6494 réponses à ce sujet

[sbvera13]

Ok, I'm getting bored of the debate thing. I've had a fun afternoon, but it's getting old. I'm gonna go play Borderlands now. (You know, the game where 1 power per class is more interesting then 5 that don't work 90% of the time).

[Il Divo]

sbvera13 wrote...

Ok, I'm getting bored of the debate thing. I've had a fun afternoon, but it's getting old. I'm gonna go play Borderlands now. (You know, the game where 1 power per class is more interesting then 5 that don't work 90% of the time).

Maybe. But I'd still take ME2 over Diablo with guns.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

sbvera13 wrote...

Ok, I'm getting bored of the debate thing. I've had a fun afternoon, but it's getting old. I'm gonna go play Borderlands now. (You know, the game where 1 power per class is more interesting then 5 that don't work 90% of the time).

That's nice.

I'm gonna play ME,were my 6 powers that work all the time.

[Arkitekt]

Fixers0 wrote...

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

He makes several points that are:

- either entirely wrong (factually);
- making mountains out of mole hills (petty arguments);
- confusing his own subjective opinions about how the plot should be with objective dogmatic truths about it.

He also makes several points that are pretty good. As I said previously, his videos about the analysis of the characters are much much better (and I remember his trashing of Jake's character quite well for it was a very good one).

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.

His tone fits perfectly well when he's not making the kind of bad arguments that he also makes. As I said previously, the arrogance and smugness that he expresses in the videos are well tolerated when they are right. It's when arrogance is coupled with bad reasoning that it gets really under my skin. That's why it's very risky to present things with such tone. Only do so when the analysis is perfect.

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

This is a fantasy that you have in your head. I've said previously that I enjoyed his videos about the characters much better, where he rightfully trashes many points about them, something impossible to say if I were what you were accusing me of. You have caricatural ideas on your mind and I don't know why I do even bother to reply.

[didymos1120]

100k wrote...

I dunno if the comic is to be considered 100% canon. I wouldn't be surprised if it showed Shepard with a N7 chest place, helmet, and shoulder pieces.

It is.  All the novels and comics are canon.  And until the very end, all you ever see is the container Shep has been stored in. At the end, all you get is a nondescript silhouette on a table with Cerberus personnel strategically blocking various portions of the anatomy, conveniently preventing you from figuring out if Shep is male or female.

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

I see arrogance where it exists. You are unable to.

You see reason where there is none. The writing is bad. Period. This is beyond obvious. it's factual. It's objective.

I love the way you pound on the table thinking you are making a point. Go on pound on the table, it's entertainingly hilarious.

No ammount of crynig, whining or yelling "subjective" will change that.

I present arguments and you don't. That's the difference.

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

Thanks for telling me that my opinion is my opinion. With that kind of brain work, you must be very tired.

[Han Shot First]

Jeez...people are still discussing smudboy? You do realize that most of the discussions about Smudboy's genius analysis are created with his own sock puppet accounts right?

I'm half tempted to rabble rouse and quote pyramid any thread he promotes to an early and deserved demise.

[Arkitekt]

Han Shot First wrote...

Jeez...people are still discussing smudboy? You do realize that most of the discussions about Smudboy's genius analysis are created with his own sock puppet accounts right?

Yes, I am new to this "debate" but I was beggining to suspect that too, since the tone is exactly the same.

[The Interloper]

Arkitekt wrote...

[He makes several points that are:

- either entirely wrong (factually);
- making mountains out of mole hills (petty arguments);
- confusing his own subjective opinions about how the plot should be with objective dogmatic truths about it.

He also makes several points that are pretty good. As I said previously, his videos about the analysis of the characters are much much better (and I remember his trashing of Jake's character quite well for it was a very good one).

His tone fits perfectly well when he's not making the kind of bad arguments that he also makes. As I said previously, the arrogance and smugness that he expresses in the videos are well tolerated when they are right. It's when arrogance is coupled with bad reasoning that it gets really under my skin. That's why it's very risky to present things with such tone. Only do so when the analysis is perfect.

