Creston wrote on Apr 7, 2012, 01:30:Thank you Creston. Good to see there's at least one other person out there that isn't lying to themselves to try and make sense of Bioware's bungled story.
The Indoctrination theory works great, up to one particularly fatal point. The IC keeps saying that the Reapers are trying to indoctrinate you to choose Blue or Green, rather than Red.
However, if you bring very few War Assets, the only thing you CAN choose is Red. And why would the Reapers indoctrinate you, only to then give you the one choice that they're desperately trying to make you not do.
For that matter, why would they give you the Red choice ever at all?
Sadly, for all how much it seems to work (and is better than the ending), it doesn't completely fit. (which makes sense, because it's simply not true.)
Yifes wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 13:59:It would be quite powerful if it made sense. Explain to me how Joker and the crew got to the relay before it exploded, used it to jump to another system, and survived the explosion of the relay in that system to end up crash landing on a habitable system. As for the catalyst, it only makes sense if you don't try to make sense of it. And this is just scratching the surface of how ridiculous the ending(s) is/are.Verno wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 12:41:
I only speak for myself but there were not three endings, it felt like one arbitrary ending with some variations. I wasn't a fan of never seen before characters and plot elements being introduced in the last 10 minutes of the game either. Also, in a series with a strong theme about teamwork and friendship I expected some explanation or continuity for the companions as well, though to be fair that was never promised. Maybe it worked for your Shepard but it didn't feel like a well written conclusion for mine. Finally there are some loopholes and disconnects between the writing and the cutscenes that are pretty jarring.
If you watch the endings side by side, sure, it cheapens the ending because of the extreme similarities. However, what makes each ending unique is if you watch each ending within the context of your choices leading up to it. The interpretation for each ending is drastically different if you decide to destroy the reapers vs say synthesis. Also, the nature of the catalyst was hinted at throughout ME3, and makes perfect sense if you consider why the Reapers never wiped out lower organic life forms in general. Also, each of your companions storylines were resolve quite nicely during the game itself, and the lead up to the final battle provides glimpses into the future lives of your surviving teammates. Finally, the ending sequence with Joker, EDI, and your romantic option stepping out of the crashed Normandy into a new world full of hope was well done and quite powerful.
eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 5, 2012, 10:10:Funny that they've never had a problem retconning stuff before, both in the ME lore and in DA lore.
They can't exactly go back and say "Here is the true ending" It would be beyond admission of defeat. It would literally dismantle whoever was responsible for writing the damn thing for his entire career. This ending is now what defines ME3, they can tweak it, but they can never retcon that, unless they send some mind-wipe pills with the DLC... because even if the ending gets better, the original ending is never forgotten
Wallshadows wrote on Apr 3, 2012, 14:24:At least this one has keyboard support unlike the next Assassin's Creed.
It's pretty god damn funny when fully customizable controls for the localized keyboards is considered as a top feature and selling point.
Creston wrote on Mar 29, 2012, 11:01:Also, surprisingly enough they feature exceptional support for triple-screen setups. Here's two very short clips I made using my own setup:Ventura wrote on Mar 28, 2012, 18:21:
Sounds like it will be a strict copy and paste job to me, but Jerykk seems to think superior visuals and performance awaits him. Good luck with that one, mate - you're going to need it.
Eh, AC:Revelations looked far better on the PC than it did on either the ancient 360 or the decrepit PS3. They provided proper high resolution support, I could turn AF and AA on to the highest levels known to man, and it just kept running along at 60 FPS.
The same thing was true for brotherhood and AC2.
So there's little doubt that it WILL look better on the PC.
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2012, 11:05:Unfortunately, they've already stated that the reason they do big patches further apart than smaller patches more often is because of the distribution on console. Both Sony, and especially Microsoft, have stringent rules about how often they can release patches and such.
I'm looking forward to the balance changes and netcode fixes to stop some of the cheating. That said, I was hoping they would get away from this style of multi-gigabyte monolithic patches because they often introduce as many problems as they fix. From a reasonable perspective it is incredibly difficult to Q/A something like this so they would be better served in the future by doing smaller, more frequent updates. I suspect both the packing format limitations and Microsoft/Sony charging for updates are the real roadblocks there.
WarpCrow wrote on Mar 24, 2012, 16:48:I can totally understand how that could gnaw at their morale, but the fact remains that most, if not everything, on that checklist is stuff that was in BF2/2142. The reason they don't want to implement it? Because much of it just wouldn't work, or wouldn't get used by the console players. EA wants DICE to provide the lowest common denominator, nothing more. I mean, don't you think it's absolutely pitiful that a game like BF2142 that came out in 2006 has a better squad system and commo rose? Those are probably among the easiest things they could implement from the requests/demands of PC players, but they chose not to.
I was disappointed that BF3 didn't have mod tools, but it's still a decent game. I'm a proud, card-carrying member of the PC Master Race, but the problem with so many PC gamers is that in order to satisfy them you need to fulfill every single element of a three page checklist and then price your game at half the price of its competitors or you apparently have a 'shitty game', and anyone who plays it is a moron. If I was a dev, I'd be tempted to disregard that snobbish, self-centered segment of the market too.
Drezden wrote on Mar 24, 2012, 15:00:
Who the fuck cares if the game has working VOIP. I don't know one damn person who would use the in game VOIP even if it worked. Why would I want to listen to some random dipshit. The same people who use in game VOIP are the same friendless "UMADBRO"ers you run into in every game. There is a reason I always play with the same people on my own voice server. Beside that theres usually more than 4 of us in any given game.
