|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Aug 8, 2011 15:44:00 GMT 1
True Jk, but knowing EA's past relations with their customers, I'll be still taking the hard copy version. It's sucks but what can you do really. It's like picking between walking on glass shards and brimstone and you have to pick a less painful punishment.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 8, 2011 16:20:07 GMT 1
From my experience SecuRom is extra strength painful. Knowing EA they will force both though. A lot of games use Steam as DRM which means you need Steam to use them whether you bought from them or not. I had that happen often enough that Steam is nor my main vendor for games. Why bother getting disks when it's just going to using Steam anyway?
EA may eventually do a similar thing with Origin. I damn well hope not because they never do anything for customer convenience. There is always a hook to their master plan of separating consumers from as much pocket money for as little effort as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Aug 8, 2011 16:23:58 GMT 1
See? That's the problem so far. While at least we can trust Valve to treat their customers alright, EA... well, I'm less declined to do so. True SecuROM is painful, but what if the Origin stores didn't kicked off and the online version of their game is left hanging due to the Origin's server shutting down? Hence I might take a hard copy for just ME3. Other games... well I'm more inclined to get them online as usual, especially if they are on Steam.
Also I trust Steam to be hanging around for a while, so I'm not afraid about it.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 8, 2011 16:39:41 GMT 1
If Origin is requires AS DRM though how much difference would it make. Truthfully Steam kinda creeps me out for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Aug 8, 2011 16:49:24 GMT 1
Hmm... good point.
Now I'm unsure what to get, but honestly I think it would be difficult for me to get the game online due to my internet connection issues...
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 8, 2011 17:12:27 GMT 1
Yet another reason why this "always connected" crap as a requirement is bollocks. Though UBi's ystem works great when "internet patriots" are not DOS'ing it, I still disapprove of requiring an internet connection to play a single player game. Blizzard is shooting themselves in the foot with that on Diablo 3 even as I type this.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Glow on Aug 17, 2011 20:15:59 GMT 1
A few BioWare related ones:
* Running gags/callbacks: ("Ah yes, Enchantment. I hope Sir Isaac Newton gets his refund.")
* Shithead fanbase: (here's a tip, romance plots shouldn't take up 45% of the game. Hell, they shouldn't take up 10%, am I the only one who can see that?)
* Joking about things they changed: (Omni-gel and the Mako in ME2, dumbing down in Dragon Age 2. It just comes off as pretty masturbatory, as if they might as well get those two doctor guys to stand in the middle of the game and say "Yep, we're pretty awesome, huh? Not only are we innovative and groundbreaking, we're self-aware enough to mention it!")
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 17, 2011 20:23:45 GMT 1
I agree about the huge obsessive focus on romance subplots. They are called subplots for a fucking reason. It was fine when there was a default option for it one male and one for female. But now almost all the character dialogue seems to be working towards it and it is farking ridiculous.
Bioware is not alone in this but they are about the biggest offender I can think of for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Aug 17, 2011 22:52:49 GMT 1
I actually wish Bioware would put more romance in their games. That is - two or three bigger subplots, not lots of short pointless ones (Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2).
And you know, these romances are optional, so shush.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 17, 2011 23:22:33 GMT 1
I actually wish Bioware would put more romance in their games. That is - two or three bigger subplots, not lots of short pointless ones (Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2). And you know, these romances are optional, so shush. I don't have a problem with the romances per se. I have a problem with the romances existing at the expense of all other dialogue with the characters. To wit, FemShep's relation to Jacob in ME 2 which boils down to either "drop down and give me 20 whether you want to or not" or "piss off if you are so skittish about jumping my bones." There is something wrong with the dynamic if you can't speak to your squad for fear of starting an unwanted romance subplot and the alternative is to be an absolute prat. What would be better is to get the rest of the dialogue nailed down and then and only then focus on the romance as a natural progression of the character relations. You know, rather than starting to aim for it from the first conversation. In other words, it's only optional in DA 2 and ME 2 if you ignore your team.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Aug 17, 2011 23:41:10 GMT 1
I have to disagree with that. I don't do romance in ME2, and I don;t think I'm missing anything. I've only ever persued one romance in each of those games (Miranda and Anders - rubbish and fine respectively) but both added very little to the character or the plot. This is bad romance, then, if you ask me.
It's true that there is very little character interaction with them if you don't romance them, but I don't think this means their characters are reduced because you didn't romance them - just that you're not taking the extra scene. I guess that's a kind of 'glass is half full/empty' situation, but I've never 'ignored' my team - just never fancied them. Except Miranda.
And they never seem to throw themselves at me, which is another complaint I hear often. People went on about Anders, for example, being very forward, and in my playthorugh it was just the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 18, 2011 0:26:12 GMT 1
I have to disagree with that. I don't do romance in ME2, and I don;t think I'm missing anything. I've only ever persued one romance in each of those games (Miranda and Anders - rubbish and fine respectively) but both added very little to the character or the plot. This is bad romance, then, if you ask me. It's true that there is very little character interaction with them if you don't romance them, but I don't think this means their characters are reduced because you didn't romance them - just that you're not taking the extra scene. I guess that's a kind of 'glass is half full/empty' situation, but I've never 'ignored' my team - just never fancied them. Except Miranda. And they never seem to throw themselves at me, which is another complaint I hear often. People went on about Anders, for example, being very forward, and in my playthorugh it was just the opposite. I've bolded the parts that made me say "Huh?" when I read this. On one hand you said you disagreed with my point that the romances were done at the expense of normal character interaction. Then you admit that there was not much else to do with them. Compare non romance dialogue with any romanceable in the Mass Effect series with dialogue available in say Knights of the Old Republic. I dare say you have more meaningful dialogue with Mission and Carth and Bastila before you even leave Taris then you do with any of the Squaddies in ME with the exception of Ashley and Kaiden and maybe Liara in the whole bloody game. It should be noted that in ME 1 there was a nice narrow range of characters and options compared the anything that moves thing in ME 2. So which is it? Is having too many shallow romance subplots coming at the expense of actual character dialogue or not? I say it is. You seem to be saying it is but you still somehow don't agree with me. As for Anders, try actually telling him no the first time he brings it up and watch the rivalry points add up and his really nasty response. He really is a bit of a bitch about it. Especially since in my playthrough I was not casting him any lines at all to make him think there was anything there. Still good debate. Looking forward to your response.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Aug 18, 2011 0:36:35 GMT 1
I don't want a row. I just disagree is all. Was trying to make a distinction between 'something missing' and 'something extra' - specifically romance-based.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Aug 18, 2011 1:17:15 GMT 1
Well we do have a friendly disagreement. I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight. At least not this time. Maybe I'm being slightly unfair comparing today's games with the games of times gone past but there is a lot less dialogue per character now and it leaves very little for development of the R option characters if you do not pursue said option. I guess my confusion is the notion that 'something extra' requires that there be 'something' to begin with. Very lacking in ME 2 and to a lesser extent DA 2 ( the characters were a fair bit better fleshed out there I just disliked most of them). I think a lot of it came from how bloody many characters they squeezed into ME 2. A dozen really was too much and they all felt shallow to me. The romance options felt more shallow because they had less to say if you were not romancing them. But I'll drop it and agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Aug 18, 2011 1:22:30 GMT 1
Well we do have a friendly disagreement. I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight. At least not this time. Next time, old enemy. Sorry, didn't mean to come across like that. I think you're misunderstanding my point, but... everyone in an argument thinks that.
|
|