Aller au contenu

Photo

Remember the time Smudboy made his 6-part video on ME2 plot analysis? Cross-examination given (completed)


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
1198 réponses à ce sujet

#951
piemanz

piemanz
  • Members
  • 995 messages

squee913 wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

I think it is weird that a lot of you criticize us for "Making up narrative" when the people who cry plot hole make up narrative when ever they want.

Shepard fell to the planet!!
Really? I don't remember seeing or hearing about that. Last I saw he was floating away in space (might have been burning in an atmosphere might not)


If he didn't fall to the planet, how did his helmet get there? 


Good question! Did the story ever tell us? No? Then anything you suggest is inventing narrative. My point is not that that is a bad thing, only that both sides do it.


Yes, while i don't agree that shepards body was not seen falling to the planet (i think you can see him entering the atmosphere during the beginning cutscene), i do agree that both sides "invent narrative" to make their points.We just look at the same things and get completely different arguments.

The big difference i think is that one side is looking for plot holes and the other is not.Of course i'm not saying there are no problems with the story, but ragging on us for inventing narrative when the other side do it all the time is a bit unfair.

Modifié par piemanz, 04 avril 2011 - 12:03 .


#952
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 334 messages

squee913 wrote...

I think it is weird that a lot of you criticize us for "Making up narrative" when the people who cry plot hole make up narrative when ever they want.

Shepard fell to the planet!!
Really? I don't remember seeing or hearing about that. Last I saw he was floating away in space (might have been burning in an atmosphere might not)


Given that you can find Shepard's helmet on Alchera, and Legion found a piece of his armor there, and given that when last seen Shepard was wearing both, it's a logical assumption that Shepard landed on the planet. 

It's subtle indicators like this we crave Image IPB

The Collectors have been processing people for 2 years!!!!
Really? I don't remember the story saying that. They could have started yesterday for all we know.


"While you've been asleep, entire colonies have been disappearing.  Human colonies"

Now, I'll admit this does not necessailly mean they've been processing those humans for two years.  Perhaps the grey goo needs to be aged in oak casks for two years to get that orange'y perfection.  But even if it hasn't been processed for two year, the process has.

TIM never even tried anything else to get information!!!
Really? When did the story ever say he never tried anything? You are just assuming that because he never said he did.


The problem isn't that TIM never tried to gather any information.  It's that Shep hasn't. Or wasn't given a reason not to.  

Shepard:  "I gotta tell you, it's not easy putting together a team and preparing them for a mission when I have so little information to go on"

TIM:  "You're in charge of this team.  Tell me what you need, and I'll see that you get it"

Shepard: "You mean you don't have any intel  about these Collectors yet? Or the Relay?"

TIM  "You mean you haven't done any research either?"

Shepard:  "I thought you'd already done that!

TIM: "I thought that was the first thing you'd do!"

Miranda:  "Well.  This is awkward"

Wilson is going to be famous in Cerberus, and had no reason to betray them!!!
Really? where was that ever stated? All we saw was that he was very unhappy about his current place in things.


It's kind of assumed that if you develop a method of breaking free from the shackles of death, even if it's an expenive one, you're probaly smart enough to keep around, be wined and dined, and otherwise taken care of and kept happy.  Or end up in a shallow grave, so you can't tell anyone else.  Fortunately, LOTSB made a kind of sense over what actually happened.  

Reapers are made and then put into ships!! That's why they all look alike!
Really? When was this ever talked about? (unless there is something someone said outside of the game, which is possible) All we were ever told was that they take the form of the species used to reproduce. I remember going into the very core of a reaper ship. I never saw some reaper within a reaper...


A picture's worth a thousand words.  Look at Sovereign.  Look at Harbringer.  Look at every Reaper in the fleet headed for the galaxy.  All have the squid-cuttlefish look. Derelict Reaper is a good point though.

All of these arguments are made by following what you think are logical conclusions. What I did was no different.


All those claims are derived directly from what appears and is said  on the screen, and taking small leaps.

Modifié par iakus, 04 avril 2011 - 12:02 .


