2338 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

McBeath wrote...

Miranda is the best example.  Is she even killable in a playthough where Shepard himself doesn't die?

Yes.And its possible to make her the only person that died.

[McBeath]

The Harley Dude wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

I think the PS3 is relevant as you have already chosen to kill the council, Wrex and the Rachni as the default new game in ME2. Since remaining squad members is another variable the design choices for ME3 will need to insure everyone can have a full experience regradless of past choices and platform. Bringing back all the squad you survived with as full team members would create unbalanced gameplay for some missions. If all the techs are dead are you stuck for the entire ME3 game with squad members that are no good against mechs and/or geth?

Not sure why they couldn't add a couple more recruitable squadies in ME3 to fill out any roles you butchered in the ME2 runthrough you're importing...


It would be a major writing/design error to focus most of the 2nd act on building the team, and then blow off the entire team in what has been set up an immediate sequel of a 3rd act.

I think encountering the squadies you saved in the course of completing the main story is more plausible. For example, assume each of the Reapers go to different areas of space. On one mission you assist the geth. There you encounter Legion if you saved him or Legion clone if you did not. If you have Legion as a squadmate then only some players will have him. Realistically how much dev time would the character get when many players would not have him? Do you want to have Legion and get the "We are building a consensus" line most of the game because it was not cost effective to build out robust ineraction with characters that may or may not exist in any given players game? I would be more pissed with with lousy interaction with the squadmate I kept alive than adding new members.

This legion arguement only holds weight it the majority of players lost him.  Without numbers how can we say?  Bioware is likely the only entity with those numbers(based on when we upload to the Cerberus Network). 

Example:

85% of imports = full survival

So, 85% of the players will have full content.  Legion is missing from only 15% of games(MAYBE, those 15% of players can lose 12 different squadmates).

I would imagine that the numbers would be higher.. in fact, I bet that almost every single person who has played the game has completed a "no one left behind" playthough.  It's easy, especially with the online guides.  It's not far fetched to assume that Bioware intends that very playthrough to be the canon, 100% content playthrough, with all others deviating slightly.  As long as new players get this as there default then there is no problem.

Also, don't say that this isn't "fair".  Fair isn't relevent, all that matters is that each player has a good, fun experience with there playthrough.  After all, if they don't like importing dead characters they can easily go back and fix the problem... it isn't like Bioware sells them a game that they can't change.

ME2 has instances where quality, and a good experience, beat out over cost effective. 

Cheers.

tonnactus wrote...

McBeath wrote...

Miranda is the best example.  Is she even killable in a playthough where Shepard himself doesn't die?

Yes.And its possible to make her the only person that died.

I've personally not seen this... it seems that unless you go out of your way to do so that she survives.  Is it only possible if you go out of your way to kill her... like by doing every other loyalty mission and ensuring that she's in just the right place, with the right squadmates, to kill her?

Modifié par McBeath, 19 août 2010 - 06:41 .

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
I agree with you. Bioware themselves said the game will be unique for each player. smartboy's argument is that Mass Effect 3 can't be like that because everyone has to be able to see the same content in the same playthrough. Which is wrong.

-Polite

?

[Zulu_DFA]

Sapienti wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I'm not so sure... I just mean, that with more people buying ME2 as their first ME installment, without so much as chance to go back to ME1, the fav character ratings will even out somewhat.

I'm all for epic cameos for all the ME2 squaddies (and many other NPCs). I argue that an attempt to "bring them back" as squadmates in ME3 will land anywhere between "lame" and "total disaster". That said, my best Quarian friend is Admiral vas Quib-Quib, and I expect to be fully "rewarded" for playing pacifist even though I got some random Quarian (which Tali is) killed on the "suicide mission".

Two words: Ret & Con. We've seen it in ME2 already with the thermal ammo. And it was even more lame as the writers tried to mask it as not being one. There also was minor retconning concerning... who could have thought... Garrus and Tali, since there was little to no reflection of several variants of Shepard's interaction with them in ME1. But that's not nearly as much retconning (or ignoring continuity) as will be necessary to facilitate for example Tali's return as squadmate in ME3.

The thermal clips weren't really an example of retconing, they tried to give a valid answer which was plausible, it goes against previously established things, but there was an in game reason for it so I don't think it qualifies.

