6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Sgt Stryker]

111987 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

iakus wrote...
Next question:  At what point on Freedom's Progress did Miranda, Jacob, SHepard or even Veetor say "Hey look! Defunct Seeker bug!"?  

Edit:  Just wanted to add, All they mention getting is the data from the omnitool and possibly Veetor himself

They take scans of weapons and then reproduce the weapons on the Normandy. Why couldn't Mordin create a seeker bug using Veetor's scans?

And that is a completely valid explanation.  But Shepard doesn't say they have "scans", or "data" they have "samples" that they "collected from one of the colonies".

It may not be a plot hole, but at the very least it's sloppy writing.

Shepard does have Veetor's omni tool data though, which did take scans of the Collectors and the Seeker Swarms.

So yes, while that could have been written much clearer, it can be reasoned out.

For what it's worth, if you speak to Mordin between missions, he will eventually mention something along the lines of "monitoring cell growth." Unsure what exact line was, need to play the game again, but this may suggest that Mordin actually grew the seeker in his lab from data collected on Freedom's Progress. It's not much, and it would have been better if it was placed in "unavoidable" dialogue, rather than post-optional dialogue, but it's something.

[VaultingFrog]

Still waiting on that reason for somebody to care about another's opinion of a game...

[111987]

VaultingFrog wrote...

Still waiting on that reason for somebody to care about another's opinion of a game...

Probably because people, whether rightly or wrongly, care about what other people think. If you love something, people often feel the need to defend it from people that criticize them. Is it silly to get worked up over a game? Perhaps, but maybe some people really love their video games

[VaultingFrog]

111987 wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

Still waiting on that reason for somebody to care about another's opinion of a game...

Probably because people, whether rightly or wrongly, care about what other people think. If you love something, people often feel the need to defend it from people that criticize them. Is it silly to get worked up over a game? Perhaps, but maybe some people really love their video games

I am not sure what I find to be worse, that people feel to get worked up over a videogame or that biased opinions are counted as reviews.

No review however "good" is unbiased. More importantly the reader is making a preconception over the item, which basically wittles down to the reviewer making the choice for the gamer to buy it or not. I dont think that is right. Play it yourself and make your own bloody choice on if you like it or not, dont go off of what others tell you about it.

[bduff4545]

So far I havent seen a Smudboy post where he has said anything mean...anyone have a link to one of them.

[Balek-Vriege]

bduff4545 wrote...

So far I havent seen a Smudboy post where he has said anything mean...anyone have a link to one of them.

A link from a couple pages ago:

http://social.biowar...93197/1#2694884

Debate begins to heat up around Page 10 or 11.  Glanced over most of the thread and there isn't anything exceptionally mean in there.  What I found more interesting was the bad argument around those pages about the datapad at the end of ME2  (the one with the Reaper data).  Smudboy argues there's no way there could be that much data on it to help Shepard against the Reapers, because it wasn't shown how much data was on it ingame.  Again, suggesting everything needs to be explained verbally for the story to be valid.

However, a lot people end up pointing out how that's a bit too much and also point out various "plot holes" in Mass Effect 1 by applying his same standards.  Smudboy basically refuses to apply the same criticisms/standards he has for ME2 to ME1 plot "problems."  Between the datapad arguments and ME1 arguments against his reasoning, his points begin to break down and Smudboy gets increasingly more hostile by about page 13.  Then for a few pages doesn't post and is civil again.


Note that's the thread which started all this video stuff.  Not sure if the bad blood doesn't come after this one.

Too much analysing of a thread.  Going to stop now.

[bduff4545]

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

[quote]bduff4545 wrote...


Too much analysing of a thread.  Going to stop now.[/quote]

thanks for the link and lol:D

[AlphaJarmel]

Honestly I'm hoping that ME3 has a better plot than 2 but I'm really not going to hold my breath.

[bduff4545]

AlphaJarmel wrote...