#953
HappyHappyJoyJoy

HappyHappyJoyJoy
  • Members
  • 1 013 messages

squee913 wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

I think it is weird that a lot of you criticize us for "Making up narrative" when the people who cry plot hole make up narrative when ever they want.

Shepard fell to the planet!!
Really? I don't remember seeing or hearing about that. Last I saw he was floating away in space (might have been burning in an atmosphere might not)


If he didn't fall to the planet, how did his helmet get there? 


Good question! Did the story ever tell us? No? Then anything you suggest is inventing narrative. My point is not that that is a bad thing, only that both sides do it.


Um... no, that's not "inventing narrative."  Considering the Normandy wreck is on the planet, dog tags from other crew are on the planet, we last see Shepard falling towards the planet, and Shepard's HELMET is on the planet, presumably Shepard's corpse was there as well.  That's called making a logical deduction based on the evidence at hand. 

EDIT: and of course Legion found a part of Shepard's armor on the planet as well.  Unless those who recovered the corpse took off his armor and decided to carefully place it on a nearby planet for no apparent reason, that's where his body was found.  QED.

Modifié par HappyHappyJoyJoy, 04 avril 2011 - 12:04 .


#954
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

I think it is weird that a lot of you criticize us for "Making up narrative" when the people who cry plot hole make up narrative when ever they want.

Shepard fell to the planet!!
Really? I don't remember seeing or hearing about that. Last I saw he was floating away in space (might have been burning in an atmosphere might not)


If he didn't fall to the planet, how did his helmet get there? 


Good question! Did the story ever tell us? No? Then anything you suggest is inventing narrative. My point is not that that is a bad thing, only that both sides do it.


Um... no, that's not "inventing narrative."  Considering the Normandy wreck is on the planet, dog tags from other crew are on the planet, we last see Shepard falling towards the planet, and Shepard's HELMET is on the planet, presumably Shepard's corpse was there as well.  That's called making a logical deduction based on the evidence at hand. 

EDIT: and of course Legion found a part of Shepard's armor on the planet as well.  Unless those who recovered the corpse took off his armor and decided to carefully place it on a nearby planet for no apparent reason, that's where his body was found.  QED.


Yes, My point exactly! Both sides make logical deductions. You say that since we found armor on the planet, shepard must have fallen there (I agree by the way)

I say that since TIM stated they are devoting all there resources to finding a way through the omega 4 relay, that he has probably tried to collect information about the collectors in many different ways.

Both of these are logical deductions. the only difference is you don't agree with my logic. Whether you agree or not does not change the fact that we are both doing the same thing. You can't criticize me for inventing narrative and still do it yourself.

#955
HappyHappyJoyJoy

HappyHappyJoyJoy
  • Members
  • 1 013 messages

squee913 wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

I think it is weird that a lot of you criticize us for "Making up narrative" when the people who cry plot hole make up narrative when ever they want.

Shepard fell to the planet!!
Really? I don't remember seeing or hearing about that. Last I saw he was floating away in space (might have been burning in an atmosphere might not)


If he didn't fall to the planet, how did his helmet get there? 


Good question! Did the story ever tell us? No? Then anything you suggest is inventing narrative. My point is not that that is a bad thing, only that both sides do it.


Um... no, that's not "inventing narrative."  Considering the Normandy wreck is on the planet, dog tags from other crew are on the planet, we last see Shepard falling towards the planet, and Shepard's HELMET is on the planet, presumably Shepard's corpse was there as well.  That's called making a logical deduction based on the evidence at hand. 

EDIT: and of course Legion found a part of Shepard's armor on the planet as well.  Unless those who recovered the corpse took off his armor and decided to carefully place it on a nearby planet for no apparent reason, that's where his body was found.  QED.


Yes, My point exactly! Both sides make logical deductions. You say that since we found armor on the planet, shepard must have fallen there (I agree by the way)

I say that since TIM stated they are devoting all there resources to finding a way through the omega 4 relay, that he has probably tried to collect information about the collectors in many different ways.

