1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Anacronian Stryx]

Il Divo wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I'm very much looking forward to Smud's analysis of Arrival. I expect it within the week.

Same. My prediction is that it's going to be rather mixed. I feel like Smud will approve of Admiral Hackett/the Alpha Relay, but will take issue with Kenson explaining her whole project to Shepard, whom she's trying to capture. But that's just me.

yeah well i can see the point already, The story of Arrival would make so much more sense if Kenson wasn't the one indoctrinated but instead some other scientists who had been to close to object Rho while Kenson was in prison.

[Il Divo]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

If you remember his review of LOTSB, it was mostly positive. In one of his comments on LOTSB, he said he actually LIKED the DLC and is sad that ME2's main story wasn't along the same lines.

Oh, I'm not disparaging his pov. He makes good points. Overall, I think he'll approve of Arrival's direction (we have a very clear plot of where the Reapers are going/what they are trying to accomplish), but will take issue with certain plot points (the Kenson betrayal, sending Shepard alone instead of Thane/Kasumi, things of that sort). I'm looking forward to it.

[Il Divo]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

yeah well i can see the point already, The story of Arrival would make so much more sense if Kenson wasn't the one indoctrinated but instead some other scientists who had been to close to object Rho while Kenson was in prison.

I could see this. The problem isn't simply that she's indoctrinated, but that she outlines her entire plan for how to stop the Reapers, while secretly wanting to save the Reapers. I know indoctrination breeds stupidity, but not quite like that.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I know you aren't, Divo. I was just saying.

[Il Divo]

Fair enough.

[Ahriman]

Il Divo wrote...
I could see this. The problem isn't simply that she's indoctrinated, but that she outlines her entire plan for how to stop the Reapers, while secretly wanting to save the Reapers. I know indoctrination breeds stupidity, but not quite like that.

Perhaps it was tricky way to get Shepard's trust. This episode with hypnotic was the strangest for me.
"Shepard's immunity to hypnotic grows every hour. What should we do? Let's just put him in open room and watch what happens. Bound him? No, such discomfort may wake him up."

[Whatever42]

Wizz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I could see this. The problem isn't simply that she's indoctrinated, but that she outlines her entire plan for how to stop the Reapers, while secretly wanting to save the Reapers. I know indoctrination breeds stupidity, but not quite like that.

Perhaps it was tricky way to get Shepard's trust. This episode with hypnotic was the strangest for me.
"Shepard's immunity to hypnotic grows every hour. What should we do? Let's just put him in open room and watch what happens. Bound him? No, such discomfort may wake him up."

Bioware did the same thing with Saren in ME1. Instead of just destroying the beacon, he did the comic supervillain of proverbially hanging over a vat of acid with a laser slowly cutting through the chain, giving our hero plenty of time to rescue it. Then after he knows Shepard had the vision, he doesn't bombard the Thorian - which at the very least would kill all its servants and bury it - he simply sends foot soldier after it, giving our hero plenty of time to get to it.

And then he doesn't destroy the last beacon but leaves it sitting there. Soon after, he gives Shepard the traditional supervillain talk.

So, we can look at it two ways - this is a comic book/james bond story so lighten up. Or if we want to rationalize it, we cay that people can fight indoctrination and do things to sabotage their master.

[Almostfaceman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Wizz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I could see this. The problem isn't simply that she's indoctrinated, but that she outlines her entire plan for how to stop the Reapers, while secretly wanting to save the Reapers. I know indoctrination breeds stupidity, but not quite like that.

Perhaps it was tricky way to get Shepard's trust. This episode with hypnotic was the strangest for me.
"Shepard's immunity to hypnotic grows every hour. What should we do? Let's just put him in open room and watch what happens. Bound him? No, such discomfort may wake him up."

Bioware did the same thing with Saren in ME1. Instead of just destroying the beacon, he did the comic supervillain of proverbially hanging over a vat of acid with a laser slowly cutting through the chain, giving our hero plenty of time to rescue it. Then after he knows Shepard had the vision, he doesn't bombard the Thorian - which at the very least would kill all its servants and bury it - he simply sends foot soldier after it, giving our hero plenty of time to get to it.

And then he doesn't destroy the last beacon but leaves it sitting there. Soon after, he gives Shepard the traditional supervillain talk.

