6494 réponses à ce sujet

[100k]

Sharn01 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

There's only one possible way to watch the prequels now. And.. honestly, I don't get the smudboy adoration/abherration that comes along with these forums. Why should any one fan's opinions be more important than any other's?

Some of the more vocal members of the forum actually have their own fans and forum groups for them to join.  It really drives home the old analogy that people are sheep.

Here's the thing: people have opinions. And when you have a strong opinion -- like smudboy -- about something you're passionate about, you can express it many ways. This is a public forum. Its a gathering place for people to come and share their ideas about a common interest. With that freedom naturally comes conflict in the form of arguing. People supporting others doesn't make them sheep -- anymore than it makes you a lamb for liking Mass Effect. It makes you opinionated. 

[SpiffySquee]

Sharn01 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

There's only one possible way to watch the prequels now. And.. honestly, I don't get the smudboy adoration/abherration that comes along with these forums. Why should any one fan's opinions be more important than any other's?

Some of the more vocal members of the forum actually have their own fans and forum groups for them to join.  It really drives home the old analogy that people are sheep.

Because supporting someone who makes an argument you agree with makes you a sheep? It could not possibly be that they came to the same conclusions on their own and enjoying sharing and supporting like minded individuals?

[Fixers0]

Fathom72 wrote...

Um, we totally know what the human reaper was for. Its construction was used to assess humanity's potential for reaperfication. The reapers need to know before arriving on Earth whether to treat us as a threat to be exterminated, or a resource to be harvested.

Unfortunatly you're taking the wrong approach, just because a writer mentions this fact, doesn't have anything to do with the plot of the games, which Smudboy's analysis is all about, you have to ask youreself:

"could you make this information up out of the main plot?"

I could't because there wasn't any exposition on this enite subject, i was just laughing at the poor attempt of it being a major plot reveal and the lack of thought the writers haven putten into it.

Fathom72 wrote...
Also, you're correct in stating that we didn't do anything in ME2 to hinder the reapers. They got what they wanted out of the collector base. However, not every story HAS to have the protagonists dealing a blow against their enemies. Hell, look at The Empire Strikes Back as an example; protagonists got downright thrashed in episode 5.

Again, you're taking the wrong approuch, Shepard doesn't have to criple the reapers, no sure he doesn't, but he should attempt at doing so, he goes looking for the reapers at the end of ME 1, but because of the lack of plot focus in ME2 the writer made the entire second part of the trilogy consist of offroading, this is the overall problem with the plot in Mass Effect 2, and a major point that smudboy adresses.

[Lotion Soronarr]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

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

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

You miss the point. He's right on what a proper ressurection should have - and when it's missing, it should be explained why.
For example, Gandalf is a maiar, not a human. And even he had a moment in a book. In a movie, not so much. Of course, when I watched the movie I already knew who Gandalf was, so it didn't bother me.
And MAtrix? Gah...never liked that one.

I disagree that he knows this and that is the entire point. Not to mention, either he doesn't really know, since his example do not fit his criteria, or he is really bad had saying what he means to say.
The point is that I never argued whether it was done right or not. I stated why I personally  liked it, but that is all. I argued that the idea that Bioware writers suck simply becasue they did not write a story that fits into Smud's check list is absurd. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. they just should not be trying to pass it off as the gospel truth.

By that logic there is no such thing as bad writing....<_<

[SpiffySquee]

Fixers0 wrote...

Fathom72 wrote...

Um, we totally know what the human reaper was for. Its construction was used to assess humanity's potential for reaperfication. The reapers need to know before arriving on Earth whether to treat us as a threat to be exterminated, or a resource to be harvested.

Unfortunatly you're taking the wrong approach, just because a writer mentions this fact, doesn't have anything to do with the plot of the games, which Smudboy's analysis is all about, you have to ask youreself:

"could you make this information up out of the main plot?"

