2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Sapienti]

smudboy wrote...

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.

That's arguing at a second grade level. My dad can beat your dad. Nuh-uh. Uh-huh. That gets nobody anywhere. I expect people to be able to argue at least at the level of an adult if they are going to be posting as often and as widely as you are, otherwise you just come off as a troll. You have obviously failed to understand every post written for you to respond to. I'm not going to repeat myself though, go back and read the posts you've replied to that are from me, look at where I've killed your "working within the confines and using examples from both games". They're clear points, but apparently, since we've got such a huge gap in arguing technique I don't expect much from your next reply.

Your last statement reminds me of a delicious quote: Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. So, I guess you shot yourself in the foot. You win.

[Sapienti]

The Harley Dude wrote...

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.

Just like how the default file had Shepard kill Wrex through character interactions? There is nothing unusual about Bioware having a default file where they decide which default squad members were made loyal. Its not all or none, its pick and choose. Bioware typically hasn't done anything, you have one game in which Bioware achieved something through loyalty missions, so it wouldn't be any more unusual than the introduction of loyalty missions in ME2 from the "Hey Shepard let me join you" of ME1.

Modifié par Sapienti, 19 août 2010 - 09:11 .

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
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.

What's not clear?  I asked a specific question, and guess what?  You avoided it by re-defining as term which is based on ...the trilogy somehow?  Wtf are you even talking about?

"That's treatment 4 people got in the second game of the trilogy."

Yes.  And these 4 people make up 2 placeholders.  That's exactly what they are.  Ash is Kaidan's placeholder, and vice versa.  We can call this placeholder the "Alliance Marine" placeholder because the placeholder exists in an event.   Same with Wrex/Wreav.  They are the "Krogan Leader" placeholder.  That's what happening: if one dies, the other takes the others place.  This occurs on plot points.  One on a main plot point, and one on a subquest.

You pointing to a article means nothing.  This has nothing to do with an article, or external source.  This is a classification of a function of the system in the game.  The game does this.  This is how death is treated.  Speculating that they won't do this is useless,  because you stated:

PoliteAssasin wrote...

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

-Polite

Well, guess what genius.  There are.  There are 2 (maybe more, but that's irrelevant.)  You've been proven to be wrong.  There are placeholders.  They do exist in ME2.  What you call them is immaterial: one character, takes the place of another.  It happens on plot points.  They act as cameos.  They are real.  They exist.

You.  Are.  Wrong.  There is evidence to prove you are wrong.

Ashley
Kaidan

Notice how these scenes are identical, aside from the Ashley or Kaidan character?  This is because they are a placeholder (we'll call the "Alliance Marine") in this scene.  It is a simple method of telling a story in a video game where character death occurs.

We can then speculate, using this as a base (evidence), that this is how they might deal with character death in ME3.  But that's immaterial, because I was just here to prove your stupid ass wrong.  Which I've done.  Now if you have any understanding o the English language, or can watch youtube, then great.  You might be stupid, but you're not blind.  Or vice versa.  Either way, there's more than enough evidence to show that you are wrong.

Oh let me do the Wrex scene
Wrex
Wreav

Not the most similar of scenes, but the function is the same.  They are placeholders.  If one dies (Wrex), the other takes its place.  See how that works?

You.  Are.  Wrong.

[smudboy]

Sapienti wrote...
That's arguing at a second grade level. My dad can beat your dad. Nuh-uh. Uh-huh. That gets nobody anywhere. I expect people to be able to argue at least at the level of an adult if they are going to be posting as often and as widely as you are, otherwise you just come off as a troll. You have obviously failed to understand every post written for you to respond to. I'm not going to repeat myself though, go back and read the posts you've replied to that are from me, look at where I've killed your "working within the confines and using examples from both games". They're clear points, but apparently, since we've got such a huge gap in arguing technique I don't expect much from your next reply.

Your last statement reminds me of a delicious quote: Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. So, I guess you shot yourself in the foot. You win.

I don't know what arguing at a second grade level is.  An argument is one person says something, the other person questions it, and then first person clarifies.  And off they go.  That's all arguing is.  Don't know where you're getting 2nd grade level stuff, as I've stated nothing to do with content or context.

Anyway, since you're wasting my time, and have absolutely nothing of value to post, I'm not going to bother with you, either, until you post something else that I find questionable.

[Harley_Dude]

KOTOR, DAO and ME have the team member start neutral and it is up to you to gain their loyalty/influence by your actions and interaction during the game. Sounds typical to me.

[smudboy]

Let's also not forget that Ashley and Kaidan were placeholders for themselves based on the sex of Shepard in ME1 (Love interest, scene at the beacon, scene in the medical bed, Citadel vista, etc.) This is how they were handled in ME1 and ME2 (ME2 gets a cameo due to death.)

