228 réponses à ce sujet

[TelexFerra]

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Modifié par TelexFerra, 19 mars 2011 - 06:55 .

[Babli]

Awesome vids. Take notes, Bioware...please.

[Darth_Ravor]

even better smudboy related video. watch the whole thing and dont stop 1 minute in smudboy fans:

[CroGamer002]

Alistair4Ever wrote...

even better smudboy related video. watch the whole thing and dont stop 1 minute in smudboy fans:

Let me fix that for you.

Part 1
Part 2

[Nicator]

He had a some good ideas, sure, but try to pack all of it into one game and all you get is one overcomplicated, convoluted mess that takes ten years to develop.

[ThemFlashlight-headedThings]

Yeah Smugboy!

[squee913]

While I don't think ME2 plot needs fixing, the game would have been awesome with a lot of those features added! I think it would be too difficult to put all of that into one game, but I will say this, if Smud had the money and power, I think he would make a fantastic game! I would probably even spend the 300 dollars it would cost to buy something that complex.

It should be pointed out however, that creating his image of how ME2 should have been (as cool as that image was) does not make it better than Bioware's image of ME2

[TelexFerra]

Hey squee, I'm watching your counter-arguments to his plot analysis videos.

[squee913]

TelexFerra wrote...

Hey squee, I'm watching your counter-arguments to his plot analysis videos.

Coolieos! Don't hesitate to give me thougts and opinons! Debates are whats makes the vids worth while! I have to say, I did enjoy these new vids of his. I never had a problem with the guy, and I feel he is an intellegent person. Just felt his arguemtns for why ME2 sucked were so ill-logical...

[Il Divo]

squee913 wrote...

Coolieos! Don't hesitate to give me thougts and opinons! Debates are whats makes the vids worth while! I have to say, I did enjoy these new vids of his. I never had a problem with the guy, and I feel he is an intellegent person. Just felt his arguemtns for why ME2 sucked were so ill-logical...

I feel like in terms of video-making you and Smud are perfect foils to each other. His tone is very neutral and feels like a documentary; yours is more 'involved' and feels like you're trying to have a conversation with the listener. Both make for alot of fun.

[RiouHotaru]

Oh god, him again? No no no no, this is ridiculous.

[RiouHotaru]

squee913 wrote...

TelexFerra wrote...

Hey squee, I'm watching your counter-arguments to his plot analysis videos.

Coolieos! Don't hesitate to give me thougts and opinons! Debates are whats makes the vids worth while! I have to say, I did enjoy these new vids of his. I never had a problem with the guy, and I feel he is an intellegent person. Just felt his arguemtns for why ME2 sucked were so ill-logical...

Also, you saved me the trouble of doing counterarguments myself  Maybe we could do one together!  Collaborative project!

[100k]

Both the smudboy, and his opposition bring up great points. Smudboy points out that ME2 is more about the other characters of Shep's team than Shep him/herself. This is point blank true. He does kind of over exadurate some points, and his opposition points them out. But in the end, both of them have good ideas. His opposition, however, fails to understand the difference between being able to control Shepards actions, and change Shepard as an actual character. Smudboy recognizes this.

[squee913]

100k wrote...

Both the smudboy, and his opposition bring up great points. Smudboy points out that ME2 is more about the other characters of Shep's team than Shep him/herself. This is point blank true. He does kind of over exadurate some points, and his opposition points them out. But in the end, both of them have good ideas. His opposition, however, fails to understand the difference between being able to control Shepards actions, and change Shepard as an actual character. Smudboy recognizes this.

We are defined by our actions. To control how someone responds to an event is to control how they develop as a character.

[squee913]

RiouHotaru wrote...

squee913 wrote...

TelexFerra wrote...

Hey squee, I'm watching your counter-arguments to his plot analysis videos.

Coolieos! Don't hesitate to give me thougts and opinons! Debates are whats makes the vids worth while! I have to say, I did enjoy these new vids of his. I never had a problem with the guy, and I feel he is an intellegent person. Just felt his arguemtns for why ME2 sucked were so ill-logical...

Also, you saved me the trouble of doing counterarguments myself  Maybe we could do one together!  Collaborative project!

I might be done after I finish this, as far as videos are concerned. They take a lot of work and my Let's Plays are slowing down because of it. That make subscribers angry  However, if the need arises, I would be willing to do more

[RiouHotaru]

squee913 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

squee913 wrote...

TelexFerra wrote...

Hey squee, I'm watching your counter-arguments to his plot analysis videos.

