231 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr_Fritz]

Edit, I was modifing my post as you were replying. But my answer would be: What any good story does. (middle acts / middle chapters) Relavent rising action. The main point being relavent. The Protheans/Collectors had no relavence past ME2. Had EA/(bioware) included them at all in ME3 maybe we could fabricate something...

[alliance4g63]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Not the biggest fan of Smudboy, with the rather strange interpretation he had for ME2, but at least this is something we can agree on.

Same, I haven't watched his ME2 vids, but he doesn't like it, while I enjoyed the hell out of it...
Oh well. Doesn't change how broken the end to the series is.

I havent read any post past this one, but this is how I would summarise things.  ME2 was indeed enjpyable.  I felt I had an awesome time playing it.

In and of itself I cant fault it...but that's not the problem.

This is a trilogy...or is supposed to be.

Third installment...total fail  Ending to a trillogy...total fail.

The reason the ending sucks is in large aprt do to the fact that plot-wise ME2 achieved next to nothing.

Look: Mass Effect 1 = discovering the Reaper threat > Mass Effect 2 = blank > Mass Effect 3 = stopping the Reaper threat.

What should the main plot point of Mass Effect 2 have been, in your opinion?

Just wanted to add my .02.. IMO ME2 should have been about what you were rushing to do in ME3, recruiting armies! The existance of the reapers should have been well known and not swept under the rug. Shepard should also have been dealing with the politics of being the first human spectre which could have made it difficult to recruit certain support. And any major decisions from the previous game would have some affect on obtaining certain support. Some you would lose out on and others you could still obtain but previous decisions could make it more difficult.

The game wouild end with the last scene of Arrival or something similiar.

[Dark_Caduceus]

alliance4g63 wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Not the biggest fan of Smudboy, with the rather strange interpretation he had for ME2, but at least this is something we can agree on.

Same, I haven't watched his ME2 vids, but he doesn't like it, while I enjoyed the hell out of it...
Oh well. Doesn't change how broken the end to the series is.

I havent read any post past this one, but this is how I would summarise things.  ME2 was indeed enjpyable.  I felt I had an awesome time playing it.

In and of itself I cant fault it...but that's not the problem.

This is a trilogy...or is supposed to be.

Third installment...total fail  Ending to a trillogy...total fail.

The reason the ending sucks is in large aprt do to the fact that plot-wise ME2 achieved next to nothing.

Look: Mass Effect 1 = discovering the Reaper threat > Mass Effect 2 = blank > Mass Effect 3 = stopping the Reaper threat.

What should the main plot point of Mass Effect 2 have been, in your opinion?

Just wanted to add my .02.. IMO ME2 should have been about what you were rushing to do in ME3, recruiting armies! The existance of the reapers should have been well known and not swept under the rug. Shepard should also have been dealing with the politics of being the first human spectre which could have made it difficult to recruit certain support. And any major decisions from the previous game would have some affect on obtaining certain support. Some you would lose out on and others you could still obtain but previous decisions could make it more difficult.

The game wouild end with the last scene of Arrival or something similiar.

(Aknwoledging that this is in retrospect), you're now better at writing a plot than the Mass Effect 2/3 writing team.

[Ticonderoga117]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...
The reason the ending sucks is in large aprt do to the fact that plot-wise ME2 achieved next to nothing.

Look: Mass Effect 1 = discovering the Reaper threat > Mass Effect 2 = blank > Mass Effect 3 = stopping the Reaper threat.

What should the main plot point of Mass Effect 2 have been, in your opinion?

Pack enough badass into the ship that, when released, will kill the Reapers, and that we did.

Garrus - Bro and Archangel of Omega
Tali - Best engineer around
Grunt - Pure Krogran and the avatar of kickass
Jack - Biotic goddess held together by leather straps
Jacob - Door stop
Kasumi - Best thief
Legion - Ultimate hacker
Miranda - Uhm...
Mordin - Scientist extrodinare
Samara - Biotic Goddess with style
Thane - Best assassin
Zaeed - Shepard, but takes checks

All ME3 had to do was shake the can and aim at the Reapers... but then we got a sudden "instant-win button" that had the side effect of screwing over the galaxy.