Honestly I'm hoping that ME3 has a better plot than 2 but I'm really not going to hold my breath.

so far it looks like its on the right track

[Gatt9]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
*snip*

So... most of the examples he gave for how a proper resurrection should be done does not show any of these needed traits... but it's ok becasue it possibly could have maybe been done off camera without any reference for us on camera...
Wow...
Ok... lets run with that. You don't see Shepard every second of every day. You don't see what takes place during the time it takes to travel between locations, or when he sleeps, or when he eats. It might have all been handled during that time, so problem solved right? Shepard did all the soul searching need for a proper resurrection during the off camera moments. Huzzah! We have made a break through!!!

That's how things have been done for decades in other forms of media,  a fade to black with a time loss in between or just simply ending the story at that point.  If you're going to argue that,  you've got decades worth of people to prove wrong there,  most of whom are regarded as master storytellers.  I really don't think you want to get into a debate to prove that not only Hollywood,  but argueably all of the finest writers for centuries as well,  are all wrong because Bioware and ME2 can't possibly have bad writing. 

As far as not seeing Shepherd every second of the day,  I'm pretty confident he didn't go through the whole process of a existential crisis in the 10 minutes a loading screen represents,  other than that,  you're with him every moment,  there's no 10 second pause "Shepherd is easting/sleeping now".

Seriously,  hundreds of millions of people,  potentially billions of people,  regard storytellers who routinely use the offscreen dynamic as literary geniuses.  A tiny few people claiming Bioware's plotholes are perfectly fine does not suddenly invalidate that,  nor does it make Bioware's very sloppy writing acceptable.

That's not a plot hole. It's just something they decided to not talk about.

Considering that the universe has the technology to alter people on a genetic level, give them brain implants and clone whole beings, correct injuries with cybernetic surgery as well as restore cells to their original functionality, I don't think bringing someone back from the dead is something to discuss through the entire game.

Sure, it's a great medical achievement and it could've been touched upon a little more, but it's not something I'd cry about if they left that out. Because it does almost nothing to advance the story. 

Um...What?  Really?

No one else in the universe is resurrected,  it's a medical miracle that cost an obscene amount of money to pull off just once,  and you don't think every single person would be interested in what happened and how it was done?  Seriously?  Everyone just goes "Oh...ok,  so...what's up?".  They just cured death,  and no one cares? 

If that doesn't strike you as hands-down horrible writing than there's nothing else to discuss,  you've already made up your mind that Bioware can do no wrong. 

[111987]

Yes, one would think that people would be more surprised about Shepard's ressurection, but let's think this through. Would you want to play a game where EVERY SINGLE PERSON you talk to asks about Shepard being brought back to life? I don't know about you but that would become incredibly repetitive. For the sake of pacing in the game, I'm personally fine with Bioware not forcing Shepard to have the same conversation literally dozens of times.

[Rockworm503]

111987 wrote...

Yes, one would think that people would be more surprised about Shepard's ressurection, but let's think this through. Would you want to play a game where EVERY SINGLE PERSON you talk to asks about Shepard being brought back to life? I don't know about you but that would become incredibly repetitive. For the sake of pacing in the game, I'm personally fine with Bioware not forcing Shepard to have the same conversation literally dozens of times.

DUH if Shepard doesn't go through 20 hours of spiritual journey then its cheap and horrible writing.  How dare a game that tries to give us an RPG like experience and expect us to have a little imagination.  *rolls eyes*  The hypocrisy of the haters just goes beyond.  They cry foul about the "horrible writing" yet complain that its not RPG enough.
Its not doing the writers job to have just a little imagination seriously.

[SpiffySquee]

Gatt9 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
*snip*

So... most of the examples he gave for how a proper resurrection should be done does not show any of these needed traits... but it's ok becasue it possibly could have maybe been done off camera without any reference for us on camera...
Wow...
Ok... lets run with that. You don't see Shepard every second of every day. You don't see what takes place during the time it takes to travel between locations, or when he sleeps, or when he eats. It might have all been handled during that time, so problem solved right? Shepard did all the soul searching need for a proper resurrection during the off camera moments. Huzzah! We have made a break through!!!

