263 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

One point I totally agree with is to keep the misconstructions out of the actual game stuff.

[Maria Caliban]

Lebdood wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

You could always replay the game and play the DLC at your convenience.

Mark of the Assassin and Legacy are worth it, in all honesty. 

That would involve replaying the game, which sounds fun but quickly turns boring. I have one full playthrough of DA:O and one full playthrough of DA II. My attempts to replay both of those games have failed to find fruition.

Might I suggest attempting to roleplay different player character archetypes?

It might be fun to play a different character than you're used to. It really has a domino effect of making the whole game more enjoyable. Not that it's everyone's cup of tea, mind you.

It's really more about economy of choice. I could play a somewhat different story if I picked an aggressive pro-mage Hawke, or I could play a very different story if I play Batman: Origins or the Jedi Knight storyline in TOR or Saint's Row IV.

Like many people, I had more games than I do time, so I tend to prioritize 'something new' over 'replaying an older game.'

This isn't a criticism, by the way. I enjoy BioWare's games greatly, but I'm not big on replaying, so I tend to miss out on the later DLCs.

[Eurypterid]

TurretSyndrome wrote...


Any major(lke Shale DLC) content released close after the release of the game or right next to it, belongs in the game. 

Just to clear up the Shale DLC point: This was cut content. It wasn't going to make it into the game, period. However, when EA decided to delay the PC release of the game for half a year, BioWare then had the resources to complete Shale's story/quest line. So they worked on it until it was ready to go. It couldn't be included in the game itself because by the time it was ready, the game had gone beyond the lock-down point where nothing new could be added on disc for release. So it became Day-1 DLC.

The important point about this particular DLC though, is that it was free to anyone that bought the game new. The only ones charged for this particular DLC were people that picked up a used copy of the game.

Warden's Keep was the one that had people up in arms because (as noted) it was presented in an immersion-busting offer of paid DLC by an NPC in-game.

[BouncyFrag]

Ryzaki wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of there not being micro transactions in the game.

You're breaking my heart man.

I hope the microtransactions are stuck to the MP. I see some in SP and I'm done.

I hear ya. I'm a bit grumpy with what we've been seeing in regards to MTs and gaming, most notably in Forza 5. I had no problem with MTs in the ME3 MP since they supported it with free dlc and I never felt the need to 'grind' for credits whilst having a lot of fun. We now live in a culture of microtransactions thanks to mobile gaming and aps. As people get more accustomed to it, especially younger folks who seem to be in a perpetual state of texting (or what ever it is that they are doing), I fear we'll get more crap like this even after paying $60 for a new game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

I'm not talking about the BSN in 2009. I'm talking about the BSN in 2013.

The people who thought DAO was a betrayal of BioWare's roots have all left.

[Dave of Canada]

Speaking of DLC, I still find it really off that Sebastian had more main plot involvement than core game companions.

[HiroVoid]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Speaking of DLC, I still find it really off that Sebastian had more main plot involvement than core game companions.

Sebastian was too moderate.  That's why they needed Fenris to represent the templar side.

[BouncyFrag]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Speaking of DLC, I still find it really off that Sebastian had more main plot involvement than core game companions.

Ditto for Javik in ME3. Taking him on the main Thessia mission turned everything we thought we knew about the ME universe on its head.

[StarLitStranger]

I am betting on some DLC at launch. That is how EA works anymore. Javik, Sebastian, Shale..

I am just going to get the collectors edition... usually it comes with that. Still think its shady but whatever. A corporations job is to make money I suppose.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ninja'd

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 novembre 2013 - 05:50 .

[David7204]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Speaking of DLC, I still find it really off that Sebastian had more main plot involvement than core game companions.

Ditto for Javik in ME3. Taking him on the main Thessia mission turned everything we thought we knew about the ME universe on its head.

Uh, no.

Taking Javik doesn't tell you anything significant you don't get from taking other squadmates. Nor does it 'turn the universe on it's head.'

Modifié par David7204, 28 novembre 2013 - 08:00 .

[Ryzaki]

BouncyFrag wrote...
I hear ya. I'm a bit grumpy with what we've been seeing in regards to MTs and gaming, most notably in Forza 5. I had no problem with MTs in the ME3 MP since they supported it with free dlc and I never felt the need to 'grind' for credits whilst having a lot of fun. We now live in a culture of microtransactions thanks to mobile gaming and aps. As people get more accustomed to it, especially younger folks who seem to be in a perpetual state of texting (or what ever it is that they are doing), I fear we'll get more crap like this even after paying $60 for a new game.

Yeah I heard about that. Good grief. Those prices are crazy.

I mean they're giving us F2P garbage in a game that costs 60 bucks to begin with. They either need to cut the F2P garbage or lower the costs of games. This is ridculous.  I don't mind F2P games having micotransactions because that's how they pay for themselves and there's a certain expectation because the game was free. But full priced retail games? Come on.