I could't because there wasn't any exposition on this enite subject, i was just laughing at the poor attempt of it being a major plot reveal and the lack of thought the writers haven putten into it.

Fathom72 wrote...
Also, you're correct in stating that we didn't do anything in ME2 to hinder the reapers. They got what they wanted out of the collector base. However, not every story HAS to have the protagonists dealing a blow against their enemies. Hell, look at The Empire Strikes Back as an example; protagonists got downright thrashed in episode 5.

Again, you're taking the wrong approuch, Shepard doesn't have to criple the reapers, no sure he doesn't, but he should attempt at doing so, he goes looking for the reapers at the end of ME 1, but because of the lack of plot focus in ME2 the writer made the entire second part of the trilogy consist of offroading, this is the overall problem with the plot in Mass Effect 2, and a major point that smudboy adresses.

Look at Two Towers. They never struck a blow at Saruon. They spent the whole time fighting his puppet. That does not mean that defeating puppet did not weaken the main enemy, or that it was not important to take the puppet down...

Did taking down the collectors hurt the reapers, sure. How much? Hard to tell since we don't know how important it was to them yet. It certainly did not stop the Reapers.

Again, did taking down the puppet (damn it, I can't think well enough to spell his name! Leave me alone ) hurt Saruon? Sure. How much? It was hard to tell at the end of the second book since we did not know how important it was to him yet. It certainly did not stop him.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
By that logic there is no such thing as bad writing....<_<

Yes, there is, but it's just stupid when someone portray it as bad just because it didn't fit their preferences.

It'd be like if I said that the Lord of the Rings' story sucked because they always had that "light in the darkest hour" theme going on all the time.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 29 août 2011 - 06:58 .

[Sharn01]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

There's only one possible way to watch the prequels now. And.. honestly, I don't get the smudboy adoration/abherration that comes along with these forums. Why should any one fan's opinions be more important than any other's?

Some of the more vocal members of the forum actually have their own fans and forum groups for them to join.  It really drives home the old analogy that people are sheep.

Because supporting someone who makes an argument you agree with makes you a sheep? It could not possibly be that they came to the same conclusions on their own and enjoying sharing and supporting like minded individuals?

So make a forum group where the members are equal and have your discussions.  I dont think having forum groups like the fans of so and so, or so and so is so awesome helps your argument.  I have a group of friends that I do a lot of things with, we dont have a designated leader, and we definately dont sit around and talk about how awesome this designated leader would be if we had one.  We are all friends and all equals, and we all take our turns agreeing and disagreeing with each other, and its not entirely uncommon for us to argue about how much we agree with each other when a statement is misunderstood.

I am not telling anyone they cant or shouldnt have groups like this, leonea asked how one person could gain so much attention from their opinions and I pointed out that there are multiple examples of the same thing right here on the forums.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

I disagree that he knows this and that is the entire point. Not to mention, either he doesn't really know, since his example do not fit his criteria, or he is really bad had saying what he means to say.
The point is that I never argued whether it was done right or not. I stated why I personally  liked it, but that is all. I argued that the idea that Bioware writers suck simply becasue they did not write a story that fits into Smud's check list is absurd. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. they just should not be trying to pass it off as the gospel truth.

By that logic there is no such thing as bad writing....<_<

What is bad writing? If you or I read the twilight books we might think they are horribly written. If a few 13 year old girls picked them up they might think they were the bestest books ever!!!! The same girls might pick up a sci-fi book you and I would like and think it was the most stupid boringest book they had ever read.
Who is right? Which book is written badly? The answer is very subjective. The problem is that Smud is trying to say twilight sucks, everyone should agree, and if you don't agree you just don't know what you are talking about.

... I don't suppose you have any cookies? 100k is a horrible baker

[Someone With Mass]

It's not like nothing was accomplished at all in ME2.

We learned how the Reapers are using certain things like their IFFs or what really happened to the Protheans. We're setting up the stage for future allies against the Reapers all over the place too.

