1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Baldur's Gate 2 really isn't on that much of a pedestal. And games like NWN and Jade Empire are barely remembered at all. BG and BG2 are credited with the return of WRPGs is all.

Bioware writing as video game writing is pretty good, if usually a little cliche. While haters marvel that we fanboys dare to defend it, we marvel that haters bother to attack it.  Why exactly are the haters here? Do they think that by insulting bioware and bioware fanboys that we'll recognize their brilliance and our own foolish idiocy and fall in our knees in worship of their brilliance?

Or will we just think that the haters are idiots just as they think we're idiots?

I can't speak for other haters, but I'm here because of Mass Effect 3.  It would be a terrible waste if ME 3's story was as phoned in (as I see it) as ME 2's was.  I actually feel obligated to make my opinion known to Bioware developers just how disappointed I am.  This game was the first I've ever felt about that.  And this forum seems to be the only avenue I have.  I just wish I knew if it's a waste of my time.

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


Is it something that Ghandi would do? Doubtful. But this is the internet. Grow a thicker skin. Smudboy doesn't laugh at people for liking what he considers to be bad writing. He laughs at people for trying to defend bad writing by inventing narrative and arguing after the fact in an attempt to rationalize inconsistencies and plotholes.

Exactly, he's laughing at Squee and anyone else who disagrees with him and his personal opinions., which is usually me.

I like laughing at idiots on the internet too. Do I consider someone an idiot simply because they like ME2 and don't mind the inconsistencies and plotholes in it's story? No. Everyone has differing tolerances for what trips their suspension of disbelief, and I can't fault someone if they just aren't bothered by the same things I am (I'm actually somewhat envious). But I sure as heck do find someone idiotic when they try to argue that it's plausible for Shepard's body to survive it's fall to Alchera because maybe the planet was hollow or argue that it makes perfect sense for the Illusive Man to have Shepard recruit a team of badass ground soldiers for an unknown operation that all signs point to being predominantly a space battle because he somehow had the foresight to know that the Normandy wasn't powerful enough to take down whatever unknown base/homeworld the enemy may or may not reside on without even knowing for certain that there is a base or homeworld on the other side of the Omega-4 relay (it could've just as easily been a fleet of 20 Collector ships, and what good would 12 ground soldiers be then?).

You see where I'm going with this? Liking Mass Effect 2--having an opinion--is one thing. Simply tell Smudboy, "You know what? You have a lot of good points. But it just doesn't bother me. I liked the game." He can't tell you that your opinion is wrong (and as far as I know, he hasn't ever done so). Trying to argue against facts with invented explanations (and, worse, then pulling a "Well, even if you're right, who cares!?" as if it somehow refutes his arguments) isn't stating an opinion. At that point, you're engaged in a factual debate using made up facts to support your arguments. And yes, then you become the aforementioned idiot on the internet.

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Aand fill in gaps in the storytelling with supposition. If you simply like the story then that's all you have to say. He has no way of countering that. But as soon as you start trying to refute his points with what amounts to imagined narrative and personal opinion, you become fair game

Of course theres going to imagined narrative and personal opinion, it would be boring if there wasn't. I wouldn't be as exited for ME3 as i am now if there wasn't things i wanted to finaly get the answer to and quite frankly it would be terrible writing if i already knew exactly what was going to happen in ME3.

Knowing what the heck the point of the Human Reaper was and exactly how a baby psuedo-Reaper and a single Collector ship were suppoed to accomplish anything when Sovereign--a full Reaper--and an entire geth armada failed in the previous game explains exactly what's going to happen in ME3... how? I'm confused.

Modifié par JKoopman, 03 avril 2011 - 02:23 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...

I like laughing at idiots on the internet too. Do I consider someone an idiot simply because they like ME2 and don't mind the inconsistencies and plotholes in it's story? No. Everyone has differing tolerances for what trips their suspension of disbelief, and I can't fault someone if they just aren't bothered by the same things I am (I'm actually somewhat envious). But I sure as heck do find someone idiotic when they try to argue that it's plausible for Shepard's body to survive it's fall to Alchera because maybe the planet was hollow or argue that it makes perfect sense for the Illusive Man to have Shepard recruit a team of badass ground soldiers for an unknown operation that all signs point to being predominantly a space battle because he somehow had the foresight to know that the Normandy wasn't powerful enough to take down whatever unknown base/homeworld the enemy may or may not reside on without even knowing for certain that there is a base or homeworld on the other side of the Omega-4 relay (it could've just as easily been a fleet of 20 Collector ships, and what good would 12 ground soldiers be then?).

