1198 réponses à ce sujet

[aftohsix]

Babli wrote...

You may not like Smudboy, but he makes some good points in his videos.

No.  The guy sucks.  He wouldn't know how to have an intelligent debate if it bit him on his inflated backside.  He's convinced he could do a better job writing and designing Mass Effect based on his own arbitrary set of Science Fiction standards.  Ignoring the fact that in fiction there are no standards.

Of all the morons who for some reason demand REALISM in their epic space opera about giant killer robots, talking aliens and interstellar space flight he is king.

Excuse me while I go load a thermal clip...

[Whatever42]

JKoopman wrote...
I'm fairly certain that most of the people who profess to hate Smudboy themselves got into arguments with him and came out the loser. Rather than aknowledging that his position was superior or that his points were valid they--to quote Almostfaceman--choose to demonize the person they disagree with by labeling and subsequently dismissing him as simply being an obnoxious a-hole or a troll or an [insert slander here] with whom debate is clearly impossible.

The same has been said of me where I've been accused of being a troll simply for being tenacious and thorough in my arguments. It's like people perceive you as some sort of anal-retentive snob if you actually defend your position by responding to counter-arguments and/or type more than one paragraph by way of reply.

No, that's not why at all. You don't see nasty posts against JKoopman anywhere. Or hate for any number of posters who have posted tenaciously with very strong opinions. In fact, one of the problems is that Smudboy sometimes very clearly did lose arguments and responded very badly, with insults and then evasion.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 25 mars 2011 - 01:19 .

[Il Divo]

JKoopman wrote...

I'm fairly certain that most of the people who profess to hate Smudboy themselves got into arguments with him and came out the loser. Rather than aknowledging that his position was superior or that his points were valid they--to quote Almostfaceman--choose to demonize the person they disagree with by labeling and subsequently dismissing him as simply being an obnoxious a-hole or a troll or an [insert slander here] with whom debate is clearly impossible.

The same has been said of me where I've been accused of being a troll simply for being tenacious and thorough in my arguments. It's like people perceive you as some sort of anal-retentive snob if you actually defend your position by responding to counter-arguments and/or type more than one paragraph by way of reply.

Are there a few people in that category? I don't doubt it, given how idiotic some defenders of Mass Effect 2 are. I'm sure for them it's a simple issue of jealousy/vengeance. On the other hand, there are more than a few users who have proven to be about on par with Smudboy's arguments such as Iakus and Sablephoenix, yet you rarely see the same outcry against them.

The hatred has little to do with argument tenacity and more to do with:

1) People misunderstanding Smud's position.
2) Smudboy himself often nitpicking fairly minor points.
3) Smud being unable to admit when a particular argument of his was found lacking.

When Smudboy is 'winning' (so to speak), he's more prone to typing long, elaborate paragraphs which do an excellent job of explaining his position. When Smud is on the other side of the fence, his style is more evasive, intended more to frustrate/prolong than provide any serious argument. It's this particular point that makes his tenacity tiresome and leaves some users very angry because Smud has never let an argument die. Even if it means he won't be taken seriously, he'll continue on to the bitter end.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 mars 2011 - 01:45 .

[squee913]

Ok, now I'm a little upset. In Smud's response to my video he states that if you type in "when is it ok for a protagonist to die" in google, you will get 14 articles from writers and readers. None of them recommend resurrection. I just finished reader all 14 of them (they were not that long). 12 of them never even mentioned resurrection. One said that it could be perfectly acceptable, and one, only one stated that the pro should be left in their grave. While it is true that most of them technically did not recommend it, they never recommended against it. They never said anything about it at all.

This is an obvious attempt to mis lead people to a conclusion by twisting the truth. I don't like that. Only one of them stated negative thoughts on the issue, when Smud made it out to look like they all did. One of them even stated it could be a positive! Other than those 2, we have no idea what any of the others think, since they were stickily dealing with the idea of a permanent death. I should also add that most of the articles stated that, while this was their opinion, there were not set rules for where and when to kill a protaganist.

[Whatever42]

squee913 wrote...

Ok, now I'm a little upset. In Smud's response to my video he states that if you type in "when is it ok for a protagonist to die" in google, you will get 14 articles from writers and readers. None of them recommend resurrection. I just finished reader all 14 of them (they were not that long). 12 of them never even mentioned resurrection. One said that it could be perfectly acceptable, and one, only one stated that the pro should be left in their grave. While it is true that most of them technically did not recommend it, they never recommended against it. They never said anything about it at all.

