6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

It is not a question of not wanting to think for yourself it is a question of not having to write a the story for the writer, This is not necessary in GOOD stories.

I'm not writing a story for the writer. I'm simply thinking of a couple of reasons why some things happened like they did, which can be done with GOOD stories too.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

It is not a question of not wanting to think for yourself it is a question of not having to write a the story for the writer, This is not necessary in GOOD stories.

I'm not writing a story for the writer. I'm simply thinking of a couple of reasons why some things happened like they did, which can be done with GOOD stories too.

No a good story will TELL you the reasons why things happens, If it doesn't then it stops being a story and becomes a piece of interpretive art.

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:45 .

[Someone With Mass]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

No a good story will TELL you the reasons why things happens, If it doesn't then it stops being a story and becomes a piece of interpretive art.

Is that a bad thing? Some people apparently enjoys deciphering texts and certain dialogues or missions on this forum.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

No a good story will TELL you the reasons why things happens, If it doesn't then it stops being a story and becomes a piece of interpretive art.

Is that a bad thing? Some people apparently enjoys deciphering texts and certain dialogues or missions on this forum.

Interpretive art is the anesthetist of storytelling, If Bioware's goal was to make a game where the story writing was left up to the players then it's all well and good, But i doubt this is the case.

[Notlikeyoucare]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

No a good story will TELL you the reasons why things happens, If it doesn't then it stops being a story and becomes a piece of interpretive art.

Is that a bad thing? Some people apparently enjoys deciphering texts and certain dialogues or missions on this forum.

Interpretive art is the anesthetist of storytelling, If Bioware's goal was to make a game where the story writing was left up to the players then it's all well and good, But i doubt this is the case.

www.confusedmatthew.com/video2.php

[Bourne Endeavor]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I really hate the quoting system, so I'm doing another list.

1. Well, it's acknowledge as an abomination. I don't think you can add much mystery to...that thing.

2. That would've been indeed a great move, but it would've also left Shepard stranded with no way through the Omega 4 relay, which would pretty much be a "CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE".

3. Maybe they saw an opportunity to grab Shepard and his crew, but they weren't there, so they decided to take his crew (the crew is human after all) and then blow the ship up, but Joker stopped them and then escaped.

4. They wanted to check the Cipher and the Prothean beacons' effects on his/her mind, which is something that was oddly enough cut from the game.

5. Indeed. 

• More or less answered this is my last post. We still need some explanation in ME2 as to why the Reapers are going this. Both Smudboy and Shamus Young cover this in explicit detail.
• Exactly! This is a plot hole: a simpler, more efficient strategy not taken for no adequately explained reason. What makes it horrendous oversight is for the reasons stated, Harbinger wins the game by using it. This a prime instance of terrible writing.
• Why take the crew? They are a bunch of nobodies and Shepard. The Collectors abduct whole colonies, not just a bunch of guys.
• If it was cut from the game, then it cannot be used in a debate about the plot. Even if included, we still have no idea why the Cipher has any relevance, something that would need to be addressed.

[dreman9999]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.Because they want to turn humanity into a reaper...Aka, they wanted to make humanity better.



[*]2.Your not understanding the goal of making the human reaper or when it would have been finished....It is ment to be humaity turned into a reaper and it was going to be finished after the reaper invasion on earth.



[*]3.It was a trap. It was ment toisolatedshepard and hack his ship. Note that Shepard is placed on a platform that is assened in the air. The only way down was to fall off...If edi was not there. The collector trap fail because they did not know edi or an AI at EDI'S level was on the normady.



[*]4.Bacause Joker unlocked EDI and escape. If your asking why the ship was not point blank destoryed on sight, it's clear they wanted to get as much info on the peole trying to stop them...Aka Cerberus. Also, to use the crew towards the reaper. It clear they don't want to destory humanity, they want to make it better.



[*]5.Because they can also, revive her died body, too. Via Like Saren.



[*]6.Bacause of cerberus history...http://masseffect.wi...ssiers/Cerberus. Clearly they are not good people.

• Why humanity, why their abrupt change of objectives? In ME1, Sovereign simply wanted absolute destruction of all galactic civilization. Why, does it need to look human when every other Reaper we have seen looks like a squid?
  