[Xeranx]

I'm just smiling at the number of hits Smud's getting due to the controversy. Had the ending been good to most, his critiques would have gone over the same way they did for ME2 with those very same people. The thing is, he's blunt about everything he's mentioned and is probably the most objective I've seen about everything concerning Mass Effect.

If he ends up going pro and getting paid for game reviews, or reviews in general, there are a number of people on BSN I know he'd love to thank.

[alliance4g63]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

alliance4g63 wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Herr_Fritz wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Not the biggest fan of Smudboy, with the rather strange interpretation he had for ME2, but at least this is something we can agree on.

Same, I haven't watched his ME2 vids, but he doesn't like it, while I enjoyed the hell out of it...
Oh well. Doesn't change how broken the end to the series is.

I havent read any post past this one, but this is how I would summarise things.  ME2 was indeed enjpyable.  I felt I had an awesome time playing it.

In and of itself I cant fault it...but that's not the problem.

This is a trilogy...or is supposed to be.

Third installment...total fail  Ending to a trillogy...total fail.

The reason the ending sucks is in large aprt do to the fact that plot-wise ME2 achieved next to nothing.

Look: Mass Effect 1 = discovering the Reaper threat > Mass Effect 2 = blank > Mass Effect 3 = stopping the Reaper threat.

What should the main plot point of Mass Effect 2 have been, in your opinion?

Just wanted to add my .02.. IMO ME2 should have been about what you were rushing to do in ME3, recruiting armies! The existance of the reapers should have been well known and not swept under the rug. Shepard should also have been dealing with the politics of being the first human spectre which could have made it difficult to recruit certain support. And any major decisions from the previous game would have some affect on obtaining certain support. Some you would lose out on and others you could still obtain but previous decisions could make it more difficult.

The game wouild end with the last scene of Arrival or something similiar.

(Aknwoledging that this is in retrospect), you're now better at writing a plot than the Mass Effect 2/3 writing team.

Thanks but that also depresses me.

[HBC Dresden]

Xeranx wrote...

I'm just smiling at the number of hits Smud's getting due to the controversy. Had the ending been good to most, his critiques would have gone over the same way they did for ME2 with those very same people. The thing is, he's blunt about everything he's mentioned and is probably the most objective I've seen about everything concerning Mass Effect.

If he ends up going pro and getting paid for game reviews, or reviews in general, there are a number of people on BSN I know he'd love to thank.

This scares me. There is much better criticism toward the ending than his, and in general, his attitude and type of analysis frustrates me to no end.

[alliance4g63]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...


Pack enough badass into the ship that, when released, will kill the Reapers, and that we did.

Garrus - Bro and Archangel of Omega
Tali - Best engineer around
Grunt - Pure Krogran and the avatar of kickass
Jack - Biotic goddess held together by leather straps
Jacob - Door stop
Kasumi - Best thief
Legion - Ultimate hacker
Miranda - Uhm...
Mordin - Scientist extrodinare
Samara - Biotic Goddess with style
Thane - Best assassin
Zaeed - Shepard, but takes checks

All ME3 had to do was shake the can and aim at the Reapers... but then we got a sudden "instant-win button" that had the side effect of screwing over the galaxy.

I understand what you are saying but at the end of the day was most of those squad members needed for the overall plot? Look Mass Effect was supposed to be about stopping the reapers. I remember the first trailer I saw had a quote that said "the machines are coming back" that is what they sold us on not cerberus, recruiting a dirty dozen or TIM. The trilogy should have been prove the reapers exist, recruitment(armies)/finding out how to kill them, and then killing the reaperrs. Now you can fill in all the paragon and renegade and other filler material but that is what the 3 games should have been about first and foremost. They didn't accomplish this.

Now when you think of the squaddies there are really only a few that were needed for the overall plot:
Tali/Legion
Wrex/Mordin
Garrus
Liara
These are essential and for the most part executed well throughout the trilogy.

