1093 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Reapers not evil? Killing quadrillions of people over a billion years as an experiment not evil? :head desk:

It's not an experiment. It worked. The synthetics never overwhelmed the organicsa again. They were a success.

That isn't to say I agree. I shot that tube. But I understand their viewpoint.

I also understood Hitler's viewpoint, and Stalin's, and Mao's too. For a while, they were also succesful. I guess that means these people are also "grey" and not at all evil, right?

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Again, you haven't played any of the Witcher game past the intro, so your opinion is based on ignorance and therefor invalid.

You clealry don't know what you're talking about, as is evident by the kind of ignorant sh*t you post, such as: "half the Witcher fans still think boobs and gore equals mature and realistic."

You're wrong, Hanar--you really need to pay attention to the names of the people you're replying to.

Check out the Witcher 3 thread in off-topic and you'll see I just finished the second game.

And I think I actually do know what I'm talking about, considering how many times that same pitiful argument comes up here at the BSN--"give us nudez! TW did it! TW is mature!"

Ah, so you did play through the entire games. Fair enough. Sorry for mixing you up with that Wolf-something guy.


Also, the fact that the folks here at BSN say "give us nudez! TW did it! TW is mature!" says something about the average people on BSN, not about the average Witcher fans.

If you go to the official Witcher boards you'll see that the general attitude there is a lot more mature than here. Not once have I seen a comment related to the nudity in The Witcher (or lack thereof in other games), aside from a few folks who actually COMPLAINED about the nudity and asked CD Projekt RED to tone it down in The Witcher 3.

[Han Shot First]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Nah, it's quite objective that ME2 and 3's plots are completely nonsensical. Link has a compelling reason to get triforce pieces unlike Shepard's quest for space pokemon for a complete unknown or the derp fest that's gathering allies to liberate earth when there's nothing vital about it(until the reapers conveniently move the citadel there).

Your first point is nonsense. The compelling reason for the Crucible is because the Reaper war is already lost.

People don't understand that.

The instant the Reapers decided to show up, the war was over before it began. Done. The Crucible is THE ONLY chance of survival. That's PLENTY of compelling reason.

"The derpfest" I'll agree is dumb, but it's not dumb as a plot point--it's dumb that they agreed to it. And even then, they only agreed after Shepard did his favor for them.

Spot on.

The war was lost the moment the Reapers invaded. The galaxy was disunited and ill-prepared, fielding a fleet that was qualitatively inferior to the Reapers (and by a large margin), and they may have been fielding a quantitatively inferior fleet as well. There was never any hope at all of defeating the Reapers conventionally. The best they could hope for would be to briefly bog down the Reapers on this planet or that planet, and buy time for something...anything.. else.

[Seboist]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Nah, it's quite objective that ME2 and 3's plots are completely nonsensical. Link has a compelling reason to get triforce pieces unlike Shepard's quest for space pokemon for a complete unknown or the derp fest that's gathering allies to liberate earth when there's nothing vital about it(until the reapers conveniently move the citadel there).

Your first point is nonsense. The compelling reason for the Crucible is because the Reaper war is already lost.

People don't understand that.

The instant the Reapers decided to show up, the war was over before it began. Done. The Crucible is THE ONLY chance of survival. That's PLENTY of compelling reason.

"The derpfest" I'll agree is dumb, but it's not dumb as a plot point--it's dumb that they agreed to it. And even then, they only agreed after Shepard did his favor for them.

I wasn't talking about the crucible but the notion of gathering allies to attack the Reapers on Earth. The other races have no compelling reason to send forces there prior to Citadel being UHAULed there.

It's the same self-fulfilling prophecy nonsense as the squadmates conveniently fulfilling contrived roles in the suicide mission

Modifié par Seboist, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:11 .

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I also understood Hitler's viewpoint, and Stalin's, and Mao's too. For a while, they were also succesful. I guess that means these people are also "grey" and not at all evil, right?

The examples aren't equivalent.

They aren't?

Hitler willingly slaughtered millions.

So did the reapers.

He blamed impurity on a people who did nothing to deserve it and tried to annihilate their race.

So did the reapers.

He killed millions of Christians for no objective reason.

This is not actually true, but still;

So did the reapers.

And you know what's funny? If Hitler had done neither, he'd be viewed in a, if not positive, then likely neutral light. He got the trains running.

And I guess the same can be said about the reapers. Hell, some idiots on this forum already view the reapers in either a positive or at least a neutral or "grey" light. For a moment, I thought you were one of those people.

You forget that the Reapers aren't in this war to slaughter anyone.

Neither was Hitler. Yet both parties slaughtered plenty of people.

They want to preserve them in Reaper form.

How is slaughtering tons of people with a giant laser or turning into monsters to haphazerdly throw them in waves at your enemies going to preserve them?

Now, that may sound like BS to you, and BS to me too, but it doesn't matter. They believe it. They aren't killing to kill.

