6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

If that's what you need to boost your self-esteem.

I have yet to see something that makes you better than me in any way, though.

[dreman9999]

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.

...Umless the person does not use anything to support his view as an absout...(aka.....It's absolutly bad writing to do shepard resurrection they way they did, you have to do it this wayor not at all.)

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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...

When you say "Anyone who doesn't think ME2 is poorly written is a blind, deaf fanboy!" you're just falling to the same pathetic, ad hominem laden level as Smudboy. 

And do you realize how you sound when someone says "I don't pay attention to Smudboy because he's constantly insulting and belittling anyone who doesn't jump on his little bandwagon" and you respond with "Well, uh, so are you!" 

Calling someone out for being an arse is not the same as being an arse to everyone who doesn't toe your line. 

And if you think you're applying my standard here, you haven't the slightest clue what my standard is.  Not that I expect you actually care. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Fixers0 wrote...

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.

In general, you shouldn't call people idiots just because they don't agree with you. 

But then, Smuggy and his ilk would lose half their schtick if they didn't do that... 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 08 septembre 2011 - 02:52 .

[Fixers0]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In general, you shouldn't call people idiots just because they don't agree with you. 

But then, Smuggy and his ilk would lose half their schtick if they didn't do that... 

I've never called somebody an idiot, and neither does Smudboy to my knowladge.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Fixers0 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In general, you shouldn't call people idiots just because they don't agree with you. 

But then, Smuggy and his ilk would lose half their schtick if they didn't do that... 

I've never called somebody an idiot, and neither does Smudboy to my knowladge.

Like several of the posters here, he refers to people as ignorant, as fanboys, as blind and deaf, if they don't agree with him about the writing in ME2 being bad.

[111987]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

111987 wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...


Give us something so that
this doesn't come off as a contrived ass pull. I still hold firm to my
belief that the Reapers being Cybernetic is a retcon.

You are of course entitiled to your beliefs. However in this case, in the technical definition of the word 'retcon', you are wrong.

But fits the asspull defeinition perfectly. Which is just as bad.

Coming from you, this means a lot

To address your criticism about why no-one knew about the organic aspect of Reapers;
1. If you watch the Battle of the Citadel again, you see that Sovereign exploded right down the middle; the salvaged pieces of Sovereign were the Reaper shell, which every Reaper has and is purely mechanical. The core, which is the only part with any organic material, was blown up and destroyed.
2. We are travelling along the Derelict Reaper's shell, hence no dripping organic goo or the like. We never see the Reaper Core; we see the eezo core, but those two things are not the same.
3. There is no way Vigil could have known about the Reaper's construction methods; he was built on Illos. He never had a chance to scan the core of a Reaper.

However I do agree that the reveal fell flat because there was almost zero buildup or foreshadowing. Maybe the organic nature of the Collector weaponry, ship, and base was supposed to be hinting at it? I know you'll simply dismiss that but I think it's something to consider. That design choice had to have been made for a reason.

[Killjoy Cutter]

I wasn't a fan of the whole "human reaper" thing, or the way in which they presented humans being used to make the reaper. As noted earlier, the reapers could be entirely mechanical, and still for their own (evil) purposes/beliefs require the slaughter of millions or billions of thinking beings from "worthy" species in order to gain the "essence" of that species. Lethal scanning techniques, not silly body horror human smoothies.

[Sgt Stryker]

Fixers0 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

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

Right? so that's why they all appear in these videos, the last one being a major point.

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

The only person who said Cerberus was an Alliance black-ops organization was Kahoku. Evidently he must have been acquired incorrect information. This is called an unreliable narrator.

Who said Reapers were "purely" machines? Again, new information that does not contradict previously existing information is not a retcon.

Smudboy was wrong in the last part of the Part 3 video. Mass effect fields are capable of storing atmosphere. Look at the Citadel docking sequence.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 08 septembre 2011 - 04:23 .

[Fixers0]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Smudboy was wrong in the last part of the Part 3 video. Mass effect fields are capable of storing atmosphere. Look at the Citadel docking sequence.

So What that's just a cutscene of the Normandy landing, there is no mention of Mass Effect fields/kinetic barriers in the entire cutscene, besides cutscene's always tend to be full of anti-lore crap for the sake of storytelling.

And that still doesn't change the fact the Kinetic barries only protect against Small objects moving at rapid vellocities as the codex states.

[Sgt Stryker]

Fixers0 wrote...

So What that's just a cutscene of the Normandy landing, there is no mention of Mass Effect fields/kinetic barriers in the entire cutscene, besides cutscene's always tend to be full of anti-lore crap for the sake of storytelling.

What do you think holds in the atmosphere in that docking bay? What keeps the crewmen from getting blown out into space? Furthermore, if you cannot accept cutscenes as evidence, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

Fixers0 wrote...
And that still doesn't change the fact the Kinetic barries only protect against Small objects moving at rapid vellocities as the codex states.