Every one else could have easily been cut or just used for side missions or sub-plots; some more important than others.
For ME2 I would have rather spent my time visiting the homeworlds of my original squad members and finding their history as well as reaper history other than recruiting squad members that meant little to the overall story. You see how little they meant to the story by how they were treating in ME3. That is what really pissed me off about the sequels.. I gave ME2 the benefit of the doubt because it was the middle story and felt all that I was doing was building up for the finale. WRONG!

Again that is what depressed me the most while playing through ME3. The first thing I was wondering was where the F was Miranda and then I meet her and she is in the same outfit. I was like WOW Bioware.. But anyway that is another argument.

[Ticonderoga117]

alliance4g63 wrote...
I understand what you are saying but at the end of the day was most of those squad members needed for the overall plot? Look Mass Effect was supposed to be about stopping the reapers. I remember the first trailer I saw had a quote that said "the machines are coming back" that is what they sold us on not cerberus, recruiting a dirty dozen or TIM. The trilogy should have been prove the reapers exist, recruitment(armies)/finding out how to kill them, and then killing the reaperrs. Now you can fill in all the paragon and renegade and other filler material but that is what the 3 games should have been about first and foremost. They didn't accomplish this.

Now when you think of the squaddies there are really only a few that were needed for the overall plot:
Tali/Legion
Wrex/Mordin
Garrus
Liara
These are essential and for the most part executed well throughout the trilogy.

Every one else could have easily been cut or just used for side missions or sub-plots; some more important than others.
For ME2 I would have rather spent my time visiting the homeworlds of my original squad members and finding their history as well as reaper history other than recruiting squad members that meant little to the overall story. You see how little they meant to the story by how they were treating in ME3. That is what really pissed me off about the sequels.. I gave ME2 the benefit of the doubt because it was the middle story and felt all that I was doing was building up for the finale. WRONG!

Again that is what depressed me the most while playing through ME3. The first thing I was wondering was where the F was Miranda and then I meet her and she is in the same outfit. I was like WOW Bioware.. But anyway that is another argument.

Yeah, and this is where I think BioWare dropped the ball again on ME3's plot. I like the idea of building a small teama round Shepard to be the tip of the spear, and then recruit armies to be the rest of the spear, especially since a lot of these people represent far larger groups that do have armies.

I feel that we really didn't need much more in ME2 plot wise really. With what we had, ME3 could've still finished the trilogy off realistically. Alas, a lot of that squad building and choices from ME2 got reduced to nothing.

[RebelTitan428]

great vid, thanks for posting

[Dark_Caduceus]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...
The reason the ending sucks is in large aprt do to the fact that plot-wise ME2 achieved next to nothing.

Look: Mass Effect 1 = discovering the Reaper threat > Mass Effect 2 = blank > Mass Effect 3 = stopping the Reaper threat.

What should the main plot point of Mass Effect 2 have been, in your opinion?

Pack enough badass into the ship that, when released, will kill the Reapers, and that we did.

Garrus - Bro and Archangel of Omega
Tali - Best engineer around
Grunt - Pure Krogran and the avatar of kickass
Jack - Biotic goddess held together by leather straps
Jacob - Door stop
Kasumi - Best thief
Legion - Ultimate hacker
Miranda - Uhm...
Mordin - Scientist extrodinare
Samara - Biotic Goddess with style
Thane - Best assassin
Zaeed - Shepard, but takes checks

All ME3 had to do was shake the can and aim at the Reapers... but then we got a sudden "instant-win button" that had the side effect of screwing over the galaxy.

No one is saying that the characters in ME2 weren't well done(though some of them were meh, and I think the game could have benifitted from getting to know fewer squadmates better instead of having so many). The problem is that they didn't really advance the plot, each one of these character arcs could almost be its own self-contained story(Zaeed's and Kasumi's actually are).

Mass Effect 1 was about discovering the Reaper threat, Mass Effect 2 should have been about finding out how to combat the Reapers and getting resources together, Mass Effect 3 should have been about pooling all your previous resources(information, technology, poltical favours, military assets, propoganda, personal favours, etc, etc) together to end the Reaper threat.