So, we can look at it two ways - this is a comic book/james bond story so lighten up. Or if we want to rationalize it, we cay that people can fight indoctrination and do things to sabotage their master.

Good point.

[piemanz]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Smud's response to 3-3.

I decided to bite the bullet and attempt to watch this video.After sitting through about half of it which consisted of Smud sidestepping and misdirecting arguements.About half way through Sqee asks something like, "if you analyze everything this much, how do you enjoy anything".Smuds response basicly equates to "i enjoy trolling the fanbase", at this point i stopped watching and he basicly lost what little credibility he had with me.

[CroGamer002]

piemanz wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Smud's response to 3-3.

I decided to bite the bullet and attempt to watch this video.After sitting through about half of it which consisted of Smud sidestepping and misdirecting arguements.About half way through Sqee asks something like, "if you analyze everything this much, how do you enjoy anything".Smuds response basicly equates to "i enjoy trolling the fanbase", at this point i stopped watching and he basicly lost what little credibility he had with me.

Even squee913 told he lost all his faith on smudboy after watching that video.

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Smud's response to 3-3.

I decided to bite the bullet and attempt to watch this video.After sitting through about half of it which consisted of Smud sidestepping and misdirecting arguements.About half way through Sqee asks something like, "if you analyze everything this much, how do you enjoy anything".Smuds response basicly equates to "i enjoy trolling the fanbase", at this point i stopped watching and he basicly lost what little credibility he had with me.

That isn't at all what he said. He was trying to be sarcastic. You can argue that his attempted wit failed, but then I can also argue that he was simply curt from having to deal with all those blatantly stupid questions being thrown at him. He was asked by Squee how he can enjoy any story if he subjects everything to the same level of scrutiny as Mass Effect and he answered in the briefest and most inane way... because it was an inane question to begin with. He was responding to a question that was prefaced with "Even if you're right, who cares?" Clearly he enjoys deconstructing stories and debating their merits. Who is anyone else to say that he shouldn't? If that includes having a laugh at the fanboys when they desperately attempt to invent narrative to support their enjoyment of a particularly bad story, that isn't trolling. And pointing out that you don't personally care about those types of things does nothing WHATSOEVER to counter the points he raises beyond simply pointing out that it's unimportant to you. So where's your criticism there for Squee clearly be evasive and sidestepping a point?

If anything, Squee is trolling smudboy with arguments like that. After all, if it's simply "not important to him" then why bother making an entire video criticising the points he raises? Smudboy didn't make his video because he just doesn't like Mass Effect and wants to bash on it; he made his video specifically to analyze the plot and narrative. If your counter-argument doesn't support the plot or narrative then you're just wasting everyone's time by voicing it.

I also have to ask where and how smudboy was being evasive, sidestepping or misdirecting any arguments in the first 6 minutes of the video, since I know you apparently didn't watch anything beyond that point. So far, whenever Squee has grossly misinterpereted one of smudboy's points, we've been here to clarify for him. The same courtesy rarely seems to be extended to us in return, but then it's so much easier to make baseless accusations than it is to actually defend them.

It's pretty obvious that this thread has simply become a haven for smudboy-haters interested only in attempting to collectively mock him. If that's what it is, I'll take my leave. I have no interest in attempting to debate with people who're only interested in slingling mud, especially when half of them admit to not even listening to smudboy's arguments.

Modifié par JKoopman, 02 avril 2011 - 07:55 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Smud's response to 3-3.

I decided to bite the bullet and attempt to watch this video.After sitting through about half of it which consisted of Smud sidestepping and misdirecting arguements.About half way through Sqee asks something like, "if you analyze everything this much, how do you enjoy anything".Smuds response basicly equates to "i enjoy trolling the fanbase", at this point i stopped watching and he basicly lost what little credibility he had with me.

That isn't at all what he said. He was trying to be sarcastic. You can argue that his attempted wit failed, but then I can also argue that he was simply curt from having to deal with all those blatantly stupid questions being thrown at him. He was asked by Squee how he can enjoy any story if he subjects everything to the same level of scrutiny as Mass Effect and he answered in the briefest and most inane way... because it was an inane question to begin with. He was responding to a question that was prefaced with "Even if you're right, who cares?" Clearly he enjoys deconstructing stories and debating their merits. Who is anyone else to say that he shouldn't? And pointing out that you don't personally care about those types of things does nothing WHATSOEVER to counter the points he raises beyond simply pointing out that it's unimportant to you. Where's your criticism there for Squee clearly be evasive and sidestepping a point?