Coolieos! Don't hesitate to give me thougts and opinons! Debates are whats makes the vids worth while! I have to say, I did enjoy these new vids of his. I never had a problem with the guy, and I feel he is an intellegent person. Just felt his arguemtns for why ME2 sucked were so ill-logical...

Also, you saved me the trouble of doing counterarguments myself  Maybe we could do one together!  Collaborative project!

I might be done after I finish this, as far as videos are concerned. They take a lot of work and my Let's Plays are slowing down because of it. That make subscribers angry  However, if the need arises, I would be willing to do more

Oh, Let's Plays!  Sweet!

[Pwener2313]

That idiot made another one!? hahaha the lulz

[Jackal904]

This thread should be renamed to, "More ridiculous demands by an idiot who knows nothing about the practicalities of video game development."

[100k]

squee913 wrote...

100k wrote...

Both the smudboy, and his opposition bring up great points. Smudboy points out that ME2 is more about the other characters of Shep's team than Shep him/herself. This is point blank true. He does kind of over exadurate some points, and his opposition points them out. But in the end, both of them have good ideas. His opposition, however, fails to understand the difference between being able to control Shepards actions, and change Shepard as an actual character. Smudboy recognizes this.

We are defined by our actions. To control how someone responds to an event is to control how they develop as a character.

Negative. To control how someone responds to an event describes their physical tendencies. It does NOT describe who they are. Look at Samara. If she didn't tell you who she was, how she felt, and how she operated, she would be every bit as cold and evil as Morinth. But because she is able to voice her thoughts, her actions are given weight. Same with Thane. Without knowing who he is, he'd just be the guy who killed a room full of mercs in front of Shepard. Garrus would just be a guy who started **** with three powerful gangs on Omega. Grunt would just be a violent Krogan. Jack would just be a feelingless convict.

Instead, Samara is a mother, who fights injustice in the harshest of forms of black and white reasoning, to atone for her failure to stop her perverted daughter. Thane is a father who's inability to connect with his wife and son destroyeed his family, and spiritually killed him. Garrus is one turian who wants to make a difference in a world of unrivaled crime and violence. Jack is someone with survivors guilty, who lashes out at anyone who gets close. Grunt...well...he's only a few months old, so he's just trying to figure out where he fits in with his people (maybe some day he'll be mature like Wrex).

But Shepard? Shep doesn't seem to have any feelings about who he/she is or what he/she is doing. LOTSB was one of the few times in the entire ME2 universe where a character asks Shepard "how do you feel?", and Shep can say: 

1) I am pissed off that nobody seems to believe me.
2) I am confident that my team will help against the reapers/collectors.
3) I have no ****ing clue what I'm doing. (my favorite, because this is human uncertainty).

THAT'S how you get a protagonist to gain character for itself. You let them occasionally show weakness, hope, and even instability. You can make Shepard as dangerous or kind as you want, but without the ability to have Shepard say "I think this---because of this---" its just a meaningless action.

Just think about how easy it would have been for Bioware to have added three separate sections in ME2 where Shepard was trying to come to terms with the fact that he/she died, and was reborn. Three sections where Shepard would have to decide how to internally hide, or externally shield how being dead for two years affected him/her.

Its the little things that make the difference when it comes down to character.

Jack's biotic skills are nothing compared to her hidden guilty.

Tali's understanding of geth and tech abilities are nothing compared to her hidden feelings of isolation from the rest of the world because of a suit.

Garrus's sniper abilities are nothing compared to his relationship with his family, and his anger at being betrayed.

Shepard's ability to spin his/her conversation wheel to make/break other people's decisions is nothing compared to how or what internal conflict he/she better voice in ME3.

[merrick97]

Those were good videos but a lot of that could have EASILY been trimmed into one video. Way too much info.

[merrick97]

Also, I feel that a lot of what he suggests would seem to heavily penalize players who didnt play ME1.

[Pwener2313]

^It should.

[squee913]

100k wrote...

squee913 wrote...

100k wrote...

Both the smudboy, and his opposition bring up great points. Smudboy points out that ME2 is more about the other characters of Shep's team than Shep him/herself. This is point blank true. He does kind of over exadurate some points, and his opposition points them out. But in the end, both of them have good ideas. His opposition, however, fails to understand the difference between being able to control Shepards actions, and change Shepard as an actual character. Smudboy recognizes this.

We are defined by our actions. To control how someone responds to an event is to control how they develop as a character.

