1198 réponses à ce sujet

[himmelgeher]

Okay, this is kind of Off
Topic, but I'm really sick of people constantly crying "PLOT HOLE!!!!". A plot hole is a contradiction within a story (this includes OOC). A plot hole is not:
[*]An unlikely or improbable coincidence.
[*]Something that’s just kind of stupid.[*]When a character takes one action over another when the other makes more sense.[*]Something that conflicts with what you previously believed.[*] Something that you personally don’t like.

Example of a contradiction: Conrad Verner tells you that you waived a gun in his face
regardless of whether or not you actually did.

Example of OOC: Liara
being a total ****. Granted this did have an explanation, it’s just that that explanation was stupid and still doesn’t explain her attitude in Redemption. Resolved since LOTSB.

Example of an unlikely coincidence: Mordin just so happens to have the counter measure ready in time for the Horizon mission.

Example something that’s just kind of stupid: Taking every single person who could repel the Collectors
if they boarded the Normandy off the Normandy right before the Collectors board the Normandy.

Nobody’s saying you can’t dislike a story if it doesn’t have plot holes, but you’re not allowed to say “ZOMG
Mass Effect suxorz bcuz it ridles wit plot wholes > !!!!!!!!!!” when you know damn well that it isn’t. People seem to think that calling something a plot hole is an all purpose criticism that they don’t actually have to back up and it gets really annoying. And most of the OOC in ME2 (read: VS) can be explained in that it’s been TWO ****ING YEARS. Liara is less acceptable in that she’s an Asari, and Mordin’s diologue makes it quite clear that species process things based on how long-lived they are.

Modifié par himmelgeher, 23 mars 2011 - 12:24 .

[Whatever42]

Oh, I simply meant that its not true that there is nothing that we can't explain with what we know now. We can't explain a lot of what we observe now. We simply have no idea. And, of course, there is likely much that we haven't observed yet.

[Iakus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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.

Liara's change pre LOTSB was explained in a single dialogue topic that was easy to missed and get permanently locked out of.

The VS didn't even have that.  If they changed in two years, fine.  But we need to know what change took place.  All we have is

1) Mass Effect 1

2) ???

3) Profit! Horizon.

Have you ever seen a television episode where you see one or more of the main characters in a totally improbable situation, or doing something totally out of character for them?  Then it cuts to "48 Hours earlier" or something like that, and the context gets filled in over the course of the episode.  Now imagine seeing that open, but for over a year you never get to see what took place earlier.  So the actions remain nonsensical to you.  Assuming there is a reason for the VS to act the way they do (Beyond poor writing, plot hammers, or general apathy for the VS) I have not been made privy to it.  I'm still waiting for my "48 hours ago"

[aimlessgun]

Almostfaceman wrote...

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. 

Sorry I wasn't clear. Space opera is a subset of science fiction. A soft subset.

I was trying to say that it by no means represents all of science fiction. Plausibility is very important in much of SF. (and no, just because we don't completely understand the universe, doesn't mean everything is plausible. Some stuff is just straight magic, however you slice it)

So really, I'm just being pedantic about his terminology

(though the logic of "oh well they have unrealistic stuff like relays, thus any other unrealistic thing is perfectly fine", doesn't really follow. It's not an all or nothing proposal, but a continuum. Each additional implausibility stretches the audience a little further. This is why it's best to keep those deviations to only what is absolutely necesarry for the story)

Modifié par aimlessgun, 23 mars 2011 - 12:40 .

[squee913]

aimlessgun wrote...

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.

First of all, thanks for watching. With the number of photos I'm editing I have to do a sub par job, or never finish them 

Second, I think you misunderstood the argument. I was not arguing that Shepards death was fine simply becasue you can do whatever you want in science fiction. I was talking about the fact that Smud was making it sound like they broke some law to do it. He was basicly saying, if you don't do it this way, then you are wrong. period. I was merly pointing out that in science fiction there are no real rules for you to break. You can write whatever you want. Whether it was good or bad was not the point. 

[squee913]

TelexFerra wrote...

squee913 wrote...

TelexFerra wrote...