I also have to ask where and how smudboy was being evasive, sidestepping or misdirecting any arguments in the first 6 minutes of the video, since I know you apparently didn't watch anything beyond that point. So far, whenever Squee has grossly misinterpereted one of smudboy's points, we've been here to clarify for him. The same courtesy rarely seems to be extended to us in return, but then it's so much easier to make baseless accusations than it is to actually defend them.

It's pretty obvious that this thread has simply become a haven for smudboy-haters interested only in attempting to collectively mock him. If that's what it is, I'll take my leave. I have no interest in attempting to debate with people who're only interested in slingling mud, especially when half of them admit to not even listening to smudboy's arguments.

Those are a lot of italics dude.

Why so serious?

[Whatever42]

Haven for smudboy-haters? Hell no, I will hate on smudboy on any thread in any forum!

But I don't hate smudboy, of course. I don't know him. I do dislike his cheap debating tactics, his insane nitpicking, his insults, and his unwarranted smugness. However, he's not worth hating. I just warn people not to debate him - it will always end in aggravation and frustration.

[Iakus]

Getting back to talking about Smudboy's response rather than insulting Smudboy (which my resposnse would simply be "Pot, meet kettle"):

I found his comaprison in 15:30 makes a good point for why the main story is so terrible. It really succinctly adds up to my feeling of "What just happened?" at the end.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

I thought the response was hilarious. And yes, the 15:30 comparison is an excellent, succinct point on why the ME2 plot was flawed.

[squee913]

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Smud's response to 3-3.

I decided to bite the bullet and attempt to watch this video.After sitting through about half of it which consisted of Smud sidestepping and misdirecting arguements.About half way through Sqee asks something like, "if you analyze everything this much, how do you enjoy anything".Smuds response basicly equates to "i enjoy trolling the fanbase", at this point i stopped watching and he basicly lost what little credibility he had with me.

That isn't at all what he said. He was trying to be sarcastic. You can argue that his attempted wit failed, but then I can also argue that he was simply curt from having to deal with all those blatantly stupid questions being thrown at him. He was asked by Squee how he can enjoy any story if he subjects everything to the same level of scrutiny as Mass Effect and he answered in the briefest and most inane way... because it was an inane question to begin with. He was responding to a question that was prefaced with "Even if you're right, who cares?" Clearly he enjoys deconstructing stories and debating their merits. Who is anyone else to say that he shouldn't? If that includes having a laugh at the fanboys when they desperately attempt to invent narrative to support their enjoyment of a particularly bad story, that isn't trolling. And pointing out that you don't personally care about those types of things does nothing WHATSOEVER to counter the points he raises beyond simply pointing out that it's unimportant to you. So where's your criticism there for Squee clearly be evasive and sidestepping a point?

If anything, Squee is trolling smudboy with arguments like that. After all, if it's simply "not important to him" then why bother making an entire video criticising the points he raises? Smudboy didn't make his video because he just doesn't like Mass Effect and wants to bash on it; he made his video specifically to analyze the plot and narrative. If your counter-argument doesn't support the plot or narrative then you're just wasting everyone's time by voicing it.

I also have to ask where and how smudboy was being evasive, sidestepping or misdirecting any arguments in the first 6 minutes of the video, since I know you apparently didn't watch anything beyond that point. So far, whenever Squee has grossly misinterpereted one of smudboy's points, we've been here to clarify for him. The same courtesy rarely seems to be extended to us in return, but then it's so much easier to make baseless accusations than it is to actually defend them.

It's pretty obvious that this thread has simply become a haven for smudboy-haters interested only in attempting to collectively mock him. If that's what it is, I'll take my leave. I have no interest in attempting to debate with people who're only interested in slingling mud, especially when half of them admit to not even listening to smudboy's arguments.

I do agree with you that there was not a whole lot of sidestepping in the first 6 minutes, or even the whole last video. Simply a lot of personal insults and misunderstandings of my point. You keep saying that I misinterpreted Smud's views. I never debated his views, only the arguments he used to uphold them. I don't know why I need to keep saying that. His over all view is fine. I don't mind that he does not like the plot, but the individual arguments did not make sense and I did not misinterpret any of his individual arguments.

