6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Fixers0]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

????

Oh, Zulu also used to "fix" other people's posts.

[Arkitekt]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You seem to be saying that there's no reason to have a discussion if you're not going to distort, attack, and insult.  That's all too typical these days, and a very sad aspect of where our culture is headed. 

Are you in some kind of competition with Lord Soroner? What I said (and was clear) is that if we are discussing is not because people are honest or liars, but because they disagree on what we see as the truth of the matter, the facts, the evidence, the rationality behind the things.

[Arkitekt]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I wouldn't have been called them "loyalty" missions.  What's really going on is focus -- each squadmate has unfinished business that they'd like to take care of before they die, that could distract them if it's not taken care of.

Novel point, not uninteresting. But you are right, it's a problem of focus, not loyalty. To call them focus missions would be fugly, though, so any other ideas? Loyalty stems from the fact that if people help you take care of a very big issue you have in your life, it's a damned good loyalty creating event, and so they were called like that. (there are a lot of similar dissonances in the ME games like this)

And yes, calling them "daddy issues" reflects that person's need to fall back on belittlement and derision, because they can't make a point without it.  It's a sad attempt to manipulate the conversation by establishing biased terms. 

He makes the point that most of the loyalty missions are really about their dads, thus the "daddy" thing, but yeah it's a derision.

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What if someone loves ME2, is still replaying it off and on, but is perfectly honest about the warts and shortcomings? 

If honesty had anything to do with it, we wouldn't be discussing anything, now would we? Simple logic: if people had different opinions due to their honesty or lack of it, why even bother discussing anything?

What is being exposed here is the pettiness, stupidity and outright irrationality of Smudboy's main plot videos and many posts in here, starting with many of yours.

Other than references from people who hate him, I think we've pretty much stopped talking about Smudboy and his videos. 

As for me, everything I've said in this thread is from my honest assesment of the game, or of a criticism of the game, or of someone's post or posting style.  I'm not here for the fight, I'm not here for the insults, I'm not here for the argument. 

You seem to be saying that there's no reason to have a discussion if you're not going to distort, attack, and insult.  That's all too typical these days, and a very sad aspect of where our culture is headed. 

Killjoy, that was fairly rational. I will say that I have a hard time seeing how you single him out, when numerous people on both sides of the issue went pretty negative.

Beyond that, the problem with the discussion, which I agree should be the main point, is that the smudboy worshippers continue to completely ignore any attempt at rebuttal. I'll admit flaws in my arguments, I would ask for the same courtesy from any opposition. We aren't getting that.

Well, I have noted the general tone of the thread before, how there's a lot of hate and seemingly no room for a middle ground.  I've got at least one person on each side directly or indirectly insulting me.  It wasn't my intention to imply, in replying to that particular post, that only its author was engaged in poor discussion behavior. 


On the subject of the resurrection, since it was used as an example, I think both sides need to step back and take another look.  It's certainly plausible that Shep's body could be intact after a fall from orbit, if the atmospheric entry was at a low enough relative velocity.  You can only fall so fast through air, and after that, starting height doesn't much matter -- and people have LIVED through falls from extreme heights.   On the other hand, the damage to Shep's body as described by in-game sources makes restoration of Shep's personality and memories implausible in the extreme.  And from my perspective as both a player and as a writer myself, the sad part is that there's just wasn't any reason to write the opening the way they did. 

By saying it's "the sad part" you inherently imply that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and also sad. Look, it's fine if you don't like that plot device, but lots of us liked the intro, and the pseudo-science behind it isn't a stumbling block given the other crazy stuff in the game. It's not meant to be taken literally as an episode of NOVA detailing how to bring someone back from the dead.

Given the scene with Saren/Sovereign in ME1 I think it was pretty clear that the series was going pretty far out there in terms of what is possible in the ME universe. Particularly since the details of the specific aspects of the Lazarus Project are not illuminated, I just don't think it's a fair critique of the narrative to say that his death and rebirth was unrealistic.

[Xeranx]

Phaelducan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
And what happens if a reviewer never gives out a review of less than 50% (or the equivalent in whatever nomenclature they're using)? 

