230 réponses à ce sujet

[johnbonhamatron]

Hmm, I dunno, I kinda like being seen as dumb, in the same way that there's less pressure to excel at things if you carefully cultivate an air of incompetence.



Works for me, anyway! ^^

[Evil Johnny 666]

[quote]Thompson family wrote...

[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

[quote]Absolutely Shakespearian.[/quote]

Compared to ME2 characters, that is.[/quote]

I'm going to skip the flippant dismissiveness, the always-ready fallback for those who have no point, and get to those issues where you at least attempted to make a point.[/quote]

Except it's not an always-ready fallback. I was comparing from the get go, that was the whole point. The whole point was that ME2 characters are shallower than ME1's, not that they were solely shallow.



[quote]
[quote]Eh no. I didn't say ME1 characters were simpler, I said they were simple enough. Learn to read.[/quote]

I know how to read. I'm just handicapping myself a bit.

Not enough, apparently.

Now, let's go.

Re: The depth of the "Subject Zero" character

[quote]
Oh please, so deep. That's implied. [/quote]

"Implied?" IMPLIED? Did you even go to Pragia?[/quote]

... What I meant by implied, is that it's something absoluetely unsurprising about the character. You could see it from miles away that Jack got child trauma or something, it was obvious. Did I really need to write the whole thing when only this was necessary?


[quote]As for the rest of that argument on that point, being an abused child is as deep as it get. And what does their gender have to do with emotional depth?[/quote]

I never claimed the gender had anything to do with emotional depth, it was used as a descriptive term. You're reading in too far.

[quote]
[quote]The Shaman isn't Grunt. Grunt being a source of Krogan background has NOTHING to do with how deep of a character he is.[/quote]

Even if that were true, the trip to Tuchanka still stabs your argument that ME2 is a shallow game in the heart.[/quote]

Tuchanka has an interesting background no doubt, but I was talking about ME2 being shallow as a whole. If a game is stupid as **** on every aspect, but has that one moment of brilliance, that doesn't make the game brilliant. Tuchanka has nothing particularly deep either, it's lore. There's the Genophage, and there's the leadership thing. Both of which are very simple to understand. Wrex wants this and this, the other wants this and this. Some agree with Wrex, others agree with the other. There's nothing beyond the tradition versus adapting/whatnot. Anyone can come up with a pseudo moral thing like this, there's no ambiguity, no real depth. A 10 y-o kid (even younger) can understand what both parties want with a 2 minutes explanation.

[quote]
[quote]He IS a Krogan killing machine acting on instincts, whose insctincts at some point hurts him because he predictably needs to do some killing rite. Grunt is the most shallow ME character ever, you can only admit it.[/quote]

No, I don't. Grunt is a fellow in search of himself and his purpose in life. Next to being an abused child, that's as deep as it gets.[/quote]


Yeah, yeah. "I feel wrong inside of me, my instincts tell me something is wrong, but I'm not sure what". Don't tell me an animal acting on its instincts has but a not shallow character...

And yeah, Jack got abused as a child and then turned all psycho. So. Deep. So. Nuanced.




[quote][quote]

Still predictable and hardly nuanced. As a Justicar, that doesn't make her any more "nuanced", maybe if she just was a noble Asari, but she's controlled by her damn code all the time, talk about being nuanced! The code more fleshed out? Spectres have freedom, there's the not following the laws ON THEIR WILL to achieve their needs. Justicars do not necessarily follow laws, but it's because of their code which pre-programs anything they'd do. There's real moral implications with Spectres as they can choose or not to break laws and defend their point.

[/quote]

OK. Let me get this straight.

Justicars are an ancient Asari order who follow a well defined code and sacrifice everything, including all family connections, to follow a well-defined code.

Spectres are free agents with no rules.

And Spectres are more nuanced.

Think abou that.[/quote]

You nailed it yourself. As soon as the Asari swear the oath, they have no personality anymore, they follow their code to the letter.

Specters are free agents with no rules. No rules, means real moral implications. Do I break the law even if I'm allowed, or do I use my power to be a symbol of justice? Justicars? If their code asks then to break the law, they will, they have NO CHOICE.

Think about that.



[quote][quote]

Of course, that was also implied. [/quote]

Pardon me for repeating myself: IMPLIED?

Quote: "I have -- issues with Cerberus' actions," or words to that effect. "I doubt you could find a more chequered past.:

Implied, indeed. He practically hits you over the head with it every time he talks to Shepard. I said M2 was better that ME1, but you're "implying" a subtley for it I never imagined.[/quote]

You're being ridiculous. You're telling me hearing a soldier who left the Aliiance for Cerberus telling you he has issues with Cerberus' actions to be something the least bit surprising? Only knowing he's an ex-Alliance gives you pretty damn hints. There's a reason why he joined the Alliance, reasons why he left it, and reasons why he joined Cerberus. It's not all black and white, it's kinda obvious he was deceived by the Alliance and then decided to go over Cerberus instead, something he didn't do in the first place. And it's certainly not because he first left the Alliance and then joined Cerberus that he doesn't have his qualms with them. It's first degree analysis, you don't need to be a genius to come up with this. If you never saw it coming, well, I don't feel like directly insulting you. Same thing with Jack.


[quote][quote]
You know, there is obviously more to what I wrote (as to what you wrote), I just played your game and described the characters in a nutshell. All this hardly makes her "nuanced" in any way.[/quote]

OK. Let me get this straight.
1. You claim the charaters are shallow.
2. I challenge you on that.
3. You describe a character -- poorly.
4. I point out that there's far more to that character, even in your description.
5. You gripe that I shouldn't have gone beyond your "nutshell" description.

Think about that.[/quote]

Like I said, I didn't need to make a full description of the character and explain everything in detail to show how shallow they are. Okay, I said Jack was an angst-ridden emo kid. And I forgot to write that she was abused as a kid, something which I thought is almost a given, something that doesn't make that description feel that Jack is any more deep. It's not like I didn't talk about how she tried to understand if Cerberus weren't doing this for a good reason (something another character asked himself by the way), that maybe she doesn't belong to this world, that she was only meant as a testing device. She isn't conflicted at all. She goes on a rampage, she kills anyone remorselessly, even likes it. She's an incredibly one-dimensional character. She's a glaring stereotype, from beginning to end.



 [quote][quote]

Let me rephrase it then: I'm okay with Tali and Garrus, but since you criticised them to prove a point about ME2:

Is that better?[/quote]

Inaccurate again. I described them -- in a nutshell, as you put it. I never criticised them, and you are openly disingenuous to say that I did. I like Tali and Garrus as much as anyone on the forum.
[quote][/quote]

Then what was your point?


[quote][quote]
How does that even make a character more deep or nuanced?[/quote]

It is a mission in which you find the body of her father, for one thing -- one of the most dramatic moments in the game. You also watch her confront the Admiralty board.

Had you ever seen Tali that angry before in ME1 -- or as emotive in any way?

No, you didn't.[/quote]

Okay, you're telling me watching a character react to her heartfelt feelings as being deep? You're kidding? She has to confront the Admiralty board anyway, she was labeled a traitor, and was basically forced to go there to prove herself innocent - where she found her dead father, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the actual personality of the character - and then you're telling me any of this is a prime example of ME2's deep moments? You gotta be kidding. It's as if I told you the Council not believing Shepard that Saren is a traitor - making Shepard angry - and that having to find evidence of it, proves Shepard as a deep character

[quote]
[quote]Plus, the "one of the few off-worlders..." bit is also far from original.[/quote]

Even if that was true, the point would still be valid.[/quote]

Unfortunately stereotypes are more than usually not deep or nuanced. They are stereotypes for a reason after all, because they appeal to masses. Since when have you seen a movie appealing to masses being particularly deep? If there is a deep character, he's not the appeal of the movie. Or at least, they don't like him because he's deep. Deep, morally ambiguous - even any kind depressing movie - isn't what sells.


[quote]
[quote]That's TWO [moral choices]. And those are certainly of the most basic moral ideas which are not something that follow you throughout the game. The Collector base thingy is thrown at the end of the game and is on the same moral level as saving the Rachni. The Collector base thing has NOTHING to do with the implications of working for Cerberus.[/quote]

What is the whole point of the mission. What is the mission objective?

