6494 réponses à ce sujet

[BlaznZero]

Well he has us talking about him for 100+ pages here, so he must being doing SOMETHING right.

[Il Divo]

Xeranx wrote...

I agree. I would have liked to have had the ability to roleplay a Shepard who is put in shock at the realization of the Reapers and then has to fight his way out and make a choice about who to save on top of that. Would bring more realism to having to choose who to save on Virmire and hopefully would have had the developers actually make the resulting rescue of the STG more poignant as well.

And this isn't to say that any of Shepard's dialogue options are bad, simply that they represent a very narrow range of expressions. Most of his options always seem to reaffirm "I am going to stop the Reapers".

Prior to being inducted as a Spectre you are overridden on the choice of Tali. Afterward there's no discussion. Tali fulfilling an expectation that is never brought up has nothing to do with the question you asked me. You asked me why are we forced to take Tali, Kaidan, and Ashley. Not why are we forced to keep them.

If there were a way to bench them and take someone else I'd be asking myself the same question so long as the idea was presented. In that light I would have benched Liara as soon as I heard about Ilos because she isn't needed beyond that revelation and if I had to take an Asari with me I would have tried to persuade Shiala to join me.  Quite possibly more than Liara could be considering her training and the few glimpses into her character that we're given which make her more of an adult than Liara could ever be.

True, but the question could come up during any discussion with Tali. "Hey, you're a nice girl, but I brought you to explain how the Geth work, not a rundown of Quarian politics".

If there are others who are capable then being able to replace them should be an option if you're not comfortable with them. That no one else is available to show that they are better candidates is a flaw, but a very small one. I still say that cohesion of those on the ship is something a commander should strive for whether they like the arrangement or not. 

Ah, but does Shepard need to replace them? Out of the entire cast, Liara is the only plot-essential character. It's never made clear whether your squadmates ensure Shepard survives, and Spectres are well-known for working solo. As it stands, it struck me that the three man squad was more of a sign that Bioware is afraid to move towards a different setup (imo).

That will take time as that thread was 400 pages and a number of your posts are lengthy. You have a much better chance at locating it than I do, but I'll see if I can find it.

Wait, the Disappointment with Mass Effect 2 thread? That's a pretty long thread. Don't worry about it. We all discussed pretty much everything there is to discuss about the Mass Effect series those days.

That's fine so long as Bioware's up to establishing the consequences that are likely to occur.

Agreed.

Again, I have no problem with it. There would have to be a compelling reason offered by Saren on why it would be better to ally with the Reapers than fight them, but by then we're privy to Rana who talks about indoctrination and how Saren wants to fight it.  Even Saren, himself, talks about how he's being affected by indoctrination.  After that there's not much of a reason to join him.

I'm all for having more options to play with. That invites replayability which every developer should strive for. More time being spent on your game means a greater chance that people will talk about your game and generate more sales as a result.

Edited to fix formatting

A good reason from Saren would also be necessary, but it would also be up to Shepard (our character) to explain why he feels releasing the Reapers is the best course. Essentially, he's taking a defeatist stance, which would be a very interesting perspective. Very similar to the Jade Empire ending where your character sacrifices himself to Master Li.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 septembre 2011 - 11:24 .

[Iakus]

SpiffySquee wrote...

While I tend to agree with you, Smud made videos to get his opinion out. How he presented it is just as important as what he presented. These threads are about his videos. If he failed to keep a lot of people watching past the five minute mark than the videos failed to some degree. Since this tread was created to discuss the videos as well as the ideas in them, the way people felt about the videos still have relevance to the thread.

Presentation is important in convincing people that your views have validity, but at the same time, declaring that they have no validity because one cannot/will not listen to them is as ludicrous as the claims made about smudboy.  If one cannot be bothered to hear the arguements, there is no point in debating the ideas.

I could give a profanity-laden rant about how the leaves on a tree are a particular shade of green, it doesn't impact at all whether my perspective of those leaves is accurate or not.  Perhaps I could have stated my case better so my audience is more receptive to it, or to "appeal to a broader audience" as the case may be.  But how I say it does not invalidate the thoughts behind it.  