Instead you get a bunch of cool, albeit ultimately pretty useless characters to go around killing Collectors and find out that Sovereign's "...beyond your comprehension..." speech has actually just a reference to Reapers reproducing(by melting people down and pumping them into a Reaper shell?).

[Dark_Caduceus]

alliance4g63 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...


Pack enough badass into the ship that, when released, will kill the Reapers, and that we did.

Garrus - Bro and Archangel of Omega
Tali - Best engineer around
Grunt - Pure Krogran and the avatar of kickass
Jack - Biotic goddess held together by leather straps
Jacob - Door stop
Kasumi - Best thief
Legion - Ultimate hacker
Miranda - Uhm...
Mordin - Scientist extrodinare
Samara - Biotic Goddess with style
Thane - Best assassin
Zaeed - Shepard, but takes checks

All ME3 had to do was shake the can and aim at the Reapers... but then we got a sudden "instant-win button" that had the side effect of screwing over the galaxy.

I understand what you are saying but at the end of the day was most of those squad members needed for the overall plot? Look Mass Effect was supposed to be about stopping the reapers. I remember the first trailer I saw had a quote that said "the machines are coming back" that is what they sold us on not cerberus, recruiting a dirty dozen or TIM. The trilogy should have been prove the reapers exist, recruitment(armies)/finding out how to kill them, and then killing the reaperrs. Now you can fill in all the paragon and renegade and other filler material but that is what the 3 games should have been about first and foremost. They didn't accomplish this.

Now when you think of the squaddies there are really only a few that were needed for the overall plot:
Tali/Legion
Wrex/Mordin
Garrus
Liara
These are essential and for the most part executed well throughout the trilogy.

Every one else could have easily been cut or just used for side missions or sub-plots; some more important than others.
For ME2 I would have rather spent my time visiting the homeworlds of my original squad members and finding their history as well as reaper history other than recruiting squad members that meant little to the overall story. You see how little they meant to the story by how they were treating in ME3. That is what really pissed me off about the sequels.. I gave ME2 the benefit of the doubt because it was the middle story and felt all that I was doing was building up for the finale. WRONG!

Again that is what depressed me the most while playing through ME3. The first thing I was wondering was where the F was Miranda and then I meet her and she is in the same outfit. I was like WOW Bioware.. But anyway that is another argument.

Wow, more ideas that actually would have made ME2 make sense. You can still have all the character building, just make side missions involing the characters we know and love and their homeworlds more expansive.

Nobody cares about N7 missions where you walk to a panel and divert a meteor; how about visiting Palaven with a plot involving Garrus' family?

[Dark_Caduceus]

HBC Dresden wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

I'm just smiling at the number of hits Smud's getting due to the controversy. Had the ending been good to most, his critiques would have gone over the same way they did for ME2 with those very same people. The thing is, he's blunt about everything he's mentioned and is probably the most objective I've seen about everything concerning Mass Effect.

If he ends up going pro and getting paid for game reviews, or reviews in general, there are a number of people on BSN I know he'd love to thank.

This scares me. There is much better criticism toward the ending than his, and in general, his attitude and type of analysis frustrates me to no end.

His analysis is a plot deconstruction. Every plot deconstruction is essentially the same, you outline the story and pick apart those details which do or don't make sense. What sets a good plot deconstruction apart from a bad one is the level of detail, and Smudboy's review was very detailed and still probably not perfect.

He didn't focus very much at all on a literary review involving symbolism, metaphor or psychological attributions of the creators. He went through the plot with a fine toothed comb and said "this makes sense, this is stupid, this is redundant, this is a plot hole, this is well done, etc".

[Funkdrspot]

I might give this one a watch but he's overly obtuse and nitpicky to the point that it ruins his critique.

Literally not one single movie or book could hold up to the same intense scrutiny and if our best novels couldn't hold to the same criteria then the method of critique is flawed. A test that only the best students can hope to get 50% in is not a valid test. I know historically accurate novels that have less detail than he requires.

