6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

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?

Never mind that about half the posts about Smudboy are people not reading the thread, and just drive-by posting some comment about how long a thread "about" Smudboy is. 

[100k]

FlyinElk212 wrote...
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.

While I respect both you and Smudboy on this matter, I disagree. Shepard's death could've been just as powerful where it is in the story as it could've been anywhere else -- provided that it be fleshed out.

-His death comes as a slight shock, because its so early in the story and unconventional.

-A simple "Two Years Later" on the screen easily emphasizes all of the time of two years passing, thus explaining the galactic wide technology jumps and switches.

-Maybe a short montage of Shepard's LI and team standing over an empty coffin would show how these people felt about Shepard. 

-An explaination of Shepard being stuck in a escape pod or Mako explains how Shepard remained intact enough to be salvagable.

-His resurrection should've come off as disturbing or frightening, akin to a child first being brought into the world.
 
-An explaination of the non-organic Prothean Cipher maintaining Shepard's personality and memories solves the issue brain matter and cellular degredation.

-A story spanning subplot about how Shepard feels about dying instantly justifies every action Shepard makes throughout the game-- no matter the choice on the matter that a player makes-- even detached choices. Maybe three or four conversations on the matter spread throughout the game -- concluding before the SM -- could've handled this.

-Instead of Anderson saying "Shepard! Welcome back to the land of the living!", something more like "My god...so the rumors are true...you're alive...welcome back, Shepard." shows how resurrection from death means something to Anderson. Something similar for TIM and VS could've been good as well. As it stands (and I think we agree on this) everybody treats Shepard's absense as little more than a minor inconvenience akin to Shepard being mildly ill in the hospital. 

Right there death means something incredible -- because it is uniquely followed (in this case) by life. I encourage all of you to watch RoboCop if you haven't already seen it. That movie tackles death and life brilliantly, while still being action heavy and funny.

[unfringed]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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?

Never mind that about half the posts about Smudboy are people not reading the thread, and just drive-by posting some comment about how long a thread "about" Smudboy is. 

Glad to see that half the posters are thinking clearly.

[Someone With Mass]

I don't need the game to teach me any lectures about death. I can live without those sappy moments. In fact, I'd almost see them as an insult to people who actually have experienced the loss of others, but without the over the top and disgustingly sappy drama.

Besides, this is how Shepard experienced it:

The Normandy explodes and the next moment, he wakes up on an operating table two years later. That's it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

I think both sides are missing the reasonable middle ground on the death issue. The game as-is turns it into a setup for punchlines and an afterthought. Some people, the titular nob of this thread included, seem to want to turn it into a work of lit fic full of navel-gazing and endless wailing and nashing of teeth.

[Killjoy Cutter]

unfringed wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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?

Never mind that about half the posts about Smudboy are people not reading the thread, and just drive-by posting some comment about how long a thread "about" Smudboy is. 

Glad to see that half the posters are thinking clearly.

Yeah, the half that took the time to realize that 90% or more of the thread isn't about Smudboy or his videos at all. 

But hey, making sweeping statements about things you know nothing about is the new black, right? 

[100k]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I don't need the game to teach me any lectures about death. I can live without those sappy moments. In fact, I'd almost see them as an insult to people who actually have experienced the loss of others, but without the over the top and disgustingly sappy drama.

Besides, this is how Shepard experienced it:

The Normandy explodes and the next moment, he wakes up on an operating table two years later. That's it.

Sounds like you'd like the "detached" options for conversation then, which is also fine. But for the rest of us who want a tad more humanity squeezed into the protagonist, they'd use the other options.

And sappy moments doesn't really work for your argument, considering that Shepard can have "sappy" romances with his LIs, "sappy" moments during LMs, and "sappy" moments with both Liara and Jacob (including "Surivors guilt" with Jacob ;-).

But we've already discussed this, you and I, and I got the impression that no matter what facts I quote from the game you're just going to disagree wtih me for the sake of it. 

