1198 réponses à ce sujet

[CoolioThane]

Yes, I agree that conversation was incredibly bipolar...

"I'm not bipolar...I'm bi-winning, I win here I win there" etc.

[piemanz]

Deleted.

Slow ass forum

Modifié par piemanz, 21 mars 2011 - 10:01 .

[JKoopman]

CoolioThane wrote...

Yes, I agree that conversation was incredibly bipolar...

"I'm not bipolar...I'm bi-winning, I win here I win there" etc.

It's especially ironic that the VS accuses Shepard of turning his/her back on the Alliance when in fact it's the Alliance that turned their back on Shepard. The Alliance practically struck your name from the records after your death, dismissed everything you had fought for as some sort of delusion, undid virtually all the progress you had made prior to your death and then, upon your return, refuse to aid you in any way because "the abducted colonies aren't part of the Alliance" and because you were associated with Cerberus and therefor it wasn't politically convenient to support you (despite the fact that you'd spent far more time up to that point killing Cerberus operative than you had working with them).

My Shepard actually went out of his way to try to work with the Council and Alliance again. He immediately went back to the Citadel as soon as TIM handed over control of the Normandy. He tried to get help from both the Council and from Anderson to no avail. Shepard was abandoned. The game railroads you into working with Cerberus and then tries to make you feel bad about it? WTF? It really irked me that the VS would have the gall to accuse Shepard of walking away from the Alliance.

Modifié par JKoopman, 21 mars 2011 - 10:25 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Yes, I agree that conversation was incredibly bipolar...

"I'm not bipolar...I'm bi-winning, I win here I win there" etc.

It's especially ironic that the VS accuses Shepard of turning his/her back on the Alliance when in fact it's the Alliance that turned their back on Shepard. The Alliance practically struck your name from the records after your death, dismissed everything you had fought for as some sort of delusion, undid virtually all the progress you had made prior to your death and then, upon your return, refuse to aid you in any way because "the abducted colonies aren't part of the Alliance" and because you were associated with Cerberus and therefor it wasn't politically convenient to support you (despite the fact that you'd spent far more time up to that point killing Cerberus operative than you had working with them).

My Shepard actually went out of his way to try to work with the Council and Alliance again. He immediately went back to the Citadel as soon as TIM handed over control of the Normandy. He tried to get help from both the Council and from Anderson to no avail. Shepard was abandoned. The game railroads you into working with Cerberus and then tries to make you feel bad about it? WTF? It really irked me that the VS would have the gall to accuse Shepard of walking away from the Alliance.

I agree.  The game makes much ado about the Alliance dumping all over Shepards claims.  One example - the engineers on the SR-2 are working for Cerberus because of that very thing.  It made me wonder immediately wtf Ash made of that kind of talk, and why would she still be so pro-Alliance?

Side note: - I still love the game - but just as with any other game I've played, ME2 has its faults.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 21 mars 2011 - 10:53 .

[squee913]

Again I state that the VS reaction is not a plot hole. Everyone expects them to react a certain way because of how they acted and what hey saw in ME1. Let me quote an apology letter from Ash

"And then you came back, and it was like my prayers were answered. But I'm not who I was then, and neither are you."

We have no idea what has happened to them in the past 2 years, but it has obviously changed them. How can you be so sure of how they will react, when you don't know how they have changed? That last sentence in the quote means that Ash is no longer the person you got to know in ME1.

[CroGamer002]

squee913 wrote...

Again I state that the VS reaction is not a plot hole. Everyone expects them to react a certain way because of how they acted and what hey saw in ME1. Let me quote an apology letter from Ash

"And then you came back, and it was like my prayers were answered. But I'm not who I was then, and neither are you."

We have no idea what has happened to them in the past 2 years, but it has obviously changed them. How can you be so sure of how they will react, when you don't know how they have changed? That last sentence in the quote means that Ash is no longer the person you got to know in ME1.