To get to the COLLECTOR BASE.[/quote]

I meant saving or not the base, way to miss my obvious point. You're the one who first introduced the whole collector base thing choice, to which I respond, to which you get off subject. Way to attack a straw man!


[quote]And you seriously believe the question of what to do with it when you get there is just something "thrown in?"

They thought they were looking for the "Collector Home World," if I remember the early dialogue with TIM correctly. They didn't know, or even suspect,  it was a space station until EDI figured out it's location in the Galactic Core and Mordin figured out it could be a "artificial construction protected by mass effect fields." The option of the station being something you could destroy was a good plot twist.[/quote]

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about how good of a plot twist it is, that's not even what you were talking about in the first place! Another straw man, keep going with the fallacies!



[quote][quote]

First, you accepted to work with Cerberus before getting to the Citadel - or going to the Alliance, something which you couldn't even do. If you mean Anderson deciding to use the connections to good use, then yes. But he may not even be in the council, and even if he is, the rest of the council wants nothing to do with Cerberus.[/quote]

Look, it's simple.
1. My Shep went straight to the Citadel to turn himself and the Cerberus ship and crew in.
2. Instead of taking the ship into custody, the Council sent him on a mission.[/quote]

Except that's only half-way true. You can't even turn yourself to the Council, you already accepted to work with Cerberus. That's the whole point, that you didn't have to choose whether or not you can join them. Why are you trying again, to modify things to your advantage, I think I'm going to stop counting how many times you come up with invalid arguments (fallacies), which in this case, you ignored an element that made your claim impossible. Okay, I suspect that in this case Anderson was the councilor, but that doesn't change anything as A) you still accepted to work with Cerberus, this invalidating your point Anderson "sent you on a mission" - I did try the Anderson councilor route, and as far as I remember he only told you that he believed and you and to take care, hardly what I'd call a mission, particularly when Anderson gives you no objective - so even if that was true, that mission wouldn't have the support of the council. Again, the point was having the choice, telling me that you tried to have the choice proves even more my point: you don't have a choice. You work for Cerberus period, there's no Alliance, no Council, there's just Cerberus.


[quote]My Shep had absolutely no chance to be anything but an Alliance Marine and a Spectre in ME1. In ME2, I at least have the option of telling the Council to get lost -- more of a choice than in ME1.[/quote]

I already attended that. Basically, you took something out of context and presented it as an argument. Still fallacious. Even if you were right.


[quote][quote]I don't like working with Cerberus. You don't like working with Cerberus. But -- in my playthrough at least -- the Council members finds themselves, to quote the Asari member "in a difficult position" and offers a way out of it. My Shep graciously accepted. He could have told them to go hang themselves -- which would also have gotten the Council out of its "difficult position" by making Shep a renegade. They could cut ties and owe him/her nothing.[/quote]

Which is giving you back your Spectre status and allowing you to do what you want. Except you can't do what you want and are forced to work with Cerberus. And Shepard having choices to cut ties or not with the Council has nothing to do at all with Shepard's inability to not join Cerberus, that's irrelevant.

Also, I never said I didn't like working with Cerberus. The whole point of this argument is being to choose to work with them or not. And you don't have any choice, there's nothing more needed to be said. As much as you try to disguise this fact, you are OBLIGATED to work for Cerberus no matter what. I'm talking about how not having the choice takes back some additional depth ME2 could have had, and instead, you're telling me you tried to turn over to the council - when there's only one outcome - and that it put the council in a difficult position. That's all right and good, but that doesn't prove anything about the inability to not join Cerberus not being detrimental to the depth of that particular big aspect of the game.


[quote]Sometimes, you get orders you don't like. Despite the insult -- even an accusation of treason -- my Shep followed his duty as best he could.[/quote]

You mean as best as the game allowed you to. Which was basically doing anything.


[quote]There's also the side issue that hundreds of thousands of people are disappearing.[/quote]

Were you going to come up with an argument? Or was it a random observation?

[quote]
[quote]
Yeah, because you're going to choose for whatever reason to worth [work?] for one of two organization[s] in the first game of a new series... The reason you even play Shepard is because he was hand-picked by the Alliance for a mission. How is that the ultimate in simplicity? If it is, then practically every game on Earth is the ultimate in simplicity. [/quote]

It's called "either/or"[/quote]

I'm unfamiliar with that expression.


[quote]
[quote]How causing stillbirths is not killing? ... I think Mordin made it pretty obvious that he would've been incomfortable with having dead babies on his hands. By ignoring the whole stillbirth thing and focusing on "adjusting fertility rates", that takes off a LOT of guilt off Mordin's head, making the whole subject less mature and less morally debatable.[/quote]

Is that not what I just said, that Mordin's rationalizing his own graphically displayed guilt?
Did I not clearly state that Mordin was speaking of an atrocity with clincal language?[/quote]

Except Shepard didn't even bothered to use the most obvious argument of stillbirths. Mordin then would've had to resort to defining what is a living human being and not. But of couse, that would've been too much philosophy for the crowd Bioware were catering to. I mean, Mordin only tried to euphemize the unborn, not the dead. Big difference. Which I thought was pretty obvious.


[quote]Your insulting explanation of the sell-defining term "stillbirth" was particularly grasping and pointless.[/quote]

See point above, you can never be too sure. Even if Bioware didn't retconned the genophage, you can't argue they didn't drop the ball. I mean, being Shepard, the first thing ANYONE would have thought would be: "but what about the thousands of dead babies Wrex told me of!" Expect, Shepard being the ultra boring stereotyped protagonist, didn't bother going further than the psychologist/debate animator route, which he SHOULD have, considering he's putting his life, his survival of the suicide mission in the hands of people he doesn't know, whose motivations he doesn't know. If you're trying to make us think a bit about morality, why don't go full on? Why only half ass it so even kids can understand it and need not more maturity to make a more lighted choice than a 17+ y-o - which there shouldn't be younger players playing the game anyway.


[quote]
[quote]I didn't say all the interest of the Genophage was gone, only a big part of it. ... At least they put that part in! But that's more about indirect consequences rather than the direct consequences of the Genophage, and that's my problem. It's a lot less gritty and morally ambiguous when you need to resort to talk about dubious scientific research to outdo such problem rather than talking about the dead babies it provides.[/quote]

The moral consequences of the genophage got their only meaninful discussion in a single scene in Virmire in ME1. It's a whole MISSION in ME2 -- and we see one of the bodies.[/quote]

Huh? An ME2 mission is most of the time 90% shooting, 10% dialogue - I think I'm being generous. Boasting that ME2 offers a whole mission compared to one scene in ME1 feels like comparing eggs and eggs to me. But wait, there a couple of lines more in the ME2 mission! That's nickpicking. Plus, ME1 had the task of introducing the Genophage - which is what you have to do before digging into morality - while ME2 can only build upon what was already introduced. It's only normal there should be more moral talk, and less explaining things.


[quote][quote]
How is it not valid criticism for the quality of writing?[/quote]
As a teenager, I read George Orwell's 1984. I was so angy at the ending, I threw the book in the middle of the floor -- yet I still acknowlege it to be great literature.

I'm not calling any of ME "great literature," but you see the comparison.[/quote]

Except I didn't particularly dislike ME2, nor got angry about anything but how it was a step down in the quality of its writing. Yeah, I see the comparison, but you're basically trying to put words in my mouth and try to tell me that I don't really believe in what I believe. Rather than trying to come up with a real argument to prove your point, you try to discourage me into forfeit.


[quote]
[quote]The more detailed, the more implications and the more anything there is to a story (which are all well-written), the best the writing is. It's not by drowning us in a purely black and white world which the choices you make depending solely on your character alignment that they're making particularly good writing.[/quote]

By that definition, ME2 is better. ME1 was far more "purely black and white."[/quote]

I don't see how. The characters are even more obviously simple and stereotypical (with plenty of bad and uninteresting ones compared to ME1), and the real plot is twice as thin. ME1 had something to do with the disappearance of a whole race, about a mysterious race of machines, about a galactic extinction cycle, about stopping the cycle from starting over. ME2? Colonies are disappearing because of the Collectors who happen to be repurposed Protheans to make a human Reaper. And you have to stop them via a suicide mission. I only used "about" when talking to ME1 because there's much more to say compared to ME2. I may have missed a thing or two, but it's nothing compared to how much ME1 has more plot substance. Each mission basically have real objectives compared to the "recruit squad member x" of ME2. And you there's plot points throught the missions too. I'll give it to ME2 that as far as universe background goes, there's a bit more to its writing. But I think I'd be fooling no one by saying it's because the whole thing was already introduced in ME1. ME1 had to carefully introduce to you the universe, thus there's things you simply cannot do, or at least not as easily. If ME2 didn't manage to step up in that department, I'd have big question marks. But as a whole, I find ME2's writing to be too much trying to do like a generic Hollywood action movie rather than conjure the same old school sci-fi feel ME1 unmistakably tried to.