[unfringed]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

unfringed wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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?

Never mind that about half the posts about Smudboy are people not reading the thread, and just drive-by posting some comment about how long a thread "about" Smudboy is. 

Glad to see that half the posters are thinking clearly.

Yeah, the half that took the time to realize that 90% or more of the thread isn't about Smudboy or his videos at all. 

But hey, making sweeping statements about things you know nothing about is the new black, right? 

Might want to check that math, bro.

[FlyinElk212]

100k wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...
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.

While I respect both you and Smudboy on this matter, I disagree. Shepard's death could've been just as powerful where it is in the story as it could've been anywhere else -- provided that it be fleshed out.
...
...

Right there death means something incredible -- because it is uniquely followed (in this case) by life. I encourage all of you to watch RoboCop if you haven't already seen it. That movie tackles death and life brilliantly, while still being action heavy and funny.

Haha! Points for incorporating RoboCop in a Mass Effect forum!

Thanks for the reply--I agree that Shepard's death could've been powerful anywhere in the story. In fact, I'm all for killing him off in the beginning! I think, however, our viewpoints on why the death could be impactful anywhere is drastically different. You're looking at it from an emotional, character developing angle, whereas I'm looking at it from a logical, plot developing angle.

For example, say instead of Shepard instantly being forced to work w/ Cerberus, he's given a chance to try and convince the Council/Alliance to work with him in the fight against the Collectors. He goes to the Citadel to plead his case, but NO ONE believes him because all records indicate that Commander Shepard is dead. They label Shepard an imposter, and refuse to help him because in their minds, he CAN'T be the real Shepard, and to their knowledge, resurrection is impossible.

This would give Shepard's death vaildity. Viewers would be able to instantly see, "Ah, okay. Shepard's death is a rate-limiting factor. Because Shepard died (plot point A), he can no longer work with his previous allies due to mistrust (plot point ." Suddenly, the death becomes an important part of the plot because it forces us, Shepard, to align with our previous enemies, as they're now our only option.

However, in the game, it's not the DEATH that gets people to mistrust Shepard...it's his alignment with Cerberus. If the death itself does not cause any new directions in the plot, or change motivations of characters within the plot, then the death is just fluff; an event that doesn't uniquely serve a purpose in the over-arching story. Shepard could've been in a coma for 2 years and you could still apply all the examples you mentioned in your post for fleshing it out.

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 22 septembre 2011 - 04:22 .

[Phaelducan]

100k wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...
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.

While I respect both you and Smudboy on this matter, I disagree. Shepard's death could've been just as powerful where it is in the story as it could've been anywhere else -- provided that it be fleshed out.

-His death comes as a slight shock, because its so early in the story and unconventional.

-A simple "Two Years Later" on the screen easily emphasizes all of the time of two years passing, thus explaining the galactic wide technology jumps and switches.

-Maybe a short montage of Shepard's LI and team standing over an empty coffin would show how these people felt about Shepard. 

-An explaination of Shepard being stuck in a escape pod or Mako explains how Shepard remained intact enough to be salvagable.

-His resurrection should've come off as disturbing or frightening, akin to a child first being brought into the world.
 
-An explaination of the non-organic Prothean Cipher maintaining Shepard's personality and memories solves the issue brain matter and cellular degredation.

-A story spanning subplot about how Shepard feels about dying instantly justifies every action Shepard makes throughout the game-- no matter the choice on the matter that a player makes-- even detached choices. Maybe three or four conversations on the matter spread throughout the game -- concluding before the SM -- could've handled this.

-Instead of Anderson saying "Shepard! Welcome back to the land of the living!", something more like "My god...so the rumors are true...you're alive...welcome back, Shepard." shows how resurrection from death means something to Anderson. Something similar for TIM and VS could've been good as well. As it stands (and I think we agree on this) everybody treats Shepard's absense as little more than a minor inconvenience akin to Shepard being mildly ill in the hospital. 