And we can say the same thing for Garrus, Tali and Liara.

Garrus from emo become a badass.
Tali become more self competent.
Liara become like her mother, then chilled out a bit after becoming Shadow Broker.

[Iakus]

Mesina2 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Again I state that the VS reaction is not a plot hole. Everyone expects them to react a certain way because of how they acted and what hey saw in ME1. Let me quote an apology letter from Ash

"And then you came back, and it was like my prayers were answered. But I'm not who I was then, and neither are you."

We have no idea what has happened to them in the past 2 years, but it has obviously changed them. How can you be so sure of how they will react, when you don't know how they have changed? That last sentence in the quote means that Ash is no longer the person you got to know in ME1.

And we can say the same thing for Garrus, Tali and Liara.

Garrus from emo become a badass.
Tali become more self competent.
Liara become like her mother, then chilled out a bit after becoming Shadow Broker.

Of course, with Garrus and Tali's case, we got to see how they've changed.  We at least got a couple of non-calibration conversations with them and their recruitment/loyalty missions, at least, to see how they act differently, and to see why they've changed.

If I recall the pre-LOTSB days, there was very nearly as much outcry over Liara going from sweet, nerdy scholor to "I can kill you WITH MY BRAIN!" with virtually no explanation.  LOTSB somewhat fixed that, giving Shepard a chance to experience what Liara has lived for two years. Her attitude change suddenly makes more sense.  She has had to toughen herself, or at least appear so ruthless in order to navigate the forces she must deal with.

So, where's the explanation for the VS?  Have they been the targets of Cerberus reprisals?  Have these reports they've been hearing say Shep has to drink puppy blood to sustain his unnatural life?  Is the the Shepard of ME 2 in fact a clone, the real Shepard was rescued and is now safely working a desk job on Arcturus Station, and the VS knows this?

What has happened in the last two years?

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

Again I state that the VS reaction is not a plot hole. Everyone expects them to react a certain way because of how they acted and what hey saw in ME1. Let me quote an apology letter from Ash

"And then you came back, and it was like my prayers were answered. But I'm not who I was then, and neither are you."

We have no idea what has happened to them in the past 2 years, but it has obviously changed them. How can you be so sure of how they will react, when you don't know how they have changed? That last sentence in the quote means that Ash is no longer the person you got to know in ME1.

I don't know, I respect your opinion but you seem to be grasping at straws here.  You don't even get an email if you weren't her boyfriend, and "we're not the same people we used to be" is the same old tired drivel used over and over again for when two people may break up on some tv drama when the writers are too lazy to craft actual character development.  

Besides, I don't necessarily consider terribly bad writing to be a "plot hole".  It's been pointed out just how bipolar the conversation is as well.  And of course the dialogue's given to Shepard are just as atrocious, which goes back to my "terrible writing" point.

I've seen the conversations from Casey what's his name - Hudson? - about why they kept the VS out of the squad, and I'm cool with that - they just didn't have to make the VS a bipolar spaz  and Shep an inarticulate mess to achieve this.

I agree with most of your points man, but you and I are not going to see eye to eye on Horizon it seems.

Edit: - yes I checked and it's Casey Hudson and here is where I read about the VS being kept out of the squad and why.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 22 mars 2011 - 02:30 .

[squee913]

Almostfaceman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Again I state that the VS reaction is not a plot hole. Everyone expects them to react a certain way because of how they acted and what hey saw in ME1. Let me quote an apology letter from Ash

"And then you came back, and it was like my prayers were answered. But I'm not who I was then, and neither are you."

We have no idea what has happened to them in the past 2 years, but it has obviously changed them. How can you be so sure of how they will react, when you don't know how they have changed? That last sentence in the quote means that Ash is no longer the person you got to know in ME1.

I don't know, I respect your opinion but you seem to be grasping at straws here.  You don't even get an email if you weren't her boyfriend, and "we're not the same people we used to be" is the same old tired drivel used over and over again for when two people may break up on some tv drama when the writers are too lazy to craft actual character development.  

