407 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

...What?

Are you claiming that nothing Shepard does matters? And claiming it as a good or acceptable thing?

[David7204]

Redbelle wrote...

David7204 wrote...

#1. Developers are under absolutely no obligation to treat all characters 'equally.' That's frankly just stupid.

1. Why not? And why is it stupid to, as a developer, give a character like Vega, equal conversation consideration, to someone like Garrus?

ME does, after all, rely on conversation and event's to bring character's into the sphere of public affection.

Because it forces developers and writers to come up with content to check a box off the list instead of coming with content that's actually good.

Characters are not interchangeable.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 09:20 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
And again, Shepard doesn't always die. Though it wuldn't bother me much if he always did.

I have to ask. In a game built around building your own Shepard's story. why do people feel that Shepard had to die in every story? 

Who felt that? I remember a couple of posters here feeling that way, but they're a fringe element.

I suppose I looked at your words in a different context from what you were saying. I thought you were advocating as such. 

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

David7204 wrote...

#1. Developers are under absolutely no obligation to treat all characters 'equally.' That's frankly just stupid.

1. Why not? And why is it stupid to, as a developer, give a character like Vega, equal conversation consideration, to someone like Garrus?

ME does, after all, rely on conversation and event's to bring character's into the sphere of public affection.

Because it forces developers and writers to come up with content to check a box off the list instead of coming with content that's actually good.

Characters are not interchangeable.

I don't know..... Replacing Jacob with a 2x4 might work out pretty well.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

David7204 wrote...

#1. Developers are under absolutely no obligation to treat all characters 'equally.' That's frankly just stupid.

1. Why not? And why is it stupid to, as a developer, give a character like Vega, equal conversation consideration, to someone like Garrus?

ME does, after all, rely on conversation and event's to bring character's into the sphere of public affection.

Because it forces developers and writers to come up with content to check a box off the list instead of coming with content that's actually good.

Characters are not interchangeable.

Why can't they come up with content that's actually good that also is unique to each character and has good content?

Don't tell me. Programming, voice recording, production costs, etc. 

[Mr.House]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...


#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

There were lots of side missions in ME1/2 some having small stories in them spanning multiple missions.  ME3 has a lot fewer.

And they're much longer and higher quality.

No. They really weren't that great quality. They were long, yes. A bit too long in some points. I'm fine with them as they are, but they are not much higher quality.

They had proper dialog, they are already better then those horrible N7 missions in ME2.

[Steelcan]

I'm talking about the N7 missions in ME3 compared to the ones in ME2...........

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Mr.House wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...


#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

There were lots of side missions in ME1/2 some having small stories in them spanning multiple missions.  ME3 has a lot fewer.

And they're much longer and higher quality.

No. They really weren't that great quality. They were long, yes. A bit too long in some points. I'm fine with them as they are, but they are not much higher quality.

They had proper dialog, they are already better then those horrible N7 missions in ME2.

I guess it's in the eye-of-the-beholder. I didn't really see the N7 Missions in ME3 as that much of a vast improvement over ME2. I'd have liked to have seen, above all else, how the missions actually affected the story and final mission. Save the nuclear plant (Firebase: Reactor)? The fleet gets a more efficient fuel.

[David7204]

For one, because not all characters have the traits for such content to be written off of them. Could a two hour mission be made based on Jacob? Or Allers? Or Kelly?

Secondly, and more fundamentally, because it's not the story the developers are interested in telling them and not something they should be forced to tell. All of the characters are not equal. They aren't. Liara is a more important character than Kasumi, and that's just the end of it. And BioWare should absolutely have that freedom.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 09:28 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
But give me a truly thoughty movie and it may stick with me forever and have way more meaning than a formulaic hero wins and lives sort of thing.  The thing is it must remain true to itself.  ME1 and 2 set the story world.  ME3 ended in some other story.  The context for its endings is not there because we weren't watching a David Lynch movie.  We were playing a cross between Star Trek:TNG, Star Wars, Firefly, Farscape, Blade Runner, and Babylon 5.  We ended with the Matrix crossed with 2001.

I guess maybe I don't feel this to be all that significant because I don't draw the genre lines in the same places you do, or care about them much when they're drawn. Various Treks could be on either side of that divide (sometimes different episodes within the same series, even)

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 août 2013 - 09:28 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

For one, because not all characters have the traits for such content to be written off of them. Could a two hour mission be made based on Jacob? Or Allers? Or Kelly?
 

The missions take you that long? 

[spirosz]

N7 Quests in ME3... re-used maps for MP, nothing significant in terms of story. Let me fetch your ball for you, shall I, was the norm for Shepard. I was hoping ME3 would have the best of ME2's amazing ideas like Overlord, where the side quests would be few, but the quality would be unbelievable, since well... there is a Reaper War going on. Though if we do count it, there are missions that aren't mandatory that could be considered "side quests" in a sense in ME3, like a few on Palevan, if I remember.

Modifié par spirosz, 05 août 2013 - 09:29 .

[David7204]

That's my estimate for Lair of the Shadow Broker.

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

...What?