Both of these are logical deductions. the only difference is you don't agree with my logic. Whether you agree or not does not change the fact that we are both doing the same thing. You can't criticize me for inventing narrative and still do it yourself.


Yes, but we have evidence that Shepard landed on the planet.  The evidence I listed.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.  There is a big difference between inferring the location of Shepard's body and the mysterious reason for the Collectors devoting their resources to building a Human Reaper. 

#956
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

squee913 wrote...

I think it is weird that a lot of you criticize us for "Making up narrative" when the people who cry plot hole make up narrative when ever they want.

Shepard fell to the planet!!
Really? I don't remember seeing or hearing about that. Last I saw he was floating away in space (might have been burning in an atmosphere might not)


If he didn't fall to the planet, how did his helmet get there? 


Good question! Did the story ever tell us? No? Then anything you suggest is inventing narrative. My point is not that that is a bad thing, only that both sides do it.


Um... no, that's not "inventing narrative."  Considering the Normandy wreck is on the planet, dog tags from other crew are on the planet, we last see Shepard falling towards the planet, and Shepard's HELMET is on the planet, presumably Shepard's corpse was there as well.  That's called making a logical deduction based on the evidence at hand. 

EDIT: and of course Legion found a part of Shepard's armor on the planet as well.  Unless those who recovered the corpse took off his armor and decided to carefully place it on a nearby planet for no apparent reason, that's where his body was found.  QED.


Yes, My point exactly! Both sides make logical deductions. You say that since we found armor on the planet, shepard must have fallen there (I agree by the way)

I say that since TIM stated they are devoting all there resources to finding a way through the omega 4 relay, that he has probably tried to collect information about the collectors in many different ways.

Both of these are logical deductions. the only difference is you don't agree with my logic. Whether you agree or not does not change the fact that we are both doing the same thing. You can't criticize me for inventing narrative and still do it yourself.


Yes, but we have evidence that Shepard landed on the planet.  The evidence I listed.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.  There is a big difference between inferring the location of Shepard's body and the mysterious reason for the Collectors devoting their resources to building a Human Reaper. 




When exactly did any of us say we know why they built the human reaper??? I never did, cause I have no idea.

#957
Dudeman315

Dudeman315
  • Members
  • 240 messages
Right, but the logic used by the Mass Effect Plot Hole Force is usually supported by the narrative where the logic by the Mass Effect Defense Force is usually called pulling something out of your anus.

#958
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

Dudeman315 wrote...

Right, but the logic used by the Mass Effect Plot Hole Force is usually supported by the narrative where the logic by the Mass Effect Defense Force is usually called pulling something out of your anus.


I'm glad you have such high respect for people who have diffrent opinons than you. Still does not change the fact you do the same thing.

#959
Kingthlayer

Kingthlayer
  • Members
  • 1 542 messages
30 minute video that I got 20 seconds into and left. 15 year olds explaining stuff always makes me laugh.

War Teenagers. You show them who's boss.

O and the videos he was countering, I got about 3 minutes into that one before turning off. He was more interesting.

#960
JKoopman

JKoopman
  • Members
  • 1 441 messages

squee913 wrote...

I think it is weird that a lot of you criticize us for "Making up narrative" when the people who cry plot hole make up narrative when ever they want.

Shepard fell to the planet!!
Really? I don't remember seeing or hearing about that. Last I saw he was floating away in space (might have been burning in an atmosphere might not)


The last we see Shepard, he's falling towards the planet. Later, his helmet is recovered from the planet along with the wreckage of the Normandy. Extrapolating from the available data, it's fairly obvious how A led to B. I believe there may even be a log entry somewhere either on the Lazarus Base or perhaps the Shadow Broker's base stating matter of factly that Shepard's physical remains were recovered from the surface of Alchera, but I can't point to one specifically from memory and my Xbox isn't hooked up at the moment.

What data can we extrapolate that indicates that the planet was hollow? Or that Shepard's kinetic barrier's preserved him when, according to the codex, they don't operate that way and failed previously to pretect him from the relatively low-speed impact with a bulkhead earlier in the scene?

squee913 wrote...