Do they mean that all games are at least "average"?  Or does it really mean that an "average"  game gets a score of 75%, and only the worst games get a 50%, for whatever reason? 

A "normal distribution" as you describe it doesn't apply to these situations, where someone can pick any span of numbers deliberately.   The actual average score given out for many reviewers is somewhere higher than 50%, and what score they use to indicate an "average" game isn't 50% for damn certain.

They skewed the system and practicly broke it. the span on eahc side of hte average should be the same. Yet it's not.

Thankfully, there still are reviewers that stick to the sensible rating system.

More narcissism. So you are wrong, but should be right if more reviewers used a better system? 

Even in a "better system", games aren't being given 0% scores. The vast majority of games fall between 60 and 85... not because reviewers are dumb and have broken the system, but because very few AAA games could be considered the equivalent of academic failure (59% or lower). 

The reason it's relevant is that whenever Mass Effect 2's incredible success is mentioned, it's almost universally ignored or discredited by the detractors. Almost verbatim we hear "reviews don't mean anything, sales don't mean anything, user appreciation doesn't mean anything,"

That is why this whole series of topics is so frustrating. We are called blind fanboys if we like the game, yet we are expected to accept the pointless whining over minutae from a few dozen yahoos over feedback from MILLIONS of people and concrete industry standardized data. When said data is referenced (such as review aggregates), we get "well that doesn't mean anything."

It's absolutely ridiculous.

You're, again, quoting some industry standardized method when there is none.  If two companies that use the same scale don't agree on the actual numbers on that scale of what they're reviewing what standardization is there?  There's none.  That is grounds for dismissing reviews because they're purely opinion pieces.  Isn't this why people have bashed movie critics when they've panned a movie that many actually like and consider good?
And in any case people who praise ME2 show complete bias when nothing negative is said about IGN when it praises ME2, but bash it any other time they feel like it.  

Metacritic uses a weighted score based on quality and reputation of the reviewer.  Who decides what the quality of the review is if there's no set standard for review?  Is it then based on reputation which is also another way of saying how others perceive it?  That goes quite nicely with how people view IGN.  

Quality of the review is supposed to be objective, but it's subjective.  In the case of metacritc with weighted scores: how can this(PS3), this(PC), and this(Xbox) be objective since the first 10 differ on the rating of the game, sometimes even differ with themselves on the game, and the number of critics is variable?  This is the case of one man's hero being another man's villain.  Because you agree with the review it's obviously objective even though you know no set standard for review exists.

You're also inflating the number of people who may have given feedback.  I disagree with this tactic entirely because it's a false position to take.  Those who use that position can't cite the numbers or where they come from.  Metacritic has user scores being Xbox: 1926, PC: 951, and PS3: 380.  Where are these millions?  Go to other sites and it's the same thing.  You have a number that is far, far smaller than what's reported sold or shipped.  All together they still make up less than 1% of the reported shipped or sold.  There's nothing backing up such a claim.

Stop using this in your arguments for your position.  Please.

[Killjoy Cutter]

To restore the full context... 

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
What if someone loves ME2, is still replaying it off and on, but is perfectly honest about the warts and shortcomings? 

Arkitekt wrote...
If honesty had anything to do with it, we wouldn't be discussing anything, now would we? Simple logic: if people had different opinions due to their honesty or lack of it, why even bother discussing anything?

 

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
You seem to be saying that there's no reason to have a discussion if you're not going to distort, attack, and insult.  That's all too typical these days, and a very sad aspect of where our culture is headed. 

Arkitekt wrote...
Are you in some kind of competition with Lord Soroner? What I said (and was clear) is that if we are discussing is not because people are honest or liars, but because they disagree on what we see as the truth of the matter, the facts, the evidence, the rationality behind the things.

Are you constantly in adversarial attack mode? 

My original reference to "honest" was about a fan's honesty with himself.  If ME2 is good, and it is, then there's no need to attack anyone who criticizes it.  And it doesn't have to be perfect to be good -- ME2 has flaws, simple as that.   Not about honesty with others.  You can love something or someone and be honest about its faults.  Say, you have a dog, and it's sweet, and well behaved, and loves you, but it's a dumb dog.  It's OK to be honest with yourself about the fact that the dog isn't so bright (even for a dog) -- that doesn't mean you love the dog any less.  

Love that can't see the faults in something is scarey, not sweet. 


My other comment started out with "you seem", which leaves plenty of room for you to say "that's not what I meant" without going into rabid attack dog mode. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What if someone loves ME2, is still replaying it off and on, but is perfectly honest about the warts and shortcomings? 

If honesty had anything to do with it, we wouldn't be discussing anything, now would we? Simple logic: if people had different opinions due to their honesty or lack of it, why even bother discussing anything?

What is being exposed here is the pettiness, stupidity and outright irrationality of Smudboy's main plot videos and many posts in here, starting with many of yours.

Other than references from people who hate him, I think we've pretty much stopped talking about Smudboy and his videos. 

As for me, everything I've said in this thread is from my honest assesment of the game, or of a criticism of the game, or of someone's post or posting style.  I'm not here for the fight, I'm not here for the insults, I'm not here for the argument. 

You seem to be saying that there's no reason to have a discussion if you're not going to distort, attack, and insult.  That's all too typical these days, and a very sad aspect of where our culture is headed. 

Killjoy, that was fairly rational. I will say that I have a hard time seeing how you single him out, when numerous people on both sides of the issue went pretty negative.

Beyond that, the problem with the discussion, which I agree should be the main point, is that the smudboy worshippers continue to completely ignore any attempt at rebuttal. I'll admit flaws in my arguments, I would ask for the same courtesy from any opposition. We aren't getting that.

Well, I have noted the general tone of the thread before, how there's a lot of hate and seemingly no room for a middle ground.  I've got at least one person on each side directly or indirectly insulting me.  It wasn't my intention to imply, in replying to that particular post, that only its author was engaged in poor discussion behavior. 


On the subject of the resurrection, since it was used as an example, I think both sides need to step back and take another look.  It's certainly plausible that Shep's body could be intact after a fall from orbit, if the atmospheric entry was at a low enough relative velocity.  You can only fall so fast through air, and after that, starting height doesn't much matter -- and people have LIVED through falls from extreme heights.   On the other hand, the damage to Shep's body as described by in-game sources makes restoration of Shep's personality and memories implausible in the extreme.  And from my perspective as both a player and as a writer myself, the sad part is that there's just wasn't any reason to write the opening the way they did. 

By saying it's "the sad part" you inherently imply that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and also sad. Look, it's fine if you don't like that plot device, but lots of us liked the intro, and the pseudo-science behind it isn't a stumbling block given the other crazy stuff in the game. It's not meant to be taken literally as an episode of NOVA detailing how to bring someone back from the dead.

Given the scene with Saren/Sovereign in ME1 I think it was pretty clear that the series was going pretty far out there in terms of what is possible in the ME universe. Particularly since the details of the specific aspects of the Lazarus Project are not illuminated, I just don't think it's a fair critique of the narrative to say that his death and rebirth was unrealistic.

I certainly don't intend to imply that about anyone. 

What I meant by "sad" is that, from a writing perspective, this entire mess was avoidable with a minimum of effort. 
It would have been easy to destroy the Normandy SR1, scatter the squad and crew, and put Shepard into the situation of needing to hold his nose and work with Cerberus, and not make anyone stop and say "Huh?" 

So... why go the way they did? 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 septembre 2011 - 05:50 .

[Almostfaceman]

Phaelducan wrote...

By saying it's "the sad part" you inherently imply that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and also sad. Look, it's fine if you don't like that plot device, but lots of us liked the intro, and the pseudo-science behind it isn't a stumbling block given the other crazy stuff in the game. It's not meant to be taken literally as an episode of NOVA detailing how to bring someone back from the dead.

Given the scene with Saren/Sovereign in ME1 I think it was pretty clear that the series was going pretty far out there in terms of what is possible in the ME universe. Particularly since the details of the specific aspects of the Lazarus Project are not illuminated, I just don't think it's a fair critique of the narrative to say that his death and rebirth was unrealistic.

