6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

This is true, it doesn't make Smudboy's analysis any better. It just makes it obvious that you "love" the analysis that he makes and are unable to see the cracks that it has. Hey, perhaps you are also unable to make the distinction? Pot, meet the Kettle...

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

iakus wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

The nature of Reapers was no more retconned than Cerberus or mass effect fields were retconned.

Wait are you arguing for or against retcons here?  

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other." 


Actually, I do not believe that either of those three were retconned.

Just messing with ya.  Though there are some who would call them retcons.  I myself refer to ME2's Cerberus as "kinder, gentler Cerberus" 

And then we get Teltin and Overlord, and we're back to ME1's Cerberus, research cells doing brilliant but reckless and extremely unethical research, which inevitably blows up in their faces. 

[100k]

Now the entire argument has disolved into "I don't like him because...he has an annoying voice...he thinks he's right...his arguments have cracks that I won't point out..."

Seriously you guys, that's not any basis for you to hate him -- and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Someone With Mass]

100k wrote...

Now the entire argument has disolved into "I don't like him because...he has an annoying voice...he thinks he's right...his arguments have cracks that I won't point out..."

Seriously you guys, that's not any basis for you to hate him -- and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Sine it's about his videos, I'd say it is.

[Fixers0]

Arkitekt wrote...

This is true, it doesn't make Smudboy's analysis any better. It just makes it obvious that you "love" the analysis that he makes and are unable to see the cracks that it has. Hey, perhaps you are also unable to make the distinction? Pot, meet the Kettle...

And what exactly is wrong with Smudboy's videos? or at the very least the points he brings up in them.

Personally i enjoyed watching his analysis and other video, i thought they were pretty well constructed and he had a lot good arguments, sure you issue a decent amount critism about how he reviews the game, but that's also the charm of them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

This is true, it doesn't make Smudboy's analysis any better. It just makes it obvious that you "love" the analysis that he makes and are unable to see the cracks that it has. Hey, perhaps you are also unable to make the distinction? Pot, meet the Kettle...

No, it means your hate for smudboy and fanboy-ish love for Bioware blinds you to the faults of the writing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

100k wrote...

Now the entire argument has disolved into "I don't like him because...he has an annoying voice...he thinks he's right...his arguments have cracks that I won't point out..."

Seriously you guys, that's not any basis for you to hate him -- and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Sine it's about his videos, I'd say it is.

I hate you..therefore anything you say is null and void and I never have to explain myself either.
And no, you never get the benefit of the doubt.

[100k]

Someone With Mass wrote...

100k wrote...

Now the entire argument has disolved into "I don't like him because...he has an annoying voice...he thinks he's right...his arguments have cracks that I won't point out..."

Seriously you guys, that's not any basis for you to hate him -- and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Sine it's about his videos, I'd say it is.

He can't help how he sounds. You might as well make fun of him for being white, or a man.

He explicitly goes into detail to explain his reasoning. You may not like that, but better a long explaination than short explaination.

He occasionally tries to be funny. Fortunately you aren't the soul judge on what's comical or not-- as that sort of thing is subjective. Hence, some things he says come off as funny to some people (like his Virmire bomb comments).

He sounds righteous because part of making up a strong thesis and following it up with explainations involvles a sense of conviction. He thinks he's right -- so he'll argue from that standpoint. I'd expect the same sense of certainty from anyone else in that situation.

He doesn't think Bioware are bad writers, he just thinks that ME2 (and DA2) are poorly written. This thread is over 130 pages long, discussing how good/bad the story is. Obviously this means that not everybody is happy with the story, and not everybody is unhappy with the story. 

He is entitled to "waste" his time however he wants. Plot analysis is something he enjoys, as do several fans of Bioware. You aren't obligated to watch his videos, and if you did, and provide counter arguments in this thread, than excellent. We'd love to discuss them.

But if you just stopped watching five minutes in because "his voice puts me to sleep" then please leave. You're not here to discuss the plot of ME2, but the voice of smudboy. Make another thread and discuss his voice there.

With all due respect.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Arkitekt wrote...

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.

Mayhaps you're the one who needs medications.

You see arrogance when you don't like the message. There is no arrogance.

You see reason where there is none. The writing is bad. Period. This is beyond obvious. it's factual. It's objective.
No ammount of crynig, whining or yelling "subjective" will change that.

Adn if you diaagree...well, that's just your subjective opinnion... tha'ts wrong.

[Omega4RelayResident]

Oh look! Opinions.... they are a very rare and endagered species. Lets be carefull as so we do not spook them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

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

We're not talkign about food, we're talking about potential. We're talking about narrative. Substance. Pacing. Exposition.

More in this case IS better. Theres no if's about it.
If you can have the same narrative result and the same gameplay result, while making less ass-pull or polot holes or inconistencies, than that is better. PERIOD.

