inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 7, 2019 17:17:20 GMT
Those are npcs you interact with. Ok. How does interacting with them develop your pilot? From the little I played, conversation choices didn’t have any noticeable effect on the world. no and no slightly irritated are definitely worthwhile dialogue options that really flesh out the story of our javelin pilot
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 24, 2019 17:20:43 GMT
but its reception wasn't lukewarm either, it was showered with awards But even the Bioware devs have said they benefited from a rather weak 2014. And that's true, doesnt mean it wasnt warmly received commercials and critically
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 24, 2019 16:34:33 GMT
All I've heard from you is critique about his presentation, delivery, and style. There is the Angry Joe brand that involves lots of shouting and catchphrases and the like, and whether or not you like that is really just personal preference. Yet I'm not hearing specifically why this review isnt good. The points he raised were valid and well explained, just delivered through his own eccentric presentation as opposed to calmer words on a page or over gameplay footage. Vargas once gave Skyrim a perfect ten despite ignoring glaring flaws in that game, I remember specifically pointing that out once but he had so much fun he ignored the seams. He also perpetuated the Indoctrination Theory myth as if it was a factual conspiracy and also caused some trouble with his videos at E3 one year because of that character shtick. It's a few steps removed from Felix Kjellburg in that regard because a lot of that character has always been fairly lowbrow. I don't care about this review as I didn't watch it. I haven't watched a video of his since his tenure as EiC ended at BT back in late 2012. Any critiques made, valid or not, are tainted because of him ultimately. And it is honestly disheartening folks still use him as an example of valid critique when you got a half of dozen people on youtube who do it much better, even if I disagree with them like Joe Anderson or Noah Gervais. It's been that way since he was let go from BT after there were accusations of nepotism and failing at his role for the site, though considering where Joe came from with Channel Awesome, that is the pot calling the kettle black. We should want better critics than this though is my point. But that's a losing proposition I guess. so because he gave Skyrim, one of the most popular and well received games of the past 20 years, if not of all gaming history, a 10/10, and was a fan of IT, he is forever tainted? That's...a bit much
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 24, 2019 16:08:01 GMT
How in the world was Inquisition a lukewarm reception? It was BioWare’s most successful game in their history. Technically all we know is it had its best launch. It’s reception may have been lukewarm which caused a steeper drop off in sales than previous titles. It’s all guessing though. Maybe it’s sales continued to thrive but its reception wasn't lukewarm either, it was showered with awards
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 24, 2019 15:47:56 GMT
Sure ... just go to the website you write for? Where the serious critique lives.
EDIT: I will say this as well ... I wouldn't score the game as low as Joe did, nor would I score it as high as your website. However, I would lean more toward the sentiment of your website at least in hopefulness. If Bioware can get their technical deficiency problems under control they can start to repair the foundations of this game. In short my views are somewhere in between Angry Joe and your website, with me leaning towards being a little more positive than Joe.
That said, the review on your website is inferior to angry joe's in every way. He just does a much better job than anyone that writes at your website, you included.
Sorry you feel that way. I can only improve myself to prove that sentiment wrong, hope to do so. I stand by what I said about Joe though. Take it as you see it I guess. All I've heard from you is critique about his presentation, delivery, and style. There is the Angry Joe brand that involves lots of shouting and catchphrases and the like, and whether or not you like that is really just personal preference. Yet I'm not hearing specifically why this review isnt good. The points he raised were valid and well explained, just delivered through his own eccentric presentation as opposed to calmer words on a page or over gameplay footage.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 22, 2019 20:36:37 GMT
Wishful thinking. You know what EA did to Command&Conquer, right? RTS are dead for the most part. Single player rpgs are still wildly popular. but they aren't
RTS games like AoE2 are still popular enough to get DLC two decades after they launched. Paradox strategy games are pretty popular (CK2 has over 1 million copies sold). AAA RTS is dead, but the genre as a whole is fine.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 21, 2019 18:38:54 GMT
PC Gamer's 55/100 will probably tank it a little bit more once it gets put up on metacritic
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 18, 2019 2:00:28 GMT
I can't help but feel that this early access stuff for BW hasn't worked out well.