You know, if one just thinks a little about the sheer ridiculousness of the human body being turned into a husk by being impaled on a large diameter spike - the resurrection of Shep isn't so out there.

I mean think about it. One of the first things we see in the ME universe is a live human being impaled on a huge spike by Geth. The spike can easily be guestimated to be like six to eight inches in diameter after the body has sunk on it post impalement. So we know that immediately the spine is gone. Just obliterated. Not to mention any internal organs in the way. So there's nothing left to keep the body from folding in half and flopping around for the rest of its "existence".

If the ME universe can do that, it can resurrect Shep. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

By saying it's "the sad part" you inherently imply that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and also sad. Look, it's fine if you don't like that plot device, but lots of us liked the intro, and the pseudo-science behind it isn't a stumbling block given the other crazy stuff in the game. It's not meant to be taken literally as an episode of NOVA detailing how to bring someone back from the dead.

Given the scene with Saren/Sovereign in ME1 I think it was pretty clear that the series was going pretty far out there in terms of what is possible in the ME universe. Particularly since the details of the specific aspects of the Lazarus Project are not illuminated, I just don't think it's a fair critique of the narrative to say that his death and rebirth was unrealistic.

You know, if one just thinks a little about the sheer ridiculousness of the human body being turned into a husk by being impaled on a large diameter spike - the resurrection of Shep isn't so out there.

I mean think about it. One of the first things we see in the ME universe is a live human being impaled on a huge spike by Geth. The spike can easily be guestimated to be like six to eight inches in diameter after the body has sunk on it post impalement. So we know that immediately the spine is gone. Just obliterated. Not to mention any internal organs in the way. So there's nothing left to keep the body from folding in half and flopping around for the rest of its "existence".

If the ME universe can do that, it can resurrect Shep. 

I'm not sure I'd go that far on the husks... they're pretty much cybernetic zombies by the time they're husks, even more pathetic and mechanized and mindless versions of the Collectors...  they flesh might as well fall off, as evidenced by Saren's appearance once Sovereign took over. 

[Arkitekt]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

To restore the full context... 

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
What if someone loves ME2, is still replaying it off and on, but is perfectly honest about the warts and shortcomings? 

Arkitekt wrote...
If honesty had anything to do with it, we wouldn't be discussing anything, now would we? Simple logic: if people had different opinions due to their honesty or lack of it, why even bother discussing anything?

 

What is not clear here? Ok, I'll go through the a b and cs here. Let me guide you. If the problem was "honesty" or lack thereof, then the "problem" would be solved through calling the liars as such and the truth tellers as honest and the thread would end. The real problem is not about honesty, but about the quality of the ideas and comments being traded here.

Are you constantly in adversarial attack mode?

No.

My original reference to "honest" was about a fan's honesty with himself.

And my original comment was about the fact that honesty is not enough.

[Almostfaceman]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

By saying it's "the sad part" you inherently imply that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and also sad. Look, it's fine if you don't like that plot device, but lots of us liked the intro, and the pseudo-science behind it isn't a stumbling block given the other crazy stuff in the game. It's not meant to be taken literally as an episode of NOVA detailing how to bring someone back from the dead.

Given the scene with Saren/Sovereign in ME1 I think it was pretty clear that the series was going pretty far out there in terms of what is possible in the ME universe. Particularly since the details of the specific aspects of the Lazarus Project are not illuminated, I just don't think it's a fair critique of the narrative to say that his death and rebirth was unrealistic.

You know, if one just thinks a little about the sheer ridiculousness of the human body being turned into a husk by being impaled on a large diameter spike - the resurrection of Shep isn't so out there.

I mean think about it. One of the first things we see in the ME universe is a live human being impaled on a huge spike by Geth. The spike can easily be guestimated to be like six to eight inches in diameter after the body has sunk on it post impalement. So we know that immediately the spine is gone. Just obliterated. Not to mention any internal organs in the way. So there's nothing left to keep the body from folding in half and flopping around for the rest of its "existence".

If the ME universe can do that, it can resurrect Shep. 