Besides, I don't necessarily consider terribly bad writing to be a "plot hole".  It's been pointed out just how bipolar the conversation is as well.  And of course the dialogue's given to Shepard are just as atrocious, which goes back to my "terrible writing" point.

I've seen the conversations from Casey what's his name - Hudson? - about why they kept the VS out of the squad, and I'm cool with that - they just didn't have to make the VS a bipolar spaz  and Shep an inarticulate mess to achieve this.

I agree with most of your points man, but you and I are not going to see eye to eye on Horizon it seems.

Edit: - yes I checked and it's Casey Hudson and here is where I read about the VS being kept out of the squad and why.

I was thinking about it, and I realize that I tend to be much more forgiving about a story than others. I naturally treat the story as a living breathing world, and if the story does not provide an explanation for something, I feel it is my responsibility to fill in the holes. The point I'm making is that I think much more deeply about characters than a gamer should have to. I was going back over my arguments and I see a lot of ifs. I can't expect people to think about things as deeply as I have, and if they do, I should not expect everyone to reach the same conclusion. So I yield the VS point.... kinda. while I certainly don't think the scene is as horrible as Smud makes out, a few re-writes and things would have been a lot easier to understand. 

[aimlessgun]

squee913 wrote...

I was thinking about it, and I realize that I tend to be much more forgiving about a story than others. I naturally treat the story as a living breathing world, and if the story does not provide an explanation for something, I feel it is my responsibility to fill in the holes. The point I'm making is that I think much more deeply about characters than a gamer should have to. I was going back over my arguments and I see a lot of ifs. I can't expect people to think about things as deeply as I have, and if they do, I should not expect everyone to reach the same conclusion. So I yield the VS point.... kinda. while I certainly don't think the scene is as horrible as Smud makes out, a few re-writes and things would have been a lot easier to understand. 

I'm the same way. If the game doesn't do it quite right, I'll let my imagination come in and make it right.


Just watched the vids and they were pretty good, images were often very funny (crude photoshops are the best).

I do want to quickly take offense at his "it's science fiction, thus you can do anything!" attitude though. Science fiction does not mean that, at all. Space opera means that. It's a pet peeve of mine that most people think space opera = science fiction, I guess because all most people have seen is Star Trek and Star Wars <_<

I think he spent a bit too much time defending the beginning. I mean, it's pretty clear what it is: a plot device where the writers made the best of a bad situation. They needed as excuse to reboot your skills and squad. It doesn't deserve serious consideration as a story element, either for or against.

[JKoopman]

aimlessgun wrote...

I think he spent a bit too much time defending the beginning. I mean, it's pretty clear what it is: a plot device where the writers made the best of a bad situation. They needed as excuse to reboot your skills and squad. It doesn't deserve serious consideration as a story element, either for or against.

That's where we'll just have to agree to disagree. The whole death and resurrection device smacks of a desperate attempt to create some sort of valid internal story reason for Shepard's level and skills being reset, but I don't feel there really needed to be a story reason. They could've just left it up to gameplay segregation and spared us the trivial and far-fetched resurrection scene and all it's resulting plot holes. You start the game, you're given the opportunity to alter your appearance, class, etc, the story starts and that's it. The only explanation required would've been "It's a game."

[RenownedRyan]

smudboy's "arguments" are based on a fragile sense of superiority. Any individual who takes the time to make a six part series of ten minute videos refuting the story of a video game is in dire need of a life or a gag.

[RenownedRyan]

JKoopman wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

I think he spent a bit too much time defending the beginning. I mean, it's pretty clear what it is: a plot device where the writers made the best of a bad situation. They needed as excuse to reboot your skills and squad. It doesn't deserve serious consideration as a story element, either for or against.

