Bourne Endeavor wrote...Which itself is a contradiction. Miranda up until the very last moment spent the entire game campaigning for Cerberus, then makes a completely abrupt change on the spur of the moment. She ignores the pragmatic and logical perspective of keeping the base when this is precisely how she acts in every other instance. She completely contradicts her personality, although Mordin is more blatant because should you take him with you against the Human-Reaper, he agrees keeping the base is a good idea, well aware it will be handed over to Cerberus, then says the opposite aboard the Normandy. No, a grey choice is one that cannot be morally defined by the subjective views of good and evil. Every one of your squad supports the paragon choice and condemns the renegade. This equates to a black and white decision; destroying the base is thought good, while keeping it is deemed evil.
Once again evil is a subjective term, defined only be the perspective of those viewing a specific action and attributing a moral code. Making them alien does not alter the perception they are considered evil. Nevertheless, their objective is genocide, therefore most conclude this as an evil act and associate that toward the Reapers. Whatever their motives are is irrelevant. Coincidently, it remains to elude what in the world this has to do with Shepard expressing emotions.
Your point was? Shepard never develops. She is a static brick who follows along with the plot. A demonstration of character development would be Jack gradually respecting Shepard to the point she calls her "Commander" in a firm and confident tone. This is huge when we consider her initial attitude. Garrus coming to terms with his revenge is another instance. Shepard never experiences any of these. The only example is during LotSB when Liara asks how she feels. That is what we ought to see more of, Shepard expressing an opinion relevant to herself.
Because it doesn't explain some things: Shepard resurrection, Mordin's weird science contradiction and etc.
For all thatis holy...Stop using the list button...It messes up the net code.
1.And Mirada never thought with her emotions before...*Looks at Miranda's loyalty mission*... Never. As stated before...Keeping the base or not is not black or white. Nothing in ME is black or white. 2.Being subjective is a reason enough not to force it in a grey story plot. 3.My point is YOU develop Shepard. His or her development is in your hands. If your Shepard is a static brick...That's your fault. 4.Plot wise, that Mirada's fault. She was head of that and she won't tell you tet.The thing with breanched stories and trilogys is that not everything is not told at one. Shepard reserrection will be explained. Speculting on it now will do nothing because we don't have all theinfo..Like how everyone though the human reaper was going to be used to start the invasion when it turned out it won't be finished untill after the reaper invasion.
Modifié par dreman9999, 10 septembre 2011 - 07:04 .
She still approached the situation from a rational standpoint, concluded the best method to help her sister. Nonetheless, this was family, the Collector Base decision was not. We also received a brief backstory about her life and why she was motivated to act in defense of her sister. Her sudden turn against Cerberus had no such development.
Just because you keep saying that does not make it accurate. A grey choice is moral ambiguous, devoid of the subjective views of good and evil, yet you are either praised or condemned by everyone dependent on your decision. Likewise we are never allowed the option to keep the Collector Base but turn it over to the Alliance or inform them about it. There is no explanation for why this choice is unavailable other than it would have been the most logical. Regardless of whether or not you like it, that is the definition of black and white and a false dichotomy.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You do not wish to force the story into being grey, yet claim that is it?
No, you determine Shepard's attitude. Her personality never develops or changes unless you make a completely radical morality leap for humorous reasons. Shepard is always a static brick because she goes along with whatever the plot demands, like Cerberus railroading. If you have the Soul Survivor background, Shepard says squat about it despite having been through an immensely traumatic experience caused by Cerberus. I provided examples of character development, none of which pertain to Shepard.
Once again, you are wrong. It is the responsibility of ME2 to explain Shepard's death and resurrection. Why would ME3 rehash something that has already happened? What, is Miranda going to abruptly tell us how they managed this ridiculous feat while on a date? The trilogy is an excuse for bad writing. If ME3 does provide something, great but that does not alter the fact it should have been in ME2, you know, when the event actually happened. Compare it to your favorite sports team. Would you like to know your team traded for a new player immediately or six months later?
Yes, and that only makes ME2's plot even worse because we have no idea what the whole point of it was. If they were not going to use the Human Reaper to fling at the Citadel and only finish it after the invasion, then who the hell cares? We can worry about that after we kill them. In fact, this only adds credence to the, "Just blow up the Omega 4 Relay" or "Collector Ship" argument. Frankly, if this is the case it sounds more like damage control because the Human Reaper was near universally hated by the fanbase, and to a lesser extent, so was Harbinger. They have more or less acknowledged ME2's main plot was useless, which is probably a good thing. Of course this late bit is speculation on my part.
Come on, dude. We've talked about this multiple times! Some of us like what he said. Some of us disagree with him.
Lets just abandon this.
Err No, lets not just abandon this, here's why -
Smudboy saved me from wasting any more money on DLC, I watched his video on Arrival, and after seeing that load of Bioware crap there is not a chance in hell I am going to buy it.
So thankyou Smudboy for saving me some money.
Here's my theory as to why Arrival is so bad,
Arrival is so flippin bad because it is the only "true" DLC, all the rest was in at the start, it was all part of the Me2 game, Bioware gutted the game so they could then charge you for it as DLC.
So you walk into a game shop and pay full price for a "gutted" Me2 game, and then they have the nerve to sell you content that in effect you have already paid for, they sell it back to you as DLC, its the ultimate game industry scam, design a game, rip out all the good stuff, sell the "bare bones" game, then sell the good stuff as DLC.
Arrival is so flippin bad because it is probably the only DLC that was created after Me2 had been made.
And why all the hatred for Smudboy ?
At the end of the day if a game cannot stand up to criticism, then it does not deserve to stand up at all.
When you purchase a game you are a paying customer, you are buying a product, in exactly the same way you would buy any other product, and that product has to be subject to criticism in exactly the same way all other products are subject to criticism.
I have just seen smudboy's plot reviews and I must say he is 100% correct. I have never seen a more lame "story" in a game. Most important the "story" kills itself right at the beginning where Shepard is just fine to work with mass murderers. Especially when you play it right after ME1 and it has been about 24 hours since you found admiral Kahoku's body. Everything after the ME2 beginning just adds to the stupidity of the "story".
But as I can see, many people are satisfied with this. Why to think, right? Why to look at the obvious incinstinencies. All we want is a big booms and explosions, women with big boobs and to the hell with story. It is really sad.
I have just seen smudboy's plot reviews and I must say he is 100% correct. I have never seen a more lame "story" in a game. Most important the "story" kills itself right at the beginning where Shepard is just fine to work with mass murderers. Especially when you play it right after ME1 and it has been about 24 hours since you found admiral Kahoku's body. Everything after the ME2 beginning just adds to the stupidity of the "story". But as I can see, many people are satisfied with this. Why to think, right? Why to look at the obvious incinstinencies. All we want is a big booms and explosions, women with big boobs and to the hell with story. It is really sad.
Not really.
ME2 starts about a month after the events in ME1.
Some people are also fine with setting some issues aside to work towards the greater good. I also never really cared about the Reaper plot, so I welcomed the loyalty and recruit missions with open arms, as they introduced something new.
Smudboy saved me from wasting any more money on DLC, I watched his video on Arrival, and after seeing that load of Bioware crap there is not a chance in hell I am going to buy it.
So thankyou Smudboy for saving me some money.
Here's my theory as to why Arrival is so bad,
Arrival is so flippin bad because it is the only "true" DLC, all the rest was in at the start, it was all part of the Me2 game, Bioware gutted the game so they could then charge you for it as DLC.
So you walk into a game shop and pay full price for a "gutted" Me2 game, and then they have the nerve to sell you content that in effect you have already paid for, they sell it back to you as DLC, its the ultimate game industry scam, design a game, rip out all the good stuff, sell the "bare bones" game, then sell the good stuff as DLC.
I'm sorry, but this argument is ****ing stupid.
They didn't cut the Arrival DLC out of the game, because it was made in a different BioWare studio from scratch after release. Because the main studio was too busy working with ME3 even before ME2's release.
And if you're seriously whining about spending ten bucks on something, get a financially strong income.
Modifié par Someone With Mass, 10 septembre 2011 - 12:04 .
She still approached the situation from a rational standpoint, concluded the best method to help her sister. Nonetheless, this was family, the Collector Base decision was not. We also received a brief backstory about her life and why she was motivated to act in defense of her sister. Her sudden turn against Cerberus had no such development.
Just because you keep saying that does not make it accurate. A grey choice is moral ambiguous, devoid of the subjective views of good and evil, yet you are either praised or condemned by everyone dependent on your decision. Likewise we are never allowed the option to keep the Collector Base but turn it over to the Alliance or inform them about it. There is no explanation for why this choice is unavailable other than it would have been the most logical. Regardless of whether or not you like it, that is the definition of black and white and a false dichotomy.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You do not wish to force the story into being grey, yet claim that is it?
No, you determine Shepard's attitude. Her personality never develops or changes unless you make a completely radical morality leap for humorous reasons. Shepard is always a static brick because she goes along with whatever the plot demands, like Cerberus railroading. If you have the Soul Survivor background, Shepard says squat about it despite having been through an immensely traumatic experience caused by Cerberus. I provided examples of character development, none of which pertain to Shepard.
Once again, you are wrong. It is the responsibility of ME2 to explain Shepard's death and resurrection. Why would ME3 rehash something that has already happened? What, is Miranda going to abruptly tell us how they managed this ridiculous feat while on a date? The trilogy is an excuse for bad writing. If ME3 does provide something, great but that does not alter the fact it should have been in ME2, you know, when the event actually happened. Compare it to your favorite sports team. Would you like to know your team traded for a new player immediately or six months later?
Yes, and that only makes ME2's plot even worse because we have no idea what the whole point of it was. If they were not going to use the Human Reaper to fling at the Citadel and only finish it after the invasion, then who the hell cares? We can worry about that after we kill them. In fact, this only adds credence to the, "Just blow up the Omega 4 Relay" or "Collector Ship" argument. Frankly, if this is the case it sounds more like damage control because the Human Reaper was near universally hated by the fanbase, and to a lesser extent, so was Harbinger. They have more or less acknowledged ME2's main plot was useless, which is probably a good thing. Of course this late bit is speculation on my part.
1.More like an enranged matternal mother. The entirething was her thinking with her emotions, the way she attacked was the only form of logic she uesed on that mission, Her emotions were the reason she left her father. Her emotion made her steal her sister, her emotion madeher not susspect her bast friend, her emotins made her rush to save her sister. Miranda my at cold and logical all the time...But She still emotional fro time to time....What's the logical reason not to let her father use her to make a dinasty, or to care if he tries with another sister? Back on point. A grey choice is never total with out subjective views because the view of a choice is infinate. It"s BASED ON THE PERSON VIEWING IT. Making the choice subjective. This goes with homosexuality, religiousand political freedoms, choices to use towin abattle and so on as so forth. The majority of the things people argueabout to day are grey choices. Wih that in mind the choice to save or destory the basecan be viewed as evil or good...Just logical....I'll let you pick which once is the logical choice.
2.It a roleplaying game. You choose his her reponces and his/her feeling but that's with in you, since your playing a role. A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
Try it some time... 3.It the reposibility of the story of ME.....Not Just ME2 ALONE.....To tell me what happen to Shepard. Detail about anytime of the character can come at any time, hence being a divided story. No one complined how Harry Potter stopped Voldimore as a baby and that was explain 3 books later. I can wait for bioware to expline Shepards death till the end of the story.
4. So you would allow an enemy to get stategic ground in a war? On point, the whole point was to get more data on the reapers and stop or delay any of their current plans. If me know some is using tech , has info, and working with you enemy you can't reach , you attack that person to get more data on the target your trying to get to.
Modifié par dreman9999, 10 septembre 2011 - 02:39 .
I have just seen smudboy's plot reviews and I must say he is 100% correct. I have never seen a more lame "story" in a game. Most important the "story" kills itself right at the beginning where Shepard is just fine to work with mass murderers. Especially when you play it right after ME1 and it has been about 24 hours since you found admiral Kahoku's body. Everything after the ME2 beginning just adds to the stupidity of the "story". But as I can see, many people are satisfied with this. Why to think, right? Why to look at the obvious incinstinencies. All we want is a big booms and explosions, women with big boobs and to the hell with story. It is really sad.
Funny how he makes fun of mass effect for having Samaraand Miranda with large breast and he has a Dragon age avatar.....It like the kettle is calling the pot black.
So in other words, you're going to ignore the barriers on Therum, and ignore the observable phenomena on Haestrom and continue to insist that radiation can only refer to light and heat?
No surprise.
You had to use a lazer to get around the barrier on therum...You could not walk through it. The barrier on therum was my point. And I never said radiation was light and heat only...You putting words in my mouth. I said, Mass effect field can't keep radiation out. It you understood radiation protection, you would no why.
Wait, OK, so you're saying that the barrier on Therum IS an example of barriers stoppling more than just high-velocity small objects. Ugh, I wish you could write more clearly.
As for the radiation, you've said several times that it's not particle radiation interacting with the kinetic barriers on Haestrom that caused the problem. And yet, the problem on Haestrom is clearly not direct effects on the equipment, or your weapons and suit computers and other equipment would fail as fast as your barriers do -- which they don't -- and your barriers would just fail, not act like they're being battered down by something -- which they do.
If a kinetic barrier can clock bullets or hold air -- both of which we can see barriers doing -- they can block particle radiation in the same way. Small, fast-moving objects.
The suits computer is not exposed. The guns need more time to be effected and is made to ender high degrees of radiation and heat.
Polonium Rounds http://masseffect.wi...Polonium_Rounds This upgrade stamps a minuscule amount of radioactive polonium into every round fired, effectively poisoning enemy targets. It also prevents enemy regeneration. ..... Shield generator are more delicate. And you can't really say anything ageint what the character are sayinf now.
As for the barrier on Therum , of course it an exaple of a kinetic barrier stopping slow moving object and ofcousre I would say it. I was the one that first brought it up. And for goodness, you had to us a laser to get around it. http://www.youtube.c...3pArvUyo#t=223s ..... And for the last time...Partical radiation is not commonly found on planets......Haelsteam was being hit with solar radiation. If their is particalradiation on a planet, other form of radiation would be there, too. So having some with you that can only protect you from one form of radiation when you have more than one is mute.
So in other words, you're going for another stretch and insisting now that the barrier systems are more sensitive than other equipment -- mainly because it lets you stick with your pet theory. And you're going to keep ignoring the fact that intense-enough EM radiation to cause the observed effects would make the atmosphere too hot breathe or stand in the open air on the surface, in the shade or otherwise.
No surprises there.
As for particle radiation, if you think there's no particle radiation coming from a star, then again, you need to do your homework. A star in the condition that Haestrom's star is in, will be giving off more particle radiation, and constantly.
When he's wrong, no amount of evidence, explanation, or logic can sway him from continuing with the same criticism. When he's right, he's still such a pompous jackass about it that it ruins his point.
So in other words, you're going to ignore the barriers on Therum, and ignore the observable phenomena on Haestrom and continue to insist that radiation can only refer to light and heat?
No surprise.
You had to use a lazer to get around the barrier on therum...You could not walk through it. The barrier on therum was my point. And I never said radiation was light and heat only...You putting words in my mouth. I said, Mass effect field can't keep radiation out. It you understood radiation protection, you would no why.
Wait, OK, so you're saying that the barrier on Therum IS an example of barriers stoppling more than just high-velocity small objects. Ugh, I wish you could write more clearly.
As for the radiation, you've said several times that it's not particle radiation interacting with the kinetic barriers on Haestrom that caused the problem. And yet, the problem on Haestrom is clearly not direct effects on the equipment, or your weapons and suit computers and other equipment would fail as fast as your barriers do -- which they don't -- and your barriers would just fail, not act like they're being battered down by something -- which they do.
If a kinetic barrier can clock bullets or hold air -- both of which we can see barriers doing -- they can block particle radiation in the same way. Small, fast-moving objects.
The suits computer is not exposed. The guns need more time to be effected and is made to ender high degrees of radiation and heat.
Polonium Rounds http://masseffect.wi...Polonium_Rounds This upgrade stamps a minuscule amount of radioactive polonium into every round fired, effectively poisoning enemy targets. It also prevents enemy regeneration. ..... Shield generator are more delicate. And you can't really say anything ageint what the character are sayinf now.
As for the barrier on Therum , of course it an exaple of a kinetic barrier stopping slow moving object and ofcousre I would say it. I was the one that first brought it up. And for goodness, you had to us a laser to get around it. http://www.youtube.c...3pArvUyo#t=223s ..... And for the last time...Partical radiation is not commonly found on planets......Haelsteam was being hit with solar radiation. If their is particalradiation on a planet, other form of radiation would be there, too. So having some with you that can only protect you from one form of radiation when you have more than one is mute.
So in other words, you're going for another stretch and insisting now that the barrier systems are more sensitive than other equipment -- mainly because it lets you stick with your pet theory. And you're going to keep ignoring the fact that intense-enough EM radiation to cause the observed effects would make the atmosphere too hot breathe or stand in the open air on the surface, in the shade or otherwise.
No surprises there.
As for particle radiation, if you think there's no particle radiation coming from a star, then again, you need to do your homework. A star in the condition that Haestrom's star is in, will be giving off more particle radiation, and constantly.
1.You do notice your in the shade and in building as you fight,right? Your never in the sun for long and your always pushing for the Shade. Hence the fact that you are avoiding direct sun light. I mean look at the bug atthe begining of the mission. It burned to death as soon as it walkedou t into the sun. 2.Ofcoruse particle radiation comes from a star, were do you think comic dust and cosmic rays comes from. On point, a the atmophere absorbs that type of radiation way before it could effect us.
Handwaving would insinuate I am ignoring blatantly relevant information to bolster my argument, which is not the case as none exists. Allow us to go over what we know...
- Kinetic shields cannot protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation as per the codex - The gravity on Alchera is merely 15% less that of Earth - We witness Shepard begin to burn when entering Alchera's atmosphere - Shepard had already suffocated, therefore no manual action could be performed - Her acceleration upon descent would be akin to several hundred miles per hour, if not a thousand - Impact was of enough force to separate her helmet and pieces of her armor - She was exposed to "subzero and vacuum temperatures" - There is no evidence to support the proposed "N7 armor parachute" idea - Mass Effect: Redemption indicates Shepard's body remained on Alchera for at least one full month
We witness friction beggining right after Shepard begins to fall to the planet. This is indication that he doesn't start to accelerate much before entering the atmosphere. The acceleration may end shortly thereafter, making his descent velocity just equal to the terminal velocity that the atmosphere allows. I haven't present the density, lapse rate, composition of the atmosphere, so I can't determine if the terminal velocity that it allows is something too fast or sufficiently slow. Your line about acceleration being "akin" to "several hundred miles per hour" is really bad, since there's a big 101 difference between velocity and acceleration and you show not to even understand it by bungling them up together in meaningless drivel. Exposure to "subzero and vacuum temperatures" is either positive or negative, until we make the calcs. Shepard's body remaining there for a month is a really bad fact towards his salvageableness (I agree!) but until we know where exactly he fell and how, it's still perfectly possible without any kind of exageration for the body to be preserved, if say (and I here just name one example) he fell on an ice capped continent.
As you see, there is still too much handwaving in saying that Shepard's "survival" is "impossible". Until you are able to do so, you must falsify every one of the big possibilities that make such "survival" indeed possible.
I should clarify, I was not asking for a melodramatic twenty minute montage of Shepard having to "find herself" or "soul search" however there ought to be some acknowledgement of her opinion on the subject. No living creature with competent level intelligence would shrug of defying death akin to Shepard. There would be somet inquire, challenges, anything would suffice in lieu of her simply accepting the brief crash course Jacob gives her that came across more as a bulletin board reference than anything else.
You still have that mission where you get to reencounter SR1 and have interesting flashbacks to its past. I think this mission is perfectly enough. Of course you can always say that it isn't enough, bla bla bla, but hey nothing's perfect. It's such a small point that I am entitled to call it petty.
Cerberus Railroading
A nice fanfic, but it is a really different game. It may bring other problems to the table which I'm not going to develop.
Now you are simply attempting to find excuses for BioWare. They are a big boy and can handle small time critics and fans such as myself indicting points where their writing is sloppy. Characterization of Shepard is not some quantum leap, just subtle acknowledgement of emotion attributed to what defines use as human. LotSB and my example are instances of doing this, although I shan't be arrogant enough to boast my way is perfect, just a step in the right direction. For all intents and purposes, I would "cut them some slack" here if the plot was better written however if I aim to analyze every aspect with an objective mind, then this warrants mention regardless of the degree I found it bothersome.
Yeah sure. But there's a difference between gangbanging on a product that should have its act together since it's iteration thousand of the genre or gangbanging a product that is still iteration 4 or 5. I was merely pointing that out. Games that try to do something novel will always get things wrong with it.
Unrelated, you lose significant creditability in a debate by claiming, "go create a game yourself" as you essentially suggest criticism is unjustified unless you can lord superiority. What is the point of critics then? Better still, what rights do we have to our opinions?
I said quite different. I said go make games yourself or help others make ones (and I even included making comments about how they could improve as "help"). Please read without skimming before jumping the shark.
Jack remains apart the Normandy because she concludes her best opportunity to "stick it" to Cerberus is through Shepard. Even if you renegade her, she grows to respect Shepard's approach, citing, "Whenever I act like a ****, you tell me to suck it up." She respects you, something that is an enormous indication of her development. She otherwise has nothing better to do, which the story acknowledges as one of her reasons. Kasumi's Greybox is irrelevant to the plot or her character arc. Our only requirement was to help her recover it, what she does therefore might be intriguing to know but not necessary.
"Nothing better to do" sucks as motivational for a suicide mission. Sorry.
Someone said it best, "These are all amazing characters but they're in the wrong story." Look at Wrex and the Genophage, or the VS' reaction to whomever you leave behind. Those happened in the actual plot, not just off by the wayside.
Bourne Endeavor wrote... [*]Which itself is a contradiction. Miranda up until the very last moment spent the entire game campaigning for Cerberus, then makes a completely abrupt change on the spur of the moment. She ignores the pragmatic and logical perspective of keeping the base when this is precisely how she acts in every other instance. She completely contradicts her personality, although Mordin is more blatant because should you take him with you against the Human-Reaper, he agrees keeping the base is a good idea, well aware it will be handed over to Cerberus, then says the opposite aboard the Normandy. No, a grey choice is one that cannot be morally defined by the subjective views of good and evil. Every one of your squad supports the paragon choice and condemns the renegade. This equates to a black and white decision; destroying the base is thought good, while keeping it is deemed evil.
This is why I proposed the idea of Overlord serving the purpose of being the moral dilema DLC -- especially for Miranda and Jacob. Even hearing a handful of lines with them talking about how sometimes Cerberus *might* go too far would justify the transformation at the end of the game. They could see how TIM doesn't know about what goes on in his larger facilities, but also that TIM doesn't look too hard -- thus subconsciously encouraging his people to push the boundries of ethical experimentation, often at the risk of their own lives.
dreman9999 wrote... 1.You do notice your in the shade and in building as you fight,right? Your never in the sun for long and your always pushing for the Shade. Hence the fact that you are avoiding direct sun light. I mean look at the bug atthe begining of the mission. It burned to death as soon as it walkedou t into the sun. 2.Ofcoruse particle radiation comes from a star, were do you think comic dust and cosmic rays comes from. On point, a the atmophere absorbs that type of radiation way before it could effect us.
Note the statement that Haestrom's magnetosphere is overwhelmed. What does a magnetic field help protect against? Particle radiation, not UV or light or IR.
Here on earth, the our star isn't as active, our magnetosphere blocks some of the particle radiation, some of it is blocked by the atmosphere... and yet some makes it all the way to the surface, and there's also a significant amount of secondary particle radiation that's caused by the primary blasting apart atoms in the atmosphere. -- http://resources.yes...atural_par.html, again, for example.
Back to the codex entry for Haestrom -- Note the statement that exposure will OVERLOAD shields. Not interfere with the emitters, not scramble the system, OVERLOAD.
1.More like an enranged matternal mother. The entirething was her thinking with her emotions, the way she attacked was the only form of logic she uesed on that mission, Her emotions were the reason she left her father. Her emotion made her steal her sister, her emotion madeher not susspect her bast friend, her emotins made her rush to save her sister. Miranda my at cold and logical all the time...But She still emotional fro time to time....What's the logical reason not to let her father use her to make a dinasty, or to care if he tries with another sister? Back on point. A grey choice is never total with out subjective views because the view of a choice is infinate. It"s BASED ON THE PERSON VIEWING IT. Making the choice subjective. This goes with homosexuality, religiousand political freedoms, choices to use towin abattle and so on as so forth. The majority of the things people argueabout to day are grey choices. Wih that in mind the choice to save or destory the basecan be viewed as evil or good...Just logical....I'll let you pick which once is the logical choice.
Your whole argument on Miranda can be attributed to logic, yet nonetheless is completely irrelevant to the argument. When she was apart of Cerberus, when we associate with her, she is primarily a workaholic pragmatist, who always thinks about the most logical solution. I never claimed she was some robot like you insist on perpetuating.
No, you are wrong. The entire squad falsely views your decision as good or evil, there is no ambiguity between them. You are either right or wrong. This extends to the amoral krogan, the Cerberus cheerleader and the pragmatic scientist; everyone unanimously agrees Shepard made the wrong choice. Likewise, we are provided with only two option when three exist. There is no option to keep the base but hand it over to the Alliance. An example of grey was demonstrated in Mass Effect, by choosing to hold back the Alliance forces to concentrate on Sovereign. You sacrifice the Council for a logical reason. That was morally ambiguous and no such choice exists in ME2.
2.It a roleplaying game. You choose his her reponces and his/her feeling but that's with in you, since your playing a role. A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
Try it some time...
You can quote this a dozen times and it does alter the reality Shepard does not develop. You a defining what it means to roleplay, not character development, which are mutually exclusive. I can play a role, yet never develop. That is precisely what happens with Shepard for reasons I have already mentioned, ones you continuously ignore to make a completely different argument.
3.It the reposibility of the story of ME.....Not Just ME2 ALONE.....To tell me what happen to Shepard. Detail about anytime of the character can come at any time, hence being a divided story. No one complined how Harry Potter stopped Voldimore as a baby and that was explain 3 books later. I can wait for bioware to expline Shepards death till the end of the story.
Oh for the love of god. You are wrong. Shepard's death happened in ME2, therefore it is the responsibly of ME2 to explain her death, you know, the story it happened in. The story of ME is the impending invasion of the Reapers and Commander Shepard's struggle to stop them. You explain the events when they happen, not years later.
4. So you would allow an enemy to get stategic ground in a war? On point, the whole point was to get more data on the reapers and stop or delay any of their current plans. If me know some is using tech , has info, and working with you enemy you can't reach , you attack that person to get more data on the target your trying to get to.
Great, blow up the Collector Ship and call it a day. They had one vessel, nothing else. If the story cannot explain what the actual point was, it fails to be compelling. We have no idea what the plot was because it never develops. You going on it will be explained in ME3 does not excuse bad writing in ME2. We need exposition in the story we are actively in, which upon this junction, was ME2. Furthermore, we have to ask why the Reapers would risk exposure by abducting colonies when they were going to invade anyway. What, they couldn't wait a few more years? This blatantly contradicts Sovereign's actions in ME1, who was meticulous and only assaulted the Citadel when he believed himself able to succeed. Harbinger moronically made the Reapers a known threat.
At this point, you get the last word. You either miss the point entirely, or just make up a different one that what is being debated, among other things, and I grow tired of having to repeat myself.
2.It a roleplaying game. You choose his her reponces and his/her feeling but that's with in you, since your playing a role. A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
All right, show me then where I have the option to roleplay a Shepard who's rattled by the idea of being dead for two years. Who searches for answers in the philosophies and beliefs of various races
SHow me the suspicious SHepard who doubts of Cerberus' motives and wants to know exactly what they did to bring him back.
Show me the option to play a hardline Shepard who has no place on his team for loose cannons like Jack, Zaeed or Grunt after meeting with them.
Show me the heartsick Shepard who desperately wants to say anything but "It's been too long, Ash/Kaidan, how ya been?"
Heck show me where the controls are for a smiley face or frowny face on Shepard
You can't roleplay it if you can't express it.
3.It the reposibility of the story of ME.....Not Just ME2 ALONE.....To tell me what happen to Shepard. Detail about anytime of the character can come at any time, hence being a divided story. No one complined how Harry Potter stopped Voldimore as a baby and that was explain 3 books later. I can wait for bioware to expline Shepards death till the end of the story.
Each game is supposedly able to stand on its own. Thus why ME3 is "The best entry point in the series" right? So if answers to questions that were introduced in ME2, such as Cerberus discovering the Cure for Death and the Human Goo mystery aren't answered until ME3, well, that doesn't make ME2 much of a standalone game, now. Does it?
Each game is supposedly able to stand on its own. Thus why ME3 is "The best entry point in the series" right? So if answers to questions that were introduced in ME2, such as Cerberus discovering the Cure for Death and the Human Goo mystery aren't answered until ME3, well, that doesn't make ME2 much of a standalone game, now. Does it?
It certainly would make for a terrible stand alone game. But at the same time, I always considered the "stand alone" argument to be pure marketing. How exactly does a sequel (to any instalment) stand alone?
Hell, a great example would be A Song of Ice and Fire. Good luck to anyone understanding what's going on without reading each individual novel.
For something to be stand alone (imo), the work must treat the reader as if it is their first time in the universe and begin working from there. But often times, sequels do not do this and rely heavily on the events of their precessor.
We witness friction beggining right after Shepard begins to fall to the planet. This is indication that he doesn't start to accelerate much before entering the atmosphere. The acceleration may end shortly thereafter, making his descent velocity just equal to the terminal velocity that the atmosphere allows. I haven't present the density, lapse rate, composition of the atmosphere, so I can't determine if the terminal velocity that it allows is something too fast or sufficiently slow. Your line about acceleration being "akin" to "several hundred miles per hour" is really bad, since there's a big 101 difference between velocity and acceleration and you show not to even understand it by bungling them up together in meaningless drivel. Exposure to "subzero and vacuum temperatures" is either positive or negative, until we make the calcs. Shepard's body remaining there for a month is a really bad fact towards his salvageableness (I agree!) but until we know where exactly he fell and how, it's still perfectly possible without any kind of exageration for the body to be preserved, if say (and I here just name one example) he fell on an ice capped continent.
As you see, there is still too much handwaving in saying that Shepard's "survival" is "impossible". Until you are able to do so, you must falsify every one of the big possibilities that make such "survival" indeed possible.
You gloss over the fact Shepard's helmet and armor would found separate from her body. Therefore, they either broke apart prior to her collision on the planet's surface or upon contact. In either scenario, this would indication significant force, enough at a minimum to sever body parts. We can also reasonably surmise her landing location based on the location of the helmet. With regards to the rest, I can quote the man people seem to loathe here...
Calculate Shepard's velocity given an Earth or Mars atmosphere.
Alchera has slightly less gravity, (0.85 g) and slightly less atmospheric pressure (0.83 atm), yet having a "thick atmosphere of methane and ammonia." We don't know the core, but it must be a heavy metal, and has some small, if not meager magnetosphere, or else there'd be no atmosphere; and, Shepard = firey atomic re-entry (so it's more similar to Mars.) Aside from determining the drag coefficient, air resistance and the sort, you'll get a value somewhere between 350-750 miles/h (assuming Shepard takes up 5 sqft and weighs 200 pounds.)
However Shepard is not starting at free fall, and we have to assume there are no other objects or air resistance stopping or slowing their descent. Shepard's moving at the "Velocity Of Detonation", or whatever explosion pushed them into space. Explosive forces range from 1800-10300m/s, but we'll just go with 3000m/s. That's roughly 11,000 miles/h, in space.
Terminal velocity for Alchera would've already been achieved before Shepard even entered the atmosphere.
Compound that with the angular velocity the planet is spinning at while being pulled toward it, and you've got a mush of organic material after smashing into a frozen icey planet. How their helmet, let alone the Mako and pieces of the Normandy is still intact, is anyone's guess.
You still have that mission where you get to reencounter SR1 and have interesting flashbacks to its past. I think this mission is perfectly enough. Of course you can always say that it isn't enough, bla bla bla, but hey nothing's perfect. It's such a small point that I am entitled to call it petty.
The Normandy Crash site is completely silent, Shepard does not expression any emotion or even comment on anything. All we receive are still images taken from the first game. Sure, it might be a nice touch and I personally fancy the mission however the comparison you made is rather poor.
A nice fanfic, but it is a really different game. It may bring other problems to the table which I'm not going to develop.
Nope, more than 95% of the original contact remained. Only one slight change in how the Normandy was destroyed and the exchange with the Council happening prior to us hooking our leash with the Terrorist organization; no Cerberus railroading! We can even keep "Shepard is dead" because no one would know and assume she was... just like everyone did in ME2.
Yeah sure. But there's a difference between gangbanging on a product that should have its act together since it's iteration thousand of the genre or gangbanging a product that is still iteration 4 or 5. I was merely pointing that out. Games that try to do something novel will always get things wrong with it.
So because BioWare is the new kid on the lack they cannot receive criticism for bad writing? This isn't their first rodeo, they brag every instance they get about story telling and plot development, which they are more than welcome to do, just as I am to criticism them.
I said quite different. I said go make games yourself or help others make ones (and I even included making comments about how they could improve as "help"). Please read without skimming before jumping the shark.
You said "quite different" yet then say the same? Okay, well that makes sense. Telling someone to "help make one" is insinuating the same thing; you shouldn't criticize unless you can do better. In fact, you seem to go one step further and adhere to the idea we ought to avoid criticism entirely.
"Nothing better to do" sucks as motivational for a suicide mission. Sorry.
Good, glad you acknowledge BioWare has bad writing.
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 10 septembre 2011 - 05:20 .
Well, on the matter of Shepard's characterization -- the developers have said that they recognize that Shepard was too static in ME2, and that they will be giving him/her more moments to show emotion.
I have just seen smudboy's plot reviews and I must say he is 100% correct. I have never seen a more lame "story" in a game. Most important the "story" kills itself right at the beginning where Shepard is just fine to work with mass murderers. Especially when you play it right after ME1 and it has been about 24 hours since you found admiral Kahoku's body. Everything after the ME2 beginning just adds to the stupidity of the "story". But as I can see, many people are satisfied with this. Why to think, right? Why to look at the obvious incinstinencies. All we want is a big booms and explosions, women with big boobs and to the hell with story. It is really sad.
Funny how he makes fun of mass effect for having Samaraand Miranda with large breast and he has a Dragon age avatar.....It like the kettle is calling the pot black.
Your point being? I have not seen any huge breast, big ass and high heels in Origins. And moreover what does Dragon Age Origins has to do with the fact that Mass Effect 2 has totaly crappy story?
Well, on the matter of Shepard's characterization -- the developers have said that they recognize that Shepard was too static in ME2, and that they will be giving him/her more moments to show emotion.
So, that case is closed.
The problem is, that at least I, do not believe anything they say till I see it. You know for example they said the RPG part will be improved in ME2...
dreman9999 wrote... 1.You do notice your in the shade and in building as you fight,right? Your never in the sun for long and your always pushing for the Shade. Hence the fact that you are avoiding direct sun light. I mean look at the bug atthe begining of the mission. It burned to death as soon as it walkedou t into the sun. 2.Ofcoruse particle radiation comes from a star, were do you think comic dust and cosmic rays comes from. On point, a the atmophere absorbs that type of radiation way before it could effect us.
Note the statement that Haestrom's magnetosphere is overwhelmed. What does a magnetic field help protect against? Particle radiation, not UV or light or IR.
Here on earth, the our star isn't as active, our magnetosphere blocks some of the particle radiation, some of it is blocked by the atmosphere... and yet some makes it all the way to the surface, and there's also a significant amount of secondary particle radiation that's caused by the primary blasting apart atoms in the atmosphere. -- http://resources.yes...atural_par.html, again, for example.
Back to the codex entry for Haestrom -- Note the statement that exposure will OVERLOAD shields. Not interfere with the emitters, not scramble the system, OVERLOAD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field Earth's magnetic field (and the surface magnetic field) is approximately a magnetic dipole, with the magnetic field South pole near the Earth's geographic north pole (see Magnetic North Pole) and the other magnetic field N pole near the Earth's geographic south pole (see Magnetic South Pole). This makes the compass usable for navigation. The cause of the field can be explained by dynamo theory. A magnetic field extends infinitely, though it weakens with distance from its source. The Earth's magnetic field, also called the geomagnetic field, which effectively extends several tens of thousands of kilometres into space, forms the Earth's magnetosphere. A paleomagnetic study of Australian red dacite and pillow basalt has estimated the magnetic field to be at least 3.5 billion years old
The Earth's magnetic field is shaped roughly as a magnetic dipole, with the poles currently located proximate to the planet's geographic poles. At the equator of the magnetic field, the magnetic field strength at the planet's surface is 3.05 × 10−5 T, with global magnetic dipole moment of 7.91 × 1015 T m3.[121] According to dynamo theory, the field is generated within the molten outer core region where heat creates convection motions of conducting materials, generating electric currents. These in turn produce the Earth's magnetic field. The convection movements in the core are chaotic; the magnetic poles drift and periodically change alignment. This results in field reversals at irregular intervals averaging a few times every million years. The most recent reversal occurred approximately 700,000 years ago.[122][123] http://en.wikipedia....#Magnetic_field The field forms the magnetosphere, which deflects particles in the solar wind. The sunward edge of the bow shock is located at about 13 times the radius of the Earth. The collision between the magnetic field and the solar wind forms the Van Allen radiation belts, a pair of concentric, torus-shaped regions of energetic charged particles. When the plasma enters the Earth's atmosphere at the magnetic poles, it forms the aurora.[124]
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Cosmic_ray Cosmic rays are energetic charged subatomic particles, originating from outer space (although it is currently unknown which objects have produced them). They may produce secondary particles that penetrate the Earth's atmosphere and surface.The term ray is historical as cosmic rays were thought to be electromagnetic radiation. Most primary cosmic rays (those which impact the atmosphere from deep space) are composed of familiar stable subatomic particles that normally occur on Earth, such as protons, atomic nuclei, or electrons. However, a very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons, and the precise nature of this remaining fraction is an area of active research.
http://en.wikipedia.....27s_atmosphere Interaction with the Earth's atmosphere When cosmic ray particles enter the Earth's atmosphere they collide with molecules, mainly oxygen and nitrogen, to produce a cascade of lighter particles, a so-called air shower. The general idea is shown in the figure which shows a cosmic ray shower produced by a high energy proton of cosmic ray origin striking an atmospheric molecule. http://en.wikipedia....light_and_ozone The ozone layer is a layer in Earth's atmosphere which contains relatively high concentrations of ozone (O3). This layer absorbs 97–99% of the Sun's high frequency ultraviolet light, which is potentially damaging to the life forms on Earth.[1] It is mainly located in the lower portion of the stratosphere from approximately 30 to 40 kilometres (19 to 25 mi) above Earth, though the thickness varies seasonally and geographically .........
My point being that planets have mutiple protection from radiation. First it's the magnetosphere that reflex particle radiation, the ionosphere , the ozone layer that absorbs ultraviolet radiation, and final the astmosphere that absorbs the rest including particle radiation. Now what was stated that the magnetosphere on Haestrom was overwelmed. This just means it's work, it just not blocking everything. This leave the other 2 layers of protect to take over. This generally made their layers will heat up faster and not beable to hold back the norml types of radiation they normal protect from. The atmosphere will still be able to absorb the particl radiation but the ozone layer will be over task with it new job as absorbing particle radiation. Meaning that ultravoilet aka solar radiation get though asit thins out as it slowly being eaten away. The reason why particl radiation is not on haelstrom yet is because the ozone layer and atmosphere is still there. Having an overwhelemed magnetosphere just mean it not stopping every bit of partical radiation, it not gone...If it was no gravity would be on haelstrom period. In short, because Haelstrom still has many layers to protect the planet....for now. It it did'nt it would be a planet like venus. Solar radiation would not be a problem.
I have just seen smudboy's plot reviews and I must say he is 100% correct. I have never seen a more lame "story" in a game. Most important the "story" kills itself right at the beginning where Shepard is just fine to work with mass murderers. Especially when you play it right after ME1 and it has been about 24 hours since you found admiral Kahoku's body. Everything after the ME2 beginning just adds to the stupidity of the "story". But as I can see, many people are satisfied with this. Why to think, right? Why to look at the obvious incinstinencies. All we want is a big booms and explosions, women with big boobs and to the hell with story. It is really sad.
Funny how he makes fun of mass effect for having Samaraand Miranda with large breast and he has a Dragon age avatar.....It like the kettle is calling the pot black.
Your point being? I have not seen any huge breast, big ass and high heels in Origins. And moreover what does Dragon Age Origins has to do with the fact that Mass Effect 2 has totaly crappy story?
2.It a roleplaying game. You choose his her reponces and his/her feeling but that's with in you, since your playing a role. A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
All right, show me then where I have the option to roleplay a Shepard who's rattled by the idea of being dead for two years. Who searches for answers in the philosophies and beliefs of various races
SHow me the suspicious SHepard who doubts of Cerberus' motives and wants to know exactly what they did to bring him back.
Show me the option to play a hardline Shepard who has no place on his team for loose cannons like Jack, Zaeed or Grunt after meeting with them.
Show me the heartsick Shepard who desperately wants to say anything but "It's been too long, Ash/Kaidan, how ya been?"
Heck show me where the controls are for a smiley face or frowny face on Shepard
You can't roleplay it if you can't express it.
3.It the reposibility of the story of ME.....Not Just ME2 ALONE.....To tell me what happen to Shepard. Detail about anytime of the character can come at any time, hence being a divided story. No one complined how Harry Potter stopped Voldimore as a baby and that was explain 3 books later. I can wait for bioware to expline Shepards death till the end of the story.
Each game is supposedly able to stand on its own. Thus why ME3 is "The best entry point in the series" right? So if answers to questions that were introduced in ME2, such as Cerberus discovering the Cure for Death and the Human Goo mystery aren't answered until ME3, well, that doesn't make ME2 much of a standalone game, now. Does it?
1.That's scene to scene. You still control Shepards action anyway.
2. It that were true, then their would be not point of stating thing are retcons in ME2, being that it stands on it own and what you did in ME1 does not matter to the story.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