With Wrex, we get a whole new character to take his place. (I think the same is said with Sciala as well, but I can't recall.)

So this is a doable, observable method of dealing with death: cameo placeholders.

[Zulu_DFA]

Sapienti wrote...
From what I've seen out of you, its either all of them or none of them.

Where did you get this "all of them" part? It's been a long time since my "official position" on the matter has been as follows:

No ME2 squadmates will be recruitable by default in ME3. Those that will be recruitable will be DLC, and objectively (from a casual player's standpoint) less interesting than new squadmates. The cameo roles, on the other hand would possibly do them justice in terms of continuity and character development. The only exception may be legion, who doesn't need a Lazarus project to get rebuilt in case of death. The main reason behind this set up is that over 90% of people prefer a smaller and more interactive squad over a larger and less interactive. The idea of "interactivity" (associated with the inter-squad banter, among other things) logically denies the ME2 expendables equal footing with the characters Smudboy calls "static" in their run for ME3 squadmate jobs.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 19 août 2010 - 09:30 .

[Throw_this_away]

So how about those space mines???

[theelementslayer]

Throw_this_away wrote...

So how about those space mines???

Grunt ate them .

But to the people still on this. Seriously I dont think they will ditch 12 characters just to make it easier and cheaper on themselves. Its bioware, they push the envelope, not stay inside it.

[Zulu_DFA]

theelementslayer wrote...

Throw_this_away wrote...

So how about those space mines???

Grunt ate them .

But to the people still on this. Seriously I dont think they will ditch 12 characters just to make it easier and cheaper on themselves. Its bioware, they push the envelope, not stay inside it.

They won't ditch them. They'll make them cameos, DLCs.

[xlavaina]

I think Bioware will make the tougher and more rewarding choice of finding a way to make the majority of the old characters work in ME3, even with all the permutations.

[Throw_this_away]

Sapienti wrote...
 Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

this. 

There are usually two sides to every argument but no end.

[Jaron Oberyn]

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
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.

What's not clear?  I asked a specific question, and guess what?  You avoided it by re-defining as term which is based on ...the trilogy somehow?  Wtf are you even talking about?

"That's treatment 4 people got in the second game of the trilogy."

Yes.  And these 4 people make up 2 placeholders.  That's exactly what they are.  Ash is Kaidan's placeholder, and vice versa.  We can call this placeholder the "Alliance Marine" placeholder because the placeholder exists in an event.   Same with Wrex/Wreav.  They are the "Krogan Leader" placeholder.  That's what happening: if one dies, the other takes the others place.  This occurs on plot points.  One on a main plot point, and one on a subquest.

You pointing to a article means nothing.  This has nothing to do with an article, or external source.  This is a classification of a function of the system in the game.  The game does this.  This is how death is treated.  Speculating that they won't do this is useless,  because you stated:

PoliteAssasin wrote...

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

-Polite

Well, guess what genius.  There are.  There are 2 (maybe more, but that's irrelevant.)  You've been proven to be wrong.  There are placeholders.  They do exist in ME2.  What you call them is immaterial: one character, takes the place of another.  It happens on plot points.  They act as cameos.  They are real.  They exist.

You.  Are.  Wrong.  There is evidence to prove you are wrong.

Ashley
Kaidan

Notice how these scenes are identical, aside from the Ashley or Kaidan character?  This is because they are a placeholder (we'll call the "Alliance Marine") in this scene.  It is a simple method of telling a story in a video game where character death occurs.

We can then speculate, using this as a base (evidence), that this is how they might deal with character death in ME3.  But that's immaterial, because I was just here to prove your stupid ass wrong.  Which I've done.  Now if you have any understanding o the English language, or can watch youtube, then great.  You might be stupid, but you're not blind.  Or vice versa.  Either way, there's more than enough evidence to show that you are wrong.

Oh let me do the Wrex scene
Wrex
Wreav

Not the most similar of scenes, but the function is the same.  They are placeholders.  If one dies (Wrex), the other takes its place.  See how that works?

You.  Are.  Wrong.

I sincerely hope your joking. Can you not comprehend basic sentences? A basic argument? I'm not even going to bring myself down to your level because it's far too degrading. I hope you are never a defendant in a trial, because your idea of "evidence" would land you in jail before you even knew what hit you. 

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

Another addition. This was from Christina Norman. Take a look at the left circle. Yeah... Once again. 

-Polite

[smudboy]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
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.

What's not clear?  I asked a specific question, and guess what?  You avoided it by re-defining as term which is based on ...the trilogy somehow?  Wtf are you even talking about?

"That's treatment 4 people got in the second game of the trilogy."

