231 réponses à ce sujet

[Alyka]

The only thing that sticks out to me what he was nitpicky about was:
- The Carnifex gun that Shep picked up near the beam. It could've been another soldiers gun.
- The blood not showing up on the floor. It could've been left out by mistake.

And although Smudboy gets long-winded and tries to be very thorough (which of course you almost have to,to back up your theories and/or claims about the ending because people will tear it apart), I have to say that I agree with most of his points.For now.

Modifié par Alyka, 02 juin 2012 - 03:26 .

[IoCaster]

Funkdrspot wrote...

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.

So it's all about attacking the messenger, but not the message is the gist of your argument? You seem to be glossing over any valid points he makes because you have a visceral hatred of the dude and somehow you've convinced yourself that this invalidates his criticism of crappy story crafting. I won't question your motives here, but what would compel you to believe that anyone should take you seriously? SMH

[Dark_Caduceus]

Funkdrspot wrote...

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.

He criticized the fact that Vega was introduced poorly, not that it wasn't to his liking.

It was a bad way to introduce him ebcause either new or seasoned players get into the game and have the same reaction; "Why is Shepard on earth, who is this guy, why am I on a first names basis with him, what the **** is going on?'"

In games, more than pretty much any other medium the audience needs to feel a degree of agency in response to the material, you need to be able to reasonably predict how events pan out and the introduction of characters and plots needs to be logical.

You wouldn't open up the third entry to a novel series with a protagonist in an entirely different place than before, after an unspecified period of time, with the protagonist speaking to characters you've never heard of before without any exposition whatsoever, because that's bad story telling.

Hell, even Mass Effect 2 had a long intro describing what happened to Shepard and introduced a couple characters before you got thrown into the inferno(though Mass Effect 2's plot was still pretty bad) it was at least told in a logically progressive manner.

Compare Vega's introduction to Wrex's where we:
-Get information about the Shadowbroker,
-His contract with Wrex, Wrex's objective,
-His probable role in the plot and
-His interactions with other individuals before we begin speaking with him.

Ditto for Garrus and Liara, and every other squadmate in ME1 and most in ME2.

The difference is that Wrex's introduction makes sense in the context of the story, has pacing, and a degree of characterization before we start interacting with him. Vega might as well have parachuted into the scene given how abrupt his intro was.

[CARL_DF90]

I sincerely hope ol' Bioware is taking notes.

[Funkdrspot]

IoCaster wrote...

So it's all about attacking the messenger, but not the message is the gist of your argument?

If that's all you got from it then you fail at reading comprehension

IoCaster wrote...You seem to be glossing over any valid points he makes

There are 2 sets of points he makes

A. The ones we've all already talked about

B. The garbage that he adds through being obtuse and nitpicky

I
gloss over B because he stupidly asks SOOOOOOOOOOOOO many pointless
questions that it drags down any real point he might ever make

IoCaster wrote...because
you have a visceral hatred of the dude and somehow you've convinced
yourself that this invalidates his criticism of crappy story
crafting.

Because his visceral hatred of the Mass Effect
series and his flawed criteria invalidate his criticism. But the end is
still crappy.

IoCaster wrote...I won't question your motives here, but what would compel you to believe that anyone should take you seriously? SMH

I don't need to compel anyone. You don't need to believe in what I'm
saying because what I'm saying doesn't require belief. Review all 5 of
his videos. Tell me he's not being exceptionally nitpicky and obtuse
throughout to the point that NO story would
pass this test. 90% of his videos are him going off on some tangent
about how HE thinks they should provide him info on everything at all
times basically. If he's not supplied with ample info then he goes off
on his question list. His debate tactic is the very essence of mindless
micro excuses. He lobs tons of easy to answer question or questions with
unknown or meaningless answers. Not to mention that he constantly
relies on "begging the question" and "faulty generalization".