You see where I'm going with this? Liking Mass Effect 2--having an opinion--is one thing. Simply tell Smudboy, "You know what? You have a lot of good points. But it just doesn't bother me. I liked the game." He can't tell you that your opinion is wrong (and as far as I know, he hasn't ever done so). Trying to argue against facts with invented explanations (and, worse, then pulling a "Well, even if you're right, who cares!?" as if it somehow refutes his arguments) isn't stating an opinion. At that point, you're engaged in a factual debate using made up facts to support your arguments. And yes, then you become the aforementioned idiot on the internet.

There are some things even i won't try to defend and i've already said he makes some good points.My problem is for every 1 or 2 good points theres a hole slew of bad points, in my opinion.

JKoopman wrote...

Knowing what the heck the point of the Human Reaper was and exactly how a baby psuedo-Reaper and a single Collector ship were suppoed to accomplish anything when Sovereign--a full Reaper--and an entire geth armada failed in the previous game explains exactly what's going to happen in ME3... how? I'm confused.

You see this is where our fundemental diffrence is.You look at the facts at face value where as i try to see where the facts are pointing,.

We dont know anything about how the baby Reaper ties into the game for sure, but the fact they are trying to build one and it takes millions of lives to do so seems to look really bad for humanity in ME3.Maybe the whole point of the collectors was to build the human Reaper, and no more than that.Maybe it was and experiment to make sure they could.

Where you see plot holes and inconsitency i look for possible answers.

Modifié par piemanz, 03 avril 2011 - 02:44 .

[JKoopman]

I'm just going to say one more thing and then I'm out for the night (I'm getting a headache). As soon as people start inventing narrative and using supposition to fill in plot holes, they're no longer defending Mass Effect 2's story; they're defending their own personal fanfiction. This is a point that smudboy has tried to get across to varying degrees of success throughout his multiple analyses.

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

I'm just going to say one more thing and then I'm out for the night (I'm getting a headache). As soon as people start inventing narrative and using supposition to fill in plot holes, they're no longer defending Mass Effect 2's story; they're defending their own personal fanfiction. This is a point that smudboy has tried to get across to varying degrees of success throughout his multiple analyses.

As soon as people start believing that what they think is a plot hole is more than an opinion, that's when they become insufferable elitists.

[Iakus]

...and only a Sith deals in absolutes

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Excellent counter to the reason Shepard was killed at the beginning of the game.

[squee913]

Zahxia wrote...
After watching both Squee913s and Smuds responses in their entirety this whole 'sidestepping' argument is ridiculous and dismissive. You want to know why you couldn't watch the entire response based on someone with a contrary opinion? One word: Fanboy.

Criticism, debate and conflict lead to exhanges of ideas and make thingsbetter. Learn to tolerate people with contrary opinions especially those that can actually present them in an eloquent manner. It doesn't matter if you don't like their attitude because it's irrelevant.

Squee913s response screams of someone carrying water for a game developer simply out of brand loyalty. His arguments are more like rationalisations with no tangible evidence or any outside reference to validate his ideas.

He spends far too much time questioning the inegrity of Smud (which is an incredibly low form of argument along with the old 'strawman') or creating their own threads between a plot points and their own imagination which is the kind of logic usually attributed to conspiracy theorists not scholars.

Instead of tackling Smuds videos directly he should have made a counter-analysis stating his argument and citing his evidence. As opposed to starting internet drama and using motivationals. (So clever!)

The term fanboy (or hater for that matter) is absolutely laughable. People do not do things unless they want or need to do them. If I was simply "showing brand loyalty" as you say and really did not like the story I would, at most, excuse it. I might say something like, "Well, it wasn't great, but it's Bioware!!!" The very fact that I and the others like me are here debating these things with you is because we truly believe that the story was good. It is not some plot to simply annoy you. The fact that you even use the word suggest that you simply cannot fathom that someone would come to different conclusions than yourself, and the only way you can rationalize it is that I must simply be pretending it's good, or trying to tell myself it's good for the sake of Bioware. Which is odd because you just stated, "Learn to tolerate people with contrary opinions"  The very act of dismissing me as a mindless fanboy would suggest that you do not follow your own advice.

You say my arguments have no tangible evidence. I assume you are talking about the conclusions I make about events that must have happened off camera. If so, then you are talking about only a small part of my arguments. A large portion of my arguments were based on in game data. Did you miss those somehow?

