546 réponses à ce sujet

[squee913]

darth_lopez wrote...

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.

As I've said before, I am not making anymore vids debating ME2. I have a ton of Let's Plays to get back to. I said what I wanted to say. I don't obsess and make every youtube video I upload about one game.

[CroGamer002]

squee913 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

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.

As I've said before, I am not making anymore vids debating ME2. I have a ton of Let's Plays to get back to. I said what I wanted to say. I don't obsess and make every youtube video I upload about one game.

I am.


MUAHAHAHA!!!

[RiouHotaru]

squee913 wrote...

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. 

Well, the planet one has been solved on the forum for a while now.  As for the Reaper, even I accept the theory they were planning to build a shell around it.  Of course, given Arrival, it's possible the Reapers straight up didn't care that it would take them so long to complete it.

But I like how smudboy is allowed to make "narrative leaps", like the minefield or the probes, but you're not.

[NarayanNL]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

You are deluding yourself if you think they knew 4 years ago what the major plot points of the series would be in all three parts of the game. You only have to look at Cerberus in ME 1 and 2 to know they did not consider Shepard would join Cerberus in ME 2 while writing ME 1. They themselves thought it was a hard sell to the established audience so they needed something as drastic/convuluted  as Shepard dying to make it work for parts of their audience. Just to make sure you are okay with it you get to tell TIM like a whining child how evil you think Cerberus is if you are paragon player. But this changes nothing you are still forced to work with Cerberus.
And TIM does not even treat Shepard differently after this confrontation. TIM knows you are along for the ride whether you like it or not haha

I really like the games but they are just games the people writing these things are not professional writers and if they are they are writing Videogame tie ins and Movie tie ins. Nothing that even comes close to what one would consider Literature or even the better Fantasy/Science fiction authors. There's nothing wrong with this like I said but don't try to tell me i'm playing something that comes close to the stories of those well respected authors.

[HBC Dresden]

This post has to deal with DAII, but there is a segment I found interesting, quoting part of a transcript from an IGN podcast that is relevant here:

"But if I do a day-by-day critique of this video game, it's really kind of rude. Because I'd never do this to another person's novel -- that would be absolutely unacceptable behavior. You just don't do that. You don't post up a chapter by chapter critique of somebody else's book."

Link to get the full context: http://pc.ign.com/ar.../1160510p1.html

Modifié par HBC Dresden, 08 avril 2011 - 05:01 .

[Xeranx]

HBC Dresden wrote...

This post has to deal with DAII, but there is a segment I found interesting, quoting part of a transcript from an IGN podcast that is relevant here:

"But if I do a day-by-day critique of this video game, it's really kind of rude. Because I'd never do this to another person's novel -- that would be absolutely unacceptable behavior. You just don't do that. You don't post up a chapter by chapter critique of somebody else's book."

Link to get the full context: http://pc.ign.com/ar.../1160510p1.html

The funny thing about that quote is that if he decided to to a day-by-day appraisal lauding every bit of the game or any novel he wouldn't think about how rude it would be, but rather if he wants to devote the time to do so.

[didymos1120]

NarayanNL wrote...
I really like the games but they are just games the people writing these things are not professional writers and if they are they are writing Videogame tie ins and Movie tie ins.

Sorry, but this is absurd.  Are they writers?  Yes. Are they getting paid to write? Yes.  Well, that makes them professional writers.  You can't just say that the particular medium they work in most of the time doesn't count.

[piemanz]

NarayanNL wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

You are deluding yourself if you think they knew 4 years ago what the major plot points of the series would be in all three parts of the game. You only have to look at Cerberus in ME 1 and 2 to know they did not consider Shepard would join Cerberus in ME 2 while writing ME 1. They themselves thought it was a hard sell to the established audience so they needed something as drastic/convuluted  as Shepard dying to make it work for parts of their audience. Just to make sure you are okay with it you get to tell TIM like a whining child how evil you think Cerberus is if you are paragon player. But this changes nothing you are still forced to work with Cerberus.
And TIM does not even treat Shepard differently after this confrontation. TIM knows you are along for the ride whether you like it or not haha

I really like the games but they are just games the people writing these things are not professional writers and if they are they are writing Videogame tie ins and Movie tie ins. Nothing that even comes close to what one would consider Literature or even the better Fantasy/Science fiction authors. There's nothing wrong with this like I said but don't try to tell me i'm playing something that comes close to the stories of those well respected authors.

