I'm watching Smud's response to Part #2 right now. Good to hear you're done with Part #3, Squee!
Remember the time Smudboy made his 6-part video on ME2 plot analysis? Cross-examination given (completed)
Débuté par
Lunatic LK47
, mars 07 2011 09:51
Retour en haut
#577
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 08:32
himmelgeher
-
- Members
- 72 messages
People seem to be confusing Kinetic Barriers (shields) and Mass Effect fields. They're different. Mass Effect fields do have the ability to retain atmosphere and block radiation, as seen in the beginning and end of the game, as well as in the Collector Base (unless your suggesting that Mass Effect fields can stop slow moving solid objects, something kinetic barriers can't do, but retain atmosphere. Which makes no sense). Kinetic Barriers do not have this ability. Their only function is to stop bullets or other projectiles. I'd also like to point out that characters never show skin in a vacuum. Every environment their in has at least some atmosphere. I certainly wouldn't recommend going into some of those environments half naked, but BioWare had a choice to make, either waste resources making new costumes that are only going to be used on a few missions, or make the actual game. I'll concede that there are a few plot holes (Hey, everyone who actually knows how to use a gun, we all need to leave right away. No, we can't just wait for the IFF to be installed, Shepard needs to go do something so monumentally unimportant that it doesn't even get shown on screen or ever mentioned in any capacity whatsoever), but more of the complaints just come from people not paying attention (why don't they just destroy the omega 4 relay after finding out that the collectors live in the galactic core? Oh right, the "they're indestructible" thing). I'll pint to my overly long and irrelevant post about plot holes and ask someone to give me actual plot holes and not something they didn't personally like. I have no problem with people not liking me2 or making valid criticisms, I just ask that those criticisms actually be valid.
#578
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 03:40
Phaedon
-
- Members
- 8 617 messages
Wrong. That's what the closest thing to kinetic barriers we have today do.and block radiation
Modifié par Phaedon, 27 mars 2011 - 03:41 .
#579
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 04:40
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 398 messages
himmelgeher wrote...
People seem to be confusing Kinetic Barriers (shields) and Mass Effect fields. They're different. Mass Effect fields do have the ability to retain atmosphere and block radiation, as seen in the beginning and end of the game, as well as in the Collector Base (unless your suggesting that Mass Effect fields can stop slow moving solid objects, something kinetic barriers can't do, but retain atmosphere. Which makes no sense). Kinetic Barriers do not have this ability. Their only function is to stop bullets or other projectiles.
Mass Effect fields can can manipulate the mass of objects, making them lighter or heavier. In a sense, it simulates gravity. Any field strong enough to hold an atmosphere in the nomandy's cockpit would likely have squashed Shepard and Joker both. No need for Alchera.
I'd also like to point out that characters never show skin in a vacuum. Every environment their in has at least some atmosphere. I certainly wouldn't recommend going into some of those environments half naked, but BioWare had a choice to make, either waste resources making new costumes that are only going to be used on a few missions, or make the actual game.
IF Bioware spend the resources to make breath masks for the squadmates, they could have made helmets instead. If they could have made Samara's outfit without a zipper, they certainly could have made it with one. And so on.
#580
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 08:03
JKoopman
-
- Members
- 1 441 messages
iakus wrote...
himmelgeher wrote...
I'd also like to point out that characters never show skin in a vacuum. Every environment their in has at least some atmosphere. I certainly wouldn't recommend going into some of those environments half naked, but BioWare had a choice to make, either waste resources making new costumes that are only going to be used on a few missions, or make the actual game.
IF Bioware spend the resources to make breath masks for the squadmates, they could have made helmets instead. If they could have made Samara's outfit without a zipper, they certainly could have made it with one. And so on.
Well, like himmelgeher said, BioWare had a choice. It just so happens that they chose comic book style over practicality and functionality.
As fun as it is to point fingers at Mac Walters and blame him for all the Michael Bay-isms in ME2, this one can really only be dumped at the feet of the art team and Casey Hudson as I doubt the Lead Writer has much influence on things like this.
#581
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 08:09
Ramirez Wolfen
-
- Members
- 2 607 messages
Who is smudboy?
LOL at the fact that no matter how many times I ask this, nobody ever responds.....
LOL at the fact that no matter how many times I ask this, nobody ever responds.....
#582
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 08:10
Almostfaceman
-
- Members
- 5 463 messages
Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
Who is smudboy?
LOL at the fact that no matter how many times I ask this, nobody ever responds.....
Follow the link in the OP and you'll find out.
#583
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 08:13
CroGamer002
-
- Members
- 20 673 messages
Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
Who is smudboy?
LOL at the fact that no matter how many times I ask this, nobody ever responds.....
A guy who thinks everything about ME2 plot is wrong no matter how wrong he is and if you start to disagree with him he'll insult you.
That's why he got perma-ban while ago.
#584
Guest_mrsph_*
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 08:15
Guest_mrsph_*
Guest_mrsph_*
-
- Guests
Does this Smudboy have any idea how game design works? You can't just cram a bunch of stuff in there when you have deadlines, current technology, and other stuff to deal with.
#585
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 08:39
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 398 messages
JKoopman wrote...
Well, like himmelgeher said, BioWare had a choice. It just so happens that they chose comic book style over practicality and functionality.
As fun as it is to point fingers at Mac Walters and blame him for all the Michael Bay-isms in ME2, this one can really only be dumped at the feet of the art team and Casey Hudson as I doubt the Lead Writer has much influence on things like this.
Believe me, I know that there's plenty of blame to go around.
#586
Posté 27 mars 2011 - 08:48
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 398 messages
Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
Who is smudboy?
LOL at the fact that no matter how many times I ask this, nobody ever responds.....
Smudboy's the creator of numerous Youtube videos ponting out the flaws of ME 2. While he does tend towards the nitpicky, he brings up a lot of very good ponts. Points which have inspired a lot of debate among the posters here. He has also incurred a lot of vitriol from those who disagree with him, due in part to his nitpickiness and, well, the polite term would be "personality differences"
It all began with Mass Effect 2 Plot Analysis (Part 1) almost a year ago. It expanded from there, and we've been debating the merits of his arguements, off and on, ever since.
Note he has since abandoned the soundtrack. Likely due to too many comparisons to redlettermedia.
