6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

I'll skip the Garrus stuff since I would mostly be reiterating the post I just made ahead of this.

Arkitekt wrote...

You're the one starting on a cruzade about how Samara should be killed by now. I'd love to see the maths of that.

You don't think that in four hundred years, if her focus slipped regardless of the subtlety, she wouldn't have got herself killed? She fought a Spectre and it didn't effect her then, so why now? She has been on plenty of missions where her death was likely a decent to high probability. There isn't math to this, just two conclusions we can draw from it. One, she isn't bothered in the manner you insist she would be or she has been extraordinarily fortunate and her luck finally caught up with her.

Wtf? Miranda clearly shows her less "rational" side in her sister mission. She trusts her former mentor when she shouldn't have. It's her sister's life, not an "issue". Who would be in their right mind if they knew their only sister is going to be abducted by one malignant and selfish ******?

She also trusts Shepard and is dedicated to the mission, and even argues this in some instances. Sure, Orianna would be o her mind but not during the Suicide Mission itself. Hell she takes up the tactician role and keeps offering advice throughout the whole damn thing. Evidently, her focus is on the mission, and her plot armor ironically supports this.

Mordin is worried about his protegé being abducted by Krogans. Perhaps not too personal.

Mordin is the most emotionally efficient of the squad and served in the STG, likely undergoing similar situations. He even mentions one on Tuchunka. Why would he now lose focus now?

Samara should be the least affected, but it is still her daughter, the one she's been tracking for ages, and now she has the chance to nail her. It's probably a very personal issue, a "mistake", an "error" that she feels it's her only responsibility to erase from the universe. It's not about it being a rational acknowledgement, but the opposite.

I've already covered Samara. One would think in four hundred years, if her focus slipped, she would be dead by now.

Of course not. If he says he deals with it, then of course he does! Is that your argument? Really?

It would be nice if the squad could deal with their own issues, actually a fair amount do but that doesn't seem to count.

In any case, my argument was Grunt was distracted by wanting to kill things. When the mission starts, he's likely focusing on that and how he might kill them. His puberty isn't going to be an issue but him being an alien, I can give you we can't be certain. I don't buy it but there you go.

Zaeed is a prime example, come to think of it. He has been dealing with Vito's betrayal for twenty years and been on plenty of suicide missions since, where he survives them all. So why does this one happen to get him?

It's not sudden. You still do not understand. It's subtle, lingering on your subconsciousness.

How do you know this? Not everyone is exactly the same, nor would they necessarily allowing their focus to slip in the manner you insinuate, subtle or otherwise.

It's a completely fair retort, since it's absolutely true. If this were to happen in real life, it would have been impossible for us to establish that the problem was "lack of focus", if only slightly. However, in a game, we can see by ourselves that this is the culprit, by changing the variables mentioned. In the game, we have the advantage of tweaking these things and checking out for ourselves what would have happened "if". There's nothing like that in RL.

No, that is simply a flag being checked if you complete a loyalty mission. If it does not match the actual event (Zaeed for example) then it's just a gameplay mechanic. Your response will be that it does, while mine is the contrary, which leads back to debating the individual characters or agreeing to disagreeing.

You can put Jack and Jacob in the other team, you can even not get Samara in the first place (and I think Thane as well, I don't remember). What would have happened then? Critical Mission Failure? I can see where that would leave us in BSN....

Ever consider it would be mandatory to bring two of the five biotics and then a third squadmate? Like on loyalty missions, just one of the four overall wouldn't be actively fighting.

In an unrelated publicity towards my amazing personality, I also don't let fires around me distract me from what I am doing. I'm invincible and Chuck Norris' style just like that. Oh, and I kill two bears a weekend as well.

Well I'm glad you realize how infinitely awesome I am. 

Someone insinuated I was a machine based on my personality, so I inquired why. Apparently, my pragmatism, where I don't allow things to bother me in comparison to others equates to being Chuck Norris-esque and amazing. Well who am I to argue this glowing praise. Perhaps, I ought to take a bow while you toss roses.