This is an obvious attempt to mis lead people to a conclusion by twisting the truth. I don't like that. Only one of them stated negative thoughts on the issue, when Smud made it out to look like they all did. One of them even stated it could be a positive! Other than those 2, we have no idea what any of the others think, since they were stickily dealing with the idea of a permanent death. I should also add that most of the articles stated that, while this was their opinion, there were not set rules for where and when to kill a protaganist.

And look how much work you had to do to counter just one of his points. He is like a lawyer who buries you in frivilous motions, just to run up the time and cost of litigation.

I am very glad you're making up your own mind. And I really hope that when you talk with him one-on-one that the two of you hit it off and see each other as great people. Its simply that Smudboy is cheap debater and I urge you not to get into any back-and-forth. He will only aggravate the heck out of you.

[squee913]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Ok, now I'm a little upset. In Smud's response to my video he states that if you type in "when is it ok for a protagonist to die" in google, you will get 14 articles from writers and readers. None of them recommend resurrection. I just finished reader all 14 of them (they were not that long). 12 of them never even mentioned resurrection. One said that it could be perfectly acceptable, and one, only one stated that the pro should be left in their grave. While it is true that most of them technically did not recommend it, they never recommended against it. They never said anything about it at all.

This is an obvious attempt to mis lead people to a conclusion by twisting the truth. I don't like that. Only one of them stated negative thoughts on the issue, when Smud made it out to look like they all did. One of them even stated it could be a positive! Other than those 2, we have no idea what any of the others think, since they were stickily dealing with the idea of a permanent death. I should also add that most of the articles stated that, while this was their opinion, there were not set rules for where and when to kill a protaganist.

And look how much work you had to do to counter just one of his points. He is like a lawyer who buries you in frivilous motions, just to run up the time and cost of litigation.

I am very glad you're making up your own mind. And I really hope that when you talk with him one-on-one that the two of you hit it off and see each other as great people. Its simply that Smudboy is cheap debater and I urge you not to get into any back-and-forth. He will only aggravate the heck out of you.

I'm a historian my friend. doing extensive research to prove or disprove a point is second nature to me. Is no Clausewitz. Try writing a paper to disprove the saying that "all war is a continuation of politics by other means" Now that is a challenge. And one that makes many Clausewitz lovers hate me for 

[diskoh]

Smudboy's videos about how to fix ME2 are the worst yet. Must complete 6 training sessions before a character will tell you their backstory? What kind of arbitrary crap is that?

If this was already in the game, he would be making videos saying "characters should divulge their backstory through organic conversations and realistic interactions, not after a set number of grinding tasks."

Modifié par diskoh, 26 mars 2011 - 01:03 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

With arrival at least smudboy finally gets his reaper/shepard focused story. :|!

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Also yeah a large portion of smudboy's suggestions were basically to "turn mass effect into a bad jrpg" :|!


"Do repedative tasks abunch of times until someone likes you"

"Shoot your friends in the face with a lightning gun until they like you, just like in anime"

"Follow a convoluted and difficult to even describe chain of events to get a story plot to carry out in a specific way, if you for whatever reason miss one out of these fifty specific and circumstancial plot chains then you will get the bad ****ty boring ending with no story because now you dont know that Zaeed is actually Miranda's dad in my fanfiction where miranda is a 14 year old teenage girl-wife"

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 26 mars 2011 - 01:20 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

smudboy's response is kinda stupid.

the point of killing shepard was to establish the collectors (agents of the reapers) as something that are more powerful and dangerous as you would expect.

the point of bringing shepard back was to establish cerberus as a powerful organization.

Shepard is special, cerberus spent money bringing shepard back but would potentially not be able to do it a second time.


also he got the MGS2 plot thing completely wrong. Solid Snake never died that was a red herring within that game. He just went off the grid until The Big Cell occured.




Also someone should point smudboy to the new ME2 comic about The Illusive Man

the eye thing is actually a plot point.  Arrival DLC spoilers hint at some of the things that might make shepard unique, such as a possible resistence to indoctrincation and cool **** that might be a result of his revival.



Also you totally get to see the machines that brought shepard back and you get to see his cells coming back to live in super zoomed in shots.

Smudboy: "They all do resurection properly"  *lists abunch of pop culture references*

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 26 mars 2011 - 01:35 .

[diskoh]

haha excellent way to describe it. When he got into Samara being a cyborg I was thinking "Jeez man this is just a crappy fanfic."