If all you can hear is the tone of the arguement, and can't get past that, then there's no point in arguing with you (general "you", not a specific one).  No shame in not being able to get past it, everyone has preferences, but you really have no place in this particular debate, since the debate is about something you cannot or will not familiarize yourself with.

[KotorEffect3]

BlaznZero wrote...

Well he has us talking about him for 100+ pages here, so he must being doing SOMETHING right.

Smugboy draws his power from his evil

[Iakus]

Alocormin wrote...

Calling Bioware's writers lazy, infantile, or incompetent is not good criticism.  


Perhaps, if you resort to this, you are lazy in your response to the game.

The writers?  Or the writing?

Anyone can have an off day.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

While I tend to agree with you, Smud made videos to get his opinion out. How he presented it is just as important as what he presented. These threads are about his videos. If he failed to keep a lot of people watching past the five minute mark than the videos failed to some degree. Since this tread was created to discuss the videos as well as the ideas in them, the way people felt about the videos still have relevance to the thread.

Presentation is important in convincing people that your views have validity, but at the same time, declaring that they have no validity because one cannot/will not listen to them is as ludicrous as the claims made about smudboy.  If one cannot be bothered to hear the arguements, there is no point in debating the ideas.

I could give a profanity-laden rant about how the leaves on a tree are a particular shade of green, it doesn't impact at all whether my perspective of those leaves is accurate or not.  Perhaps I could have stated my case better so my audience is more receptive to it, or to "appeal to a broader audience" as the case may be.  But how I say it does not invalidate the thoughts behind it.  

If all you can hear is the tone of the arguement, and can't get past that, then there's no point in arguing with you (general "you", not a specific one).  No shame in not being able to get past it, everyone has preferences, but you really have no place in this particular debate, since the debate is about something you cannot or will not familiarize yourself with.

And jokes about "euthanizing Smudboy" from some users really don't help either.

[didymos1120]

Il Divo wrote...
 As it stands, it struck me that the three man squad was more of a sign that Bioware is afraid to move towards a different setup (imo).

Wait, what do you mean?  What other setup is it that you're referring to?  A larger squad, or no squad at all?

[Il Divo]

didymos1120 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
 As it stands, it struck me that the three man squad was more of a sign that Bioware is afraid to move towards a different setup (imo).

Wait, what do you mean?  What other setup is it that you're referring to?  A larger squad, or no squad at all?

Potentially, no squad at all. I would love to see Bioware try a different game structure. Shepard is a Spectre, a group well-known for undergoing solo operations. It would provide an interesting opportunity for something completely different.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Il Divo wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
 As it stands, it struck me that the three man squad was more of a sign that Bioware is afraid to move towards a different setup (imo).

Wait, what do you mean?  What other setup is it that you're referring to?  A larger squad, or no squad at all?

Potentially, no squad at all. I would love to see Bioware try a different game structure. Shepard is a Spectre, a group well-known for undergoing solo operations. It would provide an interesting opportunity for something completely different.

It would be harder to make the character interesting and also your own,they put the squad there so you have interesting characters and you can make Shep your own.

[weirdnerd]

Il Divo wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
 As it stands, it struck me that the three man squad was more of a sign that Bioware is afraid to move towards a different setup (imo).

Wait, what do you mean?  What other setup is it that you're referring to?  A larger squad, or no squad at all?

Potentially, no squad at all. I would love to see Bioware try a different game structure. Shepard is a Spectre, a group well-known for undergoing solo operations. It would provide an interesting opportunity for something completely different.

have you not played arrival yet, in that you have no squad most of the time

[Killjoy Cutter]

Fixers0 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Snide, snickering, half-true, and largely not-funny comedy, and pompous, hollow, postmodernist lit-crit, don't necessitate "countering". 

Sounds like another situation of "I'm always right and if anyone thinks otherwise, you can all go to hell".