It does. Again:  it was even more lame as the writers tried to mask it as not being one. Proof: a number of "plot holes" involving thermal ammo, like Jacob's loyalty, Zaeed's Jessie, Shepard's first line after awakening, Collectors' weapons, Heretics' station, etc. To me it was so lame, that I even "retconned" it backb y modding the coalesced.ini to emulate the ME1 system.

Sapienti wrote...
Also the Garrus and Tali relationship is even less of a retcon. All they did was give Garrus and Tali an in game relationship with Shepard that was mentioned in the story. Garrus, Tali and Shepard all acting as if they've been good friends for a long time because of their previous adventures.

Garrus could have been not recruited in ME1 at all, and this was largely disregarded.

Sapienti wrote...
If you were to take Mass Effect and turn it into a book, that's exactly what they would be, regardless of whether the player decided to interact with them or not. The game went ahead and established some facts on the side lines, it did what a lot of games and stories do and filled in some blank pages.

It's not a book tough, it's a game series that is advertized as one about choices, consequences and import files, which means it needs good continuity.

Sapienti wrote...
All of Shepard's adventures didn't take place over the course of a few hours, it could have been weeks or even months in which time he got to know Garrus, whether that is simply implied or if the player feels that way, it isn't altering any previously established facts. All you really have in terms of referencing previous interactions is one line between Shepard and Tali where Shepard mentions you getting the Geth data if you did that mission.

 
This too. The only reason Tali should trust Shepard and join him in ME2 after having been denied the Geth data in ME1 is that she's an utter idiot. Incidentally, I'm perfectly OK with this explanation.

Sapienti wrote...
They don't need to alter any facts for Tali's return either. If she survived the mission, then she survived. She has conversations, she can be a love interest, she can have Shepard's babies

Oh, noes!.. *head desk*...
 

Sapienti wrote...
and they can go on to be the main characters in "ME4: A New Threat."

If there is an ME4.

Sapienti wrote...
If she dies, then she simply has nothing to say. It'd be the same as if you decided not to pick up Kasumi or Thane as a squadmate in ME2. A lack of something no need for a place holder or anything. That would not be a disaster at all. She survives, she can be a squadmember, doesn't take any clever writing. If she dies, then she just aint around when Shepard goes to convince Quib Quib to join the fight and you have to do things different or see a different cut scene with different branching dialogue. It isn't too hard to get really, nothing lame or disastrous about that.

Tali is in fact the hardest ME2 squadmate to "bring back" properly, even as a cameo. She can not only assume the three "standard" states (dead, alive and alive-romanced), but also the forth: alive but with loyalty mission accomplished in failure. The same with Samara and  Thane. Samara can also "be Morinth". Legion can be sent to Cerberus or not activated. Grunt can be not activated. Zaeed can be abandoned on Zorya (and you don't get to see his body if you know what I mean). All this needs to be accounted for in their character development.

Sapienti wrote...
Lastly, Mass Effect is about choices and consequences. You can't expect to get as much money going to save the civilians from a fire as you would if you opted out to get the treasure directly...or something. Its just how the game works dude. If you play the pacifist, reap the pacifist rewards.

I'll quote PoliteAssasin here: "Exactly". Which means, that Tali's (or anyone's for that matter) survival and availability in ME3 is totally irrelevant to the whole choices-consequences thing. 

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 19 août 2010 - 07:00 .

[SmokePants]

ME1 was "unique to every player". ME2 was "unique to every player". Dragon Age Origins was "unique to every player". Dragon Age Origins Awakening was "unique to every player". KOTOR was "unique to every player". Jade Empire was "unique to every player". Etc. Etc. None of those games violated the simple rules about not arbitrarily withholding content. So, Bioware CAN make ME3 "unique to every player", while still marginalizing the "big" decisions carried over from previous games.

We have games upon games upon games of evidence. All you guys have is, "BioWare wouldn't do that, because that would be mean." THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IT!

Modifié par SmokePants, 19 août 2010 - 07:04 .

[Sapienti]

glacier1701 wrote...

Polite, Sapiente, Pauravi et al,

The number of squad variations being pointed out is NOT to hide behind the large numbers but to emphase that the job of creating a FULL squadmember is nigh on impossible because so much dialog would have to looked at. One of the complaints about ME2 was the lack of squad banter/interaction. Your arguement suggests that you are willing to put up with having LESS squad interaction than we got in ME2. Yet you also argue that we'll get more because its ONLY 12 squad members. You are basically trying to have it both ways yet you do not seem to have grasped that in all the posts you've made.

