2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Soverign 666]

It seems unlikeley that anyone is convincing anyone of anything so why don't we just wait for ME3?

[pvt_java]

smudboy wrote...

pvt_java wrote...
Miranda was a Cerberus Agent who at least was used as a plot device to get the plot moving in the beginning. Garrus is the best option for the alternate squad leader, Tali is the best option for the Tunnels, and Jack is the best (arguably) option for the biotic specialist. I'm not saying that they will be important to later stories, but I am saying that this is a game and not all characters have to be 100% important to the plot. Garrus and Tali weren't even important in ME1 - nor was Dr. Chakwas. They don't have to be relevant in a game like this, the purpose of characters in an RPG, is for the most part to flesh out the universe. 

Sorry, what plot device did Miranda serve to get the plot moving?  That's like saying Captain Anderson, Udina and Hacket were plot devices at the beginning of ME1.

Who cares if Garrus was the best option for alternative squad leader?  WTF does that have to do with anything?

WTF does Tali being the "best" option for the tunnels (which she's just one of the best?)

Ditto with Jack.

So because this is a game, they don't have to be 100% important to the plot?  Well that's called bad writing, regardless of it being a game.

Tali was PLOT INTEGRAL to ME1.  Without her evidence, the plot would've gone nowhere.   If Tali was not plot integral to ME1, then Mordin wasn't plot integral to ME2.

The issue with these plot integral characters is: they can't die.  Or at least till their plot relevance is expressed.  Therefore, ALL ME2 characters won't be plot integral, because they can all die.

And have you ever seen a game that doesn't punish players for poor decisions? We can take this back to Pacman, for god's sake. If I make a wrong turn the Ghost will eat me. If I lose my squad and crew, I will be at a disadvantage in the next game. 

That's not a punishment.  That's a consequence of walking into a ghost.  A punishment would be losing all your points as soon as you ran into a ghost, or insulting the player in some way.  There are such things as negative reinforcement, but that's something a bit different.

No game, or thing designed for entertainment, should punish the audience.

Sorry, I meant consequence, I've been out of it recently. 

And kind sir, get over it. ME2 has some plot inconsistencies. It's just a game, it doesn't have to have a story on par with the Lord of the Rings.

[smudboy]

pvt_java wrote...
Sorry, I meant consequence, I've been out of it recently. 

And kind sir, get over it. ME2 has some plot inconsistencies. It's just a game, it doesn't have to have a story on par with the Lord of the Rings.

Ah, no worries.

I'm trying, really, really hard.  But then I come back on here and it's insane stuff.  Heck I'm still working on more videos to get over it.

Haha, LotR has a story?  Please.  That's some old guy's rambling wet dream of boring.

[KainrycKarr]

Soverign 666 wrote...

It seems unlikeley that anyone is convincing anyone of anything so why don't we just wait for ME3?

Would be the logical thing to do, but then what sense would that make? Everyone has to be right.

[Marzillius]

I think that ME3 will be a mindblowing effort on BioWare's part. It's the last game in the trilogy. I think that they will sacrifice worker lives to make ME3 as perfect as possible, and that includes keeping some ME2 squad members (exeptions would be Thane with his disease and Mordin because of his age).

I for one has no worries. ME3 will be like what Return of the King was to the other two films in the LOTR film trilogy.

[Soverign 666]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Soverign 666 wrote...

It seems unlikeley that anyone is convincing anyone of anything so why don't we just wait for ME3?

Would be the logical thing to do, but then what sense would that make? Everyone has to be right.

Well by all means they can keep this thread bumped until ME3 comes out then we can laugh at how stupid the people who aruged the wrong side are 

[pvt_java]

smudboy wrote...

pvt_java wrote...
Sorry, I meant consequence, I've been out of it recently. 

And kind sir, get over it. ME2 has some plot inconsistencies. It's just a game, it doesn't have to have a story on par with the Lord of the Rings.

