231 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Ah, this is a difficult one. On the one hand, Smud makes alot of great points, but then he gets lost in all these irrelevant details: "Why is Shepard's gun a Carnifex if he was carrying another gun during the explosion?"

It's these kinds of moments where his deconstruction goes from entertaining to petty.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 03 juin 2012 - 08:12 .

[TheCrimsonSpire]

o Ventus wrote...

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.

The conduit on the ground, is obviously a Relay of some type, seeing as how that technology is available to the Reapers. Therefore, the relay could take you aboard the Citadel, without the need of a visual connection, such as a beam of light. The assertion made by Smudboy, is that there is a constant switch between the beam on, then off in every other shot. This is an invalid claim, because there never was an establishing beam shot to begin with from the Citadel, like Smudboy claims.   

[Dark_Caduceus]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

You keep using the term "feign ignorance", when it has already been established, that it is a completely unrealistic response to any medium. You cannot go into a piece of fiction, like a novel, with the same level of expectation you would when watching a film. They are incongruently separate from one another, so basing them as one criteria of expectation, is unfair and unreasonable.

So you think a better way to analyze Mass Effect's plot would be to apprach as anything other than a first-timer?

I would assess the strength of a novel and a movie the same way: Pretend you've never heard of it before, report what doesn't make sense, back-reference to see if exsposition or explanation has been offered at any point prior to the supposed inconsistency, if there isn't adequate exposition or explanation then the inconsistency stands and the plot is weakened depending on the severity of the inconsistency.

You'd need to be incredibly biased to make excuses for issues experienced in a narrative as you analyze it.

[o Ventus]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

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.

The conduit on the ground, is obviously a Relay of some type, seeing as how that technology is available to the Reapers. Therefore, the relay could take you aboard the Citadel, without the need of a visual connection, such as a beam of light. The assertion made by Smudboy, is that there is a constant switch between the beam on, then off in every other shot. This is an invalid claim, because there never was an establishing beam shot to begin with from the Citadel, like Smudboy claims.   

Not necessarily true. Just because you don't explicitly see it doesn't mean it isn't there or couldn't be there.

And how could it be a relay if it doesn't appear to work on the same principle as a relay, nor does it seem to be powered by eezo in the same fashion as a relay? Why doesn't it have an eezo engine? If it's a relay, why is it a beam (The relays aren't beams or lasers).

[Funkdrspot]

fr33stylez wrote...

There's no confusion. You selected arbitrarty cut offs as to what bothers YOU with regards to the plot.

No, i sure didn't. What's arbitary about what i do but NOT arbitrary about what smudboy does?

fr33stylez wrote...Of course the plot can progress without things being explained, did the plot halt after the Catalyst scene? No? So then what's your problem with the scene? The Catalyst controls the Reapers, you have 3 choices, you choose them, the end. You should have no problem with that.

This is the end of the game itself, which is ok. What I meant is that we don't randomly cut away to explain things that aren't explained in the flow of the game. I'm simply saying that, this game is a FPS-RPG so the limitations of the gameplay do not allow you to get some random cut-scene where 2 reapers discuss their strategy, so obtuse questions like smudboys have no ability to be answered. Enemies don't generally go about telling one another their strategy.

fr33stylez wrote...The strengthen of storytelling often relies on the level of exposition and by adhering to the lore and theme established through the trilogy. You can't just add anything you want to the game because it's through the perspective of Shepard. Why were there bodies there and 1 Keeper poking at them? We both don't know. You could overlok that, that's fine. Other are free to point it out.
If the Reapers were slaughtering pink unicorns in that Citadel room, wouldn't you be curious why?

Problem is that what we saw doesn't go against exposition or lore. They could be stacking bodies for the human reaper. They could be stacking bodies to make husks and Scions.

Obviously they would be going against exposition and lore if there were unicorns there and then we'd have a legit reason to question why.

fr33stylez wrote...How did Anderson follow you up? Why was he not injured? Why did Coats not see either him or Shepard? Why were the walls shape shifting only in Anderson's path? How did he beat me to the Control room when there was no evident path besides Shepard's?

