865 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

The fact that Bioware can't make hundreds of completely different games makes it invalid.

You're talking about "moronic railroading", so solve the situation. Shepard can't work for the council or the Quarians for all those reasons listed, so he needs something to do in everyone's playthroughs.

What is it?

The fact you are behaving as if your way is the only way makes it invalid.

What reasons? The ones that don't work that you listed for reasons I explained? Or are you still going on about the Spectre thing?

What is what?

Wait, you're saying that your playthrough makes my playthrough invalid, therefore it would be less moronic to not only downright ignore other playthroughs that aren't yours, but to even create situations and options that aren't present so all other playthroughs start the same as yours?

That's what you're saying? My playthrough doesn't make yours invalid, therefore Bioware should have only made a game based around your choices? That, in your eyes, wouldn't be "moronic railroading" despite it being objectively greater railroading for everyone that isn't you?

No, I'm saying you keep on rebuking every argument I make by ignoring what I say and sticking your playthrough in as if it is the law and therefore the only one Bioware should bother with. That's why I'm saying.

Lolwut? No, I meant that they should force the protagonist into stupid decisions for drama and ignore other ways of going about it, or making the protagonist do nothing for half-a-year during an imminent Cthulu invasion.

[AresKeith]

I can't tell if Robo is trolling or just keep misreading what Kiwi is saying

[David7204]

They can't have ME 3 begin immediately after ME 2 because that would make no sense.

They can't have Shepard doing something productive between the games because people would legitimately complain that the player should have been a part of it.

And they can't have Shepard doing nothing either, because people still complain.

What do you suggest they have done?

[KiwiQuiche]

AresKeith wrote...

I can't tell if Robo is trolling or just keep misreading what Kiwi is saying

Yeah I really can't tell either. I'm about to throw in a towel.

@David, why couldn't they have started ME3 right after ME2?

[Clayless]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

No, I'm saying you keep on rebuking every argument I make by ignoring what I say and sticking your playthrough in as if it is the law and therefore the only one Bioware should bother with. That's why I'm saying.

Lolwut? No, I meant that they should force the protagonist into stupid decisions for drama and ignore other ways of going about it, or making the protagonist do nothing for half-a-year during an imminent Cthulu invasion.

That's, erm, exactly what you're doing. You said it was another case of "moronic railroading" and then listed all these things that your Shepard could have done. I pointed out that my Shepard couldn't have done that, so I asked you who would he work with, doing what?

You said your Shepard didn't do any of those things, but that's not an answer, that's what your Shepard did. That doesn't change the situation. You don't think they should force the protagonist into stupid decisions for drama and ignore other ways of going about it, so, like I asked, what would he do? Not what your Shepard in your playthrough would do. What would mine do? 

You were quick to criticise Bioware, which is fine, but what's your alternative? What would you have done? How would you have not made it "moronic railroading"? Because it's looking like you don't have an answer. You're complaining about railroading, and you're complaining about the fact you can't railroad other playthroughs to be exactly like yours.

The facts of the matter are that Bioware can't make hundreds of different playthroughs. They especially couldn't make Shepard work for the council or the Quarians. Your playthrough is not the playthrough they use. They have to create a game around everyones playthroughs.

So, like I said, work with who? Doing what?

Modifié par Robosexual, 26 juin 2013 - 03:29 .

[David7204]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

I can't tell if Robo is trolling or just keep misreading what Kiwi is saying

Yeah I really can't tell either. I'm about to throw in a towel.

@David, why couldn't they have started ME3 right after ME2?

The reason depends on how ME 3 begins. Are you thinking ME 3 beginning with the invasion, or with something else?

[Astartes Marine]

AresKeith wrote...

I can't tell if Robo is trolling or just keep misreading what Kiwi is saying

I'm betting it's a bit of both. 

David7204 wrote...
They can't have ME 3 begin immediately after ME 2 because that would make no sense.

You say it would make no sense, and fail to explain the hows and whys.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 26 juin 2013 - 03:33 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The solution was pretty simple in the opening sequence of the story.

1) Don't have Shepard in lock up. Just hand wave it. Why? There was no evidence that SHE was responsible. It could have been Kenson. Not everyone played Arrival -- these people lost the 105th Marines War Asset who did Arrival instead. Arrival happened. It's just a matter of who did it.

