1814 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

That thread starts off pretty amusingly. "You promised us jessica I hate you!" lol

[dreamgazer]

KaiserShep wrote...

That thread starts off pretty amusingly. "You promised us jessica I hate you!" lol

Can't imagine why they're hesitant to interact with this place.  Nope, not one bit. 

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

Actualy yes.

You know, when there are players who want to be sure that Shepard survived, they are also other as me who want to be sure he is dead and will not return in some kind of sequel.

When breathing scene isn't ideal, it should work for both camps thanks to its ambiguity - Shepard/unknown soldier.

Your desired single slide or unequivocal word of god that Shepard survived/died would certainly harm one of these camp.

In this case ambiguity is better solution then selfish certainty.

If there are Word of God endings that Shepard died, it is absolutely reasonable fro there to be Word of God endings where Shepard lived.

If you want Shepard to die, pick an ending where he dies.  Let those who want Shepard to live have theris too.

[KaiserShep]

dreamgazer wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

That thread starts off pretty amusingly. "You promised us jessica I hate you!" lol

Can't imagine why they're hesitant to interact with this place.  Nope, not one bit. 

All in all they've been pretty good sports about this. Fortunately, BioWare doesn't have the equivalent of Tim Buckley in their midst, otherwise fans would've gone nuclear after the shenanigans that would have gone on in the forums as a result.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Word of God? About as close as you'll probably get.

One of the goals for the Extended Cut, as part of addressing player feedback, was to provide more time with the love interest, and more opportunity for players to say goodbye to them and provide additional moments of connection between them. We did this in several ways:
Shepard can now actually say goodbye to the love interest when they are split up at the conduit run.

When Shepard sees flashbacks of important characters during the final decision, the flashbacks are now variable based on your playthrough – so your love interest can appear as one of the flashbacks, providing another moment of reflection between Shepard and that character.

A memorial scene was added, partly to show a close bond between Shepard and the love interest. The scene is variable, and if Shepard has a love interest in a given playthrough, it will be that character who places Shepard’s name on the memorial wall.

You may notice that in the “Shepard lives” ending, the love interest hesitates to place Shepard’s name on the wall, and instead looks up as though deep in thought. This is meant to suggest that the love interest is not ready to believe Shepard is dead, and the final scene reveals they are correct. As the Normandy lifts off, there is hope that the love interest and Shepard will again be together.

"Hope" is not enough, and they were foolish to think it would be.  If Shepard certainly dies in so many endings, there should be endings where Shepard certainly lives.

Six (now seven) endings where Shepard Word of God dies.  And only one where there is "hope" that Shepard lived?  And they wonder why people were p*ssed?

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

That thread starts off pretty amusingly. "You promised us jessica I hate you!" lol

Can't imagine why they're hesitant to interact with this place.  Nope, not one bit. 

It's a mess at least partly of their own making.

It's not an excuse, but there's plenty of blame to go around.

[crimzontearz]

Actualy yes.

You know, when there are players who want to be sure that Shepard survived, they are also other as me who want to be sure he is dead and will not return in some kind of sequel.

When breathing scene isn't ideal, it should work for both camps thanks to its ambiguity - Shepard/unknown soldier.

Your desired single slide or unequivocal word of god that Shepard survived/died would certainly harm one of these camp.

In this case ambiguity is better solution then selfish certainty.

And as I said in the past allowing the player to DIRECTLY choose that could have been done easily as well

But no....AMBIGUITY FOR ALL

also, you are agreeing the scene us nit meant to give closure which by itself is quite ****ty of Bioware and confirms supposed author intent as BS

[crimzontearz]

Gazer you know VERY WELL that was BEFORE comicon and that AFTER that he stopped claiming that (so much for the comicon troll being a joke uh?)

Also, Jessica should have kept her mouth shut, between that, the "we have secret spreadsheets you are not allowed to see and "other" things that came up recently I am not sure I will ever be able to take her seriously again

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JamesFaith wrote...

Actualy yes.

You know, when there are players who want to be sure that Shepard survived, they are also other as me who want to be sure he is dead and will not return in some kind of sequel.

When breathing scene isn't ideal, it should work for both camps thanks to its ambiguity - Shepard/unknown soldier.

Your desired single slide or unequivocal word of god that Shepard survived/died would certainly harm one of these camp.

In this case ambiguity is better solution then selfish certainty.

You mean it would hurt one of the two highly specialized camps for high end Destroy? I can't see that being a problem.

Allowing for Shepard's possible survival is just as much a problem as a confirmed survival, for fans who will want Shepard in a sequel.

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

Gazer you know VERY WELL that was BEFORE comicon and that AFTER that he stopped claiming that (so much for the comicon troll being a joke uh?)  

I really don't care: it's your Word of God as delivered to the BSN, and it's not superseded by an obvious joke on a panel. 

[CrutchCricket]

AlanC9 wrote...
Right. But if it ever looked like the organics might win, the Reapers could just escalate.

I'm saying that there are other alternatives besides "conventional war" and "blow everything up" that don't involve ultimately losing the cycle. Hell the Reapers could just wait for everyone in this generation to die (minus the asari I guess). Orgaincs can't stay completely vigilant 100% of the time forever.

Or they could actually improve themselves to overcome the Crucible EMP thing. I've always said the Reapers themselves have been stagnant in terms of upgrades because they were perfectly suited to their task. If that were not the case however, their rate of "evolution" would be exponential and could not be matched by any organics.

Which may yet lead us back to conventional victory being ultimately impossible, even with localized disablers. Hmm. I didn't consider this. It may have to be all or nothing after all...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
That fighting a losing conventional war to defeat does not serve the Reaper's interests, while escalating and writing off a cycle does.

