macrocarl wrote...
Story driven DLC should fill in and explore stuff that ties into the main game. I'm all for side quests or whatever too. Let me ask you folks who are angry at the ending being 'retroactively foreshadowed', would you prefer SP DLC that didn't fill in more Reaper lore?
Modifié par Siran, 10 septembre 2012 - 07:42 .
M0keys wrote...
i think the problem is that I don't want anymore lore on the starchild or the reapers
you know? it's like.. it all comes down to the same thing anyway. does it help you change the future? does it help you make a wiser decision? does it factor into anything? not really...
Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 10 septembre 2012 - 09:27 .
Yet opinion is required just like a minimal amount of knowledge. You could have an analysis on if God exists while no matter what its opinion until you die. Analysis are done all the time with video games and movies whether people are right or wrong..Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Blueprotoss wrote...
Literature is based on opinion itself whether you like or hate something.Chaotic-Fusion wrote...
Blueprotoss, I don't know what you're arguing here. Literary analysis is just breaking down a complex topic into multiple parts. For the endings, a start would be:
ME3 Endings= Control + Synthesis + Destroy + Refuse
And so on. It has nothing to do with criticism or what you define as "opinion". That comes later.
Debatable. But that's criticism. It comes after. Analysis comes before and serves as a basis. No "opinion" required.
How is that when you're asking questions that either have answers that you're ignoring or answers that won't appear until ME4, which is its semantics.CELL55 wrote...
Blueprotoss wrote...
I highly doubt you know what you're talking even if you played Leviathan.CELL55 wrote...
So the Leviathans were capable of dominating their thralls, but not of preventing them from creating synthetics?
The Leviathans were capable of dominating their thralls, but the Catalyst, a construct designed to analyze data and think up a solution to a problem, was MORE capable of dominating the thralls?
If the thralls did rebel, how were they in any way capable of harming the Leviathans without a Reaper?
After the Catalyst killed off the thralls, why didn't the remaining Leviathans just kill the assuredly small handful of Reapers? Maybe one at a time or using guerrilla tactics?
When the Reapers went to Dark Space, why didn't the Leviathans just ROFLSTOMP the Citadel?
Why didn't the Leviathans sabotage the Citadel or the Relays to prevent the Reapers from harvesting future cycles as easily?
Why did the Leviathans not do anything of note in the billions of years since their civilization fell?
Why does Bioware introduce the game-changing Leviathans in a DLC and then not give them any meaningful change to the game once the DLC ends?
Why does none of any of this make any gorram sense?
A saying about pots and kettles comes to mind. Or did you actually have a real answer to any of those questions?
Thats a lie especialy when a Thesis is an analysis, which both focus on opinions more then the facts.Fixers0 wrote...
An analysis has nothing to do with opinions and the writing in Mass Effect 3 is objectivly bad.
One definition one dictionary isn't enough especially when there are millions of different dictionaries and there are multiple denfinitions for every word.Fixers0 wrote...
I gave you the explanation i follow, you should come up with yours if you want if you don't then you'll just follow mine.
The scene is entitled Shepard lives in the PC files for a reason.darkway1 wrote...
Blueprotoss.....your obviously a Mass Effect expert and I'm to stupid to understand.......is Shepard alive or dead?
The artbooks would tell us otherwise because they are the concepts of most of the thoughts in the ME series.M0keys wrote...
i think they're just making it up as they go along, to be honest...
Modifié par Blueprotoss, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:57 .
How the artbook ****ty even when artbooks are filled with concept designs for characters, environments, ships, weapons, and etc. Plus everything that you don't agree with aren't plot holes unless if you created ME.The Night Mammoth wrote...
Blueprotoss wrote...
How is that when the Geth were originally a race of bat-monkeys based on their concept while they were purposely turned into a robotic race later one. Its like saying that Godzilla wasn't created by radiation.The Night Mammoth wrote...
Ha.
