307 réponses à ce sujet

[cljqnsnyc]

chemiclord wrote...

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

Look, I can understand not being satisfied with how certain criticisms are addressed.  But this claim that BioWare just completely ignores all negative feedback strikes me as disingenuous, to say the least.

It's because they need Bioware as an enemy.  They need to convince themselves Bioware is this malicious entity actively seeking to hurt them... because otherwise they wouldn't have proper justification for their preposterous level of raw emotional rage.

What? Isn't that a bit too far?

Criticizing Bioware for what I feel are missteps is hardly "A need to convince myself Bioware is.........." Everyone is entitled to their opinions. You don't have to agree with them. That's the point of forums and feedback. Expecting only positive feedback is unrealistic. 

Who exactly are you to tell someone else what they need to properly justity their level of frustration? I think you're way off! 

You disagree with some of the opinions here. Not a problem. What gives you the right to tell other people how they should feel?  

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 23 avril 2013 - 01:33 .

[Dean_the_Young]

crimzontearz wrote...

Uhhhhhhhhhh

Sooooo if from ashes was written after certification send out WHY was the prothean in the original script leak?

Because they toyed with the idea of a prothean role, obviously.

Not that the original script was actually a script, or even original: it was a draft, not a finalized document. Having an outline (that ended up changing) planned in advance doesn't mean most the DLC writing couldn't occur afterwards. By the nature of a planning cycle, the script writing would kind of have to go after the planning outline.

Also....EC bittage size limit? UHHHHH you guys made SINGLE IMAGES SLIDESHOWS into movies that ate up insane space W....T....F?

They also made (and remade) movies, dialogue, and expanded cinematics. Who, besides you, is saying the slide show images took up insane space?

[Dean_the_Young]

crimzontearz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Sooooo if from ashes was written after certification send out WHY was the prothean in the original script leak?

Were all his lines in the script leak? I keep asking people to give me a link to that version; the only copies I can find don't have any of his convos. Or the Guardian's lines, which I'm more interested in.

I am not talking about conversation but merely presence and relevance

Then you're making no sense. Vaguely planning for a presence in advance isn't mutually exclusive with post-core game development.

[Dean_the_Young]

cljqnsnyc wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

Look, I can understand not being satisfied with how certain criticisms are addressed.  But this claim that BioWare just completely ignores all negative feedback strikes me as disingenuous, to say the least.

It's because they need Bioware as an enemy.  They need to convince themselves Bioware is this malicious entity actively seeking to hurt them... because otherwise they wouldn't have proper justification for their preposterous level of raw emotional rage.

What? Isn't that a bit too far?

Criticizing Bioware for what I feel are missteps is hardly "A need to convince myself Bioware is.........." Everyone is entitled to their opinions. You don't have to agree with them. That's the point of forums and feedback. Expecting only positive feedback is unrealistic. 

Who exactly are you to tell someone else what they need to properly justity their level of frustration? I think you're way off! 

You disagree with some of the opinions here. Not a problem. What gives you the right to tell other people how they should feel?  

Where is he telling people what to feel?

This is actually a good, if inadverdant, example of someone inventing reasons (in this case, strawmen arguments) to fuel a feeling of righteous indignation for an unsubtantiated counter-attack. In other words, the exact sort of attitude he was referring to.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

Also a lot of that script lacked full lines

Yep, because the lines hadn't been written yet, for Javik or anyone else.

What's the point here? Bio did the work exactly the way Gamble said they did it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 avril 2013 - 02:08 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Also a lot of that script lacked full lines

Yep, because the lines hadn't been written yet, for Javik or anyone else.

What's the point here? Bio did the work exactly the way Gamble said they did it.

I've seen the leaked scripts, even searching specifically for stuff from "From Ashes"  and let me say:

There are a few lines in the script form that DLC, but very little.  And nothing mentioning Javik specifically, Save one line from Samantha mentioning "our guest doesn't need a translator"

Also, earlier versions do have stuff about unearthing a Pothean on Eden Prime, but it's so radically different from what the DLC turned out to be that the only real similarities are "Prothean" and ""Eden Prime"   For one thing, the Prothean was, in fact "the Catalyst" and was absolutely vital to getting the Crucible working.  While Javik is one step away from "What's a Crucible?"

I've heard the claims that he was basically cut out to be DLC for a while now.  But if that's so, they pretty much rewrote Javik's story from the ground up, to the point where he's an entirely different character.  And in so doing, rewrote the ME3 story in general.  

I've accused Bioware of a lot of dumb moves when it comes to ME3, but this is one thing they're not guilty of, imo.