Also could you show me at any time in any video or post where I have questioned the integrity of Smud? I question his arguments and presentation. At most you might say I question his credibility as an authority figure on how to write a good story. None of these have anything to do with the integrity of some one's character. On the contrary, I have said he is intelligent, funny, and polite. I even stated that I do not believe he is an arrogant person, only that his arguments are presented in a way that seems arrogant. If anything I would call that a mistake in presentation style, not a character flaw. If you think that my attempt to debate his arguments or presentation style are some sort of personal attack, then anyone on this forum that has ever debated someone else's arguments has been personally insulting that person. Shame on us all!

Modifié par squee913, 03 avril 2011 - 03:37 .

[Almostfaceman]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Excellent counter to the reason Shepard was killed at the beginning of the game.

If you are talking to me (which is not clear) I would think it's clear that what my last post was about had nothing to do with the reason Shepard was killed at the beginning of the game.  If you are implying that only posts about why Shepard was killed at the beginning of the game are valid in this thread - I will simply point at the many varied topics this thread covers.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 03 avril 2011 - 03:38 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ah, sorry was talking about the video.

I should be more specific.  Smudboy considered the Shepard death/resurrection bit to be a cheap move by bioware, but this new counter video provides some excellent reasons for it.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 03 avril 2011 - 03:57 .

[Almostfaceman]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ah, sorry was talking about the video.

No worries! 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

As soon as people start believing that what they think is a plot hole is more than an opinion, that's when they become insufferable elitists.

I do agree with this to an extent.  And I would also have to say that Mass Effect will be remembered as a series more than any individual game (like all the great ones).  It's also easily one of the best RPG series of all time.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 03 avril 2011 - 04:09 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ah, sorry was talking about the video.

I should be more specific.  Smudboy considered the Shepard death/resurrection bit to be a cheap move by bioware, but this new counter video provides some excellent reasons for it.

He considers it a cheap move because there is no real point to it, which is quite true. Basically, what Smud is saying is that you don't resort to significant story devices such as killing the protagonist unless it is absolutely necessary and there is some actual basis to it, otherwise it would simply be poor writing and mere sensationalism, rendering the story sloppy and unbelievable. I happen to agree.

[Mister Ford]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

The bug faced bad guys were taking humans.  Before I knew their motivations, I knew I had to stop them.  When I found out later that they were using humans to make a Reaper, I found out what the bug faced guys motivations were.  Now I'm waiting to find out what the Reapers are all about in ME3.  That is cohesive enough for me.  I can't speak for you nor do I pretend to do so.

That's not motivation.  That's their action.  Their motivation is for why they wanted to build a Human Reaper, and we've never gotten a hint for that. 

The Collectors do not have motivation.  The Collectors are essentially husks that function at a much higher level.  The motivation behind abducting humans and building a human Reaper belongs to Harbinger and the Reapers.  The Collectors are only doing what they are told to do.  There should be more than enough opportunity to explore the Reapers and tie up loose ends in ME3.  Personally, I will wait to see what happens before I confidently announce ME2's story makes no sense. 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Ah, sorry was talking about the video.

I should be more specific.  Smudboy considered the Shepard death/resurrection bit to be a cheap move by bioware, but this new counter video provides some excellent reasons for it.

He considers it a cheap move because there is no real point to it, which is quite true. Basically, what Smud is saying is that you don't resort to significant story devices such as killing the protagonist unless it is absolutely necessary and there is some actual basis to it, otherwise it would simply be poor writing and mere sensationalism, rendering the story sloppy and unbelievable. I happen to agree.

Which is why I thought this video brought up a great retort.  The Reapers broke the emotional/victory-driven high of game 1's ending by killing Shepard and destroying his ship.  That's a serious assertion of authority by the Reapers and has a profound impact on the tone of the game and the seriousness of the Reaper threat.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 03 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[piemanz]

iakus wrote...


I can't speak for other haters, but I'm here because of Mass Effect 3.  It would be a terrible waste if ME 3's story was as phoned in (as I see it) as ME 2's was.  I actually feel obligated to make my opinion known to Bioware developers just how disappointed I am.  This game was the first I've ever felt about that.  And this forum seems to be the only avenue I have.  I just wish I knew if it's a waste of my time.

It's only a waste of time if you feel like it's wasteing your time.

Most of the big changes in gameplay from ME1 to ME2 are a direct result of these forums, so theres always hope.

[Whatever42]

JKoopman wrote...