How did he follow you up? The same way you went up.

Why wasn't he injured? Likely b/c he got blown off the path in a less destructive way than Shep did but in reality, injury is not a pre-requesite to going through the beam

Why didn't Coats see either of the two? I dunno, but that's so insignificant that it doesn't really matter

Why were the walls only shifting in Anderson's path? It's not explained but again, not explaining every minute detail doesn't mean it's a plothole. For all we know, there could have been another walk way there that was closed behind him and the same goes for TIM. Or, if you believe in IT....

fr33stylez wrote...There are all questions people ask. I wanted to now these questions while playing the game, the entire sequence was confusing. The fact you're willing to ignore them does not invalidate other people's right in asking these questions. You also can't pick and choose which parts of the plot should be ignored then complain about other parts, like the Catalyst. There are people who have NO problem with the Catalyst scene - why are YOU complaining then?

 
Some of it WAS confusing but we're in agreement on that. What we're not in agreement on are areas where Smudboy nitpicks, like when he sees the dead bodies and asks " What are the reapers plans?!!?!" Who cares.

fr33stylez wrote...
No it wasn't. You don't like him or his analysis and it hurts your feelings, and that's cool. You don't have to agree with every point he makes, I don't. It doesn't invalidate his analysis.

LoL he hurts my feelings.....ok kids.

It doesn't invalidate his analysis, TO YOU. And that's ok, but stop acting like your opinion of my counter-analysis is any less valid than his original analysis.

Modifié par Funkdrspot, 03 juin 2012 - 08:26 .

[Funkdrspot]

o Ventus wrote...

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

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.

The conduit on the ground, is obviously a Relay of some type, seeing as how that technology is available to the Reapers. Therefore, the relay could take you aboard the Citadel, without the need of a visual connection, such as a beam of light. The assertion made by Smudboy, is that there is a constant switch between the beam on, then off in every other shot. This is an invalid claim, because there never was an establishing beam shot to begin with from the Citadel, like Smudboy claims.   

Not necessarily true. Just because you don't explicitly see it doesn't mean it isn't there or couldn't be there.

And how could it be a relay if it doesn't appear to work on the same principle as a relay, nor does it seem to be powered by eezo in the same fashion as a relay? Why doesn't it have an eezo engine? If it's a relay, why is it a beam (The relays aren't beams or lasers).

Supposing it is a relay of SOME type makes a whole lot more sense than doing the same thing for an energy transport.

[o Ventus]

I love how you place quotes under my name.

Quotes that I never posted.

[Funkdrspot]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Ah, this is a difficult one. On the one hand, Smud makes alot of great points, but then he gets lost in all these irrelevant details: "Why is Shepard's gun a Carnifex if he was carrying another gun during the explosion?"

It's these kinds of moments where his deconstruction goes from entertaining to petty.

I would add that since what he essentially does is take the decontructions from valid plothoel parts that were already done here on BSN, that all he really adds to the entire equation is the 'petty' part.

[Funkdrspot]

o Ventus wrote...

I love how you place quotes under my name.

Quotes that I never posted.

Legit mistake.

[Funkdrspot]

fr33stylez wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

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.

I actually did, just now.

[Xeranx]

A lot of people make claims that Smudboy will fire the first shot, always, which is untrue to a certain extent. For what I saw, he keeps track of those who come out to abuse him.

The first time he brought up points about what happened in ME2, those who defended it would berate and attack him to the point that if he was in another thread, he wouldn't wait to be taken on first. Many times I've wished that he wouldn't do that, but I understand why he has. Yes, his attitude leaves something to be desired, but he never went off half-cocked on someone he didn't believe deserved it and there were people who deserved it when they attacked him first, but not in other threads where he chose to go on the offensive. That's what people are remembering.

