SavageHobbit's forum posts

  • 31 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -

@ajamafalous: I didn't play Revelations, but it sounds like AC3's multiplayer is much like that. I know a lot of the problem with Brotherhood in the beginning was a lack of instruction as to how the game worked, with Targets and Pursuers and the line of sight meter and all that. But they've added a nice, step-by-step tutorial before you play your first match to help new players.

They've added new abilites, changed the way certain mechanics work. It's not radically different, but that's because what's there is pretty solid. You may be right about there not being enough meaningful change for people. And, it's not a game for everyone's taste.

#2 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -

@Artso said:

You don't even have to kill people to win.

I think that's the greatest thing to be said about it. I had a match once where I came in second place with only ONE kill.

Well I am reassured, glad to see people do indeed enjoy it. I guess chalk up the lack of discussion to lots of other great games to play and talk about.

But hey, while we're on the subject, what's everyone running for their loadouts? Any successful strategies?

#3 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -

I was in knots when, on the GOTY Bombcast, there was no initial mention of AC3's multiplayer. Thankfully Ryan chimed in and gave it some due lip service. But man, maybe I'm just blinded by my affection for it, but it feels like AC's multiplayer gets no love at all from the larger gaming community. It's such a breath of fresh air in a sea of modern war FPS.

Why does no one really talk about it? What does everyone think about it?

#4 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@Mike76x said:

@Tennmuerti said:

1. They took away the indoctrination explanation and mechanic of Shepard being fully under Reaper control. They left all the beginnings of the indoctrination intact, and chose not to explain it.

2. They took out all the indoctrination? So your Shepard didn't have nightmares with oily shadows, and see people that weren't there? Never woke up on a battlefield that suddenly looked like a past dream?

The last time Shepard landed on a planet in an intact armor he was found in chunks. He wouldn't survive orbital re-entry, he probably would've fried before hitting the ground. Anything entering Earth's atmosphere has to deal with 3,000 degrees F (1,650 degrees C) temperatures his armor was trashed an in no way able to survive that, then there's the actual impact, and according to you all the man-made structures that then fell on top of him.

1. Where is the statement that Shepard is indeed indopctrinated? Nowhere. It was a sequence that was there. They took it out. They changed the ending as a narative both on a global scale and on a local scale several times. Christ the conflict was not even initially meant to be synthetics vs. organics, it could have been dark matter. Who is to say that indoctrination was not their plan for Shepard and they they decided to scrap it along with the uncontrollable segment. Nowhere is it stated. Indoctrination of Shepard is fully possible as being one of their endings that got scrapped as an idea.
I do in fact fully believe that Sheppard being indoctrinated is one of the avenues Bioware explored.
It is not however the path they necessarily chose to keep.
It rmains speculation.

We can guess all we want.
One can speculate just as well the other way.
There is no definite proof.

2. You are assuming that nightmares are part of the indoctrination. This is just part of the indoctrination theory. You are again presenting it as if it is fact.
Shepard having nightmares can be just that him having nightmares. Any person under extreme pressure can have sleep issues.
Recurring dreams that have to do with your big real life issues are not uncomon.

They don't have to take shit out.
Because it is shit some people came up with.
It may very well be indoctrination related, but it might not.

Shepard "surviving" orbital re entry by himself in armor is just as plausible as Shepard surviving orbital re entry while on the Citadel.
He can be protected by the force fields present on the citadel that are protecting him duting the end sequence. Or he could be flung (since it's space and free fall) into a built up section of the Citadel and be protected inside a builing.
Citadel does not have to fall on top of him. That you even suggest that shows that you aren't looking for a serious argument. Just as frankly I am not on the indoc theory (since if it's true then it's just more shit at the end of the game like i mentioned several times)
Shepard can be on the occupied side of the Citadel and it fall on it's side that faces out, the space wall. Done. He is fully protected.

Fuck the Citadel does not even have to fall to Earth. It can still be spiralling in space after the explosion.
Shepard is just as likely to be lying in the rubble on the Citadel still in space.