I'm just going to say one more thing and then I'm out for the night (I'm getting a headache). As soon as people start inventing narrative and using supposition to fill in plot holes, they're no longer defending Mass Effect 2's story; they're defending their own personal fanfiction. This is a point that smudboy has tried to get across to varying degrees of success throughout his multiple analyses.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Story: Shepard walks to the bridge.
Person 1: Why didn't he go to the washroom? It was closer!
Person 2: Because he didn't need to use any of the facilities in the washroom?
Person 1: You're inventing narrative! They should have explained it! It's a plothole!
Person 2: ...

I'm not saying every supposed plothole is this ridiculous, some are legit. But pointing to every action that had alternative actions and demanding a full accounting of why that action was chosen is ridiculous.

Normally when this happens, people respond that they must have done it because they thought it was the best action. TIM ressurected Shepard and outfitted a new Normandy because he thought it was the best course of action. But then the plothole conspiracy theorist starts listing alternative courses of action and demands to know why TIM didn't pursue them. 

So we play along. We list possible reasons why TIM wouldn't have chosen those - although of course its all fiction. We don't know why TIM didn't decide to murder the entire council and turn the presidium into a football stadium. We can only assume its because the idea was stupid. But if you want to play "what if", it's entertaining so we'll play along.

[squee913]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

I'm just going to say one more thing and then I'm out for the night (I'm getting a headache). As soon as people start inventing narrative and using supposition to fill in plot holes, they're no longer defending Mass Effect 2's story; they're defending their own personal fanfiction. This is a point that smudboy has tried to get across to varying degrees of success throughout his multiple analyses.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Story: Shepard walks to the bridge.
Person 1: Why didn't he go to the washroom? It was closer!
Person 2: Because he didn't need to use any of the facilities in the washroom?
Person 1: You're inventing narrative! They should have explained it! It's a plothole!
Person 2: ...

I'm not saying every supposed plothole is this ridiculous, some are legit. But pointing to every action that had alternative actions and demanding a full accounting of why that action was chosen is ridiculous.

Normally when this happens, people respond that they must have done it because they thought it was the best action. TIM ressurected Shepard and outfitted a new Normandy because he thought it was the best course of action. But then the plothole conspiracy theorist starts listing alternative courses of action and demands to know why TIM didn't pursue them. 

So we play along. We list possible reasons why TIM wouldn't have chosen those - although of course its all fiction. We don't know why TIM didn't decide to murder the entire council and turn the presidium into a football stadium. We can only assume its because the idea was stupid. But if you want to play "what if", it's entertaining so we'll play along.

I like this. It is a good way to explain it! :happy:

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

I'm just going to say one more thing and then I'm out for the night (I'm getting a headache). As soon as people start inventing narrative and using supposition to fill in plot holes, they're no longer defending Mass Effect 2's story; they're defending their own personal fanfiction. This is a point that smudboy has tried to get across to varying degrees of success throughout his multiple analyses.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Story: Shepard walks to the bridge.
Person 1: Why didn't he go to the washroom? It was closer!
Person 2: Because he didn't need to use any of the facilities in the washroom?
Person 1: You're inventing narrative! They should have explained it! It's a plothole!
Person 2: ...

I'm not saying every supposed plothole is this ridiculous, some are legit. But pointing to every action that had alternative actions and demanding a full accounting of why that action was chosen is ridiculous.

Normally when this happens, people respond that they must have done it because they thought it was the best action. TIM ressurected Shepard and outfitted a new Normandy because he thought it was the best course of action. But then the plothole conspiracy theorist starts listing alternative courses of action and demands to know why TIM didn't pursue them. 

So we play along. We list possible reasons why TIM wouldn't have chosen those - although of course its all fiction. We don't know why TIM didn't decide to murder the entire council and turn the presidium into a football stadium. We can only assume its because the idea was stupid. But if you want to play "what if", it's entertaining so we'll play along.

I would like to point out that whether Shepard uses the facilities or not doesn't break nearly as many laws of reality as reanimating a two year dead corpse.  Or if it does, Shepard really needs to get those ingredients for Rupert.

So bathroom breaks->can let slide 
Space-age necromancy->needs an explanation

Modifié par iakus, 03 avril 2011 - 05:32 .

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Complete and utter nonsense.

Story: Shepard walks to the bridge.
Person 1: Why didn't he go to the washroom? It was closer!
Person 2: Because he didn't need to use any of the facilities in the washroom?
Person 1: You're inventing narrative! They should have explained it! It's a plothole!
Person 2: ...