We all know the plot has obvious flaws. We don't need a hack to tell us this. Unfortunately some of you guys crave affirmation and prescribe to group-think mentality so you gravitate towards like-minded opinions. You can tell who is craving affirmation by their response because everyone's talking about how right he is instead of the fact that he's simply stating the obvious and has brought NOTHING new to the conversation that hasn't already been discussed.

Modifié par Funkdrspot, 01 juin 2012 - 05:52 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

Funkdrspot wrote...

I might give this one a watch but he's overly obtuse and nitpicky to the point that it ruins his critique.

Literally not one single movie or book could hold up to the same intense scrutiny and if our best novels couldn't hold to the same criteria then the method of critique is flawed. A test that only the best students can hope to get 50% in is not a valid test. I know historically accurate novels that have less detail than he requires.

Nobody said that you need to take each flaw at face value, if it doesn't bother you to know that Shepard surviving the crash makes no sense then that's fine; but it's still a legitimate flaw to point out.

[Funkdrspot]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

I might give this one a watch but he's overly obtuse and nitpicky to the point that it ruins his critique.

Literally not one single movie or book could hold up to the same intense scrutiny and if our best novels couldn't hold to the same criteria then the method of critique is flawed. A test that only the best students can hope to get 50% in is not a valid test. I know historically accurate novels that have less detail than he requires.

Nobody said that you need to take each flaw at face value, if it doesn't bother you to know that Shepard surviving the crash makes no sense then that's fine; but it's still a legitimate flaw to point out.

The point is he's so nitpicky and half of it isn't a flaw, it's just that he's not given the exact information he wants at that exact moment. The stuff he's correct about is the same stuff EVERYONE knows about. Everything else is him overanalyzing or being obtuse.

Again, i challenge anyone to come up with a movie, book or game that can pass the same test. You can't. The bar is set too high by a no-name youtube reviewer that can read out of a text book but probably couldn't put a coherent story together for s--t.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

I might give this one a watch but he's overly obtuse and nitpicky to the point that it ruins his critique.

Literally not one single movie or book could hold up to the same intense scrutiny and if our best novels couldn't hold to the same criteria then the method of critique is flawed. A test that only the best students can hope to get 50% in is not a valid test. I know historically accurate novels that have less detail than he requires.

Nobody said that you need to take each flaw at face value, if it doesn't bother you to know that Shepard surviving the crash makes no sense then that's fine; but it's still a legitimate flaw to point out.

The point is he's so nitpicky and half of it isn't a flaw, it's just that he's not given the exact information he wants at that exact moment. The stuff he's correct about is the same stuff EVERYONE knows about. Everything else is him overanalyzing or being obtuse.

Again, i challenge anyone to come up with a movie, book or game that can pass the same test. You can't. The bar is set too high by a no-name youtube reviewer that can read out of a text book but probably couldn't put a coherent story together for s--t.

Who cares if he's a Youtuber? Arguments stand and fall on their merits, independent of who says them. I've had professors in university say things that are wrong no matter how many letter are attached to their names, and I've heard plenty of nobodies say things which are very well justified and profound.

The fact that thermal clips were developed during the four year gap between ME1 and ME2 yet Jacob's father's crew uses guns with thermal clips is a conflicting plot point; it's objectively true, as are the rest of Smudboy's "nit-picks". Again, you can choose to ignore these flaws for whatever reason, but you can't deny that they exist.

There definitely exist stories of equal or greater complexity to that of Mass Effect which don't have plot holes, at least not ones I was able to pick out as I read/played/watched them like in Mass Effect 2. An example of which is George R.R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series.

[CARL_DF90]

Yet another great vid that details just how retarded Bioware got. I like this guy!

[Funkdrspot]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

I might give this one a watch but he's overly obtuse and nitpicky to the point that it ruins his critique.

Literally not one single movie or book could hold up to the same intense scrutiny and if our best novels couldn't hold to the same criteria then the method of critique is flawed. A test that only the best students can hope to get 50% in is not a valid test. I know historically accurate novels that have less detail than he requires.