I'm not sure I'd go that far on the husks... they're pretty much cybernetic zombies by the time they're husks, even more pathetic and mechanized and mindless versions of the Collectors...  they flesh might as well fall off, as evidenced by Saren's appearance once Sovereign took over. 

I'm not saying husks are functional regular human beings. I'm saying the creation of husks is just as incredible and impossible as the Shep resurrection. 

[sponge56]

The story wasn't as good as ME1, but seeing as it wasnt awful, most inconsistancies can be explained, and its the second in the trilogy its quite honestly not as bad as people moan about

The end

[Phaelducan]

Xeranx wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
And what happens if a reviewer never gives out a review of less than 50% (or the equivalent in whatever nomenclature they're using)? 

Do they mean that all games are at least "average"?  Or does it really mean that an "average"  game gets a score of 75%, and only the worst games get a 50%, for whatever reason? 

A "normal distribution" as you describe it doesn't apply to these situations, where someone can pick any span of numbers deliberately.   The actual average score given out for many reviewers is somewhere higher than 50%, and what score they use to indicate an "average" game isn't 50% for damn certain.

They skewed the system and practicly broke it. the span on eahc side of hte average should be the same. Yet it's not.

Thankfully, there still are reviewers that stick to the sensible rating system.

More narcissism. So you are wrong, but should be right if more reviewers used a better system? 

Even in a "better system", games aren't being given 0% scores. The vast majority of games fall between 60 and 85... not because reviewers are dumb and have broken the system, but because very few AAA games could be considered the equivalent of academic failure (59% or lower). 

The reason it's relevant is that whenever Mass Effect 2's incredible success is mentioned, it's almost universally ignored or discredited by the detractors. Almost verbatim we hear "reviews don't mean anything, sales don't mean anything, user appreciation doesn't mean anything,"

That is why this whole series of topics is so frustrating. We are called blind fanboys if we like the game, yet we are expected to accept the pointless whining over minutae from a few dozen yahoos over feedback from MILLIONS of people and concrete industry standardized data. When said data is referenced (such as review aggregates), we get "well that doesn't mean anything."

It's absolutely ridiculous.

You're, again, quoting some industry standardized method when there is none.  If two companies that use the same scale don't agree on the actual numbers on that scale of what they're reviewing what standardization is there?  There's none.  That is grounds for dismissing reviews because they're purely opinion pieces.  Isn't this why people have bashed movie critics when they've panned a movie that many actually like and consider good?
And in any case people who praise ME2 show complete bias when nothing negative is said about IGN when it praises ME2, but bash it any other time they feel like it.  

Metacritic uses a weighted score based on quality and reputation of the reviewer.  Who decides what the quality of the review is if there's no set standard for review?  Is it then based on reputation which is also another way of saying how others perceive it?  That goes quite nicely with how people view IGN.  

Quality of the review is supposed to be objective, but it's subjective.  In the case of metacritc with weighted scores: how can this(PS3), this(PC), and this(Xbox) be objective since the first 10 differ on the rating of the game, sometimes even differ with themselves on the game, and the number of critics is variable?  This is the case of one man's hero being another man's villain.  Because you agree with the review it's obviously objective even though you know no set standard for review exists.

You're also inflating the number of people who may have given feedback.  I disagree with this tactic entirely because it's a false position to take.  Those who use that position can't cite the numbers or where they come from.  Metacritic has user scores being Xbox: 1926, PC: 951, and PS3: 380.  Where are these millions?  Go to other sites and it's the same thing.  You have a number that is far, far smaller than what's reported sold or shipped.  All together they still make up less than 1% of the reported shipped or sold.  There's nothing backing up such a claim.

Stop using this in your arguments for your position.  Please.

A sample size of 2500 is pretty good. Is it the whole population? Of course not, which is why any kind of polling isn't exact, but you do get a pretty good sense of where approval ratings lie with a sampling of 2500. Anything over 1000 is usually considered scientifically valid (again, with the understanding that there will be margin of error, usually 3-5%). You are saying we can't use ANY industry measurables since they aren't accurate. That's false. Can we use them to 100% verify what the entire 6 million or so population thinks of the game? Of course not, but we can get a VERY good idea of what most people think by looking at review aggregates from both users and reviewers. Sometimes you get skewed results (like with DA2 and user reviews) but overall it's a pretty good tool. For that matter, there are fairly small deviations even within a sample size of 100 for most consumer products.