He asks a series of questions that we aren't given the answer to then
presumes to make each unanswered question break the story when the
simple fact is that we just aren't given the answer. He cries for like
10 minutes about after you ride up the conduit beam. Lets go over some of his critique, shall we?

Modifié par Funkdrspot, 02 juin 2012 - 10:07 .

[Fixers0]

Alyka wrote...
- The Carnifex gun that Shep picked up near the beam. It could've been another soldiers gun.

The problem with it not being an Alliance weapon (as with the predator recieved at the beginging) and as there are only Alliance Marines animated on the screen it's kind of a Retcon. 

[Funkdrspot]

Fixers0 wrote...

Alyka wrote...
- The Carnifex gun that Shep picked up near the beam. It could've been another soldiers gun.

The problem with it not being an Alliance weapon (as with the predator recieved at the beginging) and as there are only Alliance Marines animated on the screen it's kind of a Retcon. 

ONLY alliance Marines? We dont' know that. Most of the people who were left fighting on earth weren't soldiers. Plus who is to say that Marines aren't fighting with whatever they can find, including civ weapons? 

You assume too much to say it's some retcon.

[Funkdrspot]

I wanted to break my post into 2 parts to make it easier to talk about.


I don't need to compel anyone. You don't need to believe in what I'm
saying because what I'm saying doesn't require belief. Review all 5 of
his videos. Tell me he's not being exceptionally nitpicky and obtuse
throughout to the point that NO story would
pass this test. 90% of his videos are him going off on some tangent
about how HE thinks they should provide him info on everything at all
times basically. If he's not supplied with ample info then he goes off
on his question list. His debate tactic is the very essence of mindless
micro excuses. He lobs tons of easy to answer question or questions with
unknown or meaningless answers. Not to mention that he constantly
relies on "begging the question" and "faulty generalization".

He asks a series of questions that we aren't given the answer to then
presumes to make each unanswered question break the story when the
simple fact is that we just aren't given the answer. He cries for like
10 minutes about after you ride up the conduit beam. Lets go over some of his critique, shall we?

[quote]Smudboy wrote..."How does Anderson arrive someone else! It's an elevator. Elevators go from point A to point B or C or D!"[/quote]


-If elevators went from point A to point B then you'd only have 2 floors. Thus you've answered your own question. Elevators have more than 1 point they go to....but this isn't an elevator...

[quote]Smudboy wrote..." What is this beam?! Are we suddenly in Star Trek?!?!? I just used it and dont' even know what it is!"[/quote]



I'm going to take a stab at it and say, since we're dealing with reapers
and reaper tech, the conduit is not an elevator, it's a micro relay for
moving people, and relays can have more than 1 point of exit.

Besides, you're playing the role OF shepard.

Not a 3rd person who plays shepard. You are shepard. How do you suggest
we find out about what the conduit is or how it works since it is
reaper tech and reapers aren't prone to sitting down and discussing
their tech? Do the reapers drop their " Conduit builders Magazine" on your path to it?

[quote]Smudboy wrote..."How does the citadel move! Is it alive?! (Begging the question, faulty generalization)"[/quote]


We're not told how. It's nitpicking.

[quote]Smudboy wrote..."How did no one find these areas of the citadel!"[/quote]

Reference ME 1.

[quote]Smudboy wrote..."Do we even have a precedent for the citadel moving on its own?! The citadel moving on its own is lore-breaking!"[/quote]


-Presuming we need a precedent for every single event-
Does every single secret to a story have to be told in advance? How would you ever surprise your audience if you had to show them your hand before hand? So by this 'criteria' every single story that's ever had a surprise that wasn't illustrated before hand is a plothole?

[quote]Smudboy wrote..."Why all the bodies? What are they doing? What do they need them for? Why not just use clones? Why do they liquify them? Herp Derp"[/quote]



Its not described or explained why, just like many stories don't stop to
explain every minute detail. We know the reapers liquify the reaped to
use their DNA of the reaped.