[quote]
[quote] It's hard to take any ME2 problem seriously[/quote]

This forum has dozens, if not hundreds of threads debating  whether or not to reprogram the Geth, to name just one example.[/quote]

Okay, I did forgot about that part. But then, a certain aspect about the morality behind the creation of the geth was already introduced in ME1, here, they just successully managed to bring it further. The Genophage? That was an uncessfull transition. And again, both harks back to ME1. It's much easier to continue building upon something than create it from nothing. ME1 successfully created both compelling lore with the Genophage and the Geth, ME2 only managed to transition sucessfully the Geth bit. Even if both were sucessfully transitioned and are compelling, the creation of something compelling is more proof of quality writing than transiting it to a sequel in a compelling way. It doesn't prove one have superior writing over the other, but it proves one can't have inferior writing. That would be pretending everything is compelling, but I'd be hard pressed to believe someone thought the Genophage handling in ME2 to be good and ME1 not, as ME1 pretty much settles the basis for ME2 and it's hard to dislike the basis and like how it turns out.


[quote]
[quote]Care to explain?[/quote]

You've seen it. It's in the scrolled text at the begining of the game. The Council believe that the Sovereign was a Geth creation. When Shep meets with the Council, the Salarian member said Vigil didn't work any more. As the Asari member says, "We believe you believe it," but the sad fact of the matter is that Ockman's razor -- the belief that the simplest explanation is probably the true one -- is on the Council's side in this argument.[/quote]

Let me explain something to you, it's not because it's in the game that it makes sense. Disagreeing with this is like saying the writers can't showcase bad writing. Now obviously a writer isn't necessarily good.

I'd be hard pressed to believe the Council suffered amnesia after the events and forgot about Sovereing. It didn't look AT all like a Geth ship - which you bet everyone knows what is Geth and not - and it obviously is much, much stronger. Add in the fact that it ignored the fleet, got to the Citadel and closed it, it's hard to believe the Council didn't believe it wasn't something special. Add to this that the council was pretty set in fighting the Reaper back when watching ME1's last cutscenes, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one surprised by the Council's attitude. I could believed if the council necessarily died, but you could save it, so I don't believe in their answer which was written by well, a writer as it's fiction.


[quote]We're all so closely identified with Shepard that we see things from his/her point of view -- and share Shep's experiences. We see something at the Beacon on Eden Prime. We talk to Vigil. Heck, we talk to Legion who confirms the Geth have communicated directly with Sovereign. The Council has seen none of this.[/quote]

Except we are not Shepard. I don't know about you, but I can go take a look on the Mass Effect wiki for hard facts and make up my mind myself. I don't agree with Shepard because I play him, but because I actually thought about it.


[quote]Which is more likely -- that Sovereign was a Geth super-ship, or that an immortal race of gods are lurking in Dark Space?[/quote]

Except, it was obvious Sovereign wasn't created by the Geth. I can't believe no one of the Citadel administration got to take a look at a Sovereign piece, it would become even more obvious that it couldn't have been made by Geth. You have to look at it logically, they've been fighting geth for years and years, the Quarians made them and understand more than anyone how they work, I think it can be universally said what can be made or not by Geth.

And again, Sovereign didn't act like a Geth super-ship. Why made a big ass ship not to fight? One would think it would be the purpose, rather, it flees combat go straight to the Citadel and close the wards.


[quote]
Under the circumstances, it's amazing that as many people believe Shep as there are. And think about that: What exactly is Anderson's basis for his confidence that Shep is right? He knows a lot more than he's telling.
[/quote]

Like I said, we looked at some facts and made our mind about it. Maybe Anderson is hiding something from us, but I think a big part of it is his past with Saren. Remember, he did see Sovereign at Eden Prime too.

[Chaos Gate]

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone has labelled anyone else as "dumb." Merely that Mass Effect 2 is dumb. You don't have to be dumb to play a "dumb" game. I love ridiculously over-the-top shooters like Painkiller and Serious Sam, and I'm a big fan of id and Raven Software. Does that make me dumb?

Spornicus wrote...

"Hardcore RPG gamers" are the most arrogant, self-righteous gamers out there.

But the same can be said for some members of the Mass Effect 2 defence force, too. It works both ways.

[JeanLuc761]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

It is a mission in which you find the body of her father, for one thing -- one of the most dramatic moments in the game. You also watch her confront the Admiralty board.

Had you ever seen Tali that angry before in ME1 -- or as emotive in any way?

No, you didn't.

Okay, you're telling me watching a character react to her heartfelt feelings as being deep? You're kidding? She has to confront the Admiralty board anyway, she was labeled a traitor, and was basically forced to go there to prove herself innocent - where she found her dead father, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the actual personality of the character - and then you're telling me any of this is a prime example of ME2's deep moments? You gotta be kidding. It's as if I told you the Council not believing Shepard that Saren is a traitor - making Shepard angry - and that having to find evidence of it, proves Shepard as a deep character

I apologize for not responding to your entire post (I'll let your debate partner handle that) but this particular response threw me for a loop.  Your stance with this, quite honestly, doesn't make any sense. 

Seeing ANY character react to his/her heartfelt feelings instantly adds depth to the character.  It defines them, it characterizes them, it elicits an emotional response from the viewer (usually).  It's one of the absolute most important aspects of character storytelling to have them react to something that affects them on a personal level.  
When Tali broke down in tears, my heart nearly stopped.  The sheer power of the scene (which was especially heavy given everything that had taken place in the mission so far) was overwhelming. 

Much about Tali's loyalty mission served to add detail to her character, whether it be subtle or profound, and this holds true for...well, every single character in the game.  Jacob had a heartfelt reaction to his father, and that alone made Jacob a much deeper character.  Same goes with Thane and his son, Garrus and Sidonis, etc etc. 

[ObserverStatus]

Personally, I don't think Kotaku is in a position to call anything dumb.

[C9316]

My slacker mentality approves of dumbed down RPGs, Kotaku is totally something I should listen to...

[Mongerty2]

bobobo878 wrote...

Personally, I don't think Kotaku is in a position to call anything dumb.

I have always appreciated the openness of the editors at Kotaku. they blog up to the minute info with an opinion mixed in. You cannot always rely completely on the stories and rumors they get (then again, the same goes for Joystiq, etc....)

I guess it is the way that I feel like they are a lot more oriented towards what the community is. Surely he wasn't calling the game dumb (and really nobody here should either)... he used the term dumbed down to express that it was not as thick with options and strategy. Streamlined.... whatever you want to call it, compared to DA2. (which compared to DA, ME1 was pretty bare bones as well)

[Evil Johnny 666]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
Okay, you're telling me watching a character react to her heartfelt feelings as being deep? You're kidding? She has to confront the Admiralty board anyway, she was labeled a traitor, and was basically forced to go there to prove herself innocent - where she found her dead father, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the actual personality of the character - and then you're telling me any of this is a prime example of ME2's deep moments? You gotta be kidding. It's as if I told you the Council not believing Shepard that Saren is a traitor - making Shepard angry - and that having to find evidence of it, proves Shepard as a deep character

I apologize for not responding to your entire post (I'll let your debate partner handle that) but this particular response threw me for a loop.  Your stance with this, quite honestly, doesn't make any sense. 

Seeing ANY character react to his/her heartfelt feelings instantly adds depth to the character.  It defines them, it characterizes them, it elicits an emotional response from the viewer (usually).  It's one of the absolute most important aspects of character storytelling to have them react to something that affects them on a personal level.  
When Tali broke down in tears, my heart nearly stopped.  The sheer power of the scene (which was especially heavy given everything that had taken place in the mission so far) was overwhelming. 

