*gags*
Can we not avoid these labels?
Do you ever read articles like this one and cry yourself to sleep because that is what I just did.
Two years and I'm still thinking back on what Val Royeaux could have been. Oh, the Solavellan hell would've cut even deeper, my friends. The hell would've been even deeper.
due to the fact i am sleeping, i disclaim any responsibility for what i just said
Nope, The Witcher III is just far better in every aspect
*gags*
Can we not avoid these labels?
Just ignore the troll
I don't have powerful consoles. PC owner here. o/ So I can only dream of owning certain titles for PS4 and Xbox One. That or search for available PC versions on Steam.
On the other hand...
This gives me a tiny ray of hope.
The main reason why I never considered any console are mods. With consoles you get a piece of hardware that you don't really own. The company still decides what kind of software is allowed to be uploaded.
Isn't it fascinating that when women say they don't want to play as male characters and give all sorts of reasons for it, it is perfectly okay, its justifiable, its representation, and its their preference. However, when men, especially men who are white and/or straight, say that they don't want to play as female characters and give all sorts of reasons for it, its misogyny and oppression.
Isn't it fascinating that women can ogle and objectify men, whether they are straight or gay and whether they are fictional or real and this is somehow perfectly legitimate and justifiable. However when men ogle and objectify women ,whether they are straight or gay and whether they are fictional or real, this is somehow misogyny and oppression.
This doesn't just happen in gaming, it happens everywhere no matter where you go.
Women like porn ? Its okay, you go girl ! Men like porn ? He is a misogynist creepy neckbeard.
Women using sex toys like dildos ? She is an empowered woman. Men using sex toys like fleshlight ? What a creep.
Women like playing video games and reading comic books ? Wow you are awesome ! Men like playing video games and reading comic books ? You are an immature boy who needs to grow up.
Women choose to date men far younger than her ? Being a cougar is empowering. You go girl ! Men choose to date women far younger than him ? A pedophile creep.
Women choosing to be single and childfree ? You go girl ! Its your life, your choice. Men choosing to be single and childfree ? Wow, you not a real man, you need to man up and do the right thing.
I can keep going on and on but you get the point...
Surprisingly, these SJWs, women and feminists (not all, but many of them, especially on this forum) wonder why men do not take what they say very seriously or ignore their opinions. The reason for this is simple - You are not making sense and you are inconsistent.
I am going to say this once and for all:-
If men who do not want to play female characters are misogynists, then women who do not want to play male characters are misandrists.
If men who objectify women are misogynists, then women who objectify men are misandrists.
Isn't it fascinating that when women say they don't want to play as male characters and give all sorts of reasons for it, it is perfectly okay, its justifiable, its representation, and its their preference. However, when men, especially men who are white and/or straight, say that they don't want to play as female characters and give all sorts of reasons for it, its misogyny and oppression.
Isn't it fascinating that women can ogle and objectify men, whether they are straight or gay and whether they are fictional or real and this is somehow perfectly legitimate and justifiable. However when men ogle and objectify women ,whether they are straight or gay and whether they are fictional or real, this is somehow misogyny and oppression.
Yet these women (not all, but many of them, especially on this forum) wonder why men do not take what they say very seriously or ignore their opinions. The reason for this is simple - You are not making sense and you are inconsistent.
I am going to say this once and for all:-
If men who do not want to play female characters are misogynists, then women who do not want to play male characters are misandrists.
If men who objectify women are misogynists, then women who objectify men are misandrists.
I have never once in my life objected to a man saying he does not want to play as a woman in a game, EVER.
If anyone denies that women objectify men also they are deluded.
You're just banging your head against a wall and it's a waste of time. Unreasonable people won't just stop being unreasonable.
OK wellI'll propose an alternate opinion. If Bioware hadn't been forced to design the game to run on old systems, we could have had more features, but those features would be mainly aesthetic or gamey rather than strong narrative content.
JOH was the limit of the ability for old systems to run, and it was an improvement on zone quest design, but I think due to fan feedback rather than because of technology. Having a main quest line and more interesting characters did not require better graphics. It was just a more concentrated narrative where Ameridan's story interwove with the Avvar tribe and had satisfying conclusion.
