292 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What is the difference, in this scenario, between charisma and just being a plain Mary Sue?

See my posts.

Alright, maybe this wasn't the best example to illustrate my point.

Take Tali's trial. How does the paragon/renegade option work there? It is ludicrous that Shepard gets to subvert a treason trial's need for evidence just by making an empassioned speach on Tali's behalf.

Because the trial is a political cluster**** that none of the admirals are coming into with clean hands, and they've basically been publicly shamed. The "rally the crowd" option does the same thing if you have the right people. Also, only one of them would seem to really want to find Tali guilty to begin with. Since Tali is a valuable asset to the fleet in any case, they all decide that the case isn't worth potentially damaging their own careers pursuing further and decide to let her off.

They could have EASILY gotten past shepard's accusations AND kept their reputations intact by simply saying "How dare you make a mockery of this trial.  We'll have you held in contempt if you make another outburst like that."  Y'know, like how things would go in a real trial if the defendant's attourney just started showboating and shtttalking.  "Not immediately giving up" works pretty well, even if you're a side character in a video game.

And they choose not to, because they aren't complete scumbags who are willing to throw Tali under the bus for the the purposes of climbing over her. Why? Because Shepard does an outstanding job of pointing out their actions. Because he's a hero.

[Ferretinabun]

David7204 wrote...

Here's a little quiz. Can anyone here claiming that Shepard is a 'Mary Sue' actually tell me the definition of a 'Mary Sue'?

The lynchpin of the world they inhabit. The one around whom everyone else bends. The one whose opinion everyone else accommodates. The one who wades into impossible situations and still manages to save the day, rescue the girl and put the world to rights. Every time.

[David7204]

Completely wrong. All that is for the most part is a rather clumsy and disparging description of an Ideal Hero.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 04:08 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

Here's a little quiz. Can anyone here claiming that Shepard is a 'Mary Sue' actually tell me the definition of a 'Mary Sue'?

Someone who gets their way despite narrative logic and having other characters in the story forced to act out of character to allow the mary sue to win every encounter.  its when "mary sue is number 1.  everything has to catre to them even if it makes no sense for it to"

its also really ****ty storytelling

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

All I see here is a demand that every character be as stupid and helpless as you are.

And all I see from you is a demand that Shepard be flawless, infallible, incorruptible, persuasive to the point of absurdity, and never ever wrong about anything.

Not Shepard, specifically. Not anyone, specifically. But I demand that one person, preferably a few people be ideal heroes, yes.

So you admit you want your ideal hero to be a Mary Sue/Boring Invincible Hero. Okay. Gotcha.

We're done here....

The mere fact that you're clearly completely incapable of distingishing a Mary Sue from a hero speaks volumes.

Hero - A person who does courageous deeds for the greater good.

Mary Sue - a fictional character with unrealistic character traits and abilities and appears to have the entire universe flow around.

Nice try, though, David. When I was describing how you want your ideal hero to be, I was thinking of a Mary Sue. And remember, you said "yes" to that.  Your "Ideal Hero" is a Mary Sue. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Modifié par someguy1231, 13 mars 2013 - 04:10 .

[Ferretinabun]

David7204 wrote...

And they choose not to, because they aren't complete scumbags who are willing to throw Tali under the bus for the the purposes of climbing over her.

No evidence was actually established at the Trial. They knew everything about her before the trial went ahead. If they weren't willing to 'throw Tali under the bus' then why call the trial in the first place?

Why? Because Shepard does an outstanding job of pointing out their actions.

Baseless accusations coming from anyone else.

Because he's the hero.

Read, Mary Sue.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

Completely wrong. All that is for the most part is a rather clumsy and disparging description of an Ideal Hero.

i guess an ideal hero IS a mary sue!!  (these traits are frowned upon for being completely unbelievable and contrived.)


even superman fails to save everyone

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 04:11 .

[David7204]

Thankfully, Shepard's actions are absolutely in-character and very-well integrated in the narrative. What would be incredibly contrived and what would make no sense is for the character to be stupidly incapable of coming up with an argument, as is all too often the case.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

David7204 wrote...

Thankfully, Shepard's actions are absolutely in-character and very-well integrated in the narrative. What would be incredibly contrived and what would make no sense is for the character to be stupidly incapable of coming up with an argument, as is all too often the case.

the problem isnt shepard's character

its EVERYONE ELSE being stupid and out of character to allow shepard to win every time, even if shepard's arguement isnt actually that good.

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

Thankfully, Shepard's actions are absolutely in-character and very-well integrated in the narrative. What would be incredibly contrived and what would make no sense is for the character to be stupidly incapable of coming up with an argument, as is all too often the case.

And what you want from your "Ideal Hero" is even more contrived.

[Ferretinabun]

David7204 wrote...

Thankfully, Shepard's actions are absolutely in-character and very-well integrated in the narrative. What would be incredibly contrived and what would make no sense is for the character to be stupidly incapable of coming up with an argument, as is all too often the case.

The thing about courts of law is that it's not about emotive speaches.

It's about evidence.

And Shepard doesn't have any. And yet s/he still wins.

[Xilizhra]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Completely wrong. All that is for the most part is a rather clumsy and disparging description of an Ideal Hero.

i guess an ideal hero IS a mary sue!!  (these traits are frowned upon for being completely unbelievable and contrived.)


even superman fails to save everyone

You do realize that billions die in ME3 anyway, yes?

The thing about courts of law is that it's not about emotive speaches.

It's about evidence.

And Shepard doesn't have any. And yet s/he still wins.

Quarian trials are stated to be less formal than Earthly ones, due to the familial nature of quarian society.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 13 mars 2013 - 04:13 .