DA:I showed off the worst area in the game
ME:A opened the flood gates for memes and jokes about its manifest problems
And now Anthem's has been marked by lackluster performance issues and other problems
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 17, 2019 23:43:23 GMT
I doubt EA could axe BioWare at this point. They've still got to upkeep SWTOR, Dragon Age is on the way, and DICE have already had two fuck ups (w/ Battlefield V and Battlefront II) and that studio is still going. the fact that we have to rationalize to ourselves why BioWare couldn't ever be dissolved by EA is all that really needs to be said
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 9, 2019 19:46:23 GMT
I find it most curious that that is the example you're going with to explain what a trailer filled with spoilers is. Look, I'm by no means an expert, but I'm starting to think people are having trouble telling apart spoilers from your basic story premise. The ME2 launch trailer does exactly the latter, it sets up the story: "The Reapers are still out there, but a new threat has arisen, the Collectors. Only Commander Shepard, with the help of a new team, has any chance of stopping this threat. But this is an endeavour fraught with peril (the Omega 4 relay is mentioned), and the team must put the mission above all else if there's any chance at success." Since the trailer is also a visual medium, you get to see the new threat (the Collectors attacking human colonies), your new allies (and some old ones), some actions shots, and even brief shots of a possible romance with a new character. The only thing that could perhaps be considered a spoiler, and even then I'd say it's debatable to some extent, is the shot of the Normandy getting blown up and Shepard leaking oxygen in the middle of space. This story premise is the same that you'd find on the backcover of any book, when you're trying to find out what the story's about and if it appeals to you or not. Take the backcover for The Martian, for instance: Would you say this description is also littered with spoilers? That they spoiled that Mark gets stuck on Mars and needs to MacGyver himself out of this situation? Because that's the premise, it gives you a good idea what the story's gonna be about without spoiling any major plot points. What matters here is finding out how Mark Watney finds a way out of this mess, not that he's in it to begin with. If the backcover were to tell me how he does it, then those would be considered spoilers. There are actual examples of trailers that spoil important plot points in the story, such as: Replicas Final TrailerTerminator Genisys Movie - Official Trailer 2Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Official Trailer 2These are only a handful of examples, and I'm sure you can find even better ones. All I can reply to this, Adam Jensen style, is that I never asked for this. There may very well be an example of a BioWare trailer littered with spoilers (I can't recall them all off the top of my head), but the ME2 launch trailer isn't it. My issue with the Anthem launch trailer specifically is that, at best, it gives you a concept, but little else: you're a Freelancer that fights "the unimaginable." I'm sorry, but that is as generic a concept as you can get. Who are you? Why are you fighting? Who are you fighting? What, if any, are the dangers of undertaking this endeavour? Do you have any allies in this endeavour? This trailer answers none of these questions. The ME2 launch trailer does. So does the DA:I Gameplay trailer that I've mentioned in another opportunity. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I agree. But I'm not trying to prove a theory here, I'm trying to make an informed purchasing decision with the elements at my disposal, and I have found those elements to be sorely lacking when it comes to the story department (what is BioWare's differentiating factor, according to many interviews given by people like Casey Hudson himself). My concerns don't have to be shared by everyone, of course, some people may be more enticed by Anthem's gameplay, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) make them any less valid. It shows the Normandy 1 being destroyed, it shows Shepard dying in space, it shows the Normandy 2 crashing, it shows Ashley getting attacked by the seeker swarms...i mean it shows pleanty of things that I consider serious spoilers. My biggest complaint about ME2 was that I didn't want to know Shepard dies, and that is literally ALL THEY TALKED ABOUT Pre Release. That is suppose to be an emotional gut punch moment, but that moment is ruined because bioware wouldn't stop effing talking about it and showing it, over and over again! None of that really goes against the kep plot points of ME2, such as they are. There's nothing in there about the identity of the Collectors as Protheans, none of the main decisions in the game are spoiled, the human reaper is absent, and so on.