#587
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 12:57
squee913
-
- Members
- 411 messages
A few points from Smud's responses that I am putting up for debate. I would do this with him, but it seems he is not talking to me after confronting him about his misleading statement that all 14 articles do not recommend resurrection.
First of all, let me make this clear. Some people (including smud) keep saying that I am missing the point of overall ideas and simply attacking individual arguments. The problem is that the individual arguments form the foundation of any thesis or argument. The best way to break apart an argument is to disprove it's individual points (it's foundation). If the arguments are found lacking, then the thesis, or at least, his defense of it, cannot stand. His over all points mean nothing if the arguments he uses to back them are unfounded.
So, here is a quick list of counter points of his I don't understand. Feel free to debate any and all!
1. I stated that Cerberus is a secretive organization that is not in the habit and telling everyone their top secret projects. This was in reference to Wilson. I made the argument that Wilson would not be famous becasue Cerberus was not going to let him tell the world how to resurrect people. Smud just showed a bunch of video that demonstrates people know "about" Cerberus. These cut scenes only show that people know Cerberus exists. I don't understand how this also proves that Cerberus is telling everyone their Darkest Secrets. We know the CIA exists, but we have no idea what they are really doing.
2. He states that Light sabers do not need to be explained becasue he can see them being used. He asked where the resurrection machine is and that if he could see it, shep's resurrection would have been easier to swallow. First of all, what does actually seeing the machine have to do with anything? Does the fact that someone points to a machine and says, "that did it" really make a difference? Besides that, you DO see the machine working on Shepard. So is it a matter of not seeing the whole machine? do you need to see a certain percentage of it for it to be believable? I must be missing something here...
3. He argues that TIM bringing Shepard back becasue he was a symbol and a hero makes no sense becasue none of that mattered in ME2. The events of ME2 happened after Shepard was resurrected. The fact that Shep being a hero did not matter much in the event of ME2 would have had no effect on TIM's reasons to bring him back since they had not happened yet! When TIM made the decision to bring Shep back, he was a hero, and a symbol. He had no way of Knowing that would not matter in 2 years. You can not use events that occur after a decision to argue the motivation for making the decision.
4. He misunderstands my first argument. I never said that Shep resurrection was good becasue and only becasue it's science fiction. I think it is good for the effects it has on the gamer and the story. I was arguing against his presentation, where he claims that it is bad becasue this is not how one writes a story. My point was that there is no "Right" way to write a story in science fiction, not that Science fiction is a hand wave to let you do whatever you want.
5. In part 2 He asked why they don't try to find information about the collectors. I show many examples where they DID try to find info about the collectors. His counter argument was that even though they did, they were unsuccessful. That may be true, but that was not the argument. He said they didn't even bother to try, I showed that they did. The fact that those attempt were unsuccessful does not change that falseness of his argument. Instead of defending his argument, he side steps it with a new one.
6. He does that same thing with the the shadow broker prob. He claims that they should send probes through the omega 4 relay for information and that the Shadow broker successfully did it. I argue that he would not have told Cerberus this, so Cerb would still have thought it impossible, and that the probe came back as remains which is not a successful attempt to gain information. He changes the argument to it proving that things can return form the omega 4 relay, which has nothing to do with anything. That fact that scrap metal can return does nothing to gain intel...
7. He says that you could mine the omega 4 relay becasue the relay point to the galactic core and the IFF would mean the collectors don't drift far from the relay. All very true, but Cerberus had no knowledge of any of this until shepard uncovered it. They did not know that they were in the galactic core, or that they would not drift millions of kilometers, so they would still think mining the relay was pointless. You can't use information as an argument when the story hasn't reviled it yet.
8. He argues that Shep should monitor collector communications. I state that there is only one ship to jumps in and out... who would they be sending messages to. He answer is that shep has the prothean visions that allow him to understand communications. ok.... again... what communications?
9. He claims that while all of the "daddy issues" would have had great affects on the squads minds, they should have been immune to them. What? Garrus is an amazing sniper, and that's fine. But who really thinks that a trained solider cannot be distracted by such powerful events and that this would not affect their jobs??? I don't care if you are a Delta Force operative, you are still vulnerable to emotional distractions. That's why many special forces members don't have families or the like.
These are just a few off the top of my head
First of all, let me make this clear. Some people (including smud) keep saying that I am missing the point of overall ideas and simply attacking individual arguments. The problem is that the individual arguments form the foundation of any thesis or argument. The best way to break apart an argument is to disprove it's individual points (it's foundation). If the arguments are found lacking, then the thesis, or at least, his defense of it, cannot stand. His over all points mean nothing if the arguments he uses to back them are unfounded.
So, here is a quick list of counter points of his I don't understand. Feel free to debate any and all!
1. I stated that Cerberus is a secretive organization that is not in the habit and telling everyone their top secret projects. This was in reference to Wilson. I made the argument that Wilson would not be famous becasue Cerberus was not going to let him tell the world how to resurrect people. Smud just showed a bunch of video that demonstrates people know "about" Cerberus. These cut scenes only show that people know Cerberus exists. I don't understand how this also proves that Cerberus is telling everyone their Darkest Secrets. We know the CIA exists, but we have no idea what they are really doing.
2. He states that Light sabers do not need to be explained becasue he can see them being used. He asked where the resurrection machine is and that if he could see it, shep's resurrection would have been easier to swallow. First of all, what does actually seeing the machine have to do with anything? Does the fact that someone points to a machine and says, "that did it" really make a difference? Besides that, you DO see the machine working on Shepard. So is it a matter of not seeing the whole machine? do you need to see a certain percentage of it for it to be believable? I must be missing something here...
3. He argues that TIM bringing Shepard back becasue he was a symbol and a hero makes no sense becasue none of that mattered in ME2. The events of ME2 happened after Shepard was resurrected. The fact that Shep being a hero did not matter much in the event of ME2 would have had no effect on TIM's reasons to bring him back since they had not happened yet! When TIM made the decision to bring Shep back, he was a hero, and a symbol. He had no way of Knowing that would not matter in 2 years. You can not use events that occur after a decision to argue the motivation for making the decision.
