6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Bad plot-twists are ass-pulls.

Something that should have been hinted at (Reaper beign part organics - with Sovereign remains, derelict reaper, Vigils info, etc - and no one noticed anything????) but is not, is an ass-pull.

A character betraying you, or a character bein your father is not.

Oh. So Darth Vader being Luke's father is an asspull too?

You didn't know why the Reapers were harvesting people up until that point. 

[ThePwener]

I googled "asspull" and found this image.

http://t3.gstatic.co...Vxnj8OLreKBqofQ

lol

[Someone With Mass]

It's like anything new that's revealed is suddenly an asspull if you don't like it.

[ThePwener]

Someone With Mass wrote...

It's like anything new that's revealed is suddenly an asspull if you don't like it.

BSN in a nutshell right there.

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

It was not blown up .... It as intact enough to revive, it was still in one peice. Sovergin was blown up to bits.

Would you like to explain how this is possible?

I'm sorry...didit show that that Shepard was blown up in the opening of ME2? No, no it did not...So, he was not blown up. Assuming so is jumping to concusions with no proof......And was he revived...yes, he was....So what's left of him is enough to revive him....We never see how much is left of him so we can't say it not enough left of him to revive.....So do you have proof their were too little of him left to revive or Shepard was blown up?

[Kaiser Shepard]

ThePwener wrote...

I googled "asspull" and found this image.

http://t3.gstatic.co...Vxnj8OLreKBqofQ

lol

I believe I have something to do with that. 

[TobyHasEyes]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
See I don't see why you are reacting so strongly (and oddly) to the idea that some things are objective, and some things are subjective

I don't see why you're so opposed to the truth there there is bad writing in ME2.

Some things are more or less objective/subjective than others.
Bad writing isn't fully subjective. Period.

 What people say is or isn't bad writing is a matter of their own perspective, or academic consensus. To say that that is the case isn't the same as suggesting such extreme doubt and skepticism that suggests that the physical world is unknowable or non-existant

And if I say that that's juts your subjective oppinion, what do you do then? How do you counter that?
If no matter what you argue I counter everything with "it's subjective" then no disscusion can be had.

 Except I wouldn't counter everything with the claim that it is subjective. If you could even put forward an attempt of a proof or justification or experiment (or anything!) that would justify why one view of what is right is better than another, then we would have something to talk about

 That is why scientific discussion is fruitful. You can argue that your theory accurately describes the way something is, and you have to experiment to show that your description was accurate. If it is not, then it was a failed theory

 All you are doing is stating an academic consensus. If you ask a physicist to prove an academic consensus, they will either show you an experiment or at least explain the theory to you. Yet when I ask you to prove the academic consensus on good/bad writing, all you can do is state that it is the academic consensus and suggest to doubt it means I must be stupid

 If you think that the academic consensus on good/bad writing explains something objective, then just like the physicist you have to put forward some kind of proof BEYOND how much of a consensus it is

[dreman9999]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
See I don't see why you are reacting so strongly (and oddly) to the idea that some things are objective, and some things are subjective

I don't see why you're so opposed to the truth there there is bad writing in ME2.

Some things are more or less objective/subjective than others.
Bad writing isn't fully subjective. Period.

 What people say is or isn't bad writing is a matter of their own perspective, or academic consensus. To say that that is the case isn't the same as suggesting such extreme doubt and skepticism that suggests that the physical world is unknowable or non-existant

And if I say that that's juts your subjective oppinion, what do you do then? How do you counter that?
If no matter what you argue I counter everything with "it's subjective" then no disscusion can be had.

 Except I wouldn't counter everything with the claim that it is subjective. If you could even put forward an attempt of a proof or justification or experiment (or anything!) that would justify why one view of what is right is better than another, then we would have something to talk about

 That is why scientific discussion is fruitful. You can argue that your theory accurately describes the way something is, and you have to experiment to show that your description was accurate. If it is not, then it was a failed theory

 All you are doing is stating an academic consensus. If you ask a physicist to prove an academic consensus, they will either show you an experiment or at least explain the theory to you. Yet when I ask you to prove the academic consensus on good/bad writing, all you can do is state that it is the academic consensus and suggest to doubt it means I must be stupid

 If you think that the academic consensus on good/bad writing explains something objective, then just like the physicist you have to put forward some kind of proof BEYOND how much of a consensus it is

To add to this...this is exactly why people feel Smudboy is wrong and arrogant. He feels his statement is absolute

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Bad plot-twists are ass-pulls.

Something that should have been hinted at (Reaper beign part organics - with Sovereign remains, derelict reaper, Vigils info, etc - and no one noticed anything????) but is not, is an ass-pull.

A character betraying you, or a character being your father is not.

Oh. So Darth Vader being Luke's father is an asspull too?