I'm about 40% of the way through the first video. I think some of your responses are good but you seem to be missing the actual points of his arguments.I have two examples here:

1: Smudboy's opinion that Shepard's body could not have survived.

While this is science fiction, we are being told things contrary to our understanding of the laws of physics. While a lot of science fiction does this, these retcons of physics are usually discussed and explained in a semi-plausible way. According to physics, there is no way that Shepard's body could have lasted that fall and we are not presented with any explanation as to how it did. Your theory that he could have had a mass effect generator is flawed. (sorry to tell you, don't mean to sound rude or anything :S) Objects in free fall accelerate regardless of their mass, and air friction (acceleration against gravity) is lesser than the acceleration due to gravity and is also not dependent on the object's mass. Smudboy is saying that Shepard's death and revival would be more acceptable with some sort of explanation, even a fictitious one.

2: Smudboy's belief that you don't kill of a protagonist just to revive him/her instantly.

Smudboy isn't saying that it can't happen, but he is, rather, analyzing the effect that such a thing has on the player. You are right that Bioware had the right to add Shepard's death and revival ino the game, but Smudboy isn't challenging that point. Smudboy is saying that Shepard's revival has a poor effect on the player because it does not give the player any greater insight into Shepard's character. There didn't need to be a magical creature like Lorien there to guide him, but Shepard could have had a few Prothean visions, maybe even the one we saw later in the game that showed the Collectors? That would have been excellent foreshadowing. Smudboy's argument, and one I happen to agree with, is that Shepard's death and revival only detracts from the narrative by confusing the player and trivializing something as big as Shepard's death.

As for the falling to the planet, It was pointed out to me that we did not about the composition of the planet and I actually retracted the point in the second video. I will agree that that is a bit of a plot hole However, changing the mass of an object is no less plausable than resurection and we are not given an explination of how that works either. Just a bunch of codex entries that explain the results of such a thing. There is nothing that explain how element zero works, only that it does, yet people are so willing to accept this, and not Shep's resurecttion when they are equally impossible.

As for point 2, Smud is stating that this cannot happen if you want a good story. My problem is that he is implying that there is no way to have a good story  unless you give the death and resurrection some sort of spiritual aspect. He is basically saying that it is more believable to have Shep brought back by magic than science.

1: But at leaast Bioware made an effort to explain the mass effect caused by element zero. While this involves suspension of disbelief as does all sci-fi, at least it was explained, albeit through impirical evidence and not necessarily a theoretical explanation. Shepard's resurection was just thrown at us without any sort of an attempt at an explanation.

2: Smud is saying that the death has to have some effect on the viewer. The video example he uses is a clip from the TNG episode "Tapestry" in which Captain Picard nearly dies and is led by Q into an alternate timeline in which he did not fight with a roudy group of aliens. This episode takes place almost entirely while Picard is dying or dead; in this time, the story conveys a moral lesson about taking risks without getting into spirituality whatsoever. We see Picard and our understanding of him grow during the episode. Picard's near-death experience has an effect on the viewer and has nothing to do with spirituality or magic, while Shepard's experience is just hollow and brief.

Your right I did miss this post fella! sorryies 

The codex entries were needed for Element Zero because it was a difficult concept to grasp. Just saying that it changes mass does not help the player understand all the effects that can accomplish. Bringing someone back to life is an easy concept to understand. We all understand what it means. Thus, we don't need pages of codex telling us what it does. Element Zero did need this since it applications were so varied. It does not change the fact that we no more explanation for how it works than we do for how Shep was brought back.
The problem with doing mass effect like that star trek episode, is that Shepard is a mirror of the player. If we "learn something" about Shepard such as seeing into his soul, than the player is disconnected with Shepard. We don't pretend we are Picard, so it is ok for him to be unique and different from us. We DO pretend to be Shepard. We put our motivations and morals into his choices and actions. To learn what he thinks about himself would be to remove us from him. That is why Shep's death was so simple. And it had great effect on the viewer (at least me) I explained what it did for me in the video. 

[Fiery Phoenix]

Stephen, Smuddy did the expected and made a direct video response to Part #1 of your series:



Literally uploaded less than an hour ago.

