6494 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

Really? I pretty much ignored him for a good long while when he was here...ah, his getting booted explains why I haven't had to suffer through more of his analyses.

[shepskisaac]

I don't have a problem criticizing perceived lack of/bad character development, but nit-picking that Shep has omni-blade on left hand in one of the videos? Who cares about stuff like that? xD

[Biotic Sage]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

There's a difference between talking a lot and sounding like you have a point (you might even have a valid point), and actually making a point. Smudboy ignores a lot of facts to make his arguements. He also doesn't use a lot of common sense and suspension of belief that most people apply to science fiction.

As usual people attack Smudboy and not any of his arguments. I asked for specifics. You are just giving me generalizations of Smudboy's character (or lackthereof).

In one of the videos he claims that the omni-blade "does nothing."  We know that that's not true.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

There's a difference between talking a lot and sounding like you have a point (you might even have a valid point), and actually making a point..... ignores a lot of facts to make...arguements..... doesn't use a lot of common sense and suspension of belief that most people apply to science fiction.

Why does that sound so familiar?...

[Pacifien]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Esquin wrote...
Shepard's death and resurrection served a purpose.

Yes, the purpose was largely to be a marketing gimmick to drum up hype for the game.

In the actual story it mattered very little beyond explaining the two-year time-gap.

It's also a really quick way to reset skills to 0 when you've altered gameplay significantly.

Pfft. Gameplay. Like that has any place in our games, am I right?

[100k]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

There's a difference between talking a lot and sounding like you have a point (you might even have a valid point), and actually making a point. Smudboy ignores a lot of facts to make his arguements. He also doesn't use a lot of common sense and suspension of belief that most people apply to science fiction.

As usual people attack Smudboy and not any of his arguments. I asked for specifics. You are just giving me generalizations of Smudboy's character (or lackthereof).

In one of the videos he claims that the omni-blade "does nothing."  We know that that's not true.

Well, to be fair, half the goddamn forum ****ed about that for months. So we can't exactly attack him without attacking others on this forum. I don't think any of us wanna open up that can of worms.

The way I see it, if there is omni armor -- and no one complained, an omni shield -- and no one complained, then it's fairly logical that there would be an omni "sword". 

But that's getting away from the point.

[AVPen]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I think the Star Wars prequels sucked but I'm not gonna go and direct my own trilogy to prove it. I don't need to. The movies suck regardless.

True enough, though that hasn't stopped me from fanediting the hell out of the Prequels to try and make them into coherent, decent films. 

[Bismth]

i dated smudboy once

[Reptillius]

Actually... the death and ressurection of Shepard in the Beginning of ME2 can be a very powerful plot device instead of a useless plothole... What it can actually do is help portray the importance of Shepard in Shepards story as well as the overall reaper Arc as well as to help show and cover the issue of the disparity in power between the citadel Forces and the Reaper forces between Game 1 and game three As well as more short term in the form in the power of the collectors versus the Normandy from the beginning of ME2 to the end of ME2 and just how significant some of those upgrades really could be in the fight against the Reapers coming in ME3.

But that is neither here nor there and I've probably started an argument so I think I will go to bed and maybe the argument won't happen then.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Esquin wrote...
Shepard's death and resurrection served a purpose.

Yes, the purpose was largely to be a marketing gimmick to drum up hype for the game.

In the actual story it mattered very little beyond explaining the two-year time-gap.

1 - A payback in a means to show that challenge is still real and the enemy's strength potential.

2 - What you said. It was a great marketing tool.

3 - Radical change of setting.

4 - Put Shepard in a struggle to regain his position and status. (here through all possible purposes, level 0, he/she doesn't mean much to the council and Alliance, VS pissed off at he/she, etc)

5 - Split his team, to make him search for a new and better one for a very difficult mission.

Well, those are all interconnected. I gave 5 reasons/purposes so you can think a little about them. Well, I guess my effort is still a little useless since I predict you're gonna nitpick and dismiss it. I'm not gonna reply if you reply since it's gonna become too much off topic.

Have a nice day.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 28 août 2011 - 05:26 .

[100k]

The main thing you should take away from smudboy's videos is hand waving = bad.

Shepard dies at the beginning of ME2? Cool. But how was Shepard's body recovered after a fall from orbit (which should've reduced it to a bloody stain -- if not dust particles)?

Shepard was reborn via Cerberus? Cool. But what technology and methods were used? We needed more than a extremely vague answer from a Miranda computer. Even Jacob couldn't answer our question.

(and if it will be discovered in ME3, then just give us an explanation)

Shepard can walk and talk after dying? Cool. But what does Shepard have to say and feel about death? How it effected/didn't effect him/her. Obviously this should be left in player control, but death is a HUGE deal in almost every aspect of our lives. It should be addressed.