Why would they make a big deal out of Cerberus in ME1 and then not use them in ME2, that makes no sense. it seems like a good twist to the series to portray them as they did in ME1 and then make you work with them.

Modifié par piemanz, 08 avril 2011 - 07:32 .

[JKoopman]

Mesina2 wrote...

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.

Then pardon, you'll have to make more of an effort to clarify the point you were making. Because it seemed to me that you were saying that Tali extrapolating a conclussion based on Sovereign's statements in ME1 is folly but EDI extrapolating a conclusion based on nothing more than her own supposition of the possible purposes of the Human Reaper is sacrosanct and should be taken as fact... apparently because you believe that EDI is pulling this information from the Collector databanks and therefor her supposition is more reliable than Tali's, which numerous examples have shown to be a baseless assumption.

Mesina2 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

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.

As I've said before, I am not making anymore vids debating ME2. I have a ton of Let's Plays to get back to. I said what I wanted to say. I don't obsess and make every youtube video I upload about one game.

I am.[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]


MUAHAHAHA!!!

You really need to get new material, man. The whole "Dr. Evil" thing is getting played out.

Mister Ford wrote...

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 differentways, 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.

The fact that a 37 million-year-old dead Reaper looked identical to Sovereign would seem to suggest otherwise.

Regardless, the geth also coexist in a galaxy full of organic species, monitor our communications and apparently express great interest in us, so it's plausibe that they themselves are constantly adapting new organic technological developments to suit their needs whereas the Reapers isolate themselves from organic species except for the brief periods when they're harvesting our tech and wiping us out. So the geth would basically just be doing the same thing the Reapers are simply over an extended period of time rather than all at once and minus the "wiping us out" part.

It's also pointed out that the "heretic" geth "accepted the conclussions of the Reapers" and allowed them to define their future, so it's also plausible that much of the "new" technology they display is actually technology gifted by and/or adapted from Sovereign.

Or perhaps the geth were simply specifically designed with the capacity for creative thought to aid them in performing their tasks among the quarians, and the Reapers were simply created differently? That's simply supposition on my part and I can't point to anything specifically to back in up, but the fact remains that not all AIs need necessarily be created equal.

RiouHotaru wrote...

But I like how smudboy is allowed to make "narrative leaps", like the minefield or the probes, but you're not.

Saying "It would've been better if this HAD happened, but it didn't" isn't the same as saying "This IS what happened, even though it's never explained that way or referrenced as such."

squee913 wrote...

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. 

The first example is the difference between looking at EVIDENCE and forming a CONCLUSION from it, and looking at a CONCLUSION and then inventing EVIDENCE to explain it.

For example, a scientist would look at the evidence presented to them (the evidence being that we see Shepard drifing towards a planet, and then we see the remains of Shepard's armor being recovered from that planet) and conclude, in absence of any additional evidence, that Shepard clearly went from Point A to Point B. To say that, for example, Shepard actually skipped off the atmosphere and was picked up by another ship (meaning that he never went *splat*) which then dumped his armor out the back and that's why we find it on the surface, is making a conclusion without any evidence to support it. Or to say that Shepard's armor had some sort of air-braking system in it which slowed his descent, which would be inventing evidence to support a conclusion. Or to conclude that Shepard's kinetic barriers protected him from reentry, which actually contradicts the evidence presented to us (if Shepard's kinetic barrier were still active, let alone powerful enough to protect his body from impact with a planet, then why do we see his suit being ruptured by a relatively low-speed impact with a bulkhead?).

Do you see the difference? It's not hypocricy; it's proper scientific method.

