231 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

Funkdrspot wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Jedifan421 wrote...

That video was ****ing incredible.

His analysis of the viewer being able to see the explosions on the Milky Way galaxy at the end ALONE was ****ing incredible. I can't believe I didn't realize until now that we would be seeing the explosions 100,000 years in the future because of how light and matter work in traveling across the galaxy. Just...incredible.

Also, this pretty much confirms that Mass Effect 3 is broken, Casey Hudson and Mac Walters don't comprehend basic storytelling, science and physics and the ending cannot be fixed by the EC. Oh and there really was no point in playing...any of these games for the story. Yay. I'm gonna go for a run now and clear my head.

I also like the way he says that Bioware had no idea where Mass Effect was going, and were just winging it.

You cannot argue with science - and smudboy hits the nail right on the freakin head about matter and speed and perception.

I must admit that Smudboy is an aquired taste.  You either love his stuff (which I do) because he explains everything in a factual way - and doesnt try to upset people just states the things the way he sees them.

Or you hate him cos you love Mass Effect 3 and are so blinkered in your love for Mass Effect 3 that you cannot see the fact that ME3 is just so full of plotholes, glitches and rubbish gameplay.

Well done Smudboy.  for your 5 videos analysing Mass Effect 3 I give you 10 out of 10.

LoL confirmation bias. You can either like him b/c you like him and you're right or hate him b/c you're bias.

How old are you guys?

If that is legitimately what you took from that post, then you are an idiot. Your strange vendetta against smudboy (To this point you haven't provided any logical reason for) is incomprehensibly stupid.

[dorktainian]

Funkdrspot wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Jedifan421 wrote...

That video was ****ing incredible.

His analysis of the viewer being able to see the explosions on the Milky Way galaxy at the end ALONE was ****ing incredible. I can't believe I didn't realize until now that we would be seeing the explosions 100,000 years in the future because of how light and matter work in traveling across the galaxy. Just...incredible.

Also, this pretty much confirms that Mass Effect 3 is broken, Casey Hudson and Mac Walters don't comprehend basic storytelling, science and physics and the ending cannot be fixed by the EC. Oh and there really was no point in playing...any of these games for the story. Yay. I'm gonna go for a run now and clear my head.

I also like the way he says that Bioware had no idea where Mass Effect was going, and were just winging it.

You cannot argue with science - and smudboy hits the nail right on the freakin head about matter and speed and perception.

I must admit that Smudboy is an aquired taste.  You either love his stuff (which I do) because he explains everything in a factual way - and doesnt try to upset people just states the things the way he sees them.

Or you hate him cos you love Mass Effect 3 and are so blinkered in your love for Mass Effect 3 that you cannot see the fact that ME3 is just so full of plotholes, glitches and rubbish gameplay.

Well done Smudboy.  for your 5 videos analysing Mass Effect 3 I give you 10 out of 10.

LoL confirmation bias. You can either like him b/c you like him and you're right or hate him b/c you're bias.

How old are you guys?

Do you even understand anything?  seriously?  I like Smudboy.  Doesn't mean I force you to like him.  It's an opinion of mine.  Not saying it's yours.  My views are equally as valid as anyones.

Oh and the age thing...probably old enough to be one of your parents.

Go get em Queen Liz 2....  

[Funkdrspot]

dorktainian wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Jedifan421 wrote...

That video was ****ing incredible.

His analysis of the viewer being able to see the explosions on the Milky Way galaxy at the end ALONE was ****ing incredible. I can't believe I didn't realize until now that we would be seeing the explosions 100,000 years in the future because of how light and matter work in traveling across the galaxy. Just...incredible.

Also, this pretty much confirms that Mass Effect 3 is broken, Casey Hudson and Mac Walters don't comprehend basic storytelling, science and physics and the ending cannot be fixed by the EC. Oh and there really was no point in playing...any of these games for the story. Yay. I'm gonna go for a run now and clear my head.

I also like the way he says that Bioware had no idea where Mass Effect was going, and were just winging it.