Hitler believed in himself too. He also wasn't killing to kill.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:20 .

[MrFob]

I pretty much agree with the OP. In fact I'd go one step further and say that ME2's shortcomings are in large parts to blame for the problems I see in ME3.
Most notably what the O calls "status quo of the plot" is a major problem that ME3 had to deal with. At the end of ME1, Shepard says that he will now look for ways to stop the reapers. However, this does not happen in ME2. Granted, there is a good enough reason Shepard is otherwise occupied but from the writers perspective, it was a very risky move to procrastinate the actual problem to ME3 and the fallout can be seen in ME3's crucible plotline.
So why was there no such outcry after ME2? Well, first of all, there was a minor one in the ME2 forums at the time but it never remotely reached the levels of ME3's backlash so why is that? There are two answers for this IMO. First, ME2 left us on a high note. The suicide mission was very well designed and executed and while the "Giant Baby Arnold" wasn't exactly the epiphany of boss fights, everything that lead up to it was wrapping up the game theme of team building nicely and we get a satisfing conclusion of the collector plot arc.
Secondly (and IMO this is the more important point), all criticism of the plot at the time could be deflected with one single sentence: "Wait for ME3." I myself wrote this in the forums quite a few times. We honestly thought the producers and writers had it figured out, thanks to a lot of interviews with Casey Hudson & company in which he said things like - and I quote - "We knew what we wanted to do in terms of where the story would go. We think of the trilogy as one story but we also think of each instalment of it as needing to stand alone as its own story." (see similar statements here, here or pretty much any other ME1/2 intervie you can find on the net). After ME2, I at least assumed (and hoped) that they halted the main plot for a reason. It was only after ME3 came out that we found out they did not and that there was no real plan (at least, if there was, it was a weird one). The true fallout of ME2 was not really visible until the final instalment was there and now - especially given the dissapointing ending - of course everyone blames the most recent offender.

Se yea, I agree. in fact, I think each of the three games do very well on their own, each one has flaws but overall they are about the best games I have ever played in their respective year of release. It is as a cohesive trilogy that they fail and that is the main criticism from my side.

Modifié par MrFob, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:20 .

[The Heretic of Time]

MrFob wrote...

I pretty much agree with the OP. In fact I'd go one step further and say that ME2's shortcomings are in large parts to blame for the problems I see in ME3.

You're not going a step further, I actually said the exact same thing (not in my OP though).

Nice post though. Spot on. 

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Hitler didn't kill millions of Christians for any valid reason.

Because he didn't kill millions of Christians - period. The Catholic church actually supported him. Hitler himself was a devout Christian and a true believer in God.

But honestly, this is quite off-topic. I'm merely saying that viewing the reapers as "grey" while at the same time believing Hitler is actually evil is just stupid. Both parties are equally evil, perhaps the reapers even more so.

The Reapers, on the other hand, had a valid reason for every kill--subduing the people so they could harvest them.

How is that a valid reason? Sure, it's valid from THEIR perspective, just like Hitler's actions were also valid from HIS perspective.

I said it poorly but that's the jist of my point. They didn't slaughter them just for the sake of slaughter or out of hate--while Hitler did.

Hitler didn't slaughter for the sake of slaughter or out of hate. Learn your history please. You're rather ill-informed on this subject.


But again, this is quite off-topic. I'm merely saying that viewing the reapers as "grey" while at the same time believing Hitler is actually evil is just stupid. Both parties are equally evil, perhaps the reapers even more so.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:26 .

[Bleachrude]

Seboist wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Yeah a lot of the species are clear submissives.

The white man's burden plot of ME3 vindicated Renegade Femshep's belief in ME1 that aliens need human leadership to save them from themselves.

Er...wouldn't that be more attributed to the turians than anything else?

It's the councillor that puts you on the road to victus

It's victus thatthinks of  bringing the krogans to the table.

It is Vicuts again who ultimately browbeats the salarian dalatress into agreeing to the krogan's demands///

And the only success any of the ME single species races had in the war were the turians....

It's *Shepard* that is special and not *humans are special*....hell, there's a nice touch in the Leviathan DLC where I get it seems like the leviatthans are trying to figure out what makes shepard so special since the rest of the race is normal....


EDIT: Plots for ME2/ME3

I find that weirdly the plots for the DLC tend to be better thought than the main game at times...Definitely more tightly paced/scripted/executed...but I think that might because of the relatively larger universe the main plot works under...

Even "Brind down the Sky" has a more well thought plot than ME1....Hell, qhile the use of a clone is cliche (unfortunately I might add), the plot for Citadel DLC  1st half seems much better executed....same goes for Leviathan and Omega

You can do the same thing with LotSB or Overlord for ME2 as well....

Modifié par Bleachrude, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:33 .

[MrFob]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MrFob wrote...

