6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Arkitekt]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DLC....


And it still has no impact whatsoever on the main story or anything else. Still fails miserably.

So what it's a DLC? It appears it's a whihing minority those who have problems with this detailed issue. About its failure, I'm sure you'll invent something better.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
and ~40 kiloton per shot is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when ships have multiple guns (the new human DN has 144 of them) and you're attacked by hte fleet.
No matter how you look at it, that's a frightening amount of energy.

I thought it was only the main "spinal mount" mass accelerator cannon that hit that kind of delivered energy. 

[100k]

Arkitekt wrote...
I haven't the faintest clue on how you arrived at the conclusion that "death isn't really that important or regrettable". So unless someone cries or has some psychological epiphany over it, his life is meaningless? Your conclusions are based upon a set of prejudiced assumptions (that shep should be a wuss for instance) that you take for granted.

Don't be an idiot, Arkitekt. Whether Shepard is afraid or not is irrelevant (Shepard isn't). The fact that the Lazarus Project can effectively negate death by reassurection effectively means that the Reapers can't do anything to organic species. 

Hence, we need to know how Shepard feels about dying (we get small bits and pieces, but no overall idea) and we need to know more about the project.

[100k]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

100k wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
DLC....


And it still has no impact whatsoever on the main story or anything else. Still fails miserably.

It's good for the player for nostalgia purposes, and its great as a non-combat oriented level, but not for Shepard as a character or the story. Shepard never gives any indication as to how he/she feels about dying -- even fairly ambiguous emotional body language. If Shepard reacted to the crash differently, depending on his P/N/R levels, then we'd see that it has an effect on him.

The problem with that is that it takes the character out of the player's control -- it's another sign that this is less RPG and more "interactive cinematic experience". 

And if that's where video games are headed, forget it. 

Your Paragon, Neutral, and Regenade levels ARE within your control, meaning that the player would be able to control how Shepard reacts to the situation.

Its not clear in ME2 whether Shepard is an avatar of the player, or a PC that the player controls, but my guess is that, since Shepard was a PC in ME1, he's more of a PC than an avatar. 

Oh, and you better get your vomit bag ready, because the developers, and Jennifer Hale have confirmed that Shepard will be more "human" and "emotional" in ME3. 

But Shepard's a soldier! He doesn't have emotions, only orders--

Wrong -- and I no longer hold anyone who uses this argument in high regards. Soldiers suffer from extreme emotional side effects. PTSD, paranoia, shellshock, etc etc. Shepard may be the best damn soldier in the galaxy, but as Hackett and Anderson say:

Shepard could have some serious emotional scars

Every soldier has scars. Shepard's a survivor.

Is that the kind of person we want protecting the galaxy?

It's the only kind of person who can protect the galaxy.

[Arkitekt]

100k wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...
I haven't the faintest clue on how you arrived at the conclusion that "death isn't really that important or regrettable". So unless someone cries or has some psychological epiphany over it, his life is meaningless? Your conclusions are based upon a set of prejudiced assumptions (that shep should be a wuss for instance) that you take for granted.

Don't be an idiot, Arkitekt. Whether Shepard is afraid or not is irrelevant (Shepard isn't). The fact that the Lazarus Project can effectively negate death by reassurection effectively means that the Reapers can't do anything to organic species.

Yeah, let's all spend billions per dead subjects. And let's all not worry since the reapers will never find our hospitals where we make this medical and economical miracle.

Jesus, why do I even bother?

Hence, we need to know how Shepard feels about dying (we get small bits and pieces, but no overall idea) and we need to know more about the project.

We know enough about the project to know that it can't be mass produced and it doesn't ressuscitate every single case of the condition "dead". And we know it can take two years to revive someone, we know it takes a full medical team to get one patient alive, we know enough to laugh at your proposal that because we can revive Shep we don't have to fear the reapers. 

I mean, wow, just stop posting and the nonsense level will perhaps reach an acceptable level. Please? Should I beg?

[Arkitekt]

100k wrote...

