Mass Effect: Andromeda - Comparison with The Witcher 3

[Dasale]

So your argument is "how dare a company do right by their consumers"?

Its one thing to say it is good for companies like EA or UBI to exploit DLC to make more money because it makes business sense. But to begrudge a company for giving value to their DLC is quite absurd.

I could almost accuse you of getting paid by EA now.

Yeah I don't care this music group is a band of stupid teens as many was, as soon as the music is great it's what matter.

Moreover I have zero believing in ethic in business, just a way to manipulate people and get more money, charity business? Sigh.

That's my point of view, a review of a game shouldn't have any link with the imagined ethic of the dev or publisher. Make another article to cover such topic. This isn't evaluating the game.

It's like the whining on DLC or price, for sure I can't believe there's still no full edition for ME2 or ME3 including all DLC. And in a way it's a rip off in comparison of other games I can have in sale with all DLC past some years after release.

This doesn't change my opinion on ME2+best DLC or ME3+best DLC, the games, not the publisher or the dev.

 

[Damian]

Yeah I don't care this music group is a band of stupid teens as many was, as soon as the music is great it's what matter.

Moreover I have zero believing in ethic in business, just a way to manipulate people and get more money, charity business? Sigh.

That's my point of view, a review of a game shouldn't have any link with the imagined ethic of the dev or publisher. Make another article to cover such topic. This isn't evaluating the game.

It's like the whining on DLC or price, for sure I can't believe there's still no full edition for ME2 or ME3 including all DLC. And in a way it's a rip off in comparison of other games I can have in sale with all DLC past some years after release.

This doesn't change my opinion on ME2+best DLC or ME3+best DLC, the games, not the publisher or the dev.

So you believe there is zero ethics in business, so you are ok with game companies trying to leech money by any means possible? Man games with DLC have DLC content that you must buy unless you spend hundreds of hours playing the game. That is simply not right however way you slice it, there needs to be some balance.

Then there is the other side like CD Projeckt, that gives additional story and game content for a cheap price on top of their game because they can make a profit without having to pay for things like steam and windows royalties. In effect they sold their 2nd and third game for less than half price each and still make a profit. That is a perfectly ethical business model and you are begrudging them because they are doing that?

 

[Dasale]

I didn't wrote Im' not agree with en ethic point of view on business. But that a game quality isn't evaluated on this point of view.

It doesn't make The Witcher 3 better that the dev/publisher is trying use an ethic approach of the business. If you let your opinion merge those two different aspects you are just blind and unable of any fair analysis.

For the cheap price lol again it's not charity business. It's a marketing approach.

 

[zahratustra]

It doesn't make The Witcher 3 better that the dev/publisher is trying use an ethic approach of the business. If you let your opinion merge those two different aspects you are just blind and unable of any fair analysis.

And all this macho BS about laissez faire capitalism doesn't make you appear any less silly. Who said that TW3 is a better game because CDPR is being fair to their customers?
All that was stated was the fact that it's good AND profitable business practice.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Like, why my Shepard is grounded? Where is Normandy and the crew? What happened with Cereberus? What happened to Shepard's spectre status? How much time has passed since the ending of ME2?

I am taking a role of Shepard - my avarta seems to know what is going on, while I (as Shepard) have no idea whats happened between the ending of ME2 and the beginning of ME3 - see the problem?

Big case here.

Sheppard knows what happened in her life. Players do not. Players know what happened in certain segments of Sheppard's life.
The same thing happened at start of ME:2. Sheppard knows what happened in the six months before the jump. Players much less.

The in betweens are not storytold in the series.

The issue about time is already answered. The arrival ends on a countdown to the invasion. At the start of ME 3, the invasion has already begun, making de facto the countdown obsolete.

The other issues are not answered in the arrival dlc, they are answered in ME3.

ME2 ends on a ticking countdown to the invasion. ME3 starts days in after the invasion.
The situation calls for confusion (the ominous threat long denied and finally materialized)and players are carried to that general confusion state by being confused themselves (as an evidence of the confusion, players are confused themselves)

The narrative structure uses classical ropes. One is already used at the start of ME2: misallocation of Sheppard despite clear situation. The invasion is known, Sheppard is known as the galaxy saviour yet he is prevented from fulfilling his destiny.This leads to confusion as players are denied in their almightiness.
Another trick used is forcing players to catch up on events. Classical rope again.
Players are plunged in the aftermath of an event without knowing of the event or its implications.