  
• You did not answer my question. Why was a human-reaper superior to a traditionally engineered one or a warship filled with Reaper tech? Why utilize a process that is slower and less inefficient?
  
  
• No, it was meant to capture Shepard not hack the Normandy. The trap could have been sprung earlier, thus not allowing Shepard or EDI to reach their computer. Remember, Shepard must manually upload the data to EDI or something to this effect. Likewise, how about just abducting another colony, placing fielders out to attract Shepard and ambush her there? Why would it ever be a good idea to disable your ship and allow your nemesis to determine your location of your secret base? What if Shepard decided to simply blow them up? We have Garrus, and thus the Thanix cannon all rearing to go. If Shepard had done that, Harbinger just screwed himself.
  
  
• Who cares about Cerberus? The Reaper's objective is to purge the galaxy. Besides if they want to put a dent in Cerberus, killing Shepard, Miranda, EDI and blowing up the Normandy would be one phenomenal way to do it. The Shadow Broker speculated just the former two would cripple Cerberus; Harbinger gets bonus points. They abduct colonies, why waste time on nobodies, some useless aliens and Shepard?
  
  
• Oh, now you are making stuff up, fantastic. Ignoring that the plot does not make any reference to this. Saren was fitted with upgrades and already indoctrinated, all to serve a predetermined goal; help Sovereign take manual control of the Citadel. What does controlling Shepard accomplish? There is nothing remotely special about her.
  
  
• That does not explain why they immediately claim Cerberus may be behind the Collectors when Shepard came to help, thereby insinuating Cerberus was attacking themselves.

1. That I don't know. All I know is that they clearly want to mAke humanity into a reaper.  As for why that will be told in ME3. The consept to it I understand, it like the spanish inquisition trying to force jews into chritanity.

[*]2. What traditional prosses? What other way is their to make a reaper? and the human reaper is never going to be used in the start of the invasion. It was going to be finished after the invasion of earth aka in ME3.

[*]3.Hacking the normady is part of trapping Shepard. It is a way to make sure he did not have a way to esacpe or anyone to come and save him, And no the trap could not de sprung earlier. Why? Because doors can be hacked. They wanted him to be isolated with no real way out. putting him on a platform in the air is that type of isolation. How could he escape from that if EDI was not there. And as stated before the collectors/reapers did not know the normady had EDI, which is why the trap failed.

[*]4.No, it 's not to purge anything. They want to harvest use and turn us into reapers. That was made clear in ME2. tHEY WANT TO MAKE US IN TO REAPERS NOT DESTORY US. They also want to idocrinate Shepard.

[*]5.The fact remains the they want Shepard. Just listen to Harbenger. Look at the dragon's teeth and howt hey turn organics into slaves. They want to havest as much organics as possible without killing as much of them as possible.....Shepard is key to that. Shepard is their sniper rifle to their nuclear bomb. They need agents to do things they can't and that has been made clear over and over again.

[*]6.Their specultion is based on the fact that cerberus maybe not telling Shepard everything. And Cerberus is not tellingShepard everything. It was an extremly off point speculation of them to say cerberus could be behind the abduction but they have a point in not trusting cerberus.

Modifié par dreman9999, 07 septembre 2011 - 11:03 .

[dreman9999]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

It is not a question of not wanting to think for yourself it is a question of not having to write a the story for the writer, This is not necessary in GOOD stories.

I'm not writing a story for the writer. I'm simply thinking of a couple of reasons why some things happened like they did, which can be done with GOOD stories too.

No a good story will TELL you the reasons why things happens, If it doesn't then it stops being a story and becomes a piece of interpretive art.

That's not true at all. A basic story explains everything to the tiniest detail and keeps things simple. A complex story let the charcters action explain thing, like Hamlet or Macbeth.

[Someone With Mass]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

[*]Exactly! This is a plot hole: a simpler, more efficient strategy not taken for no adequately explained reason. What makes it horrendous oversight is for the reasons stated, Harbinger wins the game by using it. This a prime instance of terrible writing.

It's not terrible, since there were not many other ways to do it without blowing the Normandy up (again) or severely damage it, which would be a moment of total failure. While the story could've gone on without it (we were going to attack the Collectors anyway), it might have been an extra motivator for some people. To tell the player that the Collectors isn't a distant threat.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

No a good story will TELL you the reasons why things happens, If it doesn't then it stops being a story and becomes a piece of interpretive art.

Is that a bad thing? Some people apparently enjoys deciphering texts and certain dialogues or missions on this forum.

Interpretive art is the anesthetist of storytelling, If Bioware's goal was to make a game where the story writing was left up to the players then it's all well and good, But i doubt this is the case.

www.confusedmatthew.com/video2.php

Heh interesting.

[Anacronian Stryx]

dreman9999 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

It is not a question of not wanting to think for yourself it is a question of not having to write a the story for the writer, This is not necessary in GOOD stories.

I'm not writing a story for the writer. I'm simply thinking of a couple of reasons why some things happened like they did, which can be done with GOOD stories too.

No a good story will TELL you the reasons why things happens, If it doesn't then it stops being a story and becomes a piece of interpretive art.

That's not true at all. A basic story explains everything to the tiniest detail and keeps things simple. A complex story let the charcters action explain thing, like Hamlet or Macbeth.

And you're saying that Hamlet or Macbeth is not part of the stories??

[dreman9999]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

It is not a question of not wanting to think for yourself it is a question of not having to write a the story for the writer, This is not necessary in GOOD stories.

I'm not writing a story for the writer. I'm simply thinking of a couple of reasons why some things happened like they did, which can be done with GOOD stories too.

No a good story will TELL you the reasons why things happens, If it doesn't then it stops being a story and becomes a piece of interpretive art.

That's not true at all. A basic story explains everything to the tiniest detail and keeps things simple. A complex story let the charcters action explain thing, like Hamlet or Macbeth.

And you're saying that Hamlet or Macbeth is not part of the stories??

I'm saying hamlet, Mac Beth and other storieslike it use interpretation to tell their stories is stead of bluntly telling the point of it.
Think of it this way, do you know Romeo and Juliet  is a tragity because the characters and story tells you or the fact or that the events in the story lead you to the point to understand Romeo does not know Juliet is stll alive?

Modifié par dreman9999, 07 septembre 2011 - 11:25 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm saying hamlet, Mac Beth and other storieslike it use interpretation to tell their stories is stead of bluntly telling the point of it.
Think of it this way, do you know Romeo and Juliet  is a tragity because the characters and story tells you or the fact or that the events in the story lead you to the point to understand Romeo does not know Juliet is stll alive?

As usual you're really not making any sense.

I know that Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy because the story tells me that, It might come as a surprise to you but both Romeo and Juliet are characters in a story, No matter what they say, Act or laments it is still part of the story.

[Bourne Endeavor]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. That I don't know. All I know is that they clearly want to mAke humanity into a reaper.  As for why that will be told in ME3. The consept to it I understand, it like the spanish inquisition trying to force jews into chritanity.

[*]2. What traditional prosses? What other way is their to make a reaper? and the human reaper is never going to be used in the start of the invasion. It was going to be finished after the invasion of earth aka in ME3.

[*]3.Hacking the normady is part of trapping Shepard. It is a way to make sure he did not have a way to esacpe or anyone to come and save him, And no the trap could not de sprung earlier. Why? Because doors can be hacked. They wanted him to be isolated with no real way out. putting him on a platform in the air is that type of isolation. How could he escape from that if EDI was not there. And as stated before the collectors/reapers did not know the normady had EDI, which is why the trap failed.

[*]4.No, it 's not to purge anything. They want to harvest use and turn us into reapers. That was made clear in ME2. tHEY WANT TO MAKE US IN TO REAPERS NOT DESTORY US. They also want to idocrinate Shepard.

[*]5.The fact remains the they want Shepard. Just listen to Harbenger. Look at the dragon's teeth and howt hey turn organics into slaves. They want to havest as much organics as possible without killing as much of them as possible.....Shepard is key to that. Shepard is their sniper rifle to their nuclear bomb. They need agents to do things they can't and that has been made clear over and over again.

[*]6.Their specultion is based on the fact that cerberus maybe not telling Shepard everything. And Cerberus is not tellingShepard everything. It was an extremly off point speculation of them to say cerberus could be behind the abduction but they have a point in not trusting cerberus.

• Yes, and exposition must be provided on this subject. Claiming it will be answered in ME3 is acknowledging ME2 was poorly written and required ME3 to solve its issues. A sequel is suppose to develop the plot, not explain the events of the preceding story.
• Loading up a warship with Reaper tech, using the derelict Reaper as a shell, anything. The plot must provide exposition on why a human-Reaper was more efficient than a robotic one. Once again you are making up. How do you know it was only going to be completed after ME2? In actuality, it would have taken decades by approximation, thereby making no sense. Nevertheless if that was their intent, then you have just acknowledged ME2 is fundamentally pointless. If the human reaper is not going to be used, then why do we care about stopping it? Just focus on the active ones and blow up this one later. We could also gather some intel about the Reapers however Shepard never bothers to, instead we have the option to blow up the only thing that could provide insight.
• Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. You are inventing scenarios that do not exist. There was no mention or reference whatsoever the Normandy was being hacked. Harbinger attempts to block EDI, that was all. Yes, because those small enclosed spaces with virtually nowhere to hide would make hacking extremely easy while being shot at. They could have sprung it anywhere, just not after you've allowed your enemy to data mine you. This is providing free intel to your opposition. So either the plot is poorly written or Harbinger is completely incompetent. Shepard would have difficulty escaping from an enclosed room with no cover too, more so than platforms, and then you don't risk giving away information like a moron. Coincidently, EDI was active on Horizon, hacking those turret guns. So was Harbinger just not paying attention?
• No, their main goal is to activate the relay on the Citadel, pour in from Dark Space and purge galactic civilization like they have done every fifty thousand years prior. They win should this happen. Everything else is secondary.
• It is never explained why they want Shepard, you are making things up. The only reference to this was a dialogue entry that was cut, making it consequentially irrelevant. There were no dragon's teeth in all of ME2, which serve a similar function to those found in ME. Why do they need agents? They were doing fine until Harbinger had the genius idea of gifting Shepard information, then leaving the IFF out in the open on the derelict Reaper; which came out of nowhere by the way. On an unrelated note, a nuclear explosive device is detonated by impact from a high altitude or through a time set initiation. You cannot possibly be insinuating one would shoot it, as they would effective commit suicide. So the sniper rifle example is slightly more useless than Shepard, which I find amusingly ironic.
• Their logic is asinine and completely nonsensical. Speculating Cerberus may still have nefarious intentions is a reasonable conclusion. Throwing a fit the moment their name is dropped, insinuating they will attack themselves, failing to complete their mission to collect data as they refuse to go on the Normandy for five minutes, not giving Shepard even a moment to explain and shouting "traitor!" is not. That is terrible writing.

Someone With Mass wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

[*]Exactly! This is a plot hole: a simpler, more efficient strategy not taken for no adequately explained reason. What makes it horrendous oversight is for the reasons stated, Harbinger wins the game by using it. This a prime instance of terrible writing.

It's not terrible, since there were not many other ways to do it without blowing the Normandy up (again) or severely damage it, which would be a moment of total failure. While the story could've gone on without it (we were going to attack the Collectors anyway), it might have been an extra motivator for some people. To tell the player that the Collectors isn't a distant threat.

Yes, it is. The villain willingly chose not to take a guaranteed victory route for no adequate reason beyond the plot needing the protagonist to win instead. This is the definition of bad writing. You either write the scenes so they connect in a logical manner that flows with a degree of normalcy or you do not have them at all. You cannot defend ME2's plot when you concede it had a massive plot hole, which you already have.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 07 septembre 2011 - 12:18 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You on the other hand, are a poster boy for everything that's wrong with internet.

What did I attack that he said in the video?   Really, I have no idea, because I haven't watch it, and I won't watch it, any more than I'll watch Jersey Shore -- no one needs more than the five minutes I saw of that show to know it's hollow worthless crap, and no one should need more than what Smuddy posted here to tell that he's a snide, arrogant, abusive tool, and that his "criticism" is based not on accuracy, but purely on what's convenient for the most scathing attack possible, and the biggest "lolz" possible. 

And the underlined is the point.
You talk about things you know nothing about. Jumping to conclusiosn, massive levels of overreacting and butthurt, inability to distance oneself - all are what's wrong with internet, and you're displaying all of it.

Your every post is a fusilade of insults and bile directed at Smud. Even if he was the biggest douche in the world, that does not paint you in a good light. It reveals your bias and hate, which in turns makes everything you say suspect at best.