That's where we'll just have to agree to disagree. The whole death and resurrection device smacks of a desperate attempt to create some sort of valid internal story reason for Shepard's level and skills being reset, but I don't feel there really needed to be a story reason. They could've just left it up to gameplay segregation and spared us the trivial and far-fetched resurrection scene and all it's resulting plot holes. You start the game, you're given the opportunity to alter your appearance, class, etc, the story starts and that's it. The only explanation required would've been "It's a game."

You're skills are not reset anyway.  Notice you still kill enemies easily and have the persuade/intimidate abilities based on how you leveled those up in the first game.

[aimlessgun]

JKoopman wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

I think he spent a bit too much time defending the beginning. I mean, it's pretty clear what it is: a plot device where the writers made the best of a bad situation. They needed as excuse to reboot your skills and squad. It doesn't deserve serious consideration as a story element, either for or against.

That's where we'll just have to agree to disagree. The whole death and resurrection device smacks of a desperate attempt to create some sort of valid internal story reason for Shepard's level and skills being reset, but I don't feel there really needed to be a story reason. They could've just left it up to gameplay segregation and spared us the trivial and far-fetched resurrection scene and all it's resulting plot holes. You start the game, you're given the opportunity to alter your appearance, class, etc, the story starts and that's it. The only explanation required would've been "It's a game."

That's in interesting argument. I guess I would have been ok with doing that. But I can understand why they didn't want to.

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

I was thinking about it, and I realize that I tend to be much more forgiving about a story than others. I naturally treat the story as a living breathing world, and if the story does not provide an explanation for something, I feel it is my responsibility to fill in the holes. The point I'm making is that I think much more deeply about characters than a gamer should have to. I was going back over my arguments and I see a lot of ifs. I can't expect people to think about things as deeply as I have, and if they do, I should not expect everyone to reach the same conclusion. So I yield the VS point.... kinda. while I certainly don't think the scene is as horrible as Smud makes out, a few re-writes and things would have been a lot easier to understand. 

You and I may be alike in this and we just disagreed as we both did the "think too deeply" thang.  I've been watching your video's (and I'm still waiting on the 3rd) and I agree with just about all your counter-points.  As horrible as I think it is I agree, a few re-writes would probably do the trick, I'm open to changes.

I have a problem with any dialogue that leads to trying to make me feel bad for being with Cerberus - since I didn't really have a choice in the matter, lol.  I think the dialogue where Vasir is dying in LotSB is just as icky - the "you're just as bad as me 'cause you're with Cerberus" bit.

As I thought about the Horizon scene I realized it's the reason I'm posting here.  Seriously it jarred me so badly I actually jumped on the internet to see how other people reacted to it, and that led me to these forums.  I actually half expected to find an official Bioware apology for how bad the scene was.  

But it's to Bioware's credit that I still love the game.  I've played it a zilion times, first on my xbox then also on my computer.

[Sleepicub09]

iakus wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Again I state that the VS reaction is not a plot hole. Everyone expects them to react a certain way because of how they acted and what hey saw in ME1. Let me quote an apology letter from Ash

"And then you came back, and it was like my prayers were answered. But I'm not who I was then, and neither are you."

We have no idea what has happened to them in the past 2 years, but it has obviously changed them. How can you be so sure of how they will react, when you don't know how they have changed? That last sentence in the quote means that Ash is no longer the person you got to know in ME1.

And we can say the same thing for Garrus, Tali and Liara.

Garrus from emo become a badass.
Tali become more self competent.
Liara become like her mother, then chilled out a bit after becoming Shadow Broker.

Of course, with Garrus and Tali's case, we got to see how they've changed.  We at least got a couple of non-calibration conversations with them and their recruitment/loyalty missions, at least, to see how they act differently, and to see why they've changed.

If I recall the pre-LOTSB days, there was very nearly as much outcry over Liara going from sweet, nerdy scholor to "I can kill you WITH MY BRAIN!" with virtually no explanation.  LOTSB somewhat fixed that, giving Shepard a chance to experience what Liara has lived for two years. Her attitude change suddenly makes more sense.  She has had to toughen herself, or at least appear so ruthless in order to navigate the forces she must deal with.

