6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

SpiffySquee wrote...

My argument was not only completely hand-waved, but done so in a condescending way. People keep saying that he makes good points despite the way he presents them. It is true that the points are valid or not regardless of the presentation, but that does not mean presentation is irrelevant. When trying to convince someone of your views, HOW you present them is just as important as what you present.

Due, you do that ALL THE TIME.
You accuse him of being mean and condesending and you're doign the exact same thing. And do a far worse job of hiding it b.t.w.

Sentances like "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" ... you throw cheap insults at him constantly and come off far more emoptional.

No offense, but if we're talking about presentation, he wins by a Everest avalanche.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Due, you do that ALL THE TIME.
You accuse him of being mean and condesending and you're doign the exact same thing. And do a far worse job of hiding it b.t.w.

Sentances like "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" ... you throw cheap insults at him constantly and come off far more emoptional.

No offense, but if we're talking about presentation, he wins by a Everest avalanche.

You should've seen him when he wasn't banned.

[Bcuz]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...
I could say the same thing about Mass Effect 2, and I think you'd have some harsh comments for me.

Plottus holeus maximus

Name one plot that does not have holes in any medium.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xeranx wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Why are we still talking about Smudboy's opinions? He was a snobbish jerk when he was on these forums and was promptly banned for it. Why should we care about what he thinks?

If you think that's grounds for being banned I guess you're fine with this as it's not snobbish in the least and isn't a bannable offense, apparently.  And if you find that acceptable I seriously don't want to talk to you or see any of your comments.

I went through a bunch of posts to see what Smudboy was banned for and saw nothing.  I don't know what he said, but I know he'd retaliate once someone came at him and he'd hold on to that if he saw an aggressor in another thread he was posting in.

Yeah, I've been diggin too and found nothing ban-worthy from him.

Proably just of butthurt fans complained and he ended up banend for that.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

My argument was not only completely hand-waved, but done so in a condescending way. People keep saying that he makes good points despite the way he presents them. It is true that the points are valid or not regardless of the presentation, but that does not mean presentation is irrelevant. When trying to convince someone of your views, HOW you present them is just as important as what you present.

Due, you do that ALL THE TIME.
You accuse him of being mean and condesending and you're doign the exact same thing. And do a far worse job of hiding it b.t.w.

Sentances like "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" ... you throw cheap insults at him constantly and come off far more emoptional.

No offense, but if we're talking about presentation, he wins by a Everest avalanche.

You are so off the mark it is not even funny. I may have made sarcastic remarks about some of his arguments, but I explain why I feel the argument is invalid. I give reasons for why this is the case. I examine each argument I disagree with in detail. I do not hand-wave it with a 2 second clip and act like my job is done. I would not care if he was sarcastic as long as there was an argument attached to it. The problem is that he used sarcasm AS the argument.

Also, I would love for you to point out one single cheap insult to him. Heck, I'd like you to point out one cheap insult I've said to anyone. I have never insulted anyone on a personal level, despite several personal insults he made to me. Just because I think some of his arguments don't make sense dose not mean I think he is stupid or a troll or anything like that. In fact I state several times that I think he is intelligent and funny.

Lines like, "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" are attacks on the argument, not the person. Smart people can make dumb arguments. Happens all the time. I think you need to learn the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the person. I have never insulted his intelligence, personality, or status.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 05 septembre 2011 - 07:41 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Due, you do that ALL THE TIME.
You accuse him of being mean and condesending and you're doign the exact same thing. And do a far worse job of hiding it b.t.w.

Sentances like "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" ... you throw cheap insults at him constantly and come off far more emotional.

No offense, but if we're talking about presentation, he wins by a Everest avalanche.

You should've seen him when he wasn't banned.

I've been digging and I saw (or should I say, I didn't see anything). You're worse than him in practicly every thread I see you.
Why arne't *you* banned I wonder?

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I've been digging and I saw (or should I say, I didn't see anything). You're worse than him in practicly every thread I see you.
Why arne't *you* banned I wonder?

I'm wondering the same thing about you, since you're always "dimissing" people's arguments with curse words instead of constructing an actual counter-argument.

[Gibb_Shepard]

....Is there a particular reason a thread dedicated to smudboy has gone on for so long? Can someone explain the central issue being discussed here?

[marstor05]

when did it turn into a **** slapping thread?

[Raygereio]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
Can someone explain the central issue being discussed here?

Allow me to demonstrate:

You're wrong!
No! You're wrong!

Now repeat that for some 2500 times and I think you have good idea of what this thread's about.

[Almostfaceman]

There's not really any reason for this to be going on, they've totally talked this topic to death. It's turned into a war of personalities. It's been going on for months. You've said all you've got to say people, move along, please.

[Someone With Mass]

Bcuz wrote...

Name one plot that does not have holes in any medium.

Nothing's perfect, but apparently Smudboy thinks it can be if it follows his preferences.

[TuringPoint]

Is there some way to report a thread for being essentially beyond the topic of ME3?

[Someone With Mass]

Alocormin wrote...

Is there some way to report a thread for being essentially beyond the topic of ME3?