[cljqnsnyc]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

Look, I can understand not being satisfied with how certain criticisms are addressed.  But this claim that BioWare just completely ignores all negative feedback strikes me as disingenuous, to say the least.

It's because they need Bioware as an enemy.  They need to convince themselves Bioware is this malicious entity actively seeking to hurt them... because otherwise they wouldn't have proper justification for their preposterous level of raw emotional rage.

What? Isn't that a bit too far?

Criticizing Bioware for what I feel are missteps is hardly "A need to convince myself Bioware is.........." Everyone is entitled to their opinions. You don't have to agree with them. That's the point of forums and feedback. Expecting only positive feedback is unrealistic. 

Who exactly are you to tell someone else what they need to properly justity their level of frustration? I think you're way off! 

You disagree with some of the opinions here. Not a problem. What gives you the right to tell other people how they should feel?  

Where is he telling people what to feel?

This is actually a good, if inadverdant, example of someone inventing reasons (in this case, strawmen arguments) to fuel a feeling of righteous indignation for an unsubtantiated counter-attack. In other words, the exact sort of attitude he was referring to.

Whatever you say......

Frankly, it isn't worth pursuing any further. 

You're welcome to interprete my statement any way you like. 

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 23 avril 2013 - 06:13 .

[PsyrenY]

I never realized the "experimental" aspect of DLC before (the Lair car chase, Leviathan mini-adventure-game mystery, the Citadel party) but with it pointed out by this article its blatantly obvious now. I'm glad they do it but it seems a bit disjointed, they never run with any of this stuff. Granted I don't want more car chases (oh gods can you imagine having to car chase Fail Leng) but the other stuff I hope shows up more later.

Omega... I bought it for completionist's sake but honestly I don't think Omega needed to be expanded any more. The only interesting character in it for me was Petrovsky and he barely got any screen time.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't see the "meaningful" there. Obviously the trial in itself wasn't going to be meaningful, since Shepard wasn't going to be convicted.. or if he was, it would have stopped mattering that he was convicted about 30 seconds after the Reapers showed up.

It's meainingful because it's show Shepard doesn't live in a vacuum, and neither does the Alliance, after having spend a whole game in the playground of ME2 it's time to go back to reality and take some responsability allready, as I've mentioned before regardless of exactly what choices Shepard made, the Alliance has more then enough reason to lock Shepard up.

AlanC9 wrote...
I wouldn't have felt "empowered" by the trial, myself. I know what my characters did, why they did it, and what happened afterward. I always saw the trial as a pointless recap of stuff I already knew, and so far I've heard nothing to make me re-evaluate that opinion. What would have been empowering about it

Being confronted with certain choices the player made throughout the trilogy (admittedly mostly me2) not only gives the player ackowledgedment of their decisions but it also always them insight into how their actions affected Alliance Space, because as far as I can Recall Me2 really didn't really gave the player any idea how the "civilised world" (Council/Alliance) reacets to their choices, expect for a few 10 second news cast here and there.

The Points?: A trial, properly excuted, would make for a much better and interesting opening, regardless of any other changes.

Modifié par Fixers0, 23 avril 2013 - 06:32 .

[Nicodemus]

I wasn't really impressed with the DLC at all. To me "From the Ashes", "Leviathan" and "Omega" were core parts of the story that needed to be in the game from the get go. "Leviathan" more so than the other 2 as it foreshadows the ending. To release something like that to bolster their ending after release was not only poor planning but to a certain degree poor writing.

I can only really put the decision to add these 3 after the game's release down to being rushed. Overall I felt that all of the DLC was lacklustre and at times banal and that his explanation of wanting to "experiment" feels somewhat false. Nothing jumped out as being new and experimental (unlike LotSB or BDtS) it just felt more of the same.

[Dean_the_Young]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I never realized the "experimental" aspect of DLC before (the Lair car chase, Leviathan mini-adventure-game mystery, the Citadel party) but with it pointed out by this article its blatantly obvious now. I'm glad they do it but it seems a bit disjointed, they never run with any of this stuff. Granted I don't want more car chases (oh gods can you imagine having to car chase Fail Leng) but the other stuff I hope shows up more later.

The cool thing though is that, if you look carefully, you'll actually see elements of the DLCs that become standard for later games. BDtS gave us a more typical ME2 level experience (in which dialogue breaks were short, rather than entire non-combat sections in the middle of a level), Zaeed and Kasumi experimented with various reinforcement-wave boss fights as well as an increasing emphasis on level-design appearance, Shadow Broker did an extensive bit in tying enemy spawns into the environment as well as experimenting with level-interaction, and Arrival played more or less like a dry-run of much of ME3's combat and aescetic.

You can see a lot of refinement and general upgrading across the DLC's, which became standard for the next games. Lots of test-bedding here and there.

