6494 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


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.

1.Mirada has no logical reason for taking her father child...Whch start all of the trouble of that mission in the first place. She can act emotional. The very reason why she join cerberus was emotional. So she can make dession based on emotion.
And as I said before, they had a problem with giving it to cerberus.  
Heck legion does not ever comperhend good or evil.
2.How CAN I make this clear, Shepards characters growth is whith in YOU.
3. It's a trilogy, where does it say everything has to be told for a story allat once? It twere true that each game of ME's story had to fight on it's own, 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.

4.The fact is they have to start over the with the human reaper give us time to strick back after the first blow. Defenve war is not about stopping attack, it about controling you enemies attack. The reaper in ME3 are focus on earth.

Modifié par dreman9999, 10 septembre 2011 - 06:49 .

[TuringPoint]

Embrosil wrote...

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 would find it funny if Embrosil were 'making fun' of Mass Effect giving every other character overstylized cleavage, heels, etc.  However, he is telling everyone who gives ME2's plot anywhere the benefit of a doubt, or even likes it, or thinks it fine, that all they're interested is oversexualization and explosions.  

It's a bit of a stretch to say there is not a plot or story to speak of, when the game is even more narrative driven than ME1.   The opposing arguments, if he bothered to read them, have nothing to do with explosions and sexy-sexy.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 10 septembre 2011 - 06:53 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Some series do have closer connections than others. ASOIAF basically reads like one ginormous novel seperated into volumes.  But other series have sections that stand better on their own.  One example I cna think of right now is The Dresden Files.  Each book, particularlythe first three or four in the series was a seperate adventure which still managed to build upon what came before.  It wasn't until "Changes", the 12th book in the series, that we had an ending that was a genuine cliffhanger.

The way I see it, ME1 had a definitive begining, middle, and end.  The series could intheory have ended right there.  There were enough loose ends for a sequel, but nothing immediate such as "What unnatural force is sustaining Shepard's life?";)

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

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?

::images snipped::
.....
Really now, because I swear.....

Ah, the swamp witch.   Such appearance did not go unremarked in-game:

Leliana: You are very beautiful Morrigan.
Morrigan: Tell me something I do not know.
Leliana: But you always dress in such rags. It suits you I suppose. A little tear here, a little rip there to show some skin. I understand.
Morrigan: You understand I lived in a forest, I hope?

Morrigan: So are you going to continue staring at me as if I am covered in eels?
Sten: Eels would be something.
Morrigan: Prudery! How charming. I expected paranoia. This is much better. I prefer to be stared at lustfully, if at all.

Now, why does Samara go into combat unbuttoned almost to the waist?  Are there medigel dispensers in Jack's tatoos?

Modifié par iakus, 10 septembre 2011 - 07:09 .

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

1) What, I control whether I shoot or incinerate a target?  Whether to kick the merc out the window or browbeat him?  
Choose warp ammo or armor piercing? 

I may control Shepard's actions, but what about the reasons behind the actions? Or the reactions to events.  The most emotionally charged scenes in the game barely seem to alter Shepard's pulse rate.  It leads me to wonder if Shepard's as human as Cerberus claims anymore.

Hmm, wouldn't that be an interesting twist in ME3...

2) I am very careful with what I call retcons.   What many call such I see as merely poorly implemented changes (such as thermal clips)  That said, one could bring about changes through game imports without altering the story of the following game.

For example, in ME1 we know exactly why Sovereign attacks the Citadel.  The dark space relay.  He opens it.  The Reaper fleet shows up.  Hilarity ensues.  The game ends with Sovereign's death and the relay remaining unopened.  

In ME2, we are dealing with a different threat.  In this, the game "stands alone" from ME1.  However, we never learn why the Reaper is being built.  We know that it going to be a full-fledged Reaper, and will require the deaths of millions of humans.  And that's bad.  But so is slaughtering the Citadel Fleet, Fifth Fleet, the Council,  and everyone on the Citadel.  It's only a means to an end.  What's the end?  What did Shepard stop?  

The fact that it will require ME3 to answer that question means ME2 is incomplete.  We paid for an incomplete game.  We could play ME1 beginnning to end, have a full story, and room for more.  ME2 is really only ME2A

Modifié par iakus, 10 septembre 2011 - 07:33 .

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

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?

::images snipped::
.....
Really now, because I swear.....

Ah, the swamp witch.   Such appearance did not go unremarked in-game:

Leliana: You are very beautiful Morrigan.
Morrigan: Tell me something I do not know.
Leliana: But you always dress in such rags. It suits you I suppose. A little tear here, a little rip there to show some skin. I understand.
Morrigan: You understand I lived in a forest, I hope?

Morrigan: So are you going to continue staring at me as if I am covered in eels?
Sten: Eels would be something.
Morrigan: Prudery! How charming. I expected paranoia. This is much better. I prefer to be stared at lustfully, if at all.

Now, why does Samara go into combat unbuttoned almost to the waist?  Are there medigel dispensers in Jack's tatoos?

Jack doesn't have super sized boobs and Asari dress is different from Human dress. They also have a biotic barrier protecting them...Though they still drop like flies under heavy fire.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

1) What, I control whether I shoot or incinerate a target?  Whether to kick the merc out the window or browbeat him?  
Choose warp ammo or armor piercing? 

I may control Shepard's actions, but what about the reasons behind the actions? Or the reactions to events.  The most emotionally charged scenes in the game barely seem to alter Shepard's pulse rate.  It leads me to wonder if Shepard's as human as Cerberus claims anymore.

Hmm, wouldn't that be an interesting twist in ME3...

2) I am very careful with what I call retcons.   What many call such I see as merely poorly implemented changes (such as thermal clips)  That said, one could bring about changes through game imports without altering the story of the following game.

For example, in ME1 we know exactly why Sovereign attacks the Citadel.  The dark space relay.  He opens it.  The Reaper fleet shows up.  Hilarity ensues.  The game ends with Sovereign's death and the relay remaining unopened.  

In ME2, we are dealing with a different threat.  In this, the game "stands alone" from ME1.  However, we never learn why the Reaper is being built.  We know that it going to be a full-fledged Reaper, and will require the deaths of millions of humans.  And that's bad.  But so is slaughtering the Citadel Fleet, Fifth Fleet, the Council,  and everyone on the Citadel.  It's only a means to an end.  What's the end?  What did Shepard stop?  

The fact that it will require ME3 to answer that question means ME2 is incomplete.  We paid for an incomplete game.  We could play ME1 beginnning to end, have a full story, and room for more.  ME2 is really only ME2A

1.Live combat is scene to scene?
2. ME2 deal with the same through just not in the same way. The collectors are just modified prothean husks. They are tools for the reapers. The threat is with the reapers, just like in ME1. In ME1, you face their agent to stop their invasion, in ME2 you face their agents to slow the preperation of their invasion. W

[100k]

Embrosil wrote...

100k wrote...

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...

Are you implying that the demo we saw, showing the new character skill trees and weapon bench aren't an improvement of the ME2 system?

Besides, we've heard from Hale, Hudson, and Walters that one of the big things they're improving (after lots of fan request) would be Shepard as a character. 

Modifié par 100k, 10 septembre 2011 - 07:47 .

[marko5000]

 I agree

[Xeranx]

100k wrote...

Embrosil wrote...

100k wrote...

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...

Are you implying that the demo we saw, showing the new character skill trees and weapon bench aren't an improvement of the ME2 system?

Besides, we've heard from Hale, Hudson, and Walters that one of the big things they're improving (after lots of fan request) would be Shepard as a character. 

That shouldn't have been a hoped for aspect by members of the playerbase.  That should be a given.  Last game of the trilogy and we get to run wild.  A form of free play, but it's now a concern because the small touches we got for that kind of expression in ME was nearly completely gutted in ME2.  If the job of presenting a story that has consequences was done right there wouldn't be any worries or the worries would be very small.  

LOTSB had Vasir criticize Shepard for working with Cerberus.  Shepard's allowable responses are akin to "so what".  This is after people complained that Shepard wasn't able to talk about what was bothering him/her?  That kind of oversight is incredible.  What makes it worse is that it's another twist with the knife for those who have sole survivor Shepards.  Then go on to the end of the DLC where Liara asks how Shepard's feeling.  Facepalming on a grand scale should be had.

They even gutted weapon and armor customization.  It's not what it was and they want to keep aspects of that despite it reducing our chance to play with the game instead of just playing the game.  Exactly how are we supposed to expect that we'll get anything meaningful if they overshoot the mark several times?

[Bourne Endeavor]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.Mirada has no logical reason for taking her father child...Whch start all of the trouble of that mission in the first place. She can act emotional. The very reason why she join cerberus was emotional. So she can make dession based on emotion.
And as I said before, they had a problem with giving it to cerberus.  
Heck legion does not ever comperhend good or evil.
2.How CAN I make this clear, Shepards characters growth is whith in YOU.
3. It's a trilogy, where does it say everything has to be told for a story allat once? It twere true that each game of ME's story had to fight on it's own, 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.

4.The fact is they have to start over the with the human reaper give us time to strick back after the first blow. Defenve war is not about stopping attack, it about controling you enemies attack. The reaper in ME3 are focus on earth.

Sigh, I know I said I wouldn't post again but I'm a damn liar apparently. >.> This amused me too much.

You are making a completely different argument than the one I made; a frequent habit of yours. I said Miranda was a pragmatist in Mass Effect 2. Her stealing of Orianna happened nineteen years prior. We cannot compare the irrational behavior of a sixteen year old Miranda, who was severely mistreated by her father; which is a logical reason to assume he would mistreat his newest child by the way, to her personality nearly two decades later. I also never claimed she was incapable of emotional decisions, just that she was pragmatic, and her decision to turn on Cerberus was contradictory to her character due to no justification behind it. She just abruptly changes her mind, sort of like Mordin, just less blatant.

You cannot make it clear, because it never happens. That is precisely why you are having so much difficulty. Iakus just spelled out character development, while you continue to argue the definition of roleplay, which was not the actual argument.

That is how a story is structured. You have to explain and develop the current plot you have designed within the overarching one. Mass Effect; the series, is about Shepard's struggle to prevent the invasion of the Reapers, while ME2 is about Shepard and the Collectors. Since the resurrection happens in the context of ME2, it must be explained in a logical manner during that story, otherwise it equates to poor writing due to lack of exposition. For comparison sake, it would be akin to removing the confrontation with Sovereign on Virmire or with Virgil on Ilos, citing we can learn about everything they say in the sequels. This would make ME1's plot fall apart due to the integral nature of their dialogue. Admittedly, that is more an extreme demonstration however the point is made. For ME2 to be considered good writing, it must explain and develop its story and the events occurring within. A trilogy is that of continuality, wherein events from the previous title connect with the present and open new arcs to explore until the final act. It is not meant to excuse laziness by claiming, "oh we can explain that later."

Retcon is an abbreviation for Retroactive Continuity, where previously established lore is abruptly altered with no explanation or a half-assed one (hello thermo clips!) In contrast, a standalone sequel is merely a title that does not require to have played its predecessor to understand the overarching story. For instance, if you read the Harry Potter series, beginning with the third book, you would have no clue about what was going on for majority's sake. This is because Harry Potter follows traditional sequel structure and assumes its readers have prior knowledge of the series. ME2 does the opposite, providing a completely new plot and easing in the overarching one in subtle fashion, assuming its readers/players have not played ME1.

We could also have focused on destroying them outright, then blowing away their human-reaper afterwards. That would really cause a conundrum in their plans. If the Terminator was not going to serve a purpose until after they had invaded and enslaved/destroyed the Galaxy, then ME2's plot becomes wholly irrelevant. No, defense is about repelling your opposition whilst strategy entails mitigating their ability amass a secondary assault. Evident by ME3, we have done nothing to slow down the invasion, nor have we acquired any means to defeat them. We ended ME2 in the exact same position as ME1, except it was not due to some big reveal by the antagonists like Sovereign mocking us, however instead because the Reapers never cared one way or another if it succeeded nor did it have any foundation. Nothing happened, that is all.

[dreman9999]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.Mirada has no logical reason for taking her father child...Whch start all of the trouble of that mission in the first place. She can act emotional. The very reason why she join cerberus was emotional. So she can make dession based on emotion.
And as I said before, they had a problem with giving it to cerberus.  
Heck legion does not ever comperhend good or evil.
2.How CAN I make this clear, Shepards characters growth is whith in YOU.
3. It's a trilogy, where does it say everything has to be told for a story allat once? It were true that each game of ME's story had to fight on it's own, 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.

4.The fact is they have to start over the with the human reaper give us time to strick back after the first blow. Defenve war is not about stopping attack, it about controling you enemies attack. The reaper in ME3 are focus on earth.

Sigh, I know I said I wouldn't post again but I'm a damn liar apparently. >.> This amused me too much.

You are making a completely different argument than the one I made; a frequent habit of yours. I said Miranda was a pragmatist in Mass Effect 2. Her stealing of Orianna happened nineteen years prior. We cannot compare the irrational behavior of a sixteen year old Miranda, who was severely mistreated by her father; which is a logical reason to assume he would mistreat his newest child by the way, to her personality nearly two decades later. I also never claimed she was incapable of emotional decisions, just that she was pragmatic, and her decision to turn on Cerberus was contradictory to her character due to no justification behind it. She just abruptly changes her mind, sort of like Mordin, just less blatant.

You cannot make it clear, because it never happens. That is precisely why you are having so much difficulty. Iakus just spelled out character development, while you continue to argue the definition of roleplay, which was not the actual argument.

That is how a story is structured. You have to explain and develop the current plot you have designed within the overarching one. Mass Effect; the series, is about Shepard's struggle to prevent the invasion of the Reapers, while ME2 is about Shepard and the Collectors. Since the resurrection happens in the context of ME2, it must be explained in a logical manner during that story, otherwise it equates to poor writing due to lack of exposition. For comparison sake, it would be akin to removing the confrontation with Sovereign on Virmire or with Virgil on Ilos, citing we can learn about everything they say in the sequels. This would make ME1's plot fall apart due to the integral nature of their dialogue. Admittedly, that is more an extreme demonstration however the point is made. For ME2 to be considered good writing, it must explain and develop its story and the events occurring within. A trilogy is that of continuality, wherein events from the previous title connect with the present and open new arcs to explore until the final act. It is not meant to excuse laziness by claiming, "oh we can explain that later."

Retcon is an abbreviation for Retroactive Continuity, where previously established lore is abruptly altered with no explanation or a half-assed one (hello thermo clips!) In contrast, a standalone sequel is merely a title that does not require to have played its predecessor to understand the overarching story. For instance, if you read the Harry Potter series, beginning with the third book, you would have no clue about what was going on for majority's sake. This is because Harry Potter follows traditional sequel structure and assumes its readers have prior knowledge of the series. ME2 does the opposite, providing a completely new plot and easing in the overarching one in subtle fashion, assuming its readers/players have not played ME1.

We could also have focused on destroying them outright, then blowing away their human-reaper afterwards. That would really cause a conundrum in their plans. If the Terminator was not going to serve a purpose until after they had invaded and enslaved/destroyed the Galaxy, then ME2's plot becomes wholly irrelevant. No, defense is about repelling your opposition whilst strategy entails mitigating their ability amass a secondary assault. Evident by ME3, we have done nothing to slow down the invasion, nor have we acquired any means to defeat them. We ended ME2 in the exact same position as ME1, except it was not due to some big reveal by the antagonists like Sovereign mocking us, however instead because the Reapers never cared one way or another if it succeeded nor did it have any foundation. Nothing happened, that is all.

1. But what about her emotional behavior now. She still trying to "save" her sister from her father who just wants her back. The only reasom Miranda is trying to save her sister is emotion. As well as not thinking her friend will betray you. The entire mission was just her acting emotional. Her whole reason for joining cerberus ia idealisum. She wants to improve the human race. That type of thinking is emotional.

2. No younot understanding that you are playing a role. That as basic as I can say it. You make rhe growth. You just comlaining because you can't makei as expressive as you want.

3.And they do that. The story line of Shepard resuerection just started in ME2. I doesn't need to be fullexplain or finshed yet...Like the genophage story line and the Quaria/geth story line. They will be finished and fully told by the end of the story, aka the final game.
Also, I if you look into the lore you see what as been stated in ME. Nothing in ME2 contridicts, undos, or even change what is stated before. Hence, no retcons out side of Jacobs loyalty mission.
Also, ME STORY IS ALL TOGETHER. It's about Shepard trying to stop the reapers. The reason TIM brough shepard is because of the reapers. the reason Shepard faces the collector is about the reapers.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIQfmWx3dI

4.We don't know how to destory the reapers yet. The one we killed took out a fleet and then took on another fleet.
To learn how to destroy then and develop aplan to estory them, we need time. If we did not take out the human reaper, we would have far less time to plan and a much shorter gap to take it out because the other reapers would be their to protect it. We need time to plan how to take on a fleet where an averge ship can take out fleets, and we neeed to get to their tech to do that. That was the reason we took out the collectors for.

Modifié par dreman9999, 10 septembre 2011 - 08:40 .

[Fixers0]

dreman9999 wrote...

Also, I if you look into the lore you see what as been stated in ME. Nothing in ME2 contridicts, undos, or even change what is stated before. Hence, no retcons out side of Jacobs loyalty mission.

LoL!


You're really Beyond saving,

All On the fanboy train to ignorace land.

Modifié par Fixers0, 10 septembre 2011 - 09:55 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

100k wrote...

Show me a Shepard who is angry that he has to work with Cerberus after the events on Akuze.

Never gets a chance to comment on it, unfortunately. 

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Also, I if you look into the lore you see what as been stated in ME. Nothing in ME2 contridicts, undos, or even change what is stated before. Hence, no retcons out side of Jacobs loyalty mission.

LoL!


You're really Beyond saving,

All On the fanboy train to ignorace land.

You know, I'd love to see you make an actual argument without linking to the videos we all already know of.

[Sgt Stryker]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Also, I if you look into the lore you see what as been stated in ME. Nothing in ME2 contridicts, undos, or even change what is stated before. Hence, no retcons out side of Jacobs loyalty mission.

LoL!


You're really Beyond saving,

All On the fanboy train to ignorace land.

You know, I'd love to see you make an actual argument without linking to the videos we all already know of.

Unfortunately, that requires thinking, unlike quoting the Holy Book of Smudboy.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Nothing that makes him any less wrong.


IF you knew what you were taking about, you'd know that right now, sitting on the surface of the earth, under a relatively tame and sedate star, you're being hit with particle radiation that originated from that star, or from where that star's particle radiation hit the upper atmosphere and blasted new particles out of the atoms it hit. 

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Nothing that makes him any less wrong.


IF you knew what you were taking about, you'd know that right now, sitting on the surface of the earth, under a relatively tame and sedate star, you're being hit with particle radiation that originated from that star, or from where that star's particle radiation hit the upper atmosphere and blasted new particles out of the atoms it hit. 

I put everydetail I found on the subject and the fact that you come and state this clearly show you did not read it. We have 4 layers of protection on this planet, which is like Haelstrom. A Magneticsphere, iononic sphere, ozone layer and the atmosphere itself. The magneticshhere reflex partical radiation, the ionic sphere obsorbs it and is the reasom we have radiowaves, the ozone layer absorbsand dilutes uv rays, and the atmosphere takes care of the rest. What ever particle radiation that get though the other 3 layers is opsorbed by the atmosphere to an effect that it does not effect the enironment directly.
As it were, if haelstrom was effected to that extent the particale radiation did effect the planet, it would be super heated to a point of having a high dense atmosphere because the gases and liquid would rise up in to the atmosphere...The planet would be like Venus, a planet without  a magnetic sphere.http://en.wikipedia....d_magnetosphere
They would never have a mission on the planet because uv rays would never reach the serface. The reason is the fact that the particale are still being absorbed by the atmosphere and ionic sphere....
The fact that the atmosphere is nothing like venus is reason enough that Haelstrom is not greatly effected by Partical radiation. The magneticsphere is overwhelmed, not gone. As stated before, on that mission they were effected by solar radiation.

[The_11thDoctor]

His (smudboy) videos have brought up points that were valid and points I've thought about through playing ME1-2+DLC. I didnt find a single thing wrong in his vids minus calling the prisoner in SB Thane. Other than that, he did a excellent job pointing out his observations. I thought everyone felt this way about ME2's story or just ME2 in general. ME is more about the experience than a consistent story or choices that make sense 100% of the time. It's about the gameplay. It's not like people didnt notice it became less RPG in ME2. I just enjoy it for what it is. A fun game. I killed the council just because they made no sense. Kept the Reaper base because it made no sense not to. How both are renegade, only Bioware knows? Not like the Paragon or Renegade choices made sense all the time either. That too had issues in both ME games. Just think of ME games like a shooter with more than the normal amount of story. If you do, then you can ignore all the holes in the game's story and plot. The voice acting is what saves the story and makes some of the holes less obvious to people not paying attention. The whole idea of ME is what's intriguing. I just hope going forward, that ME will follow more along the lines of the DLC seeing how it was more fun than the main game. SB felt like the biggest misstep to how we had to kill off the Spectre. She was basically like Shepard or Saren. They all were doing what needed to be done. Shepard just used a softer hand when doing his work. I know Tim is also a good guy. Some see the Illusive Man as a bad guy along with Cerberus. I don't. There are bad people in Cerberus just like in any organization, but Cerberus as a whole is not evil. Tim is cold, calculating and ruthless in some cases, but evil or bad is not one of them. Does he do evil things sometimes? Yes, but always with a purpose that has humanity in mind. Tim doesnt hate aliens. He just doesnt want to be ruled or killed off by them.