Much about Tali's loyalty mission served to add detail to her character, whether it be subtle or profound, and this holds true for...well, every single character in the game.  Jacob had a heartfelt reaction to his father, and that alone made Jacob a much deeper character.  Same goes with Thane and his son, Garrus and Sidonis, etc etc. 

You're basically telling me most characters are deep - and nuanced, as it's also something we were debating, I don't see how crying over your dead father makes you nuanced. If a writer doesn't make a character who cares for her father be unhappy about it in anyway, he's retarded. But then, there's deep, and there's deep. In that case, it's the bare minimum. We're talking about the quality of the writing, being told that such obvious writing is deep in anyway makes me chuckle. I'll use again my Jack example. Basically, Jack got abused as a kid, she got angry and kills anyone remorselessly without any second thought. It's an heartfelt consequence to her abuse as a kid, so she must be a deep character as you said. Now, take the other dude who wanted to continue the whole child/biotic thing, he proves to be a much deeper character than Jack since he didn't turned into a killing machine because he felt like **** afterwards and didn't feel anything was important - who doesn't feel like **** after getting abused anyway, that doesn't make a character deep or nuanced (which is also a keyword in our discussion) - instead, he pondered about the whole thing he took part of, something which Jack didn't seem to do at all, all she wanted to do is forget it, he wondered that there's probably he reasons they all did this. Jack thought nothing about this, the experienced left her as much as traumatized yet the only thing that happened is her turning into a killing machine. How is Jack more deep and nuanced, conflicted than that dude?

Back to Tali, how does a logical character development make that character any deep at all? A character showing nothing but what you would expect from him doesn't make him any more deep. I don't say displaying this proves he's not a deep character, only that it doesn't prove him as a deep character either. It's not because a character has a personality than he's deep in any way as you seem to imply - "Seeing ANY character react to his/her heartfelt feelings instantly adds
depth to the character.  It defines them, it characterizes them" - EVERY character has a personality. And an emotional response necessarily showing depth? Let me come up with an easy example. Have you watched Aliens? Remember when the big blonde chaingun-wearing dude got killed? The latina character got deeply saddened. Emotional, heartfelt response - as she was showed as being quite attached to the man - she must be a deep character. I doubt anyone would call her a deep character because - as pretty much the whole marine squad - she's cardboard and campy as space marines come by. And personally, Tali crying did nothing to me. I think the only thing that ever moved me in a video game is when Aerith got killed by Sephiroth in FFVII.

[Thompson family]

[quote]

I'm going to skip the flippant dismissiveness, the always-ready fallback for those who have no point, and get to those issues where you at least attempted to make a point.[/quote]

Except it's not an always-ready fallback. I was comparing from the get go, that was the whole point. The whole point was that ME2 characters are shallower than ME1's, not that they were solely shallow.[/quote]

You said it, therefore it is so. You're comparing. I made the same comparison, disagree, therefore I'm wrong.

What a stereotypical RPG response.



[quote]... What I meant by implied ...[/quote]

No. Stop right there. You do not get to make up your own definitions.

Moving on.

[quote]I never claimed the gender had anything to do with emotional depth, it was used as a descriptive term. You're reading in too far.[/quote]

I read what's written.

[quote]
Tuchanka has an interesting background no doubt, but I was talking about ME2 being shallow as a whole. If a game is stupid as **** on every aspect, but has that one moment of brilliance, that doesn't make the game brilliant. (etc.) [/quote]

Typical RPGr response: "Yeah, but ....

[quote]


Yeah, yeah. "I feel wrong inside of me, my instincts tell me something is wrong, but I'm not sure what". Don't tell me an animal acting on its instincts has but a not shallow character... .[/quote]

Glad you've found the answer to all life's questions.

[quote]And yeah, Jack got abused as a child and then turned all psycho. So. Deep. So. Nuanced.[/quote]

Compared to the characters of ME1? That's my point.




[quote]You nailed it yourself. As soon as the Asari swear the oath, they have no personality anymore, they follow their code to the letter.[/quote]

That is, quite possibly, the worst argument I've ever heard. See below.

[quote]Specters are free agents with no rules. No rules, means real moral implications. Do I break the law even if I'm allowed, or do I use my power to be a symbol of justice? Justicars? If their code asks then to break the law, they will, they have NO CHOICE.[/quote]

As somebody who's made serious, lasting committments in my life, I can assure you that choosing to make a committment and sticking to it does not turn you into an automation..


[quote]You're being ridiculous. You're telling me hearing a soldier who left the Aliiance for Cerberus telling you he has issues with Cerberus' actions to be something the least bit surprising?[/quote]

No, I'm saying that saying something is a whole lot more that leaving something "implied," whatever definition you're using this time.

[quote]
Like I said, I didn't need to make a full description of the character and explain everything in detail to show how shallow they are. [/quote]

OK. You want to restrict us to your definitions for purposes of discussion. give thumbnail sketches, and have me concede that the characters are shallow.

This is pointless.


[quote]
Then what was your point?[/quote]

That I didn't whine

[quote]
Okay, you're telling me watching a character react to her heartfelt feelings as being deep? You're kidding? [/quote]

Listen to me.

You never know anyone's character until you've seen them in a crisis. Different people in Tali's situation would have made a different decision -- or the same one but have a different emotional  reaction.

Watch the scene again. Then watch the trial.

Very soon after discovering her father's death, Shep defends her at trial and (at least on the paragon path) stands up for Tali like no one ever has. She loved Shep already, but at that moment she finds the emotional pillar -- the parental figure -- she never had.

And you don't get that. If you did, you never would have asked me if I was kidding.

The depth is there. The game is not your problem.

====================

I'm tired of this. I'll pick this up later.

Modifié par Thompson family, 20 février 2011 - 05:13 .

[Thompson family]

[quote] I meant saving or not the base, way to miss my obvious point.[/quote]

It's not my fault you don't express yourself clearly.

[quote] Irrelevant. I'm not talking about how good of a plot twist it is ... [/quote]

We were -- at least at the time -- talking about whether or not the Collector base destruction/keep it decision was "just thrown in." It clearly was not because the search for the base surprises Shep & Co. in the course of the game.

There can't be a "plot twist' if their is no plot.


[quote]
First, you accepted to work with Cerberus before getting to the Citadel - or going to the Alliance, something which you couldn't even do.[/quote]

And my Shep bolted as soon as he got the chance.

[quote]if you mean Anderson deciding to use the connections to good use, then yes. But he may not even be in the council, and even if he is, the rest of the council wants nothing to do with Cerberus.[/quote]

Do I really  need to quote the Council membesr here? (This may not be an exact quote, but it's very close.)
Asari: "Perhaps there a compromise, not a full endorsment but something that shows peripheral support."
Turian: "Shepard, if you're willing to restrict your activities to the Terminus systems, the Council will consider reinstating your Spectre status."
(Shep accepts)
Asari: "Good luck, Shepard. We hope for your return and a speedy end to your relationship with Cerberus."
Anderson: "Well, that went better than expected.

The Council game my Shep a mission and he immediately accepted. In effect -- whether you or I like it or not -- the Council and Shepard are defacto allies or at least co-belligerents who have ageed to an "arrangement" with Cerberus.

[quote] [quote]Look, it's simple.
1. My Shep went straight to the Citadel to turn himself and the Cerberus ship and crew in.
2. Instead of taking the ship into custody, the Council sent him on a mission.[/quote]

Except that's only half-way true. You can't even turn yourself to the Council, you already accepted to work with Cerberus. [/quote]

Oh, for crying out loud.

My Shep went to the Citadel. He marched into Anderson's office with two high-ranking Cerberus operatives with him. He did everything except bind his own hands and feet -- and the Council decided to send him away.

OK. You wish they'd given you a change to leave Cerberus right then and there and given you another ship and crew, I suppose. In case you didn't notice, after the Battle of the Citadel and the destruction of the Normandy, all the Council races are a little short on warships right now.

Think back, when Shep discovered the location of Ilos in ME1. The Council was not willing to send even one ship with stealth into the Terminus system. They say in the meeting with Shep in ME2 they can't get involved with the Terminus system.

But Shep -- in a CERBERUS ship -- can.

[quote]I think I'm going to stop counting how many times you come up with invalid arguments (fallacies), which in this case, you ignored an element that made your claim impossible.[/quote]

Typical.


[quote]I already attended that. Basically, you took something out of context and presented it as an argument. Still fallacious. Even if you were right.[/quote]

Typical.