Are you claiming that nothing Shepard does matters? And claiming it as a good or acceptable thing?

Hell, no. I thought you were saying that was the problem with ME3.

[Redbelle]

David7204 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

David7204 wrote...

#1. Developers are under absolutely no obligation to treat all characters 'equally.' That's frankly just stupid.

1. Why not? And why is it stupid to, as a developer, give a character like Vega, equal conversation consideration, to someone like Garrus?

ME does, after all, rely on conversation and event's to bring character's into the sphere of public affection.

Because it forces developers and writers to come up with content to check a box off the list instead of coming with content that's actually good.

Characters are not interchangeable.

Correct.

But each character has their own unique motivations. Passion's. Personality etc that needs to be expressed.

Conversation give's character's the chance to put themselves up for public scrutiny.

And's that's kinda the point in a way. Because all the popular character's had alot of face time where they got to talk about their view's on event's going on. Which is part of ME's popularity. These character's are widely differnet from one another.

Miranda and Jack would never have developed their rivalry if they had been ignored in ME2 the way Vega was ignored in ME3. And Ash comes across very badly in ME3, but has no dialogue to rationalise or build a bridge woth Shepard.

These character's are not interchangable. But they are also not expressing themselves so far as to justify their presence just standing around the Normandy as interactable character's

[Redbelle]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

David7204 wrote...

#1. Developers are under absolutely no obligation to treat all characters 'equally.' That's frankly just stupid.

1. Why not? And why is it stupid to, as a developer, give a character like Vega, equal conversation consideration, to someone like Garrus?

ME does, after all, rely on conversation and event's to bring character's into the sphere of public affection.

Because it forces developers and writers to come up with content to check a box off the list instead of coming with content that's actually good.

Characters are not interchangeable.

I don't know..... Replacing Jacob with a 2x4 might work out pretty well.

I loled

[David7204]

AlanC9 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

...What?

Are you claiming that nothing Shepard does matters? And claiming it as a good or acceptable thing?

Hell, no. I thought you were saying that was the problem with ME3.

With the endings, yeah.

[Mr.House]

spirosz wrote...

N7 Quests in ME3... re-used maps for MP, nothing significant in terms of story. Let me fetch your ball for you, shall I, was the norm for Shepard. I was hoping ME3 would have the best of ME2's amazing ideas like Overlord, where the side quests would be few, but the quality would be unbelievable, since well... there is a Reaper War going on. Though if we do count it, there are missions that aren't mandatory that could be considered "side quests" in a sense in ME3, like a few on Palevan, if I remember.

A side mission is a misison oyu don't need to do.  There is more to a side misison then just shooting. Grimmson was better then any misison in ME2 imo. ALong with other misisons. Hell I rather do Zaeeds mission in ME3 then any of ME2s boring N7 misisons.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

That's my estimate for Lair of the Shadow Broker.

I think a loyalty mission or main story mission would be a better example, 30-45min

[spirosz]

Mr.House wrote...

spirosz wrote...

N7 Quests in ME3... re-used maps for MP, nothing significant in terms of story. Let me fetch your ball for you, shall I, was the norm for Shepard. I was hoping ME3 would have the best of ME2's amazing ideas like Overlord, where the side quests would be few, but the quality would be unbelievable, since well... there is a Reaper War going on. Though if we do count it, there are missions that aren't mandatory that could be considered "side quests" in a sense in ME3, like a few on Palevan, if I remember.

A side mission is a misison oyu don't need to do.  There is more to a side misison then just shooting. Grimmson was better then any misison in ME2 imo. ALong with other misisons. Hell I rather do Zaeeds mission in ME3 then any of ME2s boring N7 misisons.

That is why I brought up the last part, but mind you, but fetch quests stuck to me more, in terms of what not to do, if you see what I'm saying.  

[Mr.House]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's my estimate for Lair of the Shadow Broker.

I think a loyalty mission or main story mission would be a better example, 30-45min

Loyalty missions where a horrible idea.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

For one, because not all characters have the traits for such content to be written off of them. Could a two hour mission be made based on Jacob? Or Allers? Or Kelly?

Jacob, yes. You're deliberately pulling names out that you know aren't relevant to make the argument seem ridiculous. Squadmates definitely. Hell, I'm willing to exclude DLC squadmates.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, because it's not the story the developers are interested in telling them and not something they should be forced to tell. All of the characters are not equal. They aren't. Liara is a more important character than Kasumi, and that's just the end of it. And BioWare should absolutely have that freedom.

Rather sucks since I don't think Liara is a key crewmember at all. I wish I could have betrayed her to the original Shadow Broker, or made Miranda the Broker. Then I might actually get some useful intelligence.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 août 2013 - 09:37 .

[Steelcan]

Mr.House wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's my estimate for Lair of the Shadow Broker.

I think a loyalty mission or main story mission would be a better example, 30-45min

Loyalty missions where a horrible idea.

Perhaps, but I'm not talking about their purpose in the story, more their time taken to complete and importance to the characters.

[David7204]

That's too bad. You aren't going like every character in every story, and that's really the end of it. Mass Effect is not obligated to change that by virtue of being a video game.