Right there death means something incredible -- because it is uniquely followed (in this case) by life. I encourage all of you to watch RoboCop if you haven't already seen it. That movie tackles death and life brilliantly, while still being action heavy and funny.

FWIW I think this post is largely representative of the actual debate on this thread. Not just about Shep's death but other issues as well.

Your point basically appears to be that you think this particular aspect of the game could have been handled better. I think that is a fair point.

I also think there is a pronounced difference between saying something could have potentially been better, and saying that it was bad and hurts the game. 

I would label ME2 as one of the best games of 2010, and had relatively few complaints about it. However, there are assuredly some things about the game I would have liked to have been somewhat different. I don't think it's odd for anyone to wish some things had been different, even about some of their favorite games of all time. Hell I loved Chrono Trigger, and would probably label it as close to a perfect game as any other 16-bit title, but I thought some of the characters were lame and some of the dungeons were irritating.

The point isn't that the game could have been better (they always can), the point is that the game was really good. Bioware is aware of a lot of the criticisms of their games, and I trust that ME3 will address most of the major ones. I also think that a lot of the criticism about the story of ME2 is way overblown and patently subjective.

The evidence we have for product approval is staggering in this day and age. ME2 killed it. KILLED it, and the evidence we have for it's disapproval is minute. I won't bring stats in again, because the foolio's that don't get it never will, and I'm tired of wasting my breath, so instead I'll just compare the two sides of the scale with no numbers. The criticism is far outweighed by the praise (and said praise does include story, not always the main point, but usually mentioned positively in journalistic reviews).

We can point to thousands of positive feedback examples. Concrete, actual examples of positive feedback in the range of the 90% percentile. Conversely? Maybe 100 different users on the BSN with a bone to pick.

This has gone on way too long, but I would ask that all the detractors (except Lotion, because he's a lost cause), from Smudboy on down take a serious step back and ask themselves how much of their criticism is about the game... and how much is about their own expectations and interpretations of what a perfect game is "supposed" to be.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 22 septembre 2011 - 04:24 .

[100k]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

100k wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...
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.

While I respect both you and Smudboy on this matter, I disagree. Shepard's death could've been just as powerful where it is in the story as it could've been anywhere else -- provided that it be fleshed out.
...
...

Right there death means something incredible -- because it is uniquely followed (in this case) by life. I encourage all of you to watch RoboCop if you haven't already seen it. That movie tackles death and life brilliantly, while still being action heavy and funny.

Haha! Points for incorporating RoboCop in a Mass Effect forum!

Thanks for the reply--I agree that Shepard's death could've been powerful anywhere in the story. In fact, I'm all for killing him off in the beginning! I think, however, our viewpoints on why the death could be impactful anywhere is drastically different. You're looking at it from an emotional, character developing angle, whereas I'm looking at it from a logical, plot developing angle.

For example, say instead of Shepard instantly being forced to work w/ Cerberus, he's given a chance to try and convince the Council/Alliance to work with him in the fight against the Collectors. He goes to the Citadel to plead his case, but NO ONE believes him because all records indicate that Commander Shepard is dead. They label Shepard an imposter, and refuse to help him because in their minds, he CAN'T be the real Shepard, and to their knowledge, resurrection is impossible.

This would give Shepard's death vaildity. Viewers would be able to instantly see, "Ah, okay. Shepard's death is a rate-limiting factor. Because Shepard died (plot point A), he can no longer work with his previous allies due to mistrust (plot point ." Suddenly, the death becomes an important part of the plot because it forces us, Shepard, to align with our previous enemies, as they're now our only option.

However, in the game, it's not the DEATH that gets people to mistrust Shepard...it's his alignment with Cerberus. If the death itself does not cause any new directions or motivations of characters within in the plot, then it is literally just fluff; an event that doesn't uniquely serve a purpose. Shepard could've been in a coma for 2 years and you could still apply all the examples you mentioned above for fleshing it out.