[JKoopman]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Stephen, Smuddy did the expected and made a direct video response to Part #1 of your series:



Literally uploaded less than an hour ago.

Respectfully, I hope you're not attempting to mock Smudboy seeing as Squee started the trend by posting a direct video response to Smudboy's initial commentary.

Smudboy made a lengthy video plot analysis of a game he's invested in, and I can respect that whether I agree with it entirely or not. Squee, instead of making his own counter-analysis of the game, simply made an analysis of Smudboy's analysis attempting to pick apart his arguments. At that point, he's making it personal. It's like if there were two movie critics, one who liked a movie and one who disliked it; the later posts a negative video review stating as much and the other, instead of posting his own positive review of the film, simply posts a negative review of the other critic's negative review.

Modifié par JKoopman, 23 mars 2011 - 07:31 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Saphra Deden wrote...

It may have been "explained" (more like lampshaded), but her change in personality was just plain bad writing. Liara was never suited to be an action girl heroine. She just doesn't fit the role at all.

Uh, **** happened. Are you going to expect an innocent kid that is stuck in a war situation to stay enthusiastic after he/she loses his/her family (i.e. any war-torn country in today's day and age)? That **** doesn't fly in real life.

In ME1 she was not somebody to be overcome by her emotions. She even kills her own mother for the sake of the mission, for heaven's sake.

Except Liara was reluctant to do it. Something called human nature, regardless of species.

Liara was a voice of compassion but also logic and reason, not emotion.

Uh, you'd rather have her as a computer that will handwave anything relevant to her life, regardless of having a close family member dying in her arms? I don't buy it.

Her quest for vengeance to find someone she barely knows (and is not in love with) makes no sense. Most especially when she knows about the Reapers and now more than ever has the motivation to further her research.

Shepard ****ing died, and found out who sold him/her out. Shepard's the only person that is linked with the Prothean race, and actually brought down a Reaper. Reapers want Shepard at all costs for reasons unknown, and Liara is Shepard's only chance of survival.

[JKoopman]

Saphra Deden wrote...

iakus wrote...


Liara's change pre LOTSB was explained in a single dialogue topic that was easy to missed and get permanently locked out of.

It may have been "explained" (more like lampshaded), but her change in personality was just plain bad writing. Liara was never suited to be an action girl heroine. She just doesn't fit the role at all.

In ME1 she was not somebody to be overcome by her emotions. She even kills her own mother for the sake of the mission, for heaven's sake. Liara was a voice of compassion but also logic and reason, not emotion. Her quest for vengeance to find someone she barely knows (and is not in love with) makes no sense. Most especially when she knows about the Reapers and now more than ever has the motivation to further her research. 

Crap crap crap writing!

Never mind how the whole reason that Liara got involved with Cerberus and the Shadow Broker was because she cared about (and loved, if she was your LI) Shepard so much that she couldn't let him go and was willing to undergo a risky mission to retrive his remains for no other reason than a slim, slim chance that Cerberus might be able to bring him back. Yet, when the person who she invested all this effort for actually returns and asks for her help, she's unable to do so due to some obsessed obligation to this aforementioned person that she barely knows and is not in love with and who betrayed her multiple times.

Even with the exposition of Redemption and LotSB, Liara's motivations still make little sense.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Her quest for vengeance to find someone she barely knows (and is not in love with) makes no sense. Most especially when she knows about the Reapers and now more than ever has the motivation to further her research.

Shepard ****ing died, and found out who sold him/her out. Shepard's the only person that is linked with the Prothean race, and actually brought down a Reaper. Reapers want Shepard at all costs for reasons unknown, and Liara is Shepard's only chance of survival.

I believe he was talking about Feron, not Shepard, in regards to the quest for vengeance to find someone she barely knows. She and Feron worked together for all of what seemed like a few hours in Redemption, and yet she's so obsessed with seeking vengeance against the Shadow Broker on his behalf that she spends 2 years building up an information network simply to take the Shadow Broker down and snubs the person who she is in love with and who she invested all that effort for in the first place just when he needs her help most.

