2368 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Elhanan]

The thing is, you can't explain plot through DLC because not everyone can have it. All the necessary things for the main plot should be in the base game that has no DLC. Either make these DLC free so everyone can experience them or don't include plot-relevant information in these DLC like they did with Arrival and Leviathan DLCs.

Simply because the DLC offers more detail into the events of a story does not negate said info; never has (eg; Stone Prisoner, Warden's Keep, Return to Ostagar, Bring Down the Sky, Lair of the Shadow Broker, etc.). While some object to this being the case does not remove their viable info.

[dorktainian]

Simply because the DLC offers more detail into the events of a story does not negate said info; never has (eg; Stone Prisoner, Warden's Keep, Return to Ostagar, Bring Down the Sky, Lair of the Shadow Broker, etc.). While some object to this being the case does not remove their viable info.

Kinda agree.  DLC is an 'addition' to existing content.  as far as ME3 is concerned, the original ending is 'The' ending.  DLC may include information in regards to the story, but it does not replace the story. If BIoware had released the ending as DLC,  that's a whole can of worms opened.

 

Expansion.  Explanation. Clarification.

 

And yet the ending for ME3 is still the same.  Ignore the cutscenes / slideshows as they are just chrome.

 

Destroy The Reapers.

Control the Reapers.

Become the Reapers.

 

of those 3 choices, there is only one choice that makes any sense, and it has nothing to do with blue or green.  The best ending being the Destroy ending with your EMS maxed out. (breath scene).  The EC only adds one worthwhile thing.

 

Yo can... (in the EC) choose to stand on our own and fight.  Better to die a free man than to die a slave to the cycle of destruction eh?

[Elhanan]

Nope; peace before genocide rules in my games.

[BloodyMares]

Nope; peace before genocide rules in my games.

Peace under the Reaper's rule?

[themikefest]

 The EC only adds one worthwhile thing.

That one thing, for me, was fixing the flashbacks when Shepard chooses whatever ending

[dorktainian]

Nope; peace before genocide rules in my games.

 

zomg.  peace under the reapers?  of course they were just misunderstood....  

[gothpunkboy89]

The thing is, you can't explain plot through DLC because not everyone can have it. All the necessary things for the main plot should be in the base game that has no DLC. Either make these DLC free so everyone can experience them or don't include plot-relevant information in these DLC like they did with Arrival and Leviathan DLCs.

 

Really? That is the line of reasoning you are using? The point of DLC should at least be all about expanding the story when ever possible. Sad to say that isn't always the case with DLC.  And while DLC might cost a few dollars that internet that just about everyone can access particularly if they are playing a game on a console can be used to fill in the information that they can not afford to buy for free. 

[BloodyMares]

Really? That is the line of reasoning you are using? The point of DLC should at least be all about expanding the story when ever possible. Sad to say that isn't always the case with DLC.  And while DLC might cost a few dollars that internet that just about everyone can access particularly if they are playing a game on a console can be used to fill in the information that they can not afford to buy for free. 

How many consumers actually care about googling what each DLC explains if they don't plan to buy them (with that kind of pricing)? They play the base game, think a bit about it and move on.

[Elhanan]

Peace under the Reaper's rule?

Nope; peace with the Reapers helping in the reconstruction of the Galaxy. No more cycles; no more war.

[gothpunkboy89]

How many consumers actually care about googling what each DLC explains if they don't plan to buy them (with that kind of pricing)? They play the base game, think a bit about it and move on.

 

The kind that would care enough to go to the game developer's website, create a user account and use it to complain about the writing of the story.  Or really anyone who willingly went out and bought each game in the trilogy or the trilogy pack.

 

If you are going to stick around for 3 games it kind of hints you care at least a bit about the story it is telling.

[themikefest]

Nope; peace with the Reapers helping in the reconstruction of the Galaxy. No more cycles; no more war.

Reapers destroyed. excellent.

Galaxy rebuilds. excellent.

A future without the threat of the reapers. excellent.

Whatever problems happen, the galaxy will take care of them. excellent.

Long live the red. Down with the green. Outstanding

[Elhanan]

Reapers destroyed. excellent.
Galaxy rebuilds. excellent.
A future without the threat of the reapers. excellent.
Whatever problems happen, the galaxy will take care of them. excellent.
Long live the red. Down with the green. Outstanding

Galaxy w/o Synthetic life rebuilds, until someone starts the cycle again. Green > Red

[Natureguy85]

Just because it is DLC doesn't make it not plot integral.

 

Yes it does, by definition. Optional means not integral.