It's the classic buildup sequel, and even the game acknowledges it in some of the loading screens.

[100k]

It should be noted that defeating the Collectors was instrumental to weakening the Reapers.

With the Citadel regained, the Reapers don't have much of an idea about trade routes (which should shift fairly often), population sizes, or fleet locations.

With Nazara destroyed, the Reapers lost communication to their herald and in galaxy scout.

With the Collectors destroyed, the Reapers lost their third and final pair of eyes into the galaxy.

They can still monitor galactic transmissions, and utilize booby traps in the way of relics, but their galactic influence is very limited.

[littlezack]

We could all be reading a book right now.

[SpiffySquee]

Sharn01 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

There's only one possible way to watch the prequels now. And.. honestly, I don't get the smudboy adoration/abherration that comes along with these forums. Why should any one fan's opinions be more important than any other's?

Some of the more vocal members of the forum actually have their own fans and forum groups for them to join.  It really drives home the old analogy that people are sheep.

Because supporting someone who makes an argument you agree with makes you a sheep? It could not possibly be that they came to the same conclusions on their own and enjoying sharing and supporting like minded individuals?

So make a forum group where the members are equal and have your discussions.  I dont think having forum groups like the fans of so and so, or so and so is so awesome helps your argument.  I have a group of friends that I do a lot of things with, we dont have a designated leader, and we definately dont sit around and talk about how awesome this designated leader would be if we had one.  We are all friends and all equals, and we all take our turns agreeing and disagreeing with each other, and its not entirely uncommon for us to argue about how much we agree with each other when a statement is misunderstood.

I am not telling anyone they cant or shouldnt have groups like this, leonea asked how one person could gain so much attention from their opinions and I pointed out that there are multiple examples of the same thing right here on the forums.

Have you seen what all these groups talk about? All of them just blindly praise some guy? I would think most of those people joined because they had the same point of view. They like that person and want to support them. this does not make people sheep.

[Fathom72]

Fixers0 wrote...

Fathom72 wrote...

Um, we totally know what the human reaper was for. Its construction was used to assess humanity's potential for reaperfication. The reapers need to know before arriving on Earth whether to treat us as a threat to be exterminated, or a resource to be harvested.

Unfortunatly you're taking the wrong approach, just because a writer mentions this fact, doesn't have anything to do with the plot of the games, which Smudboy's analysis is all about, you have to ask youreself:

"could you make this information up out of the main plot?"

I could't because there wasn't any exposition on this enite subject, i was just laughing at the poor attempt of it being a major plot reveal and the lack of thought the writers haven putten into it.

Fathom72 wrote...
Also, you're correct in stating that we didn't do anything in ME2 to hinder the reapers. They got what they wanted out of the collector base. However, not every story HAS to have the protagonists dealing a blow against their enemies. Hell, look at The Empire Strikes Back as an example; protagonists got downright thrashed in episode 5.

Again, you're taking the wrong approuch, Shepard doesn't have to criple the reapers, no sure he doesn't, but he should attempt at doing so, he goes looking for the reapers at the end of ME 1, but because of the lack of plot focus in ME2 the writer made the entire second part of the trilogy consist of offroading, this is the overall problem with the plot in Mass Effect 2, and a major point that smudboy adresses.

Ok,

1.  I actually did get that from the game.  The whole theme of the collectors is experimentation; right from the beginning, you are told of how they deal with slavers to acquire different species (TIM even speculates that they're testing for something).  You find out in Mordrin's recruitment mission that they're testing the genetic variability of races.  In the collector ship, your squaddies comment on the horrific things the collectors do to their victims, and speculate on the purpose of it.  Throughout the whole game, you see evidence that the collectors have a problem that needs answering.  Of course, that begs the question; what are they trying to figure out?  Right there, you have the plot of ME2, or Shepard's goal in the story.  Fittingly, at the end of the story, we found out that they were trying to assess humity's viability to become a reaper species.  Not only do we find that out, but we learn that they've already figured this out, and the answer is yes.  In addition, its reasonable to assume that they succeeded in creating it towards the end of the game; all of their past experiments, and recent activities point to them trying to acquire more data, which they wouldn't need if they'd already figured out how to do it.