Yeah, that pretty much sums up Smuddy.

At least Smudboy uses arguments and makes actual points about what he is discussing.

Get back to me when he actually does that, as opposed to ignoring facts inconvenient to his shrill harping and talking down to anyone who doesn't hop on his little bandwagon.

[KotorEffect3]

Il Divo wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
 As it stands, it struck me that the three man squad was more of a sign that Bioware is afraid to move towards a different setup (imo).

Wait, what do you mean?  What other setup is it that you're referring to?  A larger squad, or no squad at all?

Potentially, no squad at all. I would love to see Bioware try a different game structure. Shepard is a Spectre, a group well-known for undergoing solo operations. It would provide an interesting opportunity for something completely different.

One of the many things I love about Bioware games in general is the squad setup.  It allows class diversity to mean something plus it is more tactical because for some of the harder fights you need to use your squad and their abilities.  It also allows you to build your character in a unique fashion where you can focus on and maximize your unique abilities instead of trying to be a jack of all trades that can do anything but masters nothing.

[TuringPoint]

iakus wrote...

Presentation is important in convincing people that your views have validity, but at the same time, declaring that they have no validity because one cannot/will not listen to them is as ludicrous as the claims made about smudboy.  If one cannot be bothered to hear the arguements, there is no point in debating the ideas.

I could give a profanity-laden rant about how the leaves on a tree are a particular shade of green, it doesn't impact at all whether my perspective of those leaves is accurate or not.  Perhaps I could have stated my case better so my audience is more receptive to it, or to "appeal to a broader audience" as the case may be.  But how I say it does not invalidate the thoughts behind it.  

If all you can hear is the tone of the arguement, and can't get past that, then there's no point in arguing with you (general "you", not a specific one).  No shame in not being able to get past it, everyone has preferences, but you really have no place in this particular debate, since the debate is about something you cannot or will not familiarize yourself with.

He doesn't call the leaves green, though; he says they suck and justifies it by saying they're green.  Not all the time, and I respect that he can make balanced statements like - gameplay is good, plot is not.  Balanced does not necessarily mean objective.  

In any case, responding to Smudboy's analyses, whatever that response is, is valid in the thread which is put up to display people's responses.  

You could focus on the arguments that are good themselves, and take smudboy out of them.  To the extent that this thread has brought substance out of his videos for debate, that is why I keep coming back to this thread.

Also because it's a challenge, and well.  I enjoy fighting to some degree.  I really do think it's worth pointing out that he isn't all about the debate itself.  He makes it an issue how his arguments are presented, by presenting them the way it does.

Maybe, if your only opinion is that his arguments are good, you should stay and support them.  Is it worth getting bothered by the people who aren't here to debate the validity of his arguments, but to discuss the videos themselves?

Squad dynamics(Divo etc.):  
I enjoyed how arrival handled solo gameplay.  It seemed like it might have allowed them to use other methods of advancing the gameplay and plot, even having stealth gameplay as an option, and breaking yourself out of prison in a different sort of way.

If you haven't played Arrival, you should give it a try.

Modifié par Alocormin, 06 septembre 2011 - 12:44 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Potentially, no squad at all. I would love to see Bioware try a different game structure. Shepard is a Spectre, a group well-known for undergoing solo operations. It would provide an interesting opportunity for something completely different.

The Council's latest Spectre, Commander Jensen? 

[Iakus]

Alocormin wrote...

He doesn't call the leaves green, though; he says they suck and justifies it by saying they're green.  Not all the time, and I respect that he can make balanced statements like - gameplay is good, plot is not.  Balanced does not necessarily mean objective.  

In any case, responding to Smudboy's analyses, whatever that response is, is valid in the thread which is put up to display people's responses.  

You could focus on the arguments that are good themselves, and take smudboy out of them.  To the extent that this thread has brought substance out of his videos for debate, that is why I keep coming back to this thread.

Also because it's a challenge, and well.  I enjoy fighting to some degree.  I really do think it's worth pointing out that he isn't all about the debate itself.  He makes it an issue how his arguments are presented, by presenting them the way it does.