[quote]Which is giving you back your Spectre status and allowing you to do what you want. Except you can't do what you want and are forced to work with Cerberus.[/quote]

I (My Shep) want's to stop the Collectors attacks -- even if they're not working with the Reapers -- am willing to work with Cerberus to do that.

When HItler invaded Russia, Winston Churchill promised the Soviet Union full support. Aske how he could do that, considering his fierce anti-Communist stance in the past, Churchill replied: "My aim is to beat Hitler. If Hitler invaded Hell, I'd at least make favorable references to the Devil in the House of Commons."

Same principle.

[quote]And Shepard having choices to cut ties or not with the Council has nothing to do at all with Shepard's inability to not join Cerberus, that's irrelevant.[/quote]

Except that Cerberus is the only entity willing to provide you with a ship, a crew, and vital, timely intelligence that allows Shep to accomplish the mission.

[quote]Also, I never said I didn't like working with Cerberus. The whole point of this argument is being to choose to work with them or not. And you don't have any choice, there's nothing more needed to be said. As much as you try to disguise this fact, you are OBLIGATED to work for Cerberus no matter what. I'm talking about how not having the choice takes back some additional depth ME2 could have had, and instead, you're telling me you tried to turn over to the council - when there's only one outcome - and that it put the council in a difficult position. That's all right and good, but that doesn't prove anything about the inability to not join Cerberus not being detrimental to the depth of that particular big aspect of the game.[/quote]

See previous point. You want to freedom to choose who will fund your mission and who you get to work for.
You criticize this -- actually, obsess over it -- when you had no choice in ME1 except to be an Alliance Marine and a Spectre. You could choose your background and class, but if you continue with an imported character, those decisions are made.

[quote]You mean as best as the game allowed you to. Which was basically doing anything. [/quote]

See previous point.
[quote]
[quote]There's also the side issue that hundreds of thousands of people are disappearing.[/quote]

Were you going to come up with an argument? Or was it a random observation?[/quote]

It is pointing out that there are more important things at stake here than pouting about who Shep's employer is.

[quote]
[quote]

It's called "either/or"[/quote]

I'm unfamiliar with that expression. [/quote]

Clearly.


Re: Stillbirths
[quote]
Except Shepard didn't even [be] bothered to  use the most obvious argument of stillbirths. Mordin then would've had to resort to defining what is a living human being and not. But of couse, that would've been too much philosophy for the crowd Bioware were catering to. I mean, Mordin only tried to euphemize the unborn, not the dead. Big difference. Which I thought was pretty obvious.[/quote]

They found a dead woman, a sight that clearly distirbed Mordin.. My Shepard practically rubbed Mordin's nose in the corpse. Talking about the death in front of him, I'm guessing, would had more effect that talking about deaths -- at whatever stage of gestation -- somewhere else.


[quote]

[quote]Your insulting explanation of the sell-defining term "stillbirth" was particularly grasping and pointless.[/quote]

See point above, you can never be too sure.[/quote]

You can't honestly believe that a debate about stillborns is either more logicially or emotionally compelling than the death of another sentient being, her body lying in front of you,  willing to undergo dangerous treatments that proved fatal to try and overcome the genophage.

[quote]Boasting that ME2 offers a whole mission compared to one scene in ME1 feels like comparing eggs and eggs to me.[/quote]

That's got to be the most awful unintentional pun I've seen in years -- "egg" in an infertility debate.

[quote]But wait, there a couple of lines more in the ME2 mission! That's nickpicking. Plus, ME1 had the task of introducing the Genophage - which is what you have to do before digging into morality - while ME2 can only build upon what was already introduced. It's only normal there should be more moral talk, and less explaining things.[/quote]

So we agree that this was an important plot point ME2 did not skip over.

Moving on.


[quote]Except I didn't particularly dislike ME2, nor got angry about anything but how it was a step down in the quality of its writing. Yeah, I see the comparison, but you're basically trying to put words in my mouth and try to tell me that I don't really believe in what I believe. Rather than trying to come up with a real argument to prove your point, you try to discourage me into forfeit. [/quote]

Then please, clearly state what you meant to say.

==============

I'm tired of this again.

Modifié par Thompson family, 20 février 2011 - 05:13 .

[Thompson family]

Chaos Gate wrote...

Spornicus wrote...

"Hardcore RPG gamers" are the most arrogant, self-righteous gamers out there.

But the same can be said for some members of the Mass Effect 2 defence force, too. It works both ways.

Here's the difference, Chaos Gate.

I challenge you to find one original idea in the eight pages of this thread. Quote  a single argument that has not been made  numerous times before -- and better -- by EITHER side.

But's the old-school RPG crowd that keeps throwing this dead horse on the forum for another beating.

Modifié par Thompson family, 20 février 2011 - 05:30 .

[Whatever42]

Thompson family dismantles the opposition. Nice!

[Gleym]

Thompson family wrote...

Goofy McCoy wrote...

I love the ME2 defense force that jumps out at any criticism and attempts to bludgeon it down and keep the status quo.

At least we don't call the people who disagree with us dumb. We don't post threads like "How can I turn my brain off so I can enjoy ME2 like the rest of you?"

At least we can take it -- and dish it out.

And on top of it all, ME3 is already under development. It's going to go gold in less than a year. It will be what it is as if this discussion never happened.

Thompson family wrote...

Spornicus wrote...

"Hardcore RPG gamers" are the most arrogant, self-righteous gamers out there.

This thread that the article the OP links too are strong supporting evidence of that.

Ironium levels critical, sir!

Seriously, the insinuation that you're dumb can't be all that far off when you huffily b*tch about being called names, then IMMEDIATELY turn around and agree with someone else calling names. I mean, really, you'd have to be an idiot to think you'd be taken even remotely seriously when you literally go, "At least we don't call people dumb, you arrogant, self-righteous ******-basket."

Just.. just.. you know what?

..Well done, sir. I mean it, well done. You have to be an exceptionally dense individual to pull that off so sincerely.

[Whatever42]

I think Gleym had his feelings hurt.

[HTTP 404]

I am a dumb fan representing the dumb community and I like my games dumb.



im kidding. that article is unprofessional and probably belongs in the New Yorker Opinion piece.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I think Gleym had his feelings hurt.

It seems like everybody is having their feelings hurt.

[Gleym]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I think Gleym had his feelings hurt.

Not really. Just really find it hilarious how people like you get so butthurt over the game being called 'dumbed down' because it implies you're stupid, so you resort to namecalling yourself. It's just a funny case of hypocrisy from people who can't handle the idea that their favourite game doesn't hold water.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Gleym wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I think Gleym had his feelings hurt.

Not really. Just really find it hilarious how people like you get so butthurt over the game being called 'dumbed down' because it implies you're stupid, so you resort to namecalling yourself. It's just a funny case of hypocrisy from people who can't handle the idea that their favourite game doesn't hold water.

What'd you say about Bieber?? Shut up! 

[Gatt9]

Omega-202 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Considering that ME2 sold less units that Baldur's Gate 2 did,  and that the entire industry has been showing a steady decline for over a year,  might be a really good time to start listening to the people telling you what's wrong.

Of course,  we can go with your plan.  Ignore it until the second great gaming crash occurs,  it won't take alot longer,  and we're pretty close to the point of no return now.

January 2010 dropped 13% from 2009
January 2011 dropped 5% from 2010

So we're now down almost 20% from 2009,  a 20% drop is a massive problem,  especially when the entire industry is Holiday driven and the vast majority of the sales should come in the months around December.

So sure,  go ahead,  ignore the people telling you why they won't spend their money.  I hope you're a big fan of paper football.

Edit:

The reason we're nearing the point of no return is this:  It takes 2-3 years to make a game,  we're steadily declining indicating people are *really* tired of the same couple of games ad nauseum.  So in order to make the changes necessary to reinvigorate the industry by diversifying and offering more than just Doom, Warcraft, and Tomb Raider,  we have to start right now.  Because if we wait out another cycle,  there won't be enough time to allow for the next cycle of development.  People will have walked away.

Of course that has nothing to do with the fact that the world is still in the throws of the worst economic recession in the past 70 years.  People don't have the expendable income to use on videogames.  Even if people have the money, consumers are apprehensive about spending which is part of the reason its taking so long to recover.  

