Ever since the first game on the 360, across multiple playthroughs I don't think I've ever let Kaidan live (and not just for romance's sake either, he's just so incredibly boring)
Like I appreciated the idea of having a companion character in my party who had their shit together but I thought it was hilarious that they could produce a character who when questioned about it would be like "oh yeah all that stuff back then? Eh, all sorted at this point", and then follow that character up with literally nothing of note
I have never let Ashley live. I've never seen "Hey, look, I'm sexy now" Ashley, as you might expect.
I mean, they're both worthless, but Ashley is blatantly bigoted in a "What do you mean it's rude to call other people subhuman animals?" kind of way which is hilariously tragic in a setting like Mass Effect. I'm sure she gets better. Kaiden gets better. I still don't care. I don't even like Kaiden. Ashley's just a fifth of tequila away from jumping up and down and screaming "RACE WAR! RACE WAR!"
It's the easiest decision to make in that franchise. "Do I want to fuck the helmswoman?" was a harder decision.
lol if you didn't have two playthroughs to experience both sides of all of the "this or that" decisions.
That's what Youtube's for.
Thinking about it, Mass Effect 2 was far and away my favorite game in the series (though I'm not to preach about how it should be yours* as well), but a lot of my enjoyment of it came from replaying the Suicide Mission over and over again. I really didn't play it from beginning to end more than two or three times.
*The nonspecific yours.
0
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
I just figured that pretty much everybody kills off Ashley ASAP. Even Alex from Giant Bomb spent like all of ten seconds to pick Kaiden.
Ashley is a trash character who deserves nothing less than a nuclear fireball death. :P
No one can doubt Bioware's ability to present two terrible characters, and force you to choose between them.
"Is there no way both of you could guard the bomb? An I don't mean 'guard the bomb' as a pejorative for you killing yourself, I mean it as I want you to actually guard that bomb."
I saved Kaiden because he was being attacked next to the bomb. Not only was there a slightly greater chance of Ashley surviving, but there was also the risk of Saren and the Geth somehow defusing the bomb.
(Obviously the game mechanics don't allow for either scenario, but that's what roleplaying is for.)
I saved Kaiden because he was being attacked next to the bomb. Not only was there a slightly greater chance of Ashley surviving, but there was also the risk of Saren and the Geth somehow defusing the bomb.
(Obviously the game mechanics don't allow for either scenario, but that's what roleplaying is for.)
I'd say you played it the correct way for someone going into it not intending to reduce it down to a binary choice.
Finished crackdown 3. Christ that final boss. I can't imagine that on a harder difficulty just rage inducing. I did like how taking down the bosses required you to have basically used all your ablities save driving because whoever designed driving is an asshole who's never driven a car ever
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Finished crackdown 3. Christ that final boss. I can't imagine that on a harder difficulty just rage inducing. I did like how taking down the bosses required you to have basically used all your ablities save driving because whoever designed driving is an asshole who's never driven a car ever
I get like almost all of my driving XP from hidden orbs
I could've sworn that someone asked me this exact same question when I was playing the original Crackdown. :tell_me_more:
But seriously, other than for the street racing achievement—and those races were awful because some of them still had pedestrians walking about—there was no reason to drive.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Purely to get collectables like the rings which 90% of the time is "grab car jump up to the proper height and then use the agency jump car to get through the ring"
I mean at least golding all the agility races was actually fun and sort of got me more confident at jumping even if some of them were pant shitting.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Purely to get collectables like the rings which 90% of the time is "grab car jump up to the proper height and then use the agency jump car to get through the ring"
I mean at least golding all the agility races was actually fun and sort of got me more confident at jumping even if some of them were pant shitting.
and then there's the rings! the horrors.... the horrors!
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I could've sworn that someone asked me this exact same question when I was playing the original Crackdown. :tell_me_more:
But seriously, other than for the street racing achievement—and those races were awful because some of them still had pedestrians walking about—there was no reason to drive.
Right after entering the city I did a quick circuit of the freeways in the first car I could find. It gives you a good feel for where things are and fills in a bunch of map icons for later. I also was able to claim supply points all over just by driving in their general vicinity.
It's not like Saints Row 4 where everything is cordoned off until you can fly.
Doesn't surprise me as Nintendo has a good relationship with Platinum.
