The article is shit, but I could partially agree with the thread title idea. The setting presented in ME was quite rich and much less kitschy- looking than SW universe (inb4 KOTOR rip-off with cosmetic changes)... as for 1-shoot popamole with RPG elements, which was ME1 in 2006.
Damn it, in Mass Effect 1 just to defeat a single, lone reaper it took a huge fleet from both aliens races and humanity AND attacking the reaper while it was busy taking over the citadel controls. How could Shepard, in ME3, have enough time to save the earth when a FLEET of reapers have already landed ? it should have ended right in the intro, with the Normandy getting shred to 1 milimeters pieces as soon as it tries to flee back to space. The original Normandy was defeated by a lesser enemy in the intro of mass effect 2 !
This is the worst case of retcon by bioware, ever. Because tbh I think that the original ME setting had potential. The execution was crappy (no sense of urgency, cloned, identical environments in most sidequests/planets apart from the main quest, shitty characters) but the setting wasn't all that bad. At least compared to other mainstream shit like Star Wars, which is basically fantasy in space. Fuck jedis, and fuck the force.
That stuff is old news, really old. Why is there such a fuzz about it now?From Ashes - 628MB Day 1 DLC for $10
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9382439
http://www.gameranx.com/features/id...ss-effect-3-strips-core-content-for-paid-dlc/"
Is that supposed to be funny or something?You weren't as grumpy back when DLCs were called 'expansion packs'.
Retarded biodrone or astroturfer?You weren't as grumpy back when DLCs were called 'expansion packs'.
Yeah, let's all enjoy a future where games will become as F2P MMOs, except that the client will cost 60 bucks.What's wrong? Suddenly it's wrong to have a different opinion? Why don't you go ahead and 'end of line' me?
DING DONG BANNU END OF THE RINERetarded biodrone or astroturfer?You weren't as grumpy back when DLCs were called 'expansion packs'.
What's wrong? Suddenly it's wrong to have a different opinion? Why don't you go ahead and 'end of line' me?
Tags: BioWare; Mass Effect; Mass Effect 2; Mass Effect 3
Learn, over at a site called PopBioEthics, why the Mass Effect universe is better than StarTrek, StarWars and the Dune Universe combined. Also, this other universe, with the foundation and Hari Seldon and in the end it was the robots who planned this all the time. Anyway, apparently the Mass Effect universe is more important than any of those.
Jesus, this Erickson dude is a fucking genius.Mass Effect’s deep decision-making system is finely tuned to draw out realistic responses from players. During an interview I had with Daniel Erickson, lead writer for Star Wars: The Old Republic, he revealed two key elements of BioWare’s process that makes their games ideal for ethical exploration. The first is that quality voice acting triggers complex emotional responses in players. The second is that allowing players to choose their next line in conversation based on emotion, not the precise words written down, creates a huge level of investment by the player in the main character.
I’m not saying that Mass Effect provides any answers. The value of Mass Effect as a science fiction universe is that it is a critical starting point for discussion about the purpose of humanity in a materialistic universe. Without an answer to that question, there is no real reason for Ender to defeat the Buggers, or for humanity to seek out new life and new civilizations, or for us to not let non-organic life be the torch bearer for intelligence in the universe. Mass Effect confronts us with a female hero of our own creating, with the deepest implications of diversity, with the most dramatic questioning of the value of what it means to be human. Whether you are a feminist, a transhumanist, a theologist, a proponent of space exploration, a pacifist, a human exceptionalist, a bioethicist, a scientist, or a philosopher, Mass Effect demands you rethink your world.
Some DLCs are expansions packs, some are cash grabs. There is a difference between a proper expansion, developed after a game is released, extending the story, and improving gameplay based on the feedback received (like Deus Ex DLC did, for example) and a quest removed from the game to be sold separately.You weren't as grumpy back when DLCs were called 'expansion packs'.
No he's not. The size of the Day-1 DLC just makes it painfully obvious to everyone that it was developed tandem with rest of the game and not during the 1-month period between mastering gold and opening day. That content should be in the game, end of story. This is just what some people predicted when DLCs were first coming around and fucking retards like you told us to relax: "Nuh-uh, it's just horse armour, cosmetic little stuff, no worries!"Expansion packs were once serious business and usually included a lot of shit, unlike modern DLC approach.
VD actually complains about DLCs having too much content. I realize that back then expansion packs/DLCs weren't released on day 1, but what would change if they were?
Is that supposed to be funny or something?You weren't as grumpy back when DLCs were called 'expansion packs'.
Retarded biodrone or astroturfer?You weren't as grumpy back when DLCs were called 'expansion packs'.
What's wrong? Suddenly it's wrong to have a different opinion? Why don't you go ahead and 'end of line' me?
Joined:Jan 4, 2012
No but it's wrong to be retarded and you are retarded.What's wrong? Suddenly it's wrong to have a different opinion?
It's not. Something that was made during the development of the game but is being sold separately IS a fucking cash grab, plain and simple. Is there a reason why this adventure isn't a part of the game? Other than "we can sell it for moar money"?I think it's too early to judge whether the mentioned DLC is a cash grab or not.
We aren't talking about the release date. We are talking about splitting the team to develop some DLC content, which, in a nutshell, is the main title's content, set aside to be sold separately.I just wanted to point out, that if they released it some months later, nothing would effectively change.
Nice fallacy there.Let's say game X costs $50. Now the developers can either add DLC Y permanently, and the marketing department calculates this move would change the game's price to $60, or they can release the game at its basic price, and release DLC Y as a separate product at day 1, costing $10. Which is better and why?