In the case of the later theory, the "Reaper Shell" is and has been for some time the predominant theory put forth by defenders of ME2's plot to rationalize the "Size, Shape, and Why?" question. WHY is the HR so small (estimates place it at only being a few hundred meters in length upon completion--less than the size of a standard Alliance frigate--if we're to assume that no "shell" is constructed around it, compared to Reapers that are several kilometers in length and are the largest known spacecraft in the galaxy) and WHY does it look like a human when EVERY OTHER REAPER that we've seen shares roughly the same cuttlefish-configuration? Proponents of Mass Effect 2's story put forward that obviously the Human Reaper is meant to be contained in a larger Reaper shell and that, in fact, within every Reaper is a smaller psuedo-Reaper in the form of whichever race from which it was constructed, and that that is why every other Reaper is nigh-identical.

As well, the "Reaper Shell" theory is used to explain how something apparently so small and weak could ever hope to rival a full Reaper. If it can't shoot through waist-high cover and Shepard can destroy it with small arms, how is this thing ever expected to take on armored warships in a fleet engagement ala the Battle of the Citadel?

Smudboy wasn't defending this theory. He was expressly criticizing it and pointing out how patently ridiculous the whole notion was. Because, again, it's the best anyone has been able to come up with explaining the "Size, Shape and Why?" argument. He's not inventing any narrative there. He's debunking and ridiculing narrative that others have invented.

Modifié par JKoopman, 08 avril 2011 - 10:26 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

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.

I'm going to move away from video games a bit here, and into film and lit, because that's the only place I can find comprable characters.

Let's look at Sherlock Holmes. Do you think he's a well-developed character? (And yes, the recent movie version is close enough to count, if that's your closest touchpoint.) Holmes primarily interacts through the world in two ways: seemingly casual conversations with his friend, and solving other people's problems.( These are also the main ways we get to see Shepard, too, except that Shepard has more friends.) Sometimes, he'll be sarcastic to his professional rival who has vastly inferior skills, or intimidate someone who is being an idiot. He doesn't change the world in a major way, and how his character changes over the course of his stories is very subtle, almost invisible. He simply... is. But he's also considered one of the greatest literary characters of all time. How can this be, with a character who is largely deadpan and almost never expresses any personal feelings? It's his interactions with the world that tell you what kind of person he is. And that person is profoundly weird, possibly handicapped, and unmitigatedly awesome.

Now compare Holmes to, say, Romeo, from Romeo and Juliet. More stuff happens to Romeo... Like, a lot more stuff, but he's a less interesting character to me. He may have a strong, easily vislble "arc," but his interactions with the world aren't particularly neat, his take on situations isn't unique in any way, he's a walking stereotype of young love. Of course, that's what he's designed to be - he may have even created it. I'm not saying Romeo is a bad character, but he's just an archetype to whom events happen. You can separate Macbeth from this kingdom and Hamlet from his duty and still give them something to do, but you can't separate Romeo from his Juliet and have him be very interesting. It's his reactions to the plot that makes Romeo interesting, not the inherent qualities of his character.

I think the disconnect here is that I like characters like Sherlock Holmes, or Batman, or the Stainless Steel Rat, or Ford Prefect. They're not the only kind of character I like, but sometimes I like someone interesting and eternal, whose struggles are largely under the surface, but whose qualities are iconic and well-developed. You can ask someone "How would Sherlock Holmes react in this situation" and they can probably tell you, because he's very distinctive. You can ask someone "How would Romeo react in this situation," and, unless it's a situation that directly involves Juliet or his family, and there's no basis to guess, no strong qualities defined. That's why you see Holmes make appearances elsewhere in fiction and television, and in all sorts of contexts, but you never see Romeo outside of his standard story with Juliet.

The thing is, if it's not for his mannerisms, his little outbursts, his condescension, and his weird calm in seemingly inappropriate situations, it might be possible to see Holmes as a bland character. That's where I find the voice acting comes in. It takes the place of describing the tone of voice. There are simply many times where Femshep expresses an emotion that is a window into her character, like one of Holmes's odd turns. My go-to example is the conversation with Legion about his armor: Male Shep just sounds like he's vaguely curious but doesn't particularly care, whereas Female Shep sounds like her lack of understanding here is really bothering her. Or there's the moment when Garrus is shot, and is lying in that pool of blood. You hear a note of concern creep into her voice, one that isn't there during other, equally stressful situations. That's when I realized "holy crap, she cares about him." I went into this game completely neutral about Garrus (I liked both Wrex and Kaidan better in ME1), but it was Shepard's reaction to him... the subtle notes in her voice, the easy familiarity, that made me actually like him.

