337 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everything have a chance of returning in new stories. Even if it was completely dead in previous stories. So I think you should be prepared for great reveals and surprises in the following several years. The Reapers are too important for MEU to just get rid of them forever.

The Reapers are done along with Shepard's story

They are not that damn important to the MEU

The Reapers existed long before Shepard was born, and should be existing long after Shepard died.

Modifié par Seival, 11 août 2013 - 09:31 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

You really don't need anything more than good gameplay to be a good game.

But you do need great conflict for great triumph and great heroism to exist. And here's the part where people shriek at me for saying the word 'heroism,'  despite that basically being the reason they find the characters compelling at all. 

Bolded part is not true

Second part I'm stealing one of your words by calling that nonsense, when that is not required at all even for a game like Mass Effect

[AresKeith]

Seival wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everything have a chance of returning in new stories. Even if it was completely dead in previous stories. So I think you should be prepared for great reveals and surprises in the following several years. The Reapers are too important for MEU to just get rid of them forever.

The Reapers are done along with Shepard's story

They are not that damn important to the MEU

The Reapers existed long before Shepard was born, and should be existing long after Shepard died.

Yeah.... No

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Seival wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everything have a chance of returning in new stories. Even if it was completely dead in previous stories. So I think you should be prepared for great reveals and surprises in the following several years. The Reapers are too important for MEU to just get rid of them forever.

The Reapers are done along with Shepard's story

They are not that damn important to the MEU

The Reapers existed long before Shepard was born, and should be existing long after Shepard died.

Well...

That's not the case for us Destroyers.

The Reapers are dead. Long dead by the time Shepard finally dies.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

If there's no conflict, there's no story. And no matter how much people kid themselves into thinking Mass Effect would have been great with no Reapers and just character interactions, they're wrong. A great deal of the content people love about the the characters could not have existed without a threat such as the Reapers.

Actually, a lot of it would have existed.

Or it would be different content with a different context.

You can't say good content can't exist without the Reapers. You're saying the story is too reliant on that.

That's not how all story's work. That's not how most people think.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Seival wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Synthesis kills puppies: fact.

This meme is my undeniable evidence.

http://cdn.meme.li/i...0x/40478629.jpg

It's my proof.

Let's not resort to headcanon and denial. The Reapers are dead post-Destroy.

100% dead. They have no chance of returning.

My new Cerberus will use the Reaper tech to rebuild society. It's going to be quite prosperous. A golden age.

No synthesis is necessary.

Everything have a chance of returning in new stories. Even if it was completely dead in previous stories. So I think you should be prepared for great reveals and surprises in the following several years. The Reapers are too important for MEU to just get rid of them forever.

Unless you're talking about the salvaged Reaper tech which will advance the galaxy post-destroy, the Reapers are dead and gone forever.

They're not important to the universe. The MEU can and will exist without them.

[David7204]

I'm saying the content people find meaningful in Mass Effect wouldn't exist without a threat such as the Reapers. That is exactly how stories work. No conflict means no story.

Modifié par David7204, 11 août 2013 - 09:42 .

[Seival]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Seival wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everything have a chance of returning in new stories. Even if it was completely dead in previous stories. So I think you should be prepared for great reveals and surprises in the following several years. The Reapers are too important for MEU to just get rid of them forever.

The Reapers are done along with Shepard's story

They are not that damn important to the MEU

The Reapers existed long before Shepard was born, and should be existing long after Shepard died.

Well...

That's not the case for us Destroyers.

The Reapers are dead. Long dead by the time Shepard finally dies.

Destroy itself might not be the case in case of sequel. So, you should be ready for anything.

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

I'm saying the content people find meaningful in Mass Effect wouldn't exist without a threat such as the Reapers. That is exactly how stories work. No conflict means no story.

I'll repeat again, Mass Effect didn't need a Galactic threat like the Reapers to have meaningful content

You would know that if you played other games

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

You really don't need anything more than good gameplay to be a good game.

ME3 proves this false.

But you do need great conflict for great triumph and great heroism to exist.

No you don't. What about stories where the bad guys win? Those can be good. The Godfather didn't have great heroism or triumph. Neither did Apocalypse Now. Neither did Trainspotting. Neither did Dexter. 

And here's the part where people shriek at me for saying the word 'heroism,'  despite that basically being the reason they find the characters compelling at all. 

No, actually it's not.

Stop telling me why I like things. Why I like people. Your reality isn't the same reality everybody else lives in David.

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

You really don't need anything more than good gameplay to be a good game.

But you do need great conflict for great triumph and great heroism to exist. And here's the part where people shriek at me for saying the word 'heroism,'  despite that basically being the reason they find the characters compelling at all. 