4. He misunderstands my first argument. I never said that Shep resurrection was good becasue and only becasue it's science fiction. I think it is good for the effects it has on the gamer and the story. I was arguing against his presentation, where he claims that it is bad becasue this is not how one writes a story. My point was that there is no "Right" way to write a story in science fiction, not that Science fiction is a hand wave to let you do whatever you want.
5. In part 2 He asked why they don't try to find information about the collectors. I show many examples where they DID try to find info about the collectors. His counter argument was that even though they did, they were unsuccessful. That may be true, but that was not the argument. He said they didn't even bother to try, I showed that they did. The fact that those attempt were unsuccessful does not change that falseness of his argument. Instead of defending his argument, he side steps it with a new one.
6. He does that same thing with the the shadow broker prob. He claims that they should send probes through the omega 4 relay for information and that the Shadow broker successfully did it. I argue that he would not have told Cerberus this, so Cerb would still have thought it impossible, and that the probe came back as remains which is not a successful attempt to gain information. He changes the argument to it proving that things can return form the omega 4 relay, which has nothing to do with anything. That fact that scrap metal can return does nothing to gain intel...
7. He says that you could mine the omega 4 relay becasue the relay point to the galactic core and the IFF would mean the collectors don't drift far from the relay. All very true, but Cerberus had no knowledge of any of this until shepard uncovered it. They did not know that they were in the galactic core, or that they would not drift millions of kilometers, so they would still think mining the relay was pointless. You can't use information as an argument when the story hasn't reviled it yet.
8. He argues that Shep should monitor collector communications. I state that there is only one ship to jumps in and out... who would they be sending messages to. He answer is that shep has the prothean visions that allow him to understand communications. ok.... again... what communications?
9. He claims that while all of the "daddy issues" would have had great affects on the squads minds, they should have been immune to them. What? Garrus is an amazing sniper, and that's fine. But who really thinks that a trained solider cannot be distracted by such powerful events and that this would not affect their jobs??? I don't care if you are a Delta Force operative, you are still vulnerable to emotional distractions. That's why many special forces members don't have families or the like.
These are just a few off the top of my head
#588
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 01:39
JKoopman
-
- Members
- 1 441 messages
iakus wrote...
Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
Who is smudboy?
LOL at the fact that no matter how many times I ask this, nobody ever responds.....
Smudboy's the creator of numerous Youtube videos ponting out the flaws of ME 2. While he does tend towards the nitpicky, he brings up a lot of very good ponts. Points which have inspired a lot of debate among the posters here. He has also incurred a lot of vitriol from those who disagree with him, due in part to his nitpickiness and, well, the polite term would be "personality differences"
It all began with Mass Effect 2 Plot Analysis (Part 1) almost a year ago. It expanded from there, and we've been debating the merits of his arguements, off and on, ever since.
Note he has since abandoned the soundtrack. Likely due to too many comparisons to redlettermedia.
People keep saying that smudboy was such an obnoxious, insulting d*ck to everyone, but I've gone back and skimmed through a few of his old posts (http://social.biowar...m/975570/#forum) and it seems to me that he was only ever verbally abusive with people who in turn were being pretentious d-bags towards him. As long as you disagreed with him politely and didn't just come out of the gate accusing him of being a troll or call him a whiny, butt-hurt fanboy or tell him to "STFU and GTFO if you don't like it" he seemed more than capable of showing the same consideration.
Modifié par JKoopman, 28 mars 2011 - 01:48 .
#589
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 01:48
squee913
-
- Members
- 411 messages
JKoopman wrote...
iakus wrote...
Ramirez Wolfen wrote...
Who is smudboy?
LOL at the fact that no matter how many times I ask this, nobody ever responds.....
Smudboy's the creator of numerous Youtube videos ponting out the flaws of ME 2. While he does tend towards the nitpicky, he brings up a lot of very good ponts. Points which have inspired a lot of debate among the posters here. He has also incurred a lot of vitriol from those who disagree with him, due in part to his nitpickiness and, well, the polite term would be "personality differences"
It all began with Mass Effect 2 Plot Analysis (Part 1) almost a year ago. It expanded from there, and we've been debating the merits of his arguements, off and on, ever since.
Note he has since abandoned the soundtrack. Likely due to too many comparisons to redlettermedia.
People keep saying that smudboy was such a obnoxious, insulting d*ck to everyone, but I've gone back and skimmed through a few of his old posts (http://social.biowar...m/975570/#forum) and it seems to me that he was only ever verbally abusive with people who in turn were being pretentious d-bags towards him. As long as you disagreed with him politely and didn't just come out of the gate accusing him of being a troll or call him a whiny, butt-hurt fanboy or tell him to "STFU and GTFO if you don't like it" he seemed more than capable of showing the same consideration.
I kind of have to go with you on this. I may be a little upset at a comment he made, but I can't assume he did it on purpose. We have had several messages between each other, and for the most part he has been rather polite
#590
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 01:54
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 398 messages
JKoopman wrote...
People keep saying that smudboy was such an obnoxious, insulting d*ck to everyone, but I've gone back and skimmed through a few of his old posts (http://social.biowar...m/975570/#forum) and it seems to me that he was only ever verbally abusive with people who in turn were being pretentious d-bags towards him. As long as you disagreed with him politely and didn't just come out of the gate accusing him of being a troll or call him a whiny, butt-hurt fanboy or tell him to "STFU and GTFO if you don't like it" he seemed more than capable of showing the same consideration.
Hmm, perhaps it was because so many people were so rude to him and he rose (or sank) to thier level that colored my memories...
#591
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 02:04
piemanz
-
- Members
- 995 messages
squee913 wrote...
A few points from Smud's responses that I am putting up for debate. I would do this with him, but it seems he is not talking to me after confronting him about his misleading statement that all 14 articles do not recommend resurrection.
First of all, let me make this clear. Some people (including smud) keep saying that I am missing the point of overall ideas and simply attacking individual arguments. The problem is that the individual arguments form the foundation of any thesis or argument. The best way to break apart an argument is to disprove it's individual points (it's foundation). If the arguments are found lacking, then the thesis, or at least, his defense of it, cannot stand. His over all points mean nothing if the arguments he uses to back them are unfounded.
So, here is a quick list of counter points of his I don't understand. Feel free to debate any and all!