So, where's the explanation for the VS?  Have they been the targets of Cerberus reprisals?  Have these reports they've been hearing say Shep has to drink puppy blood to sustain his unnatural life?  Is the the Shepard of ME 2 in fact a clone, the real Shepard was rescued and is now safely working a desk job on Arcturus Station, and the VS knows this?

What has happened in the last two years?

there was an explanation for that. Fans just decided to overlook it.

[Almostfaceman]

aimlessgun wrote...
I do want to quickly take offense at his "it's science fiction, thus you can do anything!" attitude though. Science fiction does not mean that, at all. Space opera means that. It's a pet peeve of mine that most people think space opera = science fiction, I guess because all most people have seen is Star Trek and Star Wars <_<

Cinema being what it is (and face it there's a cinematic approach with ME2) I don't really buy the "it's not science fiction it's space opera" argument anymore.  That may have been true at some point with books - but how many hard science fiction movies have you seen?  I can remember one - 2001: A Space Odyssey.  I don't think there's enough material out there to warrant a clear distinction.  Science these days pretty much equals something in outer space that's not elves/goblins and fiction is any story that's not a true story.  I think squee's point is that it's FICTION and there's no rules about what you can or cannot do with a make-believe story.  That's just my two cents. 

[Goose4291]

Almostfaceman wrote...
but how many hard science fiction movies have you seen?  I can remember one - 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

I've just got to ask.. what is your definition of a 'hard' science fiction movie? Just curious.

[Almostfaceman]

Goose4291 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
but how many hard science fiction movies have you seen?  I can remember one - 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

I've just got to ask.. what is your definition of a 'hard' science fiction movie? Just curious.

Pretty much the same as a "hard" science fiction novel - aside from mistakes made out of ignorance - there's no science that can't be explained with what we know now.  No faster than light travel.  No teleportation.  No mind melds, etc.  I'm no scientist, but generally it can't be a movie a normal scientist can tear apart with "real" science.

[Lunatic LK47]

Sleepicub09 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Again I state that the VS reaction is not a plot hole. Everyone expects them to react a certain way because of how they acted and what hey saw in ME1. Let me quote an apology letter from Ash

"And then you came back, and it was like my prayers were answered. But I'm not who I was then, and neither are you."

We have no idea what has happened to them in the past 2 years, but it has obviously changed them. How can you be so sure of how they will react, when you don't know how they have changed? That last sentence in the quote means that Ash is no longer the person you got to know in ME1.

And we can say the same thing for Garrus, Tali and Liara.

Garrus from emo become a badass.
Tali become more self competent.
Liara become like her mother, then chilled out a bit after becoming Shadow Broker.

Of course, with Garrus and Tali's case, we got to see how they've changed.  We at least got a couple of non-calibration conversations with them and their recruitment/loyalty missions, at least, to see how they act differently, and to see why they've changed.

If I recall the pre-LOTSB days, there was very nearly as much outcry over Liara going from sweet, nerdy scholor to "I can kill you WITH MY BRAIN!" with virtually no explanation.  LOTSB somewhat fixed that, giving Shepard a chance to experience what Liara has lived for two years. Her attitude change suddenly makes more sense.  She has had to toughen herself, or at least appear so ruthless in order to navigate the forces she must deal with.

So, where's the explanation for the VS?  Have they been the targets of Cerberus reprisals?  Have these reports they've been hearing say Shep has to drink puppy blood to sustain his unnatural life?  Is the the Shepard of ME 2 in fact a clone, the real Shepard was rescued and is now safely working a desk job on Arcturus Station, and the VS knows this?

What has happened in the last two years?

there was an explanation for that. Fans just decided to overlook it.

This. I actually liked Liara's change because this **** does happen to us. People don't stay the same when a close friend/loved one dies in front of them.