It's the difference between reading the sentence
"Oh hello." he said.
and
"Oh hello." she said, a slight catch in her voice.

I could go on about this for pages and pages. And it isn't just me making up backstory, it's actions speaking louder than words.  If I see a western where the Duke plays a lawman, accompanying his deputy on a quest for revenge, and then he either stops or aids his deputy in that revenge, I think it means something... even if the Duke is silent throughout, even if he never talks about why he made the decision, even if he rides off in the end without saying anything. I know there has to be a why to it, but we have to infer it through his facial expressions, and his intonations, and his deeds. Something as small as a pat on the arm, or a pull from a flask. That's where character can hide, in a subtler story.

So yeah, I think Shepard is more of a detective or a cowboy than a young lover. But I like that kind of character better, anyway. (And no, I don't think she's really as good as Sherlock Holmes. That would be madness.)

[squee913]

JKoopman wrote...

Saying "It would've been better if this HAD happened, but it didn't" isn't the same as saying "This IS what happened, even though it's never explained that way or referrenced as such."

squee913 wrote...

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. 

The first example is the difference between looking at EVIDENCE and forming a CONCLUSION from it, and looking at a CONCLUSION and then inventing EVIDENCE to explain it.

For example, a scientist would look at the evidence presented to them (the evidence being that we see Shepard drifing towards a planet, and then we see the remains of Shepard's armor being recovered from that planet) and conclude, in absence of any additional evidence, that Shepard clearly went from Point A to Point B. To say that, for example, Shepard actually skipped off the atmosphere and was picked up by another ship (meaning that he never went *splat*) which then dumped his armor out the back and that's why we find it on the surface, is making a conclusion without any evidence to support it. Or to say that Shepard's armor had some sort of air-braking system in it which slowed his descent, which would be inventing evidence to support a conclusion. Or to conclude that Shepard's kinetic barriers protected him from reentry, which actually contradicts the evidence presented to us (if Shepard's kinetic barrier were still active, let alone powerful enough to protect his body from impact with a planet, then why do we see his suit being ruptured by a relatively low-speed impact with a bulkhead?).

Do you see the difference? It's not hypocricy; it's proper scientific method.

It's funny you should use scientific method because scientist also look at the evidence presented to them and develop theories to support how this happened.

For example; It looks as though Shepard crashed to he planet, but he game clearly shows us that his body WAS recovered. It a hard fact. Therefore, a scientist will start to develop logical theories as to how this truth came to be. Did he have a brake system? It is possible so we can't discount it. Did he bounce off the atmosphere? It's possible, so we can't discount it.

What they do NOT do, is look at the evidence and if they do not see a clear explanation, through up their hands and shout, "OMG it is completely impossible!!!"

[Dave666]

Saphra Deden wrote...

squee913 wrote...

What they do NOT do, is look at the evidence and if they do not see a clear explanation, through up their hands and shout, "OMG it is completely impossible!!!"

No, but what we can do is look at it and say that the narrative very poorly explained how this happened.

I can't believe I'm actually doing this, 'cause Saphra and I rarely agree on anything but...

+1

[NarayanNL]

didymos1120 wrote...

NarayanNL wrote...
I really like the games but they are just games the people writing these things are not professional writers and if they are they are writing Videogame tie ins and Movie tie ins.

Sorry, but this is absurd.  Are they writers?  Yes. Are they getting paid to write? Yes.  Well, that makes them professional writers.  You can't just say that the particular medium they work in most of the time doesn't count.

Your right that was uncalled for.
The person I was quoting was making the comparison to some of the better authors in the genre.
You can't seriously compare them with the people writing the Mass Effect games.

It's not that the medium doesn't count it's just that the medium they are writing isn't very good on average.
And no Mass Effect in my opinion isn't the exception that makes the rule.

I've never read a tie in book that's  a fantastic story with a brilliant plot. But it provides me with some more backstory to a setting I like that's why I read them sometimes.
  
I own 2 of the books about Mass Effect by Karpyshyn and they are fun books for what they are.

