546 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Which the ending of the game kind of undoes when all of Saren's flesh is burned away and all that is left is the machine.

At which point, Sovereign doesn't care. He wants that relay open, one way or another.

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 avril 2011 - 03:26 .

[Sneelonz]

Wow. Well, I haven't and don't plan on getting Arrival, so I can't say if Smudboy is right or wrong on this one. However, Smudboy analysis of Mass Effect 2's plot was dead on. Even though I had tons of fun playing the game, I couldn't help but notice how, well, nothing made sense. How was Sheperd able to be rebuilt? Why did the collectors try to kill him in the first place, don't they want him alive? How did Mordin get that Seeker swarm? Why am I preparing a small team for going through the Omega 4 relay? What could a small team on one ship do against what could possibly be a planet of collectors, with a fleet? Why are the Collectors building a "human reaper"? The story is fundamentally flawed, and there's no denying it. These problems in the narrative can't just be ignored. One can't just make up something and pretend it happened, things need to be explained.

[Dave666]

@Il Divo Just a small point. Vigil doesn't say that the Reapers are trapped in Dark Space, its Shepard who jumps to that conclusion. Vigil doesn't correct Shepard though so read into that what you will.

[Dave666]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

So Sovereign stating that the Reapers direct organics down a specific technological path (based on the principles of mass effect technology) and let their civilizations (note: not populations) advance (note: not grow) to the apex of their glory before "harvesting" them as well as Vigil pointing out that Reapers strip every planet they find of technology and resources DOESN'T IN ANY WAY imply that the Reapers are harvesting us for our technology? There's "nothing even remotely close to this described in the narrative"? That's odd, because that was the prevailing theory prior to ME2's release. So clearly a few people "interpereted" those scenes that way.

Ugh. Anyway. Yeah, I'm out. This is giving me a migraine.

I'm being honest. You're the first person I've seen with this theory. Even amongst Mass Effect 2's staunchest critics, I have never seen anyone argue that Mass Effect 1 tells us that the Reapers kill us for technology.

Where also did Vigil say that the Reapers destroy our technology? Rather, it's their technology they are removing.

Whether they want technology or not (which i doubt, since all their technology is more advanced than ours).It still a fact that they need organics and specifly humans to Reproduce, hence the existence of the baby reaper.

Which, if I'm honest is where I have something of a problem, given how Sovereign speaks of Organics.


Sovereign: Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding. 

Sovereign: We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution.

Sovereign: Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything. 

Basically Sovereign showing nothing but disdain for Organic life. 

This to me heavilly suggests that the story was changed.

I show nothing but disdain for turnips. I still eat 'em.

Sovereign: I hate turnips. But I am hungry. Omnomnom.

All kidding aside, there are a bunch of ways I can interpret all that without it being inherently contradictory. The problem is, every time I talk about a possible theory in this thread, someone yells Supposition! and clubs me in the head with a fish. And you probably do not want to hear my theories.

Let's just say, aside from the food analogy, you can have a lot of contempt for something and still use it. Fruit flies, lab rats, gravel, tiny pieces of string.

I'm not saying that the story necessarily was changed, just that it really feels like it to me.  I have no problem with supposition (as long as its plausible of course).  What I was getting at with the disdain comment was that it seems contradictory to me to hold say humans in complete disdain and then make Reapers out of them, given how Reapers seem to view themselves as gods. A really crap anology, would be to imagine if you held technology in complete disdain, you absolutely hated it and then deliberately cut off an arm and grafted on a bionic one.

On a side note but still related I sort of hope that in ME:3 they'll explain that the organic component is nothing more than the equivalent of contact gel.  What I mean is whereas the Geth have a million programs, a Reaper has a Million fully formed AI's and the organic contact gel part simply allows for signals between these AI's to be much faster (kinda like how the human brain is extremely fast).

Did any of that make sense?

Modifié par Dave666, 08 avril 2011 - 04:05 .

[piemanz]

Dave666 wrote...

I'm not saying that the story necessarily was changed, just that it really feels like it to me.  I have no problem with supposition (as long as its plausible of course).  What I was getting at with the disdain comment was that it seems contradictory to me to hold say humans in complete disdain and then make Reapers out of them, given how Reapers seem to view themselves as gods. A really crap anology, would be to imagine if you held technology in complete disdain, you absolutely hated it and then deliberately cut off an arm and grafted on a bionic one.

