462 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

If the only reason you are posting in this thread is to tell me that then I think you should follow your own advise.

When
it comes to CGG I'm not interested in partaking in her rambling about
Dr. Who, or comic books, or cartoons, or every other form of mass media
which seems to be the essence of her very existence and the only way she
can relate to anything.

Don't forget great 19th century literature, modern sociology, East Asian History (especially during the period between 1600 and 1955), set design, science fiction, Mythology, North American Anthropology, and linguistics. Also, I think I've done some string theory, or at least discussion of the physics behind ansibles, and I know I brought out my copy of the DSM-IV at some point, just to be especially cheeky.

Actually, I've completely missed Dr. Who. Hmm.

I can do my stuff without referencing anything, but without concrete examples some people have a little bit of trouble following me.

Edit: on the bright side, this thread has reminded me of how much I like Question and the Huntress. Oh, and for those who don't consider references to other media an abomination, here is the JLU episode clip in question: adorkable.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 03:46 .

[Quole]

Shouldn't this whole discussion be in the Garrus thread?

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

If the only reason you are posting in this thread is to tell me that then I think you should follow your own advise.

What?  You debate well when you actually bother to.  You're no fun when you're hostile.  I like smart, reasonable Saph better.  Jerk Saph sucks the fun out of threads.

When it comes to CGG I'm not interested in partaking in her rambling about Dr. Who, or comic books, or cartoons, or every other form of mass media which seems to be the essence of her very existence and the only way she can relate to anything.

That was pointlessly cruel and insulting.  It adds nothing to the discussion and only hurts your credibility and reputation in future debates.  Providing examples of similar issues in other works of fiction is a valid way of discussing, you know, FICTION.

[Konfined]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Eh, exactly how are they more implausible during the missions?

You people need everything explained to you.


Let's see.

"The man/woman/dog you've been chasing after to kill for the last 20 years is right in front of you. However that's wrong, so even though revenge is in your grasp I want you to abandon it now."

As opposed to talking the person out of it far away from the object of temptation.

I suppose it'd be easier to talk a fat person out of meal in the middle of an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Yeah in that situation it's actually more like "you decided to blow up the refinery and put the lives of the very people we're trying to save in dire jeopardy.  Screw your little revenge issues."  It's actually a bit different a situation which doesn't support your argument at all.  Just saying.

Modifié par Konfined, 09 mai 2011 - 03:49 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You people need everything explained to you.


Let's see.

"The man/woman/dog you've been chasing after to kill for the last 20 years is right in front of you. However that's wrong, so even though revenge is in your grasp I want you to abandon it now."

As opposed to talking the person out of it far away from the object of temptation.

I suppose it'd be easier to talk a fat person out of meal in the middle of an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Oh, that came from the right person.

As for the rest, it's been explained before that it's a very functional trope, and that there might be things people are unaware of before the confrontation. Which is the case with Garrus. 

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 09 mai 2011 - 03:52 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Everyone else does it so we should too and it makes sense. Right.

You have no love for literary conventions and archetypes, do you?

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 09 mai 2011 - 03:50 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Everyone else does it so we should too and it makes sense. Right.

Nobody's saying it should be done because it's done often.

Rather, when you say it's illogical, they bring up evidence that many different writers and people see the logic in it.

There are very few new stories. [REFERENCE REDACTED] [REDACTED].

If you're a person who sees killing as a necessity sometimes and a job other times, it may be possible that there are times when killing is neither part of necessity or a job. When it becomes clear that such a situation has come arisen, you may want to change your decision about whether or not to kill a particular person.

[Crap, are literary theory citations allowed? REDACTED just in case].

So, [REDACTED]. Something being used frequently doesn't make it inherently good or bad, it just means that particular device may be something people can relate to easily.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 03:55 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Not the ****ty ones, no.

It's unfortunate that the paragon dialogue in Garrus' loyalty mission does not suit your personal tates.  Even more unfortunate is your desire to insult everyone with a different opinion.

I enjoy last minute redemptions, personally, and I'm glad Garrus got one.  I felt the writing was, at worst, adequate given the circumstances, and moving at best.  You are free to disagree so long as you aren't a douche about it.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
That is what you're saying when you point to it as a a common trope.

No, she points out that it's a functional trope. That it works. Otherwise, I doubt that so many other fictions would utilize it.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Saphra Deden wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Nobody's saying it should be done because it's done often.

That is what you're saying when you point to it as a a common trope.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Rather, when you say it's illogical, they bring up evidence that many different writers and people see the logic in it.

...and here's the proof of the above.

No... see, if I don't use references, you misunderstand me! Ok, they're back in. Tried it your way, totally didn't work.

If you say "Such and such doesn't make sense" and someone else says "here is an example of another story where I think it makes sense, why is this particular case different" then that is a way to try to get to the bottom of your particular objections - if you feel that something is ok in one case, and not ok in another case, that may show where the crux of your problem lies.

I'm not saying you should do something because it is popular. I'm saying that other people using a trop is evidence that the writers in question may have considered that particular trope logical when they were also using it. This is very different from saying we should reuse the most common tropes, or that they're all good. I personally hate the greek tragedy format (summary: let's watch an otherwise functional person's single fatal flaw tear them apart!), but I cannot argue that it is not based on some real notion or emotion.

Trying to do something entirely new is hard, because most tropes that are logically story-shaped have already been used. The attempt to do something entirely new often leads to something like postmodernism, or infernokrusher literature. Interesting and fun, yes, but hardly suited to the mainstream palate. (If Bioware made a post-modern infernokrusher RPG, I would buy it. Nobody else would, but I would be so there.)