Okay then. How small is "small"? How fast is "fast"? Is it an arbitrary value that is determined by the nature of The Mass Effect and cannot be changed?

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 08 septembre 2011 - 04:29 .

[Fixers0]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

What do you think holds in the atmosphere in that docking bay? What keeps the crewmen from getting blown out into space?

I honestly would't know, but that doesn't matter as it has nothing to do with the story nor is it a plain contradiction with Lore or the event of the sotry

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Furthermore, if you cannot accept cutscenes as evidence, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

I can't accept cutscene as evidence as they have proven full of anti-lore, and just gameplay, but also the story.

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Okay then. How small is "small"? How fast is "fast"? Is it an arbitrary value that is determined by the nature of The Mass Effect and cannot be changed?

I would't know, but that's what the codex states, not big static objects, etc.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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...

When you say "Anyone who doesn't think ME2 is poorly written is a blind, deaf fanboy!" you're just falling to the same pathetic, ad hominem laden level as Smudboy.

You every single post contained bile and i****s.
You are the last person in the universe to play the poor victim card. you use nothing BUT AdHominems.

And note I didn't say everyone. I said YOU specificly.

 

And do you realize how you sound when someone says "I don't pay attention to Smudboy because he's constantly insulting and belittling anyone who doesn't jump on his little bandwagon" and you respond with "Well, uh, so are you!" 

Calling someone out for being an arse is not the same as being an arse to everyone who doesn't toe your line. 

And if you think you're applying my standard here, you haven't the slightest clue what my standard is.  Not that I expect you actually care. 

You have shown me your standard. You hate smudboy for being an arse and insult him. You act like an arse. Therefore you desrve isults too.

I'm calling you out for being an arse.
Exactly what is the difference between me calling your out and you calling smud out?

[Sgt Stryker]

Fixers0 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

What do you think holds in the atmosphere in that docking bay? What keeps the crewmen from getting blown out into space?

I honestly would't know, but that doesn't matter as it has nothing to do with the story nor is it a plain contradiction with Lore or the event of the sotry

It actually does matter. It matters a lot. We have direct evidence from ME1 that mass effect fields can be configured to maintain an atmosphere. If that doesn't satisfy you, then there's this. (Scroll down to Citadel Station: Wards). 

Fixers0 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Furthermore, if you cannot accept cutscenes as evidence, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

I can't accept cutscene as evidence as they have proven full of anti-lore, and just gameplay, but also the story.

No. The Codex is not all-knowing. Just because the Codex does not say that something can happen in the MEverse, and that is instead shown in a cutscene, that does not mean that the cutscene is "anti-lore", as you say.

Fixers0 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Okay then. How small is "small"? How fast is "fast"? Is it an arbitrary value that is determined by the nature of The Mass Effect and cannot be changed?

I would't know, but that's what the codex states, not big static objects, etc.

Again, the Codex is not all-knowing. For instance, it never says that Sovereign is a Reaper. By your logic, then even the dialogue in ME1 contradicts the Holy Codex.

[Fixers0]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

No. The Codex is not all-knowing. Just because the Codex does not say that something can happen in the MEverse, and that is instead shown in a cutscene, that does not mean that the cutscene is "anti-lore", as you say.

This actually has nothing to do with the codex,

If a cutscene shows me something that either contradicts with the lore, story, or logic then i cannot accept these as reliable source, the prime example being the Normandy crew abduction scene.

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Again, the Codex is not all-knowing. For instance, it never says that Sovereign is a Reaper. By your logic, then even the dialogue in ME1 contradicts the Holy Codex.

Sure, but if the codex mentions that shields protect againts small fast moving objects and not much more, then how am i supossed to accept their totally incorrect use in the story?

Modifié par Fixers0, 08 septembre 2011 - 05:06 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Fixers0 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Smudboy was wrong in the last part of the Part 3 video. Mass effect fields are capable of storing atmosphere. Look at the Citadel docking sequence.

So What that's just a cutscene of the Normandy landing, there is no mention of Mass Effect fields/kinetic barriers in the entire cutscene, besides cutscene's always tend to be full of anti-lore crap for the sake of storytelling.

And that still doesn't change the fact the Kinetic barries only protect against Small objects moving at rapid vellocities as the codex states.

I thought there was a reference to the Citadel retaining atmosphere with mass effect fields holding an envelope of heavy inert gas or something like that...


If I recall correctly, there are multiple scenes in ME2 that show a mass effect field being used to retain an atmosphere.  Such as the combat sequence in the Normandy's cargo bay where they're in space, and a giant hole has been punched in both sides of the bay, and yet there's atmosphere.   (Who knows, maybe that's the scene Smugboy has his undies in a knot over...)