[quote]Smudboy wrote..."Why do the reapers take dead bodies when the collectors took live ones"[/quote]

Maybe live ones work better. Maybe dead bodies can be used for other parts or for smaller reapers. Who cares. it's a nitpick.

[quote]Smudboy wrote..."What is the point of this room?! Why are there bodies here? whats the reapers plan going to be? how are they going to make a human reaper? Why is there no technology here?"[/quote]

Really?! REALLY?! Nitpicking at its finest. The point of the room is to store
human bodies to be processed. What are the reapers plans? to make a reaper. How are they going to make a reaper? Well gee i dont know b/c they haven't told us. Why is there no tech here? How is that even important.....

Smudboy literally doesn't not grasp the concept that the story is not being TOLD to us. We ARE shepard. We are NOT a
member in the audience. How do you suggest that we find out what the
precise plans for the human reaper are at that exact point? To answer
his question we'd literally have to break the fluidity and immersion of
the story itself. He wants a textbook, not a game.

[quote]Smudboy wrote..." How does TIM think control of the reapers and Shepard is necessary for survival?!!?! How does TIM know what the crucible does and how it works?! " [/quote]


He's indoctrinated, herp derp. Stuff he says isn't going to make sense.

[quote]Smudboy wrote..."What's with the oily screen effects?! That's just lazy"[/quote]


Whoa wait what? They're foreshadowing something for you...But if they didn't foreshadow it, you'd cry then too. Hypocrisy.

[quote]Smudboy wrote..." Why does TIM need to move to make shepard shoot if he already controls him!"[/quote]

They dont' explain it to us. I suspect it's partially due to theatrics but why does that matter? It doesn't. Plus, he doesn't control shepard. Shepard is unable to move. Huge difference.

Modifié par Funkdrspot, 02 juin 2012 - 10:11 .

[Funkdrspot]

bump

[elegolas1]

hilarious, yet heartbreaking to watch
the nitpicking might not be to the taste of everyone, but that does not reduce the validity of the points smudboy makes
his style of analysis is consistently literal and incredibly thorough
he looks at exactly what is presented to the audience and judges that without the assumption of audience subjective interpretation. literal plot analysis using only the plot and lore to analyse.

[Funkdrspot]

elegolas1 wrote...

hilarious, yet heartbreaking to watch
the nitpicking might not be to the taste of everyone, but that does not reduce the validity of the points smudboy makes

Actually it does and i detailed why. The points with merit are the same areas we all know about. The rest is him trying to 'beg the question'. Validity and logical fallacy don't mix.

elegolas1 wrote...his style of analysis is consistently literal and incredibly thorough

And based on logical fallacies and obtuse.

elegolas1 wrote...he looks at exactly what is presented to the audience and judges that without the assumption of audience subjective interpretation. literal plot analysis using only the plot and lore to analyse.

LOL WHAT?!? I just showed you actual questions where he just goes off on a random tangent and keeps 'begging the question' to make it seem like there's a major plothole when we simply don't have information available at the time. That type of analysis isn't valid because no book could ever maintain a cohesive story and flow while telling you all things at all times.

[elegolas1]

elegolas1 wrote...he looks at exactly what is presented to the audience and judges that without the assumption of audience subjective interpretation. literal plot analysis using only the plot and lore to analyse.

LOL WHAT?!? I just showed you actual questions where he just goes off on a random tangent and keeps 'begging the question' to make it seem like there's a major plothole when we simply don't have information available at the time. That type of analysis isn't valid because no book could ever maintain a cohesive story and flow while telling you all things at all times.

i will reiterate: smudboy will look at a scene from mass effect taking note of everything which is included concerning the literal narrative. he uses the information given to the audience from mass effect, either from the codex, characters or from the scene itself, and if the scene contradicts the information previously given to the audience, or if it has no context whatsoever, he will point it out in his analysis.
The audience may take it upon themselves to explain the lack of information given by mass effect, using subjective interpretation or metagaming, but smudboy does not include this in his analysis, as he uses only the game itself as a source of information.

i don't understand how this nitpicking makes his argument invalid.