The situation was written to be confusing. Playing the arrival does not remove the ropes supposed to cause confusion.
Playing the arrival does not mean knowing the aftermath of the event. Nor does it allow to make sense of it.

The complaint is about being confused at one moment writers want players to be confused. Which is another weird case of feeling unsatisfied by being given what is desired.

Another type of complaint could that the recipe to achieve confusion is overcooked.
Done too many times to achieve the purpose. Issue in this case, it demands not to be have been confused in the first place.

 

[purpleblob]

... What are you on about?

 

[joxer]

He's quoting Ancient AI from ME4.
Specifically lines after you give it to Angara.

 

[zahratustra]

… What are you on about?

Actually (for Chien) he is clear and presents a valid argument this time

 

[ChienAboyeur]

… What are you on about?

the start of ME 3 was meant to be confusing (for narrative purposes)
Any player who gets confused by the beginning receives value as it is supposed to be. They are confused as the writers want them to be.

The arrival does not lift anything in this regard.

 

[joxer]

The start of ME3 was not ment to be confusing - and it was not confusing to me.
It's like saying people are confused if Castro knew about incoming assassination why noone reacted back then to prevent it. Noone believed Shepard's "ramblings" except minor figures in the galaxy. Noone wanted to believe, noone wanted to react.

What was confusing to everyone who didn't play Arrival was Shepard's obvious indoctrination process, and it's not "detectable" at the game start but happens later when Shepard starts hallucinating about some random kid (or dreaming if you want) instead about Ashley or Miranda. Okay, let's be honest, about Liara. Or about anyone who "bewitched" Shepard.

The Arrival is the one of the key story episodes and a blueprint how DLC should not be a story critical content cut away from a game for sakes of cashgrab. Skipping it opens an enormous plot hole.

On someone's possible question when the illusive man became indoctrinated, sorry, that's not answered through any DLC but through one of ME comics. But it's not a key moment necessary for understanding the story. As such, those days EA CEO was not interested to order it's production as cashgrab DLC - while it could have been produced as such easily with nonShepard protagonist (turians and husks already exist in all 3 games so basically it'd only be a new area to explore).

 

[Dasale]

Never played Arrival but I didn't quote what was wrong with the dream sequences in ME3. At first there's an ambiguity with culpability feeling to have let a boy die on Earth and like an echo of global culpability to let Earth suffer.

This simple point of view is enough to explain those dreams and it make them very strong emotionally. Then clearly details make suspect it's not that simple, but it could be that, it's just dream and dream aren't fully logical stories.

And then there's the end and it's pretty clear the kid is the AI that is the cause of all. But yeah from what I know, which doesn't include Arrival, Shepard choices make no sense and are just here for players whining they want choices. For me and my limited knowledge not including Arrival the whole trilogy is very coherent including the end if Shepard hadn't those choices. What makes no sense is that AI offers Shepard choice, a writing could develop it and build some explanation, but it's not done and then it's not coherent.

Shepard choices should have been, similar but presented differently, not choices offered by AI but forced by Shepard:
- Sacrifice himself and blow up AI in Citadel and save bio and without AI stop all the invasion and end it. It makes no sense all technology and other AI disapear.
- Accept AI reasoning and give up and do nothing and accept AI cycles continue.
- Hack AI and force a sort of fusion with Shepard dying and sort of replacing AI.

In all cases Shepard should have died making the end (and replay) quite stronger. Have let open the possibility to save Shepard is a writing absurdity.

So Arrival explain why choices are coming from AI and not from Shepard?

 

[Dasale]

when Shepard starts hallucinating about some random kid (or dreaming if you want) instead about Ashley or Miranda. Okay, let's be honest, about Liara. Or about anyone who "bewitched" Shepard.

Hallucinating? It's always dream.

Dream about some casual love more than culpability to let Earth suffer or eventually have let a boy die? Nope such love dream wouldn't make more sense.

 

[Dasale]

He's quoting Ancient AI from ME4.
Specifically lines after you give it to Angara.

Gee without mentioning once ME4?

Is it a game and how write post the most unreadable than possible?