You didn't know why the Reapers were harvesting people up until that point.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
See I don't see why you are reacting so strongly (and oddly) to the idea that some things are objective, and some things are subjective

I don't see why you're so opposed to the truth there there is bad writing in ME2.

Some things are more or less objective/subjective than others.
Bad writing isn't fully subjective. Period.

 What people say is or isn't bad writing is a matter of their own perspective, or academic consensus. To say that that is the case isn't the same as suggesting such extreme doubt and skepticism that suggests that the physical world is unknowable or non-existant

And if I say that that's juts your subjective oppinion, what do you do then? How do you counter that?
If no matter what you argue I counter everything with "it's subjective" then no disscusion can be had.

 Except I wouldn't counter everything with the claim that it is subjective. If you could even put forward an attempt of a proof or justification or experiment (or anything!) that would justify why one view of what is right is better than another, then we would have something to talk about

And why should I be concerned with what you would do?
I dont' care if you would caounter everything or only somethings. It changes nothing.

 All you are doing is stating an academic consensus. If you ask a physicist to prove an academic consensus, they will either show you an experiment or at least explain the theory to you. Yet when I ask you to prove the academic consensus on good/bad writing, all you can do is state that it is the academic consensus and suggest to doubt it means I must be stupid

If you think that the academic consensus on good/bad writing explains something objective, then just like the physicist you have to put forward some kind of proof BEYOND how much of a consensus it is

The proof is reason. The proof is common sense...Things some people are lacking.

You are again claiming that there is no such thing as bad writing. Which is wrong and everyone knows that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

dreman9999 wrote...

To add to this...this is exactly why people feel Smudboy is wrong and arrogant. He feels his statement is absolute

And you don't?

You are here clamining ME2 doesn't have bad writing. That's also an absolute..only the opposite.

[marstor05]

It's an opinion. I actually find his stuff quite entertaining. A lot of what he says is actually very well put. People should always remember tho that there are 3 sides to every arguement.

1. Your side.
2. Their side.
3. The truth.

[TobyHasEyes]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
See I don't see why you are reacting so strongly (and oddly) to the idea that some things are objective, and some things are subjective

I don't see why you're so opposed to the truth there there is bad writing in ME2.

Some things are more or less objective/subjective than others.
Bad writing isn't fully subjective. Period.

 What people say is or isn't bad writing is a matter of their own perspective, or academic consensus. To say that that is the case isn't the same as suggesting such extreme doubt and skepticism that suggests that the physical world is unknowable or non-existant

And if I say that that's juts your subjective oppinion, what do you do then? How do you counter that?
If no matter what you argue I counter everything with "it's subjective" then no disscusion can be had.

 Except I wouldn't counter everything with the claim that it is subjective. If you could even put forward an attempt of a proof or justification or experiment (or anything!) that would justify why one view of what is right is better than another, then we would have something to talk about

And why should I be concerned with what you would do?
I dont' care if you would caounter everything or only somethings. It changes nothing.

 All you are doing is stating an academic consensus. If you ask a physicist to prove an academic consensus, they will either show you an experiment or at least explain the theory to you. Yet when I ask you to prove the academic consensus on good/bad writing, all you can do is state that it is the academic consensus and suggest to doubt it means I must be stupid

If you think that the academic consensus on good/bad writing explains something objective, then just like the physicist you have to put forward some kind of proof BEYOND how much of a consensus it is

The proof is reason. The proof is common sense...Things some people are lacking.

You are again claiming that there is no such thing as bad writing. Which is wrong and everyone knows that.

 I only mentioned that I would not counter any claim with the statement 'its subjective' because you suggested that that was an effective description of how I handle discussion or debate. I wasn't suggesting that you should care about what I would do, I was just refuting the idea that if you state something is subjective then that makes you a full blown subjectivist

 And you clearly have a bogus understanding of reason, and the status of common sense

 People who use reason don't simply go "x is bad.. why you ask? Don't you know anything? Everyone knows x is bad'

[TobyHasEyes]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

To add to this...this is exactly why people feel Smudboy is wrong and arrogant. He feels his statement is absolute

And you don't?

You are here clamining ME2 doesn't have bad writing. That's also an absolute..only the opposite.

 He isn't stating that ME2 doesn't have bad writing, he is stating that it is wrong to put forward your opinion of what you like in writing as an absolute fact about whether it is good or bad

[Bozorgmehr 2.0]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

He isn't stating that ME2 doesn't have bad writing, he is stating that it is wrong to put forward your opinion of what you like in writing as an absolute fact about whether it is good or bad

That's ridiculous. Anyone can have their own opinion and they are free to use whatever arguments they believe supports their points. Whether one presents his/her points in a strong way (which might hint towards arrogance or absolutism) does not change any of the points being made. That's more about rethoric skills.

