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.
The entire story is the explanation, Both Romeo and Juliet are young impulsive beings, In fact being impulsive is Romeos fatal flaw (look how easily he ditches Rosaline and how quickly he wants to marry Juliet - Shakespeare even emphsizes how unthinking Romeo was when Romeo, upon seeing Juliet, noted that she still looked and smelled beautiful, not like someone who had been dead for a few days. Well, yeah, let's think about this...SHE'S NOT DEAD! But he doesn't get it. He's impulsive. That's his fatal flaw which leads to all of his troubles).
All of his actions are in character and within the story, people might disagree about his actions or think him a fool but nobody can say that his death are out of character or not in line with the story.
dreman9999 wrote...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.
If Harbinger wanted more information on Cerberus. He could just contact the SB and make another deal.
And as for the whole "They want to use them for the Reaper". Are you suggesting that instead of destroying the ship and removing the only opposition in harvesting colonies who have humans in the thousands. They think it is a better idea to go in and collect 30 redshirts or something. Even through Shepard is not onboard.
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.
That does nothing to answer the questions I asked, something the narrative was responsible to address. You cannot simply create a ridiculous concept like the human-reaper, essentially retcon the Reaper ideology, then claim, "Oh, it will be explained in ME3." This is called a cop out, and thus makes ME2's writing poor.
Three times now you have neglected to answer why their human reaper would be superior. I am well aware what Harbinger drones on about. It did not answer the question.
Nope, that does not reference hacking the Normandy, merely Harbinger showing up on screen. Watch Overlord when you fail the last section. That is a demonstration of a hacking attempt. In fact, you strengthen my point, since EDI required Shepard's assistance to hack into the Collector's data files. Thus, had Harbinger sprung the trap earlier we could theorize EDI having significantly more difficulty. Nevertheless, you once again ignore every question you cannot answer.
No, you need to stop making up scenarios and then refuting them. The Reaper plot was to attack the Citadel, thus allowing themselves to pour in from Dark Space. They were supposedly creating a baby reaper to complete this objective, despite the nonsensical approach. ME3 is their final attempt because everything else failed. We still have yet to determine why Earth was targeted. It could very well have been first in their path; victim of unfortunate circumstance. All your vid clips show is ME2's plot of build a human-reaper to... no one knows because the plot does not develop.
I like how you once more ignore everything you cannot argue. Not trusting Cerberus is logical, making ridiculously asinine statements for no reason and being the only character of ME1 to not trust you, was not. Garrus, Tali, Anderson, even the Council back you in spite of their dislike for Cerberus, yet Ashley/Kaidan throw a hissy fit?
Bourne Endeavor wrote... [*]No, you need to stop making up scenarios and then refuting them. The Reaper plot was to attack the Citadel, thus allowing themselves to pour in from Dark Space. They were supposedly creating a baby reaper to complete this objective, despite the nonsensical approach. ME3 is their final attempt because everything else failed. We still have yet to determine why Earth was targeted. It could very well have been first in their path; victim of unfortunate circumstance. All your vid clips show is ME2's plot of build a human-reaper to... no one knows because the plot does not develop.
One of Mac Walters' tweets states that using the human Reaper as the second vanguard was NOT their plan.
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.
The entire story is the explanation, Both Romeo and Juliet are young impulsive beings, In fact being impulsive is Romeos fatal flaw (look how easily he ditches Rosaline and how quickly he wants to marry Juliet - Shakespeare even emphsizes how unthinking Romeo was when Romeo, upon seeing Juliet, noted that she still looked and smelled beautiful, not like someone who had been dead for a few days. Well, yeah, let's think about this...SHE'S NOT DEAD! But he doesn't get it. He's impulsive. That's his fatal flaw which leads to all of his troubles).
All of his actions are in character and within the story, people might disagree about his actions or think him a fool but nobody can say that his death are out of character or not in line with the story.
But are these trait's Romoe has told to you or do you see these traits come up in the story? Which is my point , it's interpertied..... As for mass effect, no character ask out of character....they may change because of event but they are not out of charcter. thE VS act the same way they did in ME1. Every character never act out of charcter. You just don't agree on the same thing. Even Liara is not out of character, her craziness is just showing more then usual.
