188 réponses à ce sujet

[DiebytheSword]

BlueAlchemy wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...



@ BlueAlchemy:  No.

Only curious! I must say that your theories are quite thought provoking though. And have you read the leaks?

Both the initial smaller one and I'm working on the larger extended one.  I have read the relevant parts to this conversation in the longer, newer one, however.

[BlueAlchemy]

Enjoying? Or has rage come upon your face...

[DiebytheSword]

BlueAlchemy wrote...

Enjoying? Or has rage come upon your face...

There are some things I would like done differently, but for the most part the dialogue has been good, and I'm not expecting to be let down by the ME3 experience.  The spoilers are a disjointed mess, and anyone claiming they know what the end result will be with certainty has their head clean up their cloaca.

I'm reserving judgement, but I'm optimistic.

[onelifecrisis]

DiebytheSword wrote...

A definition is fact.

Wrong, but let's not go there.

DiebytheSword wrote...

I have presented facts

Wrong. Or if you did, I missed them. Or are you referring, when you say "fact", to your extremely stringent personal definition of a DEM?

DiebytheSword wrote...

you have presented your smart mouth and nothing more

Oh good, more insults. Moving on.

DiebytheSword wrote...

Further you conveniently forget plot items that don't support your argument

What plot items? Are you saying the means to defeat the reapers are mentioned in ME1 and/or ME2?

DiebytheSword wrote...

Unless you come at me with some facts to support your accusations I'm considering this conversation pointless to continue.

ME1 and ME2 presented absolutely no means by which organics might stand any chance at all against the reapers. That (plus the fact that ME1+2+3 are supposed to be a trilogy) is the only fact I need, as I thought I had made clear.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 16 novembre 2011 - 01:00 .

[DiebytheSword]

Yep, definately not engaging in more of that.

Have fun hating the game.

Modifié par DiebytheSword, 16 novembre 2011 - 01:04 .

[Someone With Mass]

DiebytheSword wrote...

A Deus Ex Machina plot device is a device that swoops in to save the day, breaking the internal logic and consistancy of the plot. It is unlikely that anything will be doing any swooping. Bioware knows swooping is bad.

Now, it is highly likely that we will see a MacGuffin, or a Checkov's Gun. These literary devices are acceptable in light of an overwhelming enemy like the Reapers. If these devices require hardship on the part of the protagonist to obtain or understand, they are not Deus Ex Machinas (a win button stops being a win button when you need to fight through the enemy to press it).

This.

I'm fine with a MacGuffin/Checkov's Gun, because they're pretty much the only ways you can defeat the Reapers.

Traditional combat just don't seem to go in our favor at all. 

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 16 novembre 2011 - 01:17 .

[BlueAlchemy]

I will have fun playing the game. It honestly couldn't be any worse than DA2 and I still enjoyed that game thoroughly (WHY SO MANY COPY/PASTE AREAS!!!!) That was my biggest complaint and I don't think Mass Effect will suffer from that.

[Someone With Mass]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Arcian wrote...

A DEM is only a DEM if it comes out of the blue in the last act of the work in question, with no previous mention or knowledge by the relevant characters. As someone who has read the spoiler leaks, I can say right away that this is not the case in ME3.

Then again, you can say a lot without telling the truth or being honest to yourself and others.

I can say that Arcian is right. You know how? Because I actually spent my time looking trough that script instead of just looking after the big decisions, missing the context entirely in the processs like some people seem to have done.

[DiebytheSword]

BlueAlchemy wrote...

I will have fun playing the game. It honestly couldn't be any worse than DA2 and I still enjoyed that game thoroughly (WHY SO MANY COPY/PASTE AREAS!!!!) That was my biggest complaint and I don't think Mass Effect will suffer from that.

Nearly all of my complaints were in the copypasta maps and initial bugs area of the game.  Everythign else was executed well except for blatant plot railroading in the third act.  I don't like that both sides are filled with zealots and people who can't understand one another, and I hated the fact that nothing Hawk did could change anything.  That said, the game hardly deserved the zeros and threes people were giving it.  Six I understand for the obviously rushed launch.  My personal score hovers above a seven and below an eight.  A good game with flaws in the delivery and plot.