I want to add that in order to take his points seriously, you also have to think like Smudboy does and refuse to-

-suspend disbelief.
-accept that something can happen offscreen
-view the plot as part of a larger whole
-recognize that time and budget limitations exist
-accept that in games gameplay sometimes trumps lore
-accept that just because a scene could have been done better doesn't automatically mean it's bad
-accept any plot point in which the motivations, reasons, or overall purpose is not crushingly obvious
-accept anything that does not line up with your own slightly different interpretation of how it should have gone

All while maintaining the belief that all of this is objective, universally applicable reasoning.

As Ark just said, I don't disagree with him on everything, and constructive critisism is important, but he goes out of his way to create problems and then pats himself on the back for "proving" that the game is stupid. When if you apply his methodalogy to just about anything you can make it seem retarded, regardless of whether it really is or not.

And people wonder why other people get pissed off about his tone of voice.

God, why am I even putting any energy to thwarting these asinine arguments? I can't even remember.

Modifié par The Interloper, 08 septembre 2011 - 10:20 .

[Arkitekt]

Lol, nice comment, Interloper. I'll leave it at that for now and get me some Plinkett instead.

[The Interloper]

Arkitekt wrote...

Lol, nice comment, Interloper. I'll leave it at that for now and get me some Plinkett instead.

It was Holmes' comment on this thread that pointed Plinkett out to me. So at least I got something out of this.

[Xeranx]

Han Shot First wrote...

Jeez...people are still discussing smudboy? You do realize that most of the discussions about Smudboy's genius analysis are created with his own sock puppet accounts right?

I'm half tempted to rabble rouse and quote pyramid any thread he promotes to an early and deserved demise.

[Estelindis]

Han Shot First wrote...

Jeez...people are still discussing smudboy? You do realize that most of the discussions about Smudboy's genius analysis are created with his own sock puppet accounts right?

I, who also registered my account under this name both at the old Bioware forums and the older Black Isle forums, think Smudboy makes many excellent points and enjoy the tone of his videos.  Whether or not one agrees with him, I think he gives better feedback than 90% of fans, because he points to particular issues and explains his problems with them in detail rather than just saying "X sucks" or "Y is awesome."  Nice as it is to know what people do and don't like, I think the developers find it more useful to know why we like or dislike any given thing.

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm half tempted to rabble rouse and quote pyramid any thread he promotes to an early and deserved demise.

I'm sure no mod would mistake the true source of the thread's malaise, in that case, which seems to imply that you have little regard for your own forum account. 

Modifié par Estelindis, 09 septembre 2011 - 12:10 .

[Han Shot First]

Estelindis wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Jeez...people are still discussing smudboy? You do realize that most of the discussions about Smudboy's genius analysis are created with his own sock puppet accounts right?

I, who also registered my account under this name both at the old Bioware forums and the older Black Isle forums, think Smudboy makes many excellent points and enjoy the tone of his videos.  Whether or not one agrees with him, I think he gives better feedback than 90% of fans, because he points to particular issues and explains his problems with them in detail rather than just saying "X sucks" or "Y is awesome."  Nice as it is to know what people do and don't like, I think the developers find it more useful to know why we like or dislike any given thing.

Smudboy occasionally makes a good point or two, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The problem with Smudboy's analysis is that even when he's right he tends to blow things way out of proportion. Something that might be a minor complaint for most of the fanbase is turned by Smudboy into some massive game breaking flaw in either the story or gameplay. He also has a complete inability to suspend disbelief and tends to nitpick minor details, complaing just for the sake of complaining.

He gives the impression that he went into Mass Effect 2 looking to give it a negative review, no matter what that took. That isn't a way to review a game. Either he gets off on the attention he garners from the negative reviews, or he has an axe to grind with Bioware. I suspect it is a little of both.