[MikkroBitti]

I just recently found out this guy...why is he doing these vids? Does he hate ME series or what?

[squee913]

Saphra Deden wrote...

squee913 wrote...

What they do NOT do, is look at the evidence and if they do not see a clear explanation, through up their hands and shout, "OMG it is completely impossible!!!"

No, but what we can do is look at it and say that the narrative very poorly explained how this happened.

Yes you have every right to say that, but don't pretend you are using scientific theory to do it.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

NarayanNL wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

NarayanNL wrote...
I really like the games but they are just games the people writing these things are not professional writers and if they are they are writing Videogame tie ins and Movie tie ins.

Sorry, but this is absurd.  Are they writers?  Yes. Are they getting paid to write? Yes.  Well, that makes them professional writers.  You can't just say that the particular medium they work in most of the time doesn't count.

Your right that was uncalled for.
The person I was quoting was making the comparison to some of the better authors in the genre.
You can't seriously compare them with the people writing the Mass Effect games.

It's not that the medium doesn't count it's just that the medium they are writing isn't very good on average.
And no Mass Effect in my opinion isn't the exception that makes the rule.

I've never read a tie in book that's  a fantastic story with a brilliant plot. But it provides me with some more backstory to a setting I like that's why I read them sometimes.
  
I own 2 of the books about Mass Effect by Karpyshyn and they are fun books for what they are.

I'm not talking about the story in the Mass Effect books, I'm talking about the story in the games, which I think is substantially better written than any of the tie-in stuff.

Also, I wasn't saying Mass Effect was as good as LeGuin, I'm saying it's the kind of science fiction LeGuin wrote... the kind where you get dumped into a world, and fed small amounts of information, allowing you to slowly build a picture of what is going on, steadily undercutting your previous assumptions of how things work. I recently re-read the Left Hand of Darkness, and that's the kind of thing I'm talking about - a steady journey toward understanding the "why" behind an alien culture's behavior.

I'm trying to distinguish between two KINDS of science fiction - and Mass Effect's use of science fiction tropes borrows more from the classic, literary kind, while the action borrows from the cowboys in space variety.

Cowboys in space is the kind of story where Sci-Fi is just set decoration, where all the tropes could just as easily be replaced with tropes from any other genre with no change to the plot.  (Star Wars is the best example of this, but a lot of modern Sci Fi film is very similar. Independence Day, too.)

Literary Science Fiction is the kind of story where part of the fun is having to think about stuff, collecting clues and making a hypothesis based on those clues, or developing an assumption and then having that assumption undercut. I'm not talking simply about "Plot Twists" of the "You blew it up!" variety, I'm talking about the building, changing, and dismissing of ideas about the world while you explore the work.

Let's look at a substory of ME that embodies this concept of building theories and undercutting assumptions: the Genophage. In ME1, it was presented as a sterility plague, designed to cause the Krogan to die out slowly, and used after a "useful tool" race wanted to break its bonds. Sure you got the impression that the Krogan had started a war, but you also felt that the response had been overwhelming, unnecessary and cruel. That was the story you got from Wrex, anyway, and there was only a little contradiction from Garrus, who you had reason to believe was prejudiced anyway.

So, after ME1, you might have been left with the impression that Turians and Salarians were jerks who unfairly perpatrated a warcrime against the Krogan, who are now going extinct.

In ME2, we learn that a lot of this stuff isn't true. It's not that Wrex was lying, he was just telling us what he believed, from his somewhat biased perspective. Mordin now tells you that the Genophage was not intended to wipe the Krogan out, and is in fact being strongly monitored to make sure that it does not. You learn that the team who made the Genophage didn't ever want to have to use it, and tried to avoid doing so. And you learn that the Salarians feel immense guilt about this, and would be willing to work on a cure if the Krogan showed any signs of being capable of peacefully joining the galaxy. Now the Genophage is a shades-of-gray matter, and one that I deeply appreciate. I actually hate that the Paragon conversation options with Solus are so judgmental, and I often don't pick them. I agree that, for now, the Genophage is, and was, a reasonable solution to an extremely difficult problem. I think the galaxy should work harder on trying to integrate the Krogan in a way that will allow them to cure or ameliorate the Genophage in the future, but the initial use doesn't seem so monstrous anymore.