That's how things have been done for decades in other forms of media,  a fade to black with a time loss in between or just simply ending the story at that point.  If you're going to argue that,  you've got decades worth of people to prove wrong there,  most of whom are regarded as master storytellers.  I really don't think you want to get into a debate to prove that not only Hollywood,  but argueably all of the finest writers for centuries as well,  are all wrong because Bioware and ME2 can't possibly have bad writing. 

As far as not seeing Shepherd every second of the day,  I'm pretty confident he didn't go through the whole process of a existential crisis in the 10 minutes a loading screen represents,  other than that,  you're with him every moment,  there's no 10 second pause "Shepherd is easting/sleeping now".

Seriously,  hundreds of millions of people,  potentially billions of people,  regard storytellers who routinely use the offscreen dynamic as literary geniuses.  A tiny few people claiming Bioware's plotholes are perfectly fine does not suddenly invalidate that,  nor does it make Bioware's very sloppy writing acceptable.
 

Most movies that use this technique also clue you in to the fact that it happened. They usually do something that lets you know, "Hey! In the off camera time, we had a revelation... talked about our childhood, and came to terms with our trauma!" They don't just assume everyone will assume it happened. Nothing like this every happened in those movies. It is pure speculation with absolutely nothing to back it up but your say so.

So, you can't have it both ways. Either we assume these things happen off camera or we don't. Just because the game does not mention Shepard eating or sleeping does not mean it did not happen. The game takes for granted that gamers are smart enough to figure out that we are not actually watching Shepard every second of every day.

Otherwise the entire game took place in 30ish hours and Shepard has not eaten, slept, or gone to the restroom that entire time. He also travels all the way across the galaxy over and over within those 30 hours, car rides across Illium and the Citdel take mere seconds, Donavan Hauk's party had perfect timing, Grunt and Mordin's loyalty missions were a hundred feet outside Urdnot's base, Joker was lying to you when he said it would take about 2 hours to reach the relay, Tali Kissed Shepard and immediately stopped and put her mask back on, Kelly Chambers closed her eyes for a moment and then pretend Shepard had just kept her up all night,Thane spoke with his son in the integration room for about 15 seconds, Chawkwas got drunk in under 3 seconds, etc etc etc....

I can go on and on and on. To say that We spend every second with Shepard is just absurd.  If you can claim that these movies really did do everything Smud said they should, but they just did it off camera, than I can say the same thing about Shepard.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 29 août 2011 - 04:03 .

[MissMaster]

Who is Smudboy?

[Iakus]

Rockworm503 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Yes, one would think that people would be more surprised about Shepard's ressurection, but let's think this through. Would you want to play a game where EVERY SINGLE PERSON you talk to asks about Shepard being brought back to life? I don't know about you but that would become incredibly repetitive. For the sake of pacing in the game, I'm personally fine with Bioware not forcing Shepard to have the same conversation literally dozens of times.

DUH if Shepard doesn't go through 20 hours of spiritual journey have the option to have a moment of introspection then its cheap and horrible writing.  How dare a game that tries to give us an RPG like experience and expect us to have a little imagination.  Not give us the tools to role-play *rolls eyes*  The hypocrisy of the haters just goes beyond.  They cry foul about the "horrible writing" yet complain that its not RPG enough.
Its not doing the writers job to have just a little imagination seriously.

Somewhat fixed.  Got most of the hyperbole out, but nothing I could do about the ad hominems.  Sorry. 

[SpiffySquee]

MissMaster wrote...

Who is Smudboy?

Mass effect Jesus... man keeps getting resurrected!

[SpiffySquee]

iakus wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Yes, one would think that people would be more surprised about Shepard's ressurection, but let's think this through. Would you want to play a game where EVERY SINGLE PERSON you talk to asks about Shepard being brought back to life? I don't know about you but that would become incredibly repetitive. For the sake of pacing in the game, I'm personally fine with Bioware not forcing Shepard to have the same conversation literally dozens of times.