Oh, and you better get your vomit bag ready, because the developers, and Jennifer Hale have confirmed that Shepard will be more "human" and "emotional" in ME3.

I don't get you people. Isn't this what you guys are whining about in ME2, the lack of emotional content in Shepard? The inability to express whatever the hell you seem arguing about?

Ok, I had forgotten my plead to stop responding to your shenanigans but I remember it now. I just can't stand the level of stupidity that you bring this thread into.

[111987]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quot

I see you avoid answering and resort to a wall of BS.

Reapers can apparenlty run, but can't walk.

Yes, I asked for sauce, which you haven't provided. I asked for a logical explanation of WHY a reaper couldn't do a regular remote control - which you fail to answer.
Face it - you cannot asnwer it. You don't even know how. You just repeat the same old mantra "sovy must fully posses" without thinking. you're using the worst kind of circular logic here.

"Because we didn't see him do that in the game" is not an answer.

You once again resort to not addressing the points I raise, so let's just move on shall we?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

WHY? By what logic?
You are nto making any sense.

Why would it be harder when Saren is dead? It sends/recives signals from the implants/reaper tech. Sarens brain is really not important in the equation. If anythig, it makes things more difficult.

Again - when can Direct ctontrol do that regular remote control can't? Nothing.
Even with todays tech there is no downside. the onyl thing I cna think of is latency issues, but those onl occur whe nbig distances are invloved. And not only whas Sovereign close, but repers also use quantum entanglement, so not evne that would be a problem.

Once again, you ignored my points. Nor have you provided evidence that the Reapers are capable of 'remote-control'. So I have nothing more to say here either.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Go ahead and try.
Your taking a figure of speech literally and only making yourself look like a retard in the process.

and ~40 kiloton per shot is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when ships have multiple guns (the new human DN has 144 of them) and you're attacked by hte fleet.
No matter how you look at it, that's a frightening amount of energy.

Please don't use the word 'retard'; it is offensive. Anyways, it was cruisers that were firing at Sovereign, not dreadnaughts, so it's not 38 kilotons per shot anyways. And only the main gun yields power of that magnitude.

I understand what a figure of speech is, but you said megatons of firepower, which is just so insanely wrong I had to respond. No matter how you look at it, you were wrong

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The codex doesn't say what you think it does. Ships in combat heat up more, runnign their systems and everything. Firewing weapons and ships are included in that.

The Codex says exactly what I think it does. Taking fire from shields is not said to overheat ships, so you can't use that as a point. I'm done discussing this point with you; you are wrong.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yeah...ALL of them at exactly the same time. After only 2 minutes of fighting....yeah...How about NO?

They all started firing at the same time...and they are all the same type of ship...and who knows how long the battle had been going on?

What a horrible counter-argument.

You are entirely avoiding my points, and disagreeing just to disagree. Since you obviously are not interested in a rational discussion/debate, I have nothing further to say on the subject with you.

The fact that you have to make up convulted scenarios to try and rationalize Sovereign's defeat via conventional means, despite a very obvious in-game connection, says a lot about you. And frankly, it doesn't say anything good.

[111987]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
and ~40 kiloton per shot is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when ships have multiple guns (the new human DN has 144 of them) and you're attacked by hte fleet.
No matter how you look at it, that's a frightening amount of energy.

I thought it was only the main "spinal mount" mass accelerator cannon that hit that kind of delivered energy. 

Yeap, you are correct.

And that is on dreadnaughts...which weren't even at the Battle of the Citadel (besides the Destiny Ascension).

[100k]

Arkitekt wrote...
Yeah, let's all spend billions per dead subjects. And let's all not worry since the reapers will never find our hospitals where we make this medical and economical miracle.

Jesus, why do I even bother?

The wonderful thing about medicine, medical experiements, medical technology, etc, is that once they are proven to be effective, the cost of production, replication, innovation, refinment, and application often drops like a stone. Cerberus could potentially make billions of credits by selling and thus trivializing the Lazarus Project.

We know enough about the project to know that it can't be mass produced

Do we now?

and it doesn't ressuscitate every single case of the condition "dead".

