1814 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

If nothing else, the marketing of the new game should be good for a laugh.

Modifié par iakus, 18 décembre 2013 - 07:20 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Dear David and his plot that has conventional victory succeed without using space magic?

Where is this conventional victory plot of David's. It's been brought up several times so I've grown curious, especially since I am a fan of the conventional victory idea -- although mostly for thematic reasons.

That's just it, it doesn't exist. 

David claims to have the end-all-beat-all ending that uses this without changing anything in ME1 or ME2, but when pressed, he consistently ignores the request and changes the subject (mostly by attacking someone over something). 

IMO, conventional victory is kind of a cop-out for the Reapers, which is why I support a superweapon idea.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

iakus wrote...

If nothing else, the marktting of the new game should be good for a laugh.

I already noted the disparity between the DAI team and the ME4 Team from what little has been released about both.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

If nothing else, the marktting of the new game should be good for a laugh.

So will the reactions from the ever-so-bitter fans. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

If nothing else, the marktting of the new game should be good for a laugh.

So will the reactions from the ever-so-bitter fans. 

What do you have against bitter and cynical fans?

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

If nothing else, the marktting of the new game should be good for a laugh.

So will the reactions from the ever-so-bitter fans. 

What do you have against bitter and cynical fans?

Depends on the rationale of the cynic and how insistent they are on focusing on doom and gloom.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

IMO, conventional victory is kind of a cop-out for the Reapers, which is why I support a superweapon idea.

The only reason I can see it as a cop out is thematic.. The Reapers are intended to be an existential threat. Not merely a military threat. They're meant to convey a sense of defeat, before any fight starts.

That said, I still like conventional victories, because I'm just here to play games. Not talk with you bastards about philosophy and game design. No offense lol. I mean, if I really had a preference, I'd just want an entertaining game, where I moved on and not got stuck in this mental loop, and wouldn't have even bothered talking about any of this. <_<

IMO, those kinds of games are the mindless bargain-bin games that don't make me think or challenge me. I like the complex stuff. I'm not here to be entertained like that.

If I want that, I'll just look at the skateboarding hipsters outside my apartment who wipe out all the time.

[Barquiel]

I don't mind the Crucible too much. As for a conventional victory, if the crucible hadn't existed and the game had been designed completely different where you coordinate space battles or direct troops, it might have worked. But how do you want to fit a conventional victory into a RPG without making it a strategy game? The protagonists would be Hackett, Lidanya or Victus...and not Shepard.

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

IMO, conventional victory is kind of a cop-out for the Reapers, which is why I support a superweapon idea.

The only reason I can see it as a cop out is thematic.. The Reapers are intended to be an existential threat. Not merely a military threat. They're meant to convey a sense of defeat, before any fight starts.

That said, I still like conventional victories, because I'm just here to play games. Not talk with you bastards about philosophy and game design. No offense lol. I mean, if I really had a preference, I'd just want an entertaining game, where I moved on and not got stuck in this mental loop, and wouldn't have even bothered talking about any of this. <_<

That's unfortunate. It's that mental loop that brought me here in the first place, and not exactly in a bad way.

[Redbelle]

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

IMO, conventional victory is kind of a cop-out for the Reapers, which is why I support a superweapon idea.

The only reason I can see it as a cop out is thematic.. The Reapers are intended to be an existential threat. Not merely a military threat. They're meant to convey a sense of defeat, before any fight starts.

That said, I still like conventional victories, because I'm just here to play games. Not talk with you bastards about philosophy and game design. No offense lol. I mean, if I really had a preference, I'd just want an entertaining game, where I moved on and not got stuck in this mental loop, and wouldn't have even bothered talking about any of this. <_<

IMO, those kinds of games are the mindless bargain-bin games that don't make me think or challenge me. I like the complex stuff. I'm not here to be entertained like that.

If I want that, I'll just look at the skateboarding hipsters outside my apartment who wipe out all the time.

Not for me. I didn't care to register here for ME2, and it's exactly what I like in a game. I didn't need you or anyone else to validate the experience further. It was awesome on it's own, without discussing it.

The only reason I'm registered now is fellow fans (you and others) can help me make more sense of ME3. And maybe get some catharsis that's missing in the actual game. I shouldn't need either.

To add.

It's perfectly possible to have a philospophy duel and a conventional fight. ME1 and 2 did that in their endings and then added a bit more fighting before or after.

Sorry, if the thought of fighting doesn't fly up certain peoples flag pole but the balanced endings of dialogue and combat are exactly the balance of video game/interactive movie experience that is frankly..... amazing! BW hit the nail on the head with delivering ME1 and again with ME2. ME3 was all about cutting content to deliver MElite3 to a deadline and it suffered in many ways as a result.