On a side note but still related I sort of hope that in ME:3 they'll explain that the organic component is nothing more than the equivalent of contact gel.  What I mean is whereas the Geth have a million programs, a Reaper has a Million fully formed AI's and the organic contact gel part simply allows for signals between these AI's to be much faster (kinda like how the human brain is extremely fast).

Did any of that make sense?

It makes sense, and it's a possibilty but they do seem to be quite picky with what species they chose, if it was just for contact gel you would think they could use any race.

Regarding the distain, the only thing i could compare it to is the borg in startrek, to them everything else is irrelevant unless they are borg. It's much like a reaper saying we're inferior untill we become reaperfied.

Modifié par piemanz, 08 avril 2011 - 04:11 .

[Dave666]

@Piemanz Breaking up the pyramid text thing thats going on. I know, I've no idea how that could be made plausible, though if thats the route that Bioware were already taking, believe me, they'd have us believing them. lol

Good analogy with the Borg, I'm not saying that you're wrong but it still feels 'off' for me for some reason that I can't quite sum up.

[Fixers0]

Reapers suddenly need organics to reproduce i just plain garabage, without further exposition in the story i can't buy it and makes a retcon, were was this even stated, EDI says did after scanning t-8000, no wonder it's partial organic, since it was created out of human goo, but really how does this extent to the Rest of the Reapers, she even says that the exact construction methods are unclear, so she isn''t even sure.

You see it would have at least accepted if it would be mayor point in the plot, with enough expostion throughout the Narative and it recevied a proper explanation a conversation with Harbinger or Tim, that would make the difference between a interesting plot twist and a retcon.

EDIT if the Reapers us organic's to reproduce and the so called ''essece of a species' then why does the derlict Reaper that is 37 million years old and  thus older then several cycles of extinction  looks like sovereign or the Rest of the Reapers? 

Modifié par Fixers0, 08 avril 2011 - 06:02 .

[bald man in a boat]

I really hate this guy and his lame-as-f*ck wannabe Agent Smith voice. Honestly, this knob needs to move out of his moms basement and get a boyfriend already.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I'm not going to keep reposting explanations about why such and such thing isn't a plothole or a recon yet, mostly because of what I said before, about the supposition and the Fish.

But it's basically like watching an episode of House.
In the first act, we think it's Lupus
In the second act, new symptoms emerge, and we think it's Cholera (this isn't a retcon, just a new theory)
In the third act, we figure out what it actually is. Could be Lupus after all. Could be some totally new thing. The reveal comes in the third act, and why everything seemed contradictory in the first and second acts should be explained then.

Third act people! Look it up!

[CroGamer002]

JKoopman wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^So guessing of AI who was scanning every info from Collectors when in contact is less credible then squadmates just assuming from little info they got few seconds after?

You assume that EDI was somehow connected to the Collector database. We've been over this before. There is no evidence that suggests this is the case, and she doesn't say that she's pulling the info from Collector databanks. In fact, she uses many modifying phrases like "I assume", "It would seem", "It appears", etc that would indicate the exact opposite.

In point of fact, when questioned by Shepard about what purposes the Human Reaper could be for, EDI flat out says, "They may be facilitating the equivalent of Reaper reproduction. Or it could serve some other purpose. I do not have the data to speculate further."

How much more evidence do you need that this was all just speculation on EDI's part when she herself even tells you that she's speculating?

But sure, whatever. Tali was just talking out of her ass, EDI is obviously the only reliable source of "information" and I'm clearly just misinterpereting facts.

Your attempted mockery, as usual, falls flat.

Point missed.

[Bourne Endeavor]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here: Jane Shepard one of my favorite video game heroes of all time, and she recieves more development than 90% of the protagonists in any game I've ever played. She's a lot more interesting than Cloud, or Yuna, or Revan, or Gordon Freeman.

What would you consider a well-developed video game main character? Do you play as male shep or female shep, usually? I just can't imagine someone who played female shepard picturing her as unresponsive, and not developing in reaction to these interactions she's having with characters.  Male Shepard I get.. I hate that guy, he really is a brick a lot of the time. Ugh, how could you play this game if you didn't like your Shepard? Maybe your difficulty is that you have to infer Shepard's emotions from his reactions and decisions, rather than being explicitly told how you're supposed to feel? Why does she stop Garrus, or let him kill Sidonus. Is it just whim? For points? I just... can't imagine why you would want to play a game that has chioces if you're not roleplaying the character behind the choices. How could the choice have any relevance for you, if it's not related ot Shepard's character development?