Modifié par diskoh, 26 mars 2011 - 01:30 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Shepard didn't realise he died until Jacob told him, shepard reacts to that, but is also in the thick of battle and a Soldier is trained to keep sharp in combat.



Kinetic barriers that alter mass is a fine explanation for how shepard was able to not break apart.

I would like to check the ingame data on the planet but if it is radically smaller than earth (it looked smaller than earth in the opening) the idea of surviving that fall with a magical science forcefield up that blocks bullets seems like a plausible explanation.

also lets argue how Shepard didn't break his spine when the explosion knocked him into a wall or how he was able to operate an eject pod interface.



The comic kind of adds alot of information on possibly why saren looked weird, why saren looks weird, and why shepard gets terminator eyes in me2. "Evolution" is a theme there, and it seems that they've done "something" to it.


god smudboy don't talk about Joan of Arc unless you know something about history god you idiot.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

The plot of Mass Effect 2 is that Shepard is unique and The Illusive Man brought him back to fight the reapers. We don't yet know the full scope of what this means but the "Bridging DLC" (Arrival) and comics (Evolution) are starting to fill in these gaps. It makes sense to "save it for the end" when you're working with a trilogy. Shepard encounters Argos Rho in Arrival which can control people at will, similar to what we see in the trailer for ME3. However, Shepard resists this control, which makes shepard special. Gaming is unique from other media such as film because the game can be added onto as it goes.

This DLC, while not part of the box purchase, is still part of the story, even if it's as optional as legion's loyalty mission where we learn about the nature of the geth. Arrival is optional in that it gives us more insight into what might have made shepard worth bringing back. Evolution also implies TIM has a connection to the reapers and that's what those eyes signify. TIM isn't ordinary, neither is Shepard. Current Mass Effect media on the marketplace during this month is providing evidence that there is more going on with those two characters than we were initially lead to believe. Answering these questions in the final chapter of the story, leading us on from the second game, is the likely gameplan at this point. Like Half Life 2, you don't want to answer every question right away, it allows you to build anticipation for the next installment.


Also smudboy says "space cthulhu" alot but yo cthulhu was more than just a big monster guy.  The reapers can control people's minds and are networked together as one.  Those two things give them a massive edge against ANYONE that is beyond what a mortal man can fight against.  Fighting something that can control your mind is not great.  Mind control is realistically a scary thing and more dangerous than shooting lasers at a guy.  They've whiped out every army and nation in the history of the galaxy, that's a pretty impressive track record, even if a few of them "died"




Smudboy disregarding the ability for one person to make an impact on a war is just so DUMB. it has happened throughout history. one person against another soldier isn't itself important, but one person's influence on an army or a large amount of people makes an impact.  (Real life is a good source of inspiration for writing characters and story, the idea of a "hero" and a "villain" comes from these sorts of important people throughout history)  An army of Zaeeds might have been impressive, but also probably ultimately useless.  What would an army have done?  Shot at collectors abunch until they all die is what.  Zaeed sure did in my playthrough.  Shepard is brought back because he is special and because TIM had reasons for doing so.  Making assumptions on these isn't great, especially when the continuing aspects of the story (DLC, Comics, third game) support more and more that TIM isn't comparable to Anderson, Hackett, or the Council.  If anything he's more like Saren.  (read da comix 2 find out mor)


nitpicks:
Shepard has meaningful arguments with TIM in the suicide mission on whether or not to keep the collector base. There are other moments in the story where you can argue about the morals and ethics of what tim wants to do and why, but many of them in are optional dialogue choices.

In ME1 you had disconnected stories, ME2 has disconnected stories that are more interesting (loyalty missions). ME2 doesn't have alot that ME1 didn't have, other than a bigger budget.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 26 mars 2011 - 02:31 .

[JKoopman]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Shepard didn't realise he died until Jacob told him, shepard reacts to that, but is also in the thick of battle and a Soldier is trained to keep sharp in combat.



Kinetic barriers that alter mass is a fine explanation for how shepard was able to not break apart.

I would like to check the ingame data on the planet but if it is radically smaller than earth (it looked smaller than earth in the opening) the idea of surviving that fall with a magical science forcefield up that blocks bullets seems like a plausible explanation.

also lets argue how Shepard didn't break his spine when the explosion knocked him into a wall or how he was able to operate an eject pod interface.