2.  I'd imagine Shep would have a bone to pick with you for saying that he/she didn't try his darndest to stop the reapers in ME2.  He knows that the collectors are involved with the Reapers, and they are posing an IMMIEDIATE threat to COUNTLESS humans.  Shep came back, saw his old enemy up to new tricks with a new face, and proceeded to do his best to stop them.  He/she ultimately failed in that regard, but you can hardly doubt the effort put forth

I'm honestly curious what kind of plot you would have preferred in ME2.  Aside from the Reapers invading in the second game, how would YOU write a plot in which they are the main antagonists, without losing focus in the overarching story?

[Pax of Doom]

littlezack wrote...

We could all be reading a book right now.

And then we could create multiple 10-minute youtube videos criticizing every aspect of the book, including but not limited to the word use and period placement within the typeset.

It's sad because this guy does make some good points.  They're lost in the excessive negativity.

He also loses a lot in nitpicking every effing little thing.  Not even worth bringing up his other videos (seriously, questioning an insignificant NPC's use of Japanese honorifics is necessary?).  Nitpicking just to nitpick is mental masturbation.

We get it, ME2 isn't the great human achievement in storytelling for
this century or any other.  Is it necessary, or even mentally healthy,
to make 6 videos on the ME2 plot, 16 for characters, 3 for retcons, and
so on, belaboring this point?  Is it even possible to enjoy this game and future ME titles, when one is so well-versed in its failures?  Why even try?

[Bourne Endeavor]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

I disagree that he knows this and that is the entire point. Not to mention, either he doesn't really know, since his example do not fit his criteria, or he is really bad had saying what he means to say.
The point is that I never argued whether it was done right or not. I stated why I personally  liked it, but that is all. I argued that the idea that Bioware writers suck simply becasue they did not write a story that fits into Smud's check list is absurd. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. they just should not be trying to pass it off as the gospel truth.

By that logic there is no such thing as bad writing....<_<

What is bad writing? If you or I read the twilight books we might think they are horribly written. If a few 13 year old girls picked them up they might think they were the bestest books ever!!!! The same girls might pick up a sci-fi book you and I would like and think it was the most stupid boringest book they had ever read.
Who is right? Which book is written badly? The answer is very subjective. The problem is that Smud is trying to say twilight sucks, everyone should agree, and if you don't agree you just don't know what you are talking about.

... I don't suppose you have any cookies? 100k is a horrible baker

Look up the following terms via google or wikipedia...

Plot Hole
Deus ex machina
Hand Wave

Those are three defined terms to illustrate poor writing. Other examples pertain to lack of exposition and inconsistency. In majority's case, if these exist within your work, then you have a poorly written scene, plot or story. By your warped ideology, criticism is a figment of our imagination. In fact, I could misspell every single word in my post and claim the contrary if I used this horrendous theory you have.

Your opinion of a literacy or media work in subjective; the girl in your example is within her right to idolize Twilight. If she states it was good writing however, I can direct her to the aforementioned terms to explain why she is factual mistake. Her rebuttal is then to disprove my claims, or concede the debate. "Well it's my opinion that Twilight is awesome" does not count.

[Sharn01]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

There's only one possible way to watch the prequels now. And.. honestly, I don't get the smudboy adoration/abherration that comes along with these forums. Why should any one fan's opinions be more important than any other's?

Some of the more vocal members of the forum actually have their own fans and forum groups for them to join.  It really drives home the old analogy that people are sheep.

Because supporting someone who makes an argument you agree with makes you a sheep? It could not possibly be that they came to the same conclusions on their own and enjoying sharing and supporting like minded individuals?