 

 

Simply because the DLC offers more detail into the events of a story does not negate said info; never has (eg; Stone Prisoner, Warden's Keep, Return to Ostagar, Bring Down the Sky, Lair of the Shadow Broker, etc.). While some object to this being the case does not remove their viable info.

 

More detail is great, but about what? Anything optional is by definition not integral. The destruction of the Alpha Relay and Liara becoming the Shadow Broker happen if you play their DLCs or not. Nothing in Stone Prisoner or Warden's Keep is plot integral. I think some of what is learned in Return to Ostagar is problematic because it can change how you view Loghain and Cailan. It can make for a different story if you play it or not. DA2 had great DLC. Neither Mark of the Assassin nor Legacy were plot integral. Both added to the character and world though.

 

 

Nope; peace before genocide rules in my games.

 

Peace in our time, eh? What is the price for liberty?

 

 

 

Really? That is the line of reasoning you are using? The point of DLC should at least be all about expanding the story when ever possible. Sad to say that isn't always the case with DLC.  And while DLC might cost a few dollars that internet that just about everyone can access particularly if they are playing a game on a console can be used to fill in the information that they can not afford to buy for free. 

 

DLC should be about expanding the universe or adding extra stuff. DA2's Mark of the Assassin and Legacy were both awesome at this. Lair of the Shadow Broker, Bring Down the Sky, and Overlord were good examples from Mass Effect. They didn't affect the plot, but expanded on the characters or lore. Optional DLC should not be required to understand the plot.

[Iakus]

Reapers....

Self-fulfilling prophecy with loads and loads of confirmation bias.

[Xilizhra]

Peace in our time, eh? What is the price for liberty?

There are many potential prices for it, but genocide is an unacceptable one.

[Elhanan]

Self-fulfilling prophecy with loads and loads of confirmation bias.

But in the context of the ME galaxy, it is factual. Normally, I personally do not believe in Synthetic life at all, but in the ME series, it exists. My Shepard is willing to sacrifice himself to preserve it.

[gothpunkboy89]

Yes it does, by definition. Optional means not integral.

 

Only difference between game and DLC is you have to pay extra money to get it. That doesn't lessen the importance or how integral it is to the over all story line. It just means you have to cough up more money for it. In fact DLC is even more important then you are trying to make it out to be as DLC gives developers chances to expand on content in game they might not have had a lot of time to do during the original game set up.

 

Now there is a part of me that understands were you can develop this basic concept. There is a ton of DLC out there that are pointless and have no purpose besides getting a few extra bucks out of the player's wallet. But when you have something that actually develops or expands the game over all enriching it from it's existence then it is no longer optional. Just like to the party. Leviathan and Javik are not optional. New skins for the characters to have is optional and thus not integral.

 

Unless you can some how prove they had all the DLC pre made before the game was launched and they simply cut out the parts that were not needed so they could simply resell them. Then you might have a point.

 

DLC should be about expanding the universe or adding extra stuff. DA2's Mark of the Assassin and Legacy were both awesome at this. Lair of the Shadow Broker, Bring Down the Sky, and Overlord were good examples from Mass Effect. They didn't affect the plot, but expanded on the characters or lore. Optional DLC should not be required to understand the plot.

 

You don't need DLC to understand the plot. It simply expands on the lore of the plot a lot more. The only people who would 100% need the DLC to understand plot are idiots or people who skipped every cut scene and never tried to interact with characters just jumped from one gun fight to another.

[Iakus]

But in the context of the ME galaxy, it is factual. Normally, I personally do not believe in Synthetic life at all, but in the ME series, it exists. My Shepard is willing to sacrifice himself to preserve it.

Point remains.  The Reapers are guilty of the very crimes they accuse the galaxy of committing.  Indeed, they are the instigators of most of the recorded instances.

[Natureguy85]

Only difference between game and DLC is you have to pay extra money to get it. That doesn't lessen the importance or how integral it is to the over all story line. It just means you have to cough up more money for it. In fact DLC is even more important then you are trying to make it out to be as DLC gives developers chances to expand on content in game they might not have had a lot of time to do during the original game set up.

 

Now there is a part of me that understands were you can develop this basic concept. There is a ton of DLC out there that are pointless and have no purpose besides getting a few extra bucks out of the player's wallet. But when you have something that actually develops or expands the game over all enriching it from it's existence then it is no longer optional. Just like to the party. Leviathan and Javik are not optional. New skins for the characters to have is optional and thus not integral.

