6494 réponses à ce sujet

[SpiffySquee]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

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.

Again, this is merely your opinion, not literary fact. You are more than welcome to your point of view, but don't act like it is the only correct point of view. I completely disagree with you. I feel it was handled well, Not perfect, but well. I felt it served it's purpose and was a good start to the game.
For you to tell me this view is somehow flawed or that I just don't understand what makes a good story is nothing more than you trying to say your opinion is more valid than mine.
 

[SpiffySquee]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

No one is arguing that plot hole = bad. Yes, plot holes are bad. Yes Mass Effect has some. So what? Unless you are saying that Shepard's death and resurrection is some sort of plot hole then it has no relevance on what I am saying. The only thing I have argued all night is that handling death and resurrection a different way than you feel it should be handled = universal bad writing.

[Notlikeyoucare]

SpiffySquee wrote...

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.

 

No it isn't personal preference. Literary rules (and rules regarding storytelling) exist for a reason: to tell a story. As soon as it stops doing this it fails. A story must make coherent sense, otherwise it stops being that and starts being a random series of events that don't amount to anything; it fails in its objective of telling a story.

Exposition is not subjective. Exposition is clearly defined and has its own meaning. It is not ambiguous or obscure in any way, full stop. Your opinion on wether or not you prefer exposition is entirely YOUR opinion and it is your right to have it and express it.

Even if it didn't bother you, it doesn't matter, the lack of exposition in this case causes a break in the narrative; a void where the story ceases to be told and jumps to the next random event, where a wizard must fill in the void with magic filler in order for the brain to move on.

As for inconsistencies:

In the first ten minutes we see Jokers condition is now in his entire body and not just his legs, as well as Shepard knowing what thermal clips are after just waking up. These three things really left me in a WTF? state after playing the intro for the first time.

[Whatever42]

Writing is art. It is not engineering. It is not physics. There is nothing objective about writing, it is entirely subjective. As art, writing is intended to communicate something to reader. It might be information. It might be emotion. It might be perspective. And those literary flaws mentioned are also subjective. A plot hole is usually something significant regarding the plot. To some significant means not explaining where Mordin got a sample. To most, that's trivial and not a plot hole. Subjective.

Again, remember the media. Most writing have a main character who has an internal struggle that is resolved along with the plot. In ME1, Shepard had no internal struggle. In ME2, Shepard had no internal struggle. However, not following the standard 3 act story structure in regards to internal struggle is not a writing flaw. It was intentional. These are professional writers, they know story structure. However, Shepard is a blank slate on purpose.

I agree that ressurection would make an excellent internal struggle for a character. However, different players would imagine their Shepard reacting differently. I would be in a twist about how they restored my memories if I suffered considerable brain damage. Others would be in a twist about if they still had a soul. How do the writers made a generic Shepard react? Do they want that level of angst in a video game? They way they wrote it was on purpose.

Ultimately, I take art as an expression of the artist as interpreted in me. Whether that art does anything for me is entirely subjective. Pointing out how it could have been done better to appeal to me is fine but again, entirely subjective. Would I have been happier with less choice but a deeper, angstier main character? Perhaps. Would others? Perhaps not.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 29 août 2011 - 10:28 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

We're talking about ME2 story in general (not jsut death & ressurection). But when if you want argue just that, it's still not done right. There's a TON of wasted potential just there.

Literary theory exist, weather you like to accpt it not. People who spent their whole lives analyzing stories compiled that theory.
Popularity DOES NOT equal good writing.
I don't know what qualification the writers of ME have really (note that most of the writers in the buisness actually have no appropriate college education), but I do know what they have written. ME2 is just simply bad writing full of plot holes.

And entertainign game, yes. A interesting story, yes. An experience, yes. But NOT good writing.

Yet you cannot seem to tell those apart. You are trapped in the "I like it = great writing" mentality.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Writing is art. It is not engineering. It is not physics. There is nothing objective about writing, it is entirely subjective.

Bulls****.

You just don't want your holy cow to be touched in any way. Writing is not subjective. Plot holes are not subjective. You may wilfully choose to ignore them, but that's a different thing altogether.