This isn't a plot hole. It isn't a retcon. It isn't something that the writers clearly made up on the fly. We were simply offered one side's persepective in game one, and then the other side's perspective in a later chapter, which causes us to question our initial assumptions. The question of the Genophage is a well-told story.  The fascinating, morally interesting framework combined with the excellent character development of both Wrex and Mordin, gives you an extremely well-written piece of Science Fiction, in my opinion.

I think we probably have most of the information about the Genophage, by now. There may be an ending or a resolution in ME3, or there may not, but I think we know most of the facts so far. I don't think we know most of the facts in the overarching mystery of the Reaper, I think we'll learn a lot of new information about them ME3. So in the same way you shouldn't assume your conclusions about the Genophage will be the same as they were in ME1 after ME2, don't assume you have all the pieces of the Reaper mystery just yet.

When I said it was the "kind of story" a great SF writer would write, I used those names mainly because people who have only read books that school made them read would recognize them. I'd actually compare Mass Effect's writing to Scalzi, or Westerfield, before I'd go for Asimov... but I can't risk assuming anyone on this board will know who Scalzi or Westerfield are, while I can hope that they read at least one Science Fiction classic in High School, so they know the kind of thing I'm trying to get them to think about.

[nremies1]

Didn't watch much of the video since the guy's tone is simply unbearable (although I chuckled at the Zaeed comment)...but here's my question to one of his questions.

He asked why Hackett didn't know everything there was to know about the program. My question in response is, "why would he?" He's the commander of 5th Fleet...he's a naval commander dealing with ships and squadrons and deployments. I submit that Hackett told you everything he knows, which is all second hand...probably from somebody he knows who's involved in special operations. He's an Admiral...he delegates this crap to other officers.

[ErebUs890]

I didn't watch it, but I'm going to tell you right now that he's wrong.

[Dudeman315]

squee913 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Saying "It would've been better if this HAD happened, but it didn't" isn't the same as saying "This IS what happened, even though it's never explained that way or referrenced as such."

squee913 wrote...

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. 

The first example is the difference between looking at EVIDENCE and forming a CONCLUSION from it, and looking at a CONCLUSION and then inventing EVIDENCE to explain it.

For example, a scientist would look at the evidence presented to them (the evidence being that we see Shepard drifing towards a planet, and then we see the remains of Shepard's armor being recovered from that planet) and conclude, in absence of any additional evidence, that Shepard clearly went from Point A to Point B. To say that, for example, Shepard actually skipped off the atmosphere and was picked up by another ship (meaning that he never went *splat*) which then dumped his armor out the back and that's why we find it on the surface, is making a conclusion without any evidence to support it. Or to say that Shepard's armor had some sort of air-braking system in it which slowed his descent, which would be inventing evidence to support a conclusion. Or to conclude that Shepard's kinetic barriers protected him from reentry, which actually contradicts the evidence presented to us (if Shepard's kinetic barrier were still active, let alone powerful enough to protect his body from impact with a planet, then why do we see his suit being ruptured by a relatively low-speed impact with a bulkhead?).

Do you see the difference? It's not hypocricy; it's proper scientific method.

It's funny you should use scientific method because scientist also look at the evidence presented to them and develop theories to support how this happened.

For example; It looks as though Shepard crashed to he planet, but he game clearly shows us that his body WAS recovered. It a hard fact. Therefore, a scientist will start to develop logical theories as to how this truth came to be. Did he have a brake system? It is possible so we can't discount it. Did he bounce off the atmosphere? It's possible, so we can't discount it.

What they do NOT do, is look at the evidence and if they do not see a clear explanation, through up their hands and shout, "OMG it is completely impossible!!!"

Did the planet's garavity suddenly reverse? It's possible. Did shepard suddenly travel forward in time to skip the landing? It's possible. 

We can play the make-up things games all you want but none of are supported by the narrative.  None of the would hold up in a court or science journal based on the evidence presented, Shepard falling to the planet would hold up.  Granted I think this plothole is relatively minor and would have glossed over it had you not insisted on make up random while technically possible reasons is logical(or RULE OF AIRBUDing it).