Ah, no worries.

I'm trying, really, really hard.  But then I come back on here and it's insane stuff.  Heck I'm still working on more videos to get over it.

Haha, LotR has a story?  Please.  That's some old guy's rambling wet dream of boring.

Well, whatever book series you consider to be "The best ever".

Seriously smud, I'm saying this for you own good - It's been half a year since the game came out. I could understand if this was still February, but it's now August and it's still going to be a while before Lair of the Shadow Broker comes out. Can you complain about the new novels or something more recent? Complaining about ME2's plot at this point is like complaining about a 1980's family comedy. As much as you want it to change, we're not going to see any retconning until 2012. 

[phatpat63]

OP is right. I really have trouble seeing how anyone could possibly entertain the idea that Bioware will for some reason go to the trouble of giving ME3 a vastly different treatment than ME2 when doing so would be dozens of times more complex that it would have been for ME2. That is truly delusional.

[Soverign 666]

I think ME3 will have no squad and shepard will solo the reapers asses!

[pvt_java]

phatpat63 wrote...

OP is right. I really have trouble seeing how anyone could possibly entertain the idea that Bioware will for some reason go to the trouble of giving ME3 a vastly different treatment than ME2 when doing so would be dozens of times more complex that it would have been for ME2. That is truly delusional.

It's the end of the series. It's logical to assume they will put more money and faith behind the conclusion of the series than the middle of it. 

[Blackveldt]