One of Mac Walters' tweets states that using the human Reaper as the second vanguard was NOT their plan.
So what the hell was their plan then? That was ME2's biggest problem, one among many, no one knew what they were doing. Frankly, that tweet comes across more akin to damage control because Walters have been blasted to kingdom come for the human-reaper concept. One could even theorize this as an example of poor writing, since Walters evidently has an idea that was feasible and cohesive in his mind, yet did not translate well to others.
One of Mac Walters' tweets states that using the human Reaper as the second vanguard was NOT their plan.
So what the hell was their plan then? That was ME2's biggest problem, one among many, no one knew what they were doing. Frankly, that tweet comes across more akin to damage control because Walters have been blasted to kingdom come for the human-reaper concept. One could even theorize this as an example of poor writing, since Walters evidently has an idea that was feasible and cohesive in his mind, yet did not translate well to others.
Could be that the Reapers were on their way, they don't view the efforts of the galactic community as a real threat so they set the Collectors to begin work early
So though we went through the game with a sense of purpose, Harbinger was right to state 'You have achieved nothing'
I don't see why that has to be bad writing; there are lots of ways that could be seen as a satisfying ending. A lot of the time, part two of a trilogy ends with a battle being won, followed by the stark realisation that in the grand scheme of things you haven't accomplished much
Helm's Deep comes to mind
Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:05 .
But are these trait's Romoe has told to you or do you see these traits come up in the story? Which is my point , it's interpertied..... As for mass effect, no character ask out of character....they may change because of event but they are not out of charcter. thE VS act the same way they did in ME1. Every character never act out of charcter. You just don't agree on the same thing. Even Liara is not out of character, her craziness is just showing more then usual.
ME1, Kaidan is billed a rational and level headed individual, both he and Ash are willing to mutiny for Shepard. In ME2, they won't even give her the time of day simply because Cerberus is mentioned, and instead make ridiculous nonsensical statements. Meanwhile, Liara has not eaten in lord only knows how long and believes she is hallucinating, whereas in ME2, she is threatening to kill people. Yeah, those do not relate. They are retcons. Liara gets better because of a DLC.
But are these trait's Romoe has told to you or do you see these traits come up in the story? Which is my point , it's interpertied..... As for mass effect, no character ask out of character....they may change because of event but they are not out of charcter. thE VS act the same way they did in ME1. Every character never act out of charcter. You just don't agree on the same thing. Even Liara is not out of character, her craziness is just showing more then usual.
ME1, Kaidan is billed a rational and level headed individual, both he and Ash are willing to mutiny for Shepard. In ME2, they won't even give her the time of day simply because Cerberus is mentioned, and instead make ridiculous nonsensical statements. Meanwhile, Liara has not eaten in lord only knows how long and believes she is hallucinating, whereas in ME2, she is threatening to kill people. Yeah, those do not relate. They are retcons. Liara gets better because of a DLC.
Characters change over time; it is not that unusual or terrible for that change in character (especially when they aren't central) to have occured 'off-stage'
Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:08 .
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.
[*]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.
That does nothing to answer the questions I asked, something the narrative was responsible to address. You cannot simply create a ridiculous concept like the human-reaper, essentially retcon the Reaper ideology, then claim, "Oh, it will be explained in ME3." This is called a cop out, and thus makes ME2's writing poor.
Three times now you have neglected to answer why their human reaper would be superior. I am well aware what Harbinger drones on about. It did not answer the question.
Nope, that does not reference hacking the Normandy, merely Harbinger showing up on screen. Watch Overlord when you fail the last section. That is a demonstration of a hacking attempt. In fact, you strengthen my point, since EDI required Shepard's assistance to hack into the Collector's data files. Thus, had Harbinger sprung the trap earlier we could theorize EDI having significantly more difficulty. Nevertheless, you once again ignore every question you cannot answer.