All the other stuff is really just set up.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 6, 2019 0:22:45 GMT
Yes, all I exist for is to remove joy from other people's lives. So is that why ME3's ending remains intact in all this? I didn't know you were a horrible fascist, Steelcan. That's why I take yoga, to be flexible enough for goosestepping
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 3, 2019 15:35:20 GMT
Its petty sure, its also what I want to do. Why is that such a hard concept? Then make your own poll where that's an option. None of the ones in this thread have it. It talks about who you want as the protagonist in the next game and the setting. Nothing there touches on rewriting reality. someone's salty...
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 3, 2019 1:26:29 GMT
yeah but this thread isn't about consensus, its what I'd want to do The only way what you want can really exist is if you go back in time and prevent it from ever happening. Removing it from continuity because you didn't like it is just stupid. It gains you nothing. Its petty sure, its also what I want to do. Why is that such a hard concept?
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 23:06:07 GMT
Yes? Thought that was rather clear So you are upset that Bioware abandoned Mass Effect when you didn't even like 2 out of the 4 games of the franchise? If you didn't like what they did with Mass Effect 3, why even care if the series continues? Did you like Mass Effect 2? Or just the OG? I'm just confused what you want from Bioware. You want them to continue making a game that you admit you haven't enjoyed the past two entries (50%), because now they are making games you don't enjoy, when they were doing that before anyway? Tell ya what, if I went to a restaurant 4 times and the last two times I really didn't enjoy, I'd probably just go to a different restaurant. Strawman much? Just because ME3 wasn't my most favorite game ever doesn't mean I don't want to see the storyline and characters in it continue. Hell now with the surprisingly robust modding community in ME3 I'd bump it up to flat out good, better than ME1 imo since it actually has passable gameplay. I still like the ME universe and characters, and want to see them continue to grow.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 22:56:31 GMT
The Edmonton devs probably didn't want to work on ME and that's their perogative, I don't blame them for being burned out (I only blame the writers for crafting a ridiculously terrible ending to an otherwise mediocre to ok game)...
The "mediocre to ok" game you are referencing; is that Mass Effect 3? Yes? Thought that was rather clear
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 22:48:10 GMT
Its probably not the case that EA made them create this schlock, but I want it to be, the alternative is that BW abandoned ME for this, and that's just sad. Besides, its not like BW would come out and say "yes we were forced to make this game". Well, I wouldn't say a person working at Bioware would say "Yes, we are forced to make this game." However I would also say that someone who had left Bioware would probably not volunteer his opinion that they had free reign in what game to make to appease past overlords. If he was worried about it at all, pretty sure he would have just stayed silent about the whole thing. Also, Bioware "abandoned" Mass Effect for this? Firstly, they still made another Mass Effect, and the issue was more mismanagement of time and resources than anything malicious by EA. And they have basically stated there will be more Mass Effect games. Do you remember the backlash after Mass Effect 3? How the people that worked on that project talked about having to go to counseling due to the vitriol, threats, etc they received because of 5 minutes of game ending? Maybe, just maybe, those people were excited to step out of that universe and try something new, something where people might not threaten their lives and start moronic internet petitions to change something they worked hard on. Does that sound reasonable? Or he's still under a non-disclosure agreement or something similar and wants to stay on good terms with his former employer, or any other number of possible explanations. All I'm saying is that assurances to the contrary mean very little.