You cannot argue with science - and smudboy hits the nail right on the freakin head about matter and speed and perception.

I must admit that Smudboy is an aquired taste.  You either love his stuff (which I do) because he explains everything in a factual way - and doesnt try to upset people just states the things the way he sees them.

Or you hate him cos you love Mass Effect 3 and are so blinkered in your love for Mass Effect 3 that you cannot see the fact that ME3 is just so full of plotholes, glitches and rubbish gameplay.

Well done Smudboy.  for your 5 videos analysing Mass Effect 3 I give you 10 out of 10.

LoL confirmation bias. You can either like him b/c you like him and you're right or hate him b/c you're bias.

How old are you guys?

Do you even understand anything?  seriously?  I like Smudboy.  Doesn't mean I force you to like him.  It's an opinion of mine.  Not saying it's yours.  My views are equally as valid as anyones.

Oh and the age thing...probably old enough to be one of your parents.

Go get em Queen Liz 2....  

That's not what you said at all huh? 

"I must admit that Smudboy is an aquired taste.  You either love his
stuff (which I do) because he explains everything in a factual way - and
doesnt try to upset people just states the things the way he sees them.

Or
you hate him cos you love Mass Effect 3 and are so blinkered in your
love for Mass Effect 3 that you cannot see the fact that ME3 is just so
full of plotholes, glitches and rubbish gameplay."

Confirmation bias right there. Exact what you said:
You can either love his stuff b/c you're logical and right or hate him b/c you're illogical and wrong.

[Funkdrspot]

o Ventus wrote...
If that is legitimately what you took from that post, then you are an idiot. Your strange vendetta against smudboy (To this point you haven't provided any logical reason for) is incomprehensibly stupid.

That's what the post WAS.

My vendetta? Does that make you a smudboy cheerleader? 

I provided an entire post on pg 7 that detailed how stupid his questions were.


Meanwhile you kids rage on.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

You do realize why the Reapers picked London, right? It's not mentioned in the game, but there is a reason why they picked London as opposed to say, Houston, or Atlanta, or Chicago. They would have lost too many husks. There are too many guns in Chicago, Atlanta, and Houston.

[fr33stylez]

Funkdrspot wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
If that is legitimately what you took from that post, then you are an idiot. Your strange vendetta against smudboy (To this point you haven't provided any logical reason for) is incomprehensibly stupid.

That's what the post WAS.

My vendetta? Does that make you a smudboy cheerleader? 

I provided an entire post on pg 7 that detailed how stupid his questions were.


Meanwhile you kids rage on.

And I've detailed on the top of page 7 why what you said is hypocritical.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 03 juin 2012 - 07:32 .

[o Ventus]

Funkdrspot wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
If that is legitimately what you took from that post, then you are an idiot. Your strange vendetta against smudboy (To this point you haven't provided any logical reason for) is incomprehensibly stupid.

That's what the post WAS.

My vendetta? Does that make you a smudboy cheerleader? 

I provided an entire post on pg 7 that detailed how stupid his questions were.


Meanwhile you kids rage on.

You can't prove an opinion, and you've given nothing but opinion. You cannot factually be too in-depth with an analysis. The whole point of an analysis is to be in-depth, as smudboy does. Yes, he nitpicks. Yes, a lot of the nitpicking is minor and doesn't affect anything. No, this doesn't invalidate the nitpick's status of plot inconsistency.

You say we're raging, when you're so brazenly hating on smudboy, even going so far as to take quotes from him out of context to fit your points and half-quote other posts in this thread. Not only do you fail to understand the meaning of the word "subjectivity", but you're a hypocrite.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I find Smudboy annoying and long-winded. He could do his whole thing in half the time. My ADD kicks in around 15 mins, and I get the general idea of a section, then I skip ahead to the next section with his videos.

[Funkdrspot]

fr33stylez wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
If that is legitimately what you took from that post, then you are an idiot. Your strange vendetta against smudboy (To this point you haven't provided any logical reason for) is incomprehensibly stupid.