Even him surviving in armor the way he did in ME2 is total bollocks.
Showing once again that Bioware does fuck up.
(just like the comical human proto reaper)


Honestly we can debate fine points for a long time.
But it will remain that there are currently no facts, just assumptions.
Frankly i don't care.
Indoctrination theory is shit to me not because it might be implausible or something, it migh very well be true.
But this theory removes the end completely. There is no end. Reapers be reaping. The epic conclusion to the trilogy has no final conclusion.
To me no ending is far worse then shit ending. I'm fine on my acceptance stage of the grief process.It might make the pain easier for some people who believe Bioware can't be so dumb as to have fucked up so badly and are actually super clever. It's a perfect denial stage bait.But their past track record does not concur. Bioware fucks up plenty and it's been their increasing trend in the last few years after joining EA. Their confessions on how fucked up the process of creating the ending was and how it was left untill the last moments just keeps on solidifiying this.You are fine with having no ending over a shit ending? All the more power to you. This is incredibly off topic by the way. If you want to convince people of how factual indoctrination theory is, this isn't the thread for it.

No ending is better because it leaves the possiblity for them to add more details and craft an actual ending that satisfies rather than have to withdraw what they gave us in an act of bending to fan pressures. I don't believe they should have to take it that far, they should hold proud to their authorial integrity, but also realize that leaving details unexplained and creating new questions with the ENDING is in fact the exact opposite of what an ending should be by definition. An ending to a story exists to give you a point to just walk away. Satisfied with what you experienced, reflective, uplifted, somber, whatever, Not every ending should be the same, as it should be in tune with the narrative presented in the moments leading up to it. But at the end, the audience's work should be done. We shouldn't have to ask why something happened, or what that means for the characters involved, because we should KNOW because that's what the ending TOLD us.

FAIR WARNING: I ramble and meander here. Stream of consciousness be what it be.

This whole ambiguity thing is total bullshit and as "art" is a fucking cop-out. As many of the podcasts and articles I have listened to/read have proven, everyone who has played Mass Effect as a whole comes away with an amazing and unique journey. THOSE are the discussions we should be having as the player. We should be sharing our journey, reveling in the moments we saw, and even more in the moments we DIDN'T see but others did. Those are the magic moments this series has brought to us and to gaming as a whole.

If we are left to speculate what happens at the end of this series, it will, as is plain to see, only create arguments, because all of our experiences are sooooo different. If we are not TOLD how things end, we will be forced to build our own theories (as shown by the Indoctrination Theory that is on it's own terribly polarizing) that no one will ultimately agree on, because, wouldn't you guess it, the game doesn't specifically tell us which is the right answer. WE WANT TO KNOW. Yes, we want to be told what to believe! That's the whole point of playing the game! Of ANY story! We don't have to think, we just have to take part in it, be lead through it. Be a part of it, yes, but also know that there is a large part of it that is still out of our control, that has been decided for us. That is what makes it exciting.

Fuck, long story short, whoever involved at Bioware decided that leaving the ending open to interpretation is lazy and uncreative, and ultimately afraid. And if they were afraid people wouldn't like what they had to say, well look at what happened. I cannont comprehend why anyone thought it was a good idea, but ultimately I'm sure it comes down to the biggest enemies in this industry: Money and Deadlines.

#5 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -

I feel a lot of people are still missing the biggest problem with the ending: Where the hell was Joker going?! This is really the only issue that Bioware needs to explain. Explain what was happening during Shepard's journey up in the Citadel that would cause Joker to pick up the squad and book it out of the system. What did they find out that we didn't? What was Joker so afraid of that he would abandon Shepard, his commander, in his/her most dire moment?

THIS is the biggest problem, and honestly, if anything, THIS is what Bioware needs to focus on to fix at least SOME of the dissatisfaction with the ending. If they're gonna use Joker/EDI/Normandy stranded on some strange planet as a sign of hope for the future, they need to explain how and why the hell we got there in the first place.

#6 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -
@LordAndrew said:
" Trubbish.
"
Seconded. It's just funny to think one of my faves this gen is literally a bag of garbage.
#7 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -
@shadows_kill: @Chavtheworld: Ah, right on.  Thanks!
#8 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -

Speaking of water pokemon, when the hell do you get a fishing rod?  I just beat the 4th gym and still no Old Rod... Did I miss it?

#9 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -

Co-op.  It's really the only next step.  Everything else feels just about right, there's not many new gameplay features they could add without things becoming too bloated.  The competitive multi in Brotherhood was a great start, now let us bring a friend into the story mode.

#10 Posted by SavageHobbit (32 posts) -
@TROJAN_IMPALA:  Get both?  Not saying it's financially the best solution, but you really do need to play AC2 to know what's going on storywise. That way you can take breaks from AC2 with rounds of Brotherhood multiplayer, then once you finish 2, you can jump right into the single-player.
  • 31 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4