No, you need to stop making up scenarios and then refuting them. The Reaper plot was to attack the Citadel, thus allowing themselves to pour in from Dark Space. They were supposedly creating a baby reaper to complete this objective, despite the nonsensical approach. ME3 is their final attempt because everything else failed. We still have yet to determine why Earth was targeted. It could very well have been first in their path; victim of unfortunate circumstance. All your vid clips show is ME2's plot of build a human-reaper to... no one knows because the plot does not develop.
I like how you once more ignore everything you cannot argue. Not trusting Cerberus is logical, making ridiculously asinine statements for no reason and being the only character of ME1 to not trust you, was not. Garrus, Tali, Anderson, even the Council back you in spite of their dislike for Cerberus, yet Ashley/Kaidan throw a hissy fit?
1. But ithey do state one thing...they want to make us reapers...Harginger says "They will be as we are." Blutly. Meaning they want to make people into reapers. As to why. Nothing has been stated why and will be told in ME3
[*]2. You not understanding the point of the human reaper. I'm awnsering you question to explain that your question has no point. Put reaper tech on a ship is not making a reaper, which is their goal.In short, they never do what you stated because it's not in their goal. They want to make thing into reapers, not make reapers to destroy them.
[*]3. The normady was almost shut down and it was from the out side. That 's hacking. The hole point was to disable the ship, which the point is lost on you. Shepard just plugged EDI in to the platform they were on to let them down. My point is that if EDI was not there, Shepard would of been caught in the trap.
[*]4.If they need the citdel to get in from dark space, why are they here already from arrival? Face it....they're here already and they did not need the citidel. They were in the galecy from Arrival.
[*]5.And that is what Ashliy and Kadien felt. They don't have to help you.That's the consept of free will.
Modifié par dreman9999, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:38 .
But are these trait's Romoe has told to you or do you see these traits come up in the story? Which is my point , it's interpertied..... As for mass effect, no character ask out of character....they may change because of event but they are not out of charcter. thE VS act the same way they did in ME1. Every character never act out of charcter. You just don't agree on the same thing. Even Liara is not out of character, her craziness is just showing more then usual.
ME1, Kaidan is billed a rational and level headed individual, both he and Ash are willing to mutiny for Shepard. In ME2, they won't even give her the time of day simply because Cerberus is mentioned, and instead make ridiculous nonsensical statements. Meanwhile, Liara has not eaten in lord only knows how long and believes she is hallucinating, whereas in ME2, she is threatening to kill people. Yeah, those do not relate. They are retcons. Liara gets better because of a DLC.
Meet renagade Kaiden..............(WATCH THE WHOLE THING...)
[*]No, you need to stop making up scenarios and then refuting them. The Reaper plot was to attack the Citadel, thus allowing themselves to pour in from Dark Space. They were supposedly creating a baby reaper to complete this objective, despite the nonsensical approach. ME3 is their final attempt because everything else failed. We still have yet to determine why Earth was targeted. It could very well have been first in their path; victim of unfortunate circumstance. All your vid clips show is ME2's plot of build a human-reaper to... no one knows because the plot does not develop.
One of Mac Walters' tweets states that using the human Reaper as the second vanguard was NOT their plan.
Thank you... That is what I've been trying to say to this person.
But are these trait's Romoe has told to you or do you see these traits come up in the story? Which is my point , it's interpertied..... As for mass effect, no character ask out of character....they may change because of event but they are not out of charcter. thE VS act the same way they did in ME1. Every character never act out of charcter. You just don't agree on the same thing. Even Liara is not out of character, her craziness is just showing more then usual.
ME1, Kaidan is billed a rational and level headed individual, both he and Ash are willing to mutiny for Shepard. In ME2, they won't even give her the time of day simply because Cerberus is mentioned, and instead make ridiculous nonsensical statements. Meanwhile, Liara has not eaten in lord only knows how long and believes she is hallucinating, whereas in ME2, she is threatening to kill people. Yeah, those do not relate. They are retcons. Liara gets better because of a DLC.
Characters change over time; it is not that unusual or terrible for that change in character (especially when they aren't central) to have occured 'off-stage'
Yes but the story does not explain their mystery or even give us us hints as to why they could be acting this way, the writers decided to cop out.