 I will also point out something that also overlook constantly. BioWare ALWAYS takes the easiest way out. For example lets look at the Thane recruitment and the fact that this is part of a choice we made in ME1. In ME1 we could have a few variations on how we did Nassana Dantius' mission ranging from 'who in heck is she?' to 'oh yeah she is the asari who's sister I killed for her'. While I do NOT have any data to back this up it was obvious from the reactions to the preview we got way back last year that many players had gone the route of getting the mission request when they turned up at the planet where Nassana's sister was, went in to the base and killed everyone and THEN went back to the Citadel for a reward. This means that Nassana was quite rational and never lied to us in any way. Indeed it appeared that she was the victim of circumstances and we'd solved the problem. Yet when the preview aired it showed a Shepard that just stood there while Nassana was killed. For Paragon Shepard's that was unthinkable and quite a lot was said about that until BioWare gave us their answer that basically said TOUGH.

 In ME2 we got to see the whole thing play out. If anything it is much worse than the out of context preview we saw. The whole variety of ways that the Nassana mission played out in ME1 was basically thrown out and squeezed into 'she had me kill her sister'. Well in my game she did not have me kill her sister yet my choice was ignored. And from the posts that had been made on the forum at the time it is clear that many others were also in the same boat. BioWare took the easiest option they could and in doing so ignored what a majority of people had done and in doing so turned what could have been a great story and introduction to Thane into something very sloppily presented that tried to paper over the large cracks created with the mismatch with ME1 gameplay.

 So yes we MIGHT get all 12 squad members back but it will be done in the EASIEST way possible. And that means they will NOT acknowledge the presence of anyone other than Shepard. They wil NOT refer to anything done in the past UNLESS it is something that simply MUST have happened such as obtaining the IFF or reaching Horizon. Thus they become even more 2 dimensional than they were before and from your own words in your posts this is NOT what you envisage happening yet you constantly argue that it wont happen because BioWare would surely see that this is not what YOU want. Well they certainly have not given many what they wanted so why should they change now?

I'll just save time and flat out say you're wrong. And using ME1 to ME2 as an example of "Bioware always and unfailingly taking the easy way out" is sort of a fail point because ME1 was not the biggest game in the world, the development time to ME2 was large and many things weren't in the fore front of the developers minds when they were making the sequel because they were trying to get ME1 finished. With ME3 they're making it with the mind set that ME2 needs to be carried over in a more thought out way. Its a really weak argument hinging everything on "easy way out" which then has me default back to "how do you know what Bioware is capable of". You simply don't. You don't know if they feel like doing full dialogue for every character but they more than likely do because if you look at it, the majority of people are going to have a lot of their squad in tact going in to ME3.

If Bioware can go from generic enemies and generic bases that all say the same and look the same to a game with so many different worlds and enemy talking, I can see it just as likely that they'd go ahead and bump up some voice work, it isn't as hard as you make it out, its just recording a person talking and paying them their wages.

[Sapienti]

The Harley Dude wrote...

I think encountering the squadies
you saved in the course of completing the main story is more plausible.
For example, assume each of the Reapers go to different areas of space.
On one mission you assist the geth. There you encounter Legion if you
saved him or Legion clone if you did not. If you have Legion as a
squadmate then only some players will have him. Realistically how much
dev time would the character get when many players would not have him?
Do you want to have Legion and get the "We are building a consensus"
line most of the game because it was not cost effective to build out
robust ineraction with characters that may or may not exist in any given
players game? I would be more pissed with with lousy interaction with
the squadmate I kept alive than adding new members.

Aside from not knowing if its cost effective or not to have dialogue, as McBeath pointed out "so many players" could be the vast majority. And every single character does not need to be carried over equally, the development time so many people seem to think is so significant per character can be based on likelihood of survival, don't base decisions off of the few chumps who sucked on purpose to kill off everyone.

Or they could just do equal work for all sides, treat like they do fem sheps dialogue, people will play a female character, go all out for that, don't look at all the people who never will.

smudboy wrote...
?

You're just dodging rain drops kid you can give it up now. You did exactly what Polite and I said you would. The rest of your posts will be short one liners and "place holder this place holder that". You don't have to keep it up, we can pretend you're still posting

[Harley_Dude]

So if all 12 survive and Liara and Ashley/Kaiden will be part of the team in ME3 we are going to start the game with 14 characters? Bioware would be breaking new ground for sure. I think it is far more likely the survivors, the aliens in particular, will have gone back to their respective homeworlds to rally their species against the Reapers and we will encounter them again through the course of the game. If they are dead we speak to their placeholder like Wreav.