The lesson for ME4....... don't rush the product. Look back and re-envision how gameplay mechanics are utilised by the gamer, and for pity's sake....... Give us the occasional door to hack on RPG mode!

[durasteel]

Barquiel wrote...
... But how do you want to fit a conventional victory into a RPG without making it a strategy game? ...

Dragon Age: Origins did a fine job of it. 

[CrutchCricket]

EntropicAngel wrote...
ME1 & ME2's explanation of the Reapers was "RAWR, KILL ORGANICS 2KOMPLEX4U." ME3 indisputably made their goals far more complex.

ME3 made their goals a joke.

But please, explain how undisclosed motivations that imply a perspective that's fundamentally alien and vastly different in scope to our own, a scientific and philosophic consideration that must be accounted for in any "serious" contemplation of extraterrestrial life is somehow on par with broken circular logic. holographic children and a tired retread of humans vs killbots.

Oh and please do so without any unfounded assumptions of "writer lazyness" or any such sidestepping of the material.

In a sci-fi game where every alien is a basically a human wearing prostethics and every second one wants to bang you, the Reapers of ME1-2 were a welcome change of pace, providing a truly alien, truly incomprehensible image (Harbinger's ham and cheese notwithstanding). To a lesser extent the Geth and Rachni did as well, though they were mostly sidelined in terms of overall interaction. The point is once you went beyond the effects of their actions (i.e. them killing you) their mere presence forced you to consider the possibility of sentient life that doesn't see the world in emotionally driven primary colors. It outlined the limits, if not the limitations of human perspective by presenting something outside it.

And then ME3 comes along, the geth spokesbeing gets turned into Jesus, the rachni are barely a plot device and the Reapers are malfunctioning killbots at the whim of a forced emotionally charged thing and it's all being shoved down our throats in an effort to change the definition of nonsense to art. Yes, very intelligent...

[durasteel]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

All you had to do was defeat a dragon to beat the Darkspawn.

If all we had to do was kill the main Reaper, then people would call that contrived and a rip-off of DAO.

Would have been a dramatic improvment over "artistic integrity."

[dreamgazer]

durasteel wrote...

Barquiel wrote...
... But how do you want to fit a conventional victory into a RPG without making it a strategy game? ...

Dragon Age: Origins did a fine job of it. 

Many other action-RPGs do so.  Dragon's Dogma handles conventional victory against a big-ass final dragon surprisingly well, along with a metric ton of other daunting beasts.

The Reapers aren't the darkspawn, though, and I'm not saying that as someone who reveres them or anything.  It's just the way they're designed. 

[dreamgazer]

durasteel wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

All you had to do was defeat a dragon to beat the Darkspawn.

If all we had to do was kill the main Reaper, then people would call that contrived and a rip-off of DAO.

Would have been a dramatic improvment over "artistic integrity."

It really wouldn't.

[rapscallioness]

I would have preferred of the Crucible had simply helped us attain a conventional victory. Weaken the Reapers to such an extent that we could then go in and curb stomp them.

I prefer to do the curb stomping. Or, at least watch the war assets I gathered do their own curb stomping.

As it was, the Crucible stole my kill.

[Kel Riever]

dreamgazer wrote...

durasteel wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

All you had to do was defeat a dragon to beat the Darkspawn.

If all we had to do was kill the main Reaper, then people would call that contrived and a rip-off of DAO.

Would have been a dramatic improvment over "artistic integrity."

It really wouldn't.

It would have been better as far as I am concerned.

But I am not in the camp that thinks a boss monster fight was necessary to make the game better either.  Not this game at least.

[CronoDragoon]

rapscallioness wrote...

I would have preferred of the Crucible had simply helped us attain a conventional victory. Weaken the Reapers to such an extent that we could then go in and curb stomp them.

I prefer to do the curb stomping. Or, at least watch the war assets I gathered do their own curb stomping.

As it was, the Crucible stole my kill.

The Crucible steals your kill in your scenario as well. You either need it or you don't.

[rapscallioness]

CronoDragoon wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

I would have preferred of the Crucible had simply helped us attain a conventional victory. Weaken the Reapers to such an extent that we could then go in and curb stomp them.

I prefer to do the curb stomping. Or, at least watch the war assets I gathered do their own curb stomping.

As it was, the Crucible stole my kill.

The Crucible steals your kill in your scenario as well. You either need it or you don't.

No, I don't see that. The Crucible did everything.