[quote]smudboy wrote...
Um, if they die, why would they have cameos?[/quote]
The argument I was describing was actually your own.  So it is interesting to see you find fault within your own arguments.
[quote]How?  Where do the side characters have any plot relevance?[/quote]
I stated:  "We do not need to dichotomize Mass Effect. 'Plot' and 'character development/relationships' are not necessarily two warring entities but part of a whole."
You are asking me as if this has already occurred, like say ME2, when I am talking generally about plot and character development/relationships and how it is possible the two can intertwine--to which you previously agreed.  So I find this also amusing that you are having issues with this.
[quote]So what's your point, in regards to the argument where squadmates in ME2->ME3?[/quote]
A point that not only didn't address what I'd been saying, but was something you conjured out of thin air.  I never stated that ME2 squad mates would be in ME3.  Time and again, I talk about the likelihood and possibility of diminishing the roles of said squad mates--a very different argument.
[quote]Um, no.  We look at ME2.  We see the lack of connection between side characters and main plot.  There is none, save Mordin, and an intro by Legion.
We then look at the ending of ME2, and realize anyone can die.  Seems pretty obvious.[/quote]
Completely ignores my point; perhaps you just didn't understand it.  You are yet again discussing ME2's plot.  And yet again, I need to correct you by saying that I am not discussing the plot of ME2, period.  In this instance, I was stating that we do not have sufficient evidence to know anything about ME3 with 100% certainty.  You seem to disagree with assessment.  I do not know why, because you cannot tell the future.  You basically sidetrack yourself.
[quote]And this has any bearing on how ME2 squadmates are going to be ME3 squadmates...how?[/quote]
Same wrong assumption about what I'm discussing as I state above.
[quote]Because there is no symbiotic relationship between ME2's plot and side characters.
Because Tali foreshadowing "dark energy" has nothing to do with proving she, or anyone else in ME2, will be a squadmate in ME3.[/quote]
I'd stated:  "Again, not talking about ME2's relationships here in regards to the game's main plot.  My whole argument is concerned with possibility.  Even when providing an ME2 example (Haestrom's sun), I applied it to ME3--how the relationship with Tali in ME2 may affect ME3's plot.  Worth noting, however, is that you are operating under the assumption that a 'symbiotic' relationship, whether in the beginning stages or not, does not exist in ME2."
Again, you misinterpret/make up this argument I never facillitate.  I am not discussing ME's plot; your obsession with it seeps into every comment as this non sequitur to derail and avoid the actual argument and topic.  The relationships are between Shepard and squad mates and then, possibly, those relationships and ME3's plot.  In a previous post, you stated that such a "symbiotic relationship" was possible and yet are once again contradicting yourself.
And to your latter statement, I can only repeat myself so many times:  I don't state that any specific ME2 crew mate (or ME2 crew mates in general) are going to be squad mates in ME3.  And in terms of the dark energy, I was stating that this has the potential to be part of ME3's plot; I also stated that Tali's relationship has the potential to affect ME's plot.  You are completely misquoting and misinterpreting my statement(s).
[quote]Not if they're dead/not recruited/not imported.  Generic placeholder connection, like a body needs to be present to e.g. pull Shepard up from a fall or something...?[/quote]
I state that it is "entirely possible for a supporting character to develop a 'connection.'"  I did not say that a supporting character will develop a connection.  You are again not actually addressing my points and instead choose to play with semantics.
[quote]Or Tali could die.  Or anyone else could die.  Or not be recruited or imported.[/quote]
This does not address my points whatsoever.  Regardless, I actually did address how character death can also possibly impact ME3.
[quote]And that's great, if they're even alive/recruited/imported in the first place.[/quote]
Has absolutely no bearing on what I was actually discussing.
[quote]Still no reason for them to be a squadmate.[/quote]
Again, never stated that this was an inevitable truth.
[quote]Still no reason for them to be plot relevant.[/quote]
This statement is so ridiculously ambiguous, I don't know whether it's on purpose or not.
[quote]If your statements aren't supporting the argument that ME2 squadmates will be squadmates in ME3, then why are you bothering to make such statements?[/quote]
You are simply not reading thoroughly or even at all (or simply cannot understand certain concepts) as I don't in fact state that ME2 squad mates will be squad mates in ME3.  I am examining different possibilities, of different viewpoints like my statement:
"...I read some arguments that specifically stated that old squad members will not be cameos either solely or significantly based on their inevitable decision to remain with Shepard to battle the Reaper threat.  I pointed out that it is indeed still possible for a returning character to battle the Reaper threat from afar--as a cameo."
[quote]Yes, but these things, called games, have properties, which are the same.  Like...squadmates.
Um...I can look at the Virmire sacrifice.  They weren't imported into ME2.
I can then look at anyone who died in ME2.  They aren't imported into ME3.
This is simple logic.[/quote]
Again, you completely disregard my arguments, opening with an unintelligble statement, followed by a repeat of your inital one.  Games have properties which are the same...even if I didn't take into consideration the different types of platforms, genres, styles, plots, etc, game "properties" can include a rather exhaustive list and they too, are not all the same.  Even so, this does not relate to squad mates from any logical standpoint.
When asked why the snarky comments and preoccupation with everything wrong with ME2's plot, even knowing that I am not in any way discussing ME2's plot, you responded with:
[quote]To prove that the plot of ME2 has nothing to do with the characters. Then, for anyone, or you for that matter, to imply that ME2 characters will have any plot relevance in ME3.[/quote]
You knowingly and continuously try to "prove" (which, by the way, you cannot do here) that ME2's plot "has nothing to do with the characters" when it has absolutely no bearing on any of the arguments or points of debate.  It's just this random non-buttressing argument which serves no purpose but to ignore or acknowledge any opposing views' arguments.  I also assume you meant that ME2 characters will not have any plot relevance in ME3, which is simply another assumption treated as fact, and even so, without any arguments of your own to back up your own ideas.  You do nothing to actually strengthen your own position.
[quote]"In ME2, interaction with the crew was essential to the success of the mission." = false.  I don't have to read any further.[/quote]
The fact that you are unwilling to read an opposing view thoroughly, yet feel you can still judge it is not only puerile, but showcases intellectual naivety and discipline.
[quote]So?[/quote]
This is not a logical or intellectual response or rebuttal.  This is something a child would say.
[quote]I don't see why a cameo wouldn't be as significant or insignifant as however the writer wishes.  We don't need a massive dialog tree, or one at all in the first place.  Romance is romance.  That can exist just fine as an independent thing, outside of being a squadmate in ME3.[/quote]
Again, you distort my words as I do not single out romance at any point.  Your opening statement also does not follow or address my particular reasonings.  Even so, as the definition of a cameo is a brief appearance or role, significance might be limited.
[quote]The goal of ME2 was to Stop the Collectors.
ME2 was about dealing with your squadmates daddy issues.
Why would the goal of ME2's plot be meaningless and unnecessary if ME3 reduces these characters to cameos???  That doesn't even begin to make sense.  So because you have squadmates from ME2 and relationships, they MUST be squadmates in ME3?
They can just stand in one place on the ship, or a planet, and you can come visit them now and again.  Developing as more main plot points pass.  How is not bringing them as a squadmate cheapening that relationship?[/quote]
Though those are goals of ME2, if you recall, I concluded that ME2's main goal was ultimately "to build and foster relationships with the crew."  If you cannot recall how I came to this conclusion, I suggest you read my previous replies.  I even answered your first question a number of times.  To be brief, I stated that, because of this goal, such relationships seemed significant.  The gamers and writers, designers, etc put in time and effort to develop them.  As this is the goal of ME2, to diminish their roles significantly in ME3 would diminish the supposed significance and experiences of the developing relationships in ME2.  If you want more clarification, read my previous posts.  And again, I never stated that the ME2 squad mates MUST be squad mates in ME3.
[quote]I don't even know what you're asking[/quote]
I asked you to rephrase and clarify your vague statement.  It was a straight-forward request.