Whatever ones views regarding Smudboy are irrelevant to his analysis. Attack his arguments, not the man himself - that's pathetic.

[Omega4RelayResident]

I need a Moderator! HALP I opened the wrong door! OMG! The Abyss is looking back at me!

[Omega4RelayResident]

marstor05 wrote...

It's an opinion. I actually find his stuff quite entertaining. A lot of what he says is actually very well put. People should always remember tho that there are 3 sides to every arguement.

1. Your side.
2. Their side.
3. The truth.

Jack Nicholson steps in...

"The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

[TobyHasEyes]

Bozorgmehr 2.0 wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

He isn't stating that ME2 doesn't have bad writing, he is stating that it is wrong to put forward your opinion of what you like in writing as an absolute fact about whether it is good or bad

That's ridiculous. Anyone can have their own opinion and they are free to use whatever arguments they believe supports their points. Whether one presents his/her points in a strong way (which might hint towards arrogance or absolutism) does not change any of the points being made. That's more about rethoric skills.

Whatever ones views regarding Smudboy are irrelevant to his analysis. Attack his arguments, not the man himself - that's pathetic.

 In no way is what I said attacking the man himself over his arguments

 What I said is that his arguments express what he likes or dislikes in storytelling, or his games. His arguments merely explain to what extent those elements that he dislikes are in ME2

 What I am saying is that people aren't usually bothered by that. I certainly am not bothered by people having different tastes in storytelling, or being put off by different things to different extents

 What I was agreeing with was the idea that was actually bothers most people is how those elements that he dislikes are labelled as objective flaws or problems with the product (ME2) rather than just things that bother him

 That isn't me arguing about whether he is right to say that x lacks an explanation, it is me suggesting the idea that that lack of an explanation for x doesn't make it objectively bad.. just something that irks him

[Lotion Soronarr]

TobyHasEyes wrote...
I only mentioned that I would not counter any claim with the statement 'its subjective' because you suggested that that was an effective description of how I handle discussion or debate.

Nope, I didn't say that. I said that "it's subjective" is a poor "argument" that peopel tend to throw around when they run out of proper arguments.

 And you clearly have a bogus understanding of reason, and the status of common sense

 People who use reason don't simply go "x is bad.. why you ask? Don't you know anything? Everyone knows x is bad'

And we explained why it is bad.
The explanationa for why it isn't boil down to "well, *I* like it!"


But if you want an exampel fo reason...tell me ..is having 2 apples better than having two?
If Sheps ressurection - as it's done - is not using not even near the full potential of the narrative device (death/ressurecction), then how can it be better or just as good  as if hte narrative potential was fully explored?

That's like saying a glass half-hull has more watner than a full glass.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

To add to this...this is exactly why people feel Smudboy is wrong and arrogant. He feels his statement is absolute

And you don't?

You are here clamining ME2 doesn't have bad writing. That's also an absolute..only the opposite.

 He isn't stating that ME2 doesn't have bad writing, he is stating that it is wrong to put forward your opinion of what you like in writing as an absolute fact about whether it is good or bad

If his oppinion was wrong, that would be true. But it's not.

People are far too incapable of making a disticntion between "I like it" and "it's great"... and similarly "I hate it" and "it's bad".
I can hate something and still consider it great or love sometning adn consider it bad. All it takes is a little bit distance and reason.

[Bozorgmehr 2.0]

@ TobyHasEyes,

Fair enough. I merely tried to point out there is a difference between style and substance.

I find his videos quite amusing and I cannot deny the man knows how to make a point. I might not agree with his arguments, but the quote you "defended" (and I responded to):

"this is exactly why people feel Smudboy is wrong and arrogant. He feels his statement is absolute."

Is about the feeling towards the messenger; which is not related to the points being made.

[Omega4RelayResident]

Bozorgmehr 2.0 wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

He isn't stating that ME2 doesn't have bad writing, he is stating that it is wrong to put forward your opinion of what you like in writing as an absolute fact about whether it is good or bad

That's ridiculous. Anyone can have their own opinion and they are free to use whatever arguments they believe supports their points. Whether one presents his/her points in a strong way (which might hint towards arrogance or absolutism) does not change any of the points being made. That's more about rethoric skills.

Whatever ones views regarding Smudboy are irrelevant to his analysis. Attack his arguments, not the man himself - that's pathetic.

I'll attack the man all I want... have you heard his dry monotone way of speaking? He sounds like he takes Prozac on his vacations. His way of speaking reminds me of the guy that did the voice for "Good Idea, Bad Idea" from the Animaniacs.

If a woman ever would date him... it would only be because she needed help falling asleep.

I love it when uber-nerds deconstruct sci-fi stories... instead of actually figuring out how to actually get us to space.