I also think that me3 is so full of plot holes that it can't maintain a cohesive story, even without the analysis of smudboy.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

elegolas1 wrote...

elegolas1 wrote...he looks at exactly what is presented to the audience and judges that without the assumption of audience subjective interpretation. literal plot analysis using only the plot and lore to analyse.

LOL WHAT?!? I just showed you actual questions where he just goes off on a random tangent and keeps 'begging the question' to make it seem like there's a major plothole when we simply don't have information available at the time. That type of analysis isn't valid because no book could ever maintain a cohesive story and flow while telling you all things at all times.

i will reiterate: smudboy will look at a scene from mass effect taking note of everything which is included concerning the literal narrative. he uses the information given to the audience from mass effect, either from the codex, characters or from the scene itself, and if the scene contradicts the information previously given to the audience, or if it has no context whatsoever, he will point it out in his analysis.
The audience may take it upon themselves to explain the lack of information given by mass effect, using subjective interpretation or metagaming, but smudboy does not include this in his analysis, as he uses only the game itself as a source of information.

i don't understand how this nitpicking makes his argument invalid.

I also think that me3 is so full of plot holes that it can't maintain a cohesive story, even without the analysis of smudboy.

Then he should not use the information that he gathers as a point for, or against, the game then. A good analysis of a piece of fiction, should not carry any prior bias from the analyzer, nor should the person give a clear set goal for or against the work. If his literal interpretation of the plot is constrained by harsh bias, before he even begins to point out things in the plot, then there is an immediate problem with his analysis. It is shown time and time again, that he already has a vendetta to score against Bioware in his videos, and he scrutinizes every little detail with venomous zeal. With that level of scrutiny, no fiction could ever withstand any of his tests. If he is trying to come across as unbiased and level headed, then he has failed.

Modifié par TheCrimsonSpire, 03 juin 2012 - 02:16 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

elegolas1 wrote...

elegolas1 wrote...he looks at exactly what is presented to the audience and judges that without the assumption of audience subjective interpretation. literal plot analysis using only the plot and lore to analyse.

LOL WHAT?!? I just showed you actual questions where he just goes off on a random tangent and keeps 'begging the question' to make it seem like there's a major plothole when we simply don't have information available at the time. That type of analysis isn't valid because no book could ever maintain a cohesive story and flow while telling you all things at all times.

i will reiterate: smudboy will look at a scene from mass effect taking note of everything which is included concerning the literal narrative. he uses the information given to the audience from mass effect, either from the codex, characters or from the scene itself, and if the scene contradicts the information previously given to the audience, or if it has no context whatsoever, he will point it out in his analysis.
The audience may take it upon themselves to explain the lack of information given by mass effect, using subjective interpretation or metagaming, but smudboy does not include this in his analysis, as he uses only the game itself as a source of information.

i don't understand how this nitpicking makes his argument invalid.

I also think that me3 is so full of plot holes that it can't maintain a cohesive story, even without the analysis of smudboy.

Then he should not use the information that he gathers as a point for, or against the game then. If his literal interpretation of the plot is constrained by harsh bias, before he even begins to point out things in the lot, then there is an immediate problem with his analysis. It is shown time and time again, that he already has a vendetta to score against Bioware in his videos, and he scrutinizes every little detail with venomous zeal. With that level of scrutiny, no fiction could ever withstand any of his tests. If he is trying to come across as unbiased and level headed, then he has failed.

I keep hearing "No fiction could stand up to such exacting scrutiny" over and over yet I don't quite see that being the case. Would you like to butress this assertion, given that you're making the claim?