And it's not even just little cosmetic crap that don't even matter anymore. Ugh.

[David7204]

I would love publishers to raise the price of games.

[Eurypterid]

David7204 wrote...

I would love publishers to raise the price of games.

Okay, I'll bite: Why?

Modifié par Eurypterid, 28 novembre 2013 - 08:26 .

[David7204]

Because it would probably lead to better games.

[Eurypterid]

David7204 wrote...

Because it would probably lead to better games.

I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe that. But I'm a cynic.

[StarLitStranger]

Eurypterid wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Because it would probably lead to better games.

I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe that. But I'm a cynic.

I agree. It's talented writers, artists, and having enough time to make a quality game that separate good and bad games.

Microtransactions would be a deal breaker for me. Those only work in free games for the most part at least. And I have been frustrated with Bioware games before, feeling that they take part of a completed game out to make more money on top of the 60$ game. I have no problem with DLC but I do have a problem with exploitation.

Modifié par StarLitStranger, 28 novembre 2013 - 08:52 .

[BouncyFrag]

David7204 wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Speaking of DLC, I still find it really off that Sebastian had more main plot involvement than core game companions.

Ditto for Javik in ME3. Taking him on the main Thessia mission turned everything we thought we knew about the ME universe on its head.

Uh, no.

Taking Javik doesn't tell you anything significant you don't get from taking other squadmates. Nor does it 'turn the universe on it's head.'

I was referring to what he said to Liara, which if you don't think turned her world upside down, we should just agree to disagree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

I would love publishers to raise the price of games.

I'm totally with David on this one.

In 1986, new games cost something like $160 (in 2013 dollars).  Selling the games at a lower per-unit price has turned it into a volume business.  Developers are now forced to pursue the largest possible market.

[Maria Caliban]

The microtransactions in ME 3 MP were not exploitation.

You could buy packs either through BioWare points or through the credits you earned from playing the game. You could never pay a cent and unlock every item, class, and character.

Moreover, the revenue generated from people buying the packs didn't just go to a big pile of money for EA executives to frolic in. They used it to make new maps, new enemies, new classes, new weapons, and new gameplay, which they then released as free DLC.

Microtransactions in TOR aren't exploitative either.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Planning ahead, sure. There's nothing wrong with knowing that you're going to release DLC and planning for it. Planning ahead is not cut work. And I should add it would be ridiculous hypocrisy to whine the story would be better with more planning and then complain about planning for DLC.

Well, the complaints arise from the assumption that if DLC didn't exist, the character would just appear in the main game at no extra cost to the player. Players feel that they're being swindled out of the "full game", and tricked into paying extra to get the 'missing parts'.

We can't know for sure, of course, but based on my limited experience with how editing works in print and film, I think it's far more likely that without DLC, the character would simply be cut outright and we'd never learn of their existence; the same fate that befalls all the cut content that didn't become DLC.

I don't disagree with the logic that without the time after the game goes gold that certain content wouldn't be finished, but I highly doubt it is coincidence that it is a companion and their associated recruitment mission EVERY TIME without it being by design. Would there be content that didn't make it to the main game/bugs that wouldn't be fixed without this extra time? No doubt. But would that content just so happen to correspond to another companion if not by plan? No, I'd (personally) highly doubt it.

The catch is that Bioware can't easily sell a few extra dungeons levels, a few small side quests and/or some bug fixes as a $10 DLC package... but they can sell a companion. So it's possible they select which companion that would be, put the companion's work on the back burner, then finish the less marketable aspects of the game. If the priority was to finish all companions, but skimp on some dungeon maps, would fan outcry about being sold a game with cut content be as loud?

I don't know... but I'd doubt it. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 novembre 2013 - 09:53 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Ah! Microtransactions the biggest con in gaming, I would also like to state if there is MP it should not affect the SP experience like Mass Effect 3's MP did, that was one of the lousiest things I've ever seen done in gaming. In a perfect world the trophies for MP would appear as a different game as well.

[Lebanese Dude]

Maria Caliban wrote...
It's really more about economy of choice. I could play a somewhat different story if I picked an aggressive pro-mage Hawke, or I could play a very different story if I play Batman: Origins or the Jedi Knight storyline in TOR or Saint's Row IV.

Like many people, I had more games than I do time, so I tend to prioritize 'something new' over 'replaying an older game.'

This isn't a criticism, by the way. I enjoy BioWare's games greatly, but I'm not big on replaying, so I tend to miss out on the later DLCs.

I see your point. I never thought of it that way.

I probably play less games than most people. I focus on RPGs and turn-based strategy games, so I devote more time to singular games.

[Lebanese Dude]

Tequila Cat wrote...
No you're not, David is just retarded and obtuse.

What's the point of this reply?

I find David to be one of the more civilized people on this forum. You could take some tips from him.