEEDED to be a focus point in ME3 as that is the reapers main weapon after all.

I'm not against the idea of an indoctrinated Shepard plot-twist. In fact, it would have been very awesome. But "the indoctrination theory" as presented by the ITers is just ****ing stupid. It's just a cheap reset-button to reset the bad endings.

Indoc could have been very interesting if it was used on one of your closets squad members (your love interest?) or on Shepard himself. That could create an interesting scenario for some interesting storytelling. BioWare however, did not do this. This much is obvious by now. They might have had the plans, but they clearly didn't continue with it. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 07 mars 2013 - 03:34 .

[Drewton]

KevShep wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Drewton wrote...

I pointed out one reason why the literal endings are idiotic. Neither of you have said anything to  counter that. So your argument's seeming pretty idiotic too.

We are well aware that the literal endings are idiotic. You don't need to convince us of that.

That however, does not explain, how the IT is supposed to be any less idiotic.

How is the IT idiotic?...Its brilant in that it indoctrinates the player along with there shep by the player giving into the reapers "suggestions" and warpping the mind(indoctrination) of shep's own motives of killing the reapers.

It makes us see how many of us would actually fall to indoctrination if we were REALLY in shep shoes. Indoctrination NEEDED to be a focus point in ME3 as that is the reapers main weapon after all.

This. IT completely removes some major plot holes, like:

*The kid covering large distances on earth in seconds without a scratch from Reaper forces.
*Shepard surviving a direct blast from Harbinger meant to kill him.
*Anderson getting to the beam without Harbinger or Coates noticing.
*Shepard falling to earth and surviving.
*Making a decision that goes completely against what's been said in the previous entirety of the series. This is the biggest one for me.

These are just off the top of my head...and synthesis doesn't happen, at least not in the way we were shown.

Some of the most compelling IT evidence for me is the infrasound.

Modifié par Drewton, 07 mars 2013 - 03:38 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Drewton wrote...

This. IT completely removes some major plot holes, like:

*The kid covering large distances on earth in seconds without a scratch from Reaper forces.
*Shepard surviving a direct blast from Harbinger meant to kill him.
*Anderson getting to the beam without Harbinger or Coates noticing.
*Shepard falling to earth and surviving.

These are just off the top of my head...and synthesis doesn't happen, at least not in the way we were shown.

Some of the most compelling IT evidence for me is the infrasound.

Like I said, IT is just a cheap "get out of jail" card to justify the nonsensical hack-writing we've seen in ME2 and ME3. IT is a very cheap explanation. It's no different than saying "God did it" to any unexplained event in real-life. It's cheap, lazy, lame and most likely not true.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 07 mars 2013 - 03:42 .

[Drewton]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Drewton wrote...

This. IT completely removes some major plot holes, like:

*The kid covering large distances on earth in seconds without a scratch from Reaper forces.
*Shepard surviving a direct blast from Harbinger meant to kill him.
*Anderson getting to the beam without Harbinger or Coates noticing.
*Shepard falling to earth and surviving.

These are just off the top of my head...and synthesis doesn't happen, at least not in the way we were shown.

Some of the most compelling IT evidence for me is the infrasound.

Like I said, IT is just a cheap "get out of jail" card to justify the nonsensical hack-writing we've seen in ME2 and ME3. IT is a very cheap explanation. It's no different than saying "God did it" to any unexplained event in real-life. It's cheap, lazy, lame and most likely not true.

If it's so cheap and lame why can't you come up with one specific point against it other than that it's just bad writing? It's very logical for the story. It makes perfect sense the Reapers would be indoctrinating Shepard and especially at the end, and no sense that they wouldn't try.

I thought IT had to be crazy before I saw how many hints were in the games. How can you just ignore the infrasound during the dreams with the kid, a method of indoctrination?

Modifié par Drewton, 07 mars 2013 - 03:47 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Because bad writing is a better explanation than IT.

"Never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation."


Honestly, how do you expect me to disprove IT? It's like asking me to disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's impossible. All I can say is: It just isn't there. It doesn't exist. Period.

Another thing I can say is that the IT would have never existed if everyone actually liked the endings. If the endings were "good", or at least liked, the IT wouldn't even exist. And don't tell me that isn't true, because you know it is.

The IT never was anything more than just a fan conspiracy theory, created as a desperate attempt to find reason in the unreasonable parts of the Mass Effect 3 story. The sooner you accept that, the better.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 07 mars 2013 - 03:52 .