And Smudboy has no harsh bias against the story. He just analyzes the plot while keeping the pre-established plot in mind and feigning ignorance which is exactly what you should do in a plot review.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

If he is just doing an act, then he shouldn't use his ignorance as a valid complaint against the story. Do you go into a book, or movie, with the attitude and mind set of a brain dead chimp? No, you come in with a pre conceived expectation and knowledge of how a story is produced under the limitations set by it's established art form. Take film for example, a film is usually the length of around 1-2 and a half hour length. Therefore, the story is confined to that length of time, and must tell the story within that time constraint, without damaging the overarching story structure or plot. The same is said for a video game. But, it has different limitations set on it, so the viewer/gamer must enter the story with that preconceived knowledge in mind. A game's story is limited, by it's engine, it's budget, it's game mechanics, and it's established universe; to name a few. All these things must be taken into consideration when playing. So being a nitpicky little **** about the smallest of details, knowing that there are these limitations to BASIC story telling, is not only contrived, but very petty.

[Dark_Caduceus]

No, when I analyze a plot and attempt to identify inconsistencies I feign ignorance because that's the best way to arrive at the truth.

When I watch a film or play a game I'm not actively deconstructing the plot.

Feigning ignorance is the only way to arrive at conclusions which are unbiased, I don't watch plot deconstructions to have someone say "It makes no sense for the people on Jacob's father's crew to have thermal clip based weapons BUT I'm now going to do the writers job and speculate an explanation." I'm watching to have the strength of the plot assessed, invlving where it succeeds and in Mass Effect 3's case, mostly fails.

There are no reasons that the general limits based on videogame story telling would prevent a solid or even mostly solid plot to come together. Hell, it worked in Mass Effect 1 when they were starting from scratch.

Please define: "Nitpicky" and "small details" because those are pretty subjective terms to be throwing around in assessment to something as exacting and detailed as hours worth of plot deconstruction.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Feigning ignorance is important, but only if you recognize that not everything can be explained nor understood at any given time, when you want it. Smudboy does not realize this fact, and consistently faults the game, for being unable to explain or answer every question that is brought up at every moment he demands it. Even though, like I said before, there are limitations and story telling rules that prevent a person from having all the answers whenever they want.

A video game has it's own set of limitations, and if the player cannot suspend there disbelief or not accept certain situations when presented, just because he/she doesn't have all the answers, is a fault of the player, NOT the story.

Jacob's loyalty mission is plot inconsistent, sure, but when you recognize that in a video game, it would be extremely inefficient and impractical to implement a new game mechanic for just one mission, then you can accept the oversight and move on.

Smudboy gets caught up way too often in these types of situations, and this damages his credibility greatly. He spends far too much time rambling on minor points that can be easily looked past from a gaming perspective, and this takes away from his more valid complaints. I'll give one example, but the fellow above, Funk, already has a hefty list of things said by smud that are considered "nitpicky".

When smudboy begins to discuss the intro sequence to the final mission in ME3, he complains that the fleet exits the relay in one shot, and then in the next establishing fleet shot, is around where Jupiter is. He goes on to say that, "what, did the fleet exit ftl just to make a pit stop at Jupiter, that's inconsistent, and isn't explained why that is. Therefore is a flaw in the opening." Not only is this point irrelevant to the overarching story, and adds nothing by him pointing it out, it is also explainable within the lore of the universe. It has already been established within the lore, that ships cannot, or should not use ftl within a solar system, as a safety precaution. Now cinematically, the pacing of the scene would have been ruined and the emotional impact would have been lost, if we had to watch the fleet travel the hours it would take to get from the relay to Earth, and then engage the reaper fleet.

Anyone with half a brain cell, and with simple knowledge of basic story telling, knows that treating the plot of a story like a textbook, doesn't make for an interesting or compelling one.

Modifié par TheCrimsonSpire, 03 juin 2012 - 03:31 .

[OdanUrr]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

A video game has it's own set of limitations, and if the player cannot suspend there disbelief or not accept certain situations when presented, just because he/she doesn't have all the answers, is a fault of the player, NOT the story.