[Bourne Endeavor]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

No one is arguing that plot hole = bad. Yes, plot holes are bad. Yes Mass Effect has some. So what? Unless you are saying that Shepard's death and resurrection is some sort of plot hole then it has no relevance on what I am saying. The only thing I have argued all night is that handling death and resurrection a different way than you feel it should be handled = universal bad writing.

You are changing the argument once again because you have no rebuttal. Your original post asked what is bad writing. I provided the answer, you then claimed it was subjective and insinuated bad writing does not exist, thereby contradicting yourself; twice since that was a debate with regards to plot holes being bad.

Now that we have established plot holes are bad, allow us to look at the definition again.

"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."

See the bold portion? Those all pertain to Shepard's death and subsequent resurrection. Now we will break them down individually.

The "Impossible Event" is Shepard's brain being salvageable due to either Planetary reentry, collusion with the planet's surface and/or exposure to subzero temperatures splitting it apart in some manner. This is emphasized when we discover Shepard's helmet, which acknowledging her head was directly exposed to the elements. The codex refutes the notion of shields being utilized as does Shepard being unconscious.

The "Blatant omission of relevant information" derives from the plot simply glossing over the inevitable question of "how was this possible?" We cannot ask that, nor is it mentioned. This refers to a hand wave; intentionally glossing over or bypassing the question.

Finally, this equates to "a gap or inconsistency" because in the next scene Shepard is alive, yet the questions from first scene were not addressed. We still do not know how this feat happened. All we can say is "Oh Miranda and Wilson did stuff" We do not have answers, just more questions.

Your opinion may accept this, perhaps by having filled in the missing gap or you simply couldn't care less however from a factual standard this is a plot hole, which we have agreed, is bad. You can like something with plot holes, you can even like the plot hole or hand wave for its simplicity. What you cannot do, is claim it good writing. Well you can, but you would be wrong.

[Whatever42]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

No it isn't personal preference. Literary rules (and rules regarding storytelling) exist for a reason: to tell a story. As soon as it stops doing this it fails. A story must make coherent sense, otherwise it stops being that and starts being a random series of events that don't amount to anything; it fails in its objective of telling a story.

Exposition is not subjective. Exposition is clearly defined and has its own meaning. It is not ambiguous or obscure in any way, full stop. Your opinion on wether or not you prefer exposition is entirely YOUR opinion and it is your right to have it and express it.

Even if it didn't bother you, it doesn't matter, the lack of exposition in this case causes a break in the narrative; a void where the story ceases to be told and jumps to the next random event, where a wizard must fill in the void with magic filler in order for the brain to move on.

As for inconsistencies:

In the first ten minutes we see Jokers condition is now in his entire body and not just his legs, as well as Shepard knowing what thermal clips are after just waking up. These three things really left me in a WTF? state after playing the intro for the first time.

Rules are always meant to be broken, sorry. Project management has rules. I through many of them out because the rules don't always fit the environment. Music has rules, which are often thrown out by musicians. Painting a portrait has rules, unless you're a master artist and make up your own rules.

Video games are a different media than novels. Rules need to be adapted to the media. I have a character onto which my readers will project their own personality. The game has limited opportunity for exposition. It is an action-RPG, where we have fast pace, visual scenes, and lots of explosions. Do I introduce an internal struggle, like the rules say, or not because I don't want to impose a personality or slow down the action that much?

And changing gameplay is not a retcon in the writing. And I don't believe Joker's disease can just affect his legs. It believe his legs are just mainly what's at risk during piloting.

[Whatever42]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Writing is art. It is not engineering. It is not physics. There is nothing objective about writing, it is entirely subjective.

Bulls****.

You just don't want your holy cow to be touched in any way. Writing is not subjective. Plot holes are not subjective. You may wilfully choose to ignore them, but that's a different thing altogether.

Nonsense, I have lots of criticisms of the ME writing. There are things I do regard as plot holes. But this absolutist view of writing is just nonsense. You find me credible source that says writing is not art. . That writing MUST follow all rules or its bad writing. Your sister is not a credible source

You find me a credible source that says every unexplained detail in a story is a plot hole. 