But yeah it makes Microsoft look worse by comparison
Microsoft owns the IP, so they would have been willing to sell or license it out, which I don't see them doing out of the goodness of their hearts, even with Phil's friendly Xbox division. And I don't know what Nintendo would be willing to give in exchange.
I'm guessing some jackass heard the "Nintendo is ressurecting a dead non-Nintendo videogame" rumor, saw some people were speculating it was Scalebound at the same time a backlash against Crackdown 3 was going on and decided to stir some shit up.
Could be wrong though.
+1
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
Yeah if Microsoft owns the IP then this news is literally Fake
That wouldn't stop Platinum from making BcaleSound or something along those lines though, I imagine Hideki Kamiya could be sufficiently salty enough to do it
Yeah if Microsoft owns the IP then this news is literally Fake
That wouldn't stop Platinum from making BcaleSound or something along those lines though, I imagine Hideki Kamiya could be sufficiently salty enough to do it
It's the perfect rumor, even if nothing comes of it. Any Platinum game with a dragon in it in the next five years is going to have people saying "and this is what they did with the stuff they'd worked on for Scalebound".
Scalebound looked increasingly like a victim of "Platinum was about to spend an indefinite length of time to put out a mediocre game--like the three mediocre (or bad) games they put out that same year before Nier: Automata--while wanting Microsoft to understandably keep paying for it." And Microsoft understandably declined.
Of course, with the experience Platinum has acquired since then, it's entirely possible they could right the ship. Nintendo would just need to pay the cost and time, which is obviously something they are capable of. If there is, in fact, anything worth salvaging.
That being said, I agree with with Scottsman--as far as I know, Microsoft owns that IP. Why on Earth would they sell it to Nintendo in entirety? If there's a salvageable game in there, would they just let Nintendo absorb part of the cost and then get a version of it for themselves? That resembles what happened with Ninja Gaiden 3.
I think it's a rumor, and that's it. I'll wait to be proved hilariously wrong.
Platinum resurrecting the concept--and starting work from scratch, which sounds likely--sounds more believable. Though it depends on how much Nintendo is willing to pay for Balescound, where dragons wearing headphones ride flying boy band members--remember how long Platinum publicly denied Nier: Automata would ever come to Xbox?
I'm confused, how does Microsoft own the IP? It seemed like a fairly Platinum pitch for a game, and if Microsoft cancelled it I doubt they're sitting on it.
I'm confused, how does Microsoft own the IP? It seemed like a fairly Platinum pitch for a game, and if Microsoft cancelled it I doubt they're sitting on it.
Why are you confused when third party developers have gone on record declaring that they own the IP that <big publisher X> has put money into creating and publishing? o_o
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I'm confused, how does Microsoft own the IP? It seemed like a fairly Platinum pitch for a game, and if Microsoft cancelled it I doubt they're sitting on it.
Why are you confused when third party developers have gone on record declaring that they own the IP that <big publisher X> has put money into creating and publishing? o_o
Man it's been a long day and this just confused me more haha
I'm confused, how does Microsoft own the IP? It seemed like a fairly Platinum pitch for a game, and if Microsoft cancelled it I doubt they're sitting on it.
Because that was likely the deal they made with Microsoft. "We'll pay you to make this game, but we own the IP."
I'm confused, how does Microsoft own the IP? It seemed like a fairly Platinum pitch for a game, and if Microsoft cancelled it I doubt they're sitting on it.
Because that was likely the deal they made with Microsoft. "We'll pay you to make this game, but we own the IP."
It just seems weird, if Microsoft was the one who backed out of the deal, how do they end up with the IP for something they never made? Seems strange, but I suppose I'm just being naive here or something.
I did some googling and it seems like it's entirely up to the contract they've made, but nothing I've been seeing implies that by default, it's Microsoft's IP. This seemed like the most concise answer I could find:
Who owns the video game? Do the game publishers or game developers own it?
This is much more complicated than it may seem. The core concept here is INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, or IP.
Someone came up with an idea for a game and described that idea in so called Design Document. That someone (the company for which he or she works) becomes owner of the IP. They may then try to pitch the idea to producers (~=~ capitalists who will provide money for it). If a particular producer likes the idea, an agreement is signed between the developer company (or individual, in the past) and the producer. And this contract, this agreement, is super important. Generally speaking, the more control and ownership the producer gets, the more money they are willing to give the developers. But some developers, especially if they are already famous for past games, want to retain control of their IP, so they sign contracts that a producer gets majority of revenue from the sales of this particular game, but the developers still own the IP, which means the producer cannot, for example, make sequels, or task other teams with the development of expansions, tie-in products or whatever else.
