Short of them having suddenly exploded into profitability, this is possibly the best thing that could've happened to THQ. Hopefully the eventual new owner won't cock things up.
The loot removal was a major misstep. I'm not sure how that happened. Yes, ME1's inventory was trash and people rightfully complained about it. Nobody complained about the concept of having an inventory to begin with though. ME1 loot was pretty cool too. They did the separate classifications based on manufacturer first, which Borderlands wisely picked up on later. Baby, bathwater, etc.
Boo Bioware! Yay Gearbox! :D
And not only did Gearbox pick the idea up and run with it, they multiplied everything to the nth degree, and people loved it.
So yes, Boo Bioware and Yay Gearbox! Even DN:F couldn't totally deplete the kudos Borderlands gained for them in my mind.
This doesn't get mentioned often, but it really bothered me how they took the Normandy airlock entrance out of ME2 and ME3. In ME1 you go into the airlock, the O2 cycles and you exit while the intercom says that XO Presley is taking over command while you are off ship. It was a great little detail. ME2 and ME3 you get a generic loading screen. Garbage.
The same reason why the elevator loading secuences were just genetic loading screens in ME2 instead of the cool elevator scene with some dialog from your crew but people complained about those so they took them out, then later people realized those little scenes where covering loading times and they were much more inmersive than just poping a load screen , another case fans not knowing what the hell they want.
People were complaining that the lift sequences took too long, not that they were boring. It's not their fault that Bioware went and misinterpreted everyone and replaced something serviceable like the lift sequences with something rubbish like those interstitial animations while doing little to improve loading times.
Same thing goes with other stuff they got rid of in ME2, such as inventory. The problem with ME's inventory system was that it lacked grouping of items of the same type and level, contextual stacking of items of the same type (worst on top in shops, best on top when doing loadouts) and stable ordering of items in the list. If they'd done those things, the inventory system would've actually worked, but instead they just threw a massive list of items at the player. Again, somewhere Bioware "listened" to fans and completely misinterpreted what their complaints were.
Nobody "believes" in Indoctrination Theory, not even the people who came up with it. Sure, it has *adherents*, but that only means that they think it'd be a better ending that the piece of crap Bioware sharted out.
Indoctrination Theory was a fan mulligan, that is, a fan-suggested way to provide a less-rubbish ending with the fewest number of retcons. It's not a fantastic ending, but it is better than what we got.
Personally, the game ended for me with Anderson and Shepard dying on the Citadel after hitting the launch button. Had the game ended there for real, I would've been quite happy.
You realise you look doubly ignorant using that phrase? Not only is it a idiotic troll, but it's also misspelt and bad Irish. The proper idiomatic phrasing is "Beidh ár lá linn".
Seriously, if you're going to try to troll everybody, at least use proper idiomatic language.
@BlackLagoon: I came across one and only one bug in DS3: occasionally, some of the intersections in Stonebridge would invisible walls appearing out of nowhere for no good reason (that is, no loading was happening). Step back a bit and walk forward again. That was it, the one and only bug I found in it. That's pretty good going for any developer.
I don't get why people rib Obsidian about DS3's story: the Dungeon Siege games have hardly every had anything resembling a compelling storyline before, so Obsidian's effort at least raised the franchise's (admittedly low) storytelling bar a fair few notches.
Same problem here, no Xbox live updates. I've even tried removing it and adding it again, but it seems to just fall on its face after a few minutes.
Edit: a few things I forgot to mention: before I attempted the remove and re-add of my Xbox live profile, it hadn't updated for quite some time, the best part of a week if I recall correctly. What seems to be happening when I attempt to reimport everything is that the list of games appears to have been pulled in, but not their associated achievements.
Benedict Arnold is a Templar, Paul Rivere is an Assassin, Benjamin Franklin designs your gadgets and the Boston Tea Party was just a distraction for what *really* happened.
Nah, Arnold ought to be an Assassin given how history (and his opponents at the time) crapped all over him continuously. He ought to be portrayed as an Assassin who either gets suckered by the Templars into switching sides or he discovers dangerous Templar influence in the American forces, which makes him switch sides in spite of the negative consequences for him. That's be far more complex and interesting that his straight-up demonisation.
But having him be evil - or at least constantly exasperated by the good guys - would be funnier? I dunno, I was going more for what I expect out of this than what I'd actually like to happen.
Far from it. I'd like to see him portrayed as a three-dimensional character rather than the usual two-dimensional villain he's usually portrayed as. That would be much more interesting. He could end up being an interesting tragic character. There are at least two excellent potential Templar characters that could be used to set up his downfall: Benedict's wife and Horatio Gates.
I don't think Arnold will end up being portrayed as either a Templar or an Assassin myself, though I think it's more likely that, given AC lore to date, he'd be portrayed as an Assassin. Given his history, Ubisoft Montreal would be squandering an excellent character if he was portrayed simplistically.
Most Italians don't have a problem with Rodrigo Borgia being a villain. The problem with this setting is that you either has american patriots as villains (and summon the rage of Fox News audience) or you don't (and the game will suffer for it, since they adhere to the shallow good vs bad guys perspective of history).
I think having both sides as enemies is the best course of action, bolder, and more in line with previous games... but it can also be a PR nightmare in the US market I am not sure Ubisoft is willing to enter.
Borgia wasn't Italian, mind: he was Catalan. With you on having good and bad on both sides. Frankly, that's the only sensible way to go about it. Setting this in the French Revolution would've been a much safer choice on Ubisoft's part!
Benedict Arnold is a Templar, Paul Rivere is an Assassin, Benjamin Franklin designs your gadgets and the Boston Tea Party was just a distraction for what *really* happened.
Nah, Arnold ought to be an Assassin given how history (and his opponents at the time) crapped all over him continuously. He ought to be portrayed as an Assassin who either gets suckered by the Templars into switching sides or he discovers dangerous Templar influence in the American forces, which makes him switch sides in spite of the negative consequences for him. That's be far more complex and interesting that his straight-up demonisation.
Log in to comment