Maybe, if your only opinion is that his arguments are good, you should stay and support them.  Is it worth getting bothered by the people who aren't here to debate the validity of his arguments, but to discuss the videos themselves?

I am not saying his arguements are always good.  Even though I agree with most of his conclusions,  I actually also agree that he gets caught up in minutia and at times is overly, let's just say 'blunt" and leave it at that.  

But what I am saying is that while one can say "I don't agree with his assessment" or "His thinking is flawed because..."  It is invalid to say "He's wrong and I didn't even bother to listen to his arguements anyway"

Modifié par iakus, 06 septembre 2011 - 12:53 .

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

Calling Bioware's writers lazy, infantile, or incompetent is not good criticism.  


Perhaps, if you resort to this, you are lazy in your response to the game.

The writers?  Or the writing?

Anyone can have an off day.

It's also possible that the writers wrote mostly the story they wanted, its just that some of us don't enjoy it. I guarantee that no matter what the story or who the writer, there are people out there who don't enjoy it. It doesn't necessarily mean the writer is bad or lazy; it's simply a matter of taste.

However, what I really find amusing is that I seriously doubt the work most of us do could survive similar examination and criticism. Are we all such incredibly hard working, brilliant people that can throw these words around at other people without being total hypocrites? Very doubtful.

Also, none of us are accomplished writers that have ever produced anything, yet because of the wonderful anonymity of the internet we offer professional writers advice like we have some idea of  what we're talking about. While I'm fine with people explaining what they personally enjoy and spitballing about stories they would like to see written, let's stop pretending that we know what we're talking about.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 06 septembre 2011 - 01:27 .

[TuringPoint]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


It's also possible that the writers wrote mostly the story they wanted, its just that some of us don't enjoy it. I guarantee that no matter what the story or who the writer, there are people out there who don't enjoy it. It doesn't necessarily mean the writer is bad or lazy; it's simply a matter of taste.

However, what I really find amusing is that I seriously doubt the work most of us do could survive similar examination and criticism. Are we all such incredibly hard working, brilliant people that can throw these words around at other people without being total hypocrites? Very doubtful.

Also, none of us are accomplished writers that have ever produced anything, yet because of the wonderful anonymity of the internet we offer professional writers advice like we have some idea of  what we're talking about. While I'm fine with people explaining what they personally enjoy and spitballing about stories they would like to see written, let's stop pretending that we know what we're talking about.

Precisely.  

The least we can do is give Bioware the benefit of a doubt.  Criticise them; complain that we don't like the game; and let it go.  Keep talking about it, sure; but let it go.  Even if Smudboy were a celebrated professional writer, some of his criticisms would be inappropriate and presumptuous.  

At the same time, it can be productive to argue, debate, or even fight.  In making us stronger in ways we, as individuals, wouldn't think of.

I just want to say, it is invalid in debate to say, I didn't bother to read the source material for the opposing argument or establish my own material, just having an opinion is everyone's right.  As long as we're clear about our intentions.

Modifié par Alocormin, 06 septembre 2011 - 01:47 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

He doesn't call the leaves green, though; he says they suck and justifies it by saying they're green.  Not all the time, and I respect that he can make balanced statements like - gameplay is good, plot is not.  Balanced does not necessarily mean objective.  

In any case, responding to Smudboy's analyses, whatever that response is, is valid in the thread which is put up to display people's responses.  

You could focus on the arguments that are good themselves, and take smudboy out of them.  To the extent that this thread has brought substance out of his videos for debate, that is why I keep coming back to this thread.

Also because it's a challenge, and well.  I enjoy fighting to some degree.  I really do think it's worth pointing out that he isn't all about the debate itself.  He makes it an issue how his arguments are presented, by presenting them the way it does.

Maybe, if your only opinion is that his arguments are good, you should stay and support them.  Is it worth getting bothered by the people who aren't here to debate the validity of his arguments, but to discuss the videos themselves?

