smudboy wrote...
Andrew_Waltfeld wrote...
The picture looks awful Schematic to me. Then again, I don't know how much 3d modeling you do. Hell, Military Intelligence officers probably have that or just one picture to work off, let alone an complete 3d model of it.
That is not a schematic. Look at electrical, mechanical, structural blueprints. Those are schematics
That is a picture of 4 shots of a Reaper. A la pre-rendered 3D
style. Because it is simple, and colorful, and clear. We can assume
EDI is busy decrypting other data, but we can't infer what exactly.
It is an jump to an assumption that it is indeed an schematic, but it's not far-fetched. I am more than willingly to take the risk to say it's an schematic. Doesn't need to be all triangles, lines, dots and blue paper in order to say "how reapers are built." I am personally not losing sleep over it or condemming it as bad writing becuase it is not explained. It's not suppose to be, otherwise it would be. Just would be one less curious thing to find out in ME3.
I want it to be clear. I am 4 years old. Watching a number of sci-fi space opera cutscenes. I want things as basic as it gets. You may be a super deductive insightful genius. I am not. Insult my dumb brain. I don't care. I want it clear. Simplified. I see a colorful picture. That's all. I can't start making deductions on wtf that thing means, or what other pictures may be stored on the space opera iPad. I want it to be understood. I want it beaten over my head if the scene somehow thinks I suddenly lost all cognitive powers of English, Fine Art, or memory, or they're jumping between points of view, or they're on a dreamscape sequence, or a stream of consciousness. On a goddamned jpg.
Well this isn't an book first of all. Your idea would work well with an story that is written out purely in words (and all stories should be like that), but in the video game world.... not so much. Visual imagery is the eye of the beholder, and people have been confused on why sheppard does this, this character does that, others have understoood it, but didn't understand another part... it goes on.
Which is why you can't chisel it into someone's head. It's like playing telephone with 25 people, the message will not always come out exactly as the writers intended it because that is the nature of the beast. Everyone sees everything differently. It's like those pysch tests with the blotches of ink. "What do you see?" This is an inherit problem that will never go away.
As Samara said. "Ask 4 humans for their opinons, and you get 8 opinons in return." Some people see Miranda as an stuck up ***** , others like thane, some thought the game was horrible, others liked kasumi, others thought X, Y and Z part of the story was dumb. Our own bias/experince/personalities/ HOW WE DO THINGS- get in the way of the story telling, ESPECIALLY for videogames.
Much like you saying why not an massive spy network watching the omega IV relay or ____ or _____ . You operated completely different from sheppard that was in the narrative and tackled the problem an completely different way. The way it was handled in the story was against your mode of operation on how to solve the problem, so you see it as bad story writing. It's nothing to feel bad about, as I agreed full heartly that I would have done alot of things almost the same, but the story did not let me. We are merely along for the ride and just guide how things get done in the story which opens up this can of worms of why I wasn't able to give the finger to Cerbersus in the begining! etc etc.
There was more than enough groundwork to assume at the very least, it's reaper data/info which means infomation on the reapers of somesort. How will this play out in ME3? Who knows, but questions are suppose to be raised in ME2 otherwise, what is the point with ME3 as the last act. Why should I finish the story if I can already guess the ending? I am sure you would point that out as horrible writing. The same goes for ME1/ME2/ME3.
I am not saying ME2 should be mounted on the wall as an trophy for best Videogame story, but people keep on modulating ME2 as confusing because of intentional loose ends and just wtf? scenes that are to be explained in ME3. Of course bad writing/plot device happens (Joker's mission), but we can't really do anything about that but slap bioware's hand and say dont' do that!
In the end, all of us are basically reading The lord of rings, but stopping at the end of the two towers and we don't get to read Return of the King until it comes out. Whether ME2 stories/plot was truely an waste of space in the storyline will be disproven or proven on the release of ME3 when we have the complete story arc done. Until then, trying to judge ME2 alone is akin to reading two towers without reading the fellowship first.
You certainly are not alone in your rage against the plot/story, but I reserve judgement for when the story arc is done and complete. Saying the second part was horrible writing and trying to judge it as an second story is foolish in my opinon. The first part was written to be an self-contained story/little loose ends, the second was not as it is to link us to the third part.
Modifié par Andrew_Waltfeld, 27 mai 2010 - 03:22 .
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Simple matter of opinon after all. I know enough to see an 3d model display when I see one.
