6494 réponses à ce sujet

[100k]

Oh noez! *regarding FTL*

[Xeranx]

You wanted top post huh?
Nice find.

[firefireblow]

why is this still around?
i mean come on?

[Notlikeyoucare]

firefireblow wrote...

why is this still around?
i mean come on?

Because people like you keep bumping it by asking the same question over and over

[Sajuro]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

Think of it this way, this is the closest she has ever gotten to catching Morinth and putting her down like the monster she is only for it to slip away from her because Commander Shepard decided that he can't be bothered to go to Omega with her and flirt with Asari.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Phaelducan wrote...
@Lotion You are missing everything again. I don't know why I bother, but here it goes again. Everything is NOT subjective, as I previously stated. Saying that Taco Bell is bad food is not the same thing as saying human sacrifice is bad... just because both "aren't my thing." One is an example of a subset of fast food, the other is a universally agreed upon no-no. Taste does apply in some situations, but not all of them (again, previously stated).

In the case of Mass Effect 2 and the oft-discussed plot "problems" much of what is listed is PURELY subjective in it's criticism. The issues with the VS, the suicide mission, the loyalty missions, etc etc are not universally disliked, which is about as compelling an argument as can be made that the problems with the plot are subjective. I really can't make that any more clear, so if you are still adamant that the writing sucks as a hard fact, it's definitely time to move on (arguable, that time came a couple hundred pages ago).

Nope.
I'm sorry, but people having different oppinions on X doesn't mean that neither oppinion is correct.

If 500 million people thought the moon was made of cheese, that doesn't make the composition of the moon subjective at all. Regardless of what they think.

Yes, the writing sucks in many places. Hard fact.
ME2's side-plots are nicely written (heck, they could get a game of their own), but the main plot is one of hte worst (if not the worst) BioWare ever did.

[100k]

The ME3 team actually agrees with many of the "ME2 haterz"-- or at least wants to address the problems that many people had with ME2. Shepard will be a more fleshed out character. The story will be less about side characters, and more about a series closing plot. Femshep will get her own rig.

(or at least this is what they're currently promising)

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

A) I don't give a damn if it's a video game. Good writing practices are good writing practices. Being a video-game doens't magicly excuse it. I HATE this sort of non-argumnet. "Oh, it's a video game, so writers really shouldn't bother too much".

Plot holes happen almost everyhwere. However, the severity and number of plot holes is not a constant. Good written sotries tend to have less of them and less serious ones.

C) Forced plot devices are generally bad writing - even moreso when they aren't properly explained and credible.

D) Irellevant argument. Appealing to the masses again as some proof of quality of writing.

[100k]

The PLC wrote...

This has to be one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen on here... man!

Always great to have your contributions.

[Yezdigerd]

A better question would be what this thread is doing in the ME3 forum, when it has nothing to do with ME3.
The moderators feels smudboy's truth must be heard?

[Someone With Mass]

100k wrote...

Oh noez! *regarding FTL*

Has nothing to do with how FTL in Mass Effect works, but whatever.

[Lotion Soronarr]

It doesn't?

If something can move faster than light, then that kinda seriously puts half of the physics known to us in question.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It doesn't?

If something can move faster than light, then that kinda seriously puts half of the physics known to us in question.

Considering that Mass Effect's FTL is achieved by running an electrical current through an element currently unknown to humans and that dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy at best?

Nope.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Wasn't one of the arugments throw around "FTL is impossible, why are you harping on Sheppards ressurection?"

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It doesn't?

If something can move faster than light, then that kinda seriously puts half of the physics known to us in question.

Except that it's 99.9999% sure it's just a fluke in the measurements. We are talking about nanoseconds here, many many things could have been gone wrong, and most assuredly they have.

It will only get interesting if the finding is replicated.

[Someone With Mass]

Arkitekt wrote...
Except that it's 99.9999% sure it's just a fluke in the measurements. We are talking about nanoseconds here, many many things could have been gone wrong, and most assuredly they have.

It will only get interesting if the finding is replicated.

Or if it can actually be controlled, for that matter.

By the way. It was just subatomic particles.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 23 septembre 2011 - 01:51 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

100k wrote...

The ME3 team actually agrees with many of the "ME2 haterz"-- or at least wants to address the problems that many people had with ME2. Shepard will be a more fleshed out character. The story will be less about side characters, and more about a series closing plot. Femshep will get her own rig.

(or at least this is what they're currently promising)

I hope to hell that it won't be the same as the flouncy froo-froo rig they did for FemHawke... 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Yezdigerd wrote...

A better question would be what this thread is doing in the ME3 forum, when it has nothing to do with ME3.
The moderators feels smudboy's truth must be heard?