The game studio given a ME title was an amateur studio with no major releases under its belt, only a reasonably well received multiplayer mode and DLC that received a lot of knocks for poor performance and polish. The main studio is certainly under no obligation to continue the franchise, but MEA was shunted off to an untested studio while the main studio made this crap. Edmonton might not have pulled the plug on Mass Effect themselves, but they certainly watched it happen. The Edmonton devs probably didn't want to work on ME and that's their perogative, I don't blame them for being burned out (I only blame the writers for crafting a ridiculously terrible ending to an otherwise mediocre to ok game), but that doesn't mean I have to like that their new project is bland, unimpressive, and highly derivative.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 22:40:48 GMT
Generic looter shooter with zero indication of any sort of depth, nuanced characters, or story.
unless picking up manifolds and shooting bullet sponges but this time you can fly is your idea of what BW should be doing, there is no reason to support this game in theory or release
An online games require just as much work as a single player game in terms of gameplay if not more so. Right now the combat of Anthem looks the best as it has ever been. Oh and how can you judge the story is bad when we did not even seen all of it? SWTOR is an online games and has great writings, it has tons of great character. Stop saying that it has not any depts if you did not evxperience Anthem in it's entirety. And the gameplay is fine, but I don't want a BioWare game with fine gameplay and nothing else to offer, if I want to get a kick out of gameplay and not think about objectives or story, I'll load up something like For Honor or Rainbow Six: Siege.
All I can say is that based off of the mission chain that BioWare chose to be representative of the game in their demo to pull people in, I am not impressed at all. Collecting samples, flipping switches, hearing jargony words tossed around to provide some slim justification for flying from point A to B and shooting a few guys along the way, is not what great stories are made of.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 22:30:13 GMT
all of this presumes that was indeed an organic decision from within BioWare itself, and not a shameless cash grab chasing the same market as Destiny and the Division ordered from on high by the EA overlords. I want to believe that's what this game is, the alternative is just too disheartening. But does it really matter if it was an organic decision or if they were nudged by EA? By the way, I am unaware of any evidence that those in charge of Bioware were forced or coerced by EA to make Anthem. In fact, the opposite seems to be true according to departed Bioware developer James Ohlen: "Speaking to Game Informer, Ohlen states 'I know there's a lot of the conspiracy theories that EA is the one behind [ANTHEM], but that's never been the case.' He continues, 'BioWare's always had a lot of control over the kind of games it makes.'" www.pushsquare.com/news/2018/07/ea_didnt_force_bioware_to_make_anthem_says_former_devEven so, not all decisions from EA have been poor for Bioware. It was EA, after purchasing Bioware, who halted development on Mass Effect 2 until they fixed the combat mechanics. Without EA, well there wouldn't be ME2, 3, DAI, etc, because the studio was going under, but if they had managed to produce ME2 the combat would be the same lackluster performance we got from ME1 (not a deal-breaker for me, but for many it was too janky to ever become a "great game"). Also, why would it be a "shameless cash grab"? It's a new IP, new resources in Frostbite, big team, does new stuff compared to the others, and has the MTX restricted to cosmetic items. If they wanted a cash-grab why wouldn't they just make a "Destiny-clone" out of resources they already had, say ME3 or use the name recognition of Mass Effect and have made MEA instead a looter-shooter? Half of people are saying it's a cash-grab, the other that it's a "huge risk" because the market is over-saturated with those types of games. Which is it? At any rate, I'm not sure why it's disheartening that they would want to take something in a similar genre as Destiny and put their Bioware spin on it. A better Destiny. It might not be the game you want, but it is the game a lot of people are very excited for. Its probably not the case that EA made them create this schlock, but I want it to be, the alternative is that BW abandoned ME for this, and that's just sad. Besides, its not like BW would come out and say "yes we were forced to make this game".
I'm not the one saying its a huge risk, I think this is about as safe a possible title BW could make sans a remaster of one of their classics.
Its a new IP on Frostbite sure, and everything about it feels phoned in, from the inspid characters, stilted dialogue, generic lore descriptions, nothing about this is "the BioWare spin".
