266 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. The raw number of missions says nothing about  the development time used to produce those missions nor the amount of time taken to play those missions, nor the experience of playing the game. I don't anything useful the number tells us, in fact.

I'm starting to repeat myself here, but being the generous person I am, i will repeat myself once again. The Numbers I've brought forward show that in ME1 only 5 out of 73 assigments can be classified as fetch quests where as in ME3 this number 31 out of 68, as substantially larger amount then in the earlier installments.

You're repeating yourself because you're not really answering the question.

What do those numbers prove? ME1's number was smaller, sure. Why should anyone care about that?

It's not because collecting stuff from the maps takes up more of your time in ME3; it takes up substantially less. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 juin 2013 - 09:24 .

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...

You're repeating yourself because you're not really answering the question.

What do those numbers prove? ME1's number was smaller, sure. Why should anyone care about that?

I Really start wondering whether you're actually reading my posts at all.

My numbers prove as mentioned in the conclusion of my last post that in ME3 fetch quests made up a substantially larger amount of the total number of quests as one can cleary see, this was in repsonse to someone some pages back who made the claim that this wasn't the case. I proved him wrong.

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You're repeating yourself because you're not really answering the question.

What do those numbers prove? ME1's number was smaller, sure. Why should anyone care about that?

I Really start wondering whether you're actually reading my posts at all.

My numbers prove as mentioned in the conclusion of my last post that in ME3 fetch quests made up a substantially larger amount of the total number of quests as one can cleary see, this was in repsonse to someone some pages back who made the claim that this wasn't the case. I proved him wrong.

Wait... so you always knew this was a meaningless number?

Wish you'd told me that a couple of pages ago.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 juin 2013 - 09:34 .

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wait... so you always knew this was a meaningless number?

No, I do more or less knew you have a habbit at generating meaningless arguments, When the ground is getting too hot under your feet.

Modifié par Fixers0, 07 juin 2013 - 09:36 .

[TheProtheans]

AlanC9 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Let me get this straight.

You think that the real or perceived shortcomings of ME 3 were caused by a lack of disk space?

No, I never said or implied that.
You seem to be assuming that is what I am thinking.

I imagine he assumed that because you posted this:

If they can't make something better with extra disc space..

Saying "extra disc space" sure sounded like you were talking about disc space.

As for the actual argument:

I'm thinking if you're to make a rewrite then you may as well not include multiplayer as it will only limit the content you can put in the game and it is an unnecessary distraction.
It's clear to me ME3 would have been badly written either way, extra space would not help them write better.
So for it to be good it would have to be rewritten as it was destined to be the way it currently is.

.. it still doesn't make sense. Is the MP a limit, or not?

I was talking about disc space and as such later referenced in the latter part of the post.
The question is not really what I meant but more how you precieve the word "better" to mean in game development.
If I was to guess I would say you assume it to mean storytelling and writing quality, however better is more broad than that.
A rewrite would improve the writing quality.
It doesn't make sense because you think better refers to the storytelling, when in fact the explorative nature of gaming that was cut from ME3 after been in two previous installments could have benefited from MP not taking up disc space.
There are also things mentioned by the crew that were cut or not improved because of the space limit.

Wait a minute... now you were talking about disc space? So what did David get wrong?

I don't know why you think that the limiting factor on ME3's size was disk space rather than funding, or that Bio would have put more exploration in if they had had more disk space. There's no reason to think either is true.

 And in any event, cutting MP would very likely have resulted in less funding for the SP. I guess you could still add more exploration if you cut other stuff from the SP to make up the funding, though. You wouldn't get much disk space freed up since all the MP maps were in SP anyway.

I was always talking about disc space as that was the point of removing MP, MP takes up disc space that could have been used for SP.
If a rewrite was to be made SP should get it all.
It's shocking you couldn't catch on as I have had the same opinion for the last year.

They made two games already, the basic funding for the finale of a trilogy is fine enough, no need to compromise by adding MP if that was even covered in the amount added to the budget or if it even added to the budget it would have had anyway.
That's merely all an opinion and not worth debating, however as I said if a remake was to be made that should used in the space MP freed up.
It's an opinion but it does raise the question, did the MP benefit the actually game or would the game have been more or less the same if it did not have MP.
And if MP raised the budget for the game, was the budget used to benefit SP and was the MP fully covered in the amount it added if it did add to the overall budget.
I'm sure we would get a good amount freed by removng MP.

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wait... so you always knew this was a meaningless number?

Wish you'd told me that a couple of pages ago.

He wants to argue semantics because he doesn't want to admit that his beloved ME1 had just as much (if not more) tedious filler than his despised ME3.  In short, he's spinning like a top rather than admit, "Yeah... ME1 was just as bad in that regard.  Sorry."

Modifié par chemiclord, 07 juin 2013 - 09:52 .

[chemiclord]

TheProtheans wrote...

I was always talking about disc space as that was the point of removing MP, MP takes up disc space that could have been used for SP.
If a rewrite was to be made SP should get it all.
It's shocking you couldn't catch on as I have had the same opinion for the last year.