You may choose to think that you know everything about writing but you don't. In my business writing, I use an active voice because one of the rules of business writing is to use an active voice. However, sometimes I deliberately use a passive voice because the situation simply warrants one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Storytelling is storytelling. The basic rules remain the same.

Really, how you lot simply de-value the literal theory sickens me.
You're basicly saying that my sister went to college and graduated with honor for nothing. You're talling that she and people like her are worthless, since it's all subjective.

I find it sad that when you can't deny the plot holes and inconcistencies and other instances of bad writing anymore, when confronted with clear definitions you start to attack the definitions and litarary theories themselves.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
You find me a credible source that says every unexplained detail in a story is a plot hole.

And what would be a credible source to you?

And no, no one said EVERY detail. Reductio Ad Absudrum is bad debating.

[Whatever42]

By the way, since we're pulling definitions from wikipedia, lets look at the second paragraph:

"While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome. Plot holes are usually seen as weaknesses or flaws in a story, and writers usually try to avoid them to make their stories seem as realistic as possible. However, certain genres (and some media) which require or allow suspension of disbelief are more tolerant of plot holes."

Yes, Mordin's research is important to the story but exactly how he got the seeker is not unless it was created as a deliberate obstacle. However, I'm going to just surrender the point because I want to address the second part of that paragraph.

It says that certain media and genres are more tolerant of plot holes than others. Oops, that violates a rule, doesn't it. But why are highly paid professional writers in certain medias and genres breaking that rule? Why do so many bad writers make so much money in these media and genres?

They could make up a ton of technobabble to explain everything; we know they could. However, many writers don't like drowning their readers in technobabble, so they skip it. That's a choice. You don't think the writers could easily explain how they reconstructed a seeker? Would that have added anything to the story for 99% of players?

Also consider the media,: they want to keep the action moving, not burden us in made-up science. They want to set up visual, action scenes. Shepard being thrown away from an explosion and surviving without a great deal of explanation might be a plot hole but its a great scene. And they are not going to follow great scenes with ten minutes of dialogue explaining it.

It's possible for a writer to legitimately make decisions without it being sloppy writing. You may personally wish that they would add a half-hour of exposition to the game but they chose not to because they had other priorities.

[Notlikeyoucare]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

No it isn't personal preference. Literary rules (and rules regarding storytelling) exist for a reason: to tell a story. As soon as it stops doing this it fails. A story must make coherent sense, otherwise it stops being that and starts being a random series of events that don't amount to anything; it fails in its objective of telling a story.

Exposition is not subjective. Exposition is clearly defined and has its own meaning. It is not ambiguous or obscure in any way, full stop. Your opinion on wether or not you prefer exposition is entirely YOUR opinion and it is your right to have it and express it.

Even if it didn't bother you, it doesn't matter, the lack of exposition in this case causes a break in the narrative; a void where the story ceases to be told and jumps to the next random event, where a wizard must fill in the void with magic filler in order for the brain to move on.

As for inconsistencies:

In the first ten minutes we see Jokers condition is now in his entire body and not just his legs, as well as Shepard knowing what thermal clips are after just waking up. These three things really left me in a WTF? state after playing the intro for the first time.

Rules are always meant to be broken, sorry. Project management has rules. I through many of them out because the rules don't always fit the environment. Music has rules, which are often thrown out by musicians. Painting a portrait has rules, unless you're a master artist and make up your own rules.

Video games are a different media than novels. Rules need to be adapted to the media. I have a character onto which my readers will project their own personality. The game has limited opportunity for exposition. It is an action-RPG, where we have fast pace, visual scenes, and lots of explosions. Do I introduce an internal struggle, like the rules say, or not because I don't want to impose a personality or slow down the action that much?

And changing gameplay is not a retcon in the writing. And I don't believe Joker's disease can just affect his legs. It believe his legs are just mainly what's at risk during piloting.

Storytelling is unlike other art forms. Storytelling can be viewed as objectively good or not because unlike music and paintings, they can be logically deconstructed, questioned, and analysed to see how it succeeeds in or fails in performing its task. Scenes can be illogical, characters can be inconsistent, random unconnected events, premises with no exposition ect. All of these things amounts to a story failing at its job due to poor writing.