2) So what is Shepard doing there?

* She's been waiting for the ship to get retrofitted, all the listening devices to be removed, filing her paperwork for reinstatement, and getting her security clearance.

* She's been working with Alliance Intel on why have the Batarian systems gone dark? or why are we getting all this weird chatter in the Batarian systems? Maybe we should fire a spy drone through the relay and find out what is going on? (no let's derp it instead.) She can't force them to do it. She's not an Admiral.

* She's probably been playing Northlands about once or twice a week during down time. James isn't watching her 24/7 unless he knows how to drive a golf cart.

* She's got an apartment somewhere, and James isn't outside her door 24/7.

* She's spending time with Liara (or whoever). It isn't James. We know it isn't Jacob because he never called.

* But you know you can only do so much. People will only believe what they want to believe. If they don't want to believe you about anything, they won't.

It was this simple.

[Clayless]

I'm just going to interject on the "trolling" accusations here, put them to rest:

Making a point that it's not moronic that Bioware created a game for everyones playthroughs, rather than one specific playthrough because (that playthrough is somehow superior to all others for no reason?) isn't trolling. Like, in the slightest.

I would say I don't believe anyone believes it is in the first place, but that would be a lie, as I only hope no one believes that. I just think it's a case of people not being able to answer simple questions, so they run to a "trolling" excuse that has no basis to protect face.

[KiwiQuiche]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

No, I'm saying you keep on rebuking every argument I make by ignoring what I say and sticking your playthrough in as if it is the law and therefore the only one Bioware should bother with. That's why I'm saying.

Lolwut? No, I meant that they should force the protagonist into stupid decisions for drama and ignore other ways of going about it, or making the protagonist do nothing for half-a-year during an imminent Cthulu invasion.

That's, erm, exactly what you're doing. You said it was another case of "moronic railroading" and then listed all these things that your Shepard could have done. I pointed out that my Shepard couldn't have done that, so I asked you who would he work with, doing what?

You said your Shepard didn't do any of those things, but that's not an answer, that's what your Shepard did. That doesn't change the situation. You don't think they should force the protagonist into stupid decisions for drama and ignore other ways of going about it, so, like I asked, what would he do? Not what your Shepard in your playthrough would do. What would mine do? 

You were quick to criticise Bioware, which is fine, but what's your alternative? What would you have done? How would you have not made it "moronic railroading"? Because it's looking like you don't have an answer. You're complaining about railroading, and you're complaining about the fact you can't railroad other playthroughs to be exactly like yours.

The facts of the matter are that Bioware can't make hundreds of different playthroughs. They especially couldn't make Shepard work for the council or the Quarians. Your playthrough is not the playthrough they use. They have to create a game around everyones playthroughs.

So, like I said, work with who? Doing what?

Yeah, but you still refuse to acknowledge all the others. That is my point. Sure you can screw up and kill everyone if you want, but they still shouldn't have made people stupid to the point of Too Dumb to Live which they did with a lot of the cast.

Yes, if you can't bring drama in without making everyone stupid, then don't do it. Look at the annoyance most people have for the Thessia arc. People don't like being forced into drama via their characters behaving like morons.

The Rannoch arc is a vomit of writing. That's the problem. Bioware didn't write ME3 very well. That's it.

Okay, I have no idea what half of your post is going on about.

David7204 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

I can't tell if Robo is trolling or just keep misreading what Kiwi is saying

Yeah I really can't tell either. I'm about to throw in a towel.

@David, why couldn't they have started ME3 right after ME2?

The reason depends on how ME 3 begins. Are you thinking ME 3 beginning with the invasion, or with something else?

First half could be her getting everything in motion; appealing to the Council for more defense or going right past that to the species homeworlds to talk to their leaders. STG would be easiest to sway, especially if Shepard actually recorded the damn crap she encounters. Or spend the first part of it subduing Omega, finding the Crucible (so it doesn't seem like such as asspull) communicating with the rachni, or speaking with the geth/quarians.

Then half way the Reapers show up. Rather than ME2- "six months later..." thing we got.