The comic kind of adds alot of information on possibly why saren looked weird, why saren looks weird, and why shepard gets terminator eyes in me2. "Evolution" is a theme there, and it seems that they've done "something" to it.


god smudboy don't talk about Joan of Arc unless you know something about history god you idiot.

god Doctor_Jackstraw don't talk about the survivability of planetary re-entry unless you know something about physics god you idiot

[Ramirez Wolfen]

Who is smudboy?

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

god i'm such an idiot god and also jesus.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

God the point of this argument is that stuff wasn't explained in mass effect 2 but mass effect 3 will probably explain everything and then the argument will dissolve.


except that 7 part fu9king fanfiction youtube series holy sh7t that will get embarrassing with time.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 26 mars 2011 - 03:42 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Shepard didn't realise he died until Jacob told him, shepard reacts to that, but is also in the thick of battle and a Soldier is trained to keep sharp in combat.



Kinetic barriers that alter mass is a fine explanation for how shepard was able to not break apart.

I would like to check the ingame data on the planet but if it is radically smaller than earth (it looked smaller than earth in the opening) the idea of surviving that fall with a magical science forcefield up that blocks bullets seems like a plausible explanation.

also lets argue how Shepard didn't break his spine when the explosion knocked him into a wall or how he was able to operate an eject pod interface.



The comic kind of adds alot of information on possibly why saren looked weird, why saren looks weird, and why shepard gets terminator eyes in me2. "Evolution" is a theme there, and it seems that they've done "something" to it.


god smudboy don't talk about Joan of Arc unless you know something about history god you idiot.

god Doctor_Jackstraw don't talk about the survivability of planetary re-entry unless you know something about physics god you idiot

I take it the "god you idiot" stuff is smudboy phraseology - I haven't watched any of his videos.

[Iakus]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Shepard didn't realise he died until Jacob told him, shepard reacts to that, but is also in the thick of battle and a Soldier is trained to keep sharp in combat.

And then never got around to addressing it again....

Kinetic barriers that alter mass is a fine explanation for how shepard was able to not break apart.

Kinetic barriers that somehow failed to keep his suit from being ruptured?

I would like to check the ingame data on the planet but if it is radically smaller than earth (it looked smaller than earth in the opening) the idea of surviving that fall with a magical science forcefield up that blocks bullets seems like a plausible explanation.

According to the wiki, Alchera's mass was 1.767 Earth masses, had a surface gravity of .85g, and an atmospheric pressure of .83 atmospheres.  I think getting smacked with a planet like that would overload whatever batteries were running Shep's barriers, assuming they were even functioning.

The comic kind of adds alot of information on possibly why saren looked weird, why saren looks weird, and why shepard gets terminator eyes in me2. "Evolution" is a theme there, and it seems that they've done "something" to it.

So, story costs extra?  I don't think I like that idea

[Whatever42]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

god i'm such an idiot god and also jesus.

The strongest argument for a plot hole is the death and ressurection of Shepard. I think that Shepard died is irrefutable (and I don't think you are refuting it). That Shepard's body was reasonably intact is certainly possible, although highly improbable.

The surface gravity is .85g and the atmospheric pressure is .83 Earth atmospheres. So the body would need to survive atmospheric entry and not splatter like a bug on a wind shield. Both are possible. We have materials today that can keep an interior cool during entry and in the future, its more than possible Shepards shields and suit materials could keep the body from burning up.

The body staying intact after impact is also very possible. People have survived falls from very high altitude planes with only minor injuries and all we require is a reasonably intact body. Yeah, its improbable but not impossible, and Shepard is a person of destiny, after all.

The real "plot hole" is the ressurection. The technology is rather fantastical compared to medical technology we've seen in the ME universe. They could probably explain it if they got Reaper technology from somewhere but they didn't (yet) so until that's answered, it is a plot hole. I personally regard it as a insignificant plot device but some people get twisted into knots about such things.

And even if TIM did get Reaper tech, there is still a bit of a problem. Ok, we can probably buy the "resurrection" of the individual cells in the body. Its the reconstruction of Shepard's memories. Those electro-chemical patterns that create personality would have been completely destroyed. Again, they could have concievably reconstructed them but how did they know what they looked like? Did Shepard have a detailed brain scan just before he died? Did they make up the memories? If they don't answer it, I will concede that its a plot hole. I don't particularly care about it but it is one.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 26 mars 2011 - 04:04 .

[Whatever42]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

God the point of this argument is that stuff wasn't explained in mass effect 2 but mass effect 3 will probably explain everything and then the argument will dissolve.


except that 7 part fu9king fanfiction youtube series holy sh7t that will get embarrassing with time.