Music and artworks are completely different. Music can only be deduced as music and a painting can only be deduced as a painting because they are both works of obscuritism  that cannot be lactally looked at as anything than what they are. since there is nothing to analyse.

"And then the tea was warm, so I shot my brother in the chest and gave my dog a bath in the next room with water that was heated from a giant firebreathing dragon that came to Earth from another planet by a car with no flying capabilities"
See? I can write a story too. Where's my best writing award? If you don't like it, its just your opinion, my story is up there with the literary greats.

[Notlikeyoucare]

double post.

Modifié par Notlikeyoucare, 29 août 2011 - 11:10 .

[Whatever42]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Storytelling is storytelling. The basic rules remain the same.

Really, how you lot simply de-value the literal theory sickens me.
You're basicly saying that my sister went to college and graduated with honor for nothing. You're talling that she and people like her are worthless, since it's all subjective.

I find it sad that when you can't deny the plot holes and inconcistencies and other instances of bad writing anymore, when confronted with clear definitions you start to attack the definitions and litarary theories themselves.

Prepare for the whole world to sicken you, my friend. 

And, no, your sister did not graduate with honors for nothing. I did not graduate with my business degree for nothing. However, I did learn that my business degree was simply a starting point for my real education. Business theory is useful, the case studies were useful, but practice does not resemble theory or case studies. 

As your sister evolves in her craft, expect her to sicken you because her views will change. My views on my own profession change regularly. But actually, I doubt she thinks the rules are so unbreakable if she's a practicing writer. I suspect there is some miscommunication there. 

[Whatever42]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...
Storytelling is unlike other art forms. Storytelling can be viewed as objectively good or not because unlike music and paintings, they can be logically deconstructed, questioned, and analysed to see how it succeeeds in or fails in performing its task. Scenes can be illogical, characters can be inconsistent, random unconnected events, premises with no exposition ect. All of these things amounts to a story failing at its job due to poor writing.

Music and artworks are completely different. Music can only be deduced as music and a painting can only be deduced as a painting because they are both works of obscuritism  that cannot be lactally looked at as anything than what they are. since there is nothing to analyse.

"And then the tea was warm, so I shot my brother in the chest and gave my dog a bath in the next room with water that was heated from a giant firebreathing dragon that came to Earth from another planet by a car with no flying capabilities"
See? I can write a story too. Where's my best writing award? If you don't like it, its just your opinion, my story is up there with the literary greats.

Actually, music and painting can and is logically deconstructed, questioned, and analysed to see how will it succeeds or fails.

And I agree there can be flaws in writing, depending on what the author is attempting to accomplish.

Your little paragraph might be considered great, actually, depending on your intention. It's wonderfully random and made me laugh. I suspect you meant to convey a point that its difficult to understand the meaning of random ideas in a sentence and that you meant to be funny. You succeeded on both points.

Now, if Shepard suddenly said that sentence in the middle of the game in response to a question about how to defeat Reapers and he wasn't addled on drugs, I would regard that as a flaw, yes. What was I supposed to get out of that sentence? Was it supposed to tell me that Shepard became unhinged? If he wasn't unhinged and isn't Johnny Depp then I would regard that as bad.

I DO have my cricitisms of ME2. I never did really understand the Collector motivations for doing what they were doing WHEN they were doing it. I don't think the writers meant to leave me with that question. That would be a flaw, in my mind, unless I learned more. I felt the main story was weak in its telling and the game ran out of gas for me 2/3 of the way through. I know that wasn't their intention and it would be a bad one if it was.

However, not explaining Mordin's science is probably intentional. Not burdening Shepard with internal struggle was certainly intentional. 

[Guldhun2]

Funny really how Squee and the rest can't defend massive plot holes and blatantly obvious plot devices. And then resort to changing literal theory, saying it's all subjective because they have no other means to defend it. Just accept it guys, ME2 is a fun game, but terribly written.

Just because in your (strange) mind it's the best writing ever doesn't make it so. Like i said before, there's millions of people out there who think Justin Bieber is the 21st century Elvis Presley. But you know just as well as me that Justin Bieber is a ***** musician.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 29 août 2011 - 11:34 .

