790 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I like how every instance of a character existing is considered an offence to some person.

My favourite was during the lead up to Leviathan, when there were threads complaining (based on nothing but a few screenshots, incidentally) that Liara and Cortez were being 'shoved down our throats'. When it came out, revealing that those two had no more importance to Leviathan than they would in any other mission, did those people admit that they were wrong? Bollocks they did, instead immediately jumping on EDI and James, who actually did have significant roles.

It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Especially complaining about it in Citadel, since everybody's special in that one.

What was the "significant role" that James played in Leviathan? Holding Bryson when she was having spasms? Shepard could have done that, he was standing 2 feet in front of her face.

[David7204]

But S/he didn't.

James did.

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

But S/he didn't.

James did.

Naw, really? 

How does this even address my question, let alone answer it?

[David7204]

The answer is obvious. James plays a role by restraining Ann. That's the end of it.

Yes, Shepard could have done it. But s/he didn't. James did.

Modifié par David7204, 09 août 2013 - 07:28 .

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

The answer is obvious. James plays a role by restraining Ann. That's the end of it.

And how is this "significant"? Why does the plot necessitate James being there?

Yes, Shepard could have done it. But s/he didn't. James did.

You know, you could just not reply if you aren't even going to attempt to give an answer.

Modifié par o Ventus, 09 août 2013 - 07:29 .

[David7204]

The answer is right in front of your face. James is there because the writers put him there. They don't need to justify his existence apart from him being there makes the story better.

Modifié par David7204, 09 août 2013 - 07:31 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

The answer is right in front of your face. James is there because the writers put him there. They don't need to justify his existence apart from him being there makes the story better.

?  Do explain why James restraining her improves the story

[David7204]

Subtle ways. The same way any character improves any story with their existence. In this case, mostly because of dialogue that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Modifié par David7204, 09 août 2013 - 07:34 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Subtle ways. The same way any character improves any story with their existence. In this case, mostly because of dialogue that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Because James's dialgoue is top notch....<_<

[David7204]

If you don't like like James, then I'm sorry to hear that. Plenty of players, including myself, like him a lot and feel that he contributed significantly to ME 3. And had great dialogue.

It's ultimately irrelavent. Bioware does not need to 'justify' the existence of every character in every scene.

Modifié par David7204, 09 août 2013 - 07:39 .

[Dieb]

No, really, please don't. This thread is three months old. What are we going to complain about next?

Liara, EDI and James are the only characters guaranteed to be present in anyone's playthrough. Them doing even mindless things helps making the investigation look more like a team effort, instead Shepard being excluded from his team for some weak reason - you know, like everyone despised about Omega. It's things like that which make certain scenes seem more organic.

With James expressing concern and possibly even doubt about Shepard's willingness to risk Ann's life, the scene suddenly has some sort of subtle moral struggle. Maybe that is the narrative reason for the device that James serves as to be there. That may be the calculated, factual reason why he was put there. I say maybe, because like everyone else here, I wouldn't know what the writers' intentions were.

Also because it's quite nice.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 09 août 2013 - 07:41 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

If you don't like like James, then I'm sorry to hear that. Plenty of players, including myself, like him a lot and feel that he contributed significantly to ME 3.

What themes significant to the story did he add valuable perspective to?

Modifié par Steelcan, 09 août 2013 - 07:40 .

[David7204]

I'm not going to go over every bit of dialogue James has with you.

BioWare does not need justification to do something as simple as put a character in a scene. End of story.

Modifié par David7204, 09 août 2013 - 07:42 .

[Mr.House]

Liara can force her self on me anytime.

Modifié par Mr.House, 09 août 2013 - 07:44 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

I'm not going to go over every bit of dialogue James has with you.

BioWare does not need justification to do something as simple as put a character in a scene. End of story.

That is not what I asked you to do.

What themes and conflicts does James Vega add to in a significant manner that makes him indespensible to the plot?

[Ravensword]

David7204 wrote...

Subtle ways. The same way any character improves any story with their existence. In this case, mostly because of dialogue that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Ooh, Subtle ways. Very misterioso. Must be those stolen glances from across the docking bay.

[Mr.House]

Ravensword wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Subtle ways. The same way any character improves any story with their existence. In this case, mostly because of dialogue that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Ooh, Subtle ways. Very misterioso. Must be those stolen glances from across the docking bay.

Why is he looking at my Shepard that way?

[David7204]

No character is 'indespensible' to the plot. James provides a lot of things. He provides a simple and a direct outlook on the conflicts at hand. He provides a different perspective of the events of the series due to not being on the term. He provides a student for Shepard to mentor. He provides a lighthearted yet determined personality. He provides a foil to the deeper and more intimate characters.

Modifié par David7204, 09 août 2013 - 07:47 .

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

The answer is right in front of your face. James is there because the writers put him there. They don't need to justify his existence apart from him being there makes the story better.

I think you should stop. It's clear that you can't answer te question, so you keep avoiding it. Like I said, you could just not reply.

[David7204]

No, you're just avoiding the obvious answer out of what I suspect is distaste for James.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

No character is 'indespensible' to the plot. James provides a lot of things. He provides a simple and a direct outlook on the conflicts at hand. He provides a different perspective of the events of the series due to not being on the term. He provides a student for Shepard to mentor. He provides a lighthearted yet determined personality. He provides a foil to the deeper and more intimate characters.

So he is a redundant Garrus.

[David7204]

Why don't you find someone else to try and argue this nonsense to? It's very tedious. No, James is not a redundant Garrus.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Why don't you find someone else to try and argue this nonsense to? It's very tedious. No, James is not a redundant Garrus.

Every characteristic you listed Garrus has.  So what is the point of having James?

[David7204]

No, he doesn't. Really, I'm tired or arguing this garbage and dealing with you being dense. James is not a redundant Garrus. How many threads and posts on the BSN have you seen besides yours calling James a redundant Garrus? These little pseudo-arguments of yours trying to prove how every character you don't like is pointless are tedious and pointless themselves.

Modifié par David7204, 09 août 2013 - 07:58 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

No, he doesn't. Really, I'm tired or arguing this garbage and dealing with you being dense. James is not a redundant Garrus. How many threads and posts on the BSN have you seen besides yours calling James a redundant Garrus?

Pove to me that he isn't.  None of the characteristics you listed are unique to him, and he has no valuable insight on the story's central conflicts.

And I haven't seen any, but your feeble attempt to discredit my argument is noted.