There may also be options included in the contract, such as: “If we decide to make a sequel to this game sooner than 5 years from the release, then you [producer] get the option to match up any other producer’s offer at budget/splits, in which case we would have to go with you”.
Thing becomes even more complicated if the producer is also a platform owner, such as Sony for PlayStation or Microsoft for XBox. In those cases, the contract can get really complicated, like “We will fund your development and pay you 9% of the revenue, but you cannot port the game or develop a sequel for a competing platform for the next 3 years; sequels and expansions in the next 5 years must be made for our platform too, and we have the right, provided we pay 100 million over current budget, to demand exclusivity under these same conditions for the first sequel…”
And then there are the sad cases of complete IP-ownership gridlocks, where two companies co-own an IP, and because they no longer are on speaking terms, a sequel or even a port cannot be produced. Or an IP is sold to someone who is not interested in game development (this was the fate of System Shock 1 for a long time), so no-one can salvage the game and bring it to new players.
TL,DR: Producer may own the rights to make copies (or generate keys for digital sale) of a particular game, provided they pay the developers their share; the development team may own the rights to the Intellectual property, so sequels and any additions to the “universe” are in their hands.
So like, yeah it seems like Microsoft *could* own the IP but, I don't see the benefit to delaying, then cancelling a title and all the bad PR associated with that move... And then go back and make the IP later, probably without Platinum involved... That all sounds really bad no matter how you could slice it for Microsoft. They've already lost a lot of money on Scalebound and if it's really coming to Switch, it's probably a completely engine than anything the previous game was like. I'm trying to find anything about who owns the IP but I'm coming up dry.
IDK, all* the noise I heard about Scalebound was that it was awful and should be stopped and cancelling it was probably the greatest thing, at least until it happened then it was "omg Microsoft fails again" added to that noise.
Don't think there ever was much positive PR or buzz about it. I doubt it's Scalebound anyway, and it's all just clickbait garbage. And if it is Scalebound, it's still clickbait garbage... that happened to be true? :pop:
edit: correction, there were some people excited about it, but ultimately that tended to get shouted down.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I'm confused, how does Microsoft own the IP? It seemed like a fairly Platinum pitch for a game, and if Microsoft cancelled it I doubt they're sitting on it.
Because that was likely the deal they made with Microsoft. "We'll pay you to make this game, but we own the IP."
It just seems weird, if Microsoft was the one who backed out of the deal, how do they end up with the IP for something they never made? Seems strange, but I suppose I'm just being naive here or something.
I did some googling and it seems like it's entirely up to the contract they've made, but nothing I've been seeing implies that by default, it's Microsoft's IP. This seemed like the most concise answer I could find:
Microsoft had the trademark (until recently) but I could have sworn there were statements from platinum that MS flat out owns Scalebound; the most I'm seeing in references to the trademark ownership, which is a different thing than copyright, so it may be the case that Platinum has the IP rights (though that'd make it weird that MS owned the trademark, but as I've said, those are two different things)
I looked real quick but I haven't found anything to say one way or the other who has the copyright, so your guess is as good as mine at this point.
So like, yeah it seems like Microsoft *could* own the IP but, I don't see the benefit to delaying, then cancelling a title and all the bad PR associated with that move... And then go back and make the IP later, probably without Platinum involved... That all sounds really bad no matter how you could slice it for Microsoft. They've already lost a lot of money on Scalebound and if it's really coming to Switch, it's probably a completely engine than anything the previous game was like. I'm trying to find anything about who owns the IP but I'm coming up dry.
Corporations usually (but not always) aren't in the habit of handing out money. If MS owned the IP initially, they'll be perfectly happy to let it sit in a vault alongside tons of other stuff like Banjo-Kazooie and that game Black Tusk Studios were making. The alternative is to try and explain to shareholders why this thing you sold off just made a bunch of money and they're not seeing a dime of it.
For 'fun', look up the sheer amount of shit that EA owns and hasn't seen in the light of day in decades.