Yes.  And these 4 people make up 2 placeholders.  That's exactly what they are.  Ash is Kaidan's placeholder, and vice versa.  We can call this placeholder the "Alliance Marine" placeholder because the placeholder exists in an event.   Same with Wrex/Wreav.  They are the "Krogan Leader" placeholder.  That's what happening: if one dies, the other takes the others place.  This occurs on plot points.  One on a main plot point, and one on a subquest.

You pointing to a article means nothing.  This has nothing to do with an article, or external source.  This is a classification of a function of the system in the game.  The game does this.  This is how death is treated.  Speculating that they won't do this is useless,  because you stated:

PoliteAssasin wrote...

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

-Polite

Well, guess what genius.  There are.  There are 2 (maybe more, but that's irrelevant.)  You've been proven to be wrong.  There are placeholders.  They do exist in ME2.  What you call them is immaterial: one character, takes the place of another.  It happens on plot points.  They act as cameos.  They are real.  They exist.

You.  Are.  Wrong.  There is evidence to prove you are wrong.

Ashley
Kaidan

Notice how these scenes are identical, aside from the Ashley or Kaidan character?  This is because they are a placeholder (we'll call the "Alliance Marine") in this scene.  It is a simple method of telling a story in a video game where character death occurs.

We can then speculate, using this as a base (evidence), that this is how they might deal with character death in ME3.  But that's immaterial, because I was just here to prove your stupid ass wrong.  Which I've done.  Now if you have any understanding o the English language, or can watch youtube, then great.  You might be stupid, but you're not blind.  Or vice versa.  Either way, there's more than enough evidence to show that you are wrong.

Oh let me do the Wrex scene
Wrex
Wreav

Not the most similar of scenes, but the function is the same.  They are placeholders.  If one dies (Wrex), the other takes its place.  See how that works?

You.  Are.  Wrong.

I sincerely hope your joking. Can you not comprehend basic sentences? A basic argument? I'm not even going to bring myself down to your level because it's far too degrading. I hope you are never a defendant in a trial, because your idea of "evidence" would land you in jail before you even knew what hit you. 

-Polite

You're wrong and you can't admit it.

[Zulu_DFA]

PoliteAssasin wrote...





Another addition. This was from Christina Norman. Take a look at the left circle. Yeah... Once again. 

-Polite

Do you ever fail at failing, PoliteAssasin?

Christina Norman refers to her gameplay designing team of BioWare employees, not to Shepard's fictious team of kewl alians.

[theelementslayer]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

-snippy-

Another addition. This was from Christina Norman. Take a look at the left circle. Yeah... Once again. 

-Polite

Do you ever fail at failing, PoliteAssasin?

Christina Norman refers to her gameplay designing team of BioWare employees, not to Shepard's fictious team of kewl alians.

Ya Im sure thats exactly what shes talking about. mmmm hmmmm, because they discuss their inner workings with us around CORE GAMEPLY. Just sayin. Oh and Polite can you link me to the original cause I like that, makes me 

[tonnactus]

smudboy wrote...


Well, guess what genius.  There are.  There are 2 (maybe more, but that's irrelevant.)

If someone killed shiala,there is just a ferros colonist as a placeholder on illium.So 3.

[tonnactus]

McBeath wrote...

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?

The player could also do her loyality mission,but side with jack then.Taking her to the final boss:Bam.
She is toast.

[Sapienti]

smudboy wrote...

You're wrong and you can't admit it.

Nah, again you missed the point and fell back on place holders and stuff, there may be place holder NPCs but the point he made was there haven't been place holder squad mates before. Like, you either have Garrus as a squadmate your you get Turian Wallus in place of Garrus, which was something you implied earlier, which was his point. Rather than concede to that, you went off on a tangent about NPC place holdings and different variations.

And you're again incorrect about arguing, and demonstrated again missing the point. Which calls into question your reading comprehension. I'll point you in the direction of a book I just found called "A Rulebook for Arguments" by Anthony Weston, a small little 8 dollar book you can probably read free online. f there's a book for how to argue then I'm sure there are books for how to comprehend what you read. There are ways to argue like a child and there are ways to argue like an intellect. You don't know you can argue like a second grader because you don't really know that there is more to arguing than two guys disagreeing. Its nothing like that. Nothing naturally hostile either, you'll see scientists argue about theories, politicians debate about a proper way of doing something, and nerds debate and argue about fiction. I'd suggest enrolling in a debate team, you'd learn a lot.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Sapienti wrote...
From what I've seen out of you, its either all of them or none of them.

Where did you get this "all of them" part? It's been a long time since my "official position" on the matter has been as follows:

No
ME2 squadmates will be recruitable by default in ME3. Those that will
be recruitable will be DLC, and objectively (from a casual player's
standpoint) less interesting than new squadmates. The cameo roles, on
the other hand would possibly do them justice in terms of continuity and
character development. The only exception may be legion, who doesn't
need a Lazarus project to get rebuilt in case of death. The main reason
behind this set up is that over 90% of people prefer a smaller and more
interactive squad over a larger and less interactive. The idea of
"interactivity" (associated with the inter-squad banter, among other
things) logically denies the ME2 expendables equal footing with the
characters Smudboy calls "static" in their run for ME3 squadmate
jobs.