Modifié par JKoopman, 23 mars 2011 - 07:27 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

JKoopman wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Stephen, Smuddy did the expected and made a direct video response to Part #1 of your series:



Literally uploaded less than an hour ago.

Respectfully, I hope you're not attempting to mock Smudboy seeing as Squee started the trend by posting a direct video response to Smudboy's initial commentary.

(...)

No, not at all, JK. I'm merely sharing the video since it is relevant here. I just finished listening to Smud's response and I think it's quite interesting. Smud still holds true to his original points, while providing more in-depth explanation for some of them.

[CroGamer002]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Stephen, Smuddy did the expected and made a direct video response to Part #1 of your series:



Literally uploaded less than an hour ago.

Respectfully, I hope you're not attempting to mock Smudboy seeing as Squee started the trend by posting a direct video response to Smudboy's initial commentary.

(...)

No, not at all, JK. I'm merely sharing the video since it is relevant here. I just finished listening to Smud's response and I think it's quite interesting. Smud still holds true to his original points, while providing more in-depth explanation for some of them.

Really?
Good, I won't even bother to watch rest of his response then.
He started video already worthy facepalming.
Then again that's coming from guy who thinks Shepard being a last Prothein a good idea.

[Mister Mida]

Smudboy's response is funny.

[Dark Glasses]

Mesina2 wrote...
Then again that's coming from guy who thinks Shepard being a last Prothein a good idea.

Looks like you didn't listen him carefully.

[aimlessgun]

squee913 wrote...

First of all, thanks for watching. With the number of photos I'm editing I have to do a sub par job, or never finish them 

Second, I think you misunderstood the argument. I was not arguing that Shepards death was fine simply becasue you can do whatever you want in science fiction. I was talking about the fact that Smud was making it sound like they broke some law to do it. He was basicly saying, if you don't do it this way, then you are wrong. period. I was merly pointing out that in science fiction there are no real rules for you to break. You can write whatever you want. Whether it was good or bad was not the point. 

Ah, makes sense. And yes, Smud did make it sound like they could be tried in a court of law for doing what they did.

Didn't realize you read the thread, I feel bad for only going into detail about things I disagreed with when 90% of the video was great

[Whatever42]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Stephen, Smuddy did the expected and made a direct video response to Part #1 of your series:



Literally uploaded less than an hour ago.

You can never outtalk Smudboy. Don't even try responding. He will drown you in meaningless argument and ignore every good argument you make. Its a pointless exercise that will only lead to anger and frustration. Just warning you now.

[Whatever42]

Saphra Deden wrote...

iakus wrote...


Liara's change pre LOTSB was explained in a single dialogue topic that was easy to missed and get permanently locked out of.

It may have been "explained" (more like lampshaded), but her change in personality was just plain bad writing. Liara was never suited to be an action girl heroine. She just doesn't fit the role at all.

In ME1 she was not somebody to be overcome by her emotions. She even kills her own mother for the sake of the mission, for heaven's sake. Liara was a voice of compassion but also logic and reason, not emotion. Her quest for vengeance to find someone she barely knows (and is not in love with) makes no sense. Most especially when she knows about the Reapers and now more than ever has the motivation to further her research. 

Crap crap crap writing!

Other than expressing understanding for Saren (the villain), I really don't see her bubbling over with compassion.  And she certainly is emotional, she did get upset about mom.  But you're right, logic would guide her and she can be single-minded. The Shadow Broker was working for the Collectors and the Reapers. He is a threat to her and Shepard. And he is torturing someone who helped her - which would affect most people I know. She is not devoid of emotions, after all. If it were that alone, maybe Liara would leave him to his fate, but there are logical reasons to pursue it as well.

I agree that her motivations are not discussed in depth and perhaps that is a problem. But crap crap crap writing? Hardly. Funny, we're paying to enjoy these crap writers.

[Whatever42]

JKoopman wrote...
Never mind how the whole reason that Liara got involved with Cerberus and the Shadow Broker was because she cared about (and loved, if she was your LI) Shepard so much that she couldn't let him go and was willing to undergo a risky mission to retrive his remains for no other reason than a slim, slim chance that Cerberus might be able to bring him back. Yet, when the person who she invested all this effort for actually returns and asks for her help, she's unable to do so due to some obsessed obligation to this aforementioned person that she barely knows and is not in love with and who betrayed her multiple times.