Or even just spend that on the first quarter of the game (two arcs?) until the Reapers arrive.

[David7204]

Absolutely unacceptable.

First of all, do you have any legitimate reason for Shepard waiting until after the events of ME 2 to talk to the Council? To talk to the leaders of the alien races? Why didn't Shepard take care of this in ME 2 or even ME 1?

Secondly, I'm guessing you want to have the fleets all built up and ready for when the Reapers arrive. That's off the table. The Reapers need to bulldoze the galaxy when they arrive, and that's really just the end of it. They've been built up and foreshadowed extensively for two games, and being anything less than incredibly powerful, destructive, and effective enemies would be a complete cop out and crap storytelling.

Thirdly, this really betrays the entire purpose of splitting stories into segments to begin with. You can not just decide to drop a knife randomly within a story and decide that that's going to be the break between one installment and the next. It doesn't work that way. There needs to be a clear, defined divide between one installment and the next one, and you've failed to establish that.

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 03:49 .

[KiwiQuiche]

David7204 wrote...

Absolutely unacceptable.

Brilliant counter-argument.

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 26 juin 2013 - 03:43 .

[111987]

I think what Robo is saying is that Bioware has to write a story that is valid for all playthroughs. Therefore they have to account for all the variables. Arrival always happens, regardless of the Shepard. The only difference is whether or not Shepard does it, or the Marines do it.

If Shepard didn't do Arrival, it's not that much of a stretch that Shepard would eventually need to be 'officially' cleared for working with a terrorist group, an 'avowed enemy of the Council'.

These things are held constant in for all Shepard, but other stuff (i.e. status of Geth and Quarians) is not. Besides, it'd be pretty stupid for Shepard too resolve that dilemma off-screen.

[KaiserShep]

Six months is not a long time anyway. Besides, Shepard was sidelined with Alliance and Council BS in the past regarding the reapers, so there's no reason why their inaction could cause six months of space doldrums while Shepard sits by while the Normandy gets repaired.

[Clayless]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Yeah, but you still refuse to acknowledge all the others. That is my point. Sure you can screw up and kill everyone if you want, but they still shouldn't have made people stupid to the point of Too Dumb to Live which they did with a lot of the cast.

So how would you not make it moronic? What would Shepard do? Who would he work with?

Like I pointed out it can't be the Council and it can't be the Quarians, so who?

Just answer that question. Don't point out to me that they possibly could in your playthrough, you have to acknowledge all playthroughs like Bioware did if you want to create something that's less moronic than the "moronic railroading" Bioware did.

Yes, if you can't bring drama in without making everyone stupid, then don't do it. Look at the annoyance most people have for the Thessia arc. People don't like being forced into drama via their characters behaving like morons.

The Rannoch arc is a vomit of writing. That's the problem. Bioware didn't write ME3 very well. That's it.

Okay, I have no idea what half of your post is going on about.

Great people didn't like things in ME3. Now can you answer the question about how they could've started ME3 that'd be less moronic.

[KiwiQuiche]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Yeah, but you still refuse to acknowledge all the others. That is my point. Sure you can screw up and kill everyone if you want, but they still shouldn't have made people stupid to the point of Too Dumb to Live which they did with a lot of the cast.

So how would you not make it moronic? What would Shepard do? Who would he work with?

Like I pointed out it can't be the Council and it can't be the Quarians, so who?

Just answer that question. Don't point out to me that they possibly could in your playthrough, you have to acknowledge all playthroughs like Bioware did if you want to create something that's less moronic than the "moronic railroading" Bioware did.

Yes, if you can't bring drama in without making everyone stupid, then don't do it. Look at the annoyance most people have for the Thessia arc. People don't like being forced into drama via their characters behaving like morons.

The Rannoch arc is a vomit of writing. That's the problem. Bioware didn't write ME3 very well. That's it.

Okay, I have no idea what half of your post is going on about.

Great people didn't like things in ME3. Now can you answer the question about how they could've started ME3 that'd be less moronic.

Have it an option? Where did I say it was mandatory? Which I gather you are assuming from your reaction.


...


Um, wut. The main reason they don't like things in ME3 is that it is badly written. That's the entire problem for this argument we are having.