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 22:25:22 GMT
Yes it is. BioWare was once the premier western RPG developer making beloved classics like KOTOR, DA:O, ME2, now they make...this Yes and? what does "this" means exactly? Generic looter shooter with zero indication of any sort of depth, nuanced characters, or story.
unless picking up manifolds and shooting bullet sponges but this time you can fly is your idea of what BW should be doing, there is no reason to support this game in theory or release
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 22:17:33 GMT
all of this presumes that was indeed an organic decision from within BioWare itself, and not a shameless cash grab chasing the same market as Destiny and the Division ordered from on high by the EA overlords. I want to believe that's what this game is, the alternative is just too disheartening. segmentnext.com/2018/07/24/anthem-ea-former-narrative-director/By the way Anthem development started before destiny and the division were released and were big commercial sucesses, also why would it be disheartening? Apparently BW is not allowed to make online games, bungie, digital extreme, epic games, all of them are. But for some reason it's disheartening if BW dares to make an online game... Yes it is. BioWare was once the premier western RPG developer making beloved classics like KOTOR, DA:O, ME2, now they make...this
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 21:57:21 GMT
Oh, the animosity toward Anthem's "gameplay loop" is obviously due to the entitlement of Bioware fans thinking that all Bioware games need to cater to their interests. They are upset that it is a looter-shooter and online-only multiplayer. They look to Bioware for single-player story-focused games and since Bioware has pivoted to attract a different audience, or at least expand its audience (as people can enjoy multiple types of games) they feel left behind. It isn't a misunderstanding of the genre, it is a feeling that Bioware should not be entering into that genre. Of course it is interesting, as Bioware games have been very different from each other. KOTOR being turn-based d20 combat, Inquisition being semi-turn based semi-action, and Mass Effect being third-person cover-shooter. After KOTOR were people upset Bioware strayed from that gameplay type? Maybe it's just the multiplayer or a stray from the "story" focus (supposedly), but that's why people are upset. They call the combat "boring" and "repetitive" because each combat encounter isn't a narrative-important encounter toward a linear-esque story goal. It's the same backlash Bethesda got for Fallout 76. It was the game no-one asked them to make. Add that to the fact that some incorrectly feel that Anthem killed the Mass Effect franchise by taking resources away from Mass Effect: Andromeda, it is no wonder the Bioware "fans" are looking for any excuse to attack Anthem. Could not have summarized it it better, many people feel like that BW has no right to do a game that does not cater to them in particular. It would be equivalent for a horror fan to go see James Wan and tells him he should not do a movie like aquaman, because he is mostly known for horror movies and he only wants him to do horror movies and therefore Wan should not do a superhero blockbuster. Who are the fans to tell creators they should never try other genres? If developpers sticked only at what they did before, From software would have never made the dark souls series, guerilla would still be making a fps and not the beautiful horizon zero dawn that they have made in 2017. Creators have the right to try something outside of their comfort zone and yes that includes both theirs and the one of their audience. But of course many people would respond that the market is saturated with online games and it's really risky for BW to try it with anthem. AND TO THAT I tell them " Do you care about the amount of money Bioware is going to do? Is it what you are concern about?" Because if it is, then if Anthem makes tons of money all of these people should be fine... Or they are people who claim they are affraid that the game won't be good because BW are not always at their best when doing an online game. AND TO THAT I tell them " So if Anthem happens to be a great online game. You will be fine?"... Unless it's neither of those two things tons of people are concern about... Let's be honest, if Arenanet (makers of guild wars 2 mmo) would suddenly stop making guild wars 2 content and made a single player game with all of their ressources. Tons of people who are complaining about Anthem being an online game from Bioware would receive this news with open arms because they want games that caters to them. Now if some people are not interested in Anthem because it's an online game, that is totally fine. I am not someone who criticizes others for not buying games that might not interest you. But there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between not being interested in Anthem due to his online nature and being angry at BW simply for trying to make an online game and not making a single player one. Oh and before some people claim that I am saying that everybody that criticize anthem are hating it for not being an SP game, I AM NOT saying that there is not any valid criticsm we can direct at Anthem I am not saying by any means that there is no downside, problems or flaws because there sure is. I am just saying that there are many that wants Anthem to fail, simply because it's not the game they wanted from BW, will nitpick it on the simple basics that BW is making a game that does not cater to them. Anthem is not a flawless game and far from being perfect but a part of the animosity towards Anthem is due to the nature of the game rather than it's content. all of this presumes that was indeed an organic decision from within BioWare itself, and not a shameless cash grab chasing the same market as Destiny and the Division ordered from on high by the EA overlords. I want to believe that's what this game is, the alternative is just too disheartening.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 21:48:32 GMT
smug self satisfaction.