Estelindis wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm half tempted to rabble rouse and quote pyramid any thread he promotes to an early and deserved demise.

I'm sure no mod would mistake the true source of the thread's malaise, in that case, which seems to imply that you have little regard for your own forum account. 

I did say I was half tempted.

If I was being serious I would have done it, rather than announcing that I was tempted to do it.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 septembre 2011 - 12:37 .

[Estelindis]

Han Shot First wrote...

He gives the impression that he went into Mass Effect 2 looking to give it a negative review, no matter what that took. That isn't a way to review a game. Either he gets off on the attention he garners from the negative reviews, or he has an axe to grind with Bioware. I suspect it is a little of both.

I haven't received that impression myself.  Even so, having an axe to grind with a particular games company would be relatively minor compared to, for instance, saying someone should be put to death because they don't think a particular games company is completely spiffy and awesome.  "ME2 had these flaws" doesn't really compare to "Smudboy should be euthanized."  Not that I'd wish to tar all his critics with that same awful brush; that would be unfair and a terrible abuse of rhetoric.  I'm just saying that the "worst" things he has said are nowhere near as bad as the worst comments of his critics.

Han Shot First wrote...

I did say I was half tempted.

If I was being serious I would have done it, rather than announcing that I was tempted to do it.

True, but you shouldn't even have been half-tempted.  Quote pyramids are an abomination! 

[dreman9999]

sbvera13 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You didn't read.. warp bombs take out group regardless of protection unless they have strong defence. Overload takes out shield which help get thecombo going. Guns  have natural debuff to certin types of protection.
FLASH BANG GRENADES overheat weapon and stun target reguardless of protection. Singulrity holds enemies regargler of protection out side of ymir mecks....All powers can stun enemies. Insinerary blast panics  enemies even with protection.
You have more choices in ME2 then ME1.

We're talking insanity here, when every single mook in ME2 has defenses.  So the options you list are really not very significant.  Warp bomb isn't an option because you can't apply a biotic effect to something with defenses up, and if you can or use it on someone with their own barrier (you mentioned this yourself) doesn't even hurt that much because everyone has strong defenses.

Overload only works well against shields, using it blocks your other powers, and doesn't have the extra utility that it had in ME1 anymore.  Thats actually a reduced number of options.

Flash bang grenades I never tried so I won't comment.  I didn't want to pay for DLC just to get extra powers when the game proper was so terrible.  But you may be right so I won't complain about this one.

I think you mean Stasis, not singularity.  And you can't shoot them while they are held, and again it's a DLC power (one that BW added after all the complaints about defenses blocking everything, which actually does more to prove my point then counter it.)

All powers stunning enemies... that's not a guarunteed stun, it blocks all other powers when you do it cause of the global cooldown (use one, lose 4. this is more options?), and it's a very, very short stun.  To me that looks like fewer options then ME1 had.

You make it sound so hard to take defences off. You just bring a tech expert with you and it off before you know it. Easy warp bomb.  It doesn't take long to even shoot protection off on insanity.
Overload is also quick to cooldown and useing it does not block you squads powers, nor using you squads overload blocks yours
Flashbangs work through defence, it's like a stun bomb, sabatage and damping in one.
I  mean Singulartiy. Singularyty hold everything but ymir mechs and dogs. You have to upgrade it for it to do it. It an adepts main power, it would make sense to fully upgrade it.
Out side of overload, ai hack and the ammo powers it a guarunteed stun. They just don't fall down.They stagger. When they stagger they don't move or shoot, giving you time to attack or retreat. I use it all the time. Also, it help to use you powers first as an adept, enginner, sentinal,Vanguard, or infiltrator first because you have the faster cooldown bonises. You power cooldown fast than you squad mates, your passive powers make you cooldown more as well as your squads passive powers make them cooldown more, and you can by upgrades that make you and your squad cooldown more.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Arkitekt wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

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

He makes several points that are:

- either entirely wrong (factually);
- making mountains out of mole hills (petty arguments);
- confusing his own subjective opinions about how the plot should be with objective dogmatic truths about it.

While his video analysis was far from flawless, I am curious upon your definition of "petty arguments." His frustration over the reference to Grunt as a pure organism would qualify in my opinion, however earlier you touched upon Shepard's body being salvageable and spun this in that light. I cannot see how the death of the main character and her abrupt resurrection in the very next scene with no explanation how it was feasible, amounts to a "petty argument." The reason people have made this into a mountain was due to the fact suspension of disbelief drifted into "inventing the narrative" wherein the reader was forced to assume facts the story never provided. Based upon everything we know it is factually inconceivable Cerberus would have found any remains, let alone enough to warrant an essential brain transplant.

A subsequent argument was then made about Shepard never experiencing any surreal moment, expression of emotion upon defying death and so forth. Without this all death became was a marketing gimmick and a cheap thrill BioWare could utilize for weak one liners. No individual, no matter race or personality, would accept being revived akin to how Shepard was railroaded to. They would question every aspect, wonder what they have become. In fact, when Miranda makes mention of a possible brain control device, Shepard merely takes her at her word it was never implemented.

The former is a hand wave, while the latter is simply lack of proper characterization. This results in a poorly defined and hollow character, which is what Shepard is in numerous scenes. She lacks the human element the writers crafted for the squad because they were so convinced too much development might jeopardize the "Shepard is you!" ideology. Coincidently, this is not always consistent, and Shepard does have moments of good character enrichment, regrettably this is usually a rarity.

Ultimately, my main qualm is not that there are plot holes, hand waves and lackluster exposition; for nothing is perfect and I willingly accept this. It is the abundance of them, which finally begun to grind on me. You can overlook a few subtle instances, I could even wave off one of the more egregious ones however after a while, I have to ask. "Did you guys even bother to proof read this?" Frankly, I firmly believe the main plot was always an afterthought, and that Walters is the type to come up with an abundance of ideas over time, which are "cool" and "edgy" yet lacks the foresight to meld them into a cohesive story, hence why the episodic character arcs ranged from good to excellent, while the main plot could hardly pass for mediocrity.

[Fixers0]

Let's see.

The Interloper wrote...

I want to add that in order to take his points seriously, you also have to think like Smudboy does and refuse to-


-suspend disbelief.

That's the plot you're talking about now.

The Interloper wrote...
-accept that something can happen offscreen

Sure, but if the writers wanted to imply an certain even took place elswere, then they needed to make that implication clear to the players.

The Interloper wrote...
-view the plot as part of a larger whole

I don't see how this doesn't apply to Smudboy, he is exactly the on who started to point some things that don't work on the big table.

The Interloper wrote...
-recognize that time and budget limitations exist

The problem is that nothing was stopping the writers from making a compelling and believable story, but for some reason they put things in like a convulted Resurection plot without properly presenting it to the players.

The Interloper wrote...
-accept that in games gameplay sometimes trumps lore

Then what was the point of creating that lore in the first place, also it's predeccesor has much less gameplay and lore segegration then Mass Effect 2 so don't tell me it's possible.

The Interloper wrote...
-accept that just because a scene could have been done better doesn't automatically mean it's bad

That's right, but it's also pretty subjective if some people are pleased with meangless sensationalism, that's fine but don't tell to me that that is good writing.
onalism

The Interloper wrote...
-accept any plot point in which the motivations, reasons, or overall purpose is not crushingly obvious

That's the wrong approuch, useally it's the poor presenation of these points, that makes players wonder what's actually going on, this also happens when we see forced dumb character behavior just to advance te plot.

The Interloper wrote...
-accept anything that does not line up with your own slightly different interpretation of how it should have gone

That's usally the fanboys who pull such kind of tactics, Smudboy while openly admittting he didn't like the writing still makes objective observations from the narative.



The biggest problem with the writing in Mass Effect 2 are the poorly edited concepts, which result in these being poorly designed and implented due to the lack of coordination, then lastly the poor presentation stems from the lack of context, meaning and proper exposition like the whole human reaper thing that was lacking all kinds of explanation or meaning to the narative.

Modifié par Fixers0, 09 septembre 2011 - 06:05 .

[didymos1120]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Frankly, I firmly believe the main plot was always an afterthought, and that Walters is the type to come up with an abundance of ideas over time, which are "cool" and "edgy" yet lacks the foresight to meld them into a cohesive story, hence why the episodic character arcs ranged from good to excellent, while the main plot could hardly pass for mediocrity.

Few problems with this notion:

The Lead Writer does not come up with the main plot on his/her own.  It's worked out with Casey Hudson and Preston Watamaniuk, both of whom are higher up in the hierarchy than the LW.  It's also worked out before development begins, and Drew was co-Lead at that time, meaning he helped write ME2's main plot too.  Then there's the fact that Mac Walters didn't write/come up with all or even most of the character arcs all on his lonesome either. The writers don't even necessarily come up with the idea for a given character in the first place. And as many interviews (e.g., this one) have made clear, not only are individual writers at Bioware given quite a lot of leeway over how they handle characters/areas they've been assigned, but they also collaborate constantly.  These games just plain aren't like novels, so the notion of ascribing primary authorship of them to anyone just doesn't really work. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 09 septembre 2011 - 06:50 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

didymos1120 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Frankly, I firmly believe the main plot was always an afterthought, and that Walters is the type to come up with an abundance of ideas over time, which are "cool" and "edgy" yet lacks the foresight to meld them into a cohesive story, hence why the episodic character arcs ranged from good to excellent, while the main plot could hardly pass for mediocrity.

Few problems with this notion:

The Lead Writer does not come up with the main plot on his/her own.  It's worked out with Casey Hudson and Preston Watamaniuk, both of whom are higher up in the hierarchy than the LW.  It's also worked out before development begins, and Drew was co-Lead at that time, meaning he helped write ME2's main plot too.  Then there's the fact that Mac Walters didn't write/come up with all or even most of the character arcs all on his lonesome either. The writers don't even necessarily come up with the idea for a given character in the first place. And as many interviews (e.g., this one) have made clear, not only are individual writers at Bioware are given quite a lot of leeway over how they handle characters/areas they've been assigned, but they also collaborate constantly.  These games just plain aren't like novels, so the notion of ascribing primary authorship of them to anyone just doesn't really work. 

Alright, with this being the case, then either BioWare needs to work on their communication skills, hire people whose sole purpose is to proof read the story or allow less leeway. They did not have these issues to the extent they were in ME1, so ME2 should not have seen a radical change in direction when it came to consistency. Before anyone jumps on the aforementioned, no ME1 is not perfect but the story is better by a considerable margin.

I should have clarified I do not fault Walters entirely, but it becomes interesting when he openly concedes to having little involvement in Lair of the Shadow Broker, and it being significantly better than ME2's main plot.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arkitekt wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Jeez...people are still discussing smudboy? You do realize that most of the discussions about Smudboy's genius analysis are created with his own sock puppet accounts right?

Yes, I am new to this "debate" but I was beggining to suspect that too, since the tone is exactly the same.

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but yeah, one does have to wonder, based on the tone and approach of some of the posters, and their glowing unfiltered praise, whether there's some sockpuppetry going on. 

[Arkitekt]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

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

He makes several points that are:

- either entirely wrong (factually);
- making mountains out of mole hills (petty arguments);
- confusing his own subjective opinions about how the plot should be with objective dogmatic truths about it.

While his video analysis was far from flawless, I am curious upon your definition of "petty arguments." His frustration over the reference to Grunt as a pure organism would qualify in my opinion, however earlier you touched upon Shepard's body being salvageable and spun this in that light. I cannot see how the death of the main character and her abrupt resurrection in the very next scene with no explanation how it was feasible, amounts to a "petty argument." The reason people have made this into a mountain was due to the fact suspension of disbelief drifted into "inventing the narrative" wherein the reader was forced to assume facts the story never provided. Based upon everything we know it is factually inconceivable Cerberus would have found any remains, let alone enough to warrant an essential brain transplant.

"Based upon everything we know"? I'm betting that this assertion is just baseless. The funny thing is that Smudboy asserts that the remains of Shepard would not "survive" the fall at all, which would be a good criticism if he actually went around and tried to show it. It's quite ironic that both he and you criticize ME2 for handwaving the issue, by handwaving yourselves and pretending that this "fact" is self-evidently true no matter what. I have a background in physics and whenever I see arguments like this I never go "ok that makes sense", I go "show me", as in "calculate before speaking". He and you don't, so I cannot take this criticism seriously.

I agree it may not be the best example of pettiness (I haven't seen his videos for awhile now, and that's the argument that was more "controversial" in my head so I remember it well), but it is a petty one.

A subsequent argument was then made about Shepard never experiencing any surreal moment, expression of emotion upon defying death and so forth. Without this all death became was a marketing gimmick and a cheap thrill BioWare could utilize for weak one liners. No individual, no matter race or personality, would accept being revived akin to how Shepard was railroaded to. They would question every aspect, wonder what they have become. In fact, when Miranda makes mention of a possible brain control device, Shepard merely takes her at her word it was never implemented.

The former is a hand wave, while the latter is simply lack of proper characterization. This results in a poorly defined and hollow character, which is what Shepard is in numerous scenes. She lacks the human element the writers crafted for the squad because they were so convinced too much development might jeopardize the "Shepard is you!" ideology. Coincidently, this is not always consistent, and Shepard does have moments of good character enrichment, regrettably this is usually a rarity.

These are too different criticisms bungled into one. I don't agree that every death should be accompanied by a metaphysical event. I was kind of afraid that it would be the case when I saw him falling down the planet and was pleasantly surprised such a cheap emotional ploy wasn't to be used against me. Now we can agree or disagree here, and that's perfectly ok. What's really annoying in Smudboy's rant is that he doesn't acknowledge this subjectivity. For him, Shepard's death should have been an epiphany, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Bah.

The other criticism is about Shepard's lack of characterization. I'd say that we are still in the early begginings of these "genres" and the designers are threading new / recent territories, I'd forgive them more in what we can acknowledge as perhaps not the best approach to a RPG playable character. However it was a decision and it has reasons for it, so to criticize it to be incompetent is just missing the point. Perhaps it is not the best approach, ok, so go prove it yourself and create a new game with that in mind (or help others do so - to write comments about it is a start).

Ultimately, my main qualm is not that there are plot holes, hand waves and lackluster exposition; for nothing is perfect and I willingly accept this. It is the abundance of them, which finally begun to grind on me. You can overlook a few subtle instances, I could even wave off one of the more egregious ones however after a while, I have to ask. "Did you guys even bother to proof read this?" Frankly, I firmly believe the main plot was always an afterthought, and that Walters is the type to come up with an abundance of ideas over time, which are "cool" and "edgy" yet lacks the foresight to meld them into a cohesive story, hence why the episodic character arcs ranged from good to excellent, while the main plot could hardly pass for mediocrity.

Well I disagree here. I see no such big amount of  "plot holes" in the main plot (just a less interesting plot than say ME1), and I do see some failures in the episodic character arcs (we are never seen what keeps Jack inside Normandy at all, for instance - which is an amazing failure; Kasumi's Greybox is filled with wtfs in the story behind it; the fact that we are taking all the time in the world to solve these people's "issues" instead of fighting the greatest threat of the galaxy may have a point - the thing about "closure" - but it doesn't feel right from the player's perspective to lose such a big time with it). The more episodic nature of ME2 is a problem for many people, but in no means is a sign of "bad writing", it is a choice of style, not a lack of competence.

For me it felt pretty good, because it meant that everytime I played it, I was going to play a different "story" with its own internal twists and moral problems, and not just continue the bigger plot that I started playing a month ago. It is perhaps the main reason why I replayed it so much (it works more like a year-long sci fi show than a very big one motion picture).

[Arkitekt]

Fixers0 wrote...

That's usally the fanboys who pull such kind of tactics, Smudboy while openly admittting he didn't like the writing still makes objective observations from the narative.

I think you don't know what the meaning of "objective" is. I mean, you keep repeating this word...

The biggest problem with the writing in Mass Effect 2 are the poorly edited concepts, which result in these being poorly designed and implented due to the lack of coordination, then lastly the poor presentation stems from the lack of context, meaning and proper exposition like the whole human reaper thing that was lacking all kinds of explanation or meaning to the narative.

You were steamrolling here and I was nodding in slight approval until you ended up doing a mistake. The problem with the human reaper isn't its "exposition" or the lack of  "explanation" for it. It was well presented and explained, I can't for the life of me understand this criticism at all. What it really made me go WTF is the arnold image of it, which just made my brain go in unrelated and irrelevant directions and really distracted me from the story. Had it a completely different and original "shape" it would have been better. Perhaps that's what you meant.

Modifié par Arkitekt, 09 septembre 2011 - 02:06 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arkitekt wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

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

He makes several points that are:

- either entirely wrong (factually);
- making mountains out of mole hills (petty arguments);
- confusing his own subjective opinions about how the plot should be with objective dogmatic truths about it.

While his video analysis was far from flawless, I am curious upon your definition of "petty arguments." His frustration over the reference to Grunt as a pure organism would qualify in my opinion, however earlier you touched upon Shepard's body being salvageable and spun this in that light. I cannot see how the death of the main character and her abrupt resurrection in the very next scene with no explanation how it was feasible, amounts to a "petty argument." The reason people have made this into a mountain was due to the fact suspension of disbelief drifted into "inventing the narrative" wherein the reader was forced to assume facts the story never provided. Based upon everything we know it is factually inconceivable Cerberus would have found any remains, let alone enough to warrant an essential brain transplant.

"Based upon everything we know"? I'm betting that this assertion is just baseless. The funny thing is that Smudboy asserts that the remains of Shepard would not "survive" the fall at all, which would be a good criticism if he actually went around and tried to show it. It's quite ironic that both he and you criticize ME2 for handwaving the issue, by handwaving yourselves and pretending that this "fact" is self-evidently true no matter what. I have a background in physics and whenever I see arguments like this I never go "ok that makes sense", I go "show me", as in "calculate before speaking". He and you don't, so I cannot take this criticism seriously.

I agree it may not be the best example of pettiness (I haven't seen his videos for awhile now, and that's the argument that was more "controversial" in my head so I remember it well), but it is a petty one.

A subsequent argument was then made about Shepard never experiencing any surreal moment, expression of emotion upon defying death and so forth. Without this all death became was a marketing gimmick and a cheap thrill BioWare could utilize for weak one liners. No individual, no matter race or personality, would accept being revived akin to how Shepard was railroaded to. They would question every aspect, wonder what they have become. In fact, when Miranda makes mention of a possible brain control device, Shepard merely takes her at her word it was never implemented.

The former is a hand wave, while the latter is simply lack of proper characterization. This results in a poorly defined and hollow character, which is what Shepard is in numerous scenes. She lacks the human element the writers crafted for the squad because they were so convinced too much development might jeopardize the "Shepard is you!" ideology. Coincidently, this is not always consistent, and Shepard does have moments of good character enrichment, regrettably this is usually a rarity.