You seem like a smart enough person to realize this so I have to only assume you're being a ****-bag and pulling things out of your ass to try and make your point.  

Not only that, name me a single important game that even CAME OUT in January 2011.  There simply were no major blockbuster releases.  

So in regards to your "innovation" what are you asking for?  More of what the article's author describes?  Throwbacks to tedious RPGs of old that NO LONGER SELL?  Those games do even more poorly than testosterone flooded shooters that we've been deluged in over the past 5 years

Ok,  lets do this.

http://www.gamespot....ws/6188901.html

Seems gaming was doing just fine during the worst of the recession.  When the unemployment levels hit their highest point,  and the Automakers and Banks were collapsing.  This is a new event,  with no relation at all to the recession.  You don't have growth through the height of the recession and then shrink in the recovery phase.

So no,  it has absolutely nothing to do with the recession.  Not unless you've got a explanation for why there was 35% growth during the peak of the recession,  but the recovery phase drops 20%.

I've got links to prove my point.  How about you?  Or are you just angry because it's clear that this "Modern!!!" gaming is actually starting to kill the market?

Hmmm...Lets see...Just January?  Little Big Planet 2,  DC Universe,  and Dead Space 2.  Perhaps now would also be a good time for you to take note of a key fact,  revenues dropped for pretty much all of 2010,  and they're still dropping in 2011.  So even with ultra-blockbuster releases (Starcraft 2,  Red Dead Redemption,  WoW: Cataclysm,  Call of Duty,  Halo Reach,  Bioshock 2) 2010 was still terrible.  It was only those tent-pole relases that saved 2010,  take them out,  and 2010 is absolutely abyssmal.  Another link to show my point.

http://www.npd.com/p...ess_110113.html

What I (And many others) are saying is that if Bioware would like to remain in buisness,  they may want to contemplate releasing an RPG instead of a really crappy TPS. 

You may also want to prove that "Throwbacks to tedious RPGs of old that NO LONGER SELL?  Those games do even more poorly than testosterone flooded shooters that we've been deluged in over the past 5 years"

I'll be more than welcome to accept links to the data instead of repeating message-board myths.  If I may,  I'd suggest showing that ME2 sold better than Baldur's Gate 2...wait...oops...the wiki links show ME2 only sold 1.6 million units while BG2 sold 2 million.

Well,  of course,  you could show those terrible TB games don't sell by posting the links to Pokemon's sales figu...oh wait...we did it again...Pokemon's sold tens of millions of units.

Of Course,  ME2 outsold it's traditional brother DAO right?  Wait...DAO sold 3.2 million units.  Dang it! 

Strange thing I'm noticing now,  DAO sold more units than Oblivion,  Fallout 3,  Fable 2 and 3,  and Final Fantasy 13.  As well as sold more than even Metal Gear 4.  

http://en.wikipedia....ing_video_games

Looks like those nasty "Traditional tedious RPGs of old" sell better than your new ones.

At least we don't call the people who disagree with us dumb. We don't post threads like "How can I turn my brain off so I can enjoy ME2 like the rest of you?"

At least we can take it -- and dish it out.

And on top of it all, ME3 is already under development. It's going to go gold in less than a year. It will be what it is as if this discussion never happened.

BS.

As soon as anyone dares to suggest that one of these shooters or Action-adventure games falsely labeled as RPGs aren't really RPGs,  we immediately get told that we're arrogant,  archaic,  out-dated,  unworthy of having an opinion,  out-of-touch,  etc.

Further,  those threads don't start until your faction attacks us repeatedly for not being madly in love with the game.

As far as it being whatever it's going to be goes,  you're probably right.  Which is very sad,  because at this point I fully expect the one-two punch of DAO2 and ME3 to kill Bioware.  I fully expect DAO2 to sell fewer units this time around,  and I fully expect ME3 to flop horribly. 

I can't back this up,  but I believe ME2 sold worse than ME.  The only hard number I can find is 1.6 million units for ME in 6 weeks,  and I'm finding a hard number of 1.6 million for ME2 total.  Given the fact that I and probably many more bought the game expecting a sequel to ME and not Gears of War,  I fully expect ME3 to have light initial sales as people wait for more information this time.  I also fully expect it to not do well.  Mainly because ME2 couldn't even outsell Fable 2.

So yeah,  I agree that it likely is what it'll be.  But personally,  I think we're witnessing the death of one of the RPG genres previously best studios.  Which is exactly why I'm here bothering to post.

Modifié par Gatt9, 20 février 2011 - 06:45 .

[Stupidus]

what did i just read

[HTTP 404]

did I miss something, are we flinging poo at each other?

[Evil Johnny 666]

[quote]Thompson family wrote...

[quote]
Except it's not an always-ready fallback. I was comparing from the get go, that was the whole point. The whole point was that ME2 characters are shallower than ME1's, not that they were solely shallow.[/quote]

You said it, therefore it is so. You're comparing. I made the same comparison, disagree, therefore I'm wrong.

What a stereotypical RPG response.[/quote]
Except it's true. Otherwise you would have quoted a part I wrote which is disagreeing with this. THAT was a response from someone with no real counter-argument, I did have one.

[quote]
... What I meant by implied ...


No. Stop right there. You do not get to make up your own definitions.

Moving on.[/quote]

Know the term "figure of speech"? Learn to read - ie. not always take everything at its litteral meaning, it will help you in life - before being so trigger-happy to catch an opportunity to return someone's argument against him.


[quote]
I never claimed the gender had anything to do with emotional depth, it was used as a descriptive term. You're reading in too far.


I read what's written.[/quote]

Proof? What, you want me to believe you? Do you even know how to conduct decent argumentation?


[quote][quote]
Tuchanka has an interesting background no doubt, but I was talking about ME2 being shallow as a whole. If a game is stupid as **** on every aspect, but has that one moment of brilliance, that doesn't make the game brilliant. (etc.) [/quote]

Typical RPGr response: "Yeah, but ....[/quote]
Sorry if I actually have decent nuanced opinions that I care to appropriately back up. No wonder you can find so much depth and nuance from black/white characters.

[quote][quote]

Yeah, yeah. "I feel wrong inside of me, my instincts tell me something is wrong, but I'm not sure what". Don't tell me an animal acting on its instincts has but a not shallow character... .[/quote]

Glad you've found the answer to all life's questions.[/quote]
Again, I answered you with an argument, and you didn’t even bother to write a decent argument. It’s as if you thought: “I know I’m right, but the only thing I can bother to do is to write a witty line to make me appear intelligent”. Normal human beings have the ability to rationalise any existentialist instinct. Animals on the other hand, can only react without any further step up of higher brain usage. That’s what Grunt was doing, reacting to how he felt, WE were the ones to bring him to Tuchanka for the Krogans to find out FOR HIM, why he feels that way, and how to rectify that. Grunt only did the whole thing because that’s what his body asked him to, not because he intellectually wanted to do the rite thing.

[quote]
[quote]And yeah, Jack got abused as a child and then turned all psycho. So. Deep. So. Nuanced.[/quote]

Compared to the characters of ME1? That's my point.[/quote]
Oh no, I was forgetting why we were arguing in the first place again! Why bother answering if you’re not going to actually respond to what I wrote?


[quote][quote]You nailed it yourself. As soon as the Asari swear the oath, they have no personality anymore, they follow their code to the letter.[/quote]


That is, quite possibly, the worst argument I've ever heard. See below.
[quote]Specters are free agents with no rules. No rules, means real moral implications. Do I break the law even if I'm allowed, or do I use my power to be a symbol of justice? Justicars? If their code asks then to break the law, they will, they have NO CHOICE.[/quote]


As somebody who's made serious, lasting committments in my life, I can assure you that choosing to make a committment and sticking to it does not turn you into an automation..[/quote]
Did you swear any oath that could kill you if you broke a particular code? I knew so. I find it quite ridiculous to accuse me of coming up with a **** argument when you’re coming up with an invalid one as a response (fallacy, look it up, you’ll even find the name for the one you used, I can even help you if you want). If you’re going to defend a point about a two parts argument (Spectres versus Justicars), you gotta attend both parts and compare them. Just coming up (badly) with something that could make Justicars appear somewhat deep, gives you no point, it’s not because you “prove” something to be deep, that the other things isn’t, or is less than what you “proved” to be deep. Try to legitimately come up with a real argument if you’re going to accuse someone to come up with a bad one.