They made two games already, the basic funding for the finale of a trilogy is fine enough, no need to compromise by adding MP if that was even covered in the amount added to the budget or if it even added to the budget it would have had anyway.
That's merely all an opinion and not worth debating, however as I said if a remake was to be made that should used in the space MP freed up.
It's an opinion but it does raise the question, did the MP benefit the actually game or would the game have been more or less the same if it did not have MP.
And if MP raised the budget for the game, was the budget used to benefit SP and was the MP fully covered in the amount it added if it did add to the overall budget.
I'm sure we would get a good amount freed by removng MP.

And then you lose money and thus budget for all the things you want to do.  No matter how much you hate it, it's the simple fact of the matter.

Removing Multiplayer (the big moneymaker for the game) is not an option.  Period.  Full stop.  Gotta cut content somewhere else to fuel the content you want to add.

Modifié par chemiclord, 07 juin 2013 - 09:50 .

[Fixers0]

chemiclord wrote...

He wants to argue semantics because he doesn't want to admit that his beloved ME1 had just as much (if not more) tedious filler than his despised ME3.

Still rather ironic that I'm the one using numbers and facts from the game and you're the one using personal attacks and unreliable arguments.

[chemiclord]

Fixers0 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

He wants to argue semantics because he doesn't want to admit that his beloved ME1 had just as much (if not more) tedious filler than his despised ME3.

Still rather ironic that I'm the one using numbers and facts from the game and you're the one using personal attacks and unreliable arguments.

I use numbers too.  You just don't want to acknowlege them because they lay waste to your pathetic semantics.

55 "gathering" elements to ME1, that are grouped into 5 quests.
31 "gathering" elements to ME3, that are all counted as individual quests.

ME1 > ME3, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't true.

Modifié par chemiclord, 07 juin 2013 - 09:55 .

[Fixers0]

chemiclord wrote...

I use numbers too.  You just don't want to acknowlege them.

55 "gathering" elements to ME1, that are grouped into 5 quests.
31 "gathering" elements to ME3, that are all counted individually.

ME1 > ME3, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't true.

Yet again I just happen to have the numbers as well.

ME1: 5 fetch quests out of a total 73 quests.
ME3: 31 fetch quests out of a total 68 quests.

And they all but prove my point that ME3 has a substancially higher amount of fetch quests then ME1.

Modifié par Fixers0, 07 juin 2013 - 09:58 .

[Eterna]

I found ME3's tedious collection quests more fulfilling then the ones in ME1. In ME1 I had to land on a stupid planet that looks pretty much exactly the same as other planets. Then I had to drive around said planet eiher killing things or simply finding junk at the landmarks.

In ME3 I just had to go to a system, scan, then go back. The Reapers getting pissed at me was also more exciting because sometimes I had to scan while they were chasing me.

[chemiclord]

Fixers0 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

I use numbers too.  You just don't want to acknowlege them.

55 "gathering" elements to ME1, that are grouped into 5 quests.
31 "gathering" elements to ME3, that are all counted individually.

ME1 > ME3, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't true.

Yet again I just happen to have the numbers as well.

ME1: 5 fetch quests out of a total 73 quests.
ME3: 31 fetch quests out of a total 68 quests.

And they all but prove my point that ME3 has a substancially higher amount of fetch quests then ME1.

Chemiclord: ME1 had just as much filler as ME3.
Fixers: Nuh uh!  (shows misleading graph)
Chemiclord: Well, that's not exactly a direct comparison, because the standard used to determine a fetch quest in ME1 was different than in ME3.  When you break it down to an accurate point-to-point comparison, ME1 actually has MORE such quests than ME3.
Fixers: (slaps hands over his ears) LALALALA!  I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Our "argument" in a nutshell.

Modifié par chemiclord, 07 juin 2013 - 10:05 .

[Fixers0]

Eterna5 wrote...

I found ME3's tedious collection quests more fulfilling then the ones in ME1. In ME1 I had to land on a stupid planet that looks pretty much exactly the same as other planets. Then I had to drive around said planet eiher killing things or simply finding junk at the landmarks.

In ME3 I just had to go to a system, scan, then go back. The Reapers getting pissed at me was also more exciting because sometimes I had to scan while they were chasing me.

Offtopic: the guy in your avatar looks like a total wuss
Ontopic: 1: they're must something wrong with your eyes if you thought all uncharted  worlds in ME1 looked the same 
                2: I thought toy normandy and reapers the size of suns were unrealistic, immersion breaking and uninspiring

Modifié par Fixers0, 07 juin 2013 - 10:07 .

[chemiclord]

Eterna5 wrote...

I found ME3's tedious collection quests more fulfilling then the ones in ME1. In ME1 I had to land on a stupid planet that looks pretty much exactly the same as other planets. Then I had to drive around said planet eiher killing things or simply finding junk at the landmarks.

In ME3 I just had to go to a system, scan, then go back. The Reapers getting pissed at me was also more exciting because sometimes I had to scan while they were chasing me.

They were ALL tedium, used because they were a cheap way to inflate the length of the game with little investment of resources.  The minute degree of enjoyment more between one way or the other doesn't change the fact they were all just filler.