Suspension of disbelief from the player must be earned, not taken for granted. When a story backs itself into a corner, the writers shouldn't assume that the player will always fill in the gaps, particularly when we're talking about major inconsistencies (such as the Reapers not taking control of the Citadel sooner and shutting down the relay network; the persistent notion that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally yet Shepard is able to take down six of them, if memory serves, without any DEM; TIM's sudden and inexplicable conversion into an evil dude determined to thwart Shepard for no clear reason; etc.)

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Sure, but these major inconsistencies are not what I'm arguing about here. I'm talking about the little nitpicky "Jacob's LM heat sink" problems, that have no effect on the over arching plot. The things Smudboy loves to spend hours harking over in his videos.

I'm not denying ME3, or the series in general really, doesn't have plotholes/inconsistencies. It's the level of malicious pandering which Smudboy lowers himself to, which I find annoying and repulsive.

[Funkdrspot]

What i find funniest is that people in here are still dancing to that tune that Smudboy is a good analyst, while simultaneously dodging my post where I detail what was like 20 minutes of him asking the most ridiculous questions.

[fr33stylez]

Funkdrspot wrote...

What i find funniest is that people in here are still dancing to that tune that Smudboy is a good analyst, while simultaneously dodging my post where I detail what was like 20 minutes of him asking the most ridiculous questions.

I'm sorry but half of your responses you posted above bascially amounts to "because they don't explain it!" or "they don't  have to explain it to us!". If that's the case, I'm assuming you have no problem with the lack of information in the entire Catalyst final sequence.

BTW, his analysis was 1h30m. Even if all of your objections are substantiated,  disagreeing 20 minutes doesn't invalidate the other 1h10m.

[Funkdrspot]

fr33stylez wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

What i find funniest is that people in here are still dancing to that tune that Smudboy is a good analyst, while simultaneously dodging my post where I detail what was like 20 minutes of him asking the most ridiculous questions.

I'm sorry but half of your responses you posted above bascially amounts to "because they don't explain it!" or "they don't  have to explain it to us!". If that's the case, I'm assuming you have no problem with the lack of information in the entire Catalyst final sequence.

So lets be honest here, do we, as shepard, really need to know WHY the reapers stacked bodies up? Do we really need to know what their plans are? Do
we really need to know HOW they make a reaper? How is it a 'plot hole'
to simply not know something that hasn't been explained in the story
yet?!

Uh, no. You somehow confuse the two. One is indirect. Something that does not need to be explained in order for the plot to progress while the other is direct. You(Shepard) having an underwhelming conversation with the catalyst isn't remotely close to not knowing what the reaper's plans are for the bodies in the hall. If you can't see that then the only thing I can do is refer you to a college reading comprehension course.

Plus, let us remind you, smudboy, and everyone else on this page that the game is told directly from the eyes of Shepard. To my recollection, never once do we, as the audience, cut away from Shepard to learn a plot piece or twist before he does.

fr33stylez wrote...
BTW, his analysis was 1h30m. Even if all of your objections are substantiated,  disagreeing 20 minutes doesn't invalidate the other 1h10m.

That was literally, 20 minutes out of the first 20 minutes and I could do that for almost every single video he made.

[LiquidGrape]

Smudboy is a reductive berk.
This from someone who didn't like the ending.

That is all.

[o Ventus]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Alyka wrote...
- The Carnifex gun that Shep picked up near the beam. It could've been another soldiers gun.

The problem with it not being an Alliance weapon (as with the predator recieved at the beginging) and as there are only Alliance Marines animated on the screen it's kind of a Retcon. 

ONLY alliance Marines? We dont' know that. Most of the people who were left fighting on earth weren't soldiers. Plus who is to say that Marines aren't fighting with whatever they can find, including civ weapons? 

You assume too much to say it's some retcon.

The only dead soldiers you see anywhere remotely nearby are Alliance.

[Heather Cline]

There are so many videos that shoot holes in the ending of this game. Just another one to add to the list.