They cannot just "write off a cycle". It goes against their primary objective.

Please clarify- are you suggesting that the ME3 trilogy would end Shepard's story without resolving the Reaper threat? That the grand finale would be 'victory is possible, not guaranteed, so long as the Reapers are okay with losing'?

Not, mind you, that you've provided a compelling reason why the Reapers can't escalate and destroy us past the point at which conventional victory is not longer enabled, and then go back to harvesting us. If they wanted, they could even allow/arrange enough 'surviving' colonies to restore sufficient population while preventing them from becoming a new conventional threat.

I was initially envisioning more of a "Reaper threat is broken but remnants exist" scenario. So Reapers could show up in future installments but not be the galaxy enders they used to be. I'm starting to realize that may not be possible.

Organics could adapt to the bombing by doing the quarian thing however. Technological difference aside, one of the recognized weaknesses of organics was their being tied down to planets. If they go nomad fleet like the quarians they can escape the bombs and can hide in space almost as well as the Reapers. Resources are still a concern of course, and unlike the Reapers I don't think they can play hide and seek for ever. But the bombs could also be partially neutralized by the Crucible and any replicated devices we can make. In this scenario we assume it strips Reaper shields and creates an interdiction field that disables FTL by simulating planetary mass. This field could then pull FTL bombs out into realspace before they hit. Of course you can't cover a whole planet this way but smaller targets like mining asteroids, maybe even a moon, that may be possible.

In any case though I still don't think just bombing everything would benefit the Reapers at all, or indeed that they can even do it given the potential consequences, I am starting to think leaving Reapers alive could still spell our doom because, like I said to Alan above, they could just withdraw, patch their shieldstripping vulnerability and come back to finish the job.

So I guess I'll just leave it here. Localized disablers is not a winning strategy. I still think oneshotting every Reaper everywhere cheapens them, but I guess they really were made to be unstoppable so there's no avoiding that.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 21 décembre 2013 - 06:40 .

[crimzontearz]

I really don't care: it's your Word of God as delivered to the BSN, and it's not superseded by an obvious joke on a panel.

and since no one is officially stating it was a joke Helper's troll is word of god too

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

I really don't care: it's your Word of God as delivered to the BSN, and it's not superseded by an obvious joke on a panel.

and since no one is officially stating it was a joke Helper's troll is word of god too

Wait, so you want someone from BioWare to come out and make an "official" statement  that an obvious joke on a panel was, indeed, an obvious joke? Good luck with that!

[crimzontearz]

Why not? You said it yourself, word of god (according to your vision of things) has only ever stated (through Tully) that Shepard lives high EMS destroy, thus, if this was a joke it would not have taken much from Tully (who was still frequenting the forums) to say "no guys, what I said stands, he lives. That was a poor joke at comicon). Instead he completely stopped advocating that

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

Why not? You said it yourself, word of god (according to your vision of things) has only ever stated (through Tully) that Shepard lives high EMS destroy, thus, if this was a joke it would not have taken much from Tully (who was still frequenting the forums) to say "no guys, what I said stands, he lives. That was a poor joke at comicon). Instead he completely stopped advocating that

Probably because he already put down official thoughts on the matter.  See above.

Is (was) it really his job to run around and coddle the fans whenever a dev says something clearly in jest? 

[JamesFaith]

dreamgazer wrote...

Wait, so you want someone from BioWare to come out and make an "official" statement  that an obvious joke on a panel was, indeed, an obvious joke? Good luck with that!

And don't forget on warning, that statements will be serious, before speech and after speech plus detailed explanation of all ambiguity words and terms in that speech to prevent another case of trolling paranoia.

[KaiserShep]

Nothing is official until they sign the 10 foot long contract form in blood with a fish bone pen.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

I really don't care: it's your Word of God as delivered to the BSN, and it's not superseded by an obvious joke on a panel.

and since no one is officially stating it was a joke Helper's troll is word of god too

Wait, so you want someone from BioWare to come out and make an "official" statement  that an obvious joke on a panel was, indeed, an obvious joke? Good luck with that!

It's called good customer service.

[crimzontearz]

Probably because he already put down official thoughts on the matter. See above.

Is (was) it really his job to run around and coddle the fans whenever a dev says something clearly in jest?

No that'd be Chris'....and that worked great

[crimzontearz]

It's called good customer service.

we are not customers, we are fans/slaves, we deserve nothing.....apparently

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

It's called good customer service.

we are not customers, we are fans/slaves, we deserve nothing.....apparently

> Implying you received nothing.

But no, customers---especially those involved with works of fiction---don't deserve everything they ask for. 

[crimzontearz]

Everything? No

A modicum of customer service? Yes, Brenon Holmes believed that and I applaud him

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

Everything? No

A modicum of customer service? Yes, Brenon Holmes believed that and I applaud him

Which you received, sir, sorry to say.  It didn't satisfy you, but it was offered. 

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...
I'm saying that there are other alternatives besides "conventional war" and "blow everything up" that don't involve ultimately losing the cycle. Hell the Reapers could just wait for everyone in this generation to die (minus the asari I guess). Orgaincs can't stay completely vigilant 100% of the time forever.

If that's really all you're saying, no objection. Burning the current cycle is obviously a last resort. As long as the Reapers end up winning in the end, I have no problem with alternative ways for them to win.

[crimzontearz]

Customer service is ongoing, not a one time thing, god I wish it was sometimes in my line if work but in many other businesses what happened does not qualify as good customer service (not to mention that if the customer is not satisfied the service was obviously not good enough, and we are talking solely about word of god here) But that's ok, keep justifying it all, I am sure they appreciate it.