No shrieking just disagreement. That maybe what you look for in a character but it's far cry to assume it's what everyone wants or likes. Example:

[AresKeith]

Seival wrote...

Destroy itself might not be the case in case of sequel. So, you should be ready for anything.

Practice what you preach Seival

[ruggly]

And here we go again.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Do we really need a great conflict in order to have a meaningful story?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I'm saying the content people find meaningful in Mass Effect wouldn't exist without a threat such as the Reapers. That is exactly how stories work. No conflict means no story.

The content would exist. It's not reliant on the Reapers. You're saying that good content and the Reapers are mutually exclusive.

Haven't we all long since come to the conclusion that we don't all agree on what is 'good?' Why are you telling us that we all think that what you like is good? 

Doesn't the existence of my opinion completely contradict that? And everybody elses opinion?

Didn't you just change your argument? First you said 'heroism' and 'triumph' are necessary for a story. Then you changed it to 'conflict'.

Your argument is invalid.

[Mr.House]

I find Joel the most compelling character in a video game, you're telling me he's a hero? LOL

[David7204]

Thank you for that utterly pointless picture where you could have easily just said "Joel from The Last of Us."

People like different characters for different reasons. The fact is, the characters from Mass Effect aren't Joel. And if people were interested and only interested in characters such as Joel, they probably wouldn't be too interested in Mass Effect in the first place.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Lizardviking wrote...

Do we really need a great conflict in order to have a meaningful story?

Just any credible conflict that endangers what you care about really.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Seival wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Seival wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everything have a chance of returning in new stories. Even if it was completely dead in previous stories. So I think you should be prepared for great reveals and surprises in the following several years. The Reapers are too important for MEU to just get rid of them forever.

The Reapers are done along with Shepard's story

They are not that damn important to the MEU

The Reapers existed long before Shepard was born, and should be existing long after Shepard died.

Well...

That's not the case for us Destroyers.

The Reapers are dead. Long dead by the time Shepard finally dies.

Destroy itself might not be the case in case of sequel. So, you should be ready for anything.

I'll take that. What will happen if Synthesis isn't the sequels plan? You should be ready for anything.

That said, I'm safe. I just don't care about BW's story anymore. I have my own story. I don't need BW to tell me what's good and bad.

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The content would exist. It's not reliant on the Reapers. You're saying that good content and the Reapers are mutually exclusive.

You can have incredibly difficult time with simple logic, don't you? Clearly, looking at all those little phrases on Wikipedia hasn't done much at all for you.

Please explain to me how in the hell saying "content people find meaningful in Mass Effect wouldn't exist without a threat such as the Reapers" means "good content and the Reapers are mutually exclusive."

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Thank you for that utterly pointless picture where you could have easily just said "Joel from The Last of Us."

People like different characters for different reasons. The fact is, the characters from Mass Effect aren't Joel. And if people were interested and only interested in characters such as Joel, they probably wouldn't be too interested in Mass Effect in the first place.

You're assuming that all the characters in Mass Effect are the same. They're not. 

You're assuming that all of our Shepard's our the same. They're not.

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, I'm safe. I just don't care about BW's story anymore. I have my own story. I don't need BW to tell me what's good and bad.

Are you sure?

[Fixers0]

Heroism doesn't  stop Reapers, Dreadnoughts and Cruisers do.

Modifié par Fixers0, 11 août 2013 - 09:55 .

[Mr.House]

David7204 wrote...

Thank you for that utterly pointless picture where you could have easily just said "Joel from The Last of Us."

People like different characters for different reasons. The fact is, the characters from Mass Effect aren't Joel. And if people were interested and only interested in characters such as Joel, they probably wouldn't be too interested in Mass Effect in the first place.

Yet....

David7204 wrote...
But
you do need great conflict for great triumph and great heroism to
exist. And here's the part where people shriek at me for saying the word
'heroism,'  despite that basically being the reason they find the
characters compelling at all. 

You be contradicitng yourself here hero boy.

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

Thank you for that utterly pointless picture where you could have easily just said "Joel from The Last of Us."

People like different characters for different reasons. The fact is, the characters from Mass Effect aren't Joel. And if people were interested and only interested in characters such as Joel, they probably wouldn't be too interested in Mass Effect in the first place.

Easier way to make you not ignore a post as you sometimes do.

People play what are refered to as "monster" Sheps all the time. Complete sociopaths the lot of them and what people like is the ability to tweak the outcomes and characters in different ways. But I appreacate you telling everyone what they find compelling, it's always entertaining.