See, do you not get what I was saying? You say none of the characters woud be recruitable and therefore must be DLC. The alternative being what? All of them being recruitable then? I argued that your reasons for this are flawed and that they can easily have squadmates already recruited by default whether this be 3,4 or all of the original squad or otherwise. This also facilitates your other reason, a smaller more interactive squad. They can have a more interactive squad in ME3 the same way with members of the old team as well as new members, I also gave the reasons why. Your original standpoint is flawed, I point that out, I ask you to prove to me otherwise. You haven't. Go back a few pages and re-read my responses to you quote and address.

The Harley Dude wrote...

KOTOR, DAO and ME have the team
member start neutral and it is up to you to gain their loyalty/influence
by your actions and interaction during the game. Sounds typical to
me.

Only one of those is Mass Effect, and again not typical. You don't gain influence or loyalty in ME1. Only in ME2, and that is not a "typical  Mass Effect" thing, its new to this particular series. So we don't know what a typical choice would be for ME3. My point stands.

[Fiery Phoenix]

tonnactus wrote...

smudboy wrote...


Well, guess what genius.  There are.  There are 2 (maybe more, but that's irrelevant.)

If someone killed shiala,there is just a ferros colonist as a placeholder on illium.So 3.

That's only if the colony was saved, though. That is, you save the colony but kill Shiala.

[Zulu_DFA]

theelementslayer wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

-snippy-

Another addition. This was from Christina Norman. Take a look at the left circle. Yeah... Once again. 

-Polite

Do you ever fail at failing, PoliteAssasin?

Christina Norman refers to her gameplay designing team of BioWare employees, not to Shepard's fictious team of kewl alians.

Ya Im sure thats exactly what shes talking about. mmmm hmmmm, because they discuss their inner workings with us around CORE GAMEPLY. Just sayin. Oh and Polite can you link me to the original cause I like that, makes me 

Here. We stupid kids are really fast with Google. Unlike you the wise and faithful.

Among other things, that short article clearly explains what is meant by the the word "team" in the picture:

"With that in mind, Norman decided that the team needed to focus on rebuilding the combat in its entirety for Mass Effect 2."


@ Sapienti
So, basically what you are saying is basically that "some will leave and some will stay"? No offence, but I have yet another thread of my own about this sort of assertions: http://social.biowar...5/index/3068986. It's retarded. First, it's quite obvious that ME3 won't start "where ME2 ended", and almost as obvious that Shepard will be busted to the ground yet again in some way. ME3 will (and this is official) be a stand-alone game. You don't start a stand-alone game with half of your crew recruited in a prequel.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 19 août 2010 - 11:18 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Zulu, is it OK if I say that I almost always find your posts rather amusing and hilarious?



Not because you're wrong or anything; but there's something about the way you converse.

[smudboy]

Sapienti wrote...

smudboy wrote...
You're wrong and you can't admit it.

Nah, again you missed the point and fell back on place holders and stuff, there may be place holder NPCs but the point he made was there haven't been place holder squad mates before. Like, you either have Garrus as a squadmate your you get Turian Wallus in place of Garrus, which was something you implied earlier, which was his point. Rather than concede to that, you went off on a tangent about NPC place holdings and different variations.

What point?  He never made the point that "there may be place holder NPCs."  Never.  Not once did he describe it as such.

The point PLACEHOLDERS EXIST.

The moron said they didn't.

Therefore, he is wrong.

I am not missing the point.

Ashley/Kaidan and Wrex were both squadmates in ME1.  Guess what?  ME2?  PLACEHOLDERS.

Not saying that's what's definitely going to happen in ME3 with ME2 squadmates...

But.

You know.

[Harley_Dude]

Sapienti wrote...

The Harley Dude wrote...

KOTOR, DAO and ME have the team
member start neutral and it is up to you to gain their loyalty/influence
by your actions and interaction during the game. Sounds typical to
me.

Only one of those is Mass Effect, and again not typical. You don't gain influence or loyalty in ME1. Only in ME2, and that is not a "typical  Mass Effect" thing, its new to this particular series. So we don't know what a typical choice would be for ME3. My point stands.

Your point stands in pile of BS. Bioware has an RPG style as well as Bethesda has their own style. The interaction between your squad and the ability to influence them is consistent across many Bioware titles, ME1 is no exception as you can choose to kill two of your squad. If ME3 has the squad set and there are no squad related quests it would turn ME3 into something like Borderlands in space.