[smudboy]

Sapienti wrote...
You're just dodging rain drops kid you can give it up now. You did exactly what Polite and I said you would. The rest of your posts will be short one liners and "place holder this place holder that". You don't have to keep it up, we can pretend you're still posting

What am I dodging here? 

No seriously, I have no idea how that's what I stated.  I've given what, 4-5 different ways how they can handle squadmates.  In no way have I said what Polite stated.

Modifié par smudboy, 19 août 2010 - 07:49 .

[Sapienti]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It does. Again:  it was even more lame as the writers tried to mask it as not being one. Proof: a number of "plot holes" involving thermal ammo, like Jacob's loyalty, Zaeed's Jessie, Shepard's first line after awakening, Collectors' weapons, Heretics' station, etc. To me it was so lame, that I even "retconned" it backb y modding the coalesced.ini to emulate the ME1 system.

Garrus could have been not recruited in ME1 at all, and this was largely disregarded.

It's not a book tough, it's a game series that is advertized as one about choices, consequences and import files, which means it needs good continuity.

This too. The only reason Tali should trust Shepard and join him in ME2 after having been denied the Geth data in ME1 is that she's an utter idiot. Incidentally, I'm perfectly OK with this explanation.

Oh, noes!.. *head desk*...
 
If there is an ME4.

Tali is in fact the hardest ME2 squadmate to "bring back" properly, even as a cameo. She can not only assume the three "standard" states (dead, alive and alive-romanced), but also the forth: alive but with loyalty mission accomplished in failure. The same with Samara and  Thane. Samara can also "be Morinth". Legion can be sent to Cerberus or not activated. Grunt can be not activated. Zaeed can be abandoned on Zorya (and you don't get to see his body if you know what I mean). All this needs to be accounted for in their character development.

I'll quote PoliteAssasin here: "Exactly". Which means, that Tali's (or anyone's for that matter) survival and availability in ME3 is totally irrelevant to the whole choices-consequences thing. 

It isn't a retcon, I really think you should look up the definition. If anything its just altering an established feature. Spartans in Halo multiplayer use health packs. Then, they don't and then in the latest they do. Why? There is a reason in the game story line. Why do we use thermal clips? They absorb an amount of heat from a gun firing so the gun does not over heat, then you eject the clip and load in more heat sinks. They aren't ammunition. The guns still don't use ammunition like that, it isn't a retcon look it up.

Yea Garrus could not have been recruited, that's Bioware saying "we're bringing him back like it or not". Why? Because they weren't thinking about what could have gone wrong in ME1, they were thinking about what the majority had done for ME1, what they wanted to have happened for ME1. If anything, this only strengthens the arguments of your opponents.

I wish you'd try and counter my point on the point of why characters have an implied relationship though. It has nothing to do with continuity and everything to do with a story told. If you can't wrap your head around writers taking old squadmates and filling in the blanks then fine I'll leave it alone until you bring it up.

You have the option to either get Tali the data and help her on her pilgrimage or telling her you don't have time. You don't say "hey, your data, screw it and screw you". She's still going to be running around the galaxy with the guy/girl. If you're only going to agree with things that back up your own notions then you're not actually arguing points, you're just wasting time.

An ME4 is highly likely simply because they've said "Mass Effect will be around for a long time" whether it means a hiatus before the next game or simply getting straight back into it, as long as there is money to be made they will continue to up the budget and push the FRANCHISE further along.

Yep Tali is probably going to be the most complex to bring back, but aside from it just being different dialogue options she is one of the bigger projects. This doesn't really have anything to do with an "its impossible" argument about characters returning though as, like I've said before, characters don't need to return in equal fashion, looking at the hardest and comparing to the easiest isn't a productive way of thinking, some characters can be cameos as easily as all characters being cameos. Leave Zaeed behind? (aside from him likely not returning due to being DLC) Then he just wont be there, if he is, more simplified DLC character chat. No loyalty mission done, he's dead anyway. Legion, Grunt, Morinth, same thing, they're either there or they aren't. Same as your own point you brought up with Garrus, they could just go with the majority of what folks decided and develop the characters normally.

I don't think you're thinking to deep about your own arguments, if you took the time to think about each of your own points you could anticipate at least a few of the counter arguments that would come your way, it would build a stronger argument and not come off as something full of holes and half arsed/smuddish.

