272 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The overall atmosphere of the story was never what I would call calm. Right from the beginning, it was established that Shepard is a soldier, the Normandy is a warship, and you're on an important and dangerous mission. Having conversations on the ship doesn't negate that.

Yes.

How does having conversations negate the Reapers invading? Does talking to a few NPC's and getting information and background into the story somehow make the Reapers get bored and decide to invade some other galaxy?

Because unