6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

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!

No, criticism not bad.  Criticism, when factual, accurate, and reasoned, is good. 

Lit crit has become a worthless steaming pile of crap, more concerned with adherence to forms and ivory-tower metaphysical and ideological axe-grinding than anything worthwhile.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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! 

HA! Teh champion of goodness you are. Please.
If anything, smudboy has shown restraint. After that many attacks of that caliber, I would have snapped far sooner.
There's only so many insults any person can endure before it's enough.

And you do nothing but throw insults. You're no champion or hero.
You attack the guys argument right now (half-baked drivel) even tough you said yourself you didn't watch it. You call him names, you insult him months after the thread is closed
Yet you claim every insult you throw is deserved.... When YOU insutl people it's ok, right?

I'm seing a lot of crap here, but all of it is coming from your mouth.

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.

His argumetns are mostly good. They have been debatted here and legth and still stand.
Half the people arguing agasint him don't evne understand the arguments, and don't realse that their "coutner-argumen't doesn't even adress the issue, but goes off on a tangent.

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? 

Nope, I don't keep watching the show. But I also don't coment on the episodes I didn't watch.

I als don't go out of my way to insult people if I dont' watch their show.
It doesn't matter how bad the show is, the intensity of the languge and insutls you use is simply not warranted.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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!

No, criticism not bad.  Criticism, when factual, accurate, and reasoned, is good. 

Lit crit has become a worthless steaming pile of crap, more concerned with adherence to forms and ivory-tower metaphysical and ideological axe-grinding than anything worthwhile.

Like you'd know anything worth-while...not even if it ran over youin a bus.

So easy to harp on eduicated people who devote their life to that field.....

[Bourne Endeavor]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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

... love that video. So many excellent points, even the Anderson one, which I have argued in a different direction. The most telling is why Ashley/Kaidan were not abducted to begin with. Horizon was one of the worst parts of the game for bad writing. I agree wholeheartedly though, I love the game but the main plot is rubbish. It survives on the episodic character stories and as far as I am convinced, the main plot was LotSB and Arrival.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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! 

HA! Teh champion of goodness you are. Please.
If anything, smudboy has shown restraint. After that many attacks of that caliber, I would have snapped far sooner.
There's only so many insults any person can endure before it's enough.

And you do nothing but throw insults. You're no champion or hero.
You attack the guys argument right now (half-baked drivel) even tough you said yourself you didn't watch it. You call him names, you insult him months after the thread is closed
Yet you claim every insult you throw is deserved.... When YOU insutl people it's ok, right?

I'm seing a lot of crap here, but all of it is coming from your mouth.

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.

His argumetns are mostly good. They have been debatted here and legth and still stand.
Half the people arguing agasint him don't evne understand the arguments, and don't realse that their "coutner-argumen't doesn't even adress the issue, but goes off on a tangent.

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? 

Nope, I don't keep watching the show. But I also don't coment on the episodes I didn't watch.

I als don't go out of my way to insult people if I dont' watch their show.
It doesn't matter how bad the show is, the intensity of the languge and insutls you use is simply not warranted.

His "criticisms" were largely half-baked lit-crit drivel when he was posting here, and he never once retracted or reconsidered any of them no matter how much in the way of factual counter-point was linked to, spelled out, and stacked up.  He was the king of selective facts, only acknowledging things that supported his assault on ME2. 

What reason do we have to suspect that he has changed one bit? 

[TobyHasEyes]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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!

No, criticism not bad.  Criticism, when factual, accurate, and reasoned, is good. 

Lit crit has become a worthless steaming pile of crap, more concerned with adherence to forms and ivory-tower metaphysical and ideological axe-grinding than anything worthwhile.

Like you'd know anything worth-while...not even if it ran over youin a bus.

So easy to harp on eduicated people who devote their life to that field.....

 But you see, if we were discussing physics, I would respect the views of a physicist who had dedicated their life to studying that field, and I would believe they could lend credence on what theories/views were most accurate to the real objective state of things

 Seeing as literary standards are not real or objective, then those educated people have devoted their lives to justifying subjective standards as though they were real or objective

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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!

No, criticism not bad.  Criticism, when factual, accurate, and reasoned, is good. 

Lit crit has become a worthless steaming pile of crap, more concerned with adherence to forms and ivory-tower metaphysical and ideological axe-grinding than anything worthwhile.

Like you'd know anything worth-while...not even if it ran over youin a bus.

So easy to harp on eduicated people who devote their life to that field.....

See, folks, that right there is what happens when you point out that the emperor has no clothes...

[Killjoy Cutter]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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

... love that video. So many excellent points, even the Anderson one, which I have argued in a different direction. The most telling is why Ashley/Kaidan were not abducted to begin with. Horizon was one of the worst parts of the game for bad writing. I agree wholeheartedly though, I love the game but the main plot is rubbish. It survives on the episodic character stories and as far as I am convinced, the main plot was LotSB and Arrival.

Now that is the one part of Horizon I've never understood... we see the VS nailed by the Seekers, right?  So how were they not taken?  I'd have rather have seen that last shot of them be the VS in a running battle, firing at the Seekers and looking for shelter... and we don't know if they were taken until they show up after the fight.  Or maybe even during the fight... 

Of course, it would have been nice to see the VS not be Stupid For The Plot...

[Lotion Soronarr]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 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

OR
It's painfull when peopel say x is a bad story, and you like it, so better to pretend it doesn't happen. Better to try and discredit everything that goes against your happy little place.
Throw in a lot of subjectivism to try to muddy the water while at it, maybe ****** in the pool too.

Funny when arguments fail, then the fallback is always "well it's SUBJECTIVE!"
No, not really. Some people just really, REALLY want ti to be that way becasue they cannot bring themselves to face the truth.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Now that is the one part of Horizon I've never understood... we see the VS nailed by the Seekers, right?  So how were they not taken?

A wizzard did it...

Nah..the VS just fell into a plot hole and the collectors missed him/her

[Notlikeyoucare]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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

... love that video. So many excellent points, even the Anderson one, which I have argued in a different direction. The most telling is why Ashley/Kaidan were not abducted to begin with. Horizon was one of the worst parts of the game for bad writing. I agree wholeheartedly though, I love the game but the main plot is rubbish. It survives on the episodic character stories and as far as I am convinced, the main plot was LotSB and Arrival.

[*]Pretty much, though it did still annoy me that the characters don't change as a result of the main plot. They only ever develop by their "loyality" quests and not the plot itself, which makes me wonder why they crammed in so many. And somehow I don't think ME3 is going to patch up this broken mess, because even ME3's premise seems contrived.(sigh) at least I still have Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3 coming out.

[TobyHasEyes]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 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

OR
It's painfull when peopel say x is a bad story, and you like it, so better to pretend it doesn't happen. Better to try and discredit everything that goes against your happy little place.
Throw in a lot of subjectivism to try to muddy the water while at it, maybe ****** in the pool too.

Funny when arguments fail, then the fallback is always "well it's SUBJECTIVE!"
No, not really. Some people just really, REALLY want ti to be that way becasue they cannot bring themselves to face the truth.

 Except the second you claim there is an objective, mind-independent written rules about what makes a good story / good writing, then you are making a claim you have to back up

 All I am claiming is that I don't mind those examples you call bad writing or bad storytelling; I only have to back up that statement by proving that it what I think

 I don't find it 'painful' that you have different tastes in storytelling than me. You are clearly the one who is finding this painful 

 I get that maybe you enjoy literary criticism, so you feel like you have to defend it as 'the truth', or more than just an invention of culture
 But there is nothing to back up that claim whatsoever 

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 07 septembre 2011 - 01:56 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 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

OR
It's painfull when peopel say x is a bad story, and you like it, so better to pretend it doesn't happen. Better to try and discredit everything that goes against your happy little place.
Throw in a lot of subjectivism to try to muddy the water while at it, maybe ****** in the pool too.

Funny when arguments fail, then the fallback is always "well it's SUBJECTIVE!"
No, not really. Some people just really, REALLY want ti to be that way becasue they cannot bring themselves to face the truth.

And that's the kind of "well if you don't agree with me about ME2, there's something wrong with you" crap that makes Smuggy's commentary so worthless.  

[Anacronian Stryx]

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

If it's crucial to the story, Plot or motivations of characters actions and still is left for the reader/gamer/whatever to interprent then yes it is badly done.

Believe it or not but humanity have been telling stories for millennia now, We have become quite good at it and have amassed quite a knowledge of pitfalls that is best avoided.

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 07 septembre 2011 - 02:01 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's painfull when peopel say x is a bad story, and you like it, so better to pretend it doesn't happen. Better to try and discredit everything that goes against your happy little place.
Throw in a lot of subjectivism to try to muddy the water while at it, maybe ****** in the pool too.

Funny when arguments fail, then the fallback is always "well it's SUBJECTIVE!"
No, not really. Some people just really, REALLY want ti to be that way becasue they cannot bring themselves to face the truth.

See, this is the problem.  This "I am right and you are wrong" mentality is what kills the fun of literary debate for me, almost as much as Smuddy's shallow attempts to be funny by copying another internet review guy.  Who's right and who's wrong requires extensive and objective analysis of all articles in question, and for the most part, people won't really care what conclusion you reach if you deliver it poorly.

In my opinion, Dat Smud fails to be both objective and entertaining.  Several people, obviously, disagree.

WELL IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

Additionally, liking or enjoying something does not mean one is blind to its flaws.  Most people who spend a great deal of time with their loved ones are very aware of their flaws ("I love my wife, but sometimes she is so ___"), and those that appreciate more mundane things can also easily accept and discuss its shortcomings (chocolate is delicious and scientifically proven to positively affect the brain, but it gives me cavaties and makes me fat).

If you honestly think people are afraid to criticize a videogame just because they really enjoy playing it, you're kind of a douche.

I, for one, can't stand FemShep's VA about 15% of the time (even though I prefer FemShep) and want to destroy Miranda's ass forever (and not in the sexual way).

[TobyHasEyes]

@styrx

You would call the lauded novel Turn of the Screw a badly done story then

My point is to state earnestly that if a story contains these pitfalls, and is still enjoyed and the readers don't end up caring about said 'pitfall' then to me it shouldn't count as a mistake or badly done

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 07 septembre 2011 - 02:04 .

[AdmiralCheez]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

You would call the lauded novel Turn of the Screw a badly done story then

My point is to state earnestly that if a story contains these pitfalls, and is still enjoyed and the readers don't end up caring about said 'pitfall' then to me it shouldn't count as a mistake or badly done

Well, it's not that they shouldn't count so much as maybe the critics should look to the positive to see why the hell so many people like it, anyway.

[Killjoy Cutter]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

@styrx

You would call the lauded novel Turn of the Screw a badly done story then

My point is to state earnestly that if a story contains these pitfalls, and is still enjoyed and the readers don't end up caring about said 'pitfall' then to me it shouldn't count as a mistake or badly done

Hmmm... not sure about that, plenty of people watch Jersey Shore and listen to The **** Cat Dolls, too...

[AdmiralCheez]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Hmmm... not sure about that, plenty of people watch Jersey Shore and listen to The **** Cat Dolls, too...

There has to be some sort of genius behind that dribble to explain why so many people like that stuff.

Imagine if we knew why people liked it.  Imagine the power we'd have.  We could control nations!  The World!

[TobyHasEyes]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

@styrx

You would call the lauded novel Turn of the Screw a badly done story then

My point is to state earnestly that if a story contains these pitfalls, and is still enjoyed and the readers don't end up caring about said 'pitfall' then to me it shouldn't count as a mistake or badly done

Hmmm... not sure about that, plenty of people watch Jersey Shore and listen to The **** Cat Dolls, too...

 Hmm so what?

 I don't think a complex novel is necessarily a good novel, in the same way that I don't think a complex piece of music is necessarily a good piece of music

 If the creator of said novel/program/game/music communicates what they want to, and it is received how they intended, then in my view they have done well

 I think to say x is good is different to saying it required skill, was complex, was intellectually stimulating etc. It depends on what you regard the function (or 'purpose') of x being

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 07 septembre 2011 - 02:23 .

[dreman9999]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

1.This comes form the game it self. It not fully explaines yet bu the understanding of this is from harbingers dialoge.....http://www.youtube.c...dcVYTjRw#t=238s
[*]2.That would not be a reaper. That would be a ship with reaper tech on it. The point of what they were doing is to make a reaper with a will.
[*]3.I'm not making up senerios, I'm noting what happened....  ...http://www.youtube.c...m9fiWZso#t=134s
[*]4.Alpha realy....not that in ME3 THEY HAVE YET TO ATTACK THE CITDEL AND ARE ALREADY ATTACKING THE EARTH. I think you need to listen more...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5c14PgZgvE&feature=player_detailpage#t=285s
[*]5.Yes, it is...http://www.youtube.c...RdcVYTjRw#t=10s
[*]6.Cerberus can't be trusted and that is a fact. It was reason enough for them to not join Shepard. It like someone trying tosave the world with the help of ****es.

[dreman9999]

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.

No, you know romeo and juliet is a tragity because the end is spoiled for you. It was told to you before you read or seen the play. Wht make the play a tragity is the fact that romeo doesn't know juliet is alive and kills him self....That is build out in the story with no explination.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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. 

But some story is shown in the gameplay demo. Normally, with a fully focus reaper fleet, any force would be steamed rolled over.

[dreman9999]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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.

But it's never nonsensical. Ever character has a reason for doing what they are doing in the story and it's explained. If it's nonsensical , it would jump to plot point to plot point with no explination and not ,if not most things , would not be explained.

[dreman9999]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

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

If it's crucial to the story, Plot or motivations of characters actions and still is left for the reader/gamer/whatever to interprent then yes it is badly done.

Believe it or not but humanity have been telling stories for millennia now, We have become quite good at it and have amassed quite a knowledge of pitfalls that is best avoided.

But he plot and movitve is shown clearly and stated clearly in the game. You just have to pay attention and understand the characters.