These are too different criticisms bungled into one. I don't agree that every death should be accompanied by a metaphysical event. I was kind of afraid that it would be the case when I saw him falling down the planet and was pleasantly surprised such a cheap emotional ploy wasn't to be used against me. Now we can agree or disagree here, and that's perfectly ok. What's really annoying in Smudboy's rant is that he doesn't acknowledge this subjectivity. For him, Shepard's death should have been an epiphany, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Bah.

The other criticism is about Shepard's lack of characterization. I'd say that we are still in the early begginings of these "genres" and the designers are threading new / recent territories, I'd forgive them more in what we can acknowledge as perhaps not the best approach to a RPG playable character. However it was a decision and it has reasons for it, so to criticize it to be incompetent is just missing the point. Perhaps it is not the best approach, ok, so go prove it yourself and create a new game with that in mind (or help others do so - to write comments about it is a start).

Ultimately, my main qualm is not that there are plot holes, hand waves and lackluster exposition; for nothing is perfect and I willingly accept this. It is the abundance of them, which finally begun to grind on me. You can overlook a few subtle instances, I could even wave off one of the more egregious ones however after a while, I have to ask. "Did you guys even bother to proof read this?" Frankly, I firmly believe the main plot was always an afterthought, and that Walters is the type to come up with an abundance of ideas over time, which are "cool" and "edgy" yet lacks the foresight to meld them into a cohesive story, hence why the episodic character arcs ranged from good to excellent, while the main plot could hardly pass for mediocrity.

Well I disagree here. I see no such big amount of  "plot holes" in the main plot (just a less interesting plot than say ME1), and I do see some failures in the episodic character arcs (we are never seen what keeps Jack inside Normandy at all, for instance - which is an amazing failure; Kasumi's Greybox is filled with wtfs in the story behind it; the fact that we are taking all the time in the world to solve these people's "issues" instead of fighting the greatest threat of the galaxy may have a point - the thing about "closure" - but it doesn't feel right from the player's perspective to lose such a big time with it). The more episodic nature of ME2 is a problem for many people, but in no means is a sign of "bad writing", it is a choice of style, not a lack of competence.

For me it felt pretty good, because it meant that everytime I played it, I was going to play a different "story" with its own internal twists and moral problems, and not just continue the bigger plot that I started playing a month ago. It is perhaps the main reason why I replayed it so much (it works more like a year-long sci fi show than a very big one motion picture).

On the fall from orbit, the death and return, etc, they could have avoided the entire controversy by just going with something that was not a cinematic gimmick.  But yes, there's been precious little actual math done to show one way or the other whether something conceivably restorable would have survived the fall and impact -- I think both sides of the argument on "The Fall" have done their homework. 

On the subject of the "metaphysical", I'm relieved that we didn't have a "white light and choices" moment or some such cliched, trite nonsense (and yes, that's my opinion).  I'm not sure if that's what Smudboy is demanding, or not, though, to be fair.   I think he's demanding some lit-fic introspection, angst, and navel-gazing from Shep after the fact.  Frankly, I'm glad that Shep gets up, and gets back to work on the problem at hand, instead of spending my game time wangsting over the nature of his/her existence and the meaning of his/her return from the dead or some such crap.  If I wanted that, I'd go read a "great, modern literature" book in which nothing actually happens and the characters are pathetic people. 

Regarding the "loyalty" missions, my perspective is that they each take a day or two out of what supposedly takes months, so it's not like they're wasting vast amounts of time from the chatacters' perspectives.  The real problem is that there's just not that much "big problem at hand" content, so in terms of gameplay time, the "loyalty" missions seem to dominate. 

Regarding characterization of Shep, there's only so much that can be done before they take the roleplaying completely out of the game, and just turn it into a "combat game with interactive cinematic experience".  The Sheps in my playthroughs are not the Sheps in anyone else's playthroughs.  My Sheps think what they think, do what they do, and feel what they feel, not what anyone else, at Bioware or elsewhere, says they think, do, and feel.