[Sapienti]

The Harley Dude wrote...

So if all 12 survive and Liara and Ashley/Kaiden will be part of the team in ME3 we are going to start the game with 14 characters? Bioware would be breaking new ground for sure. I think it is far more likely the survivors, the aliens in particular, will have gone back to their respective homeworlds to rally their species against the Reapers and we will encounter them again through the course of the game. If they are dead we speak to their placeholder like Wreav.

No, try to think outside the box, or at least not in black and white. For one, two characters are DLC. They can easily not return and be written off same as they could return. Bioware does not need to return every single character as a squadmate, they can pick and choose the ones that seem most likely/most popular. The rest can be written into cameo roles. Its not really hard to grasp, just think longer than three seconds about it.

smudboy wrote...

What am I dodging here? 

No
seriously, I have no idea how that's what I stated.  I've given what,
4-5 different ways how they can handle squadmates.  In no way have
I said what Polite stated.

You're dodging every post against you. Someone pokes your argument full of holes, what do you do? Ignore it and focus on the easy stuff. But there are so many people firing a line or two at you you might as well be dodging rain. It'd be easier if you just went indoors. You give your 4-5 different ways, someone says something about them, and then you go back to talking in circles and going on about place holders, one liners, variables.

[smudboy]

Sapienti wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

So if all 12 survive and Liara and Ashley/Kaiden will be part of the team in ME3 we are going to start the game with 14 characters? Bioware would be breaking new ground for sure. I think it is far more likely the survivors, the aliens in particular, will have gone back to their respective homeworlds to rally their species against the Reapers and we will encounter them again through the course of the game. If they are dead we speak to their placeholder like Wreav.

No, try to think outside the box, or at least not in black and white. For one, two characters are DLC. They can easily not return and be written off same as they could return. Bioware does not need to return every single character as a squadmate, they can pick and choose the ones that seem most likely/most popular. The rest can be written into cameo roles. Its not really hard to grasp, just think longer than three seconds about it.

smudboy wrote...

What am I dodging here? 

No
seriously, I have no idea how that's what I stated.  I've given what,
4-5 different ways how they can handle squadmates.  In no way have
I said what Polite stated.

You're dodging every post against you. Someone pokes your argument full of holes, what do you do? Ignore it and focus on the easy stuff. But there are so many people firing a line or two at you you might as well be dodging rain. It'd be easier if you just went indoors. You give your 4-5 different ways, someone says something about them, and then you go back to talking in circles and going on about place holders, one liners, variables.

Feel free to post your arguments and I'd be happy to respond to them.  Soon as I'm "talking in circles", I'll try again.

[Killjoy Cutter]

The Harley Dude wrote...

So if all 12 survive and Liara and Ashley/Kaiden will be part of the team in ME3 we are going to start the game with 14 characters? Bioware would be breaking new ground for sure. I think it is far more likely the survivors, the aliens in particular, will have gone back to their respective homeworlds to rally their species against the Reapers and we will encounter them again through the course of the game. If they are dead we speak to their placeholder like Wreav.

Why not 14? 

And if Thane dies and Zaeed moves on to continue hunting Vido, you're back to 12. 

But dumping the whole squad when the real focus of ME2 was building it up and making it a cohesive, trustworthy team?  REALLY.  BAD.  DESIGN.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

Sapienti wrote...
You're just dodging rain drops kid you can give it up now. You did exactly what Polite and I said you would. The rest of your posts will be short one liners and "place holder this place holder that". You don't have to keep it up, we can pretend you're still posting

What am I dodging here? 

No seriously, I have no idea how that's what I stated.  I've given what, 4-5 different ways how they can handle squadmates.  In no way have I said what Polite stated.

Yes, seriously, he's correct. Your stating the same exact thing over and over again, and it's all speculation on your part. You don't provide a source to even try to back up your claims. You can't even discuss the whole issue, because everytime someone posts something substantial, you ignore it and post something about placeholders, or numbers.

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

Sapienti wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

So if all 12 survive and Liara and Ashley/Kaiden will be part of the team in ME3 we are going to start the game with 14 characters? Bioware would be breaking new ground for sure. I think it is far more likely the survivors, the aliens in particular, will have gone back to their respective homeworlds to rally their species against the Reapers and we will encounter them again through the course of the game. If they are dead we speak to their placeholder like Wreav.