Shepard and his entire squad get into a tiny shuttle, leaving the SR2 open for attack? Fine. But why did Shepard and his ENTIRE crew get into that shuttle and go...where? A simple explanation would do -- but instead we get nothing!

Fleshing out little moments like that would've solved so many of ME2's plot issues. It's not a question of subjective opinion -- its a analysis of factual content within the game.

Modifié par 100k, 28 août 2011 - 05:24 .

[Undead Han]

[100k]

jreezy wrote...

100k wrote...

*snip*
Shepard and his entire squad get into a tiny shuttle, leaving the SR2 open for attack? Fine. But why did Shepard and his ENTIRE crew get into that shuttle and go...where? A simple explanation would do -- but instead we get nothing!

The why part of that was answered. You only need the where.

No, it isn't. I know that the IFF needed to be tested -- that much is clear. But why did the entire squad cram into that tiny shuttle -- especially when they didn't need to before at any point? 

[Balek-Vriege]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

There's a difference between talking a lot and sounding like you have a point (you might even have a valid point), and actually making a point. Smudboy ignores a lot of facts to make his arguements. He also doesn't use a lot of common sense and suspension of belief that most people apply to science fiction.

As usual people attack Smudboy and not any of his arguments. I asked for specifics. You are just giving me generalizations of Smudboy's character (or lackthereof).

Well some of his arguments are valid, he just doesn't make them well and others are bad arguments argued to major extremes. 

For example.  The omni blade arguments were pretty much to do about nothing.  He gets into the science of the omniblade/holograms and how it couldn't hurt anything (based off his opinion, how does he know how it truly works?), then hints it should be a laser while cutting up video of various people to make them (and somehow by extension the omniblade) look stupid.  Then pretty much makes fun of the switchblade animation and being a two pronged blade by comparing it to X-men (why?).  I feel i'm pretty accepting of arguments but really, who cares?  If you're going to go into that much detail.  Bash Star Trek for its holograms, light speed and any other scifi story/setting with unrealistic tech functions as well.


And what point was he trying to make?  That the omniblade is a bad thing for ME3 and bad to market?  It shouldn't look cool?  I don't get it.  A lot of people since ME1 have wanted improved melee mechanics.    The rest of the third video is pretty much the same.  A video to bash Bioware's marketing for the sake of bashing Bioware's marketing up until that point.  He would also know some of his points are already in game and were confirmed post E3 I think (Biotic punch for example as a heavy melee).  Again too much focus on trying to attack something than actually learning about it.

Then for a simple example of how many of his points jump to conlusions:  Wilson from Project Lazarus.

Somehow it's impossible that he would betray Cerberus, because he's going to be rich and famous anyways, so he has no need for any monetary gain.  From the logs it's obvious he wanted to be accepted by Miranda as a equal in intelligence (or even had a thing for her, regardless of her bad attitude) and didn't feel appreciated by the organization as a whole.  People do bad things for reasons other than greed and fame.  They do it for their egos and self-esteem as well.  Some money on the side from the Shadow Broker doesn't hurt either (to be fair that's a Lostb revelation).

Instead of acknowledging some basic info which can be heard not 5 mintues before Wilson gets shot, he uses the renegade option "I knew Wilson was just trying to shoot me in the back," while playing some silly goofy music to make the scene look bad and make it look like Shep/Jacob never question the Wilson/Miranda plot.  The Paragon/Investigation options (which questions Miranda's trustworthyness ) explain better why Wilson may have been a traitor and why Miranda isn't or couldn't be via common sense.  Again though, Smudboy "failed" to mention that in his video.

If he was truly an impartial critic he wouldn't leave such gaping wholes in his arguments and would at least admit some good points to the story.  However, it's pretty obvious he's not an impartial critic when he uses almost every negative advert trick in the book.  I can't remember if he used black and white montages with eerie music though.


Edit:  I understand the appeal of the guy to people who don't like Mass Effect 2.  He sounds good (like a radio talk show host) and is quite calm when making his criticisms.  That doesn't make them correct or substantive.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 28 août 2011 - 05:38 .

[Balek-Vriege]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

For example.  The omni blade arguments were pretty much to do about nothing.  He gets into the science of the omniblade/holograms and how it couldn't hurt anything (based off his opinion, how does he know how it truly works?),

The codex explains how they work. It's not just his "opinion". That said, I'm sure ME3 will explain how the new ones work. The omin-blade thing is a place where I don't really agree with Smudboy. Or at least I don't think it is an issue worth arguing about.

Though as far as I know his ME3 video was rather tongue in cheek anyway.

Smudboy is a stickler for lore as far as I can tell.

I would also say that his appraisal of the Wilson situation makes sense. Sure, Wilson could have been dumb. I hate it when stupidity of the characters drives a plot though.

There are stupid characters in real life/history too who made similar decisions remember.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 28 août 2011 - 05:43 .