The the vast majority of your comments either completely disregarded my own points, misunderstanding or misinterpreting my points to suit your views, or was taken out of context.  You seemed lost throughout your entire post.  Your refusal to wholly read and address a certain point, yet comment on its validity despite not having all of the information only lends to your bias and immaturity.  You continuously repeat that, because the characters can die, they have no plot relevance in ME3, which is simply repeating your initial fallacy.  You changed your views on a few points, having apparently forgotten what you'd initially stated.  You treat all of your assumptions as fact, unable to entertain certain possibilities and repeatedly talk about non-related subject matter as if it is relevant (and then freely state that you just wanted to get this point across, despite its irrelevance).  I like to have thought-provoking debates; I enjoy listening to other people's points of view and theories.  That is obviously not going to happen here, so there's no need to continue this 'debate.'  Feel free to reply if you so desire, but you are not receptive and have little intellectual discipline, so do not expect for me to return the reply.

[Marzillius]

Haha, LotR has a story?  Please.  That's some old guy's rambling wet dream of boring.

You must die.

[smudboy]

Blackveldt wrote...
I stated:  "We do not need to dichotomize Mass Effect. 'Plot' and 'character development/relationships' are not necessarily two warring entities but part of a whole."
You are asking me as if this has already occurred, like say ME2, when I am talking generally about plot and character development/relationships and how it is possible the two can intertwine--to which you previously agreed.  So I find this also amusing that you are having issues with this.

So what is your point?

A point that not only didn't address what I'd been saying, but was something you conjured out of thin air.  I never stated that ME2 squad mates would be in ME3.  Time and again, I talk about the likelihood and possibility of diminishing the roles of said squad mates--a very different argument.

Oh, then we have nothing to discuss.

[Blackveldt]

tertium organum wrote...

Blackveldt is one of those folks that's going to go ham on Bioware when his careful syllogisms are shattered. One thing, for all the formal accuracy of what he's saying ( this is the poverty of pure fallacy detection btw) he's ignoring what Bioware has done and what they've said - clear indications of just how ME3 characters will be handled. These are the best indicators of what they'll do, not abstract, merely theoretical possibilities. Instead, just like those who explain away the idiotic behavior of the council in ME2, they invent theoretical explanations that only have formal but not actual relevance - it's all fine to sharpen your logical tools by pointing out that simply because characters can die doesn't mean they won't come back fully playable. This is sort of like saying "Just because Madden is marginally upgraded every year doesn't mean this year it won't completely change." Factually correct but naive.