The Descent, although developed by a different team, demonstrated how leaving old systems behind allowed for bigger maps and more enemies on screen at once. But the DLC was mostly a dungeon crawl with story being secondary. And the plot wasn't even resolved as much as built up as a cliffhanger.
I think if Bioware hadn't been tethered by old systems, they would have done more testing of the engine limits but the new features would be like the Descent: pretty but overall meaningless. If we had been able to customize the keeps we capture, would we really have had more options or just different war table operations based on the type of keep?
I could hope that if we could burn enemy ships that means we could have alternate methods to accomplish objectives, but that's not certain. The game didn't really present many alternate options in most non-main quests, so would better technology really allow for all quests to be fleshed out? That would be overhauling the majority of the game, not just adding features.
OK well
Because I have a soft spot for them
I'm wanting to give them benefit of the doubt and head cannon that the narrative would've been better if they were not frustrated by their console limitations somehow.
I'll propose an alternate opinion. If Bioware hadn't been forced to design the game to run on old systems, we could have had more features, but those features would be mainly aesthetic or gamey rather than strong narrative content.
JOH was the limit of the ability for old systems to run, and it was an improvement on zone quest design, but I think due to fan feedback rather than because of technology. Having a main quest line and more interesting characters did not require better graphics. It was just a more concentrated narrative where Ameridan's story interwove with the Avvar tribe and had satisfying conclusion.
The Descent, although developed by a different team, demonstrated how leaving old systems behind allowed for bigger maps and more enemies on screen at once. But the DLC was mostly a dungeon crawl with story being secondary. And the plot wasn't even resolved as much as built up as a cliffhanger.
I think if Bioware hadn't been tethered by old systems, they would have done more testing of the engine limits but the new features would be like the Descent: pretty but overall meaningless. If we had been able to customize the keeps we capture, would we really have had more options or just different war table operations based on the type of keep?
I could hope that if we could burn enemy ships that means we could have alternate methods to accomplish objectives, but that's not certain. The game didn't really present many alternate options in most non-main quests, so would better technology really allow for all quests to be fleshed out? That would be overhauling the majority of the game, not just adding features.
Of course until someone from within BioWare tells us the reasons, it's all guesswork. We know that they were planning such things as the ship burning. because they showed them. Therefore the "overhauling" they did was that they dropped them. It might have been because of the older consoles, and it might have been for another reason, for example that they didn't playtest well, but it clearly happened.
While I do coding for a living, it has nothing to do with gaming, so I can merely guess here.
But I would assume that better technology (and a better grasp of it) would allow for better tools for content implementation to exist. I follow the development of Star Citizen regularly and I remember that "Viking Hair God" Brian Chambers often mentions that the Foundry 42 Frankfurt team puts a lot of effort into creating and constantly improving tools for content creation and implementation.
If content implementation would be made easier, more content could be implemented in the same amount of time, and more sophisticated tools should allow for more sophisticated content.
But again, I am not expert in any way and mostly guessing.
I do know that console limitations have stopped things in their tracks that seemed trivial, even with Frostbite 3. When they implemented the riot shield in BF4, they planned to let the player use a sidearm along with it. Old consoles couldn't do it, so we get to hold a shield but no gun now.
Of course until someone from within BioWare tells us the reasons, it's all guesswork. We know that they were planning such things as the ship burning. because they showed them. Therefore the "overhauling" they did was that they dropped them. It might have been because of the older consoles, and it might have been for another reason, for example that they didn't playtest well, but it clearly happened.
Nope, The Witcher III is just far better in every aspect
Except for the whole "being interesting" thing...
OK well
Because I have a soft spot for them
I'm wanting to give them benefit of the doubt and head cannon that the narrative would've been better if they were not frustrated by their console limitations somehow.
I don't think, the story in itself would have been any better if not limited by consoles. As has been said, consoles may have some cosmetical influence. They may have some gameplay influence, but I don't see how their limits could influence a story.