Again, I have to ask What has changed? What caused the change in them? nothing in their verbal assult on common sense implied any change, just a convenience for the plot. The answer to all of these questions is of couse, is ****ty writing.
[*]No, you need to stop making up scenarios and then refuting them. The Reaper plot was to attack the Citadel, thus allowing themselves to pour in from Dark Space. They were supposedly creating a baby reaper to complete this objective, despite the nonsensical approach. ME3 is their final attempt because everything else failed. We still have yet to determine why Earth was targeted. It could very well have been first in their path; victim of unfortunate circumstance. All your vid clips show is ME2's plot of build a human-reaper to... no one knows because the plot does not develop.
One of Mac Walters' tweets states that using the human Reaper as the second vanguard was NOT their plan.
Thank you... That is what I've been trying to say to this person.
Which just begs the question of what was the Collectors plan then.
[*]No, you need to stop making up scenarios and then refuting them. The Reaper plot was to attack the Citadel, thus allowing themselves to pour in from Dark Space. They were supposedly creating a baby reaper to complete this objective, despite the nonsensical approach. ME3 is their final attempt because everything else failed. We still have yet to determine why Earth was targeted. It could very well have been first in their path; victim of unfortunate circumstance. All your vid clips show is ME2's plot of build a human-reaper to... no one knows because the plot does not develop.
One of Mac Walters' tweets states that using the human Reaper as the second vanguard was NOT their plan.
Thank you... That is what I've been trying to say to this person.
Which just begs the question of what was the Collectors plan then.
To start making the human reaper so when the reaper invasion started, they can quickly haverst humanity and finish the human reaper and then focus on the rest ofthe galexy.
[*]To start making the human reaper so when the reaper invasion started, they can quickly haverst humanity and finish the human reaper and then focus on the rest ofthe galexy.
And why is it so necessary to start building the Reaper here and now. Why not just keep a low profile and wait for the main Reaper fleet attacks? Or just do it when the war is won.
Lotion Soronnar wrote... 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?
Innocent untill proven guilty. Your first post was bile-ridden drivel. Hence, I condemn you for all eternity without reading your posts or even carign to understand hte subject matter at hand.
**
1. Smudboys critics were hafl-baked 2. Smudboy is a over-reacting douche 3. smudboy will never change
All 3 assumptions with zero backing.
Smudboys arguments are for the most part well-founded. The so-called counterpoints are for the most part either compeltely wrong, or completely missing the issue, hence not being really counter-points to begin with.
If I were to follow your reasoning, then the people attacking smudboy were uber-super-extra douches and devereved every insult they got..plus extra.
[*]No, you need to stop making up scenarios and then refuting them. The Reaper plot was to attack the Citadel, thus allowing themselves to pour in from Dark Space. They were supposedly creating a baby reaper to complete this objective, despite the nonsensical approach. ME3 is their final attempt because everything else failed. We still have yet to determine why Earth was targeted. It could very well have been first in their path; victim of unfortunate circumstance. All your vid clips show is ME2's plot of build a human-reaper to... no one knows because the plot does not develop.
One of Mac Walters' tweets states that using the human Reaper as the second vanguard was NOT their plan.
Thank you... That is what I've been trying to say to this person.
Which just begs the question of what was the Collectors plan then.
To start making the human reaper so when the reaper invasion started, they can quickly haverst humanity and finish the human reaper and then focus on the rest ofthe galexy.
Which begs the question, if the Reapers were just going to harvest humans themselves, why bother getting the Collectors to do it and risk drawing attention to yourself before you arrive?
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
Who sez physics is objective? There's people who believe Earth is 6000 years old. Go and tell them they are wrong. Lets see you convince them of your "objectivity".
Writing standards exist for a reason. They arne't as hard as physical laws, but they aren't subjective - not really. The enjoymet of a particial piece of fiction may be subjective, but thats another matter altogehter.
Subjectivism is the last refuge of the people who have no real arguments anymore.
Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:33 .