That's what the post WAS.

My vendetta? Does that make you a smudboy cheerleader? 

I provided an entire post on pg 7 that detailed how stupid his questions were.


Meanwhile you kids rage on.

And I've detailed on the top of page 7 why what you said is hypocritical.

What you said doesn't contradict what I stated. You just delve more into Smudboy's original questions without understanding that not having the answer at the moment isn't a plothole.

So all you really did was give a long winded explanation of his original question, thus my point still stands.

[RiouHotaru]

So, Smudboy takes a hint from Forbes and produces a video he knows will work with the confirmation bias fallacy, and then proceeds to nitpick the entire game apart for no good reason.

He did the exact same thing with ME2. He claimed that every little detail that wasn't explained was a plothole or an massive inconsistency with the plot, and did the same thing here with ME3.

The main problem with Smudboy is as follows:

1) Even when you can provide evidence to disprove his assertion, he handwaves it away.
He was NOTORIOUS for this back when ME2 was in it's prime and when he wasn't banned from the BSN. Anytime someone made a sound argument against them, he'd instead brush them off and go for ad hominem attacks, or just ignore them altogether and move on.

2) He believes every little detail MUST be explained
Back in ME2 he thought that TIM not placing a minefield around the Omega 4 relay (despite the ridiculous logisitic issues with that) was a plothole. Why? Because alternatives to "Send a ship and crew through" were not explained. When LotSB explained that even unmanned probes didn't work, he just shrugged and said "That doesn't count." Now he's nitpicking over the Reaper's population of husks and the presence of the beam. These things DO NOT need explaining, nor would explaining them contribute anything meaningful?

3) He's already got a bias
Despite his claim of "I'll pretend to be ignorant so I'll not be biased", it's patently obvious that's untrue.. He's made it clear that ME1 is the only good game of the trilogy, and that he despises the hell out of the other two. Watch his ME1 analysis, he barely looks at any of that game's absolutely MASSIVE issues. He can claim he's being "fair" all he wants, it's a huge, fat lie.

[Funkdrspot]

o Ventus wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
If that is legitimately what you took from that post, then you are an idiot. Your strange vendetta against smudboy (To this point you haven't provided any logical reason for) is incomprehensibly stupid.

That's what the post WAS.

My vendetta? Does that make you a smudboy cheerleader? 

I provided an entire post on pg 7 that detailed how stupid his questions were.


Meanwhile you kids rage on.

You can't prove an opinion, and you've given nothing but opinion. You cannot factually be too in-depth with an analysis. The whole point of an analysis is to be in-depth, as smudboy does. Yes, he nitpicks. Yes, a lot of the nitpicking is minor and doesn't affect anything. No, this doesn't invalidate the nitpick's status of plot inconsistency.

You say we're raging, when you're so brazenly hating on smudboy, even going so far as to take quotes from him out of context to fit your points and half-quote other posts in this thread. Not only do you fail to understand the meaning of the word "subjectivity", but you're a hypocrite.

What quotes did i take out of context? Please show me.

I say you're raging b/c you're quick to call names and talk down to people. I don't care about you, I care about the point, which is debating the legitimacy of smudboy's opinion. Yet when I do, somehow I'm a stupid smudboy hater....

And if i can't prove an opinion, what is it that smudboy is doing but you seem to be cheerleading? He's not doing much more than I am. He begs the question, asks 10 questions more and moves on. I answer those questions in an Occams Razor way. I could do that for all 5 videos and destroy nearly every nitpick he throws up but I don't have +5 hrs.

I have problems with smudboy's criteria for criticism and his method ( Obtuse & pedantic ). I don't care about him as a person or somehow trying to be the white knight for ME 3, like you're trying to make it out to be.

Modifié par Funkdrspot, 03 juin 2012 - 07:44 .

[TheCrimsonSpire]

RiouHotaru wrote...

So, Smudboy takes a hint from Forbes and produces a video he knows will work with the confirmation bias fallacy, and then proceeds to nitpick the entire game apart for no good reason.