O RLY? How do we know this?

And we know it can take two years to revive someone

Interesting. Where did you get this from? I mean, I know that it took two years to rebuild Shepard, but he was the first subject. It should've taken more time for him.

we know it takes a full medical team to get one patient alive

I guess it sucks that Cerberus has the only medical team in the galaxy.

we know enough to laugh at your proposal that because we can revive Shep we don't have to fear the reapers.

Didn't I tell you to stop being an idiot? 

You haven't "proven" anything. I have used in-game content, lore, and real world explainations to back my arguments. You've just spouted angry retorts at me, and let your emotions overwhelm your comprehensive abilities. Death means something, philosphically, instinctually, religiously, biologically, intellectually. 

To paraphrase squee -- Wilson was about to become rich! He just discovered a way to bring back the dead! 

[Sgt Stryker]

Arkitekt wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DLC....


And it still has no impact whatsoever on the main story or anything else. Still fails miserably.

So what it's a DLC? It appears it's a whihing minority those who have problems with this detailed issue. About its failure, I'm sure you'll invent something better.

Clarification: day-one free DLC. In other words, it's as optional as those audio logs on the Lazarus station, or Investigate options (unless you don't have Cerberus Network). Yes dear, investigate options in main-plot dialogue are part of the main plot.

As for whether or not the DLC "failed", that depends on what its goals were.

[100k]

Arkitekt wrote...

100k wrote...

Oh, and you better get your vomit bag ready, because the developers, and Jennifer Hale have confirmed that Shepard will be more "human" and "emotional" in ME3.

I don't get you people. Isn't this what you guys are whining about in ME2, the lack of emotional content in Shepard? The inability to express whatever the hell you seem arguing about?

Ok, I had forgotten my plead to stop responding to your shenanigans but I remember it now. I just can't stand the level of stupidity that you bring this thread into.

You've been in this thread for too long. 

People who "whinned" about many ME2 features are getting new and improved features for ME3. That's part of what developers like to call, "fan feed back". 

[Arkitekt]

100k wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...
Yeah, let's all spend billions per dead subjects. And let's all not worry since the reapers will never find our hospitals where we make this medical and economical miracle.

Jesus, why do I even bother?

The wonderful thing about medicine, medical experiements, medical technology, etc, is that once they are proven to be effective, the cost of production, replication, innovation, refinment, and application often drops like a stone. Cerberus could potentially make billions of credits by selling and thus trivializing the Lazarus Project.

Unsupported generalization. From all the looks of it, LP seems a quite detailed and personalized medicine. How you go from 2 year-building and 2 billion spent to "one day here and you're fine" with spending something in the order of 10k or whatever is economically feasible in just 6 months is just magical thinking on your part.

Nevermind that the LP's lab is destroyed. Nevermind that it was a Cerberus project. Nevermind that Miranda will probably be doing something more interesting than trying to get the hospitals to fund such incredibly unbelievable (and impossible) project. Nevermind that you are, again, making **** up. We will not have in ME3 this ability in the hospitals, and that alone should be enough for you to understand that your point is utter bull****.

However, you don't seemingly have any ability to comprehend this point. It figures. If you had you wouldn't make it in the first place.

O RLY? How do we know this?

Try to revive a mountain of ash with LP. Spare my face and my palm, right the **** now.

And we know it can take two years to revive someone

Interesting. Where did you get this from? I mean, I know that it took two years to rebuild Shepard, but he was the first subject. It should've taken more time for him.

Learn grammar. I wrote it rigorously well. It's obvious that some cases could even take longer. I'm still at odds at what kind of economical miracle are you about to deliver next to make this possible, while whole planets are being destroyed by the reapers. But hey, that's no problem, since we have the LP!

My face and my palm are hurting badly. Well at least metaphorically.

Didn't I tell you to stop being an idiot?

**** it's so ****ing funny weren't it so sad. I just wished stupidity never came without the acknowledgement that one is just incapable of understanding anything at all.

You haven't "proven" anything.

Of course I didn't. And in related news, the sky is green with cows flying. Get a ****ing new brain, yours is overdue.