PS--- Rule of airbud-anything not speciffically forbidden is allowed

[NarayanNL]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm not talking about the story in the Mass Effect books, I'm talking about the story in the games, which I think is substantially better written than any of the tie-in stuff.

Also, I wasn't saying Mass Effect was as good as LeGuin, I'm saying it's the kind of science fiction LeGuin wrote... the kind where you get dumped into a world, and fed small amounts of information, allowing you to slowly build a picture of what is going on, steadily undercutting your previous assumptions of how things work. I recently re-read the Left Hand of Darkness, and that's the kind of thing I'm talking about - a steady journey toward understanding the "why" behind an alien culture's behavior.

I'm trying to distinguish between two KINDS of science fiction - and Mass Effect's use of science fiction tropes borrows more from the classic, literary kind, while the action borrows from the cowboys in space variety.


Cowboys in space is the kind of story where Sci-Fi is just set decoration, where all the tropes could just as easily be replaced with tropes from any other genre with no change to the plot.  (Star Wars is the best example of this, but a lot of modern Sci Fi film is very similar. Independence Day, too.)

Literary Science Fiction is the kind of story where part of the fun is having to think about stuff, collecting clues and making a hypothesis based on those clues, or developing an assumption and then having that assumption undercut. I'm not talking simply about "Plot Twists" of the "You blew it up!" variety, I'm talking about the building, changing, and dismissing of ideas about the world while you explore the work.

Let's look at a substory of ME that embodies this concept of building theories and undercutting assumptions: the Genophage. In ME1, it was presented as a sterility plague, designed to cause the Krogan to die out slowly, and used after a "useful tool" race wanted to break its bonds. Sure you got the impression that the Krogan had started a war, but you also felt that the response had been overwhelming, unnecessary and cruel. That was the story you got from Wrex, anyway, and there was only a little contradiction from Garrus, who you had reason to believe was prejudiced anyway.

So, after ME1, you might have been left with the impression that Turians and Salarians were jerks who unfairly perpatrated a warcrime against the Krogan, who are now going extinct.

In ME2, we learn that a lot of this stuff isn't true. It's not that Wrex was lying, he was just telling us what he believed, from his somewhat biased perspective. Mordin now tells you that the Genophage was not intended to wipe the Krogan out, and is in fact being strongly monitored to make sure that it does not. You learn that the team who made the Genophage didn't ever want to have to use it, and tried to avoid doing so. And you learn that the Salarians feel immense guilt about this, and would be willing to work on a cure if the Krogan showed any signs of being capable of peacefully joining the galaxy. Now the Genophage is a shades-of-gray matter, and one that I deeply appreciate. I actually hate that the Paragon conversation options with Solus are so judgmental, and I often don't pick them. I agree that, for now, the Genophage is, and was, a reasonable solution to an extremely difficult problem. I think the galaxy should work harder on trying to integrate the Krogan in a way that will allow them to cure or ameliorate the Genophage in the future, but the initial use doesn't seem so monstrous anymore.

This isn't a plot hole. It isn't a retcon. It isn't something that the writers clearly made up on the fly. We were simply offered one side's persepective in game one, and then the other side's perspective in a later chapter, which causes us to question our initial assumptions. The question of the Genophage is a well-told story.  The fascinating, morally interesting framework combined with the excellent character development of both Wrex and Mordin, gives you an extremely well-written piece of Science Fiction, in my opinion.

I think we probably have most of the information about the Genophage, by now. There may be an ending or a resolution in ME3, or there may not, but I think we know most of the facts so far. I don't think we know most of the facts in the overarching mystery of the Reaper, I think we'll learn a lot of new information about them ME3. So in the same way you shouldn't assume your conclusions about the Genophage will be the same as they were in ME1 after ME2, don't assume you have all the pieces of the Reaper mystery just yet.

When I said it was the "kind of story" a great SF writer would write, I used those names mainly because people who have only read books that school made them read would recognize them. I'd actually compare Mass Effect's writing to Scalzi, or Westerfield, before I'd go for Asimov... but I can't risk assuming anyone on this board will know who Scalzi or Westerfield are, while I can hope that they read at least one Science Fiction classic in High School, so they know the kind of thing I'm trying to get them to think about.