The question of this thread isn't "What should BioWare's newest project manager decide to do?"
Ah.. . "dictator of Bioware" means that you're free to lose as much money as you like? OK, yeah, that means that a lot of stuff is out-of-scope. I didn't realize it wasn't intended to be a realistic plan because it sounded halfway plausible. How come you're not thinking bigger? I don't think declaring MEA non-cnanonical and going back to the Milky Way would lose money, quite the opposite, a return to the Milky Way would inject some interest in people who played the OT but skipped Andromeda due to its poor pre-release reception, as well as win over fans who never wanted to go to Andromeda to begin with. The non-canonical status of MEA would just be my petty vindication.
The rest of my proposal is a pretty reasonable possible title in the franchise and that's really what I want, a game that forges ahead within the Milky Way after the Reaper War and builds off where ME3 stopped. I don't think a much bigger game would be of interest to me at least. Andromeda was nothing if not big and bold, a brand new galaxy, a fresh start, new races, and so on, and it is competing with DA2 for worst modern BW game (ironically a game which does scale things down significantly from its predecessor).
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Feb 1, 2019 19:43:21 GMT
I see the new marching orders must have come down from EA to make all the gamechangers rush out there with videos about how the final release is Super Super Better Than The Awful Demo Build, Trust Us! It almost should go without saying that the demo build will differ from the final product, what I personally find baffling is that the game went gold before the demo dropped, and they elected to send out a previous build for some reason.
Part of me wants to think that they're lying and this is the state of the game that will launch later this month, but if I were to give them the benefit of the doubt it is still a mystifying decision
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Jan 31, 2019 19:08:55 GMT
It's not a bad plan, but it decanonizing ME:A actually necessary for it? The only change in your setting would be that there won't be a handful of ships with ODSY drives running around the galaxy. It doesn't seem like a cost worth paying. If you're going to put on a project manager hat, you need to think like one, rather than as a trilogy fan who can't stand ME:A. Why are you picking this fight? What does it gain you? Wait, why would someone want to remove "ME:A" from canon since it doesn't directly impact the events of the original tri---Oh, it's because it brought someone else joy, isn't it? Yes, all I exist for is to remove joy from other people's lives.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Jan 31, 2019 19:06:53 GMT
Were I to be declared dictator of BioWare: I'd immediately remove MEA from canonical status The game I'd envision would be set in the Milky Way immediately after the Reaper War, High EMS destroy as the canon ending, and with the player as an Alliance Corsair captain that has lost contact with the rest of the Alliance following the damage to the relays. The game itself would focus on rebuilding contact with the surrounding systems and the Alliance more broadly. I'm imagining it taking place in a corner of the galaxy that was fairly built up as a "normal colony system, so not something like Omega, though who says something can't arise more similar to that, Eden Prime and Terra Nova are in the same cluster iirc, and that could be interesting, trying to balance the two colonies. It's not a bad plan, but it decanonizing ME:A actually necessary for it? The only change in your setting would be that there won't be a handful of ships with ODSY drives running around the galaxy. It doesn't seem like a cost worth paying. If you're going to put on a project manager hat, you need to think like one, rather than as a trilogy fan who can't stand ME:A. Why are you picking this fight? What does it gain you? smug self satisfaction.
The question of this thread isn't "What should BioWare's newest project manager decide to do?"
|
|