But are these trait's Romoe has told to you or do you see these traits come up in the story? Which is my point , it's interpertied..... As for mass effect, no character ask out of character....they may change because of event but they are not out of charcter. thE VS act the same way they did in ME1. Every character never act out of charcter. You just don't agree on the same thing. Even Liara is not out of character, her craziness is just showing more then usual.
ME1, Kaidan is billed a rational and level headed individual, both he and Ash are willing to mutiny for Shepard. In ME2, they won't even give her the time of day simply because Cerberus is mentioned, and instead make ridiculous nonsensical statements. Meanwhile, Liara has not eaten in lord only knows how long and believes she is hallucinating, whereas in ME2, she is threatening to kill people. Yeah, those do not relate. They are retcons. Liara gets better because of a DLC.
Characters change over time; it is not that unusual or terrible for that change in character (especially when they aren't central) to have occured 'off-stage'
Yes but the story does not explain their mystery or even give us us hints as to why they could be acting this way, the writers decided to cop out.
Again, I have to ask What has changed? What caused the change in them? nothing in their verbal assult on common sense implied any change, just a convenience for the plot. The answer to all of these questions is of couse, is ****ty writing.
For Liara, it was all the death and loss that happen in her life. Her mother, Shepard, and Feron
The VS, nothing has changed. In fact them hating cerberus is in character with how they felt about cerberus in ME1. And Ashley and Kaiden are characters that alway wanted to prove their loyalty to the alliance. Ashley with her families black mark and Kaiden because he want to prove the being a biotic is not a curse. Being with Cerberus would not aid in those stigmas. Ashley case it would be her turning trator to the Alliance she been trying for yearto prove her value, and for Kaiden it would show that they were right to not trust biotics.
[*]No, you need to stop making up scenarios and then refuting them. The Reaper plot was to attack the Citadel, thus allowing themselves to pour in from Dark Space. They were supposedly creating a baby reaper to complete this objective, despite the nonsensical approach. ME3 is their final attempt because everything else failed. We still have yet to determine why Earth was targeted. It could very well have been first in their path; victim of unfortunate circumstance. All your vid clips show is ME2's plot of build a human-reaper to... no one knows because the plot does not develop.
One of Mac Walters' tweets states that using the human Reaper as the second vanguard was NOT their plan.
Thank you... That is what I've been trying to say to this person.
Which just begs the question of what was the Collectors plan then.
To start making the human reaper so when the reaper invasion started, they can quickly haverst humanity and finish the human reaper and then focus on the rest ofthe galexy.
Which begs the question, if the Reapers were just going to harvest humans themselves, why bother getting the Collectors to do it and risk drawing attention to yourself before you arrive?
Because it takes time. They are dealing with multiple spieces, which all have a greater force together and people exsist that know they exsist. They don't want to give their targets time to stop them. Getting started earily with the harvesting means they end early before they can be stopped. Now with the human reaper dead, it will take longer to make a new reaper, give their target time to stop them.
1. The Collectors had to test if humans were a viable species (see Protheans; did not work)
2. Why not get a head start on the process if possible?
3. Once Earth is attacked, a lot of people are going to die (2 million dead in the first day, another 7 million by the end of the first week) so as many humans should be taken as possible
4. The Collectors couldn't have drawn attention to themselves because the Council refused to believe in the Reaper threat. Unless you investigate there is no connection between Collectors and Reapers, and since they restricted their actions to the Terminus, they knew the Council wouldn't do anything.
Also, why do you keep asking what the 'essence' of a species is? Don't you think that it could maybe be a very important plot point in ME3? Not all questions have to be answered in the second part of thre trilogy, nor should they.
@Bourne Endeavor
You posted a while back about why the Human-Reaper was stupid, as a machine would be much more efficient. But we do not know what the Reaper's purpose and ultimate goal is, why they repeat this cycle of extinction. It could be that their entire existence is based upon preserving the genetic material of species deemed 'worthy'. We simply don't know enough about the Reapers.
As to your point about the Human-Reaper walking around in space and punching ships....you realize that what we saw was just the Reaper Core right? It would have put in a shell just like all the other Reapers.