Send a message to one of the mods.

[KotorEffect3]

Gotta love what smudboy brings out in people

[Notlikeyoucare]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Gotta love what smudboy brings out in people

Why do people always assume that this is Smudboy's doing? It just so happens that the points in his video's spark discussion about the story, which is just how the discussion plays out, Barely anything in this thread is actually about Smudboy or in direct response to his videos.

[Nashiktal]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Gotta love what smudboy brings out in people

Why do people always assume that this is Smudboy's doing? It just so happens that the points in his video's spark discussion about the story, which is just how the discussion plays out, Barely anything in this thread is actually about Smudboy or in direct response to his videos.

Now don't try to bring reason here, that would make too much sense, and apparently we can't have that. /sarcasm

[Il Divo]

Nashiktal wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Gotta love what smudboy brings out in people

Why do people always assume that this is Smudboy's doing? It just so happens that the points in his video's spark discussion about the story, which is just how the discussion plays out, Barely anything in this thread is actually about Smudboy or in direct response to his videos.

Now don't try to bring reason here, that would make too much sense, and apparently we can't have that. /sarcasm

Reported for sarcasm.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

My argument was not only completely hand-waved, but done so in a condescending way. People keep saying that he makes good points despite the way he presents them. It is true that the points are valid or not regardless of the presentation, but that does not mean presentation is irrelevant. When trying to convince someone of your views, HOW you present them is just as important as what you present.

Due, you do that ALL THE TIME.
You accuse him of being mean and condesending and you're doign the exact same thing. And do a far worse job of hiding it b.t.w.

Sentances like "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" ... you throw cheap insults at him constantly and come off far more emoptional.

No offense, but if we're talking about presentation, he wins by a Everest avalanche.

You are so off the mark it is not even funny. I may have made sarcastic remarks about some of his arguments, but I explain why I feel the argument is invalid. I give reasons for why this is the case. I examine each argument I disagree with in detail. I do not hand-wave it with a 2 second clip and act like my job is done. I would not care if he was sarcastic as long as there was an argument attached to it. The problem is that he used sarcasm AS the argument.

Also, I would love for you to point out one single cheap insult to him. Heck, I'd like you to point out one cheap insult I've said to anyone. I have never insulted anyone on a personal level, despite several personal insults he made to me. Just because I think some of his arguments don't make sense dose not mean I think he is stupid or a troll or anything like that. In fact I state several times that I think he is intelligent and funny.

Lines like, "his arguments make as much sense as a manatie attempting to ski" are attacks on the argument, not the person. Smart people can make dumb arguments. Happens all the time. I think you need to learn the difference between attacking an argument and attacking the person. I have never insulted his intelligence, personality, or status.

I watched your video Squee and in my honest opinion you won the debate, if Smudboy can't accept that, then that is his tough luck.  

[Nashiktal]

Well to try to swing things back on track, I am going to quote something smudboy said in response to the Mass Effect Analysis. Because of the weird formatting, I can't seem to copy his quoting of it, but it was about not comparing Mass Effects story to a novel or a movie.


"The only thing that makes a video game different is the page it's on and how you turn it. The narrative is more than just words: it's audio and visual. Like how we get visual and audio cues on the resurrection of Shepard (audio logs, size and aesthetics of the station, etc.) Now, we have to apply even more knowhow on how the story is told. The basic rule is: form follows function. What does a large spacestation need to have all these rooms when reconstructing a man? The design has nothing to do with Shepard's rebirth, and everything to do with a tutorial level. If it's just some medical base, then fine. But because we get no clues, no visual evidence, no "failed experiment evidence", no clear motives from our traitor, no concern from our protagonist, and confusing audio techno-jargon, where's the real story of Shepard's rebirth? (Conclusion: there isn't one.) In this paragraph, I haven't compared this to other rebirth stories or another medium. And yet there's a medical miracle whose how and meaning is lost, because we need to shoot things.

However, you said "it's a mistake to analyze the story of a video game as if it were a book or movie," which suddenly puts the story of a video game in some special place that can't be evaluated. This is false thinking. "Shepard stretches the kink out in his arm. He ponders if the discomfort is from his resurrection." = the idle animation. If we reduce the story of a video game to a book or movie, then of course we can compare and evaluate it. A video game is just a combination of audio and visual outputs, with special page turning inputs. It'll have the exact same elements, obviously in a conjoined manner. But I'm barely doing that. I'm just talking about what makes the story make sense (i.e. the plot.)

I am most definitely not comparing this work to Asimov or Clarke (and some have, which I touch on in some of the next videos I'm making.) Unless you really want to see how much of a farce it becomes."



I have to say I really agree with him about the cerberus awakening bit. I don't think it was until LOITSB that we even knew the traitors motivation, and while I don't think its too important to know in detail what the base was, our time in it was so short and confusing that it piles on with the rest of it. (Remember the silly jerking animations for the ccerberus personal being shot my the mech?)

Modifié par Nashiktal, 05 septembre 2011 - 01:58 .

[dreman9999]

Nashiktal wrote...