The Collectors have been processing people for 2 years!!!!
Really? I don't remember the story saying that. They could have started yesterday for all we know.


Others have already covered this, but we're told in point of fact by the Illusive Man that the abductions have been going on "while you slept."

squee913 wrote...

TIM never even tried anything else to get information!!!
Really? When did the story ever say he never tried anything? You are just assuming that because he never said he did.


So now the burden of proof is on the defense? I suppose Bigfoot also exists until someone proves that he doesn't?

squee913 wrote...

Wilson is going to be famous in Cerberus, and had no reason to betray them!!!
Really? where was that ever stated? All we saw was that he was very unhappy about his current place in things.


Not one of smudboy's stronger (or more relevant) arguments and I'm perfectly happy to concede that it has no merrit one way or the other. I certainly don't agree with every point smudboy chooses to raise, and you'll note that Wilson's betrayal of Cerberus wasn't referrenced anywhere in my own list of major issues with ME2's plot (and the fact is, it's explained rather nicely in LotSB).

If you want to accuse smudboy of inventing narrative there, then by all means do it. I'd be interested to see how smudboy defends himself from what appears to be hypocricy on his own part. But don't lump everything he says together with everything I say like we share some collective argument.

squee913 wrote...

Reapers are made and then put into ships!! That's why they all look alike!
Really? When was this ever talked about? (unless there is something someone said outside of the game, which is possible) All we were ever told was that they take the form of the species used to reproduce. I remember going into the very core of a reaper ship. I never saw some reaper within a reaper...


I've never subscribed to this theory myself. I'm perfectly happy (unhappy?) to consider the Human Reaper some isolated and inconsistent aberration. Of course, that raises questions about how such a form would be at all practical in space combat and why every other Reaper shares roughly the same cuttlefish-like physical structure as opposed to there being the odd bipedal mamalian, avian or snake-like forms depicted. Questions, I should note, that were originally answered by those defending ME2's plot in the early days by raising the argument that the Human Reaper could simply be housed inside a larger Reaper exoskeleton.

I'm not sure why smudboy seems to run with this theory, especially when it seems like he's ridiculing it in his first analysis. Maybe because you decided to run with it, he decided to follow suit rather than just pointing out that it was ridiculous and moving on because even if it were true it still makes no sense? Maybe he brought it up to criticisize the prodominant theory explaining the Human Reaper's bipedal form and decided to run with it because people were trying to prove that it wasn't ridiculous? I don't know. You'd have to ask him.

squee913 wrote...

All of these arguments are made by following what you think are logical conclusions. What I did was no different.


No. My arguments are based on extrapolation of the data available to us. Many of your arguments seem to be based on nothing more than what you think could've happened with no data to support it; Is Alchera hollow? I don't know. Is it? Nothing in-game leads us to believe it would be so what are you basing this theory on? Did Shepard's kinetic barriers save him from the impact? I don't see how since that's not how kinetic barriers are described to work in the codex, his kinetic barriers don't seem to provide any protection from his impact with the bulkhead earlier and even the Normandy SR-2's larger kinetic barriers aren't even stated to be sufficient to protect against debris impacts in the Tartarus Field let alone a hardsuit's barriers deflecting the impact of an entire planet. IF the VS had been fighting Cerberus in the 2 years you had been unconscious, or IF the VS knew something that Shepard didn't, or IF they were just on the rag and having a bad day, etc, etc, etc... none of which is supported in the narrative. It's just supposition.

Modifié par JKoopman, 04 avril 2011 - 01:17 .


#961
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

JKoopman wrote...

No. My arguments are based on extrapolation of the data available to us. Many of your arguments seem to be based on nothing more than what you think could've happened with no data to support it; Is Alchera hollow? I don't know. Is it? Nothing in-game leads us to believe it would be so what are you basing this theory on? Did Shepard's kinetic barriers save him from the impact? I don't see how since that's not how kinetic barriers are described to work in the codex, his kinetic barriers don't seem to provide any protection from his impact with the bulkhead earlier and even the Normandy SR-2's larger kinetic barriers aren't even stated to be sufficient to protect against debris impacts in the Tartarus Field let alone a hardsuit's barriers deflecting the impact of an entire planet. IF the VS had been fighting Cerberus in the 2 years you had been unconscious, or IF the VS knew something that Shepard didn't, or IF they were just on the rag and having a bad day, etc, etc, etc... none of which is supported in the narrative. It's just supposition.