No, the mods want to make a list of people who come into an ongoing thread and spam useless comments.  Like you. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 septembre 2011 - 02:35 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wasn't one of the arugments throw around "FTL is impossible, why are you harping on Sheppards ressurection?"

It has been from time to time, and it shows that there are people who aren't really familiar with the genre of speculative fiction, and the standards thereof.   Not that I think the titular nob of this thread is that familiar either, given some of his criticisms. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 septembre 2011 - 02:38 .

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wasn't one of the arugments throw around "FTL is impossible, why are you harping on Sheppards ressurection?"

It has been from time to time, and it shows that there are people who aren't really familiar with the genre of speculative fiction, and the standards thereof.   Not that I think the titular nob of this thread is that familiar either, given some of his criticisms. 

Interesting. What makes you say that? Smud always seemed on top of his literary techniques.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
@Lotion You are missing everything again. I don't know why I bother, but here it goes again. Everything is NOT subjective, as I previously stated. Saying that Taco Bell is bad food is not the same thing as saying human sacrifice is bad... just because both "aren't my thing." One is an example of a subset of fast food, the other is a universally agreed upon no-no. Taste does apply in some situations, but not all of them (again, previously stated).

In the case of Mass Effect 2 and the oft-discussed plot "problems" much of what is listed is PURELY subjective in it's criticism. The issues with the VS, the suicide mission, the loyalty missions, etc etc are not universally disliked, which is about as compelling an argument as can be made that the problems with the plot are subjective. I really can't make that any more clear, so if you are still adamant that the writing sucks as a hard fact, it's definitely time to move on (arguable, that time came a couple hundred pages ago).

Nope.
I'm sorry, but people having different oppinions on X doesn't mean that neither oppinion is correct.

If 500 million people thought the moon was made of cheese, that doesn't make the composition of the moon subjective at all. Regardless of what they think.

Yes, the writing sucks in many places. Hard fact.
ME2's side-plots are nicely written (heck, they could get a game of their own), but the main plot is one of hte worst (if not the worst) BioWare ever did.

Except a scientist can go to the moon and get a sample that will prove it is not cheese. Everyone can look at it, test it, and tell it is not cheese. There is no point of view. For the same thing to be true for ME2, you would have to be able to send a probe through the Relay and have it do something useful. You would have to be able to make TIM spend his resources on something else and have it get better results. Then, you could point to these results and say, "See? This is why that was a stupid idea. this is why the moon is not cheese" 

You are trying to say that writing that you think does not make sense is universal. It's not. Your only arguments are that "this is not logical" or, "it was stupid for the character not to do this.", or "the story needed to explain this better because it does not make sense to me." 

All of these are subjective opinions. All it takes is for one person to say, "I think this was logical" or, "It made sense for the character not to do this" or, "The story did not need to explain it more, because I understood it perfectly."

We are not saying that Plot holes do not equal bad. We are arguing what we think is or is not a plot hole. That is pure opinion. You may think it was stupid for Shepard to not send probes through the Omega 4 relay. I disagree, and thought it made sense.  You can say that is stupid or that I don't know what I'm talking about, but you cannot say that your opinion that he should have is universally considered to be correct. Until you can prove that sending probes through or resurrecting Shepard was not a good idea, with hard facts, it will always be your opinion and nothing more. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Il Divo wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wasn't one of the arugments throw around "FTL is impossible, why are you harping on Sheppards ressurection?"

It has been from time to time, and it shows that there are people who aren't really familiar with the genre of speculative fiction, and the standards thereof.   Not that I think the titular nob of this thread is that familiar either, given some of his criticisms. 

Interesting. What makes you say that? Smud always seemed on top of his literary techniques.

Some of the criticisms he made while posting here (before he was banned) were pretty standard lit-fic-wanker criticisms of science fiction.  I'll see if the gimped search function can find any of them, but I doubt it. 

[Il Divo]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
@Lotion You are missing everything again. I don't know why I bother, but here it goes again. Everything is NOT subjective, as I previously stated. Saying that Taco Bell is bad food is not the same thing as saying human sacrifice is bad... just because both "aren't my thing." One is an example of a subset of fast food, the other is a universally agreed upon no-no. Taste does apply in some situations, but not all of them (again, previously stated).

In the case of Mass Effect 2 and the oft-discussed plot "problems" much of what is listed is PURELY subjective in it's criticism. The issues with the VS, the suicide mission, the loyalty missions, etc etc are not universally disliked, which is about as compelling an argument as can be made that the problems with the plot are subjective. I really can't make that any more clear, so if you are still adamant that the writing sucks as a hard fact, it's definitely time to move on (arguable, that time came a couple hundred pages ago).