Negative. To control how someone responds to an event describes their physical tendencies. It does NOT describe who they are. Look at Samara. If she didn't tell you who she was, how she felt, and how she operated, she would be every bit as cold and evil as Morinth. But because she is able to voice her thoughts, her actions are given weight. Same with Thane. Without knowing who he is, he'd just be the guy who killed a room full of mercs in front of Shepard. Garrus would just be a guy who started **** with three powerful gangs on Omega. Grunt would just be a violent Krogan. Jack would just be a feelingless convict.

Instead, Samara is a mother, who fights injustice in the harshest of forms of black and white reasoning, to atone for her failure to stop her perverted daughter. Thane is a father who's inability to connect with his wife and son destroyeed his family, and spiritually killed him. Garrus is one turian who wants to make a difference in a world of unrivaled crime and violence. Jack is someone with survivors guilty, who lashes out at anyone who gets close. Grunt...well...he's only a few months old, so he's just trying to figure out where he fits in with his people (maybe some day he'll be mature like Wrex).

But Shepard? Shep doesn't seem to have any feelings about who he/she is or what he/she is doing. LOTSB was one of the few times in the entire ME2 universe where a character asks Shepard "how do you feel?", and Shep can say: 

1) I am pissed off that nobody seems to believe me.
2) I am confident that my team will help against the reapers/collectors.
3) I have no ****ing clue what I'm doing. (my favorite, because this is human uncertainty).

THAT'S how you get a protagonist to gain character for itself. You let them occasionally show weakness, hope, and even instability. You can make Shepard as dangerous or kind as you want, but without the ability to have Shepard say "I think this---because of this---" its just a meaningless action.

Just think about how easy it would have been for Bioware to have added three separate sections in ME2 where Shepard was trying to come to terms with the fact that he/she died, and was reborn. Three sections where Shepard would have to decide how to internally hide, or externally shield how being dead for two years affected him/her.

Its the little things that make the difference when it comes down to character.

Jack's biotic skills are nothing compared to her hidden guilty.

Tali's understanding of geth and tech abilities are nothing compared to her hidden feelings of isolation from the rest of the world because of a suit.

Garrus's sniper abilities are nothing compared to his relationship with his family, and his anger at being betrayed.

Shepard's ability to spin his/her conversation wheel to make/break other people's decisions is nothing compared to how or what internal conflict he/she better voice in ME3.

Actions include what we say as well as what we do. My Shepard has a very defined personality, and shows plenty of emotion. Whether it is consoling a team mate or pistol whipping an ass hole for tying his brother to a machine. Exploring a characters vulnerabilities is not the only way to develop a character. The thing people don't understand is that Shep is a reflection of the player. He should not have to explain his thought process for choosing an action, because it should be the same as the thought process you used to make him take that action. (I'm not talking about people who run a Shep contrary to personal feelings just to have a different shep. Most people's "Canon" Shepard has made the decisions that the player would have made in his shoes) Shepard is a mirror of you, or the best mirror bioware could make. What was your reason for making Shepard say what he said? That was Shepard's reason for saying it. If the in game Shepard explains what he is thinking or why he did something and it disagrees with the reasons you made him do it, then he is no longer a reflection of you.

If you ever watch my Let's Play of Mass Effect you will see that my Shepard has tons of personality. Personality that I gave him. I explain to the viewers my thought process (and thus Shepard's thought process). You make Shepard the person he or she is, not the game.

[100k]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that ME2 tried to give Shepard a level of character customization, and (for me, the player, the guy who is supposed to be able to reflect his thoughts into Shep) it failed.

I think you are mistakening "personality" for "character". If Shep punches a news reporter out of disgust, then that is part of his/her personality. If Shep decides that aliens are scum, that's part of his/her personality.

If Shep admits that he/she is losing confidence in his/her own ability to complete a mission, then that's character. If Shep admits to missing the companionship of Ashely Williams to Kelly after Horizon, then that's character.

Personality classifies someone's attitude (and in situations). Character is strictly unique to that character. My personality is as a cold, rational, calculating human being. I see something, I assess the risk v.s. the reward, and I act accordingly. I can be put into a human category with thousands of other people who think like me. I am not unique, no matter how large or small the number of people, because that number can fluctuate at any time.

My character is harder to define. Character is the root of who a personality (of a person) is. Its what makes a person tick. Its WHY a person works the way they do. ME2 managed to give Shepard various personalities, but very little character.

To quote Pulp Fiction: "Of course you are a character...doesn't mean you have character."

Almost every member of ME2's cast has character...except Shepard. Shepard has personality--make no mistake. But he/she does not have character.