There's a 400-page thread about disappointment with ME2 in which defenders come out to lambaste anyone who didn't think ME2 wasn't good, close to perfection, or perfection itself without provocation. I called one individual out on it as well and he came back to repeatedly commit the same offense within the same thread at least three times if not more.

Now I'm not saying that you don't have these elements on both sides. You only have to look at the reaction to ME3's ending to see that each side has its own "go-getters" who will lash out first rather than engage in a discussion.

[RiouHotaru]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

So you think a better way to analyze Mass Effect's plot would be to apprach as anything other than a first-timer?

I would assess the strength of a novel and a movie the same way: Pretend you've never heard of it before, report what doesn't make sense, back-reference to see if exsposition or explanation has been offered at any point prior to the supposed inconsistency, if there isn't adequate exposition or explanation then the inconsistency stands and the plot is weakened depending on the severity of the inconsistency.

You'd need to be incredibly biased to make excuses for issues experienced in a narrative as you analyze it.

But that's just it.  He's not approaching the plot from the view of a first-timer.  His video makes it clear he's not.  He might CLAIM he's doing so, but he's doing the same thing as he did with ME2.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

o Ventus wrote...

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

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.

The conduit on the ground, is obviously a Relay of some type, seeing as how that technology is available to the Reapers. Therefore, the relay could take you aboard the Citadel, without the need of a visual connection, such as a beam of light. The assertion made by Smudboy, is that there is a constant switch between the beam on, then off in every other shot. This is an invalid claim, because there never was an establishing beam shot to begin with from the Citadel, like Smudboy claims.   

Not necessarily true. Just because you don't explicitly see it doesn't mean it isn't there or couldn't be there.

And how could it be a relay if it doesn't appear to work on the same principle as a relay, nor does it seem to be powered by eezo in the same fashion as a relay? Why doesn't it have an eezo engine? If it's a relay, why is it a beam (The relays aren't beams or lasers).

But making the claim that there was one, without any eveidence to support it, is just as bad. Smudboy carries the burden of proof in claiming that there was a beam of energy traveling from the Citadel, down to the planet. It lies with him, to show us where the beamin space is. Assuming that there is one, isn't a valid argument for what he is asserting in his argument.

A relay is an established peice of technology which are constructed by the reapers. It is logical to assume, that the technology they use to transport people down from the planet, up into space, is similiar to, or like, how a mass relay functions. Regardless, of how it is designed or acts, the relay's propell a force to a different location. What we see in the game, can be described in the same manner. Shepard is propelled from the Earth to the Citadel, by the use of the Conduit McGuffin. 

[RiouHotaru]

Xeranx wrote...

A lot of people make claims that Smudboy will fire the first shot, always, which is untrue to a certain extent. For what I saw, he keeps track of those who come out to abuse him.

The first time he brought up points about what happened in ME2, those who defended it would berate and attack him to the point that if he was in another thread, he wouldn't wait to be taken on first. Many times I've wished that he wouldn't do that, but I understand why he has. Yes, his attitude leaves something to be desired, but he never went off half-cocked on someone he didn't believe deserved it and there were people who deserved it when they attacked him first, but not in other threads where he chose to go on the offensive. That's what people are remembering.

There's a 400-page thread about disappointment with ME2 in which defenders come out to lambaste anyone who didn't think ME2 wasn't good, close to perfection, or perfection itself without provocation. I called one individual out on it as well and he came back to repeatedly commit the same offense within the same thread at least three times if not more.

Now I'm not saying that you don't have these elements on both sides. You only have to look at the reaction to ME3's ending to see that each side has its own "go-getters" who will lash out first rather than engage in a discussion.

And you're right, there were people who just flamed him for no reason.  But there were people (like myself), who used sound arguments and logic and got treated NO BETTER than the flamers.  You cannot argue with someone who believes themselves to be fundamentally right.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

If you want a good example of Smudboy, treating someone like ****, who never at one point did to him, then watch his counter argument vids to Squee913.

[Xeranx]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

A lot of people make claims that Smudboy will fire the first shot, always, which is untrue to a certain extent. For what I saw, he keeps track of those who come out to abuse him.