Nobody said that you need to take each flaw at face value, if it doesn't bother you to know that Shepard surviving the crash makes no sense then that's fine; but it's still a legitimate flaw to point out.

The point is he's so nitpicky and half of it isn't a flaw, it's just that he's not given the exact information he wants at that exact moment. The stuff he's correct about is the same stuff EVERYONE knows about. Everything else is him overanalyzing or being obtuse.

Again, i challenge anyone to come up with a movie, book or game that can pass the same test. You can't. The bar is set too high by a no-name youtube reviewer that can read out of a text book but probably couldn't put a coherent story together for s--t.

Who cares if he's a Youtuber? Arguments stand and fall on their merits, independent of who says them. I've had professors in university say things that are wrong no matter how many letter are attached to their names, and I've heard plenty of nobodies say things which are very well justified and profound.

The fact that thermal clips were developed during the four year gap between ME1 and ME2 yet Jacob's father's crew uses guns with thermal clips is a conflicting plot point; it's objectively true, as are the rest of Smudboy's "nit-picks". Again, you can choose to ignore these flaws for whatever reason, but you can't deny that they exist.

There definitely exist stories of equal or greater complexity to that of Mass Effect which don't have plot holes, at least not ones I was able to pick out as I read/played/watched them like in Mass Effect 2. An example of which is George R.R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series.

The problem is that stories are written by people for people. There will almost always be a plothole or 2 in even the best of stories/movies/games so to act like ME 3 is suddenly alone in this aspect is ridiculous.

So yes, you can analyze Jacob's father having thermal clips, OR you can realize that the game is, oh, i don't know, A GAME. A PIECE OF ENERTAINMENT. Sometimes stuff happens b/c it's a gameplay/fun element. This is not meant to be a piece of 100% accurate non-fiction. It is NOT a dictionary, which is why Smudboy's analyst is broken. Nothing can simultaneously fill this nobody's requirements AND tell a story that has any sense of flow. You're better off reading a textbook

You can talk about better stories than ME 3 but you miss my point. My point is even those MUCH better stories would fail under the same scrutiny. His nitpicking is off the charts for what is essentially a GAME. At its heart it is meant to entertain you not for 100% realism. So you feel his criticism is valid, that's great. In order for his criticism to be valid, the same criteria should be able to be used for a much better story/movie/game and for said media to pass. Please point me to such a media. You mentioned a story above but are you sure it would hold up to this level of nitpicking? 

Modifié par Funkdrspot, 01 juin 2012 - 06:23 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

I might give this one a watch but he's overly obtuse and nitpicky to the point that it ruins his critique.

Literally not one single movie or book could hold up to the same intense scrutiny and if our best novels couldn't hold to the same criteria then the method of critique is flawed. A test that only the best students can hope to get 50% in is not a valid test. I know historically accurate novels that have less detail than he requires.

Nobody said that you need to take each flaw at face value, if it doesn't bother you to know that Shepard surviving the crash makes no sense then that's fine; but it's still a legitimate flaw to point out.

The point is he's so nitpicky and half of it isn't a flaw, it's just that he's not given the exact information he wants at that exact moment. The stuff he's correct about is the same stuff EVERYONE knows about. Everything else is him overanalyzing or being obtuse.

Again, i challenge anyone to come up with a movie, book or game that can pass the same test. You can't. The bar is set too high by a no-name youtube reviewer that can read out of a text book but probably couldn't put a coherent story together for s--t.

Who cares if he's a Youtuber? Arguments stand and fall on their merits, independent of who says them. I've had professors in university say things that are wrong no matter how many letter are attached to their names, and I've heard plenty of nobodies say things which are very well justified and profound.

The fact that thermal clips were developed during the four year gap between ME1 and ME2 yet Jacob's father's crew uses guns with thermal clips is a conflicting plot point; it's objectively true, as are the rest of Smudboy's "nit-picks". Again, you can choose to ignore these flaws for whatever reason, but you can't deny that they exist.