Ahhhh! Now I understand. Yes, I see the value of his deathbeing more valuable to the plot, now. You've given me a lot to think about.
:happy:

Modifié par 100k, 22 septembre 2011 - 04:33 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

unfringed wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

unfringed wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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?

Never mind that about half the posts about Smudboy are people not reading the thread, and just drive-by posting some comment about how long a thread "about" Smudboy is. 

Glad to see that half the posters are thinking clearly.

Yeah, the half that took the time to realize that 90% or more of the thread isn't about Smudboy or his videos at all. 

But hey, making sweeping statements about things you know nothing about is the new black, right? 

Might want to check that math, bro.

'Bro" used in internet post, troll odds spike to 100%.

Get back under your bridge.

[unfringed]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

unfringed wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

unfringed wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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?

Never mind that about half the posts about Smudboy are people not reading the thread, and just drive-by posting some comment about how long a thread "about" Smudboy is. 

Glad to see that half the posters are thinking clearly.

Yeah, the half that took the time to realize that 90% or more of the thread isn't about Smudboy or his videos at all. 

But hey, making sweeping statements about things you know nothing about is the new black, right? 

Might want to check that math, bro.

'Bro" used in internet post, troll odds spike to 100%.

Get back under your bridge.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

BRO

[FlyinElk212]

Phaelducan wrote...

FWIW I think this post is largely representative of the actual debate on this thread. Not just about Shep's death but other issues as well.

Your point basically appears to be that you think this particular aspect of the game could have been handled better. I think that is a fair point.

I also think there is a pronounced difference between saying something could have potentially been better, and saying that it was bad and hurts the game. 

...

This has gone on way too long, but I would ask that all the detractors (except Lotion, because he's a lost cause), from Smudboy on down take a serious step back and ask themselves how much of their criticism is about the game... and how much is about their own expectations and interpretations of what a perfect game is "supposed" to be.

Great point man. A lot of the debate comes from a disconnect in the perception of "what we think is a good Mass Effect 2 story" over "what we think is a good story". That being said, I really think Smudboy's trying to highlight the objective flaws within Mass Effect 2's story, but his message gets contorted in his personality and portrayal of said flaws.

I don't agree with Smudboy on his points involving the overall game itself, but the man is right about several points involving Mass Effect 2's story. While we perceive Mass Effect 2 as a great story, there are several flaws in its overall narrative that a writer can point to. It's overarching plot is weak at points and has loose ends that lead nowhere. Nevermind that it is a thrilling experience that I personally enjoyed. Stepping back and looking at it analytically, with all our love and hate for the series aside, one can see the flaws Mass Effect 2's story has.

[Bourne Endeavor]

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...

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.[/quote]

Never said anyone did, nor this was about me, nice assumption though. I merely gave a comparison. So while Garrus is arming himself for the most dangerous mission of his life, he is going to drift off into thoughts of revenge? Yes, it could happen. They have several hours to kill before their arrival. Would it distract him? No. Once the mission began, he would be focused on that. His reactionary time is not going to abruptly slow down simply because he thought of revenge and if it did, he has no business leading, ever.

[quote]Please teach us the statistics.[/quote]

So you have no response. Good to know.

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

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

Yeah there is, you have no response. It also applies to Mordin and arguably Samara.

[quote]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![/quote]

And once the mission begins he is back to killing. His puberty is not going to be an issue. In fact, he even says he will control it. Excellent, he is dealing with it himself.

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

No, you seem to presume a soldier will have a sudden loss of focus for thinking about revenge a couple hours earlier than the most dangerous mission in their life, and this in turn will get them killed. It isn't a strawman.

[quote]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.[/quote]

So your argument is, "It's a game"? That's not a retort, so much as an excuse. I admitted understanding why they went this route and that was never a big issue, just one that could have been done better.