Secondly, I side stepped nothing. You simply did not understand what I was saying. He was asking why the radiation of a sun did not kill Shepard while he stared out into space. I never said I don't care. There is a balance between realism and cinematic story telling. Going to far either way is not good, but how far one should go is based upon what the majority of the people viewing it care about. Make the thing too real and the story no longer entertains people. I would be surprised if even 5 people saw Mass Effect 2 and thought to themselves, "Hey... should that suns radiation kill him while they show the sweeping view of space?" It is likely (though I can't be sure of course) that Smud did not even think of this until he combed the game looking for anything he could show as a flaw. The point was that certain liberties are always taken with stories to make them entertaining. Nit picking about them would make any story look bad. Smud was not deconstructing Mass Effect 2. He was bashing it with a hammer of nitpicks and details that NO fictional story can withstand.

Lastly, sarcastic or not saying that you laugh at sci-fi fans in general is an insult to anyone who ever enjoyed any sci-fi movie, book, game, or show. Just because you are trying to be sarcastic does not mean you are not going to insult people. I don't understand why he keeps throwing out personal insults to me and everyone who does not agree with him. It only hurts his cause. a few might agree, some might overlook, but most just see it as childish. I may attack his arguments and criticize his presentation methods, but I never insulted his character, intelligence, or taste. I understand that some people can not tell the difference, but there is a clear difference.

Modifié par squee913, 02 avril 2011 - 11:38 .

[squee913]

iakus wrote...

Getting back to talking about Smudboy's response rather than insulting Smudboy (which my resposnse would simply be "Pot, meet kettle"):

I found his comaprison in 15:30 makes a good point for why the main story is so terrible. It really succinctly adds up to my feeling of "What just happened?" at the end.

I will give you this, if ME3 comes and there are still many questions like this, I will agree with you. There are certain things that need to be exlained by the end of the story.

The problem with his analogy is the King and Queen was the enitre story. Mass effect is is just a peice. Look at any of the LOTR books by themselves and they would not match up to that analogy either.

Modifié par squee913, 02 avril 2011 - 11:37 .

[Il Divo]

JKoopman wrote...

It's pretty obvious that this thread has simply become a haven for smudboy-haters interested only in attempting to collectively mock him. If that's what it is, I'll take my leave. I have no interest in attempting to debate with people who're only interested in slingling mud, especially when half of them admit to not even listening to smudboy's arguments.

Now, here we have our problem.

Do you know why Smudboy has collected such a strong fan base/hate base across these forums? Hint: It has nothing to do with him being a Mass Effect 2 hater. This is not the evil Mass Effect 2 fans vs. the good Mass Effect 1 fans, as you are painting it.

It's his style. Smudboy could have made a plot analysis defending Mass Effect 2's storyline and the only difference we would have is the ME2 fan base would be defending him while the ME1 fan base calls for his blood.

Everyone on these forums has a strong opinion for or against Mass Effect 2, but you don't see them receiving the same kind of attention, which is something you continue to overlook. Smud gets these reactions from people because he is intelligent, proud, and at times inflammatory. It has nothing to do with the Mass Effect 2 fan base being 'haters'.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 avril 2011 - 11:58 .

[Mister Ford]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

I thought the response was hilarious. And yes, the 15:30 comparison is an excellent, succinct point on why the ME2 plot was flawed.

The comparison only works if ME2 was meant to stand alone, a complete story in its own right.  We all know, however (even though some people tend to ignore it), that ME2 was written with the knowledge that there would be a concluding chapter.

As squee said, IF Mass Effect 3 doesn't tie up some loose ends and answer some questions, THEN the criticism toward part 2's plot will have merit.  Until then, you're just assuming that these questions will never be answered.

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Getting back to talking about Smudboy's response rather than insulting Smudboy (which my resposnse would simply be "Pot, meet kettle"):

I found his comaprison in 15:30 makes a good point for why the main story is so terrible. It really succinctly adds up to my feeling of "What just happened?" at the end.

I will give you this, if ME3 comes and there are still many questions like this, I will agree with you. There are certain things that need to be exlained by the end of the story.

The problem with his analogy is the King and Queen was the enitre story. Mass effect is is just a peice. Look at any of the LOTR books by themselves and they would not match up to that analogy either.