[Clayless]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

So how would you not make it moronic? What would Shepard do? Who would he work with?

Like I pointed out it can't be the Council and it can't be the Quarians, so who?

Just answer that question. Don't point out to me that they possibly could in your playthrough, you have to acknowledge all playthroughs like Bioware did if you want to create something that's less moronic than the "moronic railroading" Bioware did.

Have it an option? Where did I say it was mandatory? Which I gather you are assuming from your reaction.

It can't be, because Bioware cannot make hundreds of different games. They never pretended that they were going to and the hardware and software limitations stop it regardless. They have to make a game that acknowledges everyones playthroughs, the physically cannot create hundreds of different games.

So, knowing that they can't make hundreds of different games and that they have to acknowledge everyones playthroughs:

How would you make it not moronic? Who would Shepard work with? Doing what?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

111987 wrote...

I think what Robo is saying is that Bioware has to write a story that is valid for all playthroughs. Therefore they have to account for all the variables. Arrival always happens, regardless of the Shepard. The only difference is whether or not Shepard does it, or the Marines do it.

If Shepard didn't do Arrival, it's not that much of a stretch that Shepard would eventually need to be 'officially' cleared for working with a terrorist group, an 'avowed enemy of the Council'.

These things are held constant in for all Shepard, but other stuff (i.e. status of Geth and Quarians) is not. Besides, it'd be pretty stupid for Shepard too resolve that dilemma off-screen.

NO! --- Shepard got her Spectre status reinstated in the beginning of ME2 and approval to work with Cerberus for the purpose of taking out the Collectors. It was already cleared. -- see? This could have happened. Y U Arrest me? I am a Spectre! U have No authority! I want my lawyer!

And yes, like I said, Arrival happens. It's a matter of who does it. This is why I said for the sake of simplicity they should have just hand waved it. They decided to cut the inquest because not everyone did Arrival. And if one had their spectre status reinstated then working with Cerberus was sanctioned, and if they didn't do Arrival, why would they have an inquest.

The problem is that Shepard got thrown in Lockup anyway, for nothing in some cases, and that made no sense at all. See my other post pretty close to this one.

[111987]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

111987 wrote...

I think what Robo is saying is that Bioware has to write a story that is valid for all playthroughs. Therefore they have to account for all the variables. Arrival always happens, regardless of the Shepard. The only difference is whether or not Shepard does it, or the Marines do it.

If Shepard didn't do Arrival, it's not that much of a stretch that Shepard would eventually need to be 'officially' cleared for working with a terrorist group, an 'avowed enemy of the Council'.

These things are held constant in for all Shepard, but other stuff (i.e. status of Geth and Quarians) is not. Besides, it'd be pretty stupid for Shepard too resolve that dilemma off-screen.

NO! --- Shepard got her Spectre status reinstated in the beginning of ME2 and approval to work with Cerberus for the purpose of taking out the Collectors. It was already cleared. -- see? This could have happened. Y U Arrest me? I am a Spectre! U have No authority! I want my lawyer!

And yes, like I said, Arrival happens. It's a matter of who does it. This is why I said for the sake of simplicity they should have just hand waved it. They decided to cut the inquest because not everyone did Arrival. And if one had their spectre status reinstated then working with Cerberus was sanctioned, and if they didn't do Arrival, why would they have an inquest.

The problem is that Shepard got thrown in Lockup anyway, for nothing in some cases, and that made no sense at all. See my other post pretty close to this one.

But not every Shepard gets reinstated as a Spectre, so you have to account for those players. You can't make two entirely seperate openings. And regardless of Spectre status, Shepard actually is still beholden to the Council. Udina and/or Anderson could call in Shepard and Shepard would have no choice but to come in.

Yes I agree, it certainly makes less sense for the Shepards that did get locked up that didn't do Arrival. But there are plenty of other reasons for bringing Shepard in; advice on the Reaper threat, reports on the collectors, public severing of his Cerberus ties, etc.

Ultimately there is no perfect solution though.

[KiwiQuiche]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...


Have it an option? Where did I say it was mandatory? Which I gather you are assuming from your reaction.