So make a forum group where the members are equal and have your discussions.  I dont think having forum groups like the fans of so and so, or so and so is so awesome helps your argument.  I have a group of friends that I do a lot of things with, we dont have a designated leader, and we definately dont sit around and talk about how awesome this designated leader would be if we had one.  We are all friends and all equals, and we all take our turns agreeing and disagreeing with each other, and its not entirely uncommon for us to argue about how much we agree with each other when a statement is misunderstood.

I am not telling anyone they cant or shouldnt have groups like this, leonea asked how one person could gain so much attention from their opinions and I pointed out that there are multiple examples of the same thing right here on the forums.

Have you seen what all these groups talk about? All of them just blindly praise some guy? I would think most of those people joined because they had the same point of view. They like that person and want to support them. this does not make people sheep.

No, I havent seen what they talk about because I dont read the messages from private groups, it could be completely innocent as you say.  I will point out that you bashed smudboy as coming across as arrogant, but you dont see anything arrogant in making your own personal fan group named after yourself?  I dont even know if you have one, I just know that groups like that exist.  I just cant fathom that, I would think if I made a group called the Disciples of Sharn it could easily be contrued as arrogant. 

This whole thread is a mess anyway, the reality of the situation probably lies in the middle between two extremist opinions just like it almost always does.

[SpiffySquee]

Sharn01 wrote...

No, I havent seen what they talk about because I dont read the messages from private groups, it could be completely innocent as you say.  I will point out that you bashed smudboy as coming across as arrogant, but you dont see anything arrogant in making your own personal fan group named after yourself?  I dont even know if you have one, I just know that groups like that exist.  I just cant fathom that, I would think if I made a group called the Disciples of Sharn it could easily be contrued as arrogant. 

This whole thread is a mess anyway, the reality of the situation probably lies in the middle between two extremist opinions just like it almost always does.

Make it yourself? Yes, that would be a bit arrogant. But I have over 2000 subscribers that support my Let's plays and other videos. (bear with me... this sounds like bragging but I'm making a point, and to be honest I don't deserve 10 subscribers)

They constantly called themselves my fans and will gather on my forum to discuss things. They are by no means sheep and have gathered because they share many things in common. Perhaps I take it too personal, but every single one of them means a lot to me and I get sensitive when someone suggests they are simple mindless sheep.

I apologize if I over reacted, but the first thing I thought about was them, and while I certainly don't deserve them, I would not let anyone insult them....
actually, this whole post feels awkward... lets just say you probably have a point about some people, but I feel a lot of smud's followers are such becasue they feel the same as he does and support him because they feel he says what they want to say.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 29 août 2011 - 08:15 .

[SpiffySquee]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

I disagree that he knows this and that is the entire point. Not to mention, either he doesn't really know, since his example do not fit his criteria, or he is really bad had saying what he means to say.
The point is that I never argued whether it was done right or not. I stated why I personally  liked it, but that is all. I argued that the idea that Bioware writers suck simply becasue they did not write a story that fits into Smud's check list is absurd. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. they just should not be trying to pass it off as the gospel truth.

By that logic there is no such thing as bad writing....<_<

What is bad writing? If you or I read the twilight books we might think they are horribly written. If a few 13 year old girls picked them up they might think they were the bestest books ever!!!! The same girls might pick up a sci-fi book you and I would like and think it was the most stupid boringest book they had ever read.
Who is right? Which book is written badly? The answer is very subjective. The problem is that Smud is trying to say twilight sucks, everyone should agree, and if you don't agree you just don't know what you are talking about.

... I don't suppose you have any cookies? 100k is a horrible baker

Look up the following terms via google or wikipedia...

Plot Hole
Deus ex machina
Hand Wave

Those are three defined terms to illustrate poor writing. Other examples pertain to lack of exposition and inconsistency. In majority's case, if these exist within your work, then you have a poorly written scene, plot or story. By your warped ideology, criticism is a figment of our imagination. In fact, I could misspell every single word in my post and claim the contrary if I used this horrendous theory you have.


Your opinion of a literacy or media work in subjective; the girl in your example is within her right to idolize Twilight. If she states it was good writing however, I can direct her to the aforementioned terms to explain why she is factual mistake. Her rebuttal is then to disprove my claims, or concede the debate. "Well it's my opinion that Twilight is awesome" does not count.

First of all, those are all subjective terms, with the exception of Deus ex machina and I would like for you to point one out to me. The death and resurrection is NOT a Deus ex machina as those are used to solve a problem and the death and resurrection does not solve anything as far as the story is concerned. It would be a plot twist, not a Deus ex machina.

The other two terms you offer have no solid definition. Don't even try to use wiki in an argument because I could literally just go change it to suit my need. Any one could, so it is not a true definition of the word.
Mass Effect 2 has very few plot holes. Yes there are some, but I doubt there is a a single novel length fiction that does not have plot holes. And what you consider hand waving, I may not.


We are not talking about punctuation and grammar here. we are talking about writing styles. And to say your style is right to the exclusion of all others just sounds arrogant.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 29 août 2011 - 08:37 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Squee...how you just want to hand-wave the entire history of literary theory.

I had just shown my sister this. She cringed at your words. Mind you that books and writing are her profession.

There is some small amount of subectivity in determining bad writing. But that is minimal. Bad writing is a rather objective issue. You liking a book or not, or not agreeing with it is irrrelevant.
We're not talking about style - we're talking about substance and how literaly devices have been used to tell a story.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 29 août 2011 - 09:02 .

[Notlikeyoucare]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

I disagree that he knows this and that is the entire point. Not to mention, either he doesn't really know, since his example do not fit his criteria, or he is really bad had saying what he means to say.
The point is that I never argued whether it was done right or not. I stated why I personally  liked it, but that is all. I argued that the idea that Bioware writers suck simply becasue they did not write a story that fits into Smud's check list is absurd. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. they just should not be trying to pass it off as the gospel truth.

By that logic there is no such thing as bad writing....<_<

What is bad writing? If you or I read the twilight books we might think they are horribly written. If a few 13 year old girls picked them up they might think they were the bestest books ever!!!! The same girls might pick up a sci-fi book you and I would like and think it was the most stupid boringest book they had ever read.
Who is right? Which book is written badly? The answer is very subjective. The problem is that Smud is trying to say twilight sucks, everyone should agree, and if you don't agree you just don't know what you are talking about.

... I don't suppose you have any cookies? 100k is a horrible baker

Look up the following terms via google or wikipedia...

Plot Hole
Deus ex machina
Hand Wave

Those are three defined terms to illustrate poor writing. Other examples pertain to lack of exposition and inconsistency. In majority's case, if these exist within your work, then you have a poorly written scene, plot or story. By your warped ideology, criticism is a figment of our imagination. In fact, I could misspell every single word in my post and claim the contrary if I used this horrendous theory you have.


Your opinion of a literacy or media work in subjective; the girl in your example is within her right to idolize Twilight. If she states it was good writing however, I can direct her to the aforementioned terms to explain why she is factual mistake. Her rebuttal is then to disprove my claims, or concede the debate. "Well it's my opinion that Twilight is awesome" does not count.

First of all, those are all subjective terms, with the exception of Deus ex machina and I would like for you to point one out to me. The death and resurrection is NOT a Deus ex machina as those are used to solve a problem and the death and resurrection does not solve anything as far as the story is concerned. It would be a plot twist, not a Deus ex machina.

The other two terms you offer have no solid definition. Don't even try to use wiki in an argument because I could literally just go change it to suit my need. Any one could, so it is not a true definition of the word.
Mass Effect 2 has very few plot holes. Yes there are some, but I doubt there is a a single novel length fiction that does not have plot holes. And what you consider hand waving, I may not.


We are not talking about punctuation and grammar here. we are talking about writing styles. And to say your style is right to the exclusion of all others just sounds arrogant.

1. Death is the problem, resurrection is the solution.
2. In wiki's you must reference your source of information, otherwise, it is changed by the staff.
3. So bad writing is a writing style now? A style of narrative has nothing to do with the plot and the errors in it.  Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 are both two different styles of writing yet they both contain poor writing, retcons and inconsistencies. regardless of personal opinions of their respective styles.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Squee...how you just want to hand-wave the entire history of literary theory.

I had just shown my sister this. She cringed at your words. Mind you that books and writing are her profession.

There is some small amount of subectivity in determining bad writing. But that is minimal. Bad writing is a rather objective issue. You liking a book or not, or not agreeing with it is irrrelevant.
We're not talking about style - we're talking about substance and how literaly devices have been used to tell a story.

No we are not. We are talking about the idea that death and resurrection must contain elements of reflection and soul searching, or it is fundamentally wrong. It is simply an opinion, not a fact. It always has been and always will be. To say that the writers of mass effect (who write stories for a living and were hired by a company revered for making good stories) are bad writers simply because they have a different idea of how a death and resurrection should be handled than you do, is complete rubbish.


We are not talking about grammar, or sentence structure. We are not talking about tired and true methods of writing such as putting the climax at the end of a book, or creating some sort of conflict that needs to be resolved. Death and Resurrection is handled so many different ways in so many different stories that to say it MUST be done this way or it is wrong is like saying guys need to part their hair to the left or they are doing it wrong. Just because you think it should be parted to the left, does not mean anyone who does not agree with you is wrong.

[SpiffySquee]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...
1. Death is the problem, resurrection is the solution.
2. In wiki's you must reference your source of information, otherwise, it is changed by the staff.
3. So bad writing is a writing style now? A style of narrative has nothing to do with the plot and the errors in it.  Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 are both two different styles of writing yet they both contain poor writing, retcons and inconsistencies. regardless of personal opinions of their respective styles.

Guess what? Most fiction contains some sort of retcon, inconsistency, and or lack of exposition in certain parts. Should we consider them all bad writing now? No. Why? Because it is personal preference. Most if not all retcons in ME2 are there for game play reasons, not story oversights, and they are far fewer than most people on these forums claim. Inconsistencies are even harder to find. The only thing one can argue the story has a decent amount of is lack of exposition. This is completely subjective. What you call lack of exposition, I might call not slowing the story down with needless exposition.

Example: Some people feel the Lazarus project should have been explained better. They think a better explanation for how it happened should have been told to the players, thus, a lack of exposition. I disagree. I do not feel the need to know more about it because I do not feel it is important to my enjoyment of the story. It brought Shepard back. The outcome is what is important to me, not the process. I could feel that more explanation as to how it happened would be pointless and slow the story down.

 

[Notlikeyoucare]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Squee...how you just want to hand-wave the entire history of literary theory.

I had just shown my sister this. She cringed at your words. Mind you that books and writing are her profession.

There is some small amount of subectivity in determining bad writing. But that is minimal. Bad writing is a rather objective issue. You liking a book or not, or not agreeing with it is irrrelevant.
We're not talking about style - we're talking about substance and how literaly devices have been used to tell a story.

No we are not. We are talking about the idea that death and resurrection must contain elements of reflection and soul searching, or it is fundamentally wrong. It is simply an opinion, not a fact. It always has been and always will be. To say that the writers of mass effect (who write stories for a living and were hired by a company revered for making good stories) are bad writers simply because they have a different idea of how a death and resurrection should be handled than you do, is complete rubbish.


We are not talking about grammar, or sentence structure. We are not talking about tired and true methods of writing such as putting the climax at the end of a book, or creating some sort of conflict that needs to be resolved. Death and Resurrection is handled so many different ways in so many different stories that to say it MUST be done this way or it is wrong is like saying guys need to part their hair to the left or they are doing it wrong. Just because you think it should be parted to the left, does not mean anyone who does not agree with you is wrong.