IDK, all* the noise I heard about Scalebound was that it was awful and should be stopped and cancelling it was probably the greatest thing, at least until it happened then it was "omg Microsoft fails again" added to that noise.
Don't think there ever was much positive PR or buzz about it. I doubt it's Scalebound anyway, and it's all just clickbait garbage. And if it is Scalebound, it's still clickbait garbage... that happened to be true? :pop:
edit: correction, there were some people excited about it, but ultimately that tended to get shouted down.
All the stuff they showed at E3 looked bad, IMO. Apparently there was some closed door stuff that people raved about, but that just reminds me of Prey 2.
Definitely didn't see a lot of love for that game until after the cancelation though.
On the other, it was canned before Microsoft's "oh right, we need to be making games and not micromanaging projects to death" initiative, so it's possible the game just needed more time to be done than Microsoft was (then) comfortable with.
As for the IP, it's possible Platinum wrangled a deal to where they kept the rights -- which would likely have made Microsoft less likely to pour more resources into it if it needed more time.
We're approaching 100 pages earlier than anticipated. I won't be calling it "Scalebound might be back! But will it suck?" but I'm sure in the next page something noteworthy will come up in the meantime.
Posts
Where
Is
My
Damn
CAT
Microsoft??
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
I have never let Ashley live. I've never seen "Hey, look, I'm sexy now" Ashley, as you might expect.
I mean, they're both worthless, but Ashley is blatantly bigoted in a "What do you mean it's rude to call other people subhuman animals?" kind of way which is hilariously tragic in a setting like Mass Effect. I'm sure she gets better. Kaiden gets better. I still don't care. I don't even like Kaiden. Ashley's just a fifth of tequila away from jumping up and down and screaming "RACE WAR! RACE WAR!"
It's the easiest decision to make in that franchise. "Do I want to fuck the helmswoman?" was a harder decision.
That's what Youtube's for.
Thinking about it, Mass Effect 2 was far and away my favorite game in the series (though I'm not to preach about how it should be yours* as well), but a lot of my enjoyment of it came from replaying the Suicide Mission over and over again. I really didn't play it from beginning to end more than two or three times.
*The nonspecific yours.
Ashley is a trash character who deserves nothing less than a nuclear fireball death. :P
"Is there no way both of you could guard the bomb? An I don't mean 'guard the bomb' as a pejorative for you killing yourself, I mean it as I want you to actually guard that bomb."
(Obviously the game mechanics don't allow for either scenario, but that's what roleplaying is for.)
I'd say you played it the correct way for someone going into it not intending to reduce it down to a binary choice.
I posted my joy here to avoid this precise conversation.
ALSO TEAM ASHLEY SURVIVES, HANDS DOWN.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I get like almost all of my driving XP from hidden orbs
I could've sworn that someone asked me this exact same question when I was playing the original Crackdown. :tell_me_more:
But seriously, other than for the street racing achievement—and those races were awful because some of them still had pedestrians walking about—there was no reason to drive.
Purely to get collectables like the rings which 90% of the time is "grab car jump up to the proper height and then use the agency jump car to get through the ring"
I mean at least golding all the agility races was actually fun and sort of got me more confident at jumping even if some of them were pant shitting.
pleasepaypreacher.net
and then there's the rings! the horrors.... the horrors!
I like Crackdown games.
I am having a lot of fun.
Right after entering the city I did a quick circuit of the freeways in the first car I could find. It gives you a good feel for where things are and fills in a bunch of map icons for later. I also was able to claim supply points all over just by driving in their general vicinity.
It's not like Saints Row 4 where everything is cordoned off until you can fly.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I deeply regret sending the thread down this particular dark alley.
https://www.nintendo-insider.com/report-scalebound-resurrected-as-a-nintendo-switch-exclusive/
Doesn't surprise me as Nintendo has a good relationship with Platinum.
But yeah it makes Microsoft look worse by comparison
Microsoft owns the IP, so they would have been willing to sell or license it out, which I don't see them doing out of the goodness of their hearts, even with Phil's friendly Xbox division. And I don't know what Nintendo would be willing to give in exchange.
I'm guessing some jackass heard the "Nintendo is ressurecting a dead non-Nintendo videogame" rumor, saw some people were speculating it was Scalebound at the same time a backlash against Crackdown 3 was going on and decided to stir some shit up.