1. I stated that Cerberus is a secretive organization that is not in the habit and telling everyone their top secret projects. This was in reference to Wilson. I made the argument that Wilson would not be famous becasue Cerberus was not going to let him tell the world how to resurrect people. Smud just showed a bunch of video that demonstrates people know "about" Cerberus. These cut scenes only show that people know Cerberus exists. I don't understand how this also proves that Cerberus is telling everyone their Darkest Secrets. We know the CIA exists, but we have no idea what they are really doing.
2. He states that Light sabers do not need to be explained becasue he can see them being used. He asked where the resurrection machine is and that if he could see it, shep's resurrection would have been easier to swallow. First of all, what does actually seeing the machine have to do with anything? Does the fact that someone points to a machine and says, "that did it" really make a difference? Besides that, you DO see the machine working on Shepard. So is it a matter of not seeing the whole machine? do you need to see a certain percentage of it for it to be believable? I must be missing something here...
3. He argues that TIM bringing Shepard back becasue he was a symbol and a hero makes no sense becasue none of that mattered in ME2. The events of ME2 happened after Shepard was resurrected. The fact that Shep being a hero did not matter much in the event of ME2 would have had no effect on TIM's reasons to bring him back since they had not happened yet! When TIM made the decision to bring Shep back, he was a hero, and a symbol. He had no way of Knowing that would not matter in 2 years. You can not use events that occur after a decision to argue the motivation for making the decision.
4. He misunderstands my first argument. I never said that Shep resurrection was good becasue and only becasue it's science fiction. I think it is good for the effects it has on the gamer and the story. I was arguing against his presentation, where he claims that it is bad becasue this is not how one writes a story. My point was that there is no "Right" way to write a story in science fiction, not that Science fiction is a hand wave to let you do whatever you want.
5. In part 2 He asked why they don't try to find information about the collectors. I show many examples where they DID try to find info about the collectors. His counter argument was that even though they did, they were unsuccessful. That may be true, but that was not the argument. He said they didn't even bother to try, I showed that they did. The fact that those attempt were unsuccessful does not change that falseness of his argument. Instead of defending his argument, he side steps it with a new one.
6. He does that same thing with the the shadow broker prob. He claims that they should send probes through the omega 4 relay for information and that the Shadow broker successfully did it. I argue that he would not have told Cerberus this, so Cerb would still have thought it impossible, and that the probe came back as remains which is not a successful attempt to gain information. He changes the argument to it proving that things can return form the omega 4 relay, which has nothing to do with anything. That fact that scrap metal can return does nothing to gain intel...
7. He says that you could mine the omega 4 relay becasue the relay point to the galactic core and the IFF would mean the collectors don't drift far from the relay. All very true, but Cerberus had no knowledge of any of this until shepard uncovered it. They did not know that they were in the galactic core, or that they would not drift millions of kilometers, so they would still think mining the relay was pointless. You can't use information as an argument when the story hasn't reviled it yet.
8. He argues that Shep should monitor collector communications. I state that there is only one ship to jumps in and out... who would they be sending messages to. He answer is that shep has the prothean visions that allow him to understand communications. ok.... again... what communications?
9. He claims that while all of the "daddy issues" would have had great affects on the squads minds, they should have been immune to them. What? Garrus is an amazing sniper, and that's fine. But who really thinks that a trained solider cannot be distracted by such powerful events and that this would not affect their jobs??? I don't care if you are a Delta Force operative, you are still vulnerable to emotional distractions. That's why many special forces members don't have families or the like.
These are just a few off the top of my head
I watched his response to your videos and came to many of the same conclusions as you have here.Honestly i couldn't be arsed to come on the forums and 'debate' it though.His arguments backing up his original argument made no more sense at all and a lot of the time were just sidestepping or misdirection.
He's obviously an intelligent fella and he does make the odd good point, but most of it just seems like whining for the sake of whining to me.I wouldn't mind so much but many of his alternatives make even less sense than the ones he's trying to argue against.
He may have been nice to you so far but i wouldn't bet on it staying that way if you keep ripping him apart, and i would be amazed if he concedes one point to you.Infact i would be amzed if he's EVER conceded a point, i just dont think he can.
#592
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 02:05
squee913
-
- Members
- 411 messages
iakus wrote...
JKoopman wrote...
People keep saying that smudboy was such an obnoxious, insulting d*ck to everyone, but I've gone back and skimmed through a few of his old posts (http://social.biowar...m/975570/#forum) and it seems to me that he was only ever verbally abusive with people who in turn were being pretentious d-bags towards him. As long as you disagreed with him politely and didn't just come out of the gate accusing him of being a troll or call him a whiny, butt-hurt fanboy or tell him to "STFU and GTFO if you don't like it" he seemed more than capable of showing the same consideration.
Hmm, perhaps it was because so many people were so rude to him and he rose (or sank) to thier level that colored my memories...
This is also true I suppose. I have heard that he has cut out comments that go against him from his videos. (though I stress that I have not seen it myself) If this is true it says a lot about, well, anyone who does it. I may not like Smud's Responses, but I approve them as responses to my vid, and even let them stand as the last word. If you don't have enough faith in your arguments to allow people to see the counter argument, then you should not use them
#593
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 02:08
squee913
-
- Members
- 411 messages
piemanz wrote...
I watched his response to your videos and came to many of the same conclusions as you have here.Honestly i couldn't be arsed to come on the forums and 'debate' it though.His arguments backing up his original argument made no more sense at all and a lot of the time were just sidestepping or misdirection.
He's obviously an intelligent fella and he does make the odd good point, but most of it just seems like whining for the sake of whining to me.I wouldn't mind so much but many of his alternatives make even less sense than the ones he's trying to argue against.
He may have been nice to you so far but i wouldn't bet on it staying that way if you keep ripping him apart, and i would be amazed if he concedes one point to you.Infact i would be amzed if he's EVER conceded a point, i just dont think he can.
Actually, that is a very good point. He told me in a PM that I made some good point in my second vid and that he admits them, but he never said any such thing in his reponse. The sad part is this would actually help. People do not like someone who demands they are right about everything.
#594
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 02:16
Whatever42
-
- Members
- 3 143 messages
JKoopman wrote...