He did the exact same thing with ME2. He claimed that every little detail that wasn't explained was a plothole or an massive inconsistency with the plot, and did the same thing here with ME3.

The main problem with Smudboy is as follows:

1) Even when you can provide evidence to disprove his assertion, he handwaves it away.
He was NOTORIOUS for this back when ME2 was in it's prime and when he wasn't banned from the BSN. Anytime someone made a sound argument against them, he'd instead brush them off and go for ad hominem attacks, or just ignore them altogether and move on.

2) He believes every little detail MUST be explained
Back in ME2 he thought that TIM not placing a minefield around the Omega 4 relay (despite the ridiculous logisitic issues with that) was a plothole. Why? Because alternatives to "Send a ship and crew through" were not explained. When LotSB explained that even unmanned probes didn't work, he just shrugged and said "That doesn't count." Now he's nitpicking over the Reaper's population of husks and the presence of the beam. These things DO NOT need explaining, nor would explaining them contribute anything meaningful?

3) He's already got a bias
Despite his claim of "I'll pretend to be ignorant so I'll not be biased", it's patently obvious that's untrue.. He's made it clear that ME1 is the only good game of the trilogy, and that he despises the hell out of the other two. Watch his ME1 analysis, he barely looks at any of that game's absolutely MASSIVE issues. He can claim he's being "fair" all he wants, it's a huge, fat lie.

QFT, seriously, thank you for getting it!

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Also, if you weren't here when Smudboy was an actual forum memeber, than your opinion on his character is invalid. He was banned for a reason folks, I was there, and he was a major ass to everyone.

We have a right to not like him, he showed us why himself.

Modifié par TheCrimsonSpire, 03 juin 2012 - 07:43 .

[Funkdrspot]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

Also, if you weren't here when Smudboy was an actual forum memeber, than your opinion on his character is invalid. He was banned for a reason folks, I was there, and he was a major ass to everyone.

We have a right to not like him, he showed us why himself.

LoL was he? I never was on BSN much until recently with ME 3. I did try to debate him on the Youtube post but all he did was ad hominem

[Jedifan421]

RiouHotaru wrote...

So, Smudboy takes a hint from Forbes and produces a video he knows will work with the confirmation bias fallacy, and then proceeds to nitpick the entire game apart for no good reason.

He did the exact same thing with ME2. He claimed that every little detail that wasn't explained was a plothole or an massive inconsistency with the plot, and did the same thing here with ME3.

The main problem with Smudboy is as follows:

1) Even when you can provide evidence to disprove his assertion, he handwaves it away.
He was NOTORIOUS for this back when ME2 was in it's prime and when he wasn't banned from the BSN. Anytime someone made a sound argument against them, he'd instead brush them off and go for ad hominem attacks, or just ignore them altogether and move on.

2) He believes every little detail MUST be explained
Back in ME2 he thought that TIM not placing a minefield around the Omega 4 relay (despite the ridiculous logisitic issues with that) was a plothole. Why? Because alternatives to "Send a ship and crew through" were not explained. When LotSB explained that even unmanned probes didn't work, he just shrugged and said "That doesn't count." Now he's nitpicking over the Reaper's population of husks and the presence of the beam. These things DO NOT need explaining, nor would explaining them contribute anything meaningful?

3) He's already got a bias
Despite his claim of "I'll pretend to be ignorant so I'll not be biased", it's patently obvious that's untrue.. He's made it clear that ME1 is the only good game of the trilogy, and that he despises the hell out of the other two. Watch his ME1 analysis, he barely looks at any of that game's absolutely MASSIVE issues. He can claim he's being "fair" all he wants, it's a huge, fat lie.

Thank you for bringing this stuff up. As someone who is a "newb" to BSN, I didn't know about his long and chequered past. What are some examples though of the first point you brought up? What evidence did he handwave away? I honestly don't know any of this backstory.

However, seeing this video, I still thought it was incredible a lot of the points he pointed out about the ending that I never even thought about even if he did skip over some of the others like the epilogue and the whole "Joker leaving Shepard even though he never would" thing or the fleet starving as a result of the Mass Relay explosions being different perhaps from the Arrival one. It definitely got me thinking at the very least. But from what you post, it seems like he was a bit of a dick. 

That being said, Mass Effect 3 was a good shooter and had good graphics and good character moments. That's about all I can say for positive things. Everything else is broken.

[o Ventus]

Funkdrspot wrote...

What quotes did i take out of context? Please show me.

I say you're raging b/c you're quick to call names and talk down to people. I don't care about you, I care about the point, which is debating the legitimacy of smudboy's opinion. Yet when I do, somehow I'm a stupid smudboy hater....

And if i can't prove an opinion, what is it that smudboy is doing but you seem to be cheerleading? He's not doing much more than I am. He begs the question, asks 10 questions more and moves on. I answer those questions in an Occams Razor way. I could do that for all 5 videos and destroy nearly every nitpick he throws up but I don't have +5 hrs.

You can't prove or disprove legitimacy of an opinion, you idiot. That's why they call it an opinion. I'm not saying smudboy doesn't dabble in subjectivity, he definitely does. I disagree with a lot what he says about ME2. What he says about ME3, I agree with though, because a majority of his complaints make sense, in my opinion. To you, they don't. I could give less of a damn about that, as it was never the point I was arguing. You're trying to paint smudboy as objectively bad, which is physically impossible, since it is entirely 100% opinionated. A great number of the things he says about ME3 are objective though, because they are not based on opinion. For example, he makes mention of the Citadel's Conduit beam repeatedly shutting on and off, and the gaping hole in the "closed" Citadel. Those are objectively stupid moments. You cannot look at that and consider it to be intelligent.

I'm not "cheerleading" (Because your hypocritical blind hatred is somehow better) anything he does or says. I've already made clear I disagree with a lot of what he says about  ME1+2, but I agree with his points on ME3. Just because I like 1 thing out of a collection doesn't mean I'm a fanboy.

Modifié par o Ventus, 03 juin 2012 - 07:54 .

[Funkdrspot]

Jedifan421 wrote...

Thank you for bringing this stuff up. As someone who is a "newb" to BSN, I didn't know about his long and chequered past. What are some examples though of the first point you brought up? What evidence did he handwave away? I honestly don't know any of this backstory.

However, seeing this video, I still thought it was incredible a lot of the points he pointed out about the ending that I never even thought about even if he did skip over some of the others like the epilogue and the whole "Joker leaving Shepard even though he never would" thing or the fleet starving as a result of the Mass Relay explosions being different perhaps from the Arrival one. It definitely got me thinking at the very least. But from what you post, it seems like he was a bit of a dick. 

That being said, Mass Effect 3 was a good shooter and had good graphics and good character moments. That's about all I can say for positive things. Everything else is broken.

Most of the stuff Smudboy actually has right were things we've already discussed in massive detail here. Like Joker leaving. Or the fleet starving.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Funkdrspot wrote...

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

Also, if you weren't here when Smudboy was an actual forum memeber, than your opinion on his character is invalid. He was banned for a reason folks, I was there, and he was a major ass to everyone.

We have a right to not like him, he showed us why himself.

LoL was he? I never was on BSN much until recently with ME 3. I did try to debate him on the Youtube post but all he did was ad hominem

Yes, yes he was. He would actually begin to attack the person in arguments, putting them down or making fun of them, rather than trying to dispute their points. He had this very famous clash between him and Squee913, where they made videos trying to dispute each other about ME2. Smudboy, was obviously against it, while Squee was for the game. In the end though, Smudboy began to once again attack Squee's character rather than his points, and Squee walked away from the debate. 

[Jedifan421]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Jedifan421 wrote...

Thank you for bringing this stuff up. As someone who is a "newb" to BSN, I didn't know about his long and chequered past. What are some examples though of the first point you brought up? What evidence did he handwave away? I honestly don't know any of this backstory.

However, seeing this video, I still thought it was incredible a lot of the points he pointed out about the ending that I never even thought about even if he did skip over some of the others like the epilogue and the whole "Joker leaving Shepard even though he never would" thing or the fleet starving as a result of the Mass Relay explosions being different perhaps from the Arrival one. It definitely got me thinking at the very least. But from what you post, it seems like he was a bit of a dick. 

That being said, Mass Effect 3 was a good shooter and had good graphics and good character moments. That's about all I can say for positive things. Everything else is broken.

Most of the stuff Smudboy actually has right were things we've already discussed in massive detail here. Like Joker leaving. Or the fleet starving.

Yeah, I know, I'm just surprised he didn't go into too much detail considering his style, that's all. If anyone can answer my questions though, that'd be great. I can't have an opinion on his character until I know the facts.

[Funkdrspot]

o Ventus wrote...

You can't prove or disprove legitimacy of an opinion, you idiot. That's why they call it an opinion.

And yet you're not raging...

o Ventus wrote...I'm not saying smudboy doesn't dabble in subjectivity, he definitely does.

That's about ALL he does. Sure he starts off with a factual question, but then adds his own negative spin from there with his sole goal being the destruction of the plot.

o Ventus wrote...I disagree with a lot what he says about ME2. What he says about ME3, I agree with though, because a majority of his complaints make sense, in my opinion. To you, they don't. I could give less of a damn about that, as it was never the point I was arguing. You're trying to paint smudboy as objectively bad, which is physically impossible, since it is entirely 100% opinionated.

That's assuming there's no such thing as a good or bad opinion, which you're clearly wrong. What I say might not be empirical evidence, but i can clearly detail smudboy's obtuse, pedantic and logical fallacy filled critique.

o Ventus wrote...I'm not "cheerleading" (Because your hypocritical blind hatred is somehow better) anything he does or says. I've already made clear I disagree with a lot of what he says about  ME1+2, but I agree with his points on ME3. Just because I like 1 thing out of a collection doesn't mean I'm a fanboy.

My blind hatred? That's how i would characterize how many of you who agree with Smudboy feel about ME 3. 

Meanwhile all you continue to do is ad hominem. Aren't you tired of talking about me? 

[Funkdrspot]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

Also, if you weren't here when Smudboy was an actual forum memeber, than your opinion on his character is invalid. He was banned for a reason folks, I was there, and he was a major ass to everyone.

We have a right to not like him, he showed us why himself.

LoL was he? I never was on BSN much until recently with ME 3. I did try to debate him on the Youtube post but all he did was ad hominem

Yes, yes he was. He would actually begin to attack the person in arguments, putting them down or making fun of them, rather than trying to dispute their points. He had this very famous clash between him and Squee913, where they made videos trying to dispute each other about ME2. Smudboy, was obviously against it, while Squee was for the game. In the end though, Smudboy began to once again attack Squee's character rather than his points, and Squee walked away from the debate. 

Yeah sounds like the convo i had with him on youtube.

Well at least i know what's up now. I always got the feeling that he had a serious bias, that he wasn't just doing this as a fan but as someone who had a vendetta to fulfill.

Modifié par Funkdrspot, 03 juin 2012 - 08:01 .

[TheCrimsonSpire]

o Ventus wrote...

You can't prove or disprove legitimacy of an opinion, you idiot. That's why they call it an opinion. I'm not saying smudboy doesn't dabble in subjectivity, he definitely does. I disagree with a lot what he says about ME2. What he says about ME3, I agree with though, because a majority of his complaints make sense, in my opinion. To you, they don't. I could give less of a damn about that, as it was never the point I was arguing. You're trying to paint smudboy as objectively bad, which is physically impossible, since it is entirely 100% opinionated. A great number of the things he says about ME3 are objective though, because they are not based on opinion. For example, he makes mention of the Citadel's Conduit beam repeatedly shutting on and off, and the gaping hole in the "closed" Citadel. Those are objectively stupid moments. You cannot look at that and consider it to be intelligent.