Well to try to swing things back on track, I am going to quote something smudboy said in response to the Mass Effect Analysis. Because of the weird formatting, I can't seem to copy his quoting of it, but it was about not comparing Mass Effects story to a novel or a movie.


"The only thing that makes a video game different is the page it's on and how you turn it. The narrative is more than just words: it's audio and visual. Like how we get visual and audio cues on the resurrection of Shepard (audio logs, size and aesthetics of the station, etc.) Now, we have to apply even more knowhow on how the story is told. The basic rule is: form follows function. What does a large spacestation need to have all these rooms when reconstructing a man? The design has nothing to do with Shepard's rebirth, and everything to do with a tutorial level. If it's just some medical base, then fine. But because we get no clues, no visual evidence, no "failed experiment evidence", no clear motives from our traitor, no concern from our protagonist, and confusing audio techno-jargon, where's the real story of Shepard's rebirth? (Conclusion: there isn't one.) In this paragraph, I haven't compared this to other rebirth stories or another medium. And yet there's a medical miracle whose how and meaning is lost, because we need to shoot things.

However, you said "it's a mistake to analyze the story of a video game as if it were a book or movie," which suddenly puts the story of a video game in some special place that can't be evaluated. This is false thinking. "Shepard stretches the kink out in his arm. He ponders if the discomfort is from his resurrection." = the idle animation. If we reduce the story of a video game to a book or movie, then of course we can compare and evaluate it. A video game is just a combination of audio and visual outputs, with special page turning inputs. It'll have the exact same elements, obviously in a conjoined manner. But I'm barely doing that. I'm just talking about what makes the story make sense (i.e. the plot.)

I am most definitely not comparing this work to Asimov or Clarke (and some have, which I touch on in some of the next videos I'm making.) Unless you really want to see how much of a farce it becomes."



I have to say I really agree with him about the cerberus awakening bit. I don't think it was until LOITSB that we even knew the traitors motivation, and while I don't think its too important to know in detail what the base was, our time in it was so short and confusing that it piles on with the rest of it. (Remember the silly jerking animations for the ccerberus personal being shot my the mech?)

But on that Mission you had no time to know the full details. Knowing how that station was built and what room is what has nothing todo with the plot. That like saying the buildings in Dragon age is pointless because you can't get inside them.

[Someone With Mass]

I think that station had a lot of rooms because those people needed someplace to live while working on Shepard and to store their equipment. Also, I don't think that one guy came up with all the technical tools they used. It's more likely that they had several scientists working on different areas of the revival process in different labs.

[dreman9999]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I think that station had a lot of rooms because those people needed someplace to live while working on Shepard and to store their equipment. Also, I don't think that one guy came up with all the technical tools they used. It's more likely that they had several scientists working on different areas of the revival process in different labs.

I feel like questioning something like that is point less. It like asking why they had a long hall way on Princess Laias ship in Star wars:New Hope.

[Nashiktal]

Probably, I wasn't bothered so much by not being walked through every room and what they did, but the traitor thing still does. (What was his name again? Jenkins?) That should not have been told through DLC, it should have been resolved in the story. As it is, it is just another reason for me to find the intro stages of the game confusing.

First we are killed out of the blue (well, if you were away from the internet anyways), then we are revived from death out of the blue, then we are attacked in a station by... security mechs for some reason, and then we find out its because jenkins turned traitor...

We get a few vague hints, like jenkins doesn't like miranda and that he might want more money. (I say might because it felt more wistful about the amount being spent than anything else) I suspect the jenkins thing was more to follow the tradition of losing a soldier named jenkins in the intro stages rather than anything serious.

Although come to think of it, it would have been cool if each room we passed through (well the ones that seemed important at least) had an audio log that detailed what went on in said room, instead of the vague journal entries left by Miranda. That would kill two birds with one stone. We would get a little more detail on the Lazarus project like what shep actually is now, and it could give us a better picture on the size and scale of both the station and the people on it. Just a little bonus to makes things less confusing you know?

[Notlikeyoucare]

Nashiktal wrote...

Probably, I wasn't bothered so much by not being walked through every room and what they did, but the traitor thing still does. (What was his name again? Jenkins?) That should not have been told through DLC, it should have been resolved in the story. As it is, it is just another reason for me to find the intro stages of the game confusing.

First we are killed out of the blue (well, if you were away from the internet anyways), then we are revived from death out of the blue, then we are attacked in a station by... security mechs for some reason, and then we find out its because jenkins turned traitor...

We get a few vague hints, like jenkins doesn't like miranda and that he might want more money. (I say might because it felt more wistful about the amount being spent than anything else) I suspect the jenkins thing was more to follow the tradition of losing a soldier named jenkins in the intro stages rather than anything serious.

Although come to think of it, it would have been cool if each room we passed through (well the ones that seemed important at least) had an audio log that detailed what went on in said room, instead of the vague journal entries left by Miranda. That would kill two birds with one stone. We would get a little more detail on the Lazarus project like what shep actually is now, and it could give us a better picture on the size and scale of both the station and the people on it. Just a little bonus to makes things less confusing you know?

Wilson.Is it ever actually revealed how Miranda finds out he is a traitor?