 

[Dasale]

And all this macho BS about laissez faire capitalism doesn't make you appear any less silly. Who said that TW3 is a better game because CDPR is being fair to their customers?
All that was stated was the fact that it's good AND profitable business practice.

Fair? I'm still waiting dev fix the stupid fixed keys you could not bind in The Witcher 1. Where's the fairness?

Now ok it's about DLC required or not. And I missed the point.

No ME2 DLC is required, that's non sense, if Arrival I never played is required, then I still have to read a clear explanation. Complain some business forced DLC buy is non sense for ME2. For example Shadow Broker DLC is totally non mandatory, one sentence explain all in ME3 and details aren't required. If it is required it's just because of its quality.

For ME3 that's a different problem, for story point of view, none are really required, but I admit that for gameplay those of Collector edition are required and it's rip off to not have them included in base main game.

For DA I didn't see any single DLC required, it's just required in imagination of some players.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

The start of ME3 was not ment to be confusing - and it was not confusing to me.
It's like saying people are confused if Castro knew about incoming assassination why noone reacted back then to prevent it. Noone believed Shepard's "ramblings" except minor figures in the galaxy. Noone wanted to believe, noone wanted to react.

At the start of ME3, it is no longer about believing Sheppard's words, it is about accepting the invasion.
Their advance is quick and brutal, leading to a general state of confusion. Writers decided to use a classical rope: conveying confusion by making the player confused.

The Arrival is the one of the key story episodes and a blueprint how DLC should not be a story critical content cut away from a game for sakes of cashgrab. Skipping it opens an enormous plot hole.

Already answered that point.
The indoctrination is one interpretation of the story brought by a rejection by players.

As already stated, authors switched from the ominous hero destined to save the world (in this case, the focus is not on the salvation itself but on the legacy brought by the salvation) to the nobody turned hero who happens to save the world (in this case, the focus is no longer on the legacy of the salvation but on the magnification of the character who brings the salvation)

This change is easily understood as authors painted themselves into a corner.They knew they could not deliver on the legacy track so they tried to divert attention from that point by pushing how unreal it was a human being ends up with saving the galaxy.

Sheppard does not dream of a random guy: he dreams of the kid he failed to save. The kid symbolizes Sheppard's shortcomings, his limits. Sheppard failed at a critical time: he failed to save a kid of his own race. It is a reminder of who Sheppard is when he takes the final decision.

Telling that the arrival is mandatory only works for those who go for the indoctrination interpretation.
For the conventional interpretation, the arrival is not needed.
The arrival is optional.

 

[Damian]

Fair? I'm still waiting dev fix the stupid fixed keys you could not bind in The Witcher 1. Where's the fairness?

Now ok it's about DLC required or not. And I missed the point.

No ME2 DLC is required, that's non sense, if Arrival I never played is required, then I still have to read a clear explanation. Complain some business forced DLC buy is non sense for ME2. For example Shadow Broker DLC is totally non mandatory, one sentence explain all in ME3 and details aren't required. If it is required it's just because of its quality.

For ME3 that's a different problem, for story point of view, none are really required, but I admit that for gameplay those of Collector edition are required and it's rip off to not have them included in base main game.

For DA I didn't see any single DLC required, it's just required in imagination of some players.

I didnt say that ME or DA required DLC, rather that is where they are headed. And you seem to be approving that kind of business ethics. You could argue for those games that DLC is not required, however it requires at least a 100 hours of play time to get those items, do you approve of those DLC?

 

[JDR13]

Am I the only one who feels like thread has been hijacked by The Three Stooges?

 

[Damian]

Am I the only one who feels like thread has been hijacked by The Three Stooges?

Yes its true, but the initial response didnt warrant a response because it is self explanatory I think the entire forum except dasale can accept that TW3's DLC's have far more value than ME or DA's.

 

[zahratustra]

am i the only one who feels like thread has been hijacked by the three stooges?

yes

 

[Dasale]

Yes its true, but the initial response didnt warrant a response because it is self explanatory I think the entire forum except dasale can accept that TW3's DLC's have far more value than ME or DA's.

So I'm the 3 stooges and JDR13 is still the plain idiot that think insult is nice behavior as soon as it's mildly hidden. You are such an idiot JDR.

Far more values? I never wrote that. Topic was about some posts that highlighted some DLC was mandatory not those of TW3 and this was a ripoff.