Not sure why you are trying to use the planet's core as a point. I conceded the point about the planet a long time ago. Even posted it in the video. Are you just trying to make me apologize again? :P

As for the VS, you are saying, IF they have stayed the same over the last two years, and IF the fact that they say they are not the same person in the email does not mean what they are actually saying, then you can predict what their response would have been, and that the VS scene did not follow your predictions and because of this it is a plot hole.

#962
JKoopman

JKoopman
  • Members
  • 1 441 messages

squee913 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

No. My arguments are based on extrapolation of the data available to us. Many of your arguments seem to be based on nothing more than what you think could've happened with no data to support it; Is Alchera hollow? I don't know. Is it? Nothing in-game leads us to believe it would be so what are you basing this theory on? Did Shepard's kinetic barriers save him from the impact? I don't see how since that's not how kinetic barriers are described to work in the codex, his kinetic barriers don't seem to provide any protection from his impact with the bulkhead earlier and even the Normandy SR-2's larger kinetic barriers aren't even stated to be sufficient to protect against debris impacts in the Tartarus Field let alone a hardsuit's barriers deflecting the impact of an entire planet. IF the VS had been fighting Cerberus in the 2 years you had been unconscious, or IF the VS knew something that Shepard didn't, or IF they were just on the rag and having a bad day, etc, etc, etc... none of which is supported in the narrative. It's just supposition.


Not sure why you are trying to use the planet's core as a point. I conceded the point about the planet a long time ago. Even posted it in the video. Are you just trying to make me apologize again? :P

As for the VS, you are saying, IF they have stayed the same over the last two years, and IF the fact that they say they are not the same person in the email does not mean what they are actually saying, then you can predict what their response would have been, and that the VS scene did not follow your predictions and because of this it is a plot hole.


Unless there is some data presented which indicates how or why the VS has changed over the past 2 years, we can only conclude that they have not. There's no invention of narrative in saying that something doesn't happen unless specifically stated.

Using your argument, I could just as easily explain the lack of support from the Council and Alliance by saying that the leaders of both groups have secretly been indoctrinated by the Reapers... after all, there's nothing that says they weren't. This is literally the same method of thinking that conspiracy theorists use. Lack of evidence against something isn't evidence for it. Again, if these are implications that the writer wants to make, he has to make that implication clear to the reader. Expecting the reader to fill in the blanks in your story by, for example, concluding that "Well, the VS behaved completely irrationally and out of character, so something must have happened in the 2 years you've been away to change them" is bad writing.

Modifié par JKoopman, 04 avril 2011 - 01:32 .


#963
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

Unless there is some data presented which indicates how or why the VS has changed over the past 2 years, we can only conclude that they have not.


There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?

Modifié par squee913, 04 avril 2011 - 01:32 .


#964
JKoopman

JKoopman
  • Members
  • 1 441 messages

squee913 wrote...

Unless there is some data presented which indicates how or why the VS has changed over the past 2 years, we can only conclude that they have not.


There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?


An email which you only get if they were your LI in ME1. If not, what then?

#965
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Unless there is some data presented which indicates how or why the VS has changed over the past 2 years, we can only conclude that they have not.


There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?


An email which you only get if they were your LI in ME1. If not, what then?


I would say that the fact that they were or were not a love interest does not change the events of the last 2 years that obviously changed them. They still had strong feeling for Shepard as a lover or as a leader.

You would say that the fact they were a LI changed them when it would not have other wise, and we would debate until one conceded or gave up.

Either way, we are both making assumptions that we feel are logical. So, if you think it is logical, it's just a good deduction, but if you don't agree with it, then it is inventing narrative?