Maybe, just maybe though, your assumption is wrong and not everyone loses their focus or is distracted like you insist on perpetuating. I know it might be difficult for you, but it could be this.

Probably best we part here, since you can't accept someone disagreeing with you. I'll give you the last word though, I know you want it.


I really hope people take note of the mass sarcasm there and that I don't actually think that much of myself. The Internet doesn't translate this too well.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 22 septembre 2011 - 08:34 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

"I'm such a machine that even if my mom were in the hospital, I'd be able to code without distraction."     That's how your comment came across from my perspective.


The focus/loyalty thing is such a small issue with the game.  In terms of character and story, it makes perfect sense that these characters would want to deal with these things before they go off to possibly die thousands of lightyears away.

The only real oddness is that not having done that mission can get them killed at certain points, but that's not the game-crushing fault that some are making it out to be.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 22 septembre 2011 - 08:40 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Again, the focus/loyalty "flaw" is such a small thing... wow.

I've already said this, more than once. I just liked the debate, at least up until it crossed into "let's start mocking people."

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Again, the focus/loyalty "flaw" is such a small thing... wow.

What is the point of any of this? The whole issue is a small thing.

[Someone With Mass]

People aren't perfect and they can have emotions that shows sooner or later, regardless of how professional they are.

[onelifecrisis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'll have to find a clip of the Freedom's Progress cutscene to listen to the entire conversation before commenting.  Let's see...  meh, all the videos I'm finding so far are from non-imported playthroughs or whatever, and missing parts of that dialogue.

Found it: 

Shep:  "I nearly died, Tali.  Cerberus spent two years rebuilding me."

Prazza:  "Likely story.  No organization would commit so many resources to bring back one soldier." 


Prazza starts from the reasonable assumption that a rebuilding process that took two years wasn't trivial or cheap.  Oh yeah, really big hole there. 

I know someone who got hit by a car. She "almost died" and it took her almost two years of reconstructive surgery and physio to be able to walk again. Her health care did not cost billions. It didn't even cost millions. Furthermore, if she'd been in the US armed forces (for the sake of a RL example) then the government, I hear, would have paid the medical costs. None of this is exceptional or cause for the kind of disbelief shown by Praza, who insists that the expense is outrageous, which implies that he knows that the cost was much higher than a "normal" two-year recovery from injuries.

And that right there is a perfect example of what is meant by the comment that some people are putting a lot of hard work into coming up with as many flaws as they can possibly dredge up. 

There are enough real issues that there's no need or reason for someone to go making mountains out of grains of sand. 

Tali shows shock at Shepard being alive, it's common knowledge that the Normandy was blown to bits and Shepard was lost, Shep says that he almost died and Cerberus spent two years rebuilding him -- and somehow, to you, it becomes "bad writing" that Prazza assumes it took a lot of resources to bring him back to full combat fitness?  OH NO, STOP THE PRESSES, BIOWARE RUINED MASS EFFECT.

Good god, people, go find a real effing fault to harp on, there are enough to them. 

Oh dear. I really didn't take you for the sort to resort to belittling someone when your argument fails. Two can play at that game. For example:

Hard work? What's hard work is explaining these things to people who don't get what the problem is!
(Are we having fun yet?)

The conversation with Praza is one of a dozen nonsensical conversations about Shepard's resurrection, all of which combine to leave the player (well, me, at least) confused as to exactly what has happened and why people react to it the way they do (or in some cases, don't).

Anyway, I agree that there are plenty of other holes, but I thought those had been covered quite extensively already.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 22 septembre 2011 - 08:59 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'll have to find a clip of the Freedom's Progress cutscene to listen to the entire conversation before commenting.  Let's see...  meh, all the videos I'm finding so far are from non-imported playthroughs or whatever, and missing parts of that dialogue.

Found it: 

Shep:  "I nearly died, Tali.  Cerberus spent two years rebuilding me."

Prazza:  "Likely story.  No organization would commit so many resources to bring back one soldier." 