[quote]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.[/quote]

Great, use Jack/Thane/Jacob. We have plenty of options. The only requirement was a minor cut-scene addition. Like I said before, not a big issue, just acknowledging it.

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

What? All I said was if it worked for Miranda, it can work for Garrus, and that her "lack of focus" is never the reason she dies. Of course, the plot needed Miranda a little longer so she gets a pass.

At this point, we are best to simply agree to disagree because you and I will ever see eye to eye.

[quote]Killjoy Cutter wrote...

[quote]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.
[/quote]

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

[/quote]

Why, because I don't allow things to bother or distract me every waking second? Using that example, if I already knew about the unfortunate circumstances for weeks. It will not weigh on my mind every day, nor while I have work to do. My worrying won't change anything, so I don't worry, just think positive. If I just found out that day, even that week, well that is a different scenario.

If it's a fight with family? Whatever, I'll have stopped caring within the hour, and I certainly won't think about it while on the job.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 22 septembre 2011 - 04:38 .

[Phaelducan]

Flaws are something that are often subjective. Think about Twain, or Salinger, or Steinbeck... some of the most critically successful books of all time are both exalted and demonized by various groups.

No, I'm not comparing Mac Walters to Herman Melville (sorry Mac, no offense), but the point is fair. Were there things about ME2's story that I would personally change? Yes, in fact I hated almost everything about Jack, and would just assume she wasn't in the game. Do I think my opinion should affect the actual game? No, because a lot of people really liked Subject 0.

That's the whole point, it's subjective. I can't prove that Jack sucks any more than anyone else can prove that Shepard's death doesn't make sense.

Almost all of these points are completely subjective, which is fine and always worthy of debate, but with the caveat that they ARE subjective. As long as both sides could admit that (again, looking at you Lotion) then this debate would be far more productive.

[FlyinElk212]

100k wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Haha! Points for incorporating RoboCop in a Mass Effect forum!

Thanks for the reply--I agree that Shepard's death could've been powerful anywhere in the story. In fact, I'm all for killing him off in the beginning! I think, however, our viewpoints on why the death could be impactful anywhere is drastically different. You're looking at it from an emotional, character developing angle, whereas I'm looking at it from a logical, plot developing angle.

For example, say instead of Shepard instantly being forced to work w/ Cerberus, he's given a chance to try and convince the Council/Alliance to work with him in the fight against the Collectors. He goes to the Citadel to plead his case, but NO ONE believes him because all records indicate that Commander Shepard is dead. They label Shepard an imposter, and refuse to help him because in their minds, he CAN'T be the real Shepard, and to their knowledge, resurrection is impossible.

This would give Shepard's death vaildity. Viewers would be able to instantly see, "Ah, okay. Shepard's death is a rate-limiting factor. Because Shepard died (plot point A), he can no longer work with his previous allies due to mistrust (plot point ." Suddenly, the death becomes an important part of the plot because it forces us, Shepard, to align with our previous enemies, as they're now our only option.

However, in the game, it's not the DEATH that gets people to mistrust Shepard...it's his alignment with Cerberus. If the death itself does not cause any new directions or motivations of characters within in the plot, then it is literally just fluff; an event that doesn't uniquely serve a purpose. Shepard could've been in a coma for 2 years and you could still apply all the examples you mentioned above for fleshing it out.

Ahhhh! Now I understand. Yes, I see the value of his deathbeing more valuable to the plot, now. You've given me a lot to think about.
:happy:

Anytime, man. You've given me a lot to think about as well. It's cool/kinda shocking to see someone like you in a forum like this.

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 22 septembre 2011 - 04:42 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

FWIW I think this post is largely representative of the actual debate on this thread. Not just about Shep's death but other issues as well.

Your point basically appears to be that you think this particular aspect of the game could have been handled better. I think that is a fair point.

I also think there is a pronounced difference between saying something could have potentially been better, and saying that it was bad and hurts the game. 