Anyway... what exactly do you think air is made of?  

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 08 septembre 2011 - 05:31 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Fixers0 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

What do you think holds in the atmosphere in that docking bay? What keeps the crewmen from getting blown out into space?

I honestly would't know, but that doesn't matter as it has nothing to do with the story nor is it a plain contradiction with Lore or the event of the sotry

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Furthermore, if you cannot accept cutscenes as evidence, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

I can't accept cutscene as evidence as they have proven full of anti-lore, and just gameplay, but also the story.

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Okay then. How small is "small"? How fast is "fast"? Is it an arbitrary value that is determined by the nature of The Mass Effect and cannot be changed?

I would't know, but that's what the codex states, not big static objects, etc.

What sorts of fields are holding Liara, etc, in ME1? 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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...

When you say "Anyone who doesn't think ME2 is poorly written is a blind, deaf fanboy!" you're just falling to the same pathetic, ad hominem laden level as Smudboy.

You every single post contained bile and i****s.
You are the last person in the universe to play the poor victim card. you use nothing BUT AdHominems.

And note I didn't say everyone. I said YOU specificly.

 

And do you realize how you sound when someone says "I don't pay attention to Smudboy because he's constantly insulting and belittling anyone who doesn't jump on his little bandwagon" and you respond with "Well, uh, so are you!" 

Calling someone out for being an arse is not the same as being an arse to everyone who doesn't toe your line. 

And if you think you're applying my standard here, you haven't the slightest clue what my standard is.  Not that I expect you actually care. 

You have shown me your standard. You hate smudboy for being an arse and insult him. You act like an arse. Therefore you desrve isults too.

I'm calling you out for being an arse.
Exactly what is the difference between me calling your out and you calling smud out?

So you really don't see the difference between someone being an arse to the people around him, and someone else criticizing that person for acting that way? 

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Smudboy was wrong in the last part of the Part 3 video. Mass effect fields are capable of storing atmosphere. Look at the Citadel docking sequence.

So What that's just a cutscene of the Normandy landing, there is no mention of Mass Effect fields/kinetic barriers in the entire cutscene, besides cutscene's always tend to be full of anti-lore crap for the sake of storytelling.

And that still doesn't change the fact the Kinetic barries only protect against Small objects moving at rapid vellocities as the codex states.

Look at the arms. Also, omega and the last scene of Mass Effect 2..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn6hFZ9jYMc&feature=player_detailpage#t=321s

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Can someone tweet a dev about kinetic barriers only working on small fast objects?

[dreman9999]

Fixers0 wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

What do you think holds in the atmosphere in that docking bay? What keeps the crewmen from getting blown out into space?

I honestly would't know, but that doesn't matter as it has nothing to do with the story nor is it a plain contradiction with Lore or the event of the sotry

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Furthermore, if you cannot accept cutscenes as evidence, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

I can't accept cutscene as evidence as they have proven full of anti-lore, and just gameplay, but also the story.

Sgt Stryker wrote...
Okay then. How small is "small"? How fast is "fast"? Is it an arbitrary value that is determined by the nature of The Mass Effect and cannot be changed?

I would't know, but that's what the codex states, not big static objects, etc.

1.Yes, it does and you know the awnser....Mass effect feilds.
2. Cutscenes are part of story and lore...They count. If that were true that cutscene are not lore then that means Sovergin never was blown up because it was shown in a cut scene.

[dreman9999]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Can someone tweet a dev about kinetic barriers only working on small fast objects?

Forget that...We have details of what spacifily can't be stopped by Mass Effect fields...
http://masseffect.wi...22Shields.22.29

"The shielding afforded by kinetic barriers does not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation."

Nothing their say it can't stop slow moving objects...I post this before..Fixer just has a short memory.
He'salso forgeting the kinetic barrier on Liara's rescue mission on ME1. She was trapped in it and you could not go through it..You have to go around it to turn it off.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

dreman9999 wrote...
1.Yes, it does and you know the awnser....Mass effect feilds.
2. Cutscenes are part of story and lore...They count. If that were true that cutscene are not lore then that means Sovergin never was blown up because it was shown in a cut scene.

I think what he means is, if HE doesn't like it in a cutscene it is anti-lore and not part of the story.

[dreman9999]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.Yes, it does and you know the awnser....Mass effect feilds.
2. Cutscenes are part of story and lore...They count. If that were true that cutscene are not lore then that means Sovergin never was blown up because it was shown in a cut scene.

I think what he means is, if HE doesn't like it in a cutscene it is anti-lore and not part of the story.

Ha, fan-boy logic.

[Someone With Mass]

Kinetic barriers can stop anything that's solid, as long as they're activated. With the exception of heat, toxins and radiation.