6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Mister Mida]

SpiffySquee wrote...
 I have always admitted that it had it's faults. I simply do not think it is any where near as bad as you say it is. I do not drool over the game, so save your insults for someone who enjoys trading them with you. 

It was never an argument of , "did everyone think the story was perfect" You and several others are saying that the story is broken. That it makes no sense and is horrible writing. The counter was, if the story was as bad as you claim, why are you in the small minority in your opinions? The vast majority of the people who played the game loved it. Mass Effect is a story based game. You might forgive some mistakes story wise and still give it a 9 out of 10. But who is going to give a 9 out of 10 to a game whose story is horrible, when the story is one of the main selling points of the game?

Since reviews cover the whole game (including story), you would have to prove those reviews were made despite the story.

If I had to guess people applaud only a specific part of the story and ignore the rest. They 'drool' over the recruitment and loyalty stuff because that's what most of the game is all about and that's what Bioware wants you to focus on. That was the game's selling point, where the marketing was focused on. The main plot comes looking around the corner on occasion like a casual tv-series tend to do.

[Shepard the Leper]

Someone With Mass wrote...

That doesn't mean the problem isn't there. It could be a matter of time before they slip.

For example: Grunt. He said that he had almost no control over his actions for reasons unknown at the time. That's worth correcting.

Legion: The heretics planned to use a virus against the normal geth. If Legion makes contact with that virus, he'd be turned into one of them.

Jack: She's obsessed with bombing the Teltin facility in an attempt to erase her memories about the experiments, because she's trapped in the past.

Tali: If she's exiled, she becomes severely depressed to the point where she thinks that she won't make it back from the mission.

Don't tell me things like that won't affect their performance.

You can also turn things around. Those who have nothing to live or care for anymore will be less effective fighters since there isn't anything left fighting for

My main gripe with how those LM are presented in ME2 is about the inevitable destruction of the galaxy should the SM result in failure. Why bother about the past without a future?

[Shepard the Leper]

SpiffySquee wrote...

I have always admitted that it had it's faults. I simply do not think it is any where near as bad as you say it is. I do not drool over the game, so save your insults for someone who enjoys trading them with you. 

It was never an argument of , "did everyone think the story was perfect" You and several others are saying that the story is broken. That it makes no sense and is horrible writing. The counter was, if the story was as bad as you claim, why are you in the small minority in your opinions? The vast majority of the people who played the game loved it. Mass Effect is a story based game. You might forgive some mistakes story wise and still give it a 9 out of 10. But who is going to give a 9 out of 10 to a game whose story is horrible, when the story is one of the main selling points of the game?

Since reviews cover the whole game (including story), you would have to prove those reviews were made despite the story.

I love the game ME2. I would give it a very high score, but that doesn't make ME2's story or plot good. On a 1-10 scale I would rate the game at least a 9, but the main story/plot a 2.

When you look at the plot alone, ME2 is a waste of time. Nothing has changed since the end of ME1. The Reapers are coming and Shepard has learned nothing about them, nobody believes Shepard (except a terrorist organization), Shepard hasn't changed a thing in the galaxy etc etc. If ME is about defeating the Reapers then Shepard has accomplished nothing in ME2. It has been a sight-seeing trip around the galaxy - a lot of fun to play (meet the different alien races, blow stuff up, kill mercs etc etc). But what's the point story/plot wise?

[Lotion Soronarr]

SpiffySquee wrote...
It was never an argument of , "did everyone think the story was perfect" You and several others are saying that the story is broken. That it makes no sense and is horrible writing. The counter was, if the story was as bad as you claim, why are you in the small minority in your opinions? The vast majority of the people who played the game loved it. Mass Effect is a story based game. You might forgive some mistakes story wise and still give it a 9 out of 10. But who is going to give a 9 out of 10 to a game whose story is horrible, when the story is one of the main selling points of the game?

Since reviews cover the whole game (including story), you would have to prove those reviews were made despite the story.

If you don't want me to say you drool over a game, then don't over-blow my oppinions either. I didn't say ME2 writing was horribly broken. I said it has a lot of bad writing. With that out of the way....

First of all, you cannot prove "we" are in a minority. As I said  before, liking the game does not automaticly mean you like the story. You cannot prove the results correlate to what you want them to, and you cannot even prove the samples are representative.

Secondly, even if you could prove "we" were in a minority, it changes nothing. Majority does not imply factuality.

As for the third part - yes. I've seen people give ratings to games that have no connection to common sense.
I've seen people who couldn't care less about the story as long as they get to shoot something. I've seen poeple giving 10/10 and 1/10 - both ratings that are logicly unnatainable, and no reviwers who claims reason would ever give such a rating. You can try to use a rating to read thigns that aren't there, but it's pointless.
The story might be the biggest selling point of the game - to you. But that does not apply to everyone.

[Killjoy Cutter]

The story is somewhat better than average for modern popular writing.

What is it about these discussions, that the first thing people go after are the "qualifications" of their opponents. It always becomes a matter of what one guy says the other guy is an ignorant moron about.

And I don't mean saying it about one person after dozens of posts make it clear that they're talking out of their butts, I mean saying it about anyone as soon as they disagree with you.

We're nominally trying to discuss the writing and story of ME2, and for some reason we have people calling each other ignorant of valid polling methodology and interpretation, and arguing about whether or not 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

Effing rediculous.

[Lotion Soronarr]

???

[Bourne Endeavor]

Arkitekt wrote...

Really, what can I say about this comment of yours other than the obvious fact that you have never experienced lack of focus on your profession due to personal issues? Because the annoying simplistic notion that you are expressing about how the brain works is really irritating. When you are lacking focus, you won't sleep just as well. You are slightly more tired. Your reactions are a bit slower. You think slower. You don't even notice these differences until someone else tells you so.

The side missions are, obviously, not "suicidal", at least canonically.

No, because I deal with my personal issues with relative haste, not dwell over events I cannot change, and those I can, I do precisely that. My outlook is quite pragmatic, which is understandably uncommon in today's society. You later refute a sports comparison when these two scenario are immensely different. A soldier in the midst of gunfire will not drift off into thoughts of revenge, at least not a professional. Garrus is focused on the mission, his adrenaline would be surging, his eyes sharp for any hostile target, knowing that the slightest misstep could not only endanger the mission but get him killed. If revenge against Sidonis was of the utmost importance, then use that as a motivator to survive and inflict justice on him.

Samara is particularly odd because we are told she has been searching for Morinth for four hundred years. In fact, she even fought against Nihlis. Evidently, Morinth did not cause her issues there or on any other mission, otherwise there would be a high probability something would have killed her by now.

We have even more egregious examples with many of the others. Miranda is a pragmatist, who put logic ahead of emotion in most cases. Miranda has been championing the mission from the onset while Mordin rationalizes everything in minutes and like Miranda, is a pragmatist. Maelon betrayal did not bother him, despite it just happening. He "dealt with it." Jacob explicitly says he has dealt with his father and is indifferent about investigating to begin with. Grunt wants to kill things... so what, he is distracted by a heightened desire for death?

They might not be suicidal canonically, but that does not alter the fact they can still die. If one's focus slips so easily while there is a lull in gunfire, then they would be dead.

Obviously, Garrus lead wasn't fast enough to give the tech expert enough coverage for his job. Most of the times, your lack of focus will be detrimental to others.

Garrus' missing his target is not lack of leadership, he just missed. It could be for any number of reasons, none necessarily pertaining to him thinking about Sidonis. Frankly, if he was during this moment, then he's a moron and should never be trusted to lead a squad out of a paper bag, let alone in a combat situation. In this instance, he would be getting shot at and his mind would be focused on his enemies and getting his squad through, nothing else.

Like I said, Tech Expert dies because the door jams and they poke their head out. That can more easily be attributed to plain ol' bad luck. When Tali is hacking the door, her focus would be on that specific task. For a real life comparison, if I am doing coding work, my mind is focused on writing the code to set up the website, not on a fight I had with a family member weeks ago. I'll go you one better, even if my mother was in the hospital. I'm focused on my job, and I would not have the added pressure of knowing my failure results in death.

This would be different if I just found out while working but that isn't the case in ME2. Tali already knew about the Trial for quite a while from when the Suicide Mission takes place.

I've explained this already, and also, obviously, the reason why more comrades aren't put on the screen while you are fighting is due to the limitations of the engine. Bioware would be the first ones to want to put more crewmates fighting alongside you there.

You assumed I wanted more characters on the screen at once. There could be a scene where Samara begins to struggle, so Miranda takes over for her and Samara replaces her in your active roster. The only requirement technically is a few seconds of a cut-scene.

I don't get your point. Miranda can be killed by not being focused. 

I was referencing to when she leads the second fire squad. She will survive regardless of loyalty, thereby contradicting the focus argument. It didn't distract her, so why can't Garrus not think about Sidonis? Suppose, Miranda is just a much better leader. Furthermore, her lack of focus never gets her killed, falling debris does. Unless you believe she would drift off while getting shot at. Remember, she can only die in Hold the Line or after the Reaper battle

SpiffySquee wrote...

Would Garrus think about revenge while bullets are flying? Probably not. The problem is that a lot of you are assuming that the bullets are flying the whole time. That is not the case in a mission. [The problem is, what is he thinking about when they are just walking down the collector hall, or when he is standing there waiting for Shep to decide what to do. Is he focused on his surroundings, or is his mind drifting? Is it possible he missed seeing that collector 20 ft away because he was thinking about other things? In the army, every one in a leadership position receives training on the mental preparedness of their men. Even the best trained soldiers in the world have trouble putting serious personal issues aside. There mind has to stay focused for the entire mission, not just when bullets are flying.

While I have already addressed the majority, the bold portion is where I have to say, "What about Hold the Line?" This particular part is where most of the characters will die. The whole sequence involves them being under a hail of endless gunfire. Do you actually believe they might ponder about revenge, puberty or whatever at this moment? Their only focus would be on return fire and staying alive.

Ultimately, this is hardly a large issue but one that simply could have been better implemented. iakus' post a few pages back offered a good idea in that direction.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 22 septembre 2011 - 01:18 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Phaelducan wrote...

Just to throw this out there, and definitely not trying to spin this into philosophical meanderings... but a recurring theme from Sun Tzu has to do with mental preparedness. Knowing your own self, the enemy, things like that. I think it's certainly plausible, and his both historical and military precedent to hold to the idea that your soldiers are best when their minds are clear and focused.

Just for reference sake, and because I happen to be a big Sun Tzu buff. 

That quote would be...

“Know thy enemy and know thy self. Found naught to fear in a hundred battles.
Know not thy enemy but know thy self. Find victory and defeat in equal measure.
Know thy enemy, but not thy self. Find defeat in every battle.”

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 22 septembre 2011 - 01:21 .

[Notlikeyoucare]

See even if people wanted to argue and say Garrus, Samara ect. could have slipped up at any moment and that the suicide misson happend to be that moment. How ****ing convenient is it that they ALL slip up at the SAME time? More than anything it just seems a little too convenient that EVERY. SINGLE. badass just happens to have a problem that pops up right before the suicide mission.

1800-articificallyextendthelengthofthegame.

[Iakus]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Because it is a game. I'm not saying they did everything right. I am simply saying that the idea that Shep would want to solve these issues before the SM is believable. 

It's believable, but taken to an extreme, which I think really hurt the story.

Take Garrus' mission.  It's a decent mission.  IT has almost nothing to do with the main story, not a Collector plot in sight.  But good in its own right.

Now do Jack's mission.  Again, good mission, some background on Cerberus.  But it has nothing to do with the main story.  

Now Thane's mission.  Good one. One of the few that has no combat in it.  But again, not connected to the Collectors, the Suicide Mission, or even other characters.  It's just hanging out there on its own.

Repeat with the others.  Recruitment and personal missions.  None are connected with each other.  None deal at all with the Suicide Mission.  They're well done, even if the third squaddie is given nothing to do.  But this leaves Shepard literally going off in a dozen different directions rather than preparing for an incredibly dangerous mission.  Each character gets a seperate, unrelated story while upgrading the Normandy's weapons requires nothing more than gathering 15000 platinum and hitting "research"?  WTF?

This I believe is what Smudboy means when he says that despite ME2 having a bunch of good charcters "they're in the wrong story"

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

It's the exact ****ing same ****. What the hell do you even know about "combat situation"?

You do realsie there's quite a few poeple on BSN who are soldiers, right?

I don't even need his answer to know if he is one.

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Point is, the story gives little justification as to why we're actually gathering half the people we do.

They are good. That's justification enough.

To you? Probably. But then again, your standards seem exceptionally low.

You have no idea how low. I mean, here I am responding to you.

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



???

Ok, so now Soronnar's point is that Elvis was pretty bad singer. roflmao

[FlyinElk212]

I think Smudboy gets a little bit of a bad rap for his series analysis vids. There IS a lot of truth to what he's saying, it's just that his tone can be a bit off-putting (heck though, if it wasn't, would ANYONE pay attention to his videos?). What's worse is that, at times, I agree with what he's saying, but I believe he's highlighting the wrong things to back up his points.

For example, Shepard dying at the beginning of the story. He states, "One does not kill off a protagonist in the beginning of a second story of a trilogy", then goes on to explain what other Sci-Fi stories have done in death scenarios. Really, the problem isn't that Shepard is killed in the beginning of the story--heck any writer can have any character killed ANYWHERE in the story, provided the death of the character impacts the story and overarching plot in a significant matter.

THERE is where the problem lies. Shepard's death in Mass Effect 2 is meaningless because it literally adds nothing to the story. No characters truly question how Shepard came back from the brink of death, everyone too readily believes that Shepard is Shepard, and some scenarios that should address Shepard's death simply doesn't. It's as if Shepard's death didn't even really happen, and if that's the case, then what's the point of having him die in the first place? Characters more often question Shepard for his alignment with Cerberus, NOT whether or not he could truly still be alive. If that's the characters-against-Shepard's motivation, then couldn't Shepard have just as easily been in a huge coma? Why a death?

And back to my main point-- Smudboy's right, in that Shepard shouldn't have died in the beginning of the game. He just didn't properly address why in his first vid. Sadly, he DOES believe in my aforementioned statement about the death (as evidenced by his response to Squee's counterargument, where he says almost exactly what I've explained in this post). Just his off-putting attitude and sometimes incorrect focus on backing up his main points lead to many people dismissing him and hating him.

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 22 septembre 2011 - 01:47 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

SpiffySquee wrote...
It was never an argument of , "did everyone think the story was perfect" You and several others are saying that the story is broken. That it makes no sense and is horrible writing. The counter was, if the story was as bad as you claim, why are you in the small minority in your opinions? The vast majority of the people who played the game loved it. Mass Effect is a story based game. You might forgive some mistakes story wise and still give it a 9 out of 10. But who is going to give a 9 out of 10 to a game whose story is horrible, when the story is one of the main selling points of the game?

Since reviews cover the whole game (including story), you would have to prove those reviews were made despite the story.

Because all those reviews are looking at from a larger perspective. ME2's main plot is pretty small and all the loyalty missions (who are well done) fills out the majority of the game. That is not accounting for voice acting preformance, soundtrack, gameplay, animations and dialog.

[Arkitekt]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

No, because I deal with my personal issues with relative haste, not dwell over events I cannot change, and those I can, I do precisely that. My outlook is quite pragmatic, which is understandably uncommon in today's society. You later refute a sports comparison when these two scenario are immensely different. A soldier in the midst of gunfire will not drift off into thoughts of revenge, at least not a professional. Garrus is focused on the mission, his adrenaline would be surging, his eyes sharp for any hostile target, knowing that the slightest misstep could not only endanger the mission but get him killed. If revenge against Sidonis was of the utmost importance, then use that as a motivator to survive and inflict justice on him.

Your outlook? Who cares about your outlook? This song ain't about you mr. Bourne. And people still do not understand what "focus" is all about. Lack of Focus is not about you dreaming away with other stuff while you are fighting. Lack of Focus is spending too much time before combat thinking on secondary things, and being unprepared for the fight. Is being a little too slow, a little less capable of reaction. There is no conscious mechanism here in place.

Samara is particularly odd because we are told she has been searching for Morinth for four hundred years. In fact, she even fought against Nihlis. Evidently, Morinth did not cause her issues there or on any other mission, otherwise there would be a high probability something would have killed her by now.

Please teach us the statistics.

We have even more egregious examples with many of the others. Miranda is a pragmatist, who put logic ahead of emotion in most cases.

Evidently, there is a very good exception here. And you know it. So why the red herring? Why indeed?

Grunt wants to kill things... so what, he is distracted by a heightened desire for death?

He doesn't trust himself. He doesn't know what is going on with him. FFS am I supposed to teach you mass effect lore now? Educate yourself!

Garrus' missing his target is not lack of leadership, he just missed. It could be for any number of reasons, none necessarily pertaining to him thinking about Sidonis. Frankly, if he was during this moment, then he's a moron and should never be trusted to lead a squad out of a paper bag, let alone in a combat situation. In this instance, he would be getting shot at and his mind would be focused on his enemies and getting his squad through, nothing else.

Again, you misundersand "lack of focus" with simplistic ideas about it. I won't debate that strawman.

Like I said, Tech Expert dies because the door jams and they poke their head out. That can more easily be attributed to plain ol' bad luck. When Tali is hacking the door, her focus would be on that specific task. For a real life comparison, if I am doing coding work, my mind is focused on writing the code to set up the website, not on a fight I had with a family member weeks ago. I'll go you one better, even if my mother was in the hospital. I'm focused on my job, and I would not have the added pressure of knowing my failure results in death.