This is one of those cases where I completely cannot understand the reasoning behind a thing. Like someone telling me they don't like the writing in XKCD, they're just interested in the art style.

Of course, nothing else you say makes any sense to me either, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I believe we might just have to given I found Yuna for example a much better developed character than Shepard. She evolves and changes based on the narrative and grows as a character to succeed in the plight placed before her. It is hardly perfect, however it is noteworthy and done reasonably well. Tidus would be the series' best developed character mind you. Meanwhile, Shepard does not. They go through the motions and while are certainly a likable and entertaining character, there is little development. This is acutely apparent whenever discussions with TIM are involved. Sure they can whine but that is all it amounts to.

A character who develops through the narrative and has personal and separate arcs specific to his/her progression. Shepard is constantly playing the therapist for everyone else and is more or less a side character in the individual story arcs. In your example, Shepard talks to Garrus and than what? Nothing comes of it. They do not struggle or even reference to the event at any further juncture, whereas Yuna has a significant moment at Macalania. Throughout the game both she and Tidus demonstrate conflict with their own personal difficulties. Yuna with the immense burden and perceived doom she must face. Her cheerful attitude alone speaks volumes of her will and character. Tidus has his father and realization he is not the man he thought he was. Again, it is not perfect but they both change because of the story and the progression of the plot is based on this development.

Now I appreciate the limitations Shepard faces because of choice availability but LotSB proved (s)he can receive development arcs and not break immersion. His/her death, Cerberus, Horizon, everything about the Reapers. So many opportunities...

Frankly, I find your comment perplexing. Femshep is a better developed character than Sheploo by virtue of their voice actor? While I do prefer Hale overall, her dialogue is identical to Sheploo's. They offer an alternative perspective and personal preference but voice acting does not equate to character development. They may sound better, you may fancy them more however since they are identical in the story. To claim one is a brick, and thereby lacking development, but the other is not... is illogical, at least to me. To note, I play both genders and like both VAs.

You are misconstruing enjoyment of a character with my perception of how their development was handled. I like Shepard, and especially fancy how Femshep is not overly sexualized for marketing. She is every bit the heroine counterpart to Sheploo. That does not mean I believe they were well developed.

Reading your post, I find the majority derives of use utilizing your imagination to fill gaps that did not exist. You are making alterations and interpretations that were not provided. I like the idea, and admittedly am guilty of doing so myself but in a debate. You cannot slot your imagination as a legitimate reason Shepard is a developed character. Otherwise, I could just as easily claim Grunt is, and Cloud were not even be a fair comparison.

[Mister Ford]

JKoopman wrote...

[Because, being AI,  Reapers may lack the capacity for creative thought. They would then have to rely on organic species to find new applications for and evolutions of technology while also ensuring that said technology is compatible with their systems. Different species think in different ways, therefor each "reaping" sees new and previously unconsidered developmental paths.

Basically, we'd facilitate Reaper evolution. They'd be relying on us to show them alternate ways of doing things, adapting and absorbing anything useful and then wiping us out before we could threaten them.

Granted, there's the potential that a reaping cycle would come and go without anything of significance being developed, but what's 50,000 years to a race of immortal machines?

Where is it stated that AIs lack the ability of creative thought?  VIs maybe, but not AIs.  The Geth are apparently able to evolve and advance their tech, and I think it's safe to assume the Reapers can as well.

[darth_lopez]

He's right but i seriously hope squee doesn't try to argue he's wrong this time. Because that was terribly bad....For squee...it felt wrong watching the rebuts from smud....so devastingly accurate.

[darth_lopez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm not going to keep reposting explanations about why such and such thing isn't a plothole or a recon yet, mostly because of what I said before, about the supposition and the Fish.

But it's basically like watching an episode of House.
In the first act, we think it's Lupus
In the second act, new symptoms emerge, and we think it's Cholera (this isn't a retcon, just a new theory)
In the third act, we figure out what it actually is. Could be Lupus after all. Could be some totally new thing. The reveal comes in the third act, and why everything seemed contradictory in the first and second acts should be explained then.