[Il Divo]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Funny really how Squee and the rest can't defend massive plot holes and blatantly obvious plot devices. And then resort to changing literal theory, saying it's all subjective because they have no other means to defend it. Just accept it guys, ME2 is a fun game, but terribly written.

Just because in your (strange) mind it's the best writing ever doesn't make it so. Like i said before, there's millions of people out there who think Justin Bieber is the 21st century Elvis Presley. But you know just as well as me that Justin Bieber is a ***** musician.

Yeah, do us all a favor and leave the critiques to Smud, Bourne, and the rest. You're just leeching off their arguments.

[Guldhun2]

Il Divo wrote...

Guldhun2 wrote...

Funny really how Squee and the rest can't defend massive plot holes and blatantly obvious plot devices. And then resort to changing literal theory, saying it's all subjective because they have no other means to defend it. Just accept it guys, ME2 is a fun game, but terribly written.

Just because in your (strange) mind it's the best writing ever doesn't make it so. Like i said before, there's millions of people out there who think Justin Bieber is the 21st century Elvis Presley. But you know just as well as me that Justin Bieber is a ***** musician.

Yeah, do us all a favor and leave the critiques to Smud, Bourne, and the rest. You're just leeching off their arguments.

Arguments? Really? Have you even read all of them?

A: ME2 has plot holes!
B: No it doesn't!
A: Yes it does, here's example X
B: ehhh that not a plot hole because i think it isn't
A: Well according to literary theory it is.
B: ehhh plot holes are subjective! If i don't think it's a plot hole it isn't!
A:

/Thread over

[Whatever42]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Arguments? Really? Have you even read all of them?

A: ME2 has plot holes!
B: No it doesn't!
A: Yes it does, here's example X
B: ehhh that not a plot hole because i think it isn't
A: Well according to literary theory it is.
B: ehhh plot holes are subjective! If i don't think it's a plot hole it isn't!
A:

/Thread over

Crass oversimplification.

ME2 does have plot holes. Squee's videos admits plot holes. 

Smud once argued that TIM not blockading the Omega IV relay was a plot hole. There is no literary theory in the world that says that is a plot hole. We call him on it. This is not denying that there are plot holes in ME2. This is saying that Smud has gone way overboard in his plot hole hunt.

I also argue that certain plot holes are intentional. Again, I point to Shepard hurtling towards certain death in the opening scene. It was a great, dramatic, cliff-hanger. They did some technology hand-waving to explain his ressurection but it still left some unanswered questions. The best solution was to make the scene less dramatic and less of a cliff-hanger. However, this is a highly visual, cinematic game and they don't want to make the scene differently. They willing take the plot hole. 

That movie writers do this often is undeniable. It is not sloppy writing. They are breaking a rule on purpose with malice and forethought because they think it's worth it.

As to plot holes being subjective; that argument only comes up because Smud argues that any alternate course of action not taken that has not been fully explained and excluded is a plot hole. We believe he is grossly misusing the term. We are being charitable when we say the term is subjective. In reality, we think a few other posters seriously misunderstand what the term means.

[Deylar]

I watched both. I think Smud made some good points and I kind of agree with him.

[Il Divo]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Yes, it is that damaging a statement because the plot was to stop the Collectors, which we know nothing about. The Shadow Broker's solution was to gather intel. on the scope of the mission parameters while TIM does not. It was a simpler, easier avenue that was never referenced to by our plot provider, which equates to a plot hole. Why it is so egregious is because this one line of dialogue completely subverted what we knew throughout ME2, thereby undermining the plot.

I still have to disagree. If I believe no ship is capable of surviving the Omega IV relay, the use of a probe is doubtful at best. Given TIM's character, intelligence, and resources, I (as the player) consider it a minor detail which can be extrapolated. And if not, based on the relay's reputation, it's not really an option I'd consider exploring. In that sense, the basic premise of ME2 (find a way through the relay) made sense, even if Shepard's ressurection, shuttle to nowhere, etc, did not.

TIM did not have to be aware of the Shadow Broker's activities, he needed to attempt this for himself. If it failed, they need another recourse to explore. What would constitute a superior probe is one with which has greater success than its predecessor. The basic design for continual trial and error, utilizing every resource available until nothing remains.