I am not saying his arguements are always good.  Even though I agree with most of his conclusions,  I actually also agree that he gets caught up in minutia and at times is overly, let's just say 'blunt" and leave it at that.  

But what I am saying is that while one can say "I don't agree with his assessment" or "His thinking is flawed because..."  It is invalid to say "He's wrong and I didn't even bother to listen to his arguements anyway"

I read his statements while he was here. 

I don't need to listen to more of the same crap to know what he's all about.

[Il Divo]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

It would be harder to make the character interesting and also your own,they put the squad there so you have interesting characters and you can make Shep your own.

To a degree, yes. But that doesn't nullify the potential to try something new. I love the squad interactions, but also feel Bioware has become reliant on the "PC + friends save the world model" . We can still have interesting characters/interactions without a squad setup.

Weirdnerd wrote...

have you not played arrival yet, in that you have no squad most of the time

I did, and thought it was fine. But as dlc, I didn't think it best captured what we should be able to do. Shepard's responses were too pre-written for my tastes. Still, it does represent potential for Bioware down the line.  

[Il Divo]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
 As it stands, it struck me that the three man squad was more of a sign that Bioware is afraid to move towards a different setup (imo).

Wait, what do you mean?  What other setup is it that you're referring to?  A larger squad, or no squad at all?

Potentially, no squad at all. I would love to see Bioware try a different game structure. Shepard is a Spectre, a group well-known for undergoing solo operations. It would provide an interesting opportunity for something completely different.

One of the many things I love about Bioware games in general is the squad setup.  It allows class diversity to mean something plus it is more tactical because for some of the harder fights you need to use your squad and their abilities.  It also allows you to build your character in a unique fashion where you can focus on and maximize your unique abilities instead of trying to be a jack of all trades that can do anything but masters nothing.

That's fair, but I also have a very different focus when I play Bioware games. I'm the type of person who can spend hours considering how best to min-max my PC, but will utterly ignore companions. I personally like that Jade Empire/Mass Effect give the player much less control over companion actions. I'm weird like that.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Potentially, no squad at all. I would love to see Bioware try a different game structure. Shepard is a Spectre, a group well-known for undergoing solo operations. It would provide an interesting opportunity for something completely different.

The Council's latest Spectre, Commander Jensen? 

Hey, I'm not implying anything.

Alright, maybe I am. I love the Bioware squad-mates. Between all their games, they have given us many memorable characters. But I would be interested in seeing a game focused on a single PC (like Deus Ex), but still provides meaningful character interactions. Imagine something similar to the role Joker plays, but with more dialogue/development. 

*waits for flames*

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 septembre 2011 - 02:37 .

[ThePwener]

112 pages? For the love of all mighty God, you people are as predictable as lemmings next to a cliff.

somewhere Smudboy is rolling in the ground of his mother's basement laughing at all of you.

[Il Divo]

Alocormin wrote...

Squad dynamics(Divo etc.):  
I enjoyed how arrival handled solo gameplay.  It seemed like it might have allowed them to use other methods of advancing the gameplay and plot, even having stealth gameplay as an option, and breaking yourself out of prison in a different sort of way.

If you haven't played Arrival, you should give it a try.

I actually liked Arrival alot, despite a few road bumps. With more emphasis on that, I could see an interesting game in development. I just think "Player character" could provide a nice change of pace from "Player Character + squad mates". However, it's not at the top of my 'wish list'.

[ThePwener]

Il Divo wrote...

I just think "Player character" could provide a nice change of pace from "Player Character + squad mates". However, it's not at the top of my 'wish list'.

Alpha Protocol is for you. Oh what ME could have been.....

[Il Divo]

ThePwener wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I just think "Player character" could provide a nice change of pace from "Player Character + squad mates". However, it's not at the top of my 'wish list'.

Alpha Protocol is for you. Oh what ME could have been.....

Tried it. It's ashame Obsidian won't get an opportunity for a sequel, given the reception. I think they definitely would have fixed some of the more critical flaws. At least Human Revolution turned out really well.