[Fixers0]

chemiclord wrote...
Chemiclord: ME1 had just as much filler as ME3.

unsupported claim

chemiclord wrote...
Fixers: Nuh uh!  (shows misleading graph)

Factually incorrect claim.

chemiclord wrote...
Chemiclord: Well, that's not exactly a direct comparison, because the standard used to determine a fetch quest in ME1 was different than in ME3.  When you break it down to an accurate point-to-point comparison, ME1 actually has MORE such quests than ME3.

Another factually incorrect claim. It was a direct comparision.

chemiclord wrote...
Fixers: (slaps hands over his ears) LALALALA!  I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Another unsupported claim

Please read some Wiki pages on how to use logical reasoning, will you, then come back and try again.

[Eterna]

Fixers0 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I found ME3's tedious collection quests more fulfilling then the ones in ME1. In ME1 I had to land on a stupid planet that looks pretty much exactly the same as other planets. Then I had to drive around said planet eiher killing things or simply finding junk at the landmarks.

In ME3 I just had to go to a system, scan, then go back. The Reapers getting pissed at me was also more exciting because sometimes I had to scan while they were chasing me.

Offtopic: the guy in your avatar looks like a total wuss

Off topic: Jake Gyllenhaal is more of a man you'll ever be, **** youuuuuuuu!

Modifié par Eterna5, 07 juin 2013 - 10:16 .

[chemiclord]

Dude. It was NOT a direct comparison.

When you have 10 elements lumped into one quest... and in another instance, count every element individually, that is NOT an apples-to-apples comparison.

It's like showing up to a basketball game with 50 people, splitting them up into 5 groups of 10, then saying, "Cool! 5 on 5! Let's go! Check the ball!"

The graph you showed was misleading for that same reason.

Modifié par chemiclord, 07 juin 2013 - 10:18 .

[Fixers0]

Eterna5 wrote...

Off topic: Jake Gyllenhaal is more of a man you'll ever be, **** youuuuuuuu!

No, Jake whateverhisname looks like a mild wind breeze would blow him away.

[Eterna]

Fixers0 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Off topic: Jake Gyllenhaal is more of a man you'll ever be, **** youuuuuuuu!

No, Jake whateverhisname looks like a mild wind breeze would blow him away.

I will find you. 

[Fixers0]

chemiclord wrote...

Dude. It was NOT a direct comparison.

Yes it is, It's 5 quests in ME1 against 31 in ME3, that's how the game catagorizes them and that's how they're compared.

chemiclord wrote...
When you have 10 elements lumped into one quest... and in another instance, count every element individually, that is NOT an apples-to-apples comparison.

Yes they are, it's a total of five quest against 31 in absolute numbers. How.Many.Times.Do.I.Have.To.Repeat.

chemiclord wrote...
The graph you showed was misleading for that same reason.

It isn't, regarding the fetch quests, it soley relies on the data retrieved from the game.

[TheProtheans]

chemiclord wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

I was always talking about disc space as that was the point of removing MP, MP takes up disc space that could have been used for SP.
If a rewrite was to be made SP should get it all.
It's shocking you couldn't catch on as I have had the same opinion for the last year.

They made two games already, the basic funding for the finale of a trilogy is fine enough, no need to compromise by adding MP if that was even covered in the amount added to the budget or if it even added to the budget it would have had anyway.
That's merely all an opinion and not worth debating, however as I said if a remake was to be made that should used in the space MP freed up.
It's an opinion but it does raise the question, did the MP benefit the actually game or would the game have been more or less the same if it did not have MP.
And if MP raised the budget for the game, was the budget used to benefit SP and was the MP fully covered in the amount it added if it did add to the overall budget.
I'm sure we would get a good amount freed by removng MP.

And then you lose money and thus budget for all the things you want to do.  No matter how much you hate it, it's the simple fact of the matter.

Removing Multiplayer (the big moneymaker for the game) is not an option.  Period.  Full stop.  Gotta cut content somewhere else to fuel the content you want to add.

That ignores the question raised as to if SP would be any different if there was no MP.
There is two previous installments that prove you can make a Mass effect game with a SP budget and with the natural improvement of the Bioware teams skills, can you really say something happened because of a bigger budget or simply because they improved.

Either way we already have the groundwork for general layout of the game because ME3 was already made.
Now we just need to rearranage everything to make it look nicer and it would cheap enough to make it.
And we can't say for sure if Multiplayer is some big money maker as there aren't that many misguided individuals in the world to play the game and stupidly make pointless micro-transactions.
But what I would really want to know is if MP was covered in the amount it supposedly added to the overall budget.

[Fixers0]

Eterna5 wrote...

I will find you. 

Just don't forget to bring an armoured bridage or two, you'll be needing them.

[chemiclord]

*deep breath*

So... once again you dodge the essence of the argument to repeat your semantic nonsense.

I shouldn't be surprised.

[Fixers0]

chemiclord wrote...
So... once again you dodge the essence of the argument to repeat your semantic nonsense.

And once agan you fail to present any relevant, logical arguments.