#966
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 334 messages

squee913 wrote...
I would say that the fact that they were or were not a love interest does not change the events of the last 2 years that obviously changed them. They still had strong feeling for Shepard as a lover or as a leader.

You would say that the fact they were a LI changed them when it would not have other wise, and we would debate until one conceded or gave up.

Either way, we are both making assumptions that we feel are logical. So, if you think it is logical, it's just a good deduction, but if you don't agree with it, then it is inventing narrative?



This is in large part what made LOTSB so great for me.  Not because Liara was a squadmate, though that was cool.  It was because Shepard got to see a bit of what it was that changed Liara, what made her seem so cold and ruthless.  The VS could have really benefited from something similar.

#967
JKoopman

JKoopman
  • Members
  • 1 441 messages
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

Let's use Shepard's death as an example. We see Shepard's body drifting towards the planet in one scene. In the next, we see his helmet being recovered from the planet's surface. Person A says, "Clearly Shepard's body fell to the planet and the fact that it survived intact is a plothole." Person B says, "It's not a plothole because perhaps a Shadow Broker ship came along and collected his body before he hit the atmosphere and then dumped his armor and that's why you find it on the surface."

The former is an example of extrapolating a conclusion based on available data. The later is an example of inventing narrative because there's no data whatsoever to indicate that this explanation happened or even that it was likely to have happened. That's the difference.

#968
Anacronian Stryx

Anacronian Stryx
  • Members
  • 3 133 messages

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Unless there is some data presented which indicates how or why the VS has changed over the past 2 years, we can only conclude that they have not.


There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?


An email which you only get if they were your LI in ME1. If not, what then?


Naah that type of logic won't fly, You have to see the game with every facet included or else people could make claims like " There is no data presented which indicates that wrex will ever show up on the Krogan home world  - He will only show up if you spared him in ME1. If not, what then?

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 04 avril 2011 - 02:05 .


#969
JKoopman

JKoopman
  • Members
  • 1 441 messages

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Unless there is some data presented which indicates how or why the VS has changed over the past 2 years, we can only conclude that they have not.


There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?


An email which you only get if they were your LI in ME1. If not, what then?


Naah that type of logic won't fly, You have to see the game with every facet included or else people could make claims like " There is no data presented which indicates that wrex will ever show up on the Krogan home world  - He will only show up if you spared him in ME1. If not, what then?


What would happen? I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point.

Modifié par JKoopman, 04 avril 2011 - 02:13 .


#970
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

JKoopman wrote...

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

Let's use Shepard's death as an example. We see Shepard's body drifting towards the planet in one scene. In the next, we see his helmet being recovered from the planet's surface. Person A says, "Clearly Shepard's body fell to the planet and the fact that it survived intact is a plothole." Person B says, "It's not a plothole because perhaps a Shadow Broker ship came along and collected his body before he hit the atmosphere and then dumped his armor and that's why you find it on the surface."

The former is an example of extrapolating a conclusion based on available data. The later is an example of inventing narrative because there's no data whatsoever to indicate that this explanation happened or even that it was likely to have happened. That's the difference.


First of all that example has no value because no one here has said such a thing. Please use example of something I or someone else here has said. Otherwise you are not proving anything and simply trying to make me look as if I stated such a ridiculous argument.

Second, Every argument I made came from a logical deduction from in game data. Yes, there were some what ifs and possibly, but those are few and far between and based off of logical reasoning (from my perspective) State an argument I made, and I will again explain how I came to that conclusion, if I need to. Just because you do not agree with my conclusions does not mean I did not use the same process to come to them.

#971
Anacronian Stryx

Anacronian Stryx
  • Members
  • 3 133 messages

JKoopman wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Unless there is some data presented which indicates how or why the VS has changed over the past 2 years, we can only conclude that they have not.


There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?


An email which you only get if they were your LI in ME1. If not, what then?


Naah that type of logic won't fly, You have to see the game with every facet included or else people could make claims like " There is no data presented which indicates that wrex will ever show up on the Krogan home world  - He will only show up if you spared him in ME1. If not, what then?