Third act people! Look it up!

You are comparing a trilogy to a sit-com?

Why don't you go back and read my posts about Star Wars. Empire is how you do a proper sequel. ME2 is not.

Yea...You can directly parellel star wars and ME almost frame by frame depending on your analysis and thuroughness. You should stop watching house and start watching Star wars. Although the House thing Totally helps us explain what was lacking in ME 2 and DA 2(DA2's htird act wasn't teh end it simpyl does not have an end.) In ME 2 our "third act" doesn't exist as a Story Finisher. It simply Purpetuates the reaper problem, as i'm sure it was intended to. BUT when the 2nd Act of a story is completely pointless *cough cough ME 2* And lacks substanance then there is a dsitinct problem Hopefulyl BWs dull phase ends at DA 2. They need to go back to be extraordinary.

[Sandbox47]

I quit when he started picking on destroying the Relay. Doesn't seem that worthwhile, really. Seeing how it's not about to change. I mean - what does he expect BioWare to do? More importantly: how would HE destroy a Relay? I'd bang a planet into it myself. It's all good. Do you see what BioWare has to deal with all the time? People taking apart everyting they make? That'd ****** even the kind and gently moi off.

[CroGamer002]

Sandbox47 wrote...

I quit when he started picking on destroying the Relay. Doesn't seem that worthwhile, really. Seeing how it's not about to change. I mean - what does he expect BioWare to do? More importantly: how would HE destroy a Relay? I'd bang a planet into it myself. It's all good. Do you see what BioWare has to deal with all the time? People taking apart everyting they make? That'd ****** even the kind and gently moi off.

He'll do something with Prothean vision cause we all know how are Protheans can be useful after ME1.

[xSTONEYx187x]

I don't like his voice, so I'll pass. But I'd say he's loving the attention he's getting on the forums.

[CroGamer002]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

I don't like his voice, so I'll pass. But I'd say he's loving the attention he's getting on the forums.

Well he has good voice in my opinion.

Also he is perma-banned on BSN so I really think he doesn't care much.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

darth_lopez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm not going to keep reposting explanations about why such and such thing isn't a plothole or a recon yet, mostly because of what I said before, about the supposition and the Fish.

But it's basically like watching an episode of House.
In the first act, we think it's Lupus
In the second act, new symptoms emerge, and we think it's Cholera (this isn't a retcon, just a new theory)
In the third act, we figure out what it actually is. Could be Lupus after all. Could be some totally new thing. The reveal comes in the third act, and why everything seemed contradictory in the first and second acts should be explained then.

Third act people! Look it up!

You are comparing a trilogy to a sit-com?

Why don't you go back and read my posts about Star Wars. Empire is how you do a proper sequel. ME2 is not.

Yea...You can directly parellel star wars and ME almost frame by frame depending on your analysis and thuroughness. You should stop watching house and start watching Star wars. Although the House thing Totally helps us explain what was lacking in ME 2 and DA 2(DA2's htird act wasn't teh end it simpyl does not have an end.) In ME 2 our "third act" doesn't exist as a Story Finisher. It simply Purpetuates the reaper problem, as i'm sure it was intended to. BUT when the 2nd Act of a story is completely pointless *cough cough ME 2* And lacks substanance then there is a dsitinct problem Hopefulyl BWs dull phase ends at DA 2. They need to go back to be extraordinary.

See, I used House because it follows a convention that is specific to speculative fiction: classic science fiction, horror, and mystery. House is essentially a detective show, after all, and it was the easiest show to reference that had hypothesis, theory, reveal as its plot structure.

Star Wars is basically Akira Kurasawa movies in space, or westerns in space, whichever way you want to interpret it. It's a story that could be told just as well, say, on sailing ships in the carribean, or in the old west, with pretty much nothing changing but the set decorations and a few words of dialogue. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's an adventure story in a science fiction setting, rather than a story that is focused on discovering a new world and building theories about it, as is common in a lot of literary science fiction. I'm talking about your Asimovs, your Heinleins, your Clarkes, your LeGuins. This also carries over to your masters of horror and mystery, Poe, Lovecraft, and Doyle.