No, try to think outside the box, or at least not in black and white. For one, two characters are DLC. They can easily not return and be written off same as they could return. Bioware does not need to return every single character as a squadmate, they can pick and choose the ones that seem most likely/most popular. The rest can be written into cameo roles. Its not really hard to grasp, just think longer than three seconds about it.

smudboy wrote...

What am I dodging here? 

No
seriously, I have no idea how that's what I stated.  I've given what,
4-5 different ways how they can handle squadmates.  In no way have
I said what Polite stated.

You're dodging every post against you. Someone pokes your argument full of holes, what do you do? Ignore it and focus on the easy stuff. But there are so many people firing a line or two at you you might as well be dodging rain. It'd be easier if you just went indoors. You give your 4-5 different ways, someone says something about them, and then you go back to talking in circles and going on about place holders, one liners, variables.

Feel free to post your arguments and I'd be happy to respond to them.  Soon as I'm "talking in circles", I'll try again.

We've posted significant arguments, with sufficient proof many times throghout the thread, yet you ignore it and talk about your placeholders. Kid.... Just stop. For your own sake.

-Polite

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Sapienti wrote...
You're just dodging rain drops kid you can give it up now. You did exactly what Polite and I said you would. The rest of your posts will be short one liners and "place holder this place holder that". You don't have to keep it up, we can pretend you're still posting

What am I dodging here? 

No seriously, I have no idea how that's what I stated.  I've given what, 4-5 different ways how they can handle squadmates.  In no way have I said what Polite stated.

Yes, seriously, he's correct. Your stating the same exact thing over and over again, and it's all speculation on your part. You don't provide a source to even try to back up your claims. You can't even discuss the whole issue, because everytime someone posts something substantial, you ignore it and post something about placeholders, or numbers.

-Polite

We're speculating here.  My arguments arise from reason, evidence and logic.

Yours arise from examples don't even fit your claim.

Again, I'm happy to argue with anyone who argues with me.  So go ahead.

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

We've posted significant arguments, with sufficient proof many times throghout the thread, yet you ignore it and talk about your placeholders. Kid.... Just stop. For your own sake.

-Polite

What proof?  Show me this proof.

PoliteAssasin: Learn to argue, make coherent statements, and fix your grammar.  Also, have clear, simple ideas.  You aren't going to make me stop.

[Sapienti]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Sapienti wrote...
You're just dodging rain drops kid you can give it up now. You did exactly what Polite and I said you would. The rest of your posts will be short one liners and "place holder this place holder that". You don't have to keep it up, we can pretend you're still posting

What am I dodging here? 

No seriously, I have no idea how that's what I stated.  I've given what, 4-5 different ways how they can handle squadmates.  In no way have I said what Polite stated.

Yes, seriously, he's correct. Your stating the same exact thing over and over again, and it's all speculation on your part. You don't provide a source to even try to back up your claims. You can't even discuss the whole issue, because everytime someone posts something substantial, you ignore it and post something about placeholders, or numbers.

-Polite

We're speculating here.  My arguments arise from reason, evidence and logic.

Yours arise from examples don't even fit your claim.

Again, I'm happy to argue with anyone who argues with me.  So go ahead.

You're not arguing. You're just talking. That's why I suggested reading a book on how to argue, I'm sure they exist. You make a claim such as "My arguments arise from reason, evidence and logic [yours don't" yet you fail to explain how you come to that conclusion and why we should believe you. Because all you're doing is talking about nothing, getting back on your own original points and repeating yourself needlessly you are talking in circles and failing to make actual aruments instead just making statements and insisting they're logical.

smudboy wrote...

What proof?  Show me this proof.

PoliteAssasin:
Learn to argue, make coherent statements, and fix your grammar.  Also,
have clear, simple ideas.  You aren't going to make me stop.

See that isn't arguing making statements and proper grammar doesn't make an argument. Neither do simple ideas. They help yea, but they aren't arguments, and since talking to you is like talking to a brick wall with ear plugs- because you know, walls have ears, and that implies they listen. Or rather since its text I guess you're more like a hill because they have eyes, so a hill with a blind fold, yea - I'm just going to call it a wrap and focus on other people.

Modifié par Sapienti, 19 août 2010 - 08:35 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Sapienti wrote...

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Sapienti wrote...
You're just dodging rain drops kid you can give it up now. You did exactly what Polite and I said you would. The rest of your posts will be short one liners and "place holder this place holder that". You don't have to keep it up, we can pretend you're still posting

What am I dodging here? 

