I actually really like the idea of a brother and sister team. It's too bad the game designer is such a raging racist that I can't bring myself to buy or support the game.
Not sure about the father being in game, how does will work with the race and appearance of your character being mutable? In fact, will your siblings appearance change to match yours?
Go here [https://www.google.com/search?q=renoir+anti+semite&biw=1525&bih=734&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi_8t75hYLPAhVGNz4KHTXdDgMQ_AUIBygC&dpr=0.9#tbm=isch&q=renoir/].
Beautiful, aren't they?
He was a bigot, too. [http://www.artinsociety.com/julie-manet-renoir-and-the-dreyfus-affair.html/]
It's tricky and up to you, but sometimes, you have to realize that artists, like other people, are imperfect, or very imperfect,
The game is coming from a publisher who's past corporate practices are despicable.
The developer has, in my opinion at least, long since run out of steam creatively.
The creator has demonstrated himself to hold openly bigoted, racist opinions.
The previous entry in the series was a mess of broken promises, poorly implemented gameplay and missed opportunities which finished on a note that left such a sour taste in peoples' mouths that the entire ending was changed in a patch as a result of the outcry, upgrading it from openly insulting to merely bad.
Are you saying people should ignore the past in making a judgement about the likely quality, direction, themes etc. of an upcoming piece of work? Or are you indicating that it's impossible to do so, like Bob says in the video you linked, and people shouldn't try and view it in vacuum?
First, if you stopped using things from corporations that did despicable things, you'd starve to death in the buff, most likely. Corporations do despicable things. And, it would take a HUGE change in the fundamental landscape of the global economy to fix that.
Second, I strongly doubt Bioware has run out, considering where they might be going with Dragon Age, based on what they did with Elven lore in the last one. They messed up with the overall world, but it was their foray into relatively new terrain, and they did interesting things with it, to me.
Third, I like chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A and tacos from Chipotle, but I'm a pro-choicer who loves g.m.o. technology. I also like the Impressionist movement, as a whole, and love Face/Off and Minority Report, but hate Scientology. Hate guns, yet, you get the point. And, that makes things complicated. Figuring this out..., hasn't happened yet. Dismissing the whole because of (an important) part could make me miss out on a lot. It's not easy, it's life, so tread carefully.
You seem to have a very black and white view of the world, like everything exists as a binary choice with no nuance whatsoever; you're either 100% for or 100% against.
Just, based on what you've written I can't even begin to tell which. I think you're saying we should give everything a chance regardless of history, past failures and opinions of previous output? Is that correct?
Hmm, maybe I'm not asking the question correctly. See, I never asked about supporting a product if you take umbrage with the seller, I don't think it should effect your enjoyment of it.
This question was posed for the people who were excusing the mans comments. Saying the only reason he is being scrutinized was because his words are non-conformist or maverick and that we shouldn't judge him entirely based on his comments in one area. My question was would those principles hold true if, for example he, was a white guy ranting about how all Muslims are terrorists.
not sure if the "maverick" there is referring to me, but I feel I will answer the question.
1) if he were *insert color here* talking about how all muslims are terrorists, I'd find that just as deplorable (which is why I can't stand trump, for example.)
I hope I don't come across like I was excusing the man's comments, judging by his history of comments, I think he's a deplorable asshat that needs to be knocked down a few pegs and get some sense knocked into him about the shit he says...However, is he a main driving force in bioware/this game? Does the game reflect his bullshit or is it compartmentalized and does not affect the game?
I think there are multiple factors to consider before giving/not giving someone your money, due to biowares track record I wasn't keen on buying andromeda in the first place, but him being part of it certainly solidified that decision.
I don't like all this family business, militarily is unrealistic, Unless they all live in a colony ship or something, no military would every put a brother and sister on the same ship.
The fan fiction writers must be rubbing their hands together with glee as we speak.
As for the game itself, I barely care. Whatever remaining faith I had in Bioware after the ME3 fiasco was remorselessly crushed under the stupefying mediocrity of Dragon Age Inquisition. Maybe I'll pick up a copy from the $10 bin in a year's time, otherwise no sale.
So who's doing the voices of the Ryder twins? Based on the video I'm guessing Male!Ryder is Nolan North (if anyone knows feel free to correct me) but since I exclusively played Fem!Shep I'd like to know who's giving the Fem!Ryder her voice.
Art has been sold for money (before, during, and after the fact) for as long as money has existed. The fact that it will be put up for sale does not negate it being art.