Have you never set out to do something in life, and then changed your goals based on information you learned along the way? Has a friend never put a hand on your shoulder and said, quietly, "perhaps you should rethink this?" Maybe you've just lived a remarkable life, free of doubt, clear of purpose, and that is why you do not see the story here.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 04:23 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

That's not what you actually said I said though... oh nevermind. The goalposts have moved so many times during this particular argument that the football field looks more like a minigolf course. And yes, that sports metaphor is especially tortured. Sport isn't my strong suit!

I still haven't seen you rebut this actual point, so I'll summarize it again:

They embark upon a mission assuming two things: Garrus can handle this calmly, and Sidonis is a base traitor who feels no guilt for what he did. In Paragon reasoning, these two pieces of information mean it's OK to kill Sidonis, to prevent him from taking similar actions again, because doing so will have no negative effect on Garrus.

During the mission, the status of both these pieces of information changes: we learn that Garrus cannot do this without it getting to him, and that Sidonis is truly regretful, to the point where it seems unlikely he would do a similar thing again.

For Paragons, this changes the situation. For Renegades, it may not.

End of line.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 mai 2011 - 04:33 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

So Shepard went into the mission planning to betray Garrus...

Wrong.  Shepard originally agreed, but as the mission progresses can repeatedly ask whether Garrus is sure this is what he wants.  Garrus, meanwhile, gets more and more emotional and hostile.

No choice is made on Shepard's part until the player says so.  Shepard only "plans" to betray Garrus if you roleplay/metagame that way.  As is, the decision to stand in the way of the shot is on-the-spot, and made based on evidence that came to light during the mission.

Let me say it again: NO CHOICE IS MADE ON SHEPARD'S PART UNTIL THE PLAYER SAYS SO.

[Bluko]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Bluko wrote...

To me the game would have been a lot more interesting if you couldn't actually get everyone's loyalty by being purely Paragon or Renegade.

For sh*ts and giggles, what missions would only be resolvable as a paragon?

Thane's, maybe?  Kasumi is only loyal if you let her keep the Greybox?  Dunno, just thinking, if you had to split everyone into two categories...

Personally, I like that every conflict can be resolved by both sides.  That way, nobody's punished, and no one has an edge.  Granted, I think taking certain routes should be more difficult (for example, you needed a pretty high paragon ratio to convince Zaeed to remain loyal if you didn't go after Vido), but the fact that the game doesn't force an obviously "better" decision on you is what makes it worth playing both sides.

Well not everyone.

I just thought it odd that you could talk Garrus out of it. I mean after Dr. Saleon can you really blame him? Dr. Saleon ends up dying no matter what you do. So I don't see why Garrus would be anymore fond of the Paragon way of things now. Garrus is sort of meant to be that Renegade Turian that shoots first and asks questions later. He is the law.

In Zaeed's case I was really surprised you could Paragon you're way out of it. Doesn't really make sense. You let the man Zaeed's been hunting for 20 years get away, and simply by giving him alittle speech that makes it all cool? I thought for sure Zaeed would be unloyal my first playthrough. Kind of would have been neat if only Paragons could gain Kasumi's loyalty and only Renegades could gain Zaeed's loyalty. That's probably how those characters were designed to be from the start. But I think they changed things since that wouldn't be a real wise move to do that with a DLC.

I sort of prefer that not every situation can be solved by every Shepard. It sort of devalues the point of choosing one path over the other if it's always possible to talk your way out things/shoot your way out things. Taking a different path should result in a different trip. It'd just be nice if there was a pair of missions that you could only effectively solve by doing things only the Paragon/Renegade way. That way you can actually see the merit of the other side of the spectrum for once when you fail. But you can revalidate yourself by knowing that the way you do things is the only reason that other mission was a success.

I'm not saying however that only those who save the Collector Base should be rewarded, and those who don't should be punished or something like that. Big plot events like those should be arbitrary, since in most situations both choices are meant to have merit.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

So, what happened then? Shepard went into this mission hoping Garrus would have second thoughts? Garrus told you before you even started the mission what he wanted to do. Shepard makes a choice just by starting the mission.

*facepalm*

Have you ever started to do something, then changed your mind when you realized it was a bad idea?

[Konfined]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

That's not what you actually said I said though... oh nevermind. The goalposts have moved so many times during this particular argument that the football field looks more like a minigolf course. And yes, that sports metaphor is especially tortured. Sport isn't my strong suit!

I still haven't seen you rebut this actual point, so I'll summarize it again:

They embark upon a mission assuming two things: Garrus can handle this calmly, and Sidonis is a base traitor who feels no guilt for what he did. In Paragon reasoning, these two pieces of information mean it's OK to kill Sidonis, to prevent him from taking similar actions again, because doing so will have no negative effect on Garrus.

During the mission, the status of both these pieces of information changes: we learn that Garrus cannot do this without it getting to him, and that Sidonis is truly regretful, to the point where it seems unlikely he would do a similar thing again.

For Paragons, this changes the situation. For Renegades, it may not.

End of line.

[devil's advocate]The problem with this is that this scenario is your take on the situation, based entirely upon your perspective.  You appear to be arguing your take on the situation as if fact, when it is opinion; highly popular it may be, but opinion none the less.  Garrus' true motivation is up to interpretation,  and Shepard's intent is ambigious and entirely up to the player's personal perception of the situation at hand.  And this issue between you and Saphra is based entirely upon perspective; the two of you appear to be trying to impose your take of the situation on each other.  [ /devil's advocate]

Modifié par Konfined, 09 mai 2011 - 05:10 .