Traditional speculative fiction does something similar to the mystery genre: throughout the book, you are given clues, hints to how the world works. As time goes on, and new facts come out, and theories change and shift. Only in the third act, when the full hand is revealed, do you have all the clues. Only then can you see the full picture: why the house of Usher must fall, how to defeat the puppet masters, or that the inmates are running the asylum.

Maybe that's the problem here: Bioware is trying to tell a traditional, mysterious, literary science fiction story to a Cowboys in Space audience. The conventions of the literary SF genre don't translate very often to film, but they're most often found when someone tries to film a Philip K. Dick story. Have you seen A Scanner Darkly? Or Blade Runner? The plot progression in those is more the kind of thing I'm talking about, where each act changes the situation as we know it.

The other difficulty is that I think Mass Effect is one story. They may try to break it up into chapters to make it possible to jump in at any point. The adventure in each one is meant to be self-contained, but the overall voyage of discovery, unlocking the secrets of the universe, that metastory stretches between all three.

That metastory, that mystery is this: what is the nature of the creatures that threaten our galaxy? We pick up clues in each installment, which will all form together to give us the answer in the third act, in Mass Effect 3. I think that all the facts we've assembled - the hints in ME1, the elaborations in ME2, and whatever final reveals we gain in 3, will all fit together to form a coherent picture in the end. (If you want to know what clues we picked up in ME2, look back on this thread. I have a number of posts that specifically outline all the new facts we've uncovered, with some hints as to their future relevance to the mystery of the Reapers.)

Of course, if you don't like saving up clues, and changing theories, and solving fictional mysteries, I'm sure all this evidence gathering may seem tedious, and having to change your theories may feel frustrating. But to a fan of literary science fiction, this is one of the best science fiction stories ever told in a video game.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 avril 2011 - 11:13 .

[squee913]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

All kidding aside, there are a bunch of ways I can interpret all that without it being inherently contradictory. The problem is, every time I talk about a possible theory in this thread, someone yells Supposition! and clubs me in the head with a fish. And you probably do not want to hear my theories.

This so hard!! 90% of all arguments against the videos I made refuting Smudboy are "You are just using Suppasion!!! In reality, I am drawing logical theories and conclusions from evidence, context, and common sense. So many people out their feel if the story did not specifically explain something it is a plot hole.

1.) Why didn't they tear down "the Project" If they were indoctranated?
A: Do you know how long they had been that way? It takes time. Kenson said it herself, "It was not a question of could, but should" For all you know, she just came to the conclusion not to use the project right before she was captured and had no time to dismantle it.

2.) Why didn't the Normandy look for Shep the 2 days he was missing?
A: Hell, they probably did, but I don't remember Shep telling them where he went after the prison, so where are they going to look? Are they magically going to find one asteroid in space?

3.) Why didn't they restrain shepard?
A: Probably because they felt sedative and 2 armed guards were enough. Smart? Maybe not, but not anywhere near unbelievable.

4.) Why was their a mech consul in the holding facility? 
A: Who said that was a holding facility? It's a lab, not a prison! They were not expecting prisoners. The mech station was probably there to help out the scientists. They didn't build the place thinking, "Oh, we should put a control panel here because their is a minute chance we might have a prisoner in this room. Perhaps I should also take all my knives out of the kitchen in case I have to lock a criminal in there...

And just watch the flood of, "You don't know any of that! It was never stated in the narrative!!You know what guys? I can do that too!!

Why didn't Shep have his armor on when he was on the medical table??? The game never showed it being taken off!!!

How did they get object Rho in that room??? I never saw any large doors!
No story makes sense if you are not willing to connect a few dots...

Modifié par squee913, 08 avril 2011 - 11:20 .

[RiouHotaru]

squee913 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

All kidding aside, there are a bunch of ways I can interpret all that without it being inherently contradictory. The problem is, every time I talk about a possible theory in this thread, someone yells Supposition! and clubs me in the head with a fish. And you probably do not want to hear my theories.

This so hard!! 90% of all arguments against the videos I made refuting Smudboy are "You are just using Suppasion!!! In reality, I am drawing logical theories and conclusions from evidence, context, and common sense. So many people out their feel if the story did not specifically explain something it is a plot hole.

1.) Why didn't they tear down "the Project" If they were indoctranated?
A: Do you know how long they had been that way? It takes time. Kenson said it herself, "It was not a question of could, but should" For all you know, she just came to the conclusion not to use the project right before she was captured and had no time to dismantle it.