I'm not saying every supposed plothole is this ridiculous, some are legit. But pointing to every action that had alternative actions and demanding a full accounting of why that action was chosen is ridiculous.

Normally when this happens, people respond that they must have done it because they thought it was the best action. TIM ressurected Shepard and outfitted a new Normandy because he thought it was the best course of action. But then the plothole conspiracy theorist starts listing alternative courses of action and demands to know why TIM didn't pursue them. 

So we play along. We list possible reasons why TIM wouldn't have chosen those - although of course its all fiction. We don't know why TIM didn't decide to murder the entire council and turn the presidium into a football stadium. We can only assume its because the idea was stupid. But if you want to play "what if", it's entertaining so we'll play along.

An excellent post, as usual, What.

And very true. Every story requires that you invent narrative. Some, more than others. Arguing that Mass Effect 2 leaves too much to invent, I can understand. It is impossible to think that no story requires invention/assumptions of any kind. A writer, director, game developer cannot account for every single question/point an audience needs addressed. That in particular is why I find Smud's point about mining the Omega IV relay to be ridiculous.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

I would like to point out that whether Shepard uses the facilities or not doesn't break nearly as many laws of reality as reanimating a two year dead corpse.  Or if it does, Shepard really needs to get those ingredients for Rupert.

So bathroom breaks->can let slide 
Space-age necromancy->needs an explanation

Except what  you basically just said is that " it's all relative". Thinking that Mass Effect 2 requires too much invention is one thing, but there does not exist a story which does not require the audience to make at least small leaps in logic. That's where the debate enters the picture: some people think Mass Effect 2 requires greater leaps in logic than others. Relativity, as it were.

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...
I would like to point out that whether Shepard uses the facilities or not doesn't break nearly as many laws of reality as reanimating a two year dead corpse.  Or if it does, Shepard really needs to get those ingredients for Rupert.

So bathroom breaks->can let slide 
Space-age necromancy->needs an explanation

I did admit there were legit plotholes.  

I do think some of the legit plotholes can still be salvaged, although who know whether Bioware will do so.

Some of them is just because Bioware wanted a really cool scene. Like the old serials where the damsel was tied to the train tracks with no possible hope at the end of act I but the hero magically turns back the clock to get there in time in act II.

For example, Saren leaving bombs with a ticking timer to destroy the dock instead of just blowing up the damn beacon. Sure its stupid but its what supervillains do and its fun so we overlook it and move on.

Of far more concern to me is how well they tell the story, not whether something is 100% realistic. If we're going to make up narratives, I think it would be more entertaining in trying to fix the main story of ME2 than worry about plotholes.  I will agree, for example, with those who think that the whole prothean vision thing should have carried on in some form in ME2.  And that the Collectors should have been more entertaining. Maybe the VS should have been kidnapped.

We should have a quasi-fanfic contest to see who can do the best re-imagining of the ME2 main story. I didn't mind when Smud did that - i just didn't like his ideas. I think Polite's might be more interesting. And Zulu's plots are always fun.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

...and only a Sith deals in absolutes

Darth Vader:  Luke, I am your father!

Luke: Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

Darth Vader: No, it's absolutely true!

Luke: Damn you Sith, always dealing in absolutes... so, uh, can I have my hand back now?

Darth Vader: Absolutely not.

[Whatever42]

Il Divo wrote...
An excellent post, as usual, What.

And very true. Every story requires that you invent narrative. Some, more than others. Arguing that Mass Effect 2 leaves too much to invent, I can understand. It is impossible to think that no story requires invention/assumptions of any kind. A writer, director, game developer cannot account for every single question/point an audience needs addressed. That in particular is why I find Smud's point about mining the Omega IV relay to be ridiculous.

Thanks!   I think I've been getting a little too antagonistic again. Need to be more calm and rational like you!

One note about points like "mining the Omega IV relay": those can be fun conversations. Many of us do enjoy playing those "what if" games. But when you declare it a plothole and bad writing and condemn the whole game as bad and then debate the point to the death, with no real interest in exploring the question, only in being right, then everything get unnecessarily angry.

[Whatever42]

Almostfaceman wrote...

iakus wrote...

...and only a Sith deals in absolutes

Darth Vader:  Luke, I am your father!

Luke: Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

Darth Vader: No, it's absolutely true!

Luke: Damn you Sith, always dealing in absolutes... so, uh, can I have my hand back now?

Darth Vader: Absolutely not.

5 Stars!