1814 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

I know amps amplify biotics. I wasn't asking about that. I'm curious biotic barriers specifically.

Armors would hinder them if they're physical levels drop. Just like carrying around any other heavy object would.

Considering a LOT of armors' descriptions speak of strength enhancing servos....

[crimzontearz]

If you are wearing an armor that boosts your strength then if said armor would fatigue you more than it improves your strength then it might be kinda pointless...

[crimzontearz]

If the armor makes.you stronger than carrying it would not be a burden (no more than wearing clothes) so that is moot point as it would not fatigue....but that is beside the point.


Could they go by on biotics alone? Not unless they have unlimited stamina to keep up barriers the WHOLE time (which is VERY lore breaking and idiotic as hardauits have shields which would let the biotic not have to waste energy continuously) not unless their biotics can magically never drop, not unless their biotics can magically protect them in EVA situations on alien worlds.

Oh and no armor = no medigel doses...isn't that a ****

So no, total bull.

[crimzontearz]

I do not need to be more lenient because I do not "need" this to change not it is a huge deal, merely a pet peeve (like the idiotic heatsinks)

That said, they created a lore, then chose to trump it with the rule if cool because ...reasons.

If you ask me that is never a good thing.

[crimzontearz]

No, it turned into a discussion after I mentioned it was one of the changes (in softness) from ME1 to ME2 and someone denied it

Would I like Bioware to go back to something that makes more sense? Sure, is it a necessity? Nah, pretty low on my (very short) wish list

[Mathias]

crimzontearz wrote...

I'm not reading all 32 pages so somebody here has to let me know if someone else already said this.

OP let me assure you something. The have learned their lesson. The whole of Bioware have learned their lesson from ME3's ending. Do not think otherwise and do not let anyone tell you otherwise. First off here's an article where the writers and devs pretty much admit that the ending was a mistake:
http://www.oxm.co.uk...r-future-games/

So it did finally happen. A lot of people were upset that Bioware will never admit that the ending was wrong and all that, but it's right there people. It just happened under a lot of people's noses. Yes they fluff it up, and yes they admit they learned their lesson while still trying to save face, but this is the most you're ever gonna get, at least for a while.

Riiiight

http://www.ign.com/a...-shepard-at-all

So....the guy responsible for it all is PROMOTED and given the chance they would NOT rectify something that pissed people off

They reeeeaaaally learned uh?

Sorry not buying it until the next game releases and proves it

Am I missing something? Where does it say Mac Walters got promoted? Also to be fair, Casey Hudson is more at fault for the ending. Yes they both worked on it, but he was the project lead. 

Also I wouldn't go buying that whole speal about how they wouldn't change a thing, had they known that what they were writing would lead to the unbelievable disaster that it did. I guarantee they would've done something differently. But of course they'll say otherwise. Saying they would do things differently would be them admitting that they f-ed up.

[dreamgazer]

They never said they "wouldn't change a thing", only specific aspects.

And yeah, Walters appears to have been promoted to the overseer/coordinator position of narrative director.

[Mathias]

dreamgazer wrote...

They never said they "wouldn't change a thing", only specific aspects.

And yeah, Walters appears to have been promoted to the overseer/coordinator position of narrative director.

Not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but I think it might be good. I like to think this means that he'll basically spend most of his time behind a desk doing paper work and answering to the higher ups, than actually being involved with the meat of the wriiting in the next game. If we're lucky he'll be too busy with that stuff and pening his awful comic series to be involved much in ME4.

[CrutchCricket]

dreamgazer wrote...
Actually, it's reminding others where the bar was originally set, instead of elevating the stature of the preceding works while attacking the ones that follow for comparable---some might say less significant---manipulation of the genre's threshold. This happens for a number of reasons, namely rose-tinted nostalgia and unjust writer favoritism.

Implying that wearing a belt and oxygen mask in vacuum or "organic and synthetic energies" is of equivalent "softness" to ambiguously presented clones and telepathy.

I think not.

The sequels dropped in "hardness". That's very clear. Whether that's a bad thing is another story. I think the more relevant question is what and how much people will accept in terms of changes to the threshold.

[Nightwriter]

durasteel wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I put little stock in game reviewers. They're rarely invested enough to recognize these things. Usually they play through a game only once and have not followed the series enough to know a writing messup when they see it.

I think the overwhelming majority of the early reviews for ME3 were written without having reached the end of the game. These reviewers noted the gameplay changes, saw the story elements in place on Mars and the Citadel, tried out the multiplayer, and wrote their review based on playing the game for a day or so.

Once we started getting reviews from folks who had finished the game (like Angry Joe) we started to see a much different tone.