[The Interloper]

onelifecrisis wrote...
2. But (as I explained in some detail) their explanation makes no sense. It's irrational. All of their disagreements with Shepard in ME1 (outside of Saren's trial) are perfectly rational (if sometimes a little overly critical) and in their shoes I think I'd be saying much the same things. They're not in denial in ME1, nor are they irrational, so it doesn't follow (as you imply) that they should be either of those things in ME2.
3. That's a lot of money to put on a very bold assumption. Also, I agree with Shepard's decision to go to Freedom's Progress (the shuttle is right there, might as well investigate) but after that he meets with TIM again and agrees to work with Cerberus with absolutely no proof of reaper involvement (which is what he was supposed to be finding on FP) and without even checking his other options. You say he needs a ship and crew, but those things don't come up in the conversation until after he's already agreed to help, and (as I keep saying) before he's checked his other options. How is this a continuation of the reaper story from ME1? And how is Shepard being true to his (paragon) character from ME1 by following this course of action?

2. I'm tempted to make this wall of text I'm working on longer then it is but the short answer is that applying logic to the council is a false exercise. The only thing they have ever admitted to being wrong is Saren-they've insisted Soveriegn is a geth ship in ME1 and they're doing it now. It is not out of character that when they run out of logical excuses to avoid taking action, they make illogical ones. Plus, there's Sheps position of coming back up out of the blue. I don't remember exactly but I think you can easily interpret their conversation as not saying they've forgotten everything that happened, but that they dont' have enough evidence to justify working with cerberus. In short, they still care more about their careers then the threat and are content to let shepard solve any problems on his own, just like Hackett.

3. Minor details resolved by some added exposition. Just imagine Shep was silently biding his time until he could escape. And he can "escape" so to speak. The important thing is that the narrative shows that "escape" is not an option. And as I've said, paragon shep can still make it clear that he doens't trust cerberus.

[Killjoy Cutter]

100k wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

100k wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
DLC....


And it still has no impact whatsoever on the main story or anything else. Still fails miserably.

It's good for the player for nostalgia purposes, and its great as a non-combat oriented level, but not for Shepard as a character or the story. Shepard never gives any indication as to how he/she feels about dying -- even fairly ambiguous emotional body language. If Shepard reacted to the crash differently, depending on his P/N/R levels, then we'd see that it has an effect on him.

The problem with that is that it takes the character out of the player's control -- it's another sign that this is less RPG and more "interactive cinematic experience". 

And if that's where video games are headed, forget it. 

Your Paragon, Neutral, and Regenade levels ARE within your control, meaning that the player would be able to control how Shepard reacts to the situation.

Its not clear in ME2 whether Shepard is an avatar of the player, or a PC that the player controls, but my guess is that, since Shepard was a PC in ME1, he's more of a PC than an avatar. 

Oh, and you better get your vomit bag ready, because the developers, and Jennifer Hale have confirmed that Shepard will be more "human" and "emotional" in ME3. 

If they start inserting automatic reactions that aren't directly chosen by the player, it's going to ruin the game.

[Killjoy Cutter]

100k wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...
I haven't the faintest clue on how you arrived at the conclusion that "death isn't really that important or regrettable". So unless someone cries or has some psychological epiphany over it, his life is meaningless? Your conclusions are based upon a set of prejudiced assumptions (that shep should be a wuss for instance) that you take for granted.

Don't be an idiot, Arkitekt. Whether Shepard is afraid or not is irrelevant (Shepard isn't). The fact that the Lazarus Project can effectively negate death by reassurection effectively means that the Reapers can't do anything to organic species. 

Hence, we need to know how Shepard feels about dying (we get small bits and pieces, but no overall idea) and we need to know more about the project.

If it's an RPG, how Shepard feels about dying depends on the Shep the player is playing. 

If it's an "Interactive Cinematic Experience", then how Shepard feels about dying is determined by the writers of the game, and the game is effectively tanked.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 29 septembre 2011 - 05:13 .

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yeah...ALL of them at exactly the same time. After only 2 minutes of fighting....yeah...How about NO?