Modifié par Omega4RelayResident, 08 septembre 2011 - 09:43 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
I only mentioned that I would not counter any claim with the statement 'its subjective' because you suggested that that was an effective description of how I handle discussion or debate.

Nope, I didn't say that. I said that "it's subjective" is a poor "argument" that peopel tend to throw around when they run out of proper arguments.

 And you clearly have a bogus understanding of reason, and the status of common sense

 People who use reason don't simply go "x is bad.. why you ask? Don't you know anything? Everyone knows x is bad'

And we explained why it is bad.
The explanationa for why it isn't boil down to "well, *I* like it!"


But if you want an exampel fo reason...tell me ..is having 2 apples better than having two?
If Sheps ressurection - as it's done - is not using not even near the full potential of the narrative device (death/ressurecction), then how can it be better or just as good  as if hte narrative potential was fully explored?

That's like saying a glass half-hull has more watner than a full glass.

 You explained what you didn't like about it. That is fine. You haven't explained the leap from 'I didn't like it' to 'It is objectively flawed'

 Taking Shepard's resurrection then - you would have preferred that the game had had Shepard express more about how being dead and now alive has affected his perspective on things, and the rest. You know what.. I would have liked that too

 However Bioware wanted to use the death/resurrection as a plot device; what it did achieve was to show how lethal the Collectors are, show Shepard is not invulnerable, and allow for an 'in-game' rebuiding of the character

 You might have wanted them to do more with that device (death/resurrection), some people might not have liked them to do more with it. You can't equate 'more' with 'objectively better'

 Eating food with a small amount of salt has beneficial results; more beneficial results than having no salt. Eating foods with a lot of salt has damaging results on the body

 So as 'more' does not equal 'objectively better', then you cannot claim that reason dictates that if they had done 'more' with that plot device, it would have been 'objectively better'

 And saying 'its subjective' isn't an argument for or against the game itself; its a claim that people are contending these issues as though it is objective. The statement 'its subjective' isn't any more directed towards people who say ME2 is objectively bad to those who say ME2 is objectively good

 

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 08 septembre 2011 - 10:40 .

[Bozorgmehr 2.0]

Omega4RelayResident wrote...

I'll attack the man all I want... have you heard his dry monotone way of speaking? He sounds like he takes Prozac on his vacations. His way of speaking reminds me of the guy that did the voice for "Good Idea, Bad Idea" from the Animaniacs.

And what does that have to do with his arguments? Perhaps he's terrorist, or a pedofile, a reaper or whatever - that's irrelevant to the things being said. When you're going to judge arguments based on your feelings towards the person - you're a fool.

If a woman ever would date him... it would only be because she needed help falling asleep.

I love it when uber-nerds deconstruct sci-fi stories... instead of actually figuring out how to actually get us to space.

Have you met the guy in person? For all we know he might be a badass biker,  running a gang of mobsters, maybe it's Gaddafi.

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

I believe that the main reasons there are 136 pages so far on the theme of Smudboy's videos here in BSN are because of the incredible span between amazingly bad and petty arguments that he uses against ME2 and actually pretty good intelligent and spot on criticisms he is able to produce. All conveyed in the same smug, all knowing demigod arrogant and incapable of humour style of his.

There is no smug, arrogant style. You see what you want to see there.
If a guy speaks calmly, he's suddenly arrogant..seriously..<_< 

If you are unable to recognize arrogance when it is slapped in your face, it's your own empirical problem not mine. Look, I have little problems with arrogance when it is coupled with excellence. This is why I like people like Steve Jobs or Jose Mourinho. They present their own viewpoints arrogantly, but they do have substance to base them, namely their excellent competence and the ability of ending up being right. I have problems with arrogance when it is coupled with mediocrity or pettyness. I can't stand those kinds of people. You do, good for you.

Really? I thought he didn't coutner nothing at all.

Then I submit that you are amazingly distracted. Get some medication for your brain if you need.

No, it's bad writing. To harp on smudboy becase one doesn't like the tone of his vocie is petty.

Where did I harp on smudboy because of his tone? I harped on him because of his arrogance doesn't fit the strenght of half of his arguments, much to the contrary. You sound just as bad "No it's bad writing, full stop", and no explanation is required, just repeating the point until the universe ends so you can have the "last word".

I see no "bad writing" in having Shepard fall into a planet and in the next scenes Cerberus scientists joining up the separate pieces of his body into ressurecting him. I do see lack of imagination with people complaining about it because it was "not explained". These people need explanations for everything, without them they cannot see anything. These are perhaps the kinds of people who loved shows like Voyager with its technobabble because hey it had babble pretending to explain the ridiculous things we saw on the screen, so it makes it okay. I have no words to describe the utter disgust that this attitude has on me.