Oh, damn, I'm biased against jerks.  What a terrible thing for me. 

No butthurt, no overreacting, just disgust at someone who acts like terrible excuse for a human being getting so much adoration from people who think he's kewl for being a jerk. 

Again, I don't watch Smuggy's videos for the same reason I don't stick my hand on a hot stove once a month -- I know what the result will be.

Sooooo....If I label you a "jerk" than it would be OK to insult you at every opportunity and never bother to justify it?
Not even listen to what you're saying but just dismissing everything that comes out of your mouth as drivel?
Great, thansk for giving me your belssing to insult you constantly!

God, do you even listen to yourself?
Your words are not the words of a calm, unbiased individual.

Smudboy a terrible excuse for a human being? The levels of hate are redicolous - you'd think he's Hitler by the way you talk about him. YEs..buthhurt and overreacting. You prove that with every word you type.

And adoration? Kewl for being a jerk? I don't know what substances you're abusing, but neither is the case.
People support Smudboys arguments becuase they are solid.

You...you just spread bile and hate.

The difference that you don't appear to grasp is that Smuggy treats lots of people like crap for disagreeing with his half-baked drivel, whereas others are singling him and him alone out for acting that way.  Going after someone for calling Smuggy the pompous windbag that he is, would be like arresting someone for assault and battery after they knock out a guy shooting up a mall! 

What you're calling "solid opinions" are largely half-informed and contrived, with the obvious intent of harping on ME2 instead of looking for the facts of the matter, and if he's ever reconsidered or retracted one of his criticisms based on facts he obviously did not know when he first posted it, it wasn't where I saw it.   Every time I've seen someone post a cogent and factual counter to one of his points, he's ignored it, called the person a fanboy or an idiot, or otherwise plowed right on ahead with the same criticism as if it were even more valid. 

But please, tell me, do you keep watching shows you can't stand just in case they suddenly get better?  Do you keep hanging out with people who say and do ugly things just in case they do one nice thing one day in their life? 

And if someone asks you why you don't watch that show, or don't hang out with that person, do you tell them? 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 07 septembre 2011 - 01:05 .

[Notlikeyoucare]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


[*]Their logic is asinine and completely nonsensical. Speculating Cerberus may still have nefarious intentions is a reasonable conclusion. Throwing a fit the moment their name is dropped, insinuating they will attack themselves, failing to complete their mission to collect data as they refuse to go on the Normandy for five minutes, not giving Shepard even a moment to explain and shouting "traitor!" is not. That is terrible writing.[/list]

[*]I had a similar reaction to this guy

Modifié par Notlikeyoucare, 07 septembre 2011 - 01:04 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...
The argument isn't that its not canon, bu that it exists soley outside of the main plot. It therefore can not be used as an excuse to call the main plot good since it has nothing to do with the plot.

The main plot of ME is Shepard's facing the reapers. So with that consept being that all 3 games is about that...It's part of the main plot.

No.

ME2's plot is stopping the Collectors. Thats it.

Tehre is no connection ebtween Arrival and ME2. Arrival is copletely self-sufficient (or incapsulated) - it has NOTHING to do with ME2. You could plop it in ME1 and it would fit just as well. TI has nothing to do with ME2 plot. It's not part of ME2 plot.

 

Wow. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Your not understanding my point. The reapers are not spread out though out the galexy because they are on earth. With the human reaper gone, their focus now is to make another one which is why they attacked earth first. Any reaper you fight be in small number, giving you a better chance to take one down bacuse their not moving in Mass because they are majority on earth.

Again speculation.

How and why the reapers do things and fight is not known information.

You cannot use the destruction of the CB as some incredible strategic blow to the reapers wihotu anything to back that up.

Not a speculation, look at the demo we see so far and compear it with the fall of earth. The reapers were raining down on earth and on the salarian home world....we get cerberus........ Why arn't their reapers there......If they want that female krogan dead,why not seen a reaper to blow the place up?
It's clear that the reapers are not spread out evenly every where and focused on earth.

So a single trailer of Reapers on Earth is unequivocal proof the vast majority arrived there? By your logic, I could claim Miranda will indefinitely be our enemy in ME3. I have no evidence of this beyond her lacking a trailer, therefore it must be fact. You are speculating based off a less than a handful of short vid clips.