Omega... I bought it for completionist's sake but honestly I don't think Omega needed to be expanded any more. The only interesting character in it for me was Petrovsky and he barely got any screen time.

[crimzontearz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Uhhhhhhhhhh

Sooooo if from ashes was written after certification send out WHY was the prothean in the original script leak?

Because they toyed with the idea of a prothean role, obviously.

Not that the original script was actually a script, or even original: it was a draft, not a finalized document. Having an outline (that ended up changing) planned in advance doesn't mean most the DLC writing couldn't occur afterwards. By the nature of a planning cycle, the script writing would kind of have to go after the planning outline.

Also....EC bittage size limit? UHHHHH you guys made SINGLE IMAGES SLIDESHOWS into movies that ate up insane space W....T....F?

They also made (and remade) movies, dialogue, and expanded cinematics. Who, besides you, is saying the slide show images took up insane space?

I have a very simple rule of thumb about day 0 DLC...it is about budget...Bioware will not answer questions about it so...

Secondly, there was a thread about it last year when people datamined the EC, those sequences are humongous, a waste of space really

[Dean_the_Young]

crimzontearz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Uhhhhhhhhhh

Sooooo if from ashes was written after certification send out WHY was the prothean in the original script leak?

Because they toyed with the idea of a prothean role, obviously.

Not that the original script was actually a script, or even original: it was a draft, not a finalized document. Having an outline (that ended up changing) planned in advance doesn't mean most the DLC writing couldn't occur afterwards. By the nature of a planning cycle, the script writing would kind of have to go after the planning outline.

Also....EC bittage size limit? UHHHHH you guys made SINGLE IMAGES SLIDESHOWS into movies that ate up insane space W....T....F?

They also made (and remade) movies, dialogue, and expanded cinematics. Who, besides you, is saying the slide show images took up insane space?

I have a very simple rule of thumb about day 0 DLC...it is about budget...Bioware will not answer questions about it so...

So you could be as wrong as you want, and they'd never correct you?

Secondly, there was a thread about it last year when people datamined the EC, those sequences are humongous, a waste of space really

If they understood it correctly, sure.

[AlanC9]

Nicodemus wrote...

I wasn't really impressed with the DLC at all. To me "From the Ashes", "Leviathan" and "Omega" were core parts of the story that needed to be in the game from the get go. "Leviathan" more so than the other 2 as it foreshadows the ending. To release something like that to bolster their ending after release was not only poor planning but to a certain degree poor writing..

My problem with arguments like this is that you're not impressed with those DLCs because they were good. Would you have really liked them better if they  had less to do with the main plot?

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 avril 2013 - 06:19 .

[Bleachrude]

Again...I would point out "Return to Ostagar" as an example of how DLC is created.

The DLC itself was released a few months AFTER DA:O came out, however, on the original disc, there's ALREADY dialogue between Loghain and Alistair at Ostagar.

Does this mean that Ostagar was finished beforehand and they simply held on to it?

Of course not...it simply means that Bioware always intended to get there but didn't consider it THAT essential to the main story. Hell, the main story changes (you can't recruit alistair and loghain in the same party in the actual game) long before they got back to Ostagar.

(and one can't argue that DA:O didn't get enough development time a la DA2. It was in development for roughly 5 years)

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...
It's meainingful because it's show Shepard doesn't live in a vacuum, and neither does the Alliance, after having spend a whole game in the playground of ME2 it's time to go back to reality and take some responsability allready, as I've mentioned before regardless of exactly what choices Shepard made, the Alliance has more then enough reason to lock Shepard up.

If you wanted Shepard locked up, you already got that. Shep's back andftaking responsibility, all right.

Being confronted with certain choices the player made throughout the trilogy (admittedly mostly me2) not only gives the player ackowledgedment of their decisions but it also always them insight into how their actions affected Alliance Space, because as far as I can Recall Me2 really didn't really gave the player any idea how the "civilised world" (Council/Alliance) reacets to their choices, expect for a few 10 second news cast here and there.

The Points?: A trial, properly excuted, would make for a much better and interesting opening, regardless of any other changes.

You got a specific example of something you didn't know that you would have liked to know?

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...
If you wanted Shepard locked up, you already got that. Shep's back andftaking responsibility, all right.

Indeed, a few vague words by Anderson about Shepard's past action won't cut it here, we need more then some generic statements to have Shepard's arrest and detention be meaininfull.

AlanC9 wrote...
You got a specific example of something you didn't know that you would have liked to know?

How Alliance legal procedures works? How the Alliance reacts to collaborators turning themselfs in? or not How the Arrested him? the Ways Shepard can defend or explain his/her actions?