What are you basing that on? Not liking it? I've seen guns overheat after firing nonstop for two minutes. It's completely possible.

[didymos1120]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If they start inserting automatic reactions that aren't directly chosen by the player, it's going to ruin the game.

Well then I guess ME1 and ME2 are already ruined, because Shep automatically reacts to all sorts of stuff in both.

[JamieCOTC]

Arkitekt wrote...

I can eat the argument that death was kinda shrugged off in ME2 and should have been better implemented because it's an interesting take for a RPG, etc.

It was however not without implementation. We do get a full mission where we go over the remains of SR1 and have flashbacks, etc. The only point of this mission is to acknowledge the impact of that moment in Shep's life. What people seem to miss is one conversation or another that makes you "cry" over this issue. Whatever, I accept that grudge people have.

.

In the Jacob romance, femShep can also talk about being "gone" and how everything has changed, but she’s still the same person.  She vents and his response is that while it probably felt good to get that of her chest, it’s still going to be there no matter what and there are bigger issues at hand.  A statement that says more about his character than hers and possibly a “wink” to the audience that this is a video game, not a soap opera.  I’ll be honest. I do want more emotional engagement, but I do not envy BW’s task to please those who want more depth, those who just want to shoot sh*t and everyone in between. 

And ME is more of a "choose your own adveture" than a true RPG. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 29 septembre 2011 - 05:25 .

[The Interloper]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
1. Belive what you wish.
And
mind you, ME1 did have problems of it's own. However, it has less of
them, and they were less aparent. ME1 doesn't get a "free pass". Nothing
does. And there's 200+ pages of reasons and proof as to why it is bad.
Go read them and then come back. Or don't. I care not.

1.
The problem is that even though ME1 and ME2 have the same type of
issues, and alot of them, you draw a line in the sand of "this is where
it stops working" and then proceed to argue at length on why plot holes
are bad in general. That's most of Smudboy's argument, and I'm sure it's
most of the argument here. I know for a fact the stuff I've seen is,
and I've seen over a hundred pages. And for the millionth time, I am not
disagreeing that ME2 doesn't have bad writing. There is enough evidence
to prove that.

But, assuming you agree with smudboy and by all
indications you do, you agree that ME1 proves that bad writing does not
mean a bad story.

And while ME2 does have some more obvious
issues to take apart, namely the shuttle ride, it still doesn't explain
why smudboy, and many others such as yourself, still come down hard on
minor things that you let slide in ME1. We have argued here about the
collector's link to the reapers, Wilson, Tali and the Ymir mech, why the
council won't help, why the reaper's plan isn't precisely explained to
the last detail, and the exact color of reaper goo. All of these things
have very obvious and sometimes even given explanations, and similar
issues in number and importance were in ME1. And those didn't ruin the
game. So you can argue about the more obvious issues like the shuttle
ride, but also spending so much time on incredibly minor stuff that
ME1 had too and not making any distinction (or shrugging it off as
irrelevant, as you are doing now)  is a blatant double standard and
makes the game seem worse than it is.


 
Plus
an obstinate refusal to acknowledge the role of time and money budgets
in a game, not to mention the difficulty of coordinating between
hundreds of people. "But that's no excuse for making a bad story!" you
might exclaim. No, but it does explain minor gaffs and continuity
errors, which are the subjects of the vast majority of the complaints
leveled against ME2. Add just plain making problems up (Wilson's actions
don't match his motivations! Even though I'm just making up random
reasons why he wouldn't want to betray cerberus! But you can't make up
reasons why he would!!) and I don't see much fair play at work here.



But why cite a distant example from Smudboy when I have an immediate example from you?



 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

111987 wrote...

[How can Sovereign 'remote' control a corpse? ../../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png
Reapers have only been shown to be able of physically controlling an
entity by 'possessing' them, for lack of a better word.Controlling
Saren doesn't hurt Sovereign. Being killed while possessing Saren does.
Sovereign in some sense was 'killed' when Saren was destroyed. It was a
very intimate relationship; Sovereign 'became' Saren. It makes perfect
sense that this would stun it.