If successful navigation of the Omega IV Relay is probability based as indicated, we cannot say with any certainty whether TIM is capable of creating a successful probe. And if he is unable to recover his probes, he would be unable to pursue that line of inquiry. TIM needs to be aware of the Shadow Broker's activities because that would provide the basis for creating "better" probes. If he has no idea why/how his probes aren't returning, what can he do?

Evidently, the Shadow Broker proved this method was successful, and it stands to reason Cerberus would have similar resources at their disposal. Thus, TIM would have emulated the Shadow Broker's success, which is yet another reason why that statement is so damaging. It demonstrates either Cerberus tried and gave up too quickly or did not bother at all. In either case, they come across inept.

But we've already made a critical assumption here: why do we believe that the Shadow Broker's success was anything other than luck? As Mass Effect 2 presents it, orbital drift has always existed since the Asari first discovered the Citadel. We have no reason to believe that the Shadow Broker's success was a result of better technology and not chance sending his probe to the "safe zone". We also don't have a means of determining whether more precise probes can be made (beyond the IFF), especially considering no race has been successful in this endeavor.

Entering the Relay is seen as the only option precisely because we currently don't have a way in.

See, for me. I generally will overlook plot inconsistency if it happens to be minor or a rarity. It would be presumptuous to expect a flawlessly crafted story. The reason I pick apart ME2, is there are so many plot holes that it reaches a point where I simply find the writing lazy. Personally, I have come to believe the main plot was written as an afterthought with no consideration for Mass Effect at all. They sold us a character story and provided a episodic structured plot which adhered to this design. Since it required a main plot of some degree, they tied something together and called it a day.

I further speculate Walters is an individual who has an abundance of ideas on a daily basis and gets excited with each new creation. When it comes time to fit them together, none of the ideas mesh in a cohesive manner. So they are hammered in like a poorly fitted puzzle piece. Such is my reasoning for how Walters can do so well with short character arcs, yet fail with an overarching plot. Contrary to many who criticize ME2, I both love the game and believe the main plot had potential, it was simply wasted.

Of course those last two paragraphs are purely my own opinion. I imagine many will disagree.

No, I pretty much agree with this all the way through. I forgive Mass Effect 2 because (despite its large plot issues) it provided enjoyable characters, a new setting, amongst other things. The main plot was definitely below Mass Effect's standards, however. And in some cases (Mordin's Collector Bug, Ashley's revival), the necessary "fix" required a single line of dialogue to correct.

Edit: And apologies if my posts are becoming bloated. Feel free to strip/delete as necessary.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 août 2011 - 01:00 .

[Notlikeyoucare]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...
Storytelling is unlike other art forms. Storytelling can be viewed as objectively good or not because unlike music and paintings, they can be logically deconstructed, questioned, and analysed to see how it succeeeds in or fails in performing its task. Scenes can be illogical, characters can be inconsistent, random unconnected events, premises with no exposition ect. All of these things amounts to a story failing at its job due to poor writing.

Music and artworks are completely different. Music can only be deduced as music and a painting can only be deduced as a painting because they are both works of obscuritism  that cannot be lactally looked at as anything than what they are. since there is nothing to analyse.

"And then the tea was warm, so I shot my brother in the chest and gave my dog a bath in the next room with water that was heated from a giant firebreathing dragon that came to Earth from another planet by a car with no flying capabilities"
See? I can write a story too. Where's my best writing award? If you don't like it, its just your opinion, my story is up there with the literary greats.

Actually, music and painting can and is logically deconstructed, questioned, and analysed to see how will it succeeds or fails.

And I agree there can be flaws in writing, depending on what the author is attempting to accomplish.

Your little paragraph might be considered great, actually, depending on your intention. It's wonderfully random and made me laugh. I suspect you meant to convey a point that its difficult to understand the meaning of random ideas in a sentence and that you meant to be funny. You succeeded on both points.

Now, if Shepard suddenly said that sentence in the middle of the game in response to a question about how to defeat Reapers and he wasn't addled on drugs, I would regard that as a flaw, yes. What was I supposed to get out of that sentence? Was it supposed to tell me that Shepard became unhinged? If he wasn't unhinged and isn't Johnny Depp then I would regard that as bad.