People keep saying that smudboy was such an obnoxious, insulting d*ck to everyone, but I've gone back and skimmed through a few of his old posts (http://social.biowar...m/975570/#forum) and it seems to me that he was only ever verbally abusive with people who in turn were being pretentious d-bags towards him. As long as you disagreed with him politely and didn't just come out of the gate accusing him of being a troll or call him a whiny, butt-hurt fanboy or tell him to "STFU and GTFO if you don't like it" he seemed more than capable of showing the same consideration.
I'm not going to go back through all the old threads but I will repeat this:
JKoopman, you are a very opinionated poster who is often very aggressive and can use strong, even offensive language at times (your post above illustrates that). Iakus is a very intelligent, well-spoken poster who it is almost impossible to score points from. Other posters like Terror are agressive, often insulting, and incredibly tenacious, quite willing to repost their exact same argument 10 times on the same thread. Yet none of you get personally attacked, at least nothing resembling what people hurl at Smudboy.
As far as I know, no fanboy has earned that kind of animosity either.
This is not because Smudboy is such a clever guy. This is because Smudboy is an impossible cheap, dishonest debater who attacks the most trivial things imaginable and then resorts to insults once he loses.
I agree that these forums would be a lot more civil if most of us (me included) could just walk away from a debate and let the other guy have the last word. But human nature is what it is.
#595
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 02:20
Whatever42
-
- Members
- 3 143 messages
squee913 wrote...
Actually, that is a very good point. He told me in a PM that I made some good point in my second vid and that he admits them, but he never said any such thing in his reponse. The sad part is this would actually help. People do not like someone who demands they are right about everything.
Actually, that would improve my perception of him tremendously. When he debates and never concedes even the most obvious points, you really start to think he's trolling you. I certainly stop taking him seriously,
#596
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 03:31
JKoopman
-
- Members
- 1 441 messages
In smudboy's defense, human nature being what it is, it's also common for opponents to point to one single example where you've conceded a point and use it as a rationale for debasing and dismissing every other point you've made in the argument (eg: "See! He was wrong about this part so he clearly doesn't know WTF he's talking about in the rest of it either!"), which is why it's so difficult to give credit where it's due.
People usually give ground in debates by simply letting a point go and no longer discussing it, rather than outright admitting that they were mistaken. That's why forum debates will often start out 10+ quote blocks in length and end with only 2 or 3.
Having nothing else to go on but my own experiences, I'm going to continue painting smudboy as someone who's unfairly persecuted until I'm given cause to think otherwise. I certainly wouldn't want to get into a debate with him (and my respect and condolences to anyone who does), but he seems like an OK guy to me. Perhaps I'm just desensitized to it though; I got my "forum legs" on an old unmoderated message board that was the internet equivalent of the Wild West, so the ocassional snarky remark or four-letter word doesn't phase me too much.
People usually give ground in debates by simply letting a point go and no longer discussing it, rather than outright admitting that they were mistaken. That's why forum debates will often start out 10+ quote blocks in length and end with only 2 or 3.
Having nothing else to go on but my own experiences, I'm going to continue painting smudboy as someone who's unfairly persecuted until I'm given cause to think otherwise. I certainly wouldn't want to get into a debate with him (and my respect and condolences to anyone who does), but he seems like an OK guy to me. Perhaps I'm just desensitized to it though; I got my "forum legs" on an old unmoderated message board that was the internet equivalent of the Wild West, so the ocassional snarky remark or four-letter word doesn't phase me too much.
Modifié par JKoopman, 28 mars 2011 - 03:45 .
#597
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 03:38
RyuGuitarFreak
-
- Members
- 2 254 messages
I don't think so. After a while he started to insult or try to insult through irony some people for no reason than to make their arguments seem to be flawed or dumb.JKoopman wrote...
People keep saying that smudboy was such an obnoxious, insulting d*ck to everyone, but I've gone back and skimmed through a few of his old posts (http://social.biowar...m/975570/#forum) and it seems to me that he was only ever verbally abusive with people who in turn were being pretentious d-bags towards him. As long as you disagreed with him politely and didn't just come out of the gate accusing him of being a troll or call him a whiny, butt-hurt fanboy or tell him to "STFU and GTFO if you don't like it" he seemed more than capable of showing the same consideration.
Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 28 mars 2011 - 03:42 .
#598
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 03:51
SSV Enterprise
-
- Members
- 1 668 messages
smudboy's second response annoyed me enough that I typed up these responses to his first few counter-points. I may end up making my own video response -- even though I have no idea how to do that.
Re: Mordin: Mordin was expected to be able to create a countermeasure for the seeker swarms. This was absolutely necessary to face the Collectors, otherwise the whole team would be quickly paralyzed and useless. This qualifies, by your own criteria, as an answer to a “necessary question”: it's one of the tools that the squad needs. This helps not only on Horizon, but any time the squad encounters the Collectors. Shepard could not have stopped the Collectors without it.
Re: Horizon: We receive confirmation that the Collectors are working for the Reapers, due to the appearance of the Husks. Before, we only had speculation. This qualifies as helping to identify the scope of the job. As for the Normandy attacking, do you think it's a good idea to shoot a relativistic beam or torpedoes right above a heavily populated colony?
Re: Collector Ship: This again meets your own criteria. We learn more about the scope – the Collectors could wipe out the whole Terminus systems, and we learn that the Collector base is in the galactic core. As for the behavior of the Collectors, EDI was constantly fighting them at every turn. They did not have total control of their ship (also, IIRC, EDI moved the squad's platform back down on the ground). Allowing the data mine was also part of the trap – they were likely trying to shut down the Normandy, as the Reaper IFF did. Luckily, EDI had no direct control over the Normandy itself.
Re: Still no intel: You cannot blame them for not trying when they did try. Probes can gain information, but time is of the essence. Shepard knew they could get through the relay using the IFF. Why waste time waiting for a probe to come back when you can just go through already? If they assess the mission parameters to be beyond what the Normandy and the squad are capable of, they can turn back. If they can do the mission, then they just saved a bunch of time during which any number of things could have been happening to the crew.
Re: No Tests: We knew from the Collector data mine that the IFF was what allowed the Collectors safe passage. No tests were necessary. Doing recon before obtaining the IFF, which is what you originally seemed to be suggesting, would have been downright stupid. As for scouting areas the Collectors could have been – what areas, exactly? The Collectors have no permanent bases away from the galactic core. Also, you may not realize this, but the krogan warlord Okeer was one of the Collectors'contacts – he used their tech to make Grunt. This lead on theCollectors turned out to be a dead end, and Shepard got Grunt even though he was not looking for him. Consulting other information brokers is TIM's job, not Shepard's. If he discovered anything useful, he would have passed it on to Shepard.