Death & resurrection doesn't need to be done a certain way but it should amount to at least something other than a plot device. As it stands, Bioware couldn't handle it properly. They let a glass object slip out of their hands and shatter into a million pieces, swept it under the rug, and walked out of the room while holding their hands behind their back and whistling, hoping no-one would notice.

[Notlikeyoucare]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Squee...how you just want to hand-wave the entire history of literary theory.

I had just shown my sister this. She cringed at your words. Mind you that books and writing are her profession.

There is some small amount of subectivity in determining bad writing. But that is minimal. Bad writing is a rather objective issue. You liking a book or not, or not agreeing with it is irrrelevant.
We're not talking about style - we're talking about substance and how literaly devices have been used to tell a story.

No we are not. We are talking about the idea that death and resurrection must contain elements of reflection and soul searching, or it is fundamentally wrong. It is simply an opinion, not a fact. It always has been and always will be. To say that the writers of mass effect (who write stories for a living and were hired by a company revered for making good stories) are bad writers simply because they have a different idea of how a death and resurrection should be handled than you do, is complete rubbish.


We are not talking about grammar, or sentence structure. We are not talking about tired and true methods of writing such as putting the climax at the end of a book, or creating some sort of conflict that needs to be resolved. Death and Resurrection is handled so many different ways in so many different stories that to say it MUST be done this way or it is wrong is like saying guys need to part their hair to the left or they are doing it wrong. Just because you think it should be parted to the left, does not mean anyone who does not agree with you is wrong.

Death & resurrection doesn't need to be done a certain way but it should amount to at least something other than a plot device. As it stands, Bioware couldn't handle it properly. They let a glass object slip out of their hands and shatter into a million pieces, swept it under the rug, and walked out of the room while holding their hands behind their back and whistling, hoping no-one would notice.

[Bourne Endeavor]

SpiffySquee wrote...

First of all, those are all subjective terms, with the exception of Deus ex machina and I would like for you to point one out to me. The death and resurrection is NOT a Deus ex machina as those are used to solve a problem and the death and resurrection does not solve anything as far as the story is concerned. It would be a plot twist, not a Deus ex machina.

The other two terms you offer have no solid definition. Don't even try to use wiki in an argument because I could literally just go change it to suit my need. Any one could, so it is not a true definition of the word.
Mass Effect 2 has very few plot holes. Yes there are some, but I doubt there is a a single novel length fiction that does not have plot holes. And what you consider hand waving, I may not.


We are not talking about punctuation and grammar here. we are talking about writing styles. And to say your style is right to the exclusion of all others just sounds arrogant.

I will point out what you request, when you find the section in my entire post where I cited the death and resurrection a Deus ex Machina. You asked for the definition of poor writing, and I provided such. Your subsequent retort is asinine, and self defeating. While you may freely edit wikipedia, that does not alter the terminology. Likewise, you can also google the term or check reference.com for the identical definition. Mass Effect 2 has an abundance of them, many of which have been discussed in this thread.

"A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline."

The above constitutes poor writing, and "plot hole" is a term created to describe when a story does one of the aforementioned.

Your argument essentially amounts to criticism being factual mistaken, and that nothing equates to being wrong. In this warped ideology opinion is being turned to fact. On the subject, you completely disregard my rebuttal in reference to your Twilight example, and instead chose to make up an argument, which was never presented.

This is not a writing style, nor is it my style but what it acceptable when describing good literature. Once again, you make the rather presumptuous claim there is no such thing as bad writing, movies, television shows, or anything. Frankly, I could argue extreme scenarios when murder is not necessarily wrong utilizing this theory. Coincidently, your claim of my arrogance is akin to the pot calling the kettle black after your last two posts.