It can't be, because Bioware cannot make hundreds of different games. They never pretended that they were going to and the hardware and software limitations stop it regardless. They have to make a game that acknowledges everyones playthroughs, the physically cannot create hundreds of different games.

So, knowing that they can't make hundreds of different games and that they have to acknowledge everyones playthroughs:

How would you make it not moronic? Who would Shepard work with? Doing what?

Ignore the rest of my post why don't you.

[Clayless]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

It can't be, because Bioware cannot make hundreds of different games. They never pretended that they were going to and the hardware and software limitations stop it regardless. They have to make a game that acknowledges everyones playthroughs, the physically cannot create hundreds of different games.

So, knowing that they can't make hundreds of different games and that they have to acknowledge everyones playthroughs:

How would you make it not moronic? Who would Shepard work with? Doing what?

Ignore the rest of my post why don't you.

Yes, you dislike the writing in ME3 and think that it's a mess.

Now can you answer my question.

[KiwiQuiche]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

It can't be, because Bioware cannot make hundreds of different games. They never pretended that they were going to and the hardware and software limitations stop it regardless. They have to make a game that acknowledges everyones playthroughs, the physically cannot create hundreds of different games.

So, knowing that they can't make hundreds of different games and that they have to acknowledge everyones playthroughs:

How would you make it not moronic? Who would Shepard work with? Doing what?

Ignore the rest of my post why don't you.

Yes, you dislike the writing in ME3 and think that it's a mess.

Now can you answer my question.

THAT WAS MY ANSWER.





Oh for heavens sake.

[Clayless]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Yes, you dislike the writing in ME3 and think that it's a mess.

Now can you answer my question.

THAT WAS MY ANSWER.
Oh for heavens sake.

So, to be clear:

You think the start of ME3 was "moronic railroading" so, the way you would have opened ME3 (which relies on the events that happen in ME1 and ME2), that would have been less moronic, would be you dislike the wriitng in ME3.

Shepard would work with your dislike of ME3 and he would be doing your dislike of ME3, and that would be a less moronic way of opening ME3? That was your answer? Or that was you trying to shift the subject by expressing your opinion on the game in general and not actually answering the question?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Modifié par Robosexual, 26 juin 2013 - 04:22 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Robosexual wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Yes, you dislike the writing in ME3 and think that it's a mess.

Now can you answer my question.

THAT WAS MY ANSWER.
Oh for heavens sake.

So, to be clear:

You think the start of ME3 was "moronic railroading" so, the way you would have opened ME3 (which relies on the events that happen in ME1 and ME2), that would have been less moronic, would be you dislike the wriitng in ME3.

Shepard would work with your dislike of ME3 and he would be doing your dislike of ME3, and that would be a less moronic way of opening ME3? That was your answer? Or that was you trying to shift the subject by expressing your opinion on the game in general and not actually answering the question?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wait what? No, you are completely wrong. I'm not even too sure where you got that.

[Clayless]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

So, to be clear:

You think the start of ME3 was "moronic railroading" so, the way you would have opened ME3 (which relies on the events that happen in ME1 and ME2), that would have been less moronic, would be you dislike the wriitng in ME3.

Shepard would work with your dislike of ME3 and he would be doing your dislike of ME3, and that would be a less moronic way of opening ME3? That was your answer? Or that was you trying to shift the subject by expressing your opinion on the game in general and not actually answering the question?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wait what? No, you are completely wrong. I'm not even too sure where you got that.

Right so I'm completely wrong, Shepard wouldn't work with your dislike of ME3, and that wasn't actually you trying to shift the subject by expressing your opinion on the game on general and not actually answering the question.

So can you explain to me, clearly:

How you would make the opening less moronic? Who would Shepard work with? Doing what?

Remember, we know they can't create hundreds of different games. We know that your playthrough is no more important than anyone elses as Bioware has to make one for everyones playthroughs. We know that it can't be the Council and we know that it can't be the Quarians.

You don't need to express your opinion on any parts of ME3, you can in fact completely ignore the events of ME3, you just need to explain how you would open the game that'd be less moronic and which acknowledges all the possible playthroughs of ME1 and 2. All I want you to do is answer that question.

Modifié par Robosexual, 26 juin 2013 - 04:33 .