Nope.
I'm sorry, but people having different oppinions on X doesn't mean that neither oppinion is correct.

If 500 million people thought the moon was made of cheese, that doesn't make the composition of the moon subjective at all. Regardless of what they think.

Yes, the writing sucks in many places. Hard fact.
ME2's side-plots are nicely written (heck, they could get a game of their own), but the main plot is one of hte worst (if not the worst) BioWare ever did.

Except a scientist can go to the moon and get a sample that will prove it is not cheese. Everyone can look at it, test it, and tell it is not cheese. There is no point of view. For the same thing to be true for ME2, you would have to be able to send a probe through the Relay and have it do something useful. You would have to be able to make TIM spend his resources on something else and have it get better results. Then, you could point to these results and say, "See? This is why that was a stupid idea. this is why the moon is not cheese" 

You are trying to say that writing that you think does not make sense is universal. It's not. Your only arguments are that "this is not logical" or, "it was stupid for the character not to do this.", or "the story needed to explain this better because it does not make sense to me." 

All of these are subjective opinions. All it takes is for one person to say, "I think this was logical" or, "It made sense for the character not to do this" or, "The story did not need to explain it more, because I understood it perfectly."

We are not saying that Plot holes do not equal bad. We are arguing what we think is or is not a plot hole. That is pure opinion. You may think it was stupid for Shepard to not send probes through the Omega 4 relay. I disagree, and thought it made sense.  You can say that is stupid or that I don't know what I'm talking about, but you cannot say that your opinion that he should have is universally considered to be correct. Until you can prove that sending probes through or resurrecting Shepard was not a good idea, with hard facts, it will always be your opinion and nothing more. 

I gotta go with this, speaking as someone who might not have bothered sending probes through the relay, depending on circumstances.

[Notlikeyoucare]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
@Lotion You are missing everything again. I don't know why I bother, but here it goes again. Everything is NOT subjective, as I previously stated. Saying that Taco Bell is bad food is not the same thing as saying human sacrifice is bad... just because both "aren't my thing." One is an example of a subset of fast food, the other is a universally agreed upon no-no. Taste does apply in some situations, but not all of them (again, previously stated).

In the case of Mass Effect 2 and the oft-discussed plot "problems" much of what is listed is PURELY subjective in it's criticism. The issues with the VS, the suicide mission, the loyalty missions, etc etc are not universally disliked, which is about as compelling an argument as can be made that the problems with the plot are subjective. I really can't make that any more clear, so if you are still adamant that the writing sucks as a hard fact, it's definitely time to move on (arguable, that time came a couple hundred pages ago).

Nope.
I'm sorry, but people having different oppinions on X doesn't mean that neither oppinion is correct.

If 500 million people thought the moon was made of cheese, that doesn't make the composition of the moon subjective at all. Regardless of what they think.

Yes, the writing sucks in many places. Hard fact.
ME2's side-plots are nicely written (heck, they could get a game of their own), but the main plot is one of hte worst (if not the worst) BioWare ever did.

Except a scientist can go to the moon and get a sample that will prove it is not cheese. Everyone can look at it, test it, and tell it is not cheese. There is no point of view. For the same thing to be true for ME2, you would have to be able to send a probe through the Relay and have it do something useful. You would have to be able to make TIM spend his resources on something else and have it get better results. Then, you could point to these results and say, "See? This is why that was a stupid idea. this is why the moon is not cheese" 

You are trying to say that writing that you think does not make sense is universal. It's not. Your only arguments are that "this is not logical" or, "it was stupid for the character not to do this.", or "the story needed to explain this better because it does not make sense to me." 

All of these are subjective opinions. All it takes is for one person to say, "I think this was logical" or, "It made sense for the character not to do this" or, "The story did not need to explain it more, because I understood it perfectly."

We are not saying that Plot holes do not equal bad. We are arguing what we think is or is not a plot hole. That is pure opinion. You may think it was stupid for Shepard to not send probes through the Omega 4 relay. I disagree, and thought it made sense.  You can say that is stupid or that I don't know what I'm talking about, but you cannot say that your opinion that he should have is universally considered to be correct. Until you can prove that sending probes through or resurrecting Shepard was not a good idea, with hard facts, it will always be your opinion and nothing more. 

But you'd be wrong. It isn't just my opinion that it is stupid, but it works against the story. A suicide misson does not = running into the unknown blind because we were too stupid to do further recon. Because these things are unaddressed as to why they did not occur, this makes the plot contrived, which is bad storytelling. As for Shepard, resurrecting him is stupid due to the abundance of simpiler, more practical, and effective options, which the story did not adress. If we were told why resurrecting Shepard was good, and sending probes was not or unneeded, this would solve the problem. Until that happens, its just ****ty writing.