The gameplay demo.....We shown earth under full attack by the reapers. We watch horde of reaper land and destroythe city we are in. Yet, we don't see that on the salariam world......It clear their focus is earth. If it not, explain to me why a reaper is not on the salarian home world trying to kill that krogan female.

Because they don't know about it?   Who knows? 

You're speculating a lot based on observation of sources that are intented for promotion, not fact distribution. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Ok, regarding the Terminator, what the hell is "the essence of a species?"

One of the weaker moments of the game. 

See my previous post for fixing the CB mission without completely changing it.  

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Who ever said you have to invent a narritive? In any plot or story to understand what is going on you needto know the characters, why they are doing thing and how the do it. Like in Hamlet, you understand why hamlet wants revenge on his uncle and why he doesn't take revege sooner to understand the plot. It's 101 of liturature.

If you understood the 101 of literature, you wouldn't be defending ME2 bad writing.

And lit-crit rears its ugly head...

[TobyHasEyes]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm saying hamlet, Mac Beth and other storieslike it use interpretation to tell their stories is stead of bluntly telling the point of it.
Think of it this way, do you know Romeo and Juliet  is a tragity because the characters and story tells you or the fact or that the events in the story lead you to the point to understand Romeo does not know Juliet is stll alive?

As usual you're really not making any sense.

I know that Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy because the story tells me that, It might come as a surprise to you but both Romeo and Juliet are characters in a story, No matter what they say, Act or laments it is still part of the story.

 Are you suggesting that novels or stories that leave the character's motivations, or mental state, as a mystery for the player to interpret, are badly done?

 Though I think any discussion to pin down what makes a 'good story' is kinda pointless semantics, and though I am not fond of those who obsess over literature, many well rated books are left intentionally ambiguous

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Who ever said you have to invent a narritive? In any plot or story to understand what is going on you needto know the characters, why they are doing thing and how the do it. Like in Hamlet, you understand why hamlet wants revenge on his uncle and why he doesn't take revege sooner to understand the plot. It's 101 of liturature.

If you understood the 101 of literature, you wouldn't be defending ME2 bad writing.

And lit-crit rears its ugly head...

Yes. Criticim bad. Criticism shatter my illusiory bubble of denial! It show things me not like to see. Criticims go away!

[TobyHasEyes]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Who ever said you have to invent a narritive? In any plot or story to understand what is going on you needto know the characters, why they are doing thing and how the do it. Like in Hamlet, you understand why hamlet wants revenge on his uncle and why he doesn't take revege sooner to understand the plot. It's 101 of liturature.

If you understood the 101 of literature, you wouldn't be defending ME2 bad writing.

And lit-crit rears its ugly head...

Yes. Criticim bad. Criticism shatter my illusiory bubble of denial! It show things me not like to see. Criticims go away!

 Don't think the comment is an attack on criticism per se, but on the idea that literary criticism as a pursuit can be thought to bring anything objective to the table

 In other words, its painful when people say x is a bad story, because it contains y, and literary critcism defines y as bad storytelling

 When literary criticism is a load of subjective sack

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 07 septembre 2011 - 01:27 .

[Notlikeyoucare]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm saying hamlet, Mac Beth and other storieslike it use interpretation to tell their stories is stead of bluntly telling the point of it.
Think of it this way, do you know Romeo and Juliet  is a tragity because the characters and story tells you or the fact or that the events in the story lead you to the point to understand Romeo does not know Juliet is stll alive?

As usual you're really not making any sense.

I know that Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy because the story tells me that, It might come as a surprise to you but both Romeo and Juliet are characters in a story, No matter what they say, Act or laments it is still part of the story.

 Are you suggesting that novels or stories that leave the character's motivations, or mental state, as a mystery for the player to interpret, are badly done?

 Though I think any discussion to pin down what makes a 'good story' is kinda pointless semantics, and though I am not fond of those who obsess over literature, many well rated books are left intentionally ambiguous

Yes, but alot of ME2's writing is nonsensical not just open. ANswering a question on logistics with an ambiguous word thhat the character uses with certainty is terrible writing.

[TobyHasEyes]

Example?

 Not that I doubt there is one, but my general point is that though some people may call it 'terrible writing', it will most likely have served its point of advancing the plot in a way which satisfies most of those enjoying the product

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 07 septembre 2011 - 01:32 .