How can it not? Have you seen that corpse? It's all reaperized bones. It's like T-100.
Remote send and recive impulses and singlas to the implants. Simple.And
no, it doesn't make perfect sense. You again avoid to answer both
question. WHY would Sovereign take such control? Why is that "intimacy"
needed?
nothing makes sense..nothing..

You're
saying sovereign chose an illogical option (possessing saren in a way
that hurts him if he dies) when there's no indication
he can take the more efficient option. You're making stuff up.
Possession is not a real life operation, so you can't say how it can or
can't work in a fictional narrative. Suspension of disbelief. The only
issue is if how the possession works contradicts anything, and it
doesn't. The rushed
nature of the implants, the body of the host and state of
indoctrination, the  job required (activating the relay) the fact that
the host was already dead, and possibly Sovereign's personal abilities
all separate Sovereign from Harbinger. As for possessing Saren in the
first place, he obviously thought the risk was worth the reward
(activating the relay, which Sovereign himself can't do. Hence the
keepers and then Saren and then reanimated saren as a very last resort).
Oh, right. Possessing Saren was the last thing sovereign tried.



 

"But
we don't all know this for sure!" you might be saying "It's not explicitly stated!" No, but it doesn't need to be. It fits what
happens and requires no new information, just synthesis of stuff we
already have. You're deliberately working against the plot here by
injecting new information of your own creation. See what I'm saying
about being unfair? You know what, forget a what I was saying about double standards, no narrative can stand
up to the scrutiny of someone determined to hate it. Your actions fit
this. If there's a vague spot on how exactly possetion works, why can
you make up a reason why it doesn't, and yet I can't make up an
explanation of why it does? Especially when I can cite the game's events
a proof and you can't? You respond the in games events don't make
sense, but that's because of the information you made up. THAT is circular logic.

 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



I see you avoid answering and resort to a wall of BS.

Look who's talking.[smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/policeman.png[/smilie]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



Reapers can apparenlty run, but can't walk.



Yes, I asked for sauce, which you haven't provided. I asked for a logical explanation of WHY
a reaper couldn't do a regular remote control - which you fail to
answer.Face it - you cannot asnwer it. You don't even know how. You just
repeat the same old mantra "sovy must fully posses" without thinking.
you're using the worst kind of circular logic here."Because we didn't see him do that in the game" is not an answer.

Why
would it be harder when Saren is dead? It sends/recives signals from
the implants/reaper tech. Sarens brain is really not important in the
equation. If anythig, it makes things more difficult. Again - when can
Direct ctontrol do that regular remote control can't? Nothing.

Even
with todays tech there is no downside. the onyl thing I cna think of is
latency issues, but those onl occur whe nbig distances are invloved.
And not only whas Sovereign close, but repers also use quantum
entanglement, so not evne that would be a problem.

And
your point still depends on an assumption that is not supported (that alien technology works just like our technology). You'd think a guy with the power
and free
time of Sauron would be able to make a magic ring that couldn't be
destroyed by the stuff he made it with in the first place. It's a pretty
obvious problem and it could theoretically be solved with in this
setting (lots of magic) but apparently not. Suspend disbelief. Making
magic
rings
is not a real process, so you can't claim inaccuracy, and that
contradicts nothing in the lore. Same here.



That sovereign can control a body remotely is a possibility in this
setting of robot gots, but so is
Darth Vader using the force to strangle Luke in the cockpit of his
X-wing in a world of space wizards. He strangled someone in another friggen spaceship later, didn't
he? But the circumstances are different and we don't really know how the
force works. Same here. You're saying the very existance of a
theoretical condition that makes this plot hole is, well, a plot hole. I can wreck anything, anything, if I apply that ridiculous rule.

[Chris Priestly]

Ok, I think this thread has gone on long enough. The discussion in here is fine, but no longer relates to what has been discussed before, people are no longer reading 240+ pages, etc. Time to move on.

Feel free to start new threads on points being discussed here.


LOCKDOWN!