To start making the human reaper so when the reaper invasion started, they can quickly haverst humanity and finish the human reaper and then focus on the rest ofthe galexy.
And why is it so necessary to start building the Reaper here and now. Why not just keep a low profile and wait for the main Reaper fleet attacks? Or just do it when the war is won.
Bacause they have multiple fronts and no surpise on their side. They are not controlling everything like they did before. They were planning their move to get ready for the invasion but was not able to set the ground. The plan was to capture shepard and make him a slave to them, their tool ans agent. Then to get start to harvest humanity. But they underestamated their targets, cerberus got in the way and brought back Shepard before the reapers could. The reaper are still trying to get Shepard. The whole reason is becauses they are trying to get the advantage they had with the planned surprise attack with a new plan. But they are force to start from scratch now.
But are these trait's Romoe has told to you or do you see these traits come up in the story? Which is my point , it's interpertied..... As for mass effect, no character ask out of character....they may change because of event but they are not out of charcter. thE VS act the same way they did in ME1. Every character never act out of charcter. You just don't agree on the same thing. Even Liara is not out of character, her craziness is just showing more then usual.
ME1, Kaidan is billed a rational and level headed individual, both he and Ash are willing to mutiny for Shepard. In ME2, they won't even give her the time of day simply because Cerberus is mentioned, and instead make ridiculous nonsensical statements. Meanwhile, Liara has not eaten in lord only knows how long and believes she is hallucinating, whereas in ME2, she is threatening to kill people. Yeah, those do not relate. They are retcons. Liara gets better because of a DLC.
Characters change over time; it is not that unusual or terrible for that change in character (especially when they aren't central) to have occured 'off-stage'
Yes but the story does not explain their mystery or even give us us hints as to why they could be acting this way, the writers decided to cop out.
Again, I have to ask What has changed? What caused the change in them? nothing in their verbal assult on common sense implied any change, just a convenience for the plot. The answer to all of these questions is of couse, is ****ty writing.
For Liara, it was all the death and loss that happen in her life. Her mother, Shepard, and Feron
The VS, nothing has changed. In fact them hating cerberus is in character with how they felt about cerberus in ME1. And Ashley and Kaiden are characters that alway wanted to prove their loyalty to the alliance. Ashley with her families black mark and Kaiden because he want to prove the being a biotic is not a curse. Being with Cerberus would not aid in those stigmas. Ashley case it would be her turning trator to the Alliance she been trying for yearto prove her value, and for Kaiden it would show that they were right to not trust biotics.
The DLC patched Liara up a bit. But her mothers death caused no change in her in ME 1, so why now?
The entire VS senario is BS. Ashley is loyal to Alliance for the sake of contrivance, its never explained how or why she feels this way considering she commited mutiny AGAINST the Alliance in ME 1, which proves DISloyalty, But that does not equate to her outright hatered of Cerberus, who were also retconned. Kaiden is the most level headed and logical guy I've seen in the ME universe. Besides, the catalyst for these changes weren't Cerberus anyway, you're making stuff up.
The argument was never that they didn't go with Cerberus in the first place. I am asking what the change is, and what caused it.
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
Who sez physics is objective? There's people who believe Earth is 6000 years old. Go and tell them they are wrong. Lets see you convince them of your "objectivity".
Writing standards exist for a reason. They arne't as hard as physical laws, but they aren't subjective - not really. The enjoymet of a particial piece of fiction may be subjective, but thats another matter altogehter.
Subjectivism is the last refuge of the people who have no real arguments anymore.
Last refuge of the people who have no real arguments anymore? Sounds like ad hominem to me
The point with my physics remark is that there is a measure by which you can prove a physics theory wrong or right.. by whether it accurately describes the way the world really is. People may argue over whether certain theories (such as the age of the Earth) do accurately describe the way the world really is, but we can do experiments, examine data etc. to see if it is the case
With writing standards, we have nothing like that. It is only us, not the universe, which decides what makes a good story. And an appeal to the authority of literary standards does not elevate one preference over another
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