I pretty much agree with the OP. In fact I'd go one step further and say that ME2's shortcomings are in large parts to blame for the problems I see in ME3.

You're not going a step further, I actually said the exact same thing (not in my OP though).

Nice post though. Spot on. 

Oh .... well, that's what I get for jumping into a 37 page thread.
In that case, I'll just say: Agreed! 

By the way, given your signature I just want to add: I hope CDPR do a better job.

Modifié par MrFob, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:33 .

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The point of my argument is that there IS no validity for Hitler's actions. He wasn't slaughtering people because that would save them. The Reapers are, or think they are.

That's nonsense. Both parties were slaughtering for what they  believed was "the greater good". You're really applying double standards here.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 15 juillet 2013 - 06:41 .

[PMC65]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Hitler didn't kill millions of Christians for any valid reason.

Because he didn't kill millions of Christians - period. The Catholic church actually supported him. Hitler himself was a devout Christian and a true believer in God.

Hitler did kill Christians: "Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped. Hitler expected his followers to worship the **** ideology. Since Catholic priests and Christian pastors were often influential leaders in their community, they were sought out by the ****s very early. Thousands of Catholic priests and Christian pastors were forced into concentration camps. A special barracks was set up at Dachau, the camp near Munich, Germany, for clergymen. A few survived; some were executed, but most were allowed to die slowly of starvation or disease.."  (http://www.jewishvir...ishVictims.html)

Even though I am not Catholic, this part about them is also untrue. The Catholic Church saved many lives during those dark times and were also part of the kindertransport.
(http://www.jewishvir...sm/piusdef.html)

Those were dark times when almost no one was safe.

[The Heretic of Time]

PMC65 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Hitler didn't kill millions of Christians for any valid reason.

Because he didn't kill millions of Christians - period. The Catholic church actually supported him. Hitler himself was a devout Christian and a true believer in God.

Hitler did kill Christians: "Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped. Hitler expected his followers to worship the **** ideology. Since Catholic priests and Christian pastors were often influential leaders in their community, they were sought out by the ****s very early. Thousands of Catholic priests and Christian pastors were forced into concentration camps. A special barracks was set up at Dachau, the camp near Munich, Germany, for clergymen. A few survived; some were executed, but most were allowed to die slowly of starvation or disease.."  (http://www.jewishvir...ishVictims.html)

Even though I am not Catholic, this part about them is also untrue. The Catholic Church saved many lives during those dark times and were also part of the kindertransport.
(http://www.jewishvir...sm/piusdef.html)

Those were dark times when almost no one was safe.

Not going to reply in depth here, because again, this is off-topic, but I'll just say that your source is not very reliable and wrong on many things (I just checked your source).


You are right about the last thing you said though, about nobody being save during those dark times, and when the Catholic church finally realized that, they did indeed start helping "the good guys" like you said.

[Dextro Milk]

Hitler eh? The guy is an A-Class scumbag imo.

[Redbelle]

Dextro Milk wrote...

Hitler eh? The guy is an A-Class scumbag imo.

Grade A scumbag to be sure.

But its a facinating study of how one man and the circumstances around him all pulled together to create someone who would go forth to be so publically reviled. And the men and women he pulled along in that wake.

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

That's nonsense. Both parties were slaughtering for what they  believed was "the greater good". You're really applying double standards here.

There is no "greater good" in "racial purity." It's founded on hate and believing oneself (or whatever group you're advocating--I recently read some sick, sick sh*t about a person advocating something similar who wasn't of the race) superior to others--there's no greater good there.

There is no "greater good" in what the reapers were doing either. In fact, their views and actions are not at all that different from what Hitler and other dictators in the past did, which is why I brought them up. The reapers also view themselves as "the superior race".

Both Hitler and the reapers are absolutely SICK and (for the lack of a better word) EVIL.

To think either of these two evil f*cks are "morally grey" is just dumb.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 15 juillet 2013 - 07:05 .

[HellbirdIV]

EntropicAngel wrote...

There is no "greater good" in "racial purity."

Yeah there is. Just because you don't agree that it's a good thing doesn't mean the people perpetrating the acts don't believe they are for a greater good.

The insidious thing about early 20th century racism was the notion of the White Man's Burden, that all of humanity relied on whites to progress. White men made myths about Great Zimbabwe's ruins, because they couldn't fathom that black people had built castles once upon a time. They made "scientific" studies that "proved" an inherent weakness in anyone who was not of the proper white european breed.

The idea of racial purity is that it betters society by removing deficients, making people overall smarter and stronger. See, that's kind of the thing with fascism... It works just fine. From a purely logical, statistical standpoint, fascism works great... except, we have this thing called empathy, compassion and decency. And fascism is truly incompatible with basic humanity.

Your arguments indicate you don't have much understanding of human psychology nor 20th century politics. No-one - not even Hitler - was going to arrange some 8 million murders just because he thinks Jews are icky.