Prazza starts from the reasonable assumption that a rebuilding process that took two years wasn't trivial or cheap.  Oh yeah, really big hole there. 

I know someone who got hit by a car. She "almost died" and it took her almost two years of reconstructive surgery and physio to be able to walk again. Her health care did not cost billions. It didn't even cost millions. Furthermore, if she'd been in the US armed forces (for the sake of a RL example) then the government, I hear, would have paid the medical costs. None of this is exceptional or cause for the kind of disbelief shown by Praza, who insists that the expense is outrageous, which implies that he knows that the cost was much higher than a "normal" two-year recovery from injuries.

And that right there is a perfect example of what is meant by the comment that some people are putting a lot of hard work into coming up with as many flaws as they can possibly dredge up. 

There are enough real issues that there's no need or reason for someone to go making mountains out of grains of sand. 

Tali shows shock at Shepard being alive, it's common knowledge that the Normandy was blown to bits and Shepard was lost, Shep says that he almost died and Cerberus spent two years rebuilding him -- and somehow, to you, it becomes "bad writing" that Prazza assumes it took a lot of resources to bring him back to full combat fitness?  OH NO, STOP THE PRESSES, BIOWARE RUINED MASS EFFECT.

Good god, people, go find a real effing fault to harp on, there are enough to them. 

Oh dear. I really didn't take you for the sort to resort to belittling someone when your argument fails. Two can play at that game. For example:

Hard work? What's hard work is explaining these things to people who don't get what the problem is!
(Are we having fun yet?)

Anyway, I agree that there are plenty of other holes, but I thought those had been covered quite extensively already.

If I ever start belittling you, there won't be any doubt. 

I'm just sick of the two dedicated sides in this thread.  One side digging around and putting effort into interpreting things in the harshest way possible, making flaws out of nothing at all; and the other side kneejerk defendind and coming up with wacky guesswork to fill in the holes that actually exist and pretending that their guesswork is solidly part of the game/story/setting/character.   Both sides are just making $#!+ up, and it's old, old, old. 

[onelifecrisis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'll have to find a clip of the Freedom's Progress cutscene to listen to the entire conversation before commenting.  Let's see...  meh, all the videos I'm finding so far are from non-imported playthroughs or whatever, and missing parts of that dialogue.

Found it: 

Shep:  "I nearly died, Tali.  Cerberus spent two years rebuilding me."

Prazza:  "Likely story.  No organization would commit so many resources to bring back one soldier." 


Prazza starts from the reasonable assumption that a rebuilding process that took two years wasn't trivial or cheap.  Oh yeah, really big hole there. 

I know someone who got hit by a car. She "almost died" and it took her almost two years of reconstructive surgery and physio to be able to walk again. Her health care did not cost billions. It didn't even cost millions. Furthermore, if she'd been in the US armed forces (for the sake of a RL example) then the government, I hear, would have paid the medical costs. None of this is exceptional or cause for the kind of disbelief shown by Praza, who insists that the expense is outrageous, which implies that he knows that the cost was much higher than a "normal" two-year recovery from injuries.

And that right there is a perfect example of what is meant by the comment that some people are putting a lot of hard work into coming up with as many flaws as they can possibly dredge up. 

There are enough real issues that there's no need or reason for someone to go making mountains out of grains of sand. 

Tali shows shock at Shepard being alive, it's common knowledge that the Normandy was blown to bits and Shepard was lost, Shep says that he almost died and Cerberus spent two years rebuilding him -- and somehow, to you, it becomes "bad writing" that Prazza assumes it took a lot of resources to bring him back to full combat fitness?  OH NO, STOP THE PRESSES, BIOWARE RUINED MASS EFFECT.

Good god, people, go find a real effing fault to harp on, there are enough to them. 

Oh dear. I really didn't take you for the sort to resort to belittling someone when your argument fails. Two can play at that game. For example:

Hard work? What's hard work is explaining these things to people who don't get what the problem is!
(Are we having fun yet?)

Anyway, I agree that there are plenty of other holes, but I thought those had been covered quite extensively already.