[Goose4291]

Almostfaceman wrote...
Pretty much the same as a "hard" science fiction novel - aside from mistakes made out of ignorance - there's no science that can't be explained with what we know now.  No faster than light travel.  No teleportation.  No mind melds, etc.  I'm no scientist, but generally it can't be a movie a normal scientist can tear apart with "real" science.

So we're sort of talking about Alien, Aliens, Moon, Silent Running, Soilent Green, Logans Run, that kind of thing?

Modifié par Goose4291, 22 mars 2011 - 11:38 .

[Almostfaceman]

Goose4291 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
Pretty much the same as a "hard" science fiction novel - aside from mistakes made out of ignorance - there's no science that can't be explained with what we know now.  No faster than light travel.  No teleportation.  No mind melds, etc.  I'm no scientist, but generally it can't be a movie a normal scientist can tear apart with "real" science.

So we're sort of talking about Alien, Aliens, Moon, Silent Running, Soilent Green, Logans Run, that kind of thing?

Nah.  Alien - where does the gravity on the ship come from?  Not hard science - same with Aliens.  If there's any sound in outer space - not hard science.

Moon - maybe - it's been a bit since I watched it - though we don't have the technology to explain the memory transference and such for the clones - nor do we have the technology for the clones (if that happens).

Soylent Green - errr, maybe, yeah, possibly.

Logan's Run - the guns they use we have no scientific explanation for.

Not familiar with Silent Running.

[Whatever42]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Pretty much the same as a "hard" science fiction novel - aside from mistakes made out of ignorance - there's no science that can't be explained with what we know now.  No faster than light travel.  No teleportation.  No mind melds, etc.  I'm no scientist, but generally it can't be a movie a normal scientist can tear apart with "real" science.

Not remotely true, I'm happy to say.

We've known about quantum entanglement for a while. We can't explain it but we can observe it. Basically, if you take 2 particles and entangle them and then separated them to any distance, anything you did to one particle (such as reversing the spin) would instantly happen to its twin.

However, we've recently just completed an experiment where we put energy into one of the particles and then drew that energy out of the twin particle. Instant energy teleportation. How amazing is that.

There is tons we don't know. And even much of what we observe, we can't remotely explain.

[Whatever42]

BTW, as far as articial gravity, I think its pretty cool the way they did it in a recent, short lived scifi series.

Gravity is actually a pretty weak force. We can create much more powerful force than gravity. Of course, we normally see that sort of thing as clunky magnetic boots or some such. However, with nanotechnology and super advanced computer power (think nano-optical computing), imagine a nano-spray that could attract you to the deck, just like gravity. It could adjust the force based on your mass and activity.

A few decades ago, they couldn't even imagine this kind of thing. Even today, the technology seems pretty fantastical but it could exist.

[Almostfaceman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Pretty much the same as a "hard" science fiction novel - aside from mistakes made out of ignorance - there's no science that can't be explained with what we know now.  No faster than light travel.  No teleportation.  No mind melds, etc.  I'm no scientist, but generally it can't be a movie a normal scientist can tear apart with "real" science.

Not remotely true, I'm happy to say.

We've known about quantum entanglement for a while. We can't explain it but we can observe it. Basically, if you take 2 particles and entangle them and then separated them to any distance, anything you did to one particle (such as reversing the spin) would instantly happen to its twin.

However, we've recently just completed an experiment where we put energy into one of the particles and then drew that energy out of the twin particle. Instant energy teleportation. How amazing is that.

There is tons we don't know. And even much of what we observe, we can't remotely explain.

What's not remotely true?  You didn't say anything that addresses what I said.  I just said I'm no scientist.  If we've suddenly discovered how to travel faster than light, then traveling faster than light becomes hard science.  If we've suddenly discovered how to teleport, then (if the movie doesn't deviate from the science behind how to teleport) then it becomes hard science, lol.  So what I said is true, even if I'm not up to date on my examples.