...

This has gone on way too long, but I would ask that all the detractors (except Lotion, because he's a lost cause), from Smudboy on down take a serious step back and ask themselves how much of their criticism is about the game... and how much is about their own expectations and interpretations of what a perfect game is "supposed" to be.

Great point man. A lot of the debate comes from a disconnect in the perception of "what we think is a good Mass Effect 2 story" over "what we think is a good story". That being said, I really think Smudboy's trying to highlight the objective flaws within Mass Effect 2's story, but his message gets contorted in his personality and portrayal of said flaws.

I don't agree with Smudboy on his points involving the overall game itself, but the man is right about several points involving Mass Effect 2's story. While we perceive Mass Effect 2 as a great story, there are several flaws in its overall narrative that a writer can point to. It's overarching plot is weak at points and has loose ends that lead nowhere. Nevermind that it is a thrilling experience that I personally enjoyed. Stepping back and looking at it analytically, with all our love and hate for the series aside, one can see the flaws Mass Effect 2's story has.

This is a very solid outlook, and one I agree with wholeheartedly. To further add, I do not believe anyone in this thread actually hates ME2, quite the contrary in fact. Some merely argue the flaws more strongly than others. Smudboy doomed himself to negative backlash when he cited ME2, "the worst sequel in gaming." Even if you argue it not being a good sequel, that statement is largely inaccurate.

[111987]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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. 

Why, because I don't allow things to bother or distract me every waking second? Using that example, if I already knew about the unfortunate circumstances for weeks. It will not weigh on my mind every day, nor while I have work to do. My worrying won't change anything, so I don't worry, just think positive. If I just found out that day, even that week, well that is a different scenario.

If it's a fight with family? Whatever, I'll have stopped caring within the hour, and I certainly won't think about it while on the job.

A fight with a family is very different than the issues the Shepard's squad had to deal with...they aren't equivalent experiences.

[Phaelducan]

[quote]Bourne Endeavor wrote...

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...

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.[/quote]

Never said anyone did, nor this was about me, nice assumption though. I merely gave a comparison. So while Garrus is arming himself for the most dangerous mission of his life, he is going to drift off into thoughts of revenge? Yes, it could happen. They have several hours to kill before their arrival. Would it distract him? No. Once the mission began, he would be focused on that. His reactionary time is not going to abruptly slow down simply because he thought of revenge and if it did, he has no business leading, ever.

[quote]Please teach us the statistics.[/quote]

So you have no response. Good to know.

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

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

Yeah there is, you have no response. It also applies to Mordin and arguably Samara.

[quote]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![/quote]

And once the mission begins he is back to killing. His puberty is not going to be an issue. In fact, he even says he will control it. Excellent, he is dealing with it himself.

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

No, you seem to presume a soldier will have a sudden loss of focus for thinking about revenge a couple hours earlier than the most dangerous mission in their life, and this in turn will get them killed. It isn't a strawman.

[quote]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.[/quote]

So your argument is, "It's a game"? That's not a retort, so much as an excuse. I admitted understanding why they went this route and that was never a big issue, just one that could have been done better.


[quote]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.[/quote]

Great, use Jack/Thane/Jacob. We have plenty of options. The only requirement was a minor cut-scene addition. Like I said before, not a big issue, just acknowledging it.

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

What? All I said was if it worked for Miranda, it can work for Garrus, and that her "lack of focus" is never the reason she dies. Of course, the plot needed Miranda a little longer so she gets a pass.

At this point, we are best to simply agree to disagree because you and I will ever see eye to eye.

[quote]Killjoy Cutter wrote...

[quote]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.
[/quote]

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

[/quote]

Why, because I don't allow things to bother or distract me every waking second? Using that example, if I already knew about the unfortunate circumstances for weeks. It will not weigh on my mind every day, nor while I have work to do. My worrying won't change anything, so I don't worry, just think positive. If I just found out that day, even that week, well that is a different scenario.

If it's a fight with family? Whatever, I'll have stopped caring within the hour, and I certainly won't think about it while on the job.

[/quote]

Bourne, it's fine for you to think so, but again your are subjectively applying your own envisioned response to a situation for fictional characters. If you had to go up against a set of objectives that would likely end up with you dying, and you knew that the man responsible for the death of your squad was about to get away and you couldn't do anything about it, you need to be willing to accept that even if you, Bourne, personally would not be bothered to a large extent.... a lot of people would. In particular... Garrus would, which is how he was written. If you think that's a flaw, fine, your gig, but it would be in error to apply that logic to everyone (real human or written Turian).

Modifié par Phaelducan, 22 septembre 2011 - 04:50 .

[100k]

FlyinElk212 wrote...
Nevermind that it is a thrilling experience that I personally enjoyed. Stepping back and looking at it analytically, with all our love and hate for the series aside, one can see the flaws Mass Effect 2's story has.

I've never seen this issue written like this, but words can't describe how much I agree. 

I love ME2. But taking my personal enjoyment out of the game, I can definitely see where it needed improvement. 

[100k]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

FWIW I think this post is largely representative of the actual debate on this thread. Not just about Shep's death but other issues as well.

Your point basically appears to be that you think this particular aspect of the game could have been handled better. I think that is a fair point.

I also think there is a pronounced difference between saying something could have potentially been better, and saying that it was bad and hurts the game. 

...

This has gone on way too long, but I would ask that all the detractors (except Lotion, because he's a lost cause), from Smudboy on down take a serious step back and ask themselves how much of their criticism is about the game... and how much is about their own expectations and interpretations of what a perfect game is "supposed" to be.

Great point man. A lot of the debate comes from a disconnect in the perception of "what we think is a good Mass Effect 2 story" over "what we think is a good story". That being said, I really think Smudboy's trying to highlight the objective flaws within Mass Effect 2's story, but his message gets contorted in his personality and portrayal of said flaws.

I don't agree with Smudboy on his points involving the overall game itself, but the man is right about several points involving Mass Effect 2's story. While we perceive Mass Effect 2 as a great story, there are several flaws in its overall narrative that a writer can point to. It's overarching plot is weak at points and has loose ends that lead nowhere. Nevermind that it is a thrilling experience that I personally enjoyed. Stepping back and looking at it analytically, with all our love and hate for the series aside, one can see the flaws Mass Effect 2's story has.

This is a very solid outlook, and one I agree with wholeheartedly. To further add, I do not believe anyone in this thread actually hates ME2, quite the contrary in fact. Some merely argue the flaws more strongly than others. Smudboy doomed himself to negative backlash when he cited ME2, "the worst sequel in gaming." Even if you argue it not being a good sequel, that statement is largely inaccurate.

Agreed. And he's not doing himself any favors by making videos that continue to criticize "the little stuff" in Mass Effect. I'm thinking of his ME3 marketing video, and his Eezo analysis (though admittedly in the latter video he does praise some elements of that piece of lore).

[Phaelducan]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

FWIW I think this post is largely representative of the actual debate on this thread. Not just about Shep's death but other issues as well.

Your point basically appears to be that you think this particular aspect of the game could have been handled better. I think that is a fair point.

I also think there is a pronounced difference between saying something could have potentially been better, and saying that it was bad and hurts the game. 

...

This has gone on way too long, but I would ask that all the detractors (except Lotion, because he's a lost cause), from Smudboy on down take a serious step back and ask themselves how much of their criticism is about the game... and how much is about their own expectations and interpretations of what a perfect game is "supposed" to be.

Great point man. A lot of the debate comes from a disconnect in the perception of "what we think is a good Mass Effect 2 story" over "what we think is a good story". That being said, I really think Smudboy's trying to highlight the objective flaws within Mass Effect 2's story, but his message gets contorted in his personality and portrayal of said flaws.