No seriously, I have no idea how that's what I stated.  I've given what, 4-5 different ways how they can handle squadmates.  In no way have I said what Polite stated.

Yes, seriously, he's correct. Your stating the same exact thing over and over again, and it's all speculation on your part. You don't provide a source to even try to back up your claims. You can't even discuss the whole issue, because everytime someone posts something substantial, you ignore it and post something about placeholders, or numbers.

-Polite

We're speculating here.  My arguments arise from reason, evidence and logic.

Yours arise from examples don't even fit your claim.

Again, I'm happy to argue with anyone who argues with me.  So go ahead.

You're not arguing. You're just talking. That's why I suggested reading a book on how to argue, I'm sure they exist. You make a claim such as "My arguments arise from reason, evidence and logic [yours don't" yet you fail to explain how you come to that conclusion and why we should believe you. Because all you're doing is talking about nothing, getting back on your own original points and repeating yourself needlessly you are talking in circles and failing to make actual aruments instead just making statements and insisting they're logical.

Exactly. We're not going to just take your word for it. You have to show us something to go with your claims, which is exactly what I've done countless times in this thread. I won't do it any more unless new sources come up, I'm not here to entertain you kid. And like Sapienti, I suggest you read a book about logic, and debate because you don't have a clue about either. Stop trying to act mature when clearly your not.

-Polite

[Zulu_DFA]

Sapienti wrote...

Yep Tali is probably going to be the most complex to bring back, but aside from it just being different dialogue options she is one of the bigger projects. This doesn't really have anything to do with an "its impossible" argument about characters returning though as, like I've said before, characters don't need to return in equal fashion, looking at the hardest and comparing to the easiest isn't a productive way of thinking, some characters can be cameos as easily as all characters being cameos.

Since you seem to agree with this POV and not with "all squadmates will be back [as squadmates]", I can't see why you are trying to engage me in an argument over details.

Sapienti wrote...
I don't think you're thinking to deep about your own arguments, if you took the time to think about each of your own points you could anticipate at least a few of the counter arguments that would come your way, it would build a stronger argument and not come off as something full of holes and half arsed/smuddish.

My stronger arguments you may find in the threads I linked in the latest post directed at PoliteAssasin. I'm not going to do the necessary typing or even copy-pasting here.

[smudboy]

Sapienti wrote...
You're not arguing. You're just talking. That's why I suggested reading a book on how to argue, I'm sure they exist. You make a claim such as "My arguments arise from reason, evidence and logic [yours don't" yet you fail to explain how you come to that conclusion and why we should believe you. Because all you're doing is talking about nothing, getting back on your own original points and repeating yourself needlessly you are talking in circles and failing to make actual aruments instead just making statements and insisting they're logical.

If I state something, and you question me, and I re-iterate, that's arguing.

Now, is there a particular problem you have, then be sure to make it based on my opinions.

Also, make a point where I "talked in circles" or didn't "argue" the way you think I "should be."

Or are you going to reply again saying exactly what you just posted?

See that isn't arguing making statements and proper grammar doesn't make an argument. Neither do simple ideas. They help yea, but they aren't arguments, and since talking to you is like talking to a brick wall with ear plugs- because you know, walls have ears, and that implies they listen. Or rather since its text I guess you're more like a hill because they have eyes, so a hill with a blind fold, yea - I'm just going to call it a wrap and focus on other people.

So you're incapable of "arguing" with me because I don't "argue" the way you "expect" me to?  You mean my replies are so "difficult" for you to "comprehend?"

Seriously, make a clear point.  With good English.  And explain why you think this way.  If it's purely "I like X character to be back!"  Then you're wasting time.  Work within the confines of the system and the proposed function of the import, examples from both games, etc.  See?  This is what I do.

Modifié par smudboy, 19 août 2010 - 08:53 .

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Exactly. We're not going to just take your word for it. You have to show us something to go with your claims, which is exactly what I've done countless times in this thread. I won't do it any more unless new sources come up, I'm not here to entertain you kid. And like Sapienti, I suggest you read a book about logic, and debate because you don't have a clue about either. Stop trying to act mature when clearly your not.

-Polite

I don't expect anyone to take my "word" for it.  I expect you to ask questions.

For example:

PoliteAssasin wrote...

@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

-Polite

This is incorrect.  I've provided evidence that proves there are placeholders: (Wrex/Wreav, Ash/Kaidan.)  Therefore, you are wrong.