Re: Spy Satellites: Spy satellites would be pointless, since A. the attacks are random
and B. The Collectors jam communication from a colony before hitting
them.
Re: Needing explanation: squee913 used a bad example, but he has a point. Not everything needs to be explained. In science fiction, there could be any number of reasons why some method is not feasible. The plot does not need to explain why all unused methods are wrong. It leads to lengthy exposition and does not move the actual plot forward. What the story should do is give reasons why the the characters are using specific methods. It just so happens that for every alternative you mention, there is a good reason within Mass Effect's own established workings that every single thing you mention would not have worked. The narrative did not need to state all of these.
Re: Ok, if the Collectors were making communications, Shepard could possibly understand them. You did not answer squee913's question: What specific communications are you referring to? I would also add, how would Shepard tap these communications in the first place?
Re: Shadow Broker probes: At the same time, the Shadow Broker states (if you've already done the suicide mission) that after killing Shepard, he will capture the Normandy and use its IFF to take advantage of the Collector Base/its remains. Meaning that he still needs the IFF in order to get through the relay safely. The Shadow Broker VI never states just where the probes were recovered. It could be that Cerberus actually recovered the probes, brought them back, and the Shadow Broker's agents took them from Cerberus. Shepard may give Liara, the new Shadow Broker, the IFF so she can perform operations through the relay, and recovered the probes on the other side.
Re: IFF: We did not know for sure about the IFF until the Collector Ship mission, so that was certainly still necessary. Horizon helped in testing the countermeasure and seeing the Collectors in action so we may know what to expect on the suicide mission, so it was still useful. And possessing the IFF does not in any way make it easier to actually defeat the Collectors, so the squad recruitment and Normandy upgrading was certainly still necessary. And even disregarding that, TIM had a research team already investigating the derelict Reaper. Without knowledge of the IFF, there was no reason for Shepard & co. to go to the Reaper. TIM suspected the existence of the IFF, so he told the research team to keep an eye out for it. They went crazy before they could report finding it, though. TIM tells Shepard he does not know if the research team did in fact find the IFF.
Re: Mining: First of all, EDI saying “thousands” does not override “millions”. I can say a race car can move at tens of kilometers an hour. Does that mean it cannot move at hundreds of kilometers an hour? No. Secondly, there is no evidence – at all – that the Omega-4 relay's sister relay has the same functionality.
Re: Mordin: Mordin was expected to be able to create a countermeasure for the seeker swarms. This was absolutely necessary to face the Collectors, otherwise the whole team would be quickly paralyzed and useless. This qualifies, by your own criteria, as an answer to a “necessary question”: it's one of the tools that the squad needs. This helps not only on Horizon, but any time the squad encounters the Collectors. Shepard could not have stopped the Collectors without it.
Re: Horizon: We receive confirmation that the Collectors are working for the Reapers, due to the appearance of the Husks. Before, we only had speculation. This qualifies as helping to identify the scope of the job. As for the Normandy attacking, do you think it's a good idea to shoot a relativistic beam or torpedoes right above a heavily populated colony?
Re: Collector Ship: This again meets your own criteria. We learn more about the scope – the Collectors could wipe out the whole Terminus systems, and we learn that the Collector base is in the galactic core. As for the behavior of the Collectors, EDI was constantly fighting them at every turn. They did not have total control of their ship (also, IIRC, EDI moved the squad's platform back down on the ground). Allowing the data mine was also part of the trap – they were likely trying to shut down the Normandy, as the Reaper IFF did. Luckily, EDI had no direct control over the Normandy itself.
Re: Still no intel: You cannot blame them for not trying when they did try. Probes can gain information, but time is of the essence. Shepard knew they could get through the relay using the IFF. Why waste time waiting for a probe to come back when you can just go through already? If they assess the mission parameters to be beyond what the Normandy and the squad are capable of, they can turn back. If they can do the mission, then they just saved a bunch of time during which any number of things could have been happening to the crew.
Re: No Tests: We knew from the Collector data mine that the IFF was what allowed the Collectors safe passage. No tests were necessary. Doing recon before obtaining the IFF, which is what you originally seemed to be suggesting, would have been downright stupid. As for scouting areas the Collectors could have been – what areas, exactly? The Collectors have no permanent bases away from the galactic core. Also, you may not realize this, but the krogan warlord Okeer was one of the Collectors'contacts – he used their tech to make Grunt. This lead on theCollectors turned out to be a dead end, and Shepard got Grunt even though he was not looking for him. Consulting other information brokers is TIM's job, not Shepard's. If he discovered anything useful, he would have passed it on to Shepard.
Re: Spy Satellites: Spy satellites would be pointless, since A. the attacks are random
and B. The Collectors jam communication from a colony before hitting
them.
Re: Needing explanation: squee913 used a bad example, but he has a point. Not everything needs to be explained. In science fiction, there could be any number of reasons why some method is not feasible. The plot does not need to explain why all unused methods are wrong. It leads to lengthy exposition and does not move the actual plot forward. What the story should do is give reasons why the the characters are using specific methods. It just so happens that for every alternative you mention, there is a good reason within Mass Effect's own established workings that every single thing you mention would not have worked. The narrative did not need to state all of these.
Re: Ok, if the Collectors were making communications, Shepard could possibly understand them. You did not answer squee913's question: What specific communications are you referring to? I would also add, how would Shepard tap these communications in the first place?
Re: Shadow Broker probes: At the same time, the Shadow Broker states (if you've already done the suicide mission) that after killing Shepard, he will capture the Normandy and use its IFF to take advantage of the Collector Base/its remains. Meaning that he still needs the IFF in order to get through the relay safely. The Shadow Broker VI never states just where the probes were recovered. It could be that Cerberus actually recovered the probes, brought them back, and the Shadow Broker's agents took them from Cerberus. Shepard may give Liara, the new Shadow Broker, the IFF so she can perform operations through the relay, and recovered the probes on the other side.