[Omega4RelayResident]

You want an air-tight plot?.... go read war and peace.... if you dont like ME dont play it..... whats the problem? BECAUSE I THINK I JUST SOVLED IT

Ohhh look more Paragon points for me!

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I hate you..therefore anything you say is null and void and I never have to explain myself either.
And no, you never get the benefit of the doubt.

Give me one reason why I should care about what you think of me.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

This is true, it doesn't make Smudboy's analysis any better. It just makes it obvious that you "love" the analysis that he makes and are unable to see the cracks that it has. Hey, perhaps you are also unable to make the distinction? Pot, meet the Kettle...

No, it means your hate for smudboy and fanboy-ish love for Bioware blinds you to the faults of the writing.

And as noted earlier, that exactly the kind of thing that Smuggy says that makes his tripe not worth reading or listening to.  

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

This is true, it doesn't make Smudboy's analysis any better. It just makes it obvious that you "love" the analysis that he makes and are unable to see the cracks that it has. Hey, perhaps you are also unable to make the distinction? Pot, meet the Kettle...

No, it means your hate for smudboy and fanboy-ish love for Bioware blinds you to the faults of the writing.

And as noted earlier, that exactly the kind of thing that Smuggy says that makes his tripe not worth reading or listening to.  

Really?  I consdier your posts tripe not worth reading. It's not liek you say anything otehr than half-balked, flawed assumptions in them. Hence, I'm gonna treat you like you treat smudboy.

It's only fair to apply your own standards to you...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I hate you..therefore anything you say is null and void and I never have to explain myself either.
And no, you never get the benefit of the doubt.

Give me one reason why I should care about what you think of me.

If you consdier me an idiot, you shouldn't.

Which is why smud and sensible people shouldn't care about what you and other ignor-amuses say.

You are nothing more than white noise. A cacophony of nothingness. Irrelevant.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Omega4RelayResident wrote...

You want an air-tight plot?.... go read war and peace.... if you dont like ME dont play it..... whats the problem? BECAUSE I THINK I JUST SOVLED IT

Ohhh look more Paragon points for me!

lol....No, my poor delluded friend.

You fall into the silly little trap of thinking that criticizing something = hating something.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you consdier me an idiot, you shouldn't.

Which is why smud and sensible people shouldn't care about what you and other ignor-amuses say.

You are nothing more than white noise. A cacophony of nothingness. Irrelevant.

Right back at you.

You're just a random idiot over the internet trying to defend another random idiot over the internet.

Don't think you're something better than anyone else.

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Right back at you.

You're just a random idiot over the internet trying to defend another random idiot over the internet.

Don't think you're something better than anyone else.

And you should't call people idiot's just because you don't understand them.

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

When did Vader being Luke's father stop being an asspull?

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...
And you should't call people idiot's just because you don't understand them.

No, you think I don't understand them, because you're judging me just like I'm judging them.

Don't play the "holier than thou" card.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Il Divo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

When did Vader being Luke's father stop being an asspull?

Becasue there was nothing suggesting Luke could have known or should have known.


With the reaper,  study of Sovereign remains reveals nothing about the gooey stuff, the derelict reaper shows no goeys stuff, Vigil mentions no gooey stuff.
Sovereign acts with disdain towards organics, nothing in how he sez or acts indicates he's anything but the machine.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

When did Vader being Luke's father stop being an asspull?

It wasn't even originally planned to be that way.

In one sense, Darth Vader being Luke's father is the asspull.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you consdier me an idiot, you shouldn't.

Which is why smud and sensible people shouldn't care about what you and other ignor-amuses say.

You are nothing more than white noise. A cacophony of nothingness. Irrelevant.

Right back at you.

You're just a random idiot over the internet trying to defend another random idiot over the internet.

Don't think you're something better than anyone else.

I'm better than you. That's all that matters.

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Becasue there was nothing suggesting Luke could have known or should have known.

This logic applies just as easily to Shepard. There is little in the original trilogy which even remotely hints at the plot twist, aside from the cave. And the idea is outright contradicted by Obi-Wan's "Vader murdered your father" and how Vader/the Emperor refer to Skywalker as a competely different entity.

With the reaper,  study of Sovereign remains reveals nothing about the gooey stuff, the derelict reaper shows no goeys stuff, Vigil mentions no gooey stuff.

You're relying on irreliable characters. Vigil does not know the Reapers.

Sovereign acts with disdain towards organics, nothing in how he sez or acts indicates he's anything but the machine.

Do the Reapers consider themselves organic? I thought they'd be something else entirely, given their little thing about the "pinnacle of evolution, no beginning, no end, etc".

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 septembre 2011 - 01:41 .