I'm not "cheerleading" (Because your hypocritical blind hatred is somehow better) anything he does or says. I've already made clear I disagree with a lot of what he says about  ME1+2, but I agree with his points on ME3. Just because I like 1 thing out of a collection doesn't mean I'm a fanboy.

Speaking of the Citadel beam. I was replaying the ending (ya, I know, shut up), and I was looking for a moment where we actually see a beam in space. I realized, that actually never happens, and it is never mentioned if a beam is ever truly established on the Citadel. All we see, is the Citadel base lighting up, then it cuts to another shot. There is never once a moment where we see a physical connection from the ground to the Citadel.

Sure, you could argue that the beam in London, is always on, and shoots into the sky. But you can't say, that the beam is suppose to be visual in space, and is turning on and off n different shots, when we have clearly never seen it on in the first place in space. 

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Yeah sounds like the convo i had with him on youtube.

Well at least i know what's up now. I always got the feeling that he had a serious bias, that he wasn't just doing this as a fan but as someone who had a vendetta to fulfill.

That's why it's hard to take him seriously, even when he does bring up valid critisms. The problem is, anything that is valid, has already been established hundreds of times by others here. Like Joker leaving, the crew teleporting, etc. The way he says his critisms too, come off as very cynical and hateful towards Bioware. Like they beat him up and stole his lunch money when he was a kid. 

[o Ventus]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

You can't prove or disprove legitimacy of an opinion, you idiot. That's why they call it an opinion. I'm not saying smudboy doesn't dabble in subjectivity, he definitely does. I disagree with a lot what he says about ME2. What he says about ME3, I agree with though, because a majority of his complaints make sense, in my opinion. To you, they don't. I could give less of a damn about that, as it was never the point I was arguing. You're trying to paint smudboy as objectively bad, which is physically impossible, since it is entirely 100% opinionated. A great number of the things he says about ME3 are objective though, because they are not based on opinion. For example, he makes mention of the Citadel's Conduit beam repeatedly shutting on and off, and the gaping hole in the "closed" Citadel. Those are objectively stupid moments. You cannot look at that and consider it to be intelligent.

I'm not "cheerleading" (Because your hypocritical blind hatred is somehow better) anything he does or says. I've already made clear I disagree with a lot of what he says about  ME1+2, but I agree with his points on ME3. Just because I like 1 thing out of a collection doesn't mean I'm a fanboy.

Speaking of the Citadel beam. I was replaying the ending (ya, I know, shut up), and I was looking for a moment where we actually see a beam in space. I realized, that actually never happens, and it is never mentioned if a beam is ever truly established on the Citadel. All we see, is the Citadel base lighting up, then it cuts to another shot. There is never once a moment where we see a physical connection from the ground to the Citadel.

Sure, you could argue that the beam in London, is always on, and shoots into the sky. But you can't say, that the beam is suppose to be visual in space, and is turning on and off n different shots, when we have clearly never seen it on in the first place in space. 

IF the base of the Citadel lighting up ISN'T the Conduit, then what is it? Why would Anderson assert to Shepard that it IS a Conduit? IF it isn't the Conduit, then how does the Conduit transport you to the Citadel? After all, there aren't teleporters in ME.

[fr33stylez]

Funkdrspot wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
If that is legitimately what you took from that post, then you are an idiot. Your strange vendetta against smudboy (To this point you haven't provided any logical reason for) is incomprehensibly stupid.

That's what the post WAS.

My vendetta? Does that make you a smudboy cheerleader? 

I provided an entire post on pg 7 that detailed how stupid his questions were.


Meanwhile you kids rage on.

And I've detailed on the top of page 7 why what you said is hypocritical.

What you said doesn't contradict what I stated. You just delve more into Smudboy's original questions without understanding that not having the answer at the moment isn't a plothole.

So all you really did was give a long winded explanation of his original question, thus my point still stands.

So basically "I can't respond to anything you said, so there". OK.