Re: IFF: We did not know for sure about the IFF until the Collector Ship mission, so that was certainly still necessary. Horizon helped in testing the countermeasure and seeing the Collectors in action so we may know what to expect on the suicide mission, so it was still useful. And possessing the IFF does not in any way make it easier to actually defeat the Collectors, so the squad recruitment and Normandy upgrading was certainly still necessary. And even disregarding that, TIM had a research team already investigating the derelict Reaper. Without knowledge of the IFF, there was no reason for Shepard & co. to go to the Reaper. TIM suspected the existence of the IFF, so he told the research team to keep an eye out for it. They went crazy before they could report finding it, though. TIM tells Shepard he does not know if the research team did in fact find the IFF.
Re: Mining: First of all, EDI saying “thousands” does not override “millions”. I can say a race car can move at tens of kilometers an hour. Does that mean it cannot move at hundreds of kilometers an hour? No. Secondly, there is no evidence – at all – that the Omega-4 relay's sister relay has the same functionality.
Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 28 mars 2011 - 03:57 .
#599
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 04:02
Doctor_Jackstraw
-
- Members
- 2 231 messages
Here's something stupid and annoying: He assumes the Reaper IFF would result in cerberus being able to pinpoint the collector ship's exit point, except that you are assuming the IFF points them to a specific point ON THE WAY BACK
I'm pretty sure the IFF is used to get INTO the relay, why would it point you to a specific point in a galaxy that's already mapped? That would be stupid and useless.
Also space is ****INGMASSIVE. the ammount of range you can exit the omega 4 relay from is SO HUGE that it is litterally impossible to set up a spy network for THAT MASSIVE an ammount of space. You're talking about mining a space that is larger than several thousands of planets. You could set up one hundred billion convoy spy networks and STILL not cover even a tenth of SPACE that you would need CONSTANT surveillance of to figure out if they pop out or not. Space is ****ING HUGE and it goes out in ALL DIRECTIONS.
You can't use the galaxy map as a representation of actual size because within the fiction the "galaxy map" is an abstraction of the space of the universe. That's why it's there in that big holosphere. You see shepard playing with it in the original Mass Effect 1 CG trailer. It's part of the fiction that it is a goofy map.
Also they state IN THE CODEX and in several conversations that no one has ever returned from going into the omega 4 relay, which means that people have tried, several people have tried probing it and gotten no useful results. Within the fiction of the Omega Star Cluster this mass relay has remained a mystery, just as it's stated in Mass Effect 1 codex that only about...less than a tenth of the galaxy has actually been mapped out and that there are hundreds of relays that are not being used until the other side has been mapped out because that's how the Raccni Wars happened.
Also this has pissed me off about how he treats probes but the probes are also an abstraction of a concept used in Mass Effect 1. In the first game you would survey planets and there would be a little text description telling how Tali or Engineer Adams found a Legion of One medallion over the coarse of thier mining opperation. This implies that there is an ammount of time being spent actually mining that is not displayed or interfaced with the player because that would be boring as **** and nobody wants to watch that happen for an hour every time. ME2 evolves this concept, it doesn't still have the text description of how the mining opperation went but that's only because you mine so much more frequently on a per planet basis that it would become redundant and annoying to read about how tali's survey of the planet went. Just because you see a graphic of a probe going "booooomb" to the planet that magically gives you minerals doesn't mean that's how it actually happens within the fiction, it's called a gaming abstraction and it's used to shortcut boring ass **** nobody gives a **** about.
Probes dont do **** but scan for minerals. Send abunch of those into the omega 4 relay and then they get smashed up by debree. That's probably why efforts to survey the omega 4 relay have been failures in the past. Shadow Broker developed a type of probe that could activate a return vector on the relay it passed through, and it still gets smashed up. For all we know this is new, prototype technology he has been developing in secret. Activating a relay from the other end seems like the kind of thing that would be a scientific breakthrough within the fiction. It's not something you should assume every probe can do. Planet probes have to be recovered but you dont see that happen. You send abunch of generic probes into the omega 4 relay and then how do you get them back? Applying videogame logic and rpg numbers to the fiction of the actual universe is retarded and stupid and dumb just having a bunch of nukes won't matter if they just shoot them out of space when they're fired. Also firing a nuke isn't....the normandy doesn't look like it's equipped to fire nuclear warheads, and you're talking about blowing up a massive base the size of a small planet that contains no atmosphere. You can nuke it but that wont really do that much damage. A nuke can take out a large city and severely damage the atmosphere with fallout and radiation. Firing nukes at a giant space station the size of twelve death stars is kinda dumb and stupid and retarded and wont work.
Also this is the dumbest thing that smudboy constantly overlooks but a large part of shepard's motivation to head into the relay so fast is THE KIDNAPPED COLONISTS and the CREW OF THE NORMANDY BEING KIDNAPPED. he wants to save those people not throw the baby out with the bathwater. To assume that those people don't matter to him is to take the most renegade of renegade options. That's downright "ruthless". Also tim wants to recover technology that can help fight the reapers, he doesn't want you to blow it up.
also i dont know if smudboy read mass effect evolution but yo tim get psychic visions of the reapers at random (he can't control it but it happens). that's why his eyes are so crazy like saren's. that is a massive part of his character that explains a large part of his motivations and reasonings for things he does and knowing what he knows throughout the games.
This will come into effect in ME3 and be explained to people who don't read the comic because that's how stuff like this works. TIM is a mystery man. He tells you not to question his motives or his reasons for doing what he does during the paragon ending. This implies that there is more he's not telling shepard. This implies a cliffhanger to be resolved in a following segment of the franchise, such as THE THIRD GAME that is supposed to WRAP UP THE STORY... god jesus.
I'm pretty sure the IFF is used to get INTO the relay, why would it point you to a specific point in a galaxy that's already mapped? That would be stupid and useless.
Also space is ****INGMASSIVE. the ammount of range you can exit the omega 4 relay from is SO HUGE that it is litterally impossible to set up a spy network for THAT MASSIVE an ammount of space. You're talking about mining a space that is larger than several thousands of planets. You could set up one hundred billion convoy spy networks and STILL not cover even a tenth of SPACE that you would need CONSTANT surveillance of to figure out if they pop out or not. Space is ****ING HUGE and it goes out in ALL DIRECTIONS.