Third, I like chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A and tacos from Chipotle, but I'm a pro-choicer who loves g.m.o. technology. I also like the Impressionist movement, as a whole, and love Face/Off and Minority Report, but hate Scientology. Hate guns, yet, you get the point. And, that makes things complicated. Figuring this out..., hasn't happened yet. Dismissing the whole because of (an important) part could make me miss out on a lot. It's not easy, it's life, so tread carefully.
You seem to have a very black and white view of the world, like everything exists as a binary choice with no nuance whatsoever; you're either 100% for or 100% against.
Just, based on what you've written I can't even begin to tell which. I think you're saying we should give everything a chance regardless of history, past failures and opinions of previous output? Is that correct?
So, you've come to a conclusion based on very small sample size of opinions selected to illustrate (ironically) the difficulty of accepting the grayness of this society for me or anyone... that's a bad case study. My point is, taking the extreme path, dismissing the art because of the "imperfections" of (one of) its artist(s) may do you more harm than you can realize.
Art has been sold for money (before, during, and after the fact) for as long as money has existed. The fact that it will be put up for sale does not negate it being art.
The statue "David" and the fresco "The Last Supper" both were commissioned before their creation by artists wanting and needing money to by things like food. Does that mean they shouldn't be considered works of art?
I liked the Hawk sibling interaction. Wish they had a more fleshed out ending.
Anyway I?m cool with this.
Game seems fine to me thus far. Looking forward to it.
As for the racist: The game is made by hundreds of people, not one. Boycotting it because one of them is an asshole seems overzealous. I personally would sack him since he is tarnishing the company?s reputation.
Hmm, maybe I'm not asking the question correctly. See, I never asked about supporting a product if you take umbrage with the seller, I don't think it should effect your enjoyment of it.
This question was posed for the people who were excusing the mans comments. Saying the only reason he is being scrutinized was because his words are non-conformist or maverick and that we shouldn't judge him entirely based on his comments in one area. My question was would those principles hold true if, for example he, was a white guy ranting about how all Muslims are terrorists.
not sure if the "maverick" there is referring to me, but I feel I will answer the question.
1) if he were *insert color here* talking about how all muslims are terrorists, I'd find that just as deplorable (which is why I can't stand trump, for example.)
I hope I don't come across like I was excusing the man's comments, judging by his history of comments, I think he's a deplorable asshat that needs to be knocked down a few pegs and get some sense knocked into him about the shit he says...However, is he a main driving force in bioware/this game? Does the game reflect his bullshit or is it compartmentalized and does not affect the game?
I think there are multiple factors to consider before giving/not giving someone your money, due to biowares track record I wasn't keen on buying andromeda in the first place, but him being part of it certainly solidified that decision.
Third, I like chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A and tacos from Chipotle, but I'm a pro-choicer who loves g.m.o. technology. I also like the Impressionist movement, as a whole, and love Face/Off and Minority Report, but hate Scientology. Hate guns, yet, you get the point. And, that makes things complicated. Figuring this out..., hasn't happened yet. Dismissing the whole because of (an important) part could make me miss out on a lot. It's not easy, it's life, so tread carefully.
You seem to have a very black and white view of the world, like everything exists as a binary choice with no nuance whatsoever; you're either 100% for or 100% against.
Just, based on what you've written I can't even begin to tell which. I think you're saying we should give everything a chance regardless of history, past failures and opinions of previous output? Is that correct?
So, you've come to a conclusion based on very small sample size of opinions selected to illustrate (ironically) the difficulty of accepting the grayness of this society for me or anyone... that's a bad case study. My point is, taking the extreme path, dismissing the art because of the "imperfections" of (one of) its artist(s) may do you more harm than you can realize.
Ah, you were trying for irony; the font mustn't have installed properly in Chrome.
I understand your point now, I find myself broadly in agreement, however my tolerance for bullshit from the publisher and developer is at an end. They need to actually work to win my custom rather than assume they will get it.
Art has been sold for money (before, during, and after the fact) for as long as money has existed. The fact that it will be put up for sale does not negate it being art.
The statue "David" and the fresco "The Last Supper" both were commissioned before their creation by artists wanting and needing money to by things like food. Does that mean they shouldn't be considered works of art?
I suspect you may not be entirely clear on how commisioning works, if you think the creators were doing it.
Nevertheless, no of course not. Nor did I say that people cannot consider a AAA videogame art if they feel like it is.
Buddy, you've yet to convince me of i rather than ii:
i. EA hired this man to produce a work of art that happens to make them money
ii. EA hired this man to produce a highly marketable product that makes them lots of money that some consider to be art.