You are trying to throw out data because you don't like it. Stop that. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

I'm still not certain what ME2's popularity and quality have to do with one another...

[Ramus Quaritch]

Are we still on this pr***? He's probably laughing heartily in his swivel chair right now because he has a thread about him on the BSN that's over 200 pages. I don't care about his nitpicking Bioware games. Let's not give him any more satisfaction.

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What if someone loves ME2, is still replaying it off and on, but is perfectly honest about the warts and shortcomings? 

If honesty had anything to do with it, we wouldn't be discussing anything, now would we? Simple logic: if people had different opinions due to their honesty or lack of it, why even bother discussing anything?

What is being exposed here is the pettiness, stupidity and outright irrationality of Smudboy's main plot videos and many posts in here, starting with many of yours.

Other than references from people who hate him, I think we've pretty much stopped talking about Smudboy and his videos. 

As for me, everything I've said in this thread is from my honest assesment of the game, or of a criticism of the game, or of someone's post or posting style.  I'm not here for the fight, I'm not here for the insults, I'm not here for the argument. 

You seem to be saying that there's no reason to have a discussion if you're not going to distort, attack, and insult.  That's all too typical these days, and a very sad aspect of where our culture is headed. 

Killjoy, that was fairly rational. I will say that I have a hard time seeing how you single him out, when numerous people on both sides of the issue went pretty negative.

Beyond that, the problem with the discussion, which I agree should be the main point, is that the smudboy worshippers continue to completely ignore any attempt at rebuttal. I'll admit flaws in my arguments, I would ask for the same courtesy from any opposition. We aren't getting that.

Well, I have noted the general tone of the thread before, how there's a lot of hate and seemingly no room for a middle ground.  I've got at least one person on each side directly or indirectly insulting me.  It wasn't my intention to imply, in replying to that particular post, that only its author was engaged in poor discussion behavior. 


On the subject of the resurrection, since it was used as an example, I think both sides need to step back and take another look.  It's certainly plausible that Shep's body could be intact after a fall from orbit, if the atmospheric entry was at a low enough relative velocity.  You can only fall so fast through air, and after that, starting height doesn't much matter -- and people have LIVED through falls from extreme heights.   On the other hand, the damage to Shep's body as described by in-game sources makes restoration of Shep's personality and memories implausible in the extreme.  And from my perspective as both a player and as a writer myself, the sad part is that there's just wasn't any reason to write the opening the way they did. 

By saying it's "the sad part" you inherently imply that anyone who disagrees with you is both wrong and also sad. Look, it's fine if you don't like that plot device, but lots of us liked the intro, and the pseudo-science behind it isn't a stumbling block given the other crazy stuff in the game. It's not meant to be taken literally as an episode of NOVA detailing how to bring someone back from the dead.

Given the scene with Saren/Sovereign in ME1 I think it was pretty clear that the series was going pretty far out there in terms of what is possible in the ME universe. Particularly since the details of the specific aspects of the Lazarus Project are not illuminated, I just don't think it's a fair critique of the narrative to say that his death and rebirth was unrealistic.

I certainly don't intend to imply that about anyone. 

What I meant by "sad" is that, from a writing perspective, this entire mess was avoidable with a minimum of effort. 
It would have been easy to destroy the Normandy SR1, scatter the squad and crew, and put Shepard into the situation of needing to hold his nose and work with Cerberus, and not make anyone stop and say "Huh?" 

So... why go they way they did? 

Life and death are almost universal aspects of human interest. They fascinate (most) people, and are incredibly useful tools in a narrative of any kind, but particularly in interactive ones such as video games. They could have done what you suggest, and I'm sure it would have been fine, but for Shepard to actually die and be brought back to life (most likely involving Reaper tech, another integral fascet of the narrative) is powerful, exciting, and engaging.

It's not "rule of cool" since it actually does impact the narrative and give context to Shep's actions in the game, and it also is functional in terms of fulfilling a game mechanic issue (respec/reskin). Feel free to hate it, but it isn't fair to deride it as a deus ex machina. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Are we still on this pr***? He's probably laughing heartily in his swivel chair right now because he has a thread about him on the BSN that's over 200 pages. I don't care about his nitpicking Bioware games. Let's not give him any more satisfaction.

As noted a page or two ago, we're not really talking about him or his videos any more, unless someone happens to post a fly-by comment ****ing about the existence of the thread. 

[Arkitekt]

All of these conversations stemmed from Smudboy's analysis, so I couldn't disagree more, Killjoy. It's as if we live in separate planets, sometimes.

Modifié par Arkitekt, 20 septembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm still not certain what ME2's popularity and quality have to do with one another...

See? It's stuff like that which makes this so pointles. To assume that quality and popularity have nothing to do with each other is the epitome of arrogance. Taste has nothing to do with it. Zumba Fitness sold a TON of games. I don't own it, don't own Kinect, and have no interest in the game. However, if it was crap, no one would buy it. It's successful because it's done well and is a good product.

I also hate military shooters, and won't buy Call of Duty or Battlefield games. If a shooter doesn't have aliens, lasers, or monsters of some kind, I'm just not generally interested. However, those games are incredibly well done. The mechanics, controls, set-pieces, multiplayer, graphics, etc are all off the chart compared to a lot of their peers. The games are amazing.... which is why they are also popular. I might not like them, but for me to say that their popularity and quality have nothing to do with each other would be absolutely boneheaded (not calling you boneheaded, just saying it's not a valid point of view).

You can fool movie-goers into dropping 8 bucks for a mediocre product once, but good luck getting 30 million gamers to do the same. AAA titles have to be good, or they tank (see Homefront). Only in VERY rare circumstances does the opposite occur, and with a game like Enslaved it was a surprise to a lot of people that it didn't sell well (release window was blamed, lack of marketing, etc). It doesn't happen very often that a great game doesn't do well, and consequently it's also very rare for a crappy game to sell well (Wii shovelware notwithstanding, but again the Wii's target demographic is admittedly not gamers).

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
I certainly don't intend to imply that about anyone. 

What I meant by "sad" is that, from a writing perspective, this entire mess was avoidable with a minimum of effort. 
It would have been easy to destroy the Normandy SR1, scatter the squad and crew, and put Shepard into the situation of needing to hold his nose and work with Cerberus, and not make anyone stop and say "Huh?" 

So... why go the way they did? 

Life and death are almost universal aspects of human interest. They fascinate (most) people, and are incredibly useful tools in a narrative of any kind, but particularly in interactive ones such as video games. They could have done what you suggest, and I'm sure it would have been fine, but for Shepard to actually die and be brought back to life (most likely involving Reaper tech, another integral fascet of the narrative) is powerful, exciting, and engaging.

It's not "rule of cool" since it actually does impact the narrative and give context to Shep's actions in the game, and it also is functional in terms of fulfilling a game mechanic issue (respec/reskin). Feel free to hate it, but it isn't fair to deride it as a deus ex machina. 

I'm not even objecting to bringing Shep back from the dead or a severe coma. 

I'm just put off by the graphic detail they give us of the damage to Shep's brain (and they do, if you're at all willing to read between the lines at all), and then the magical restoration of Shep's personality and memories from that state -- with a sudden lack of details as to how. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arkitekt wrote...

All of these conversations stemmed from Smudboy's analysis, so I couldn't disagree more, Killjoy. It's as if we live in separate planets, sometimes.

OK, to be fair, I've been done with Smudboy for a long time.  I'm just addressing points from all sides as they come up.  The origin of the thing isn't the whole thing. 

[Sgt Stryker]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

100k, I called you out on your shenanigans, not for the obvious fact that ME2 is far from a perfect game. But very well, let's get the party going in another direction.

What about the ridiculous smudargument that the team mates don't need to solve their own "daddy issues" because they are "professionals", before going into what might well be their final mission?