You can't use the galaxy map as a representation of actual size because within the fiction the "galaxy map" is an abstraction of the space of the universe. That's why it's there in that big holosphere. You see shepard playing with it in the original Mass Effect 1 CG trailer. It's part of the fiction that it is a goofy map.
Also they state IN THE CODEX and in several conversations that no one has ever returned from going into the omega 4 relay, which means that people have tried, several people have tried probing it and gotten no useful results. Within the fiction of the Omega Star Cluster this mass relay has remained a mystery, just as it's stated in Mass Effect 1 codex that only about...less than a tenth of the galaxy has actually been mapped out and that there are hundreds of relays that are not being used until the other side has been mapped out because that's how the Raccni Wars happened.
Also this has pissed me off about how he treats probes but the probes are also an abstraction of a concept used in Mass Effect 1. In the first game you would survey planets and there would be a little text description telling how Tali or Engineer Adams found a Legion of One medallion over the coarse of thier mining opperation. This implies that there is an ammount of time being spent actually mining that is not displayed or interfaced with the player because that would be boring as **** and nobody wants to watch that happen for an hour every time. ME2 evolves this concept, it doesn't still have the text description of how the mining opperation went but that's only because you mine so much more frequently on a per planet basis that it would become redundant and annoying to read about how tali's survey of the planet went. Just because you see a graphic of a probe going "booooomb" to the planet that magically gives you minerals doesn't mean that's how it actually happens within the fiction, it's called a gaming abstraction and it's used to shortcut boring ass **** nobody gives a **** about.
Probes dont do **** but scan for minerals. Send abunch of those into the omega 4 relay and then they get smashed up by debree. That's probably why efforts to survey the omega 4 relay have been failures in the past. Shadow Broker developed a type of probe that could activate a return vector on the relay it passed through, and it still gets smashed up. For all we know this is new, prototype technology he has been developing in secret. Activating a relay from the other end seems like the kind of thing that would be a scientific breakthrough within the fiction. It's not something you should assume every probe can do. Planet probes have to be recovered but you dont see that happen. You send abunch of generic probes into the omega 4 relay and then how do you get them back? Applying videogame logic and rpg numbers to the fiction of the actual universe is retarded and stupid and dumb just having a bunch of nukes won't matter if they just shoot them out of space when they're fired. Also firing a nuke isn't....the normandy doesn't look like it's equipped to fire nuclear warheads, and you're talking about blowing up a massive base the size of a small planet that contains no atmosphere. You can nuke it but that wont really do that much damage. A nuke can take out a large city and severely damage the atmosphere with fallout and radiation. Firing nukes at a giant space station the size of twelve death stars is kinda dumb and stupid and retarded and wont work.
Also this is the dumbest thing that smudboy constantly overlooks but a large part of shepard's motivation to head into the relay so fast is THE KIDNAPPED COLONISTS and the CREW OF THE NORMANDY BEING KIDNAPPED. he wants to save those people not throw the baby out with the bathwater. To assume that those people don't matter to him is to take the most renegade of renegade options. That's downright "ruthless". Also tim wants to recover technology that can help fight the reapers, he doesn't want you to blow it up.
also i dont know if smudboy read mass effect evolution but yo tim get psychic visions of the reapers at random (he can't control it but it happens). that's why his eyes are so crazy like saren's. that is a massive part of his character that explains a large part of his motivations and reasonings for things he does and knowing what he knows throughout the games.
This will come into effect in ME3 and be explained to people who don't read the comic because that's how stuff like this works. TIM is a mystery man. He tells you not to question his motives or his reasons for doing what he does during the paragon ending. This implies that there is more he's not telling shepard. This implies a cliffhanger to be resolved in a following segment of the franchise, such as THE THIRD GAME that is supposed to WRAP UP THE STORY... god jesus.
#600
Posté 28 mars 2011 - 04:12
Doctor_Jackstraw
-
- Members
- 2 231 messages
also smudboy's response to the squadmates not being distracted during thier past, it just so happens that the information cerberus gives them about thier personal goals puts them so close to accomplishing these things that not doing anything with that STARTLING REVELATION would mess with thier heads. Samara hunted morinth for 400 years. She was only ever close one time. The time when morinth forced samara to murder abunch of innocent people while she escaped (it's in the dialogue options) Also if you fail samara, tali, or thane's loyalty missions they end up pretty shooken up and worse off than they were previously, evidence of how much this meant to them and missing an opportunity to set things right would make them ****ed in the head.
It's individual things. I mean if you try to draw too many direct lines from story to gameplay abstraction back to story you just end up with a messy knot. I can believe that tali's father being turned in as a traitor or allowing legion to send data on the migrant fleet back to the geth would mess her up so bad she would be sloppy while trying to close the door, mess up, and get shot in the face. It's also assumable that Samara missing her one chance in 400 years to kill her daughter would cause her to be a complete wreck, unable to carry out her duties. In action movies the main character is typically able to do anything and never mess up, but mass effect plays with that and says "what if they weren't at the top of thier game and messed up and got themselves or someone else killed?" not every loyalty mission will connect to consequences you can face in the suicide mission, but what will resonate is the connection the player feels to the game and the characters, and the responsibility they will feel for getting someone killed. The point of the loyalty missions and the suicide mission is to make the player feel like it was "my fault". It's an experiment in this new media we call videogames to connect with the audience on levels deeper than previously thought possible in film or books.
It's individual things. I mean if you try to draw too many direct lines from story to gameplay abstraction back to story you just end up with a messy knot. I can believe that tali's father being turned in as a traitor or allowing legion to send data on the migrant fleet back to the geth would mess her up so bad she would be sloppy while trying to close the door, mess up, and get shot in the face. It's also assumable that Samara missing her one chance in 400 years to kill her daughter would cause her to be a complete wreck, unable to carry out her duties. In action movies the main character is typically able to do anything and never mess up, but mass effect plays with that and says "what if they weren't at the top of thier game and messed up and got themselves or someone else killed?" not every loyalty mission will connect to consequences you can face in the suicide mission, but what will resonate is the connection the player feels to the game and the characters, and the responsibility they will feel for getting someone killed. The point of the loyalty missions and the suicide mission is to make the player feel like it was "my fault". It's an experiment in this new media we call videogames to connect with the audience on levels deeper than previously thought possible in film or books.