Really? The "overwhelming majority"?

Well I admit I didn't read a huge amount of reviews, mainly because at the time all the reviewers seemed to be saying "don't you let those mean old fans win BioWare" and "this uproar is entitlement, pure and simple" and "I once knew another game that gave in to fan pressure and that game is now turning tricks on the streets of Harlem to finance its coke addiction."

But srsly, what reviewer would have the nerve to write a review about a controversial game when they have not played through to the ending that caused the controversy? 

[Daemul]

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all reviewers finished the game before before reviewing it, the ones I read, which were a lot, certainly had.

[crimzontearz]

Am I missing something? Where does it say Mac Walters got promoted? Also to be fair, Casey Hudson is more at fault for the ending. Yes they both worked on it, but he was the project lead.

Also I wouldn't go buying that whole speal about how they wouldn't change a thing, had they known that what they were writing would lead to the unbelievable disaster that it did. I guarantee they would've done something differently. But of course they'll say otherwise. Saying they would do things differently would be them admitting that they f-ed up.

yes he got promoted, as someone else said. Is it a promoveatur ut amoveatur thing? Maybe, but he is nit going anywhere and he still has influence, the very idea of it puzzles me.

As for the spiel, humility and admission if fault and flaws goes a looooooong way. I would trust them more if they flat out said "yeah we screwed up, we are not gonna go down that road again"

[David7204]

Nobody on the BSN has any idea what Walters' post entails, so pretending that you do is really incredibly stupid.

[crimzontearz]

You don't either David....tho it is kinda hard to misinterpret


Then again hopefully his influence on the franchise is now minimal

[dreamgazer]

Daemul wrote...

I'm pretty sure that most, if not all reviewers finished the game before before reviewing it, the ones I read, which were a lot, certainly had.

Having just recently sifted through the above-90 reviews to find their mentioning of the ending, I can concur.

[Mcfly616]

30+ pages later......and it's still unclear as to what "lesson" ME3 was supposed to learn (from itself?).

[dreamgazer]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Implying that wearing a belt and oxygen mask in vacuum or "organic and synthetic energies" is of equivalent "softness" to ambiguously presented clones and telepathy.

Implying that a mind-controlling plant crapping out asari clones and Shepard's brain being rearranged by a secondhand mental "cipher" (lol) to get the team to the story's pseudo-MacGuffin is something you can shrug off that easily. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 27 décembre 2013 - 02:32 .

[crimzontearz]

30+ pages later......and it's still unclear as to what "lesson" ME3 was supposed to learn (from itself?).

Don't underestimate your fan base's investment?
Don't be condescending?
Don't use "art" as a non plus ultra shield?
Don't listen to Walters?
Don't use minimalist delivery for something that is supposed to give emotional payoff?
Don't forego peer review?
Don't rush a game of this size?


All of the above?

[Vinchisters]

BSN is still butthurt about the endings? Wow, after a close family friend died it took me 3 months to move on and accept what happened, but here most users of the Butthurt Snob Network are still b*tching about a VIDEO GAME ending even though its been 2 years during which a FREE DLC was released to fix what was wrong.

When and where do we draw the line between initial frustration and nerdrage?

[GreyLycanTrope]

Vinchisters wrote...
BSN is still butthurt about the endings? Wow, after a close family friend died it took me 3 months to move on and accept what happened,

I'm sorry to here that, but you realize not everything that people complain about is a tragedy but just something they really don't like right? People can complain about things they don't like if they still don't like them.

but here most users of the Butthurt Snob Network are still b*tching about a VIDEO GAME ending even though its been 2 years during which a FREE DLC was released to fix what was wrong.

At this point the amount of people who still actively complain is very low actually, though a few others will occasionally point out short comings when the topic of conversation comes ups, which they wouldn't do if the DLC you mentioned did fix what was wrong.

When and where do we draw the line between initial frustration and nerdrage?

Probably around the same time we can expect people to quit ragging on the Phantom Menace. Time doesn't stop something from being a bad film.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 27 décembre 2013 - 02:53 .

[angol fear]

crimzontearz wrote...

30+ pages later......and it's still unclear as to what "lesson" ME3 was supposed to learn (from itself?).

Don't underestimate your fan base's investment?
Don't be condescending?
Don't use "art" as a non plus ultra shield?
Don't listen to Walters?
Don't use minimalist delivery for something that is supposed to give emotional payoff?
Don't forego peer review?
Don't rush a game of this size?


All of the above?

They had no lesson to learn. You don't want them to write (what they like), you want them to please you. The art as ultra shield, the minimalism (once again you're wrong!), and the "rushed" game, all of this is wrong it's just you who see that.