[quote][quote]You're being ridiculous. You're telling me hearing a soldier who left the Aliiance for Cerberus telling you he has issues with Cerberus' actions to be something the least bit surprising?[/quote]

No, I'm saying that saying something is a whole lot more that leaving something "implied," whatever definition you're using this time.[/quote]
I already attended that, it was a figure of speech. I almost find it insulting that you’re accusing me of intellectual dishonesty (coming up with a definition of mine), you’re taking for granted that I could’ve been stupid enough to come up with such claim. It’s as if you’re trying to discredit myself by nitpicking on the words I use to express myself so I can forfeit or something. It’s either that, or you were indeed dense enough to not get it, but I’d rather not insult you.


[quote][quote]
Like I said, I didn't need to make a full description of the character and explain everything in detail to show how shallow they are. [/quote]

OK. You want to restrict us to your definitions for purposes of discussion. give thumbnail sketches, and have me concede that the characters are shallow.[/quote]
Again, it’s not about me making my definitions, you failed to get my point which was: that the additional information I could’ve given wouldn’t have changed how much deep the character would’ve appeared. It’s all things I considered anyone would’ve seen coming from miles, it’s hardly essential to mention.




[quote][quote]
Then what was your point?[/quote]

That I didn't WHINE. Good Lord, pay attention.[/quote]
Hahaha, I love it when people discredit themselves while trying to do so to their adversaries. Okay, let’s make it simple enough. I asked you why you were describing Garrus if you didn’t want to use the description as an argument to your point, you answered me something like you were not using the description as an argument. Then I asked you what was the point of using the description then, to which you answered something that didn’t answer my question, which is that you didn’t whine. If I put all this together, I asked you why you described Garrus if it wasn’t for an argument, and you answered because you didn’t whine... Quite nonsensical, isn’t it? Try to come up with quotes before accusing me of cheating again, and say I made all of this up.


[quote][quote]
Okay, you're telling me watching a character react to her heartfelt feelings as being deep? You're kidding? [/quote]

Listen to me.

You never know anyone's character until you've seen them in a crisis. Different people in Tali's situation would have made a different decision -- or the same one but have a different emotional reaction.[/quote]
Okay, listen to me. There’s deep/nuanced characters and shallow ones. In order to know if they are whether deep or shallow, you need know more about them. Basically, you’re telling me knowing more of a character makes him deep? And you don’t even tell me which decision you’re talking about. And I hope you’re not telling me either that knowing whether or not a character likes her father (as when she’s saddened by her death as I was talking with the other dude) makes her deep or nuanced at all. It’s one or the other, no choice.


[quote]
Immediately after discovering her father's death, Shep defends her at trial and (at least on the paragon path) stands up for Tali like no one ever has. She loved Shep already, but at that moment she finds the emotional pillar -- the parental figure -- she never had.[/quote]
1. Shepard stepping up for for Tali doesn’t make her character more deep, it does so only for Shepard’s – if you consider this a particularly deep or nuanced decision on your part. I don’t see how helping a friend or squad mate makes my character much deeper, it’s only normal to me.

2. You’re getting into personal interpretation, particularly the parental figure part. And I don’t understand how anyone would date a parental figure. And again, I don’t see how feeling a certain way after a heavy emotional stage makes you deeper.

I think we’re not talking about the same thing. By depth, I mean complexity of character, we’re not going to find any complexity in a character by talking about their basic personality. It’s rare that there’s rationality implicated in heavy emotional moments.

[quote]Thompson family wrote...
[quote]I meant saving or not the base, way to miss my obvious point.[/quote]


It's not my fault you don't express yourself clearly.[/quote]
You’re being dishonest, you introduced an argument to which I attended, it’s not my problem if you can’t follow the discussion you yourself started. Unlike you, I am actually rigorous in how I defend my points and argue, I don't change subjects or delve into irrelevancy.

[quote][quote]Irrelevant. I'm not talking about how good of a plot twist it is ... [/quote]


We were -- at least at the time -- talking about whether or not the Collector base destruction/keep it decision was "just thrown in." It clearly was not because the search for the base surprises Shep & Co. in the course of the game.[/quote]
You’re detracting from the discussion then. Whether or not the Collector base thing was “just thrown” in is irrelevant to what we were discussing. I don’t know what you were trying to prove here.

[quote]There can't be a "plot twist' if their is no plot.[/quote]
Except I never said there was no plot. Or even if I did, it would’ve been an obvious hyperbole. But then, you don’t seem big on figures of speech. There would be no game without a story anyway, at least not an RPG.


[quote][quote]
First, you accepted to work with Cerberus before getting to the Citadel - or going to the Alliance, something which you couldn't even do.[/quote]

And my Shep bolted as soon as he got the chance.[/quote]
Were you going to add something to turn this into an argument? It’s what the game allows you that matters, not what your character thinks which comes from your head. And AGAIN, you STILL are FORCED to join Cerberus, which takes depth out of the game because of your inability to choose between joining Cerberus or the Alliance or going on your own. How many times do I need to tell you? Let me help you to get into real argumentation here, you need to tell me why you don’t think that the inability to not join Cerberus doesn’t affect the game’s depth about that particular big element. Wait, I have a sense of déjà vu...


[quote]Do I really need to quote the Council membesr here? (This may not be an exact quote, but it's very close.)
Asari: "Perhaps there a compromise, not a full endorsment but something that shows peripheral support."
Turian: "Shepard, if you're willing to restrict your activities to the Terminus systems, the Council will consider reinstating your Spectre status."
(Shep accepts)
Asari: "Good luck, Shepard. We hope for your return and a speedy end to your relationship with Cerberus."
Anderson: "Well, that went better than expected.[/quote]
They’re doing you a favour, not the other way around. You’re not working for them, they giving you back your Spectre status if you agree to limit your activities! – to which you have no choice either.


[quote]The Council game my Shep a mission and he immediately accepted. In effect -- whether you or I like it or not -- the Council and Shepard are defacto allies or at least co-belligerents who have ageed to an "arrangement" with Cerberus.[/quote]
Proof? The above is hardly proof. As I said, they did a favour to Shepard. Beyond giving you back your Spectre status and limiting your actions, the council does nothing. Sure you work for Cerberus, but they did no arrangement that benefitted directly Cerberus. Being a Spectre means nothing in the Terminus systems. For ME2, giving you back your Spectre status was a poisoned gift. Maybe he’d need his Spectre status in ME3, but he surely doesn’t need one in ME2. The Council gave no mission to Shepard at all, they basically said: “Okay here’s your Spectre status, don’t wander in our backyard, now **** off.”

[quote] [quote]
Except that's only half-way true. You can't even turn yourself to the Council, you already accepted to work with Cerberus. [/quote]

My Shep went to the Citadel. He marched into Anderson's office with two high-ranking Cerberus operatives with him. He did everything except bind his own hands and feet -- and the Council decided to send him away.[/quote]
What was your argument? I can very well believe you indeed did that, but my point was that you couldn’t refuse to work for Cerberus. And telling me the council wouldn’t even accept you reinforces my point that ME2 gives you no choice in that area.


[quote]OK. You wish they'd given you a change to leave Cerberus right then and there and given you another ship and crew, I suppose. In case you didn't notice, after the Battle of the Citadel and the destruction of the Normandy, all the Council races are a little short on warships right now.[/quote]
You mean the humans? They were the vast majority of the fleet. But then, that would’ve only added to the depth. Do I work for those Cerberus bastards who guarantee me the best ship I can have, or really follow my heart and get something which is crap compared to the new Normandy. See, it’s taking depth out of the game.


[quote]Think back, when Shep discovered the location of Ilos in ME1. The Council was not willing to send even one ship with stealth into the Terminus system. They say in the meeting with Shep in ME2 they can't get involved with the Terminus system.

But Shep -- in a CERBERUS ship -- can.[/quote]
Except the council drove you off as soon as you entered their office. That wouldn’t have been that bad if the council actually wanted something out of the fact that you could poke your nose in the Terminus systems.