I DO have my cricitisms of ME2. I never did really understand the Collector motivations for doing what they were doing WHEN they were doing it. I don't think the writers meant to leave me with that question. That would be a flaw, in my mind, unless I learned more. I felt the main story was weak in its telling and the game ran out of gas for me 2/3 of the way through. I know that wasn't their intention and it would be a bad one if it was.

However, not explaining Mordin's science is probably intentional. Not burdening Shepard with internal struggle was certainly intentional. 

Sure. I can deconstruct a song, break down the instruments used the composition ect. I can say "why didn't they use piano instead of guitar here?" "Why didn't they use these notes here?" but it means nothing. It cannot break my connection since there is no recourse; I have no foundation on which to base my questioning other than my opinion, thus making them void. The only time this would be the case is if the musicians played a note(s) incorrectly. Thus, severing the connection between the music being played and the composition. It doesn't matter if I think its sounds fine or better than the actual composition, the music was played incorrectly; this makes the recording performance a bad one.

Well thank you very much . That paragraph was the stupidest thing to ever come out of my brain. It was unintentionally humourous ( I didn't find it funny but I'm glad you did). My objective was to tell a story and I failed on the part of bad writing.

A writers intention should always be to write a good story, it doesn't matter what the theme is, or what the story is about. If the writer fails, then it is due to bad writing.

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

As to plot holes being subjective; that argument only comes up because Smud argues that any alternate course of action not taken that has not been fully explained and excluded is a plot hole. We believe he is grossly misusing the term. We are being charitable when we say the term is subjective. In reality, we think a few other posters seriously misunderstand what the term means.

This whole post, in a nutshell. But especially this bit. I agree with alot of what Smud says, but his point on how to deal with the relay was even worse than Mass Effect 2's plotline (in my opinion). Given the size and scope of the relay, mining it would not be a productive endeavor, based on time or resources. Likewise with a fleet of ships. I doubt the major players of the galaxy (Terminus Systems or otherwise) would look kindly on a standing army.

[Guldhun2]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Crass oversimplification.

Yes! Time is money friend...eww did i just quote WoW.

ME2 does have plot holes. Squee's videos admits plot holes.

Than what are we discussing? Thread over, squee admits defeat!

Smud once argued that TIM not blockading the Omega IV relay was a plot hole. There is no literary theory in the world that says that is a plot hole. We call him on it. This is not denying that there are plot holes in ME2. This is saying that Smud has gone way overboard in his plot hole hunt.

From wiki (plot holes)-> ...These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters..

TIM not doing anything apart from sending the 14 best "badasses" with the single best ship available in the galaxy to fight an enemy they know almost nothing about in the middle of the galaxy amonst supernova's and black holes is...a plot hole! 

I also argue that certain plot holes are intentional. Again, I point to Shepard hurtling towards certain death in the opening scene. It was a great, dramatic, cliff-hanger. They did some technology hand-waving to explain his ressurection but it still left some unanswered questions. The best solution was to make the scene less dramatic and less of a cliff-hanger. However, this is a highly visual, cinematic game and they don't want to make the scene differently. They willing take the plot hole.

When a plot hole is intentional it's a plot device. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing (Star Wars 's Deathstar comes to mind). But if there's so much of them in the game then it is bad writing.

Ressurecting of Shepard to make him join Cerberus.
Having the Seeker bug thing coming from nowhere.
The collectors letting Shepard take data from their ship, for no other reason than to advance the plot.
Having all squad members go into the shuttle.
etc.

That movie writers do this often is undeniable. It is not sloppy writing. They are breaking a rule on purpose with malice and forethought because they think it's worth it.

Which is ok, but overusing it because the writers have no idea how to fill in the gaps is bad and sloppy writing.

As to plot holes being subjective; that argument only comes up because Smud argues that any alternate course of action not taken that has not been fully explained and excluded is a plot hole. We believe he is grossly misusing the term. We are being charitable when we say the term is subjective. In reality, we think a few other posters seriously misunderstand what the term means.

If characters behave different for no reason, without explanation, that is bad writing and a plot hole.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 29 août 2011 - 12:14 .