Modifié par Fixers0, 23 avril 2013 - 06:34 .

[CronoDragoon]

Re: the earlier discussions about ending nihilism: I think some people are equating the abandonment of idealism as a viable solution to every problem with nihilism. They are by no means synonomous concepts, especially if you want to try and use Nietzsche's concept of nihilism, which REALLY has nothing to do with the endings.

Now, one criticism I do have with the endings is the way that they undermine idealism in favor of the hard pragmatism that Garrus brought up earlier in the game. Although you may find idealistic reasons for picking an ending, none of them are "Paragon" endings. Most seem to favor some version of a consequentialist morality, in which the end justifies any means.

In summary, for a series to integrate moral dilemmas not only into its story but also it's gameplay in the P/R system, I would have favored an ending choice that followed that paradigm. Endings of the sort we received in ME3 would, I think, have worked better in ME4 and onwards, provided they abandon the clear-cut moral distinctions of Paragon/Renegade persuasion options.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 23 avril 2013 - 06:42 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
If you wanted Shepard locked up, you already got that. Shep's back andftaking responsibility, all right.

Indeed, a few vague words by Anderson about Shepard's past action won't cut it here, we need more then some generic statements to have Shepard's arrest and detention be meaininfull.

AlanC9 wrote...
You got a specific example of something you didn't know that you would have liked to know?

How Alliance legal procedures works? How the Alliance reacts to collaborators turning themselfs in? or not How the Arrested him? the Ways Shepard can defend or explain his/her actions?

I'm all for a trial, but justifying it by establishing Alliance legal lore in a very un-typical case doesn't strike me as the most compelling rational. Especially when the information is already out there: the Alliance rewards cooperation, Shepard surrendered him/herself to Anderson, and so on.

Don't get me wrong: giving Shepard a chance to justify past actions strikes me as a good reason. Legal proceedings, not so much.

[Fixers0]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm all for a trial, but justifying it by establishing Alliance legal lore in a very un-typical case doesn't strike me as the most compelling rational. Especially when the information is already out there: the Alliance rewards cooperation, Shepard surrendered him/herself to Anderson, and so on.

Don't get me wrong: giving Shepard a chance to justify past actions strikes me as a good reason. Legal proceedings, not so much.

Oh, that's just me being a lore freak, though I do want some more exposition on the transition from ME2 and ME3.

Modifié par Fixers0, 23 avril 2013 - 07:29 .

[Jadebaby]

Do people actually even still listen to them anymore?

They're in their own little bubble.. And......

One does not simply burst a BioWare bubble....

[adayaday]

I think people just want to try and pop that bubble.

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

How Alliance legal procedures works? How the Alliance reacts to collaborators turning themselfs in? or not How the Arrested him? the Ways Shepard can defend or explain his/her actions?

These don't strike me as being worth the screen time. Why would anyone care how legal procedures work? And "trying to stop killer robots from destroying the galaxy" is an all-purpose explanation.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Now, one criticism I do have with the endings is the way that they undermine idealism in favor of the hard pragmatism that Garrus brought up earlier in the game. Although you may find idealistic reasons for picking an ending, none of them are "Paragon" endings. Most seem to favor some version of a consequentialist morality, in which the end justifies any means.

In summary, for a series to integrate moral dilemmas not only into its story but also it's gameplay in the P/R system, I would have favored an ending choice that followed that paradigm. Endings of the sort we received in ME3 would, I think, have worked better in ME4 and onwards, provided they abandon the clear-cut moral distinctions of Paragon/Renegade persuasion options.

It sounds like you want Paragons to be right; idealism will give results every bit as good as more pragmatic approaches. Am I reading this right?

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Now, one criticism I do have with the endings is the way that they undermine idealism in favor of the hard pragmatism that Garrus brought up earlier in the game. Although you may find idealistic reasons for picking an ending, none of them are "Paragon" endings. Most seem to favor some version of a consequentialist morality, in which the end justifies any means.

In summary, for a series to integrate moral dilemmas not only into its story but also it's gameplay in the P/R system, I would have favored an ending choice that followed that paradigm. Endings of the sort we received in ME3 would, I think, have worked better in ME4 and onwards, provided they abandon the clear-cut moral distinctions of Paragon/Renegade persuasion options.

It sounds like you want Paragons to be right; idealism will give results every bit as good as more pragmatic approaches. Am I reading this right?

It sounded to me like he wanted an option that appealed to his idealism.  This isn't an unexpected desire, as through 2 and 9/10 games there was by and large that "out" for someone who played it "just right."  Yanking that pattern out from under the players was quite jarring for those who had come to expect a "golden" solution to every problem they faced.