[quote]
[quote]I think I'm going to stop counting how many times you come up with invalid arguments (fallacies), which in this case, you ignored an element that made your claim impossible.[/quote]
Typical.
[quote]I already attended that. Basically, you took something out of context and presented it as an argument. Still fallacious. Even if you were right.[/quote]

Typical.[/quote]
You realize a fallacy is not something that can be debated? Not all arguments are valid, otherwise anyone could come up with crap and count them as true. I don’t feel like reading your past posts to find them, then come up with a Wikipedia link of the entry of the exact type of fallacy you used, with complete description and its Latin name. You can do that yourself. And I hope you’re not telling me the Greeks know better but to tell you what a valid argument is. Look, I could pull claims off my ass that all you said is fallacious, but as I’m someone both honest with others and myself, I don’t do that. On the other hand, I can’t disable you from being dishonest to me and yourself.


[quote]I (My Shep) want's to stop the Collectors attacks -- even if they're not working with the Reapers -- am willing to work with Cerberus to do that.[/quote]
What your Shepard want is irrelevant. What we’re talking about is whether or not the inability to join Cerberus makes thing less deep.

[quote]When HItler invaded Russia, Winston Churchill promised the Soviet Union full support. Aske how he could do that, considering his fierce anti-Communist stance in the past, Churchill replied: "My aim is to beat Hitler. If Hitler invaded Hell, I'd at least make favorable references to the Devil in the House of Commons."

Same principle.[/quote]
No it’s not. Winston Churchill had the choice. We don’t. What the right choice is – if there is one - doesn’t matter, all that matters, is that you have the choice. Again, we’re talking about game depth here, you’re derailing the subject. And you’re the one accusing me of **** arguments earlier...

[quote][quote]And Shepard having choices to cut ties or not with the Council has nothing to do at all with Shepard's inability to not join Cerberus, that's irrelevant.[/quote]


Except that Cerberus is the only entity willing to provide you with a ship, a crew, and vital, timely intelligence that allows Shep to accomplish the mission.[/quote]
We don’t know that. First off, you already work with Cerberus when you talk to the Council, thus you already made your “choice” without knowing if anyone was willing to provide anything. Second, having already joined Cerberus, you don’t know if the Council wouldn’t have given their most important Spectre a ship or something, even if they disagree about the Reaper thing. And then, there is the Alliance which is totally not in the game.

[quote] See previous point. You want to freedom to choose who will fund your mission and who you get to work for.
You criticize this -- actually, obsess over it -- when you had no choice in ME1 except to be an Alliance Marine and a Spectre. You could choose your background and class, but if you continue with an imported character, those decisions are made.[/quote]
First, I was telling you that not being able to not join Cerberus made the game less deep. You disagreed, and we went into this debate. Now don’t accuse me of obsessing over this, I’m only defending my point which you didn’t agree with. Reading your comments, I feel you don’t care much about that obligation to join Cerberus. But thing is, I shouldn’t even know that. ALL we should be discussing, is if it makes the game less deep or not, which you continuously avoided ever since you said you disagreed with me. Now, let’s stop here about the Cerberus thing if you’re continuing to stay irrelevant.

I already talked about the Alliance Marine thing. You know, what starts the whole Mass Effect thingy is being picked by the Alliance for a special mission. Now, there’d be no story if you could just be a random marine doing anything. In Morrowind, Oblivion, you have no choice but to work for the Emperor, but working for the Emperor is the whole story. Thing is, Mass Effect 1 introduced a story, which “continued” through Mass Effect 2. Now since the whole thing is in place, the universe, your character, the actions you did in ME1, it would actually be possible to give you an additional degree of freedom. Not giving it takes out plenty of moral aspects of the game – since here we are talking about a sort of terrorist organization. Since ME1 always described Cerberus as terrorists, it’s would’ve been fun in ME2 to actually give a real meaning to that whole Cerberus/Alliance/Humanity thing. And that’s what we’re arguing about, that the almost inexistence of this whole morality makes the game less deep – or not in your case.


[quote] [quote]
There's also the side issue that hundreds of thousands of people are disappearing.


Were you going to come up with an argument? Or was it a random observation?[/quote]

It is pointing out that there are more important things at stake here than pouting about who Shep's employer is.[/quote]
Except we’re not in the Mass Effect games. And what if Shepard doesn’t trust Cerberus to truly make things as best for potential disappearing colonists? After all, Cerberus are known as the “means justify the end” type of people, maybe there’s something TIM is hiding. See, that would’ve fit nicely in a greater morally ambiguous game.

[quote][quote]
[quote]

It's called "either/or"[/quote]

I'm unfamiliar with that expression. [/quote]

Clearly.[/quote]
Wait, why even argue if you don’t even bother to attack my points and try to tell me I’m wrong? Am I arguing with a kid? Maybe, as he doesn’t seem to know what an invalid argument means – as fallacy seems like a too fancy word to understand anything about it.



[quote][quote]
Except Shepard didn't even [be] bothered to use the most obvious argument of stillbirths. Mordin then would've had to resort to defining what is a living human being and not. But of couse, that would've been too much philosophy for the crowd Bioware were catering to. I mean, Mordin only tried to euphemize the unborn, not the dead. Big difference. Which I thought was pretty obvious.[/quote]

They found a dead woman, a sight that clearly distirbed Mordin.. My Shepard practically rubbed Mordin's nose in the corpse. Talking about the death in front of him, I'm guessing, would had more effect that talking about deaths -- at whatever stage of gestation -- somewhere else.[/quote]
Except I wasn’t even talking about that. In the Normandy, Shepard and Mordin have a discussion about what does the Genophage does and how it’s right or wrong. Also, the whole point of that mission was about the INDIRECT effects of the Genophage, which is not what I’m talking about, which was the bit I just talked of.



[quote]

See point above, you can never be too sure.[/quote]

You can't honestly believe that a debate about stillborns is either more logicially or emotionally compelling than the death of another sentient being, her body lying in front of you, willing to undergo dangerous treatments that proved fatal to try and overcome the genophage.[/quote]
That’s not what we’re debating at all. We were talking on how Bioware dropped the ball about the Genophage by either retconning it or ignoring the most obvious problem you can draw out of the Genophage, that it’s one of the things that help making ME2 a less deep game than ME1.

First, if you’re going to let the game talk about a certain touchy subject, the first thing you do is talk about the direct implications (stillbirths), that’s the most important thing, the one that everyone sees first. Second, I think everyone agrees that the death of a newborn can be more tragic than the death of an older being that might approach its death. Add to this, that the GOAL of the Genophage is controlling fertility, and the death of a baby is all the more distressful. Probably another incentive – on top of a simply poor fertility rate – for Krogans to sacrifice their lives to the cause.

[quote][quote]Boasting that ME2 offers a whole mission compared to one scene in ME1 feels like comparing eggs and eggs to me.[/quote]


That's got to be the most awful unintentional pun I've seen in years -- "egg" in an infertility debate.[/quote]
Indeed, it was completely unintentional, let’s move on.

[quote][quote]But wait, there a couple of lines more in the ME2 mission! That's nickpicking. Plus, ME1 had the task of introducing the Genophage - which is what you have to do before digging into morality - while ME2 can only build upon what was already introduced. It's only normal there should be more moral talk, and less explaining things.
[/quote]

So we agree that this was an important plot point ME2 did not skip over.[/quote]

I never debated about that, that’s besides the subject.

[quote][quote]Except I didn't particularly dislike ME2, nor got angry about anything but how it was a step down in the quality of its writing. Yeah, I see the comparison, but you're basically trying to put words in my mouth and try to tell me that I don't really believe in what I believe. Rather than trying to come up with a real argument to prove your point, you try to discourage me into forfeit. [/quote]


Then please, clearly state what you meant to say.[/quote]

You were telling me I did not have valid criticism as far as the quality of writing goes. I wasn’t trying to say anything in particular, well yes, but you ignored my point and accused me of conducting invalid criticism. And that’s where we are, I told you were putting words in my mouth, and you respond with this?

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 20 février 2011 - 07:15 .

[Yodefet]

Well, that's unfair. To say ME2 was a "dumbed down RPG", you'd first have to imply that the original game was an RPG more than anything, which it wasn't.

[JediNg]

tl;dr

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Yodefet wrote...

Well, that's unfair. To say ME2 was a "dumbed down RPG", you'd first have to imply that the original game was an RPG more than anything, which it wasn't.

I don't think the article compared it to ME1; it was comparing it to DA2 and DA in general as being a "dumbed down" RPG. Ignoring the tone of arrogance, I'd say the comparison is fair.