There definitely exist stories of equal or greater complexity to that of Mass Effect which don't have plot holes, at least not ones I was able to pick out as I read/played/watched them like in Mass Effect 2. An example of which is George R.R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" series.

The problem is that stories are written by people for people. There will almost always be a plothole or 2 in even the best of stories/movies/games so to act like ME 3 is suddenly alone in this aspect is ridiculous.

So yes, you can analyze Jacob's father having thermal clips, OR you can realize that the game is, oh, i don't know, A GAME. A PIECE OF ENERTAINMENT. Sometimes stuff happens b/c it's a gameplay/fun element. This is not meant to be a piece of 100% accurate non-fiction. It is NOT a dictionary, which is why Smudboy's analyst is broken. Nothing can simultaneously fill this nobody's requirements AND tell a story that has any sense of flow. You're better off reading a textbook

You can talk about better stories than ME 3 but you miss my point. My point is even those MUCH better stories would fail under the same scrutiny. His nitpicking is off the charts for what is essentially a GAME. At its heart it is meant to entertain you not for 100% realism. So you feel his criticism is valid, that's great. In order for his criticism to be valid, the same criteria should be able to be used for a much better story/movie/game and for said media to pass. Please point me to such a media. You mentioned a story above but are you sure it would hold up to this level of nitpicking? 

You can't use "it's a game" as justification for the brokenness of this story. Nobody is arguing that ME3 is alone in having inconstistencies and plot holes, people are arguing that along with a small number of other stories it suffers from such a degree of plot holes that the story ceases to have value, it's like a bucket with a hole in it.

The story can't have any artistic merit or logical progression because it's so damaged. Reducing plot holes strengthens the narrative of a story and makes it more enjoyable, not less so. Now, I recognize that there needs to be a degree of gameplay/lore seperation for the game to work. Mass Effect was guilty of guns violating thermodynamic law in that with the right mods a gun could fire indefinitely, fair enough. The thing is that this is rather explicitly a gameplay factor, Jacob's mission violated the lore which the game itself mentioned, one directly contradicts the plot and the other doesn't.

It's more difficult to be entertained by s story which violates the environment of story telling it creates, not easier. The genre is immaterial, fiction of any kind must be told logically with as few plot issues as possible, Mass Effect ceased even being a logically progressive story by the end of it because it was so riddles with plot issues, the culmination of which being the Crucible.

[alliance4g63]

Funkdrspot wrote...

[

You can talk about better stories than ME 3 but you miss my point. My point is even those MUCH better stories would fail under the same scrutiny. His nitpicking is off the charts for what is essentially a GAME. At its heart it is meant to entertain you not for 100% realism. So you feel his criticism is valid, that's great. In order for his criticism to be valid, the same criteria should be able to be used for a much better story/movie/game and for said media to pass. Please point me to such a media. You mentioned a story above but are you sure it would hold up to this level of nitpicking? 

I have to disagree man. If this were true there would be no such thing as being a good writer or a bad writer. The Mass Effect trilogy was poorly planned if planned at all. He is nitpicking so much because there is so much to nitpick. I would love to see him nitpick something like " A Song of Ice and Fire", I bet those videos would be short.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...


You can't use "it's a game" as justification for the brokenness of this story. Nobody is arguing that ME3 is alone in having inconstistencies and plot holes, people are arguing that along with a small number of other stories it suffers from such a degree of plot holes that the story ceases to have value, it's like a bucket with a hole in it.

The story can't have any artistic merit or logical progression because it's so damaged. Reducing plot holes strengthens the narrative of a story and makes it more enjoyable, not less so. Now, I recognize that there needs to be a degree of gameplay/lore seperation for the game to work. Mass Effect was guilty of guns violating thermodynamic law in that with the right mods a gun could fire indefinitely, fair enough. The thing is that this is rather explicitly a gameplay factor, Jacob's mission violated the lore which the game itself mentioned, one directly contradicts the plot and the other doesn't.