[Nashiktal]

Morrigan might have been undressed, but she lived alone in a swamp most of her life, has been taught by flemeth to use her charms against men, and is magic.

Miranda at least got DLC armor to work with, but Samara? High heels and, cleavage (Even Miranda didn't have cleavage). Hell even most Asari don't show off their skin if they are not dancing in a club. Not so sure why Samara is showing so much.

Ah well, at least Samara makes up for it in character, especially when rejecting shep.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Nothing that makes him any less wrong.


IF you knew what you were taking about, you'd know that right now, sitting on the surface of the earth, under a relatively tame and sedate star, you're being hit with particle radiation that originated from that star, or from where that star's particle radiation hit the upper atmosphere and blasted new particles out of the atoms it hit. 

I put everydetail I found on the subject and the fact that you come and state this clearly show you did not read it. We have 4 layers of protection on this planet, which is like Haelstrom. A Magneticsphere, iononic sphere, ozone layer and the atmosphere itself. The magneticshhere reflex partical radiation, the ionic sphere obsorbs it and is the reasom we have radiowaves, the ozone layer absorbsand dilutes uv rays, and the atmosphere takes care of the rest. What ever particle radiation that get though the other 3 layers is opsorbed by the atmosphere to an effect that it does not effect the enironment directly.
As it were, if haelstrom was effected to that extent the particale radiation did effect the planet, it would be super heated to a point of having a high dense atmosphere because the gases and liquid would rise up in to the atmosphere...The planet would be like Venus, a planet without  a magnetic sphere.http://en.wikipedia....d_magnetosphere
They would never have a mission on the planet because uv rays would never reach the serface. The reason is the fact that the particale are still being absorbed by the atmosphere and ionic sphere....
The fact that the atmosphere is nothing like venus is reason enough that Haelstrom is not greatly effected by Partical radiation. The magneticsphere is overwhelmed, not gone. As stated before, on that mission they were effected by solar radiation.

The fact that you call it the "iononic sphere" is all I need to read at this point.  Never mind that it's not the particle radiation bombardment that makes Venus' atmosphere dense and hot...  you can't even site sources that back you up if someone bothers to actually read them. 

Right now, on earth, sitting in a normal structure on the surface, you're being hit by particle radiation from our own star -- not much, because of the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere, but it's there and it's happening.  And when you fly, you're exposed to more. 

Haestrom would be much worse because of the state of its star, and particle radiation matches both the in-game
effects, and the linked-to codex entry for Haestrom. 

Case closed. 

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Nothing that makes him any less wrong.


IF you knew what you were taking about, you'd know that right now, sitting on the surface of the earth, under a relatively tame and sedate star, you're being hit with particle radiation that originated from that star, or from where that star's particle radiation hit the upper atmosphere and blasted new particles out of the atoms it hit. 

I put everydetail I found on the subject and the fact that you come and state this clearly show you did not read it. We have 4 layers of protection on this planet, which is like Haelstrom. A Magneticsphere, iononic sphere, ozone layer and the atmosphere itself. The magneticshhere reflex partical radiation, the ionic sphere obsorbs it and is the reasom we have radiowaves, the ozone layer absorbsand dilutes uv rays, and the atmosphere takes care of the rest. What ever particle radiation that get though the other 3 layers is opsorbed by the atmosphere to an effect that it does not effect the enironment directly.
As it were, if haelstrom was effected to that extent the particale radiation did effect the planet, it would be super heated to a point of having a high dense atmosphere because the gases and liquid would rise up in to the atmosphere...The planet would be like Venus, a planet without  a magnetic sphere.http://en.wikipedia....d_magnetosphere
They would never have a mission on the planet because uv rays would never reach the serface. The reason is the fact that the particale are still being absorbed by the atmosphere and ionic sphere....
The fact that the atmosphere is nothing like venus is reason enough that Haelstrom is not greatly effected by Partical radiation. The magneticsphere is overwhelmed, not gone. As stated before, on that mission they were effected by solar radiation.

The fact that you call it the "iononic sphere" is all I need to read at this point.  Never mind that it's not the particle radiation bombardment that makes Venus' atmosphere dense and hot...  you can't even site sources that back you up if someone bothers to actually read them. 

Right now, on earth, sitting in a normal structure on the surface, you're being hit by particle radiation from our own star -- not much, because of the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere, but it's there and it's happening.  And when you fly, you're exposed to more. 

Haestrom would be much worse because of the state of its star, and particle radiation matches both the in-game
effects, and the linked-to codex entry for Haestrom. 

Case closed. 

http://en.wikipedia...._through_matter
From the standpoint of radiation protection, radiation is often separated into two categories, ionizing and non-ionizing, to denote the level of danger posed to humans. Ionization
is the process of removing electrons from atoms, leaving two
electrically charged particles (an electron and a positively charged
ion) behind. The negatively charged electrons and positively charged
ions created by ionizing radiation may cause damage in living tissue.
Basically, a particle is ionizing if its energy is higher than the ionization energy of a typical substance, i.e., a few eV, and interacts with electrons significantly.According to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (see: http://www.icnirp.de/),
electromagnetic radiations from ultraviolet to infrared, to
radiofrequency (including microwave) radiation, static and time-varying
electric and magnetic fields, and ultrasound belong to the non-ionizing radiations.The charged particles mentioned above all belong to the ionizing radiations. When passing through matter, they ionize
and thus lose energy in many small steps. The distance to the point
where the charged particle has lost all its energy is called the range
of the particle. The range depends upon the type of particle, its
initial energy, and the material it traverses. Similarly, the energy
loss per unit path length, the 'stopping power',
depends on the type and energy of the charged particle and upon the
material. The stopping power and hence, the density of ionization,
usually increases toward the end of range and reaches a maximum, the Bragg Peak, shortly before the energy drops to zero.
.................
And with that stated, Haelstrom has yet to truely be effected by particle radiation becuse the atmosphere is not like Venus.
What I put down states that everytime  particle radiation passed matter, it loses radiation. So being it the particale truely effected  Haelstorm, Haelstrom would be like Venus due to the fact that the increased heat expands mass of elements. The gas of the planet would thicken the atmosphere, meaning more matter for Particale radiation to hit to loss power. This would mean even less particle radiation on the Surface on the planet.
......
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.
........
Now how much elements would be in the atmosphere if the planet is super heated by partical radiation you say is on the planet? And as was all know which heat, elements rise and expand when contact with heat, which is nartually generated by radiation.  Wouldn't a high particale radiation environment make a thick atmoshere because of more rised heated elements? Would that add more  matter to absorb the radiation?
My point if Haelstrom did truely effect the planet they way you stated, their would be too much matter in the atmosphere to effect the surface of the planet.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 septembre 2011 - 01:15 .

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...
You know, I'd love to see you make an actual argument without linking to the videos we all already know of.

That's the point,  If we allready got a series of videos dedicated to this problem then why would i want to waste my time on creating arguments just because you would like me to do?

Modifié par Fixers0, 11 septembre 2011 - 01:13 .

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

That's the point,  If we allready got a series of videos dedicated to this problem then why would i want to waste my time on creating arguments just because you would like me to do?

Because I apparently did the mistake of assuming that you had a different viewpoint than Smugboy.

But if you don't, then there's really no point for you to post anything in this thread.
 

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...
................
And with that stated, Haelstrom has yet to truely be effected by particle radiation becuse the atmosphere is not like Venus.
What I put down states that everytime  particle radiation passed matter, it loses radiation. So being it the particale truely effected  Haelstorm, Haelstrom would be like Venus due to the fact that the increased heat expands mass of elements. The gas of the planet would thicken the atmosphere, meaning more matter for Particale radiation to hit to loss power. This would mean even less particle radiation on the Surface on the planet.
......

Now you're just talking out of your butt.  Stop.