We're addressing probabilities here, not a strict deduction. People that are honing on the story aspects that make bringing the characters back an intelligent choice forget or don't realize that Bioware is not making decisions concerning a coherent plot first. That it makes sense story wise is not enough...

Heh, not true, but I do see your point.  However, I must point out that I'm not simply "ignoring what Bioware has done and...said."  I know little to nothing about what we'll see in ME3 but for the few snippets of some quotes I see here on the forums (whether reliable or not) or occasional Internet article I come upon that is not precisely about ME3 and vague at best.  So I am left with reading others' theories as well as creating my own, though I don't actually ever state mine as law.  I recognize it as potentially flawed like all theories, so I do enjoy prodding other people's ideas to see if I can either better understand or if they can expand upon it--see where that road takes us.  Sometimes, I end up in a place that is mutually beneficial to both parties, had a fascinating conversation, and have learned a lot; it is not always so, however.  I recognize that we are addressing probabilities, which is why I repeatedly mention it.  I do appreciate your perspective.

[Wraith_of_Dawn]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Soverign 666 wrote...

It seems unlikeley that anyone is convincing anyone of anything so why don't we just wait for ME3?

Would be the logical thing to do, but then what sense would that make? Everyone has to be right.

Since when do people on the internet do the logical thing?

[Jaron Oberyn]

pvt_java wrote...

smudboy wrote...

pvt_java wrote...
Sorry, I meant consequence, I've been out of it recently. 

And kind sir, get over it. ME2 has some plot inconsistencies. It's just a game, it doesn't have to have a story on par with the Lord of the Rings.

Ah, no worries.

I'm trying, really, really hard.  But then I come back on here and it's insane stuff.  Heck I'm still working on more videos to get over it.

Haha, LotR has a story?  Please.  That's some old guy's rambling wet dream of boring.

Well, whatever book series you consider to be "The best ever".

Seriously smud, I'm saying this for you own good - It's been half a year since the game came out. I could understand if this was still February, but it's now August and it's still going to be a while before Lair of the Shadow Broker comes out. Can you complain about the new novels or something more recent? Complaining about ME2's plot at this point is like complaining about a 1980's family comedy. As much as you want it to change, we're not going to see any retconning until 2012. 

No. That's all he does. He complains and whines like a child. And then when he knows he's been proven wrong, he doesn't want to admit it. Typical childish behavior, and all you can do is ignore it. This kid thinks he's hot stuff. That he's the standard that all games need to be judged by. It's why I've stopped discussing this topic with him, becaue he doesn't know how to debate, analyze the facts, and then contribute to the discussion.

-Polite

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
No. That's all he does. He complains and whines like a child. And then when he knows he's been proven wrong, he doesn't want to admit it. Typical childish behavior, and all you can do is ignore it. This kid thinks he's hot stuff. That he's the standard that all games need to be judged by. It's why I've stopped discussing this topic with him, becaue he doesn't know how to debate, analyze the facts, and then contribute to the discussion.

-Polite

1. Please point out where I was wrong.
2. I am hot stuff. Glad you noticed.
3. I'm quite good at debates.
4. I'm terribly good at analysis.
5. I've never shyed away from discussion.  In fact I'm relentless.

Oh wait, you were just trying to make yourself feel better yet again.  And still, no reply from my previous large post a few pages back.  Hmm.  Who can't admit they're wrong and isn't good at debating again?

Modifié par smudboy, 02 août 2010 - 10:18 .

[smudboy]

pvt_java wrote...
Well, whatever book series you consider to be "The best ever".