Just the naming "daddy issues" is already a mass failure...

I wouldn't have been called them "loyalty" missions.  What's really going on is focus -- each squadmate has unfinished business that they'd like to take care of before they die, that could distract them if it's not taken care of. 

And yes, calling them "daddy issues" reflects that person's need to fall back on belittlement and derision, because they can't make a point without it.  It's a sad attempt to manipulate the conversation by establishing biased terms. 

Let's also not forget that the very term "daddy issues" is a glaring oversimplification. Remember, "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Also, regarding the continued existence of this thread: I think it's best to keep this safely quarantined to one thread, rather than having it spill over into other, better quality threads.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 20 septembre 2011 - 05:59 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
I'm still not certain what ME2's popularity and quality have to do with one another...

See? It's stuff like that which makes this so pointles. To assume that quality and popularity have nothing to do with each other is the epitome of arrogance. Taste has nothing to do with it. Zumba Fitness sold a TON of games. I don't own it, don't own Kinect, and have no interest in the game. However, if it was crap, no one would buy it. It's successful because it's done well and is a good product.

I also hate military shooters, and won't buy Call of Duty or Battlefield games. If a shooter doesn't have aliens, lasers, or monsters of some kind, I'm just not generally interested. However, those games are incredibly well done. The mechanics, controls, set-pieces, multiplayer, graphics, etc are all off the chart compared to a lot of their peers. The games are amazing.... which is why they are also popular. I might not like them, but for me to say that their popularity and quality have nothing to do with each other would be absolutely boneheaded (not calling you boneheaded, just saying it's not a valid point of view).

You can fool movie-goers into dropping 8 bucks for a mediocre product once, but good luck getting 30 million gamers to do the same. AAA titles have to be good, or they tank (see Homefront). Only in VERY rare circumstances does the opposite occur, and with a game like Enslaved it was a surprise to a lot of people that it didn't sell well (release window was blamed, lack of marketing, etc). It doesn't happen very often that a great game doesn't do well, and consequently it's also very rare for a crappy game to sell well (Wii shovelware notwithstanding, but again the Wii's target demographic is admittedly not gamers).

Well, in general, observing the world as a whole, quality and popularity don't seem to be closely linked.  I give you Jersey Shore and Brittany Spears as cases in point.  Maybe it's not true with PC games, but there it is. 

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
I certainly don't intend to imply that about anyone. 

What I meant by "sad" is that, from a writing perspective, this entire mess was avoidable with a minimum of effort. 
It would have been easy to destroy the Normandy SR1, scatter the squad and crew, and put Shepard into the situation of needing to hold his nose and work with Cerberus, and not make anyone stop and say "Huh?" 

So... why go the way they did? 

Life and death are almost universal aspects of human interest. They fascinate (most) people, and are incredibly useful tools in a narrative of any kind, but particularly in interactive ones such as video games. They could have done what you suggest, and I'm sure it would have been fine, but for Shepard to actually die and be brought back to life (most likely involving Reaper tech, another integral fascet of the narrative) is powerful, exciting, and engaging.

It's not "rule of cool" since it actually does impact the narrative and give context to Shep's actions in the game, and it also is functional in terms of fulfilling a game mechanic issue (respec/reskin). Feel free to hate it, but it isn't fair to deride it as a deus ex machina. 

I'm not even objecting to bringing Shep back from the dead or a severe coma. 

I'm just put off by the graphic detail they give us of the damage to Shep's brain (and they do, if you're at all willing to read between the lines at all), and then the magical restoration of Shep's personality and memories from that state -- with a sudden lack of details as to how. 

That's one of the hallmarks of the genre though. We don't have the technology for most science fiction settings, so it would be unrealistic for developers to use modern day scientific explanations for medical procedures taking place potentially hundreds of years in the future in some examples. 

Besides, we already have examples in the ME universe of reaper technology doing bizarro things. Why can you suspend for some but not the other? 

[Arkitekt]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Also, regarding the continued existence of this thread: I think it's best to keep this safely quarantined to one thread, rather than having it spill over into other, better quality threads.

What other better quality threads are you talking about?