I suspect much will be explained but everything has some plot holes. They generally have to be pretty important to spoil most people's enjoyment of a story and this is a simple plot device. If we can forgive Sovereign fainting in ME1, we can certainly forgive some implausible ressurection technology in ME2.

The problem with Smudboy wasn't that he pointed out the obvious plotholes, he declared that ME2 was crap for having such plotholes, that nothing else that was good ever had plot holes, and then goes on to declare that stupid things like not mining the Omega 4 Relay was a plot hole.

Whenever you debate plot holes, the "haters" always come back to the death and ressurection of Shepard. Its the one point they can defend well. I just usually concede it to them as long as they don't go all Smudboy and start trying to argue that not showing Shepard taking a dump is a plot hole.

[Almostfaceman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

And even if TIM did get Reaper tech, there is still a bit of a problem. Ok, we can probably buy the "resurrection" of the individual cells in the body. Its the reconstruction of Shepard's memories. Those electro-chemical patterns that create personality would have been completely destroyed. Again, they could have concievably reconstructed them but how did they know what they looked like? Did Shepard have a detailed brain scan just before he died? Did they make up the memories? If they don't answer it, I will concede that its a plot hole. I don't particularly care about it but it is one.

It's simply really.  There are multiple dimensions.  The technology, through quantum skip rope, initiated a search to the Prima 2 Alpha dimension, which mirrors ours exactly, and picked the memories from that Shepard seconds before death through the Forcegap Timedelay Wave.

This is the same principle used in the Mass Relay almost instantaneous faster-than-light miracle.  The Mass Relay turns the mass of the ship into that approximately of a tasty juicy Skittle (cherry flavored).  Then this mass is Wave Alternated back and forth through our dimension and the Prima 2 Alpha dimension - but using the Forcegap TimeRUSH method, thus facilitating the literal blindfolding of Time Itself and doing a supercheat on the Physics God.

[AcidRelic]

I started and couldn't watch smudboys videos. I then saw squee913's and decided to watch them, thanks for using smudboys video then make a case for your argument. I have to agree with squee here and take the "IT'S SCIENCE FICTION" stand for most points and some of smudboys were just too dumb to comprehend and/or argue LOL.

I noticed a few things here and there but nothing that EVER had be upset about the plot or story or gameplay. (excepting the Conrad Verner bug where I must have blacked out and pointed a gun in his face) Half the stuff in smudboys arguments never crossed my mind as anything but normal in a science fiction world and the mass effect lore. In my opinion smud is just someone who has too much time on his hands and wants to cry that ME2 was not exactly what he wanted it to be,*Rage rant* and on the meaner side of me, he's just a f*cking IDIOT *end rant*

Modifié par AcidRelic, 26 mars 2011 - 04:22 .

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Whenever you debate plot holes, the "haters" always come back to the death and ressurection of Shepard. Its the one point they can defend well. I just usually concede it to them as long as they don't go all Smudboy and start trying to argue that not showing Shepard taking a dump is a plot hole.

As one of the "haters" I can concur that while it is far from the only problem with the story, it does indeed stand head and shoulders over just about all of them.  At least from a purely storytelling perspective. 

Silent squadmates is a somewhat different problem, though no less a major one.

[Whatever42]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

And even if TIM did get Reaper tech, there is still a bit of a problem. Ok, we can probably buy the "resurrection" of the individual cells in the body. Its the reconstruction of Shepard's memories. Those electro-chemical patterns that create personality would have been completely destroyed. Again, they could have concievably reconstructed them but how did they know what they looked like? Did Shepard have a detailed brain scan just before he died? Did they make up the memories? If they don't answer it, I will concede that its a plot hole. I don't particularly care about it but it is one.

It's simply really.  There are multiple dimensions.  The technology, through quantum skip rope, initiated a search to the Prima 2 Alpha dimension, which mirrors ours exactly, and picked the memories from that Shepard seconds before death through the Forcegap Timedelay Wave.

This is the same principle used in the Mass Relay almost instantaneous faster-than-light miracle.  The Mass Relay turns the mass of the ship into that approximately of a tasty juicy Skittle (cherry flavored).  Then this mass is Wave Alternated back and forth through our dimension and the Prima 2 Alpha dimension - but using the Forcegap TimeRUSH method, thus facilitating the literal blindfolding of Time Itself and doing a supercheat on the Physics God.

That would remove the plot hole.