Seriously smud, I'm saying this for you own good - It's been half a year since the game came out. I could understand if this was still February, but it's now August and it's still going to be a while before Lair of the Shadow Broker comes out. Can you complain about the new novels or something more recent? Complaining about ME2's plot at this point is like complaining about a 1980's family comedy. As much as you want it to change, we're not going to see any retconning until 2012. 

What does it matter how recent the game was?

I'm going to grind my axe into ME2's plot till the thing's a bloody stump.  Although I never did quite compare it to an 80's comedy.  That's...bizarre, in the least.

It's not so much I want it to change, it's more or less an eternal form of comedy for me.  Every week a new plot hole, it seems.

[kraidy1117]

*grabs popcorn* I love it when Smudboy argues!

[Jaron Oberyn]

phatpat63 wrote...

OP is right. I really have trouble seeing how anyone could possibly entertain the idea that Bioware will for some reason go to the trouble of giving ME3 a vastly different treatment than ME2 when doing so would be dozens of times more complex that it would have been for ME2. That is truly delusional.

What would be complex would be to write off 12 characters, create about 10-12 new characters, with models, materials, textures, animation, recruiting new VA's, etc.. and then writing those into the story. And since you want to compare Mass 3 with Mass 2 in terms of pattern, lets just say 12 new loyalty missions. We don't need a repeat of Mass 2. Just because they wrote off Ashley/Kaidan, with good reason, doesn't mean they're doing it with mass 3.

Honestly, is it so hard to comprehend the way they dealt with Wrex? You guys act as if you know what your talking about. Do you know how much work it would take to create 10-12 new squad mate assets? Do you really? Because I seriously doubt you do. Bioware already dedicated an entire game to squadmates, and if you don't believe me I have a video, posted on the previous page, that has a developer saying "The squadmates are the focus of the game".

So tell me, why dedicate a whole game to recruiting people, only to have them discarded in the third game and then recruit more people? Again, Bioware isn't going to repeat Mass 2, or the pattern of Mass 2. Just because they took an approach in Mass 2 doesn't mean they're going the same way in Mass 3.

But back to Wrex. Not everyone gets to see wrex, specifically those who didn't play Mass 1. So did Bioware cut wrex out of the game just because not everyone would see him? Did they give him a small role? Absoluety not. Just because he's an NPC doesn't mean his role is smaller than that of a squad mate.

In Mass 3 you will have a different portion of the story depending on if Wrex is unifying the clans, or if his brother is just doing whatever it is that he does. Two different stories.

Wrap your mind around that, and just imagine it with the surviving squad members. If a squad member survives, you get a certain content in Mass 3, if not then you don't. If your going the default route, then whoever is alive on the canon story (Most likely all of them). So think of what they did to wrex, but applied to the Mass 2 squad, with squad status instead of NPC status, and much more dialogue. It's as simple as that. It's more simple than creating 10-12 new characters and then writing them into the story. 

I don't have to tell you that the third game is it. We don't have time to was on recruiting another dirty dozen team. That was what Mass Effect 2 was for. And according to THIS video, the squad was the focus of the game. So most likely, the final battle will be the focus of the third game. I'm pretty sure Bioware's going to focus more efforts on story this time around rather than new squadmembers. Why? Because they've already modded the engine to their specifications, they've already revamped the gameplay, all there is to worry about now is story with a few minor modifications to gameplay. Thats it.

So given all of this, what YOUR saying is delusional.

-Polite

[theelementslayer]

kraidy1117 wrote...

*grabs popcorn* I love it when Smudboy argues!

^This, I think Ill pull up a chair next to you

[KainrycKarr]

You both lose - GAME OVER

[Wraith_of_Dawn]

This is a suitable ending ^

[theelementslayer]

KainrycKarr wrote...

You both lose - GAME OVER

But chuck norris always wins

[KainrycKarr]

Chuck Norris is an overrated turd. RKO