 

Unless you can some how prove they had all the DLC pre made before the game was launched and they simply cut out the parts that were not needed so they could simply resell them. Then you might have a point.

 

No, the other difference is that DLC (usually) comes later. This means they ostensibly sold you a complete game and then created or released more afterward. There's nothing wrong with this as long as it's extra. Adding on to a story or world is fine but plugging a gaping hole is not. There's nothing wrong with expanding content. In fact, those are the DLCs I buy. But what content belongs in a DLC? That's the content I described. It should be extra things. 

 

Leviathan and Javik are both optional. They are not required as the game can be completed without them. Now you seem to be arguing that they would be included in the "Director's Cut" edition, and there's something to be said for that, but the game was released without them.

 

Why would I need to prove that DLC was made already and removed? I mentioned some DLCs that were made after their main games and they were, appropriately, not plot integral.

 

 

 

 

You don't need DLC to understand the plot. It simply expands on the lore of the plot a lot more. The only people who would 100% need the DLC to understand plot are idiots or people who skipped every cut scene and never tried to interact with characters just jumped from one gun fight to another.

 

If I don't need the DLC to understand the plot then it is, once again by definition, not integral. Learn what words mean!

 

in·te·gral

ˈin(t)əɡrəl,inˈteɡrəl/

adjective

adjective: integral

 

 

 

1.

necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.

[Elhanan]

Point remains.  The Reapers are guilty of the very crimes they accuse the galaxy of committing.  Indeed, they are the instigators of most of the recorded instances.

Because they only had the limited data available to them before synthesis. Afterwards, with an understanding of organic life, they repent (ie; change their minds), then help with reconstruction and gift the intel collected from past cycles to aid ALL life going forward.

As I see Control as a flawed choice due to the highly subjective component in charge, and Destroy as a selection dependent on the complete loss of a race, I am more than willing to pick Synthesis as a way to bring peace to all species in that Galaxy.

[Natureguy85]

Because they only had the limited data available to them before synthesis. Afterwards, with an understanding of organic life, they repent (ie; change their minds), then help with reconstruction and gift the intel collected from past cycles to aid ALL life going forward.

As I see Control as a flawed choice due to the highly subjective component in charge, and Destroy as a selection dependent on the complete loss of a race, I am more than willing to pick Synthesis as a way to bring peace to all species in that Galaxy.

 

That's preposterous. They don't "repent" or "change their minds" with Synthesis. The Catalyst gets what it always wanted. The Reaping ends because the "problem" was "solved" but the Catalyst would still justify what had already been done and see it as the right thing.

 

Right, you like the sugar coating. (Yes, I know I'm exaggerating with the link.)

[Iakus]

Because they only had the limited data available to them before synthesis. Afterwards, with an understanding of organic life, they repent (ie; change their minds), then help with reconstruction and gift the intel collected from past cycles to aid ALL life going forward.

As I see Control as a flawed choice due to the highly subjective component in charge, and Destroy as a selection dependent on the complete loss of a race, I am more than willing to pick Synthesis as a way to bring peace to all species in that Galaxy.

They don't repent.  If they did, they would have tried to coexist with organics without forcing them to become something else.

 

They "cooperate" because they WON.  They "preserved life" by essentially Reaperizing every living thing in the galaxy.

[Elhanan]

They don't repent.  If they did, they would have tried to coexist with organics without forcing them to become something else.
 
They "cooperate" because they WON.  They "preserved life" by essentially Reaperizing every living thing in the galaxy.

Synthesis is not forced; other choices are possible, and even stated it as such. Both sides gain knowledge as well as DNA.

Both sides win in a peaceful resolution.

[Iakus]

Synthesis is not forced; other choices are possible, and even stated it as such. Both sides gain knowledge as well as DNA.

Both sides win in a peaceful resolution.

Yes.  Synthesis is forced.  Shepard may throw himself in the magical green space magic, but if any one else sees the space magic coming and goes "Aw, Hell no!" is it going to politely bend around them and leave them alone? 

 

How about the pre-space-faring races who are sapient but have no idea what's going on among the stars.  Do they get a say in what happens to their bodies?  How "peaceful" is it to force this on them, ignorant of where it come from and why?

[themikefest]

Synthesis is not forced; other choices are possible, and even stated it as such. Both sides gain knowledge as well as DNA.

You're right that its not forced until Shepard chooses it which forces changes to everyone in the galaxy who most likely don't want the change.
 

Both sides win in a peaceful resolution.

In destroy, all sides win. The human side. The asari side. The turian side. The rest of species sides.