Even with the exposition of Redemption and LotSB, Liara's motivations still make little sense.

Sure it does. She's obsessive. She obsessed about the Protheans. She obsessed about Shepard. She obessed about the Shadow Broker. Once Shepard was recovered, she found a new obsession.

We ask how she can get so worked up about Feron when she only knew him for a few hours when she fell in love with Shepard almost immediately. On the bridge of the SR-1, when the VS and Pressly were insisting that landing was too dangerous, she demanded we land. She is single-minded beyond all thoughts of personal safety.

Because she has a sweet voice and wonders about Saren, we mistakenly assign her a "sweet" personality. She killed mom. She's not sweet. She was never sweet.

[Iakus]

Saphra Deden wrote...

iakus wrote...


Liara's change pre LOTSB was explained in a single dialogue topic that was easy to missed and get permanently locked out of.

It may have been "explained" (more like lampshaded), but her change in personality was just plain bad writing. Liara was never suited to be an action girl heroine. She just doesn't fit the role at all.

In ME1 she was not somebody to be overcome by her emotions. She even kills her own mother for the sake of the mission, for heaven's sake. Liara was a voice of compassion but also logic and reason, not emotion. Her quest for vengeance to find someone she barely knows (and is not in love with) makes no sense. Most especially when she knows about the Reapers and now more than ever has the motivation to further her research. 

Crap crap crap writing!

Let me clarify:

I admit I have not read Redemption (that was the Liara comic, right?) so I don't know the details of the events that took place there.  Given the other comics, I don't think I want to know details.  What LOTSB did for me was show me that

1) Liara is still fighting the Reapers, her own way, by fighting the Shadow Broker.  Neither know nor care who Feron is or how he fits into things.  To me he's just Liara's sidekick.   

2) I'm able to convince myself that her new, bloodthirsty attitude is at least partly just for show, to seem dangerous and willing to do violence to those who cross her so they won't be tempted to.

So LOTSB at least put a bandage around the Liara story that's good enough that it's no longer "on my list"

[Iakus]

Mesina2 wrote...

Really?
Good, I won't even bother to watch rest of his response then.
He started video already worthy facepalming.
Then again that's coming from guy who thinks Shepard being a last Prothein a good idea.

I think I mentioned this on another thread but his "last Prothean" thing was in reference to the Cipher.  It gives him the mental perspective of the Protheans so he can properly process the Beacon's message.  So in a sense, Shepard is mentally "Prothean"  and I for one think that could have been a good plot point to explore further.

[squee913]

Just watched Smud's Video and approved it as a response to my video. I am curious.... Does anyone who has seen my videos, whether you agreed or not, think that I completely ignored all of SmudBoy's arguments? According to him, I just ignored all his points and told some make believe story... After watching it, I don't even need to respond to it. Let everyone watch them and decide for themselves.

[Sleepicub09]

squee913 wrote...

Just watched Smud's Video and approved it as a response to my video. I am curious.... Does anyone who has seen my videos, whether you agreed or not, think that I completely ignored all of SmudBoy's arguments? According to him, I just ignored all his points and told some make believe story... After watching it, I don't even need to respond to it. Let everyone watch them and decide for themselves.

wait make believe story?

[squee913]

Sleepicub09 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Just watched Smud's Video and approved it as a response to my video. I am curious.... Does anyone who has seen my videos, whether you agreed or not, think that I completely ignored all of SmudBoy's arguments? According to him, I just ignored all his points and told some make believe story... After watching it, I don't even need to respond to it. Let everyone watch them and decide for themselves.

wait make believe story?

This is what he says at the end of the vid

"Making a response that has nothing to do with my points, or by inventing a narrative, or inventing characterization and not even bothering to refute my points is... a little disappointing. I was hoping to have something to work with here. Instead it just your opinion. So aside from you pointing out your misinterpretation of what I said, of events of scenes and characterization; not even bothering to challenge any of my points with any evidence..."

Does anyone else feel this to be the case?