[David7204]

Ferretinabun wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Thankfully, Shepard's actions are absolutely in-character and very-well integrated in the narrative. What would be incredibly contrived and what would make no sense is for the character to be stupidly incapable of coming up with an argument, as is all too often the case.

The thing about courts of law is that it's not about emotive speaches.

It's about evidence.

And Shepard doesn't have any. And yet s/he still wins.

As I posted in the previous page, Shepard's argument is completely solid. And you're an idiot if you really don't think that presentation and charisma play a role in debate.

[Ferretinabun]

Xilizhra wrote...

Quarian trials are stated to be less formal than Earthly ones, due to the familial nature of quarian society.

Fewer formalities I can accept. A willingness to sweep evidence under the carpet is stretching things.

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Quarian trials are stated to be less formal than Earthly ones, due to the familial nature of quarian society.

Fewer formalities I can accept. A willingness to sweep evidence under the carpet is stretching things.

The evidence wasn't enough to go ahead with the trial to begin with if the whole thing wasn't just a cover for the political infighting. The trial itself was pretty much an unimportant sham.

[Ferretinabun]

David7204 wrote...

As I posted in the previous page, Shepard's argument is completely solid.

But can s/he prove it? That is the only thing that counts. And s/he cannot (or, at least, does not).

And you're an idiot if you really don't think that presentation and charisma play a role in debate.

This is not a debate. It is a trial.

[Ferretinabun]

Xilizhra wrote...

The evidence wasn't enough to go ahead with the trial to begin with if the whole thing wasn't just a cover for the political infighting. The trial itself was pretty much an unimportant sham.

Who gained anything from putting Tali on trial?

[David7204]

Shepard doesn't need to 'prove' anything. S/he only needs to demonstrate that trail is illegitimate and that the admirals are being unfair to Tali. All of which is completely true. And all which Shepard does an outstanding job of demonstrating.

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The evidence wasn't enough to go ahead with the trial to begin with if the whole thing wasn't just a cover for the political infighting. The trial itself was pretty much an unimportant sham.

Who gained anything from putting Tali on trial?

Koris would be able to repudiate Rael's tactics, Xen wants information (both for science and to prove that her dreams have a stronger basis) and Gerrel probably didn't want it, but will go through with it to spin things to the advantage of Rael's memory and his own plans for war.

[David7204]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The evidence wasn't enough to go ahead with the trial to begin with if the whole thing wasn't just a cover for the political infighting. The trial itself was pretty much an unimportant sham.

Who gained anything from putting Tali on trial?

If Tali is convicted, Koris gains clout by demonstarting that fiddiling with the Geth is unacceptable. Pretty much the opposite for Xen and Gerrel.

[Ferretinabun]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard doesn't need to 'prove' anything.

completely wrong. That is the one thing Shepard does need to do. Or. at least, the one thing he would need to do if he weren't a Mary Sue...

S/he only needs to demonstrate that trail is illegitimate and that the admirals are being unfair to Tali. All of which is completely true. And all which Shepard does an outstanding job of demonstrating.

Demonstrate? Does s/he? When? All I recall are vague and flimsy accusations. How is this demonstrating anything?

[Ferretinabun]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The evidence wasn't enough to go ahead with the trial to begin with if the whole thing wasn't just a cover for the political infighting. The trial itself was pretty much an unimportant sham.

Who gained anything from putting Tali on trial?

Koris would be able to repudiate Rael's tactics, Xen wants information (both for science and to prove that her dreams have a stronger basis) and Gerrel probably didn't want it, but will go through with it to spin things to the advantage of Rael's memory and his own plans for war.

I'm afraid the idea that the Admirals wou;dn't want Tali convicted is belied by the fact that she IS convicted if Shep does not fo the paragon/renegade option and simply reports no evidence found on the ship. The only difference between this and Shep's para/reneg response is his speech. That is, apparently, enough to sway the trial's verdict. And yet it is mere rhetoric that should not sway any serious court of law.

[Bill Casey]

It's more stupid that they continued with the trial after Tali helped them take the Alarei back, considering they didn't have any concrete evidence to convict Tali to begin with...

[David7204]

No. Shepard doesn't need to prove anything. Do you know understand the difference between 'prove' and 'convince'? Because I can assure you they don't mean the same thing. I can assure you that you generally don't need to 'prove' something to convince someone, unless it's dealing with math or science.

How does Shepard do it? Simple. By reminding the Admirals vividly of Tali's contributions to the quarians and the greater galaxy, and putting their own actions up to the light.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 04:31 .

[Xilizhra]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The evidence wasn't enough to go ahead with the trial to begin with if the whole thing wasn't just a cover for the political infighting. The trial itself was pretty much an unimportant sham.

Who gained anything from putting Tali on trial?

Koris would be able to repudiate Rael's tactics, Xen wants information (both for science and to prove that her dreams have a stronger basis) and Gerrel probably didn't want it, but will go through with it to spin things to the advantage of Rael's memory and his own plans for war.

I'm afraid the idea that the Admirals wou;dn't want Tali convicted is belied by the fact that she IS convicted if Shep does not fo the paragon/renegade option and simply reports no evidence found on the ship. The only difference between this and Shep's para/reneg response is his speech. That is, apparently, enough to sway the trial's verdict. And yet it is mere rhetoric that should not sway any serious court of law.

Koris does want it and Xen'll go along with it; only Gerrel would resist, and he can't really do so. Also, note that Shepard can just rally the crowd and have the same result. The trial, if we strip away the political crap, is basically about whether Tali is likely or not to have screwed up and sent active geth over. In the face of nothing at all, the evidence for that, however flimsy, will stand; with Shepard's testimony there, there's not really enough evidence to prove that Tali is guilty of anything, beyond a reasonable doubt.