DUH if Shepard doesn't go through 20 hours of spiritual journey have the option to have a moment of introspection then its cheap and horrible writing.  How dare a game that tries to give us an RPG like experience and expect us to have a little imagination.  Not give us the tools to role-play *rolls eyes*  The hypocrisy of the haters just goes beyond.  They cry foul about the "horrible writing" yet complain that its not RPG enough.
Its not doing the writers job to have just a little imagination seriously.

Somewhat fixed.  Got most of the hyperbole out, but nothing I could do about the ad hominems.  Sorry. 

Meh, that is an opinion I can't argue I guess, but I personally didn't need it. The story was not about Shepard and his trauma. It was about the world around him.

[bduff4545]

hey squee...did you really do a live ME2 broadcast with smudboy

[Iakus]

SpiffySquee wrote...

I have no real disagreements with you here, but none of this helps Smudboy's arguments. He lists what a proper resurrection SHOULD have and then proceeds to list movies that have few or none of these things. The sad part is, Your argument (that took a few minutes to write up) has a heck of a lot more validity than his did.
Also, you don't go around saying that every story is automatically bad becasue resurrection was not handled the way you think it should.

One of the reason I enjoy debating with you. I don't expect people to see eye to eye with me, but you never treat me like an idiot just becasue of that, and you try your best to let people know these are opinions.

Kind words, though I do think ME2's story sufferd a lot from how the death and ressurection was held.  I don't think you're stupid for thinking otherwise of course.  Just wrong 

Been a while since i've gone through the ME2 plot videos, so I can't argue the particulars.  But I think he's like me in that he thinks ressurection is hard to handle well.  I may be mistaken, but  I seem to recall he cites Babylon 5 as one where it's handled "right".  It's Sufficiently Advanced technology, it's not meant to be understood and is stated as such, and it carries it's own price to be used.  

And the quote from Smudboy's own video that I cited in my earliler post sums up nicely how I think Shepard's death and return was not handled well

[Lanteyah]

I likes Smudboy's analysis. Back when I played ME2 for the first time, somethings stry wise didn't click. Couldldn't put my finger on it, and then Smud made some points that I had in a clearer form. I dont agree with everything he has to say, but he makes some very good points.

Like why we had to go to the shuttle, how Ash/Kaidan got unfrozen, Normandy not attacking the ship while on Horizon, and some people dieing on the suicide mission.

Some people might think it's because he hates the game, but he loves ME1 story wise more than ME2 and so did I.

[Sisterofshane]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Most movies that use this technique also clue you in to the fact that it happened. They usually do something that lets you know, "Hey! In the off camera time, we had a revelation... talked about our childhood, and came to terms with our trauma!" They don't just assume everyone will assume it happened. Nothing like this every happened in those movies. It is pure speculation with absolutely nothing to back it up but your say so.

So, you can't have it both ways. Either we assume these things happen off camera or we don't. Just because the game does not mention Shepard eating or sleeping does not mean it did not happen. The game takes for granted that gamers are smart enough to figure out that we are not actually watching Shepard every second of every day.

Otherwise the entire game took place in 30ish hours and Shepard has not eaten, slept, or gone to the restroom that entire time. He also travels all the way across the galaxy over and over within those 30 hours, car rides across Illium and the Citdel take mere seconds, Donavan Hauk's party had perfect timing, Grunt and Mordin's loyalty missions were a hundred feet outside Urdnot's base, Joker was lying to you when he said it would take about 2 hours to reach the relay, Tali Kissed Shepard and immediately stopped and put her mask back on, Kelly Chambers closed her eyes for a moment and then pretend Shepard had just kept her up all night,Thane spoke with his son in the integration room for about 15 seconds, Chawkwas got drunk in under 3 seconds, etc etc etc....

I can go on and on and on. To say that We spend every second with Shepard is just absurd.  If you can claim that these movies really did do everything Smud said they should, but they just did it off camera, than I can say the same thing about Shepard.