The first time he brought up points about what happened in ME2, those who defended it would berate and attack him to the point that if he was in another thread, he wouldn't wait to be taken on first. Many times I've wished that he wouldn't do that, but I understand why he has. Yes, his attitude leaves something to be desired, but he never went off half-cocked on someone he didn't believe deserved it and there were people who deserved it when they attacked him first, but not in other threads where he chose to go on the offensive. That's what people are remembering.

There's a 400-page thread about disappointment with ME2 in which defenders come out to lambaste anyone who didn't think ME2 wasn't good, close to perfection, or perfection itself without provocation. I called one individual out on it as well and he came back to repeatedly commit the same offense within the same thread at least three times if not more.

Now I'm not saying that you don't have these elements on both sides. You only have to look at the reaction to ME3's ending to see that each side has its own "go-getters" who will lash out first rather than engage in a discussion.

And you're right, there were people who just flamed him for no reason.  But there were people (like myself), who used sound arguments and logic and got treated NO BETTER than the flamers.  You cannot argue with someone who believes themselves to be fundamentally right.

I wanted to add to my earlier post that, as a result of those flamers, anyone else who wanted to talk about it...if he registered a hint of an insult, they wouldn't get any better treatment.  It's an unfortunate thing, but what's done is done. 

Did want to comment on this as well:

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?

Squee commented on that in a video response to Smud's analysis which was later explained by Smudboy in another video.  It was a lot of him expressing that various easy things weren't tried or explored to, then, be negated.  Also, he doesn't ask for every detail to be explained, but every significant detail to have enough weight to be followed to a conclusion or as close as possible to one.

Case in point: There are people who said it doesn't make sense that Tali can be on the Citadel for a few days since everything unfolds for the player in minutes or hours.  The only piece of time we got was how long Shepard was out for (and the 17 minutes to Eden Prime after the distress call was made).  Thinking logically about how easy it would be to get an audience with the Council the first time, proceed to perform an investigation, and then get another audience with them a second time, it's entirely plausible for Tali's arrival, treatment, and recuperation to have taken place before we meet up with her after Fist performs a double-cross.

Also, LOTSB didn't say that unmanned probes didn't work.  The probes were recovered.  We never learned what was on those probes, if anything, so it's a guess to assume that they didn't work.  Why did he make this point?  Because everyone stated that no one made it back if they used the Omega 4 relay.  So in order for the probes to be recovered, they would have had to come back through the relay for the remains to be picked up.

[Xeranx]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

If you want a good example of Smudboy, treating someone like ****, who never at one point did to him, then watch his counter argument vids to Squee913.

You mean the same vids in which Squee doesn't come across snarky in spots or condescending in others?  Squee doesn't go at it like Smudboy does, but he also isn't an angel.  Tone, as well as language usage, is enough to get the point across and there's enough suggestion in Squees tone in some of the videos that suggest what he thinks of Smudboy or (at least) Smudboy's points.

Modifié par Xeranx, 03 juin 2012 - 08:56 .

[OdanUrr]

Funkdrspot wrote...

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 wrote...

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. 

 

Just because you brought it up first, doesn't mean nobody else has the right to bring it up.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Maybe Squee was being condescending, or maybe he wasn't. The point is, Squee was not the instigator of the conflict, he was only responding to claims made by a cocky, snide Smudboy. Smudboy, then later began to argue with Squee, and started to put down the man at some points. Something Squee never did in his videos.

[TheCrimsonSpire]

OdanUrr wrote...

Just because you brought it up first, doesn't mean nobody else has the right to bring it up.

Did you read the rest of what I said? The stuff he points out, are not only not original, but he says it with a crass, cynical and smug personality. Unlikeable traits, which have already been proven in the past, and something he does often in arguments.  The attitude is what damages his already wobbly credibility, and I would rather listen to someone else make them. Which is what we have all been saying. He isn't saying anything fresh or new, and the things which are, are nitpicky at best.