You countered saying "I took it out of context."  I responded twice, and then asked "what context?"  You then said it's beyond my judgement, or some such.

So please, go ahead: explain to me the context of your statement.  Try to "disprove" the existence of the placeholders, in doing so, trying to disprove my "argument."

We clear?  Chief?

[Sapienti]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Sapienti wrote...

Yep Tali is probably going to be the most complex to bring back, but aside from it just being different dialogue options she is one of the bigger projects. This doesn't really have anything to do with an "its impossible" argument about characters returning though as, like I've said before, characters don't need to return in equal fashion, looking at the hardest and comparing to the easiest isn't a productive way of thinking, some characters can be cameos as easily as all characters being cameos.

Since you seem to agree with this POV and not with "all squadmates will be back [as squadmates]", I can't see why you are trying to engage me in an argument over details.

Sapienti wrote...
I don't think you're thinking to deep about your own arguments, if you took the time to think about each of your own points you could anticipate at least a few of the counter arguments that would come your way, it would build a stronger argument and not come off as something full of holes and half arsed/smuddish.

My stronger arguments you may find in the threads I linked in the latest post directed at PoliteAssasin. I'm not going to do the necessary typing or even copy-pasting here.

You miss the point of discussions if you think agreeing with one point of view should nullify all other discussion, these details I'm engaging you on used to be your main argument. I'm simply pointing out their flaws, what you're supposed to do is take them into consideration, either form a new opinion, or counter the challenges. The point I was making was any squadmate can return for any reason, and this can translate to all squadmates back as squadmates or some squadmates back as squadmates. From what I've seen out of you, its either all of them or none of them. That doesn't need to be the case, I'm trying to get you to open up your eyes a bit and look at things as a whole. This isn't as black and white as the presidents race.

Even if your other arguments are in another thread, I just mean you should anticipate responses so you don't end up saying something baseless.

[Harley_Dude]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

So if all 12 survive and Liara and Ashley/Kaiden will be part of the team in ME3 we are going to start the game with 14 characters? Bioware would be breaking new ground for sure. I think it is far more likely the survivors, the aliens in particular, will have gone back to their respective homeworlds to rally their species against the Reapers and we will encounter them again through the course of the game. If they are dead we speak to their placeholder like Wreav.

Why not 14? 

And if Thane dies and Zaeed moves on to continue hunting Vido, you're back to 12. 

But dumping the whole squad when the real focus of ME2 was building it up and making it a cohesive, trustworthy team?  REALLY.  BAD.  DESIGN.

But the new player has to be considered when designing ME3 so having the default squad start out loyal would be unusual as Bioware typically has achieved this through character interaction through the game. That is why I think there will be something at the beginning of ME3 to "level the playing field" for all the various decisions and remaining squad member iterations. If everything stays the same ME3 will feel more like an expansion than a new game.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Exactly. We're not going to just take your word for it. You have to show us something to go with your claims, which is exactly what I've done countless times in this thread. I won't do it any more unless new sources come up, I'm not here to entertain you kid. And like Sapienti, I suggest you read a book about logic, and debate because you don't have a clue about either. Stop trying to act mature when clearly your not.

-Polite

I don't expect anyone to take my "word" for it.  I expect you to ask questions.

For example:

PoliteAssasin wrote...

@smartboy - There are no placeholders. Never were, and never will be. 

-Polite

This is incorrect.  I've provided evidence that proves there are placeholders: (Wrex/Wreav, Ash/Kaidan.)  Therefore, you are wrong.

You countered saying "I took it out of context."  I responded twice, and then asked "what context?"  You then said it's beyond my judgement, or some such.

So please, go ahead: explain to me the context of your statement.  Try to "disprove" the existence of the placeholders, in doing so, trying to disprove my "argument."

We clear?  Chief?

No we're not clear boy. First. That's not evidence. That's treatment 4 people got in the second game of the trilogy. I posted an article above that explains why the got that treatment, and that it won't be happening in the third game.

Second, you keep saying that we can't speak proper english, or argue correctly, yet your the one saying stuff like "I can't read your post" or "what is your point? I don't understand". Sounds to me like your the one with the comprehension issues. So in addition to your books on logic and debate, get a book on basic comprehension. Should be in the kids isle, because thats the age where you start to learn basic comprehension. Once again, your coming off as a child with more and more comments you post. Keep it up, I'm getting a good laugh out of you right now. Never thought I'd find someone this amusing over the internet. Boy I struck gold when I spotted you.

-Polite