Personally, since any game these days is primarily catered at consoles, I don't see any reasons to build a stronger PC system than what consoles offer. I can run most things on ultra without having a top notch system.
True, and I would have liked the features that were dropped, especially since it sounds like we would have to make tough decisions and would face consequences no matter what we did. As you say, it's all guess work at this point, and who knows if these cut aspects were only for the main quest, though, or for all quests.
I don't know that there would have been enough development time to populate all zones with more developed quests, though, as that seems like a lot to accomplish. Would the time and resources freed by dropping old consoles be equivalent to adding in so much content in a meaningful way?
Well... On the one hand as I understand it, all but the highest-up jobs in development tend to be on a contract basis, so they'd've had the opportunity to shift funds to hire the necessary workers, but on the other, the decrease in projected revenues would probably have commensurately affected their budget...
I will reiterate, though, as I said earlier in the thread and have said before, that I would've been quite happy with two or three fewer areas to explore, if what was left had been populated with more meaningful content. Basically what I'm saying is that it's a complex web of decisions that led to the game we got, and improvements could probably have come in a variety of different ways. I think to focus in on one in particular is probably to do a disservice to the issues faced.
I really resent that statement
Yesterday i played Inquisition for a couple of hours and went around collecting shards and killing stuff in a completely bare landscape
.....
It was the Western Approach.... but then again, it could have been The Storm Coast, or The Fallow Mire, or the Hinterlands(!!!!), or The Forbidden Oasis(!), or The Emerald Graves and it would have still been going around killing stuff and collecting things in a bare landscape.
Honestly, the only areas of the main game that i liked are the Exalted Plains for the use of gameplay/story integration (litterally just once btw, when i went into the tomb and the Dalish told me s*** for it), Emprise Du Lion for the awesome dragons and the one about the Paragon who made a surface city cuz that was actually a nice quest (thanks mostly to Varric's comments)
It was the Western Approach.... but then again, it could have been The Storm Coast, or The Fallow Mire, or the Hinterlands(!!!!), or The Forbidden Oasis(!), or The Emerald Graves and it would have still been going around killing stuff and collecting things in a bare landscape.
Honestly, the only areas of the main game that i liked are the Exalted Plains for the use of gameplay/story integration (litterally just once btw, when i went into the tomb and the Dalish told me s*** for it), Emprise Du Lion for the awesome dragons and the one about the Paragon who made a surface city cuz that was actually a nice quest (thanks mostly to Varric's comments)
It may not have had as much content as you would have liked, but that doesn't qualify as bare. Words mean things.
It may not have had as much content as you would have liked, but that doesn't qualify as bare. Words mean things.
There were trees...... and elf roots.
EDIT:Sand too
There were trees...... and elf roots.
EDIT:Sand too
It's a desert.
I'm just going to drop this in here apropos of nothing...
One might argue that this attitude is actually a barrier to those groups in some ways, as creates of them as a "privileged other", self-separated and self-segregated from the norms of society, rather than normalizing their inclusion.
And frankly the assumption that all white males are "already in first place", and thus deserve no consideration is not one that helps build bridges. In regards to college campuses, it also ignores that on many college campuses the public areas hardly exclusive white male dominated spheres where nobody else has a voice, they are not white male exclusive nor white male dominated (Especially since more women than men are attending college in the US at least these days). I'll admit that, as a white male currently on a modern liberal arts college campus, I like the idea of going to a place where I could talk about my experience with those who share it. Contrary to popular belief, this is not something white men get by default. I would ask what the harm would be in having such a place, and I have asked: The answer I received was disconcerting. Oddly, in defending white students or men not having an exclusive place, I've seen some arguments default to an apparent conviction that any such place would simply become a den of racism and hatred by default, a rather prejudiced viewpoint, and part of disturbing tendency I see to profile white male perspective as inherently tainted by virulent prejudice.
My two cents, will stop being off-topic now.
You keep on fighting that imaginary fight Bayonet! 
There were trees...... and elf roots.
EDIT:Sand too
And people. And creatures. And stories. And fights. And lore.
Hence not "completely bare".
Hence your hyperbole.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