OF course that in "real life", it would be depicted as "bad luck". Mass Effect isn't real life, since we can replay every single moment. And by doing so, we get to understand that their death can be attributable to lack of focus! Not on real life.

You assumed I wanted more characters on the screen at once. There could be a scene where Samara begins to struggle, so Miranda takes over for her and Samara replaces her in your active roster. The only requirement technically is a few seconds of a cut-scene.

This would require a lot of if-thens, possible scenarios, etc. Miranda could be, for instance, occupied with the other force. Anyways, it would be a different game. Hindsight is easy.

I was referencing to when she leads the second fire squad. She will survive regardless of loyalty, thereby contradicting the focus argument. It didn't distract her, so why can't Garrus not think about Sidonis? Suppose, Miranda is just a much better leader. Furthermore, her lack of focus never gets her killed, falling debris does. Unless you believe she would drift off while getting shot at. Remember, she can only die in Hold the Line or after the Reaper battle

Now we are discussing the hairs 100200 and 100201 from someone's head. It's laughable.

[Sajuro]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's not Sheps job to baby sit. The ship has a councilor (Kelly) for a reason.

Not to mention that some cases are excusable (like Miranda, Thane and Jacob), while others (like Jack) aren't.

If you read the post above you, or knew anything about leadership positions, it is the leader's job to make sure everyone is in top shape and not just to boss them around.
Though I must ask why you consider Jack's mission or trauma/lack of focus to be inexcusable.

[Il Divo]

Sajuro wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's not Sheps job to baby sit. The ship has a councilor (Kelly) for a reason.

Not to mention that some cases are excusable (like Miranda, Thane and Jacob), while others (like Jack) aren't.

If you read the post above you, or knew anything about leadership positions, it is the leader's job to make sure everyone is in top shape and not just to boss them around.
Though I must ask why you consider Jack's mission or trauma/lack of focus to be inexcusable.

I'm just curious how we can arbitrarily decide what characters have enough "cause" to be distracted vs. others, especially considering that most characters have some unresolved issue to be dealt with.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Miranda's plot armor is a different issue.

[Sajuro]

Il Divo wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's not Sheps job to baby sit. The ship has a councilor (Kelly) for a reason.

Not to mention that some cases are excusable (like Miranda, Thane and Jacob), while others (like Jack) aren't.

If you read the post above you, or knew anything about leadership positions, it is the leader's job to make sure everyone is in top shape and not just to boss them around.
Though I must ask why you consider Jack's mission or trauma/lack of focus to be inexcusable.

I'm just curious how we can arbitrarily decide what characters have enough "cause" to be distracted vs. others, especially considering that most characters have some unresolved issue to be dealt with.

based on whether we like them or not

[Killjoy Cutter]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

For a real life comparison, if I am doing coding work, my mind is focused on writing the code to set up the website, not on a fight I had with a family member weeks ago. I'll go you one better, even if my mother was in the hospital.

Congrats, you're an effing machine.  Bully for you. 

[unfringed]

At times he makes very good points, at times he's overly pedantic. Don't see why this deserves over 200 pages, are fanboys really so sensitive to criticism of some of the plot holes in Mass Effect?

[111987]

unfringed wrote...

At times he makes very good points, at times he's overly pedantic. Don't see why this deserves over 200 pages, are fanboys really so sensitive to criticism of some of the plot holes in Mass Effect?

The VAST majority of the the posts are a discussion/debate about the problems/plot holes/inconsistencies of ME2, and whether or not they really are those things. The videos and smudboy are the basis of the debate...but truly, they are largely irrelevant to the discussion itself beyond providing topics for discussion.

[eye basher]

The thing is i don't let other people opinions dictate what i will or will not like so why waste my time with this guy now a days anybody can drop a few lines in a video and call themselves a reviewer sorry but i don't listen to the people at IGN why would i listen to anything this guy has to say.

[111987]

eye basher wrote...

The thing is i don't let other people opinions dictate what i will or will not like so why waste my time with this guy now a days anybody can drop a few lines in a video and call themselves a reviewer sorry but i don't listen to the people at IGN why would i listen to anything this guy has to say.

True. I personally post here to defend ME2 against petty/false criticisms (in my opinion), not because I'm trying to justify liking the game.

Although to be honest...I'm not sure why this thread hasn't been locked by now, or at least moved. It really has nothing to do with ME3, besides one video about ME3's marketing so far.