If I ever start belittling you, there won't be any doubt. 

I'm just sick of the two dedicated sides in this thread.  One side digging around and putting effort into interpreting things in the harshest way possible, making flaws out of nothing at all; and the other side kneejerk defendind and coming up with wacky guesswork to fill in the holes that actually exist and pretending that their guesswork is solidly part of the game/story/setting/character.   Both sides are just making $#!+ up, and it's old, old, old. 

Damn, you replied before my edit.

It's kind of obvious, but if you're sick of the thread.... (need I finish?)

Not that I'm telling you to get lost.

I certainly agree that there are over-analysed points of view on both sides of the debate. But I put this to you: isn't all of this debate and over-analysis in itself indicative of the story not being clear and/or understandable?

[Phaelducan]

Only to some people.

[Iakus]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The focus/loyalty thing is such a small issue with the game.  In terms of character and story, it makes perfect sense that these characters would want to deal with these things before they go off to possibly die thousands of lightyears away.

The only real oddness is that not having done that mission can get them killed at certain points, but that's not the game-crushing fault that some are making it out to be.

The fault is the focus isue is done to the exlusion of all else.  It gives the game a random disjointed feel, like the Collectors and even the Reapers are just one more storyline buried amidst all the others.  Should Harbringer really be on equal footing with Sidonis?

[111987]

iakus wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The focus/loyalty thing is such a small issue with the game.  In terms of character and story, it makes perfect sense that these characters would want to deal with these things before they go off to possibly die thousands of lightyears away.

The only real oddness is that not having done that mission can get them killed at certain points, but that's not the game-crushing fault that some are making it out to be.

The fault is the focus isue is done to the exlusion of all else.  It gives the game a random disjointed feel, like the Collectors and even the Reapers are just one more storyline buried amidst all the others.  Should Harbringer really be on equal footing with Sidonis?

I don't remember Sidonis having five missions dealing with him...(Horizon, Collector Ship, Derelict Reaper, Collector Base, Arrival).

On that note though, I did like your ideas about interconnecting the loyalty missions with the main missions

Modifié par 111987, 22 septembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[Iakus]

True enough. Sidonis only had two. And no DLC.  Only 40% of the main villain of ME2.

Modifié par iakus, 22 septembre 2011 - 09:19 .

[onelifecrisis]

Phaelducan wrote...

Only to some people.

Ha. Well, I guess I'm just stupid. But my stupidity prevented me from enjoying the first half of ME2, so much that I stopped playing shortly after Horizon on my first playthrough (a couple of weeks later I realised I was missing the fun of the Vanguard Charge and picked up the game again with the intention of letting the story just wash over me).

And I guess I must be really, really stupid seeing as I still don't "get" the plot even after months of seeing people trying to explain it a hundred different ways on these forums. Damn, I guess BW games are just too damn intelligent for me.

[Phaelducan]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Only to some people.

Ha. Well, I guess I'm just stupid. But my stupidity prevented me from enjoying the first half of ME2, so much that I stopped playing shortly after Horizon on my first playthrough (a couple of weeks later I realised I was missing the fun of the Vanguard Charge and picked up the game again with the intention of letting the story just wash over me).

And I guess I must be really, really stupid seeing as I still don't "get" the plot even after months of seeing people trying to explain it a hundred different ways on these forums. Damn, I guess BW games are just too damn intelligent for me.

Not calling anyone stupid, and my comment was meant to be taken literally. Some people had trouble following the story (nothing to do with intelligence, just had trouble), and some people didn't.

[didymos1120]

iakus wrote...

True enough. Sidonis only had two. And no DLC.  Only 40% of the main villain of ME2.

How do you figure two?  He only appeared in one, and had just a few lines of dialogue.

[DoNotIngest]

Good god, this thing's over 200 pages long?! I am NEVER watching one of those videos...

[Iakus]

didymos1120 wrote...

iakus wrote...

True enough. Sidonis only had two. And no DLC.  Only 40% of the main villain of ME2.