Prez wrote on Mar 20, 2012, 16:59:LOL, same here, well actually I planned to start last weekend. Started the game up, even ran the benchmark with no issues (and I'm on a 3-screen SLI rig), then finally decided to finish the STALKER series instead (never got around to playing Call of Pripyat). I guess leaving games on the backburner for long periods of time has its benefits. Aside from Portal 2, I can't even remember the last game I played at release.
Just in time - I planned to start my first play-through of Arkham City this weekend!
DedEye wrote on Mar 20, 2012, 20:06:Welcome back to the normal world of gaming, sir. I myself had been addicted to MMO's in the past (e.g. LOTRO, EQ2), and I ended up starving myself of numerous great experiences in other games, so I know exactly where you're coming from.
The game lost its magic for me.
Looking at what has been released for MoP to date hasn't changed that. I played ToR for a bit; more of the same.
I have tried EVE and GW; didn't turn my crank.
It was a good move canceling WoW 4 months ago as far as my gaming time goes. I've been playing a lot of other games: some new stuff, ones that I missed, of which many are on sale, and some oldies but goodies I haven't fired up in a while. Having a blast.
I can't imagine ever going back to raiding end game content of anything now that I think about it.....
StrickNine wrote on Mar 20, 2012, 19:23:Yea, according to what he said in his blog they had already started making plans for DA2 before Origins even launched. He stayed for a time after, and finally realized he had no interest in the direction the game was headed.
according to wikipedia, Mr. Knowles left during the design process of DA2
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2012, 14:06:Same lead designer, eh? Sorry Charlie, but that's just plain false. The lead designer for DA:O was Brent Knowles who was also lead designer for NWN, who decided to leave Bioware soon after DA launched because he didn't like the direction the company wanted to go in with DA2. This is from his owns words mind you, he has a blog online you can read. Mike Laidlaw was the lead designer for DA2, and he's the one known for famously saying he didn't want to target RPG players exclusively, hence the changes in DA2.Yakubs wrote on Mar 20, 2012, 11:44:Acleacius wrote on Mar 20, 2012, 11:32:
Probably too much to hope for but let's hope this means they are pulling their head out of their nether region.
I doubt there's anyone left at BioWare with any talent. Talent is not compatible with a marketing- and focus-group- driven approach.
Much of the DA2 team is from the DA team, right down to the lead designer.
I'll never get the blame on marketing here. These companies don't have enough marketing intelligence and skill to make calls like this. It's the developers and designers that are making these choices.
panbient wrote on Mar 16, 2012, 08:41:Another point to think about is that if this sells well enough, it will be another demonstration that there is indeed a market for this type of classic RPG out there. For that alone, I'm willing to buy these games again for the third time.ibm wrote on Mar 16, 2012, 07:08:
Also everyone excited about this already has the games right? You know you can mod them together to make the equivalent of one huge game with graphics enhancements already, just by following a straightforward url=http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18195246&highlight=baldurs]guide[/url].
Yes, but as I mention in my other comments, the current 'widescreen' support leaves a bit to be desired unless you enjoy playing the miniaturized version of BG on your modern flatscreen HD monitor.
A 75 pixel tall character in an 800x600 display is 12.5% the height of the screen. The same 75 pixel tall character in a 1920x1080 window is 7% of the height. So while you can see LOTS of background, it's not quite the same presentation when all the characters are half sized (including ALL the now headache inducing teeny tiny text).
That NEEDS to be fixed and I don't think it's something that should be left to the community to pick up since it's likely an issue with inner workings of the Infinity Engine rather than something that can be tweaked from the finished product - otherwise I'm confident the community would have implemented more robust HD / Widescreen support.
Yes, I was more than happy with a functional 'fix' for a 15 year old game that mostly gets it right. But I will not be happy if a 15 year old game get re-released (and not just a repack) without support for modern presentation.
I don't need full 3d or to be able to circle the camera around my party. No cutscenes or animations for criticals or fancy spells. No trophies. No Facebook integration. No update to 4th edition rules (how they'll get around to using a very old version of the DnD rules worries me).
Just take the old game, dust it off, reintegrate the stuff that was originally cut and the pro level community content, and make it look right and play smooth on modern computers. Then do it again for Planescape Torment and Icewind Dale in that order.
Teddy wrote on Mar 16, 2012, 07:41:This is utter nonsense. The entire game world had to be created from scratch. The only thing that was reused were a handful of character/creature models, and an even smaller number of weapon/armor models. Everything else was brand spanking new, and when you build a game as large as New Vegas, it's going to take a lot of time.Acleacius wrote on Mar 16, 2012, 02:54:Teddy wrote on Mar 15, 2012, 23:40:Fine Teddy, give me a comparison, what's your point of reference, what game and budget achieved your results? Quantify.
And considering a vast amount of resources from FO3 were reused in FO:NV, including the engine with very few modifications, it SHOULD have taken them half the resources and time to make NV.
CJ Parker that post was really to ridiculous to even bother.
What game and budget achieved my results? As in, what games were produced for significantly less cost than the original in significantly less time while using the same base engine? You really need the answer to that one? Pretty much any Call of Duty following Modern Warfare, all based on the same base engine with minor alterations where the bulk of the work was on 'new' content.
The point was very simple. When the base engine is already made for you, and all you're doing is throwing in new content with a tweak or two here and there in terms of technical differences then the game is going to take significantly less time and cost significantly less to make than one where the base engine needs to be created or needs drastic alteration to use. Less time coding, less time debugging = less cost. It's pretty basic logic.