[DiebytheSword]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Arcian wrote...

A DEM is only a DEM if it comes out of the blue in the last act of the work in question, with no previous mention or knowledge by the relevant characters. As someone who has read the spoiler leaks, I can say right away that this is not the case in ME3.

Then again, you can say a lot without telling the truth or being honest to yourself and others.

I can say that Arcian is right. You know how? Because I actually spent my time looking trough that script instead of just looking after the big decisions, missing the context entirely in the processs like some people seem to have done.

I agree, to quote TIM, the patterns are there in the data.  But the datamine is not something that is easily read and understood, and to me it seems that many people are overthinking, underthinking or making extrapolations on things that are or aren't there.

[Someone With Mass]

DiebytheSword wrote...
I agree, to quote TIM, the patterns are there in the data.  But the datamine is not something that is easily read and understood, and to me it seems that many people are overthinking, underthinking or making extrapolations on things that are or aren't there.

I won't deny that it's hard (most of the dialogues are spread out across three missions all the time, which makes it hard figuring out which one belongs where) but once you've put it all together, it's not that difficult to see the big picture.

[DiebytheSword]

Someone With Mass wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...
I agree, to quote TIM, the patterns are there in the data.  But the datamine is not something that is easily read and understood, and to me it seems that many people are overthinking, underthinking or making extrapolations on things that are or aren't there.

I won't deny that it's hard (most of the dialogues are spread out across three missions all the time, which makes it hard figuring out which one belongs where) but once you've put it all together, it's not that difficult to see the big picture.

Very true, but that still requires that one gaze upon it with an un-jaundiced eye.  A lot of confirmation bias, both positive and negative, here at the BSN.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Arcian wrote...

A DEM is only a DEM if it comes out of the blue in the last act of the work in question, with no previous mention or knowledge by the relevant characters. As someone who has read the spoiler leaks, I can say right away that this is not the case in ME3.

Then again, you can say a lot without telling the truth or being honest to yourself and others.

I can say that Arcian is right. You know how? Because I actually spent my time looking trough that script instead of just looking after the big decisions, missing the context entirely in the processs like some people seem to have done.

You're implying I didn't take my sweet time digging around that script looking for everything that's somehow relevant? That I would just comment on stuff without knowing the context of it?

Cute, but please try again.

[Someone With Mass]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Very true, but that still requires that one gaze upon it with an un-jaundiced eye.  A lot of confirmation bias, both positive and negative, here at the BSN.

Seems pretty difficult to get that at any time, if you ask me.

[psiasterisk]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I'm fine witha MacGuffin/Checkov's Gun, because they're pretty much the only ways you can defeat the Reapers.

Traditional combat just don't seem to go in our favor at all. 

MacGuffins and Chekhov´s Guns are only literary devices and (as do DEMs) [edit] NOT [/edit] make a story bad only by being included in it. It´s the way they are handled that makes the story. There are very effective ways to even use a DEM to make a story work. Also, not every way to defeat the reapers has to be a Chekhov´s gun or a Macguffin (but, since it has been established that the reapers are too powerful for humanity to defeat, the choices are pretty slim). If, for example, the defeat of the reapers has to do with Shepard and the Lazarus project in some way, it wouldn´t be either, but more akin to "destiny" (Shepard would have a lot in common with Harry Potter, imo).
The point is that there will be MacGuffins of some sorts (video games with a story always have them, they have to find a way to make the player do the work, after all), but that doesn´t have to make the game bad (take KOTOR, for example. The star forge is a MacGuffin and a BDO if I ever saw one). And a Chekhov´s gun is made and broken by whether it was mentioned in the story before, not by its nature. The point is that a false Chekhov´s Gun can make a story bad. A true Chakhov´s gun will only make the story bad if it telegraphs everything that happens in the rest of the game.
In films, for example, Avatar was really bad (imo) because it was so full of Chekhov´s Guns that I was able to predict what was going to happen in the entire movie 15 minutes in. If I had been wrong and all the Chekhov´s Guns had been misleading, then the film would have been bad just because it would have lacked coherence. So, as with MGs and DEMs, Chekhov´s Guns simply need to be handled properly.