You don't actually have an argument.
You lose, compadre.
I have no idea what any of that means. I'm stumped as to what the f*ck you could possibly be talking about.
Something about the Geth being........... bat...... monkeys? And then turned into robots? I assume this is from some sh*tty art book that apparently exists as the magic well of answers to all of Mass Effect's plot holes and questions, that maybe a few thousand people out of millions actually read since it was released 5 years ago, and regardless shouldn't be necessary to understand the game's plot.
So tell me some of these answers, o wise one. <_<Blueprotoss wrote...
How is that when you're asking questions that either have answers that you're ignoring or answers that won't appear until ME4, which is its semantics.
Blueprotoss wrote...
One definition one dictionary isn't enough especially when there are millions of different dictionaries and there are multiple denfinitions for every word.
The Night Mammoth wrote...
Effectively causing you to have to pay more money for a complete product. Perspective, obviously.
It makes the the story more convoluted because, despite being given some of the most important pieces of information concerning the plot since Vigil, and meeting the progenitors from which the whole ME universe derives from, there's literallly no mention of anything you experience after the DLC is finished.
And it makes the Catalyst a massive walking retard contradiction. A machine that rebelled in order to deal with the effects of machines rebelling.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 10 septembre 2012 - 08:14 .
Mocking people won't help you even when you're still focusing on semantics by asking questions that either have answers that you're ignoring or answers that won't appear until ME4. Nothing will answer everything in a series and Zelda is a great example from a video game perspective.CELL55 wrote...
So tell me some of these answers, o wise one. <_<
I see that denying logic is your course of action since you're telling us that you don't what to be wrong.CELL55 wrote...
If any advancement is to be made, assigning words a fixed definition for the purposes of the discussion is a must. Or is your point that there is no fixed definition that you will ascribe to, and that discussion and everything else is meaningless? Because I'm pretty sure today isn't Nihilism Day.
Modifié par Blueprotoss, 10 septembre 2012 - 08:20 .
Guest_Sion1138_*
CronoDragoon wrote...
The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe, for example, has many mysteries that are not explicitly answered until its sequel, The Urth of the New Sun. It doesn't mean the content of Urth should have been included in Book. Perspective is pretty accurate here. Leviathan gives you better perspective of ME lore, but is ME3 incomplete without it?
Modifié par Sion1138, 10 septembre 2012 - 08:29 .
Sion1138 wrote...
Would you just answer this one question: Why do you use examples that you know perfectly well do not apply?
The first book introduced mysteries, the second book explains them. This is equivalent ME1 and 2 introducing mysteries and ME3 explaining them.
It is not applicable to DLC as that would be more like the following: The first book introduces mysteries, the second book leaves them unexplained, but then the writer tries to sell you five pages worth of explanation that plug-in somewhere in one of the books. Take a stapler and put them in there.
I find it ridiculous myself, that such vital, absolutely vital information, without which the story leaves it's audience confused and clamoring for answers is released as DLC. And I find it sad that people will accept this.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 10 septembre 2012 - 08:39 .
Modifié par Siran, 10 septembre 2012 - 08:43 .
Siran wrote...
Lord of the Rings had Appendices that enhanced the universe quite a bit. As well as unfinished works by Tolkien that got published posthumously. Is LOTR without them less of a classic and work of genius? No.
Yet LotSB and Leviathan contradict you. ME1 was about understanding the universe hence the level of exploration. ME2 was about the preparation of conflict and that led into ME3 being all about war.Sion1138 wrote...
CronoDragoon wrote...
The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe, for example, has many mysteries that are not explicitly answered until its sequel, The Urth of the New Sun. It doesn't mean the content of Urth should have been included in Book. Perspective is pretty accurate here. Leviathan gives you better perspective of ME lore, but is ME3 incomplete without it?
Would you just answer this one question: Why do you use examples that you know perfectly well do not apply?