I don't agree with Smudboy on his points involving the overall game itself, but the man is right about several points involving Mass Effect 2's story. While we perceive Mass Effect 2 as a great story, there are several flaws in its overall narrative that a writer can point to. It's overarching plot is weak at points and has loose ends that lead nowhere. Nevermind that it is a thrilling experience that I personally enjoyed. Stepping back and looking at it analytically, with all our love and hate for the series aside, one can see the flaws Mass Effect 2's story has.

This is a very solid outlook, and one I agree with wholeheartedly. To further add, I do not believe anyone in this thread actually hates ME2, quite the contrary in fact. Some merely argue the flaws more strongly than others. Smudboy doomed himself to negative backlash when he cited ME2, "the worst sequel in gaming." Even if you argue it not being a good sequel, that statement is largely inaccurate.

I know, right? I mean has he even played Super Mario 2? It wasn't even a Mario Game, it was just reskinned and makes no sense at all. Not a bad game by itself, but a horrible sequel to Mario.

[onelifecrisis]

Phaelducan wrote...

The point isn't that the game could have been better (they always can), the point is that the game was really good. Bioware is aware of a lot of the criticisms of their games, and I trust that ME3 will address most of the major ones. I also think that a lot of the criticism about the story of ME2 is way overblown and patently subjective.

Sorry to nitpick, but that last bit is rhetoric. Anything and everything said about anything and everything is "patently subjective". Moving on.

Phaelducan wrote...

The evidence we have for product approval is staggering in this day and age. ME2 killed it. KILLED it, and the evidence we have for it's disapproval is minute. I won't bring stats in again, because the foolio's that don't get it never will, and I'm tired of wasting my breath, so instead I'll just compare the two sides of the scale with no numbers. The criticism is far outweighed by the praise (and said praise does include story, not always the main point, but usually mentioned positively in journalistic reviews).

We can point to thousands of positive feedback examples. Concrete, actual examples of positive feedback in the range of the 90% percentile. Conversely? Maybe 100 different users on the BSN with a bone to pick.

Yes, ME2 is a great game. A great game. I (as one of the plot detractors) would not debate that. Even today I still love to fire it up occasionally and vanguard-charge my way around a battlefield.

Many great games are very well received by critics and the public in spite of having horrendously poor storylines or, as is often the case, no story at all. Whenever a critic or a player tells me that a game has a great story, I always mentally append an asterisk: it has a great story*

*for a game.

The positive reception of ME2 as a game really has nothing to do with whether or not it has a good plot, which is what this thread is about.

Phaelducan wrote...

This has gone on way too long, but I would ask that all the detractors (except Lotion, because he's a lost cause), from Smudboy on down take a serious step back and ask themselves how much of their criticism is about the game... and how much is about their own expectations and interpretations of what a perfect game is "supposed" to be.

I certainly don't expect perfection. That would be silly. But I bought ME2 primarily for the story. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was actually a great game, and horribly disappointed to find that the story was not only a mess in it's own right, but also a terrible sequel.

At least I can take solace in the positive effect that I believe the ME games have had on the industry. DXHR, Alpha Protocol, Witcher 2, etc. Developers seem to have taken note of the value of a player-affected narrative, and that's great. At this rate, I don't think I'll be buying ME3.

[Mister Mida]

onelifecrisis wrote...

At least I can take solace in the positive effect that I believe the ME games have had on the industry. DXHR, Alpha Protocol, Witcher 2, etc. Developers seem to have taken note of the value of a player-affected narrative, and that's great. At this rate, I don't think I'll be buying ME3.

I'll give you AP since I never played the game, but I seriously doubt ME had that much influence you think it had on the other games. Witcher 2 is an iteration of Witcher (1), which btw came out at the same time as ME (1). As much as I like DX: HR, I find the influence you have on the narrative very limiting, especially main plot wise, and most of it's influence came from earlier games of DX.

But that's just me.