I´m looking forward to seeing what Bioware came up with.


[edit] put a NOT where it belongs. i´m tired, sorry [/edit]

Modifié par psiasterisk, 16 novembre 2011 - 01:44 .

[Someone With Mass]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
You're implying I didn't take my sweet time digging around that script looking for everything that's somehow relevant? That I would just comment on stuff without knowing the context of it?

Cute, but please try again.

No thanks. I don't need to. I have seen enough.

The overall objective in ME3 is clear. Most characters' motives are pretty clear. That's all I need.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 16 novembre 2011 - 01:38 .

[DiebytheSword]

psiasterisk wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I'm fine witha MacGuffin/Checkov's Gun, because they're pretty much the only ways you can defeat the Reapers.

Traditional combat just don't seem to go in our favor at all. 

A MacGuffins and Chekhov´s Guns are only literary devices and (as do DEMs) make a story bad only by being included in it. It´s the way they are handled that makes the story. There are very effective ways to even use a DEM to make a story work. Also, not every way to defeat the reapers has to be a Chekhov´s gun or a Macguffin (but, since it has been established that the reapers are too powerful for humanity to defeat, the choices are pretty slim). If, for example, the defeat of the reapers has to do with Shepard and the Lazarus project in some way, it wouldn´t be either, but more akin to "destiny" (Shepard would have a lot in common with Harry Potter, imo).
The point is that there will be MacGuffins of some sorts (video games with a story always have them, they have to find a way to make the player do the work, after all), but that doesn´t have to make the game bad (take KOTOR, for example. The star forge is a MacGuffin and a BDO if I ever saw one). And a Chekhov´s gun is made and broken by whether it was mentioned in the story before, not by its nature. The point is that a false Chekhov´s Gun can make a story bad. A true Chakhov´s gun will only make the story bad if it telegraphs everything that happens in the rest of the game.
In films, for example, Avatar was really bad (imo) because it was so full of Chekhov´s Guns that I was able to predict what was going to happen in the entire movie 15 minutes in. If I had been wrong and all the Chekhov´s Guns had been misleading, then the film would have been bad just because it would have lacked coherence. So, as with MGs and DEMs, Chekhov´s Guns simply need to be handled properly.

I´m looking forward to seeing what Bioware came up with.

I can agree with this.  DEMs are notoriously hard to justify though, and harder still to pull of correctly especially in the context of using the other literary tropes and devices.

[onelifecrisis]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The overall objective in ME3 is clear. Most characters' motives are pretty clear. That's all I need.

Now that sounds good. Ugh. So many wildly different opinions on the spoilers. 

Okay that's it. Can someone please PM me a link to DL the big spoiler file? I actually found it once but deleted it without reading it, and now I can't find the link...

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 16 novembre 2011 - 01:45 .

[Someone With Mass]

The Chekhov's Gun in ME3 or whatever you want to call it is achieved in a similar way the previous games were handled, but the way there splits up in plenty of paths.

The need for it is also established early in the game, and I think it makes sense, given the history of that particular device. The outcome is also never really clear until a certain point in the game.

They've done it before, and while it may not be the best way of storytelling, I personally think it's enough, as I'm not demanding a masterpiece.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 16 novembre 2011 - 01:46 .

[onelifecrisis]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The overall objective in ME3 is clear. Most characters' motives are pretty clear. That's all I need.

Now that sounds good. Ugh. So many wildly different opinions on the spoilers. 

I'll give you the general outline on people's opinions. Paragons and fans of Tali/Garrus/Liara are generally happy, while renegades and fans of the sidelined characters are not. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but generally this seems to be the case. You can probably judge what your opinion would be by which of these groups you fall into.

Thanks. Okay here's a riddle for you.

I generally play a paragade male. I like Garrus and Tali. I did the Liara romance in ME1 for the lulz and the alien side boob, but hated the ridiculous Liara rewrite in ME2. I want my choices to finally matter. I don't like plot holes. What kind of ME3 player am I?

[onelifecrisis]

kthx

[GMagnum]

aye cn sum1 tell me wat happen 2 miranda plz can u snd me a msg or sumthin
missin dem buttcheks rite now tbh