Could be wrong though.
That wouldn't stop Platinum from making BcaleSound or something along those lines though, I imagine Hideki Kamiya could be sufficiently salty enough to do it
It's the perfect rumor, even if nothing comes of it. Any Platinum game with a dragon in it in the next five years is going to have people saying "and this is what they did with the stuff they'd worked on for Scalebound".
Scalebound looked increasingly like a victim of "Platinum was about to spend an indefinite length of time to put out a mediocre game--like the three mediocre (or bad) games they put out that same year before Nier: Automata--while wanting Microsoft to understandably keep paying for it." And Microsoft understandably declined.
Of course, with the experience Platinum has acquired since then, it's entirely possible they could right the ship. Nintendo would just need to pay the cost and time, which is obviously something they are capable of. If there is, in fact, anything worth salvaging.
That being said, I agree with with Scottsman--as far as I know, Microsoft owns that IP. Why on Earth would they sell it to Nintendo in entirety? If there's a salvageable game in there, would they just let Nintendo absorb part of the cost and then get a version of it for themselves? That resembles what happened with Ninja Gaiden 3.
I think it's a rumor, and that's it. I'll wait to be proved hilariously wrong.
Platinum resurrecting the concept--and starting work from scratch, which sounds likely--sounds more believable. Though it depends on how much Nintendo is willing to pay for Balescound, where dragons wearing headphones ride flying boy band members--remember how long Platinum publicly denied Nier: Automata would ever come to Xbox?
Why are you confused when third party developers have gone on record declaring that they own the IP that <big publisher X> has put money into creating and publishing? o_o
Man it's been a long day and this just confused me more haha
Because that was likely the deal they made with Microsoft. "We'll pay you to make this game, but we own the IP."
It just seems weird, if Microsoft was the one who backed out of the deal, how do they end up with the IP for something they never made? Seems strange, but I suppose I'm just being naive here or something.
I did some googling and it seems like it's entirely up to the contract they've made, but nothing I've been seeing implies that by default, it's Microsoft's IP. This seemed like the most concise answer I could find:
So like, yeah it seems like Microsoft *could* own the IP but, I don't see the benefit to delaying, then cancelling a title and all the bad PR associated with that move... And then go back and make the IP later, probably without Platinum involved... That all sounds really bad no matter how you could slice it for Microsoft. They've already lost a lot of money on Scalebound and if it's really coming to Switch, it's probably a completely engine than anything the previous game was like. I'm trying to find anything about who owns the IP but I'm coming up dry.
Don't think there ever was much positive PR or buzz about it. I doubt it's Scalebound anyway, and it's all just clickbait garbage. And if it is Scalebound, it's still clickbait garbage... that happened to be true? :pop:
edit: correction, there were some people excited about it, but ultimately that tended to get shouted down.
Microsoft had the trademark (until recently) but I could have sworn there were statements from platinum that MS flat out owns Scalebound; the most I'm seeing in references to the trademark ownership, which is a different thing than copyright, so it may be the case that Platinum has the IP rights (though that'd make it weird that MS owned the trademark, but as I've said, those are two different things)
I looked real quick but I haven't found anything to say one way or the other who has the copyright, so your guess is as good as mine at this point.
Corporations usually (but not always) aren't in the habit of handing out money. If MS owned the IP initially, they'll be perfectly happy to let it sit in a vault alongside tons of other stuff like Banjo-Kazooie and that game Black Tusk Studios were making. The alternative is to try and explain to shareholders why this thing you sold off just made a bunch of money and they're not seeing a dime of it.
For 'fun', look up the sheer amount of shit that EA owns and hasn't seen in the light of day in decades.
All the stuff they showed at E3 looked bad, IMO. Apparently there was some closed door stuff that people raved about, but that just reminds me of Prey 2.
Definitely didn't see a lot of love for that game until after the cancelation though.
Alas.
Steam | XBL
I’m fine with how that turned out.
On the other, it was canned before Microsoft's "oh right, we need to be making games and not micromanaging projects to death" initiative, so it's possible the game just needed more time to be done than Microsoft was (then) comfortable with.
As for the IP, it's possible Platinum wrangled a deal to where they kept the rights -- which would likely have made Microsoft less likely to pour more resources into it if it needed more time.