The only problem I have with Smudboy's review is that it is based upon how a good piece of literature should be written.  If this were a book, or a movie, or even a static-universe game (not a role-playing one), then I would have to agree with him.  However, he even says it himself - Shepard is a brick.  He/She is a complete blank slate, and the player is allowed to ascribe their own personality and motives to him/her.  It is at this point I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment above.  If it is something that bothers you about the game, have a little imagination and assume that it happened.

I did exactly this in my game -- I had romanced Garrus and there is a scene where Shep is in the shower.  I likened it to her taking every concern and figuratively "washing" them away, finding complete faith in the team she had built and her decision to die - again - for the good of the galaxy.  It made the speech just before infiltrating the collector base even more poignant when she said that what matters now is not that we come back, but that the collectors are stopped.

So, you have said it perfectly above.  The whole point of the series is to "fill in the blank", and the biggest blank is Shepard.

[111987]

Lanteyah wrote...

I likes Smudboy's analysis. Back when I played ME2 for the first time, somethings stry wise didn't click. Couldldn't put my finger on it, and then Smud made some points that I had in a clearer form. I dont agree with everything he has to say, but he makes some very good points.

Like why we had to go to the shuttle, how Ash/Kaidan got unfrozen, Normandy not attacking the ship while on Horizon, and some people dieing on the suicide mission.

Some people might think it's because he hates the game, but he loves ME1 story wise more than ME2 and so did I.

Maybe this was just me, but I always thought the whole squad getting on the shuttle was because the crew was testing the Reaper IFF. In case there were any complications they didn't want to risk anything happening to the team assembled for the mission so the whole team just left.

Makes sense to me. I mean it's obviously just for gameplay purposes because I think more people would be complaining about losing all but two of your squadmates that you spent the last 20 hours recruiting and making loyal.

[SpiffySquee]

bduff4545 wrote...

hey squee...did you really do a live ME2 broadcast with smudboy

I tried really hard to! I do something called Mass Effect With Friends where every 2 hours I have a different viewer call all the shots. (just to see what we end up with at the end of the saga)
I invited him as a guest and he agreed. We even said that we would just talk about the game and not each others videos. But when the night came he never showed up. Messaged me 3 hours later saying he was busy playing Star Craft 2. (made everyone watching the stream sit there doing nothing while I waited)

Rude? yeah, but I just told it it was fine and to let me know when he wanted to do it so that we could sync up to his schedule. the man never messaged me back.

Would have been nice, but I have a waiting list of people who actually want to take part instead of standing me up for Star craft.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 29 août 2011 - 04:20 .

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

iakus wrote...

It may not be a plot hole, but at the very least it's sloppy writing.

Well, we should at least agree that you have much higher standards for video game writing than I have.  

My only criticism of the criticism of the ME writing is that it seems to go after little stuff that I don't think 99% of people even notice instead of focusing on the real problems with the writing.  Smud's obsession has to be unhealthy.

Almost no one cares where they got the seeker - I can even understand why they wouldn't explain things down to that level of detail in a video game that plays like an 80s space opera - but  everyone cares that the main plot of ME2 ran out of gas 2/3 of the way through the game. Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why the Collectors were doing what they were doing when they were doing it. Were we meant to be left still pondering that?

I think we don't focus on the big stuff because there's too much agreement and there's nothing to argue about.

Let's just say I have a higher standard for Bioware writing.  They were always a cut above the others. Until 2009 at least.

The Seeker, by itself, is not a big deal.  Mainly it's an "oops" moment.  But yes, the overall plot in ME2 felt half-baked.  Less a story in its own right than a checklist for ME3.  That is the big failing in the story.  We don't know what the Collectors' were ultimately planning, why they needed Shepard's body (or how Cerberus managed to ressurect him for that matter), or what Shepard ultimately accomplished in stopping them (though to hear Harbringer describe it, nothing)

Then there's Smudboy's own "what the hell is 'the essence of a species'?" question

ME2:  Killing Time Until the Reapers Get Here