[Xeranx]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

Maybe Squee was being condescending, or maybe he wasn't. The point is, Squee was not the instigator of the conflict, he was only responding to claims made by a cocky, snide Smudboy. Smudboy, then later began to argue with Squee, and started to put down the man at some points. Something Squee never did in his videos.

Just want to make a note that to appear condescending to another who put something out for general consumption is actually instigating conflict.  

I have been reading a book in which the author appears condescending to something that appeals to me and therefore I had assumed that said author views people like me to be less than him.  Were I to approach him with that in mind and actually engage his words with my own, bringing in my own view of what I think of his thoughts, I would be making it a personal affair.  And I do believe that Squee does appear condescending which is actually a put down.  I don't mean anything by the following as it's just a reference:
con·de·scend[/i]/ˌkändəˈsend/Verb:Show feelings of superiority; patronize.Do something in a haughty way, as though it is below one's dignity or level of importance.I don't remember Smudboy actually putting Squee down, but as I said a few posts earlier, he will bite back.  Not an excuse, but a reality of who Smudboy is.  Anyway, my point is that to condescend to someone is in the same vein as a put down.  It's purpose is to make someone feel lower than the person delivering the insult.

[Dendio1]

Smudboy haters gonna hate. Everyone from indoc supporters to retake mass effect subscribers have analyzed the endings with a fine tooth comb. Let smud have his turn

[TheCrimsonSpire]

Xeranx wrote...

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...

Maybe Squee was being condescending, or maybe he wasn't. The point is, Squee was not the instigator of the conflict, he was only responding to claims made by a cocky, snide Smudboy. Smudboy, then later began to argue with Squee, and started to put down the man at some points. Something Squee never did in his videos.

Just want to make a note that to appear condescending to another who put something out for general consumption is actually instigating conflict.  

I have been reading a book in which the author appears condescending to something that appeals to me and therefore I had assumed that said author views people like me to be less than him.  Were I to approach him with that in mind and actually engage his words with my own, bringing in my own view of what I think of his thoughts, I would be making it a personal affair.  And I do believe that Squee does appear condescending which is actually a put down.  I don't mean anything by the following as it's just a reference:
con·de·scend[/i]/ˌkändəˈsend/Verb:Show feelings of superiority; patronize.Do something in a haughty way, as though it is below one's dignity or level of importance.I don't remember Smudboy actually putting Squee down, but as I said a few posts earlier, he will bite back.  Not an excuse, but a reality of who Smudboy is.  Anyway, my point is that to condescend to someone is in the same vein as a put down.  It's purpose is to make someone feel lower than the person delivering the insult.

and like I told you, I don't know if Squee really was being condescending, because to me he wasn't. Squee is a really calm, generous individual. I know, because we have met personally. We cannot obviously predict exactly the intentions of both parties, in true detail, but what we do know, is the things which were said in the videos themselves. In them, Squee was not trying to antagonize Smudboy, just trying to prove him wrong. The same cannot be said for Smud however. Smud openly mocked Squee in his videos, so you tell me who the better person was in the end.

Modifié par TheCrimsonSpire, 04 juin 2012 - 04:05 .

[Funkdrspot]

Dendio1 wrote...

Smudboy haters gonna hate. Everyone from indoc supporters to retake mass effect subscribers have analyzed the endings with a fine tooth comb. Let smud have his turn

Smudboy himself is a hater. You can't be a hater, claiming haters gonna hate.

[Fixers0]

TheCrimsonSpire wrote...
and like I told you, I don't know if Squee really was being condescending, because to me he wasn't. Squee is a really calm, generous individual. I know, because we have met personally. We cannot obviously predict exactly the intentions of both parties, in true detail, but what we do know, is the things which were said in the videos themselves. In them, Squee was not trying to antagonize Smudboy, just trying to prove him wrong. The same cannot be said for Smud however. Smud openly mocked Squee in his videos, so you tell me who the better person was in the end.

At least Smudboy sticked to the facts.