The first book introduced mysteries, the second book explains them. This is equivalent ME1 and 2 introducing mysteries and ME3 explaining them.
It is not applicable to DLC as that would be more like the following: The first book introduces mysteries, the second book leaves them unexplained, but then the writer tries to sell you five pages worth of explanation that plug in somewhere in one of the books. Take a stapler and put them in there.
The books are are equivalent to the actual games, not the little tidbits of downloadable content. Everything was tied up within the books.
I find it ridiculous myself, that such vital, absolutely vital information, without which the story leaves it's audience confused and clamoring for answers is released as DLC. And I find it sad that people will accept this.
LotR is far from complete especially when you look at the start of the series in the Silmarillion.Sable Rhapsody wrote...
Siran wrote...
Lord of the Rings had Appendices that enhanced the universe quite a bit. As well as unfinished works by Tolkien that got published posthumously. Is LOTR without them less of a classic and work of genius? No.
That's because LOTR was a complete work without the appendices. They were lore extras, not essential lore elements to fill in faults with the original work like Leviathan.
Guest_Sion1138_*
CronoDragoon wrote...
Sion1138 wrote...
Would you just answer this one question: Why do you use examples that you know perfectly well do not apply?
It does apply. The Book of the New Sun was intended to be a complete work. It was not written with a sequel in mind. So yes, it does indeed apply. Perhaps I could have explained that in the original post, but perhaps you should not have been so combative in your reply or looked it up if you wanted to comment on it.The first book introduced mysteries, the second book explains them. This is equivalent ME1 and 2 introducing mysteries and ME3 explaining them.
As explained, that is not the equivalent at all.It is not applicable to DLC as that would be more like the following: The first book introduces mysteries, the second book leaves them unexplained, but then the writer tries to sell you five pages worth of explanation that plug-in somewhere in one of the books. Take a stapler and put them in there.
Except it is, because the sequel was written to supplement and explicate a lot of what happens in the first book. Sound familiar?
Sable Rhapsody wrote...
Siran wrote...
Lord of the Rings had Appendices that enhanced the universe quite a bit. As well as unfinished works by Tolkien that got published posthumously. Is LOTR without them less of a classic and work of genius? No.
That's because LOTR was a complete work without the appendices. They were lore extras, not essential lore elements to fill in faults with the original work like Leviathan.
Even Tolkien himself insisted that at least some of the Appendices were included in each translation as he deemed them essential to the story, especially the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. Yet, still there are several editions out there without the Appendices...
Guest_Sion1138_*
Blueprotoss wrote...
LotR is far from complete especially when you look at the start of the series in the Silmarillion.Sable Rhapsody wrote...
Siran wrote...
Lord of the Rings had Appendices that enhanced the universe quite a bit. As well as unfinished works by Tolkien that got published posthumously. Is LOTR without them less of a classic and work of genius? No.
That's because LOTR was a complete work without the appendices. They were lore extras, not essential lore elements to fill in faults with the original work like Leviathan.
Modifié par Sion1138, 10 septembre 2012 - 09:28 .
Blueprotoss wrote...
LotR is far from complete especially when you look at the start of the series in the Silmarillion.
I do consider that the case for most of ME2 dlc, hammerhead being the exception, though Overlord was also supposed to not effect ME3 it still ended up doing so anyways. Javik I don't consider crucial, he's an add-on that doesn't add much outside some intersting background on the protheans. Leviathan could have added some heavy foreshadowing if it had been included earlier, Catalyst's appearance would have been less contrived. As would have been the Reapers motivations.Cainne Chapel wrote...
But Grey you really could say the same for ALL dlc for ME2 as well in a sense.
Leviathan isn't NECESSARY neither is Javik, to understand and enjoy the game. They are merely added bonuses of extra lore so to speak.
But the game is complete with or without them (Now the EC on the other hand is a different argument, but it was free so its hard to complain about.)
Retour en haut