Agreed, I think for some, they don't seem to understand that this is the "middle of the book".  Even after ME3, though, some are going to be unsatisfied.  No story written pleases everyone.

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

I will give you this, if ME3 comes and there are still many questions like this, I will agree with you. There are certain things that need to be exlained by the end of the story.

The problem with his analogy is the King and Queen was the enitre story. Mass effect is is just a peice. Look at any of the LOTR books by themselves and they would not match up to that analogy either.

I will do you one better.  I will look at this interview:

http://www.videogame...eview-2130.html

Here's the pertinent part:

We knew what we wanted to do in terms of where the story would go. We think of the trilogy as one story but we also think of each instalment of it as needing to stand alone as its own story 

Mass Effect 1 did well as a stand alone story, with room for a sequel.  If Mass Effect 2 wanted to be standalone as well, then we should have learned what the Queen died of and leave ME 3 to learn what becomes of the Prince.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

I will do you one better.  I will look at this interview:

http://www.videogame...eview-2130.html

Here's the pertinent part:

We knew what we wanted to do in terms of where the story would go. We think of the trilogy as one story but we also think of each instalment of it as needing to stand alone as its own story 

Mass Effect 1 did well as a stand alone story, with room for a sequel.  If Mass Effect 2 wanted to be standalone as well, then we should have learned what the Queen died of and leave ME 3 to learn what becomes of the Prince.

But keep in mind, each story is not always written the same way. The Star Wars example constantly comes up. Episode IV functions fairly well stand alone. Episode V? Not so much. Episode VI completes the fully story.

The Batman trilogy was similar in this regard, as was Spiderman and the Matrix. As much as I detest the two sequels, even Pirates of the Carribean operated under the same framework.

If Mass Effect 1 is standalone, must Mass Effect 2 necessarily be so? 

[Mister Ford]

iakus wrote...

squee913 wrote...

I will give you this, if ME3 comes and there are still many questions like this, I will agree with you. There are certain things that need to be exlained by the end of the story.

The problem with his analogy is the King and Queen was the enitre story. Mass effect is is just a peice. Look at any of the LOTR books by themselves and they would not match up to that analogy either.

I will do you one better.  I will look at this interview:

http://www.videogame...eview-2130.html

Here's the pertinent part:

We knew what we wanted to do in terms of where the story would go. We think of the trilogy as one story but we also think of each instalment of it as needing to stand alone as its own story 

Mass Effect 1 did well as a stand alone story, with room for a sequel.  If Mass Effect 2 wanted to be standalone as well, then we should have learned what the Queen died of and leave ME 3 to learn what becomes of the Prince.

The story of Shepard vs the Collectors does stand alone, and is complete.  The Collectors likely had no idea why they were doing what they were doing.  Only the Reapers know. Maybe the writers purposely held back info about the Reapers for part 3.  But we don't need to know the motivation behind the human Reaper for the story of ME2 to be complete, it was the story of Shepard and his/her team vs the Collectors.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Mister Ford wrote...

The story of Shepard vs the Collectors does stand alone, and is complete.  The Collectors likely had no idea why they were doing what they were doing.  Only the Reapers know. Maybe the writers purposely held back info about the Reapers for part 3.  But we don't need to know the motivation behind the human Reaper for the story of ME2 to be complete, it was the story of Shepard and his/her team vs the Collectors.

I think we do need to know the motivation.

In ME1, we knew Saren's motivation.  We knew why Sovereign wanted to attack the Citadel.  We knew why the Geth followed Sovereign.  This was explained, by the writers. 

The reason why the purpose for the Human Reaper wasn't explained in ME2 was sloppy writing. 

[piemanz]

squee913 wrote...

Lastly, sarcastic or not saying that you laugh at sci-fi fans in general is an insult to anyone who ever enjoyed any sci-fi movie, book, game, or show. Just because you are trying to be sarcastic does not mean you are not going to insult people. I don't understand why he keeps throwing out personal insults to me and everyone who does not agree with him. It only hurts his cause. a few might agree, some might overlook, but most just see it as childish. I may attack his arguments and criticize his presentation methods, but I never insulted his character, intelligence, or taste. I understand that some people can not tell the difference, but there is a clear difference.

QFT.