Third, I like chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A and tacos from Chipotle, but I'm a pro-choicer who loves g.m.o. technology. I also like the Impressionist movement, as a whole, and love Face/Off and Minority Report, but hate Scientology. Hate guns, yet, you get the point. And, that makes things complicated. Figuring this out..., hasn't happened yet. Dismissing the whole because of (an important) part could make me miss out on a lot. It's not easy, it's life, so tread carefully.
You seem to have a very black and white view of the world, like everything exists as a binary choice with no nuance whatsoever; you're either 100% for or 100% against.
Just, based on what you've written I can't even begin to tell which. I think you're saying we should give everything a chance regardless of history, past failures and opinions of previous output? Is that correct?
So, you've "(ironically)" come to a conclusion based on very small sample size of opinions selected to illustrate the difficulty of accepting the grayness of this society for me or anyone... that's a bad case study. My point is, taking the extreme path, dismissing the art because of the "imperfections" of (one of) its artist(s) may do you more harm than you can realize.
Ah, you were trying for irony; the font mustn't have installed properly in Chrome.
I understand your point now, I find myself broadly in agreement, however my tolerance for bullshit from the publisher and developer is at an end. They need to actually work to win my custom rather than assume they will get it.
I liked the Hawk sibling interaction. Wish they had a more fleshed out ending.
Anyway I?m cool with this.
Game seems fine to me thus far. Looking forward to it.
As for the racist: The game is made by hundreds of people, not one. Boycotting it because one of them is an asshole seems overzealous. I personally would sack him since he is tarnishing the company?s reputation.
I'm surprised he hasn't been fired yet. Maybe he is EA's 'Ace in the Hole' for 2016's Worst Company in America awards?
I am interested to see what directions the game takes. Let's just hope they have decided on a unified story, and not the 3 or 4 times they changed their minds with the original trilogy.
Could make the Karma system more interesting. Instead of Ren/Par, you could have a more human system of showing how your actions have repercussions. Additional familial distance, etc. Instead of an arbitrary good/bad morality system, we might see how the actions over missions might place additional strains on people you're probably supposed to care for.
The last thing I want to see, however, is your sibling being both your sibling and the paragon of virtue .... thus shoehorning in manufactured conflict. Sure, don't make them a **** (or perhaps do, and show how being a goody-twoshoes might actually require you sacrificing something personal for others) ... but don't make them a goody two-shoes *and* your sibling.
Could make the Karma system more interesting. Instead of Ren/Par, you could have a more human system of showing how your actions have repercussions. Additional familial distance, etc. Instead of an arbitrary good/bad morality system, we might see how the actions over missions might place additional strains on people you're probably supposed to care for.
The last thing I want to see, however, is your sibling being both your sibling and the paragon of virtue .... thus shoehorning in manufactured conflict. Sure, don't make them a **** (or perhaps do, and show how being a goody-twoshoes might actually require you sacrificing something personal for others) ... but don't make them a goody two-shoes *and* your sibling.
I'm hoping with the Dragon Age trilogy doing it, the ME series will ditch Paragon/Renegade points and scales entirely in favor of just letting you pick an option and playing out the consequences, although I do hope they keep interrupts somehow as those were fun every once in a while.
Nothing annoyed me more than having major dialogue choices unable to be chosen because you didn't lean towards one end of the morality spectrum hard enough. It made it pointlessly difficult to play any character that wasn't either a boyscout or a massive dick.
Could make the Karma system more interesting. Instead of Ren/Par, you could have a more human system of showing how your actions have repercussions. Additional familial distance, etc. Instead of an arbitrary good/bad morality system, we might see how the actions over missions might place additional strains on people you're probably supposed to care for.
The last thing I want to see, however, is your sibling being both your sibling and the paragon of virtue .... thus shoehorning in manufactured conflict. Sure, don't make them a **** (or perhaps do, and show how being a goody-twoshoes might actually require you sacrificing something personal for others) ... but don't make them a goody two-shoes *and* your sibling.
I'm hoping with the Dragon Age trilogy doing it, the ME series will ditch Paragon/Renegade points and scales entirely in favor of just letting you pick an option and playing out the consequences, although I do hope they keep interrupts somehow as those were fun every once in a while.
Nothing annoyed me more than having major dialogue choices unable to be chosen because you didn't lean towards one end of the morality spectrum hard enough. It made it pointlessly difficult to play any character that wasn't either a boyscout or a massive dick.
You should be able to always choose them, but how much they succeed should hinge upon the direction of your major choices in the past, like:
("Paragon dialogue choice") "Don't worry, you can trust us. We'll help you through this situation."
"That's a nice thing to say, but... trusting you? After what you did on [random planet name]?"
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