It's more difficult to be entertained by s story which violates the environment of story telling it creates, not easier. The genre is immaterial, fiction of any kind must be told logically with as few plot issues as possible, Mass Effect ceased even being a logically progressive story by the end of it because it was so riddles with plot issues, the culmination of which being the Crucible.

Yes and No. Sure, fiction in general should all fall under the same scrutiny and analysis, but what's being said, is that a video game is confined and limited to what story telling elements it can tell. For example, the Jacob mission would be a programming nightmare/pain in the ass to create, if it were trying to be realistic in it's storytelling. A video game has limitations of time, money, and manpower, and creating a single level with an entirely different game mechanic, just to stay consistent in it's narrative, is strenuous and inefficient. Smudboy has a tendency to forget things like this often, so his "analysis" comes across as extremely nitpicky and obtuse. Not to mention, as a person, Smudboy's character is very unlikeable, with him constantly putting you down if you ever get an argument with him. 

The bottom line is, without the basic understanding of core limitations which are imposed on Bioware as story tellers, it is hard to be taken seriously when dissecting their stories, regardless whether what is being said might be accurate.
Watch Smudboy's rewrite of ME2, and then tell me whether anything he says, can still be based on the confines of reality. 

[Funkdrspot]

alliance4g63 wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

[

You can talk about better stories than ME 3 but you miss my point. My point is even those MUCH better stories would fail under the same scrutiny. His nitpicking is off the charts for what is essentially a GAME. At its heart it is meant to entertain you not for 100% realism. So you feel his criticism is valid, that's great. In order for his criticism to be valid, the same criteria should be able to be used for a much better story/movie/game and for said media to pass. Please point me to such a media. You mentioned a story above but are you sure it would hold up to this level of nitpicking? 

I have to disagree man. If this were true there would be no such thing as being a good writer or a bad writer. The Mass Effect trilogy was poorly planned if planned at all. He is nitpicking so much because there is so much to nitpick. I would love to see him nitpick something like " A Song of Ice and Fire", I bet those videos would be short.

You still misunderstand.

I'm not saying there no such thing between a good and bad writer

I'm saying the criteria by which smudboy judges is bad because no movie, book or game could withstand the same nitpicking.


There are major issues with ME 3, we all agree to this. Smudboy simply states the obvious with his 'best' parts because he is simply regurgitating the same arguments we've already had on BSN. The rest, he nitpicks on. You might say 'well there's so much to nitpick!' but you'd be wrong. It's not about valid points, it's about objective issues that are not immediately satisfied to his liking at that exact point. To provide everything he asks at the exact point he asks for it would completely destroy immersion, fluidity and subtle/foreshadowing of the story.

Some people like the History channel, myself included, but few want to play History Channel: The Game.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Funkdrspot wrote...


I'm saying the criteria by which smudboy judges is bad because no movie, book or game could withstand the same nitpicking.

Nonsense a great deal of movies, Books and even some games can withstand his "nitpicking" as you call, What Smud is judging on is the very basic premises of narrative and storytelling the kind of stuff you learn at the very beginning of any writing class.. hell even ME 1 withstood most of his "nitpicking" and so does most of Deus Ex Human revolution he really didn't have anything to say against them. (not compared to ME 2 +3). 

[Funkdrspot]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...


I'm saying the criteria by which smudboy judges is bad because no movie, book or game could withstand the same nitpicking.

Nonsense a great deal of movies, Books and even some games can withstand his "nitpicking" as you call, What Smud is judging on is the very basic premises of narrative and storytelling the kind of stuff you learn at the very beginning of any writing class.. hell even ME 1 withstood most of his "nitpicking" and so does most of Deus Ex Human revolution he really didn't have anything to say against them. (not compared to ME 2 +3). 

This is the same man that took like 10 minutes to nitpick the fact that Vega was not introduced to his exact liking.

And yet, everytime they ask him on his pages what game/movie/book he actually considers good, he passes. because he knows deep down that he overly nitpicks and acts obtuse and as soon as he names something, someone with +5 hrs of free time will nitpick it and show how flawed his criteria is.