I see where you are coming from now. I'm just not sure this style is working for the overarching story of the game.

I have to agree with you that the way they handled the genophage question in the two games was indeed the highlight of the series thus far.

The difference between the overarching plot and the genophage plot is the way the genophage plot builds and expands on what we have learned during the first game in a way that makes sense and weaves it together well.

Arrival kinda shows us the only point of the plot must have been for us as the player to learn the reapers harvest for reproduction. It was never part of their return to the galaxy plan.
This gave us a new insight into the reapers motivation. But I don´t see how this helps us in defeating them.

Modifié par NarayanNL, 09 avril 2011 - 12:43 .

[squee913]

Dudeman315 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Saying "It would've been better if this HAD happened, but it didn't" isn't the same as saying "This IS what happened, even though it's never explained that way or referrenced as such."

squee913 wrote...

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. 

The first example is the difference between looking at EVIDENCE and forming a CONCLUSION from it, and looking at a CONCLUSION and then inventing EVIDENCE to explain it.

For example, a scientist would look at the evidence presented to them (the evidence being that we see Shepard drifing towards a planet, and then we see the remains of Shepard's armor being recovered from that planet) and conclude, in absence of any additional evidence, that Shepard clearly went from Point A to Point B. To say that, for example, Shepard actually skipped off the atmosphere and was picked up by another ship (meaning that he never went *splat*) which then dumped his armor out the back and that's why we find it on the surface, is making a conclusion without any evidence to support it. Or to say that Shepard's armor had some sort of air-braking system in it which slowed his descent, which would be inventing evidence to support a conclusion. Or to conclude that Shepard's kinetic barriers protected him from reentry, which actually contradicts the evidence presented to us (if Shepard's kinetic barrier were still active, let alone powerful enough to protect his body from impact with a planet, then why do we see his suit being ruptured by a relatively low-speed impact with a bulkhead?).

Do you see the difference? It's not hypocricy; it's proper scientific method.

It's funny you should use scientific method because scientist also look at the evidence presented to them and develop theories to support how this happened.

For example; It looks as though Shepard crashed to he planet, but he game clearly shows us that his body WAS recovered. It a hard fact. Therefore, a scientist will start to develop logical theories as to how this truth came to be. Did he have a brake system? It is possible so we can't discount it. Did he bounce off the atmosphere? It's possible, so we can't discount it.

What they do NOT do, is look at the evidence and if they do not see a clear explanation, through up their hands and shout, "OMG it is completely impossible!!!"

Did the planet's garavity suddenly reverse? It's possible. Did shepard suddenly travel forward in time to skip the landing? It's possible. 

We can play the make-up things games all you want but none of are supported by the narrative.  None of the would hold up in a court or science journal based on the evidence presented, Shepard falling to the planet would hold up.  Granted I think this plothole is relatively minor and would have glossed over it had you not insisted on make up random while technically possible reasons is logical(or RULE OF AIRBUDing it).

PS--- Rule of airbud-anything not speciffically forbidden is allowed

I was not sharing my personal opinion on the matter. I DO feel that it was not very well explained, and like you, feel it is a minor plot hole. I was simply pointing out how silly it was for Koop to pretend he was using scientific theory to call things plot holes, when scientific theory would not call something unbelievable until every possible explanation (apparent or not) had been ruled as an impossibility.

[JKoopman]

@Squee913

Have you forgotten that this is a work of fiction? Scientific method can bring us to a conclusion based on the evidence with which we're presented. If that conclusion doesn't make sense within the narrative or conflicts with what logic tells us should have happened then we're well within our rights to "throw up our hands" and declare it a plothole or bad writing.

A scientist doesn't simply look at a problem, invent a possible explanation for it, assume that it is correct and declare the problem solved. He must test and prove his hypothesis. Can you prove any of your theories? What evidence does the narrative give us to support them?

You can invent all sorts of hypothesis to explain it, but you have to show evidence to support them. You literally have nothing upon which to base your theory within the narrative aside from your own supposition and no way to test your hypothesis which, according to the scientific method, discounts it from consideration.

Modifié par JKoopman, 09 avril 2011 - 04:41 .