What would happen? I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point.


Squee makes the argument :"There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?"

You :"An email which you only get if they were your LI in ME1. If not, what then?"

I say when you disguss the game you have to look at the game as a whole including all possible narrative, Story or plotline  or else you're simply making illogical arguments like this.

Example :"There is no data presented which indicates that Wrex will ever show up on the Krogan home world  - He will only show up if you spared him in ME1. If not, what then?".
 
Or :" There is no data presented which indicates that the Protheons ever became Collectors - If the player skipped that dialogue what then?

This is the same type of argument you make concerning the VS mail.

We know the VS mail is possible so it must be included in any discussion about the VS behavior or else (due to the nature of the game) we could make arguments for or against pretty much any plot point.

#972
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

iakus wrote...

squee913 wrote...
I would say that the fact that they were or were not a love interest does not change the events of the last 2 years that obviously changed them. They still had strong feeling for Shepard as a lover or as a leader.

You would say that the fact they were a LI changed them when it would not have other wise, and we would debate until one conceded or gave up.

Either way, we are both making assumptions that we feel are logical. So, if you think it is logical, it's just a good deduction, but if you don't agree with it, then it is inventing narrative?



This is in large part what made LOTSB so great for me.  Not because Liara was a squadmate, though that was cool.  It was because Shepard got to see a bit of what it was that changed Liara, what made her seem so cold and ruthless.  The VS could have really benefited from something similar.


I actually agree with this. I wish there had been more too. I just don't think it is a fantastic plot hole without it :D

#973
JKoopman

JKoopman
  • Members
  • 1 441 messages
I made an observation. Squee pointed out that you can receive an email from the VS stating that they've changed over the years. Fair enough. I pointed out that not everyone receives this email, and those who didn't choose to romance the VS in ME1 would have no elaboration on their motivations in ME2. Don't read anything more into it than that.

I'm not going to get bogged down arguing over one singular insignificant point.

Modifié par JKoopman, 04 avril 2011 - 02:40 .


#974
Anacronian Stryx

Anacronian Stryx
  • Members
  • 3 133 messages

JKoopman wrote...

I made an observation. Squee pointed out that you can receive an email from the VS stating that they've changed over the years. Fair enough. I pointed out that not everyone even received this email, and those who didn't choose to romance the VS in ME1 would have no elaboration on their motivations. Don't read anything more into it than that.

I'm not going to get bogged down arguing over one singular insignificant point.


And i simply pointed out you made a flawed argument.

#975
squee913

squee913
  • Members
  • 411 messages

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Unless there is some data presented which indicates how or why the VS has changed over the past 2 years, we can only conclude that they have not.


There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?


An email which you only get if they were your LI in ME1. If not, what then?


Naah that type of logic won't fly, You have to see the game with every facet included or else people could make claims like " There is no data presented which indicates that wrex will ever show up on the Krogan home world  - He will only show up if you spared him in ME1. If not, what then?


What would happen? I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point.


Squee makes the argument :"There is an email where they state they are not the same person they were 2 years ago. How much more do you need? A pshyc profile?"

You :"An email which you only get if they were your LI in ME1. If not, what then?"

I say when you disguss the game you have to look at the game as a whole including all possible narrative, Story or plotline  or else you're simply making illogical arguments like this.

Example :"There is no data presented which indicates that Wrex will ever show up on the Krogan home world  - He will only show up if you spared him in ME1. If not, what then?".
 
Or :" There is no data presented which indicates that the Protheons ever became Collectors - If the player skipped that dialogue what then?

This is the same type of argument you make concerning the VS mail.

We know the VS mail is possible so it must be included in any discussion about the VS behavior or else (due to the nature of the game) we could make arguments for or against pretty much any plot point.




Another good example is the argument that Shepard would never join Cerberus because if you were the sole survivor, they killed your squad.

Your argument is invalid because you could have been a war hero. If we are going to start doing that, we can debate almost any decision in the game...

Modifié par squee913, 04 avril 2011 - 02:45 .