How do you figure two?  He only appeared in one, and had just a few lines of dialogue.

He's the whole reason Garrus was alone in his recruitment mission.  I figure if Harbringer counts for being involved in the Derelict Reaper mission, Sidonis outta count for that:D

[string3r]

Phaelducan wrote...

Only to some people.

People who have knowledge of good, consistent storytelling can see these obvious flaws, and thus it would lessen their experience of the game. If simple minded fools are willing to except plot holes, forced plot devices and overall poor writing then that's perfectly fine.

Just don't imply that bad writing is subjective when it blatently interupts the consistent flow of the narrative.

[Phaelducan]

Don't be such a tool. Lots of people who liked ME2 have knowledge of good, consistent storytelling. A) It's a video game and it isn't meant to be compared to Huck Finn. Plot holes happen. They aren't ideal, but they happen. A plot hole doesn't negate the narrative, nor do a couple. C) Forced plot devices happen all the time in fiction. Luke joining Obi-wan in episode IV is a forced plot device. Ripley being a surrogate mother for Newt in Aliens is a forced plot device. Get over yourself. D) Overall poor writing? Tell you what, why don't you list your works of fiction that have sold 6 million copies and I'll accept your blanket criticism of ME2's writing.

Way to take the thread 50 pages in the wrong direction.

[Sgt Stryker]

I doubt that the vast majority of people who bought and played ME2 have invested as much time and effort in scrutinizing every little detail as some of us have. Thus, the things that seem like plot holes to some of us here tend to go unnoticed by most players. That does not necessarily suggest that these players are somehow less intelligent than the people who post here. All it suggests is that they devote less time to video games.

[onelifecrisis]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

I doubt that the vast majority of people who bought and played ME2 have invested as much time and effort in scrutinizing every little detail as some of us have. Thus, the things that seem like plot holes to some of us here tend to go unnoticed by most players. That does not necessarily suggest that these players are somehow less intelligent than the people who post here. All it suggests is that they devote less time to video games.

Allow me to quote myself:

{the plot} prevented me from enjoying the first half of ME2, so much that I stopped playing shortly after Horizon on my first playthrough (a couple of weeks later I realised I was missing the fun of the Vanguard Charge and picked up the game again with the intention of letting the story just wash over me)

Speaking only for myself, it had nothing to do with how much time I'd spent on the game.

[string3r]

Phaelducan wrote...

Don't be such a tool. Lots of people who liked ME2 have knowledge of good, consistent storytelling. A) It's a video game and it isn't meant to be compared to Huck Finn. Plot holes happen. They aren't ideal, but they happen. A plot hole doesn't negate the narrative, nor do a couple. C) Forced plot devices happen all the time in fiction. Luke joining Obi-wan in episode IV is a forced plot device. Ripley being a surrogate mother for Newt in Aliens is a forced plot device. Get over yourself. D) Overall poor writing? Tell you what, why don't you list your works of fiction that have sold 6 million copies and I'll accept your blanket criticism of ME2's writing.

Way to take the thread 50 pages in the wrong direction.

True, and I apologize if  I came off as condescening in my post. But Bioware is a company who prizes itself on good storytelling, and have gained a reputation for creating excellent storytelling in games like KOTOR, ME1, BG.

It's only natural for people to criticise them if obvious plot holes are present and ruin their enjoyment of the experience.

Modifié par string3r, 22 septembre 2011 - 11:10 .

[Someone With Mass]

Fighting the Collectors was boring as hell, anyway.

They kept resorting to that damn Praetorian.

Let's not forget those awe-inspiring quotes from Harbinger.

[Phaelducan]

I thought, at least for an RPG, that the combat in ME2 was pretty tough on insanity. You had to pay attention or it was really easy to die. Once you got your upgrades and you had your class down, yeah, it wasn't too tough, but to be fair it was much harder than some other RPG's out there. I only mention that as I found it was pretty easy to die against the Collectors unless I went pretty slow and meticulous.

[100k]

I'm gonna reopen Pandora's Box...