2.) Why didn't the Normandy look for Shep the 2 days he was missing?
A: Hell, they probably did, but I don't remember Shep telling them where he went after the prison, so where are they going to look? Are they magically going to find one asteroid in space?

3.) Why didn't they restrain shepard?
A: Probably because they felt sedative and 2 armed guards were enough. Smart? Maybe not, but not anywhere near unbelievable.

4.) Why was their a mech consul in the holding facility? 
A: Who said that was a holding facility? It's a lab, not a prison! They were not expecting prisoners. The mech station was probably there to help out the scientists. They didn't build the place thinking, "Oh, we should put a control panel here because their is a minute chance we might have a prisoner in this room. Perhaps I should also take all my knives out of the kitchen in case I have to lock a criminal in there...

And just watch the flood of, "You don't know any of that! It was never stated in the narrative!!You know what guys? I can do that too!!

Why didn't Shep have his armor on when he was on the medical table??? The game never showed it being taken off!!!

How did they get object Rho in that room??? I never saw any large doors!
No story makes sense if you are not willing to connect a few dots...

This.  All of it.  I tried watching Smudboy's replies to your videos and had to quit because his pretentious tone and what not made me gag.  He thinks the narrative HAS to spell everything out for you and that the player shouldn't ever have to try to come to their own conclusions.

Or, (and this applies to all the 'But why didn't they try this?' counter-points he makes) that every single possible option must be given even a cursory line or mention.  My mind was blown by his attitude towards your rebuttal of his "logic".

[squee913]

RiouHotaru wrote...

squee913 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

All kidding aside, there are a bunch of ways I can interpret all that without it being inherently contradictory. The problem is, every time I talk about a possible theory in this thread, someone yells Supposition! and clubs me in the head with a fish. And you probably do not want to hear my theories.

This so hard!! 90% of all arguments against the videos I made refuting Smudboy are "You are just using Suppasion!!! In reality, I am drawing logical theories and conclusions from evidence, context, and common sense. So many people out their feel if the story did not specifically explain something it is a plot hole.

1.) Why didn't they tear down "the Project" If they were indoctranated?
A: Do you know how long they had been that way? It takes time. Kenson said it herself, "It was not a question of could, but should" For all you know, she just came to the conclusion not to use the project right before she was captured and had no time to dismantle it.

2.) Why didn't the Normandy look for Shep the 2 days he was missing?
A: Hell, they probably did, but I don't remember Shep telling them where he went after the prison, so where are they going to look? Are they magically going to find one asteroid in space?

3.) Why didn't they restrain shepard?
A: Probably because they felt sedative and 2 armed guards were enough. Smart? Maybe not, but not anywhere near unbelievable.

4.) Why was their a mech consul in the holding facility? 
A: Who said that was a holding facility? It's a lab, not a prison! They were not expecting prisoners. The mech station was probably there to help out the scientists. They didn't build the place thinking, "Oh, we should put a control panel here because their is a minute chance we might have a prisoner in this room. Perhaps I should also take all my knives out of the kitchen in case I have to lock a criminal in there...

And just watch the flood of, "You don't know any of that! It was never stated in the narrative!!You know what guys? I can do that too!!

Why didn't Shep have his armor on when he was on the medical table??? The game never showed it being taken off!!!

How did they get object Rho in that room??? I never saw any large doors!
No story makes sense if you are not willing to connect a few dots...

This.  All of it.  I tried watching Smudboy's replies to your videos and had to quit because his pretentious tone and what not made me gag.  He thinks the narrative HAS to spell everything out for you and that the player shouldn't ever have to try to come to their own conclusions.

Or, (and this applies to all the 'But why didn't they try this?' counter-points he makes) that every single possible option must be given even a cursory line or mention.  My mind was blown by his attitude towards your rebuttal of his "logic".

Best part is, they are all for inviting narrative if it suits them.

How did shep survive the impact of the planet?
He fell? It seems likely that he DID fall, but the narrative never told us. That is just an educated deduction, or invented narrative.

The baby Reaper will be put inside a ship.What??? Where the hell did this come from? Sure, they all look alike, and one POSSIBLE reason is that they are in ships, but this is inviting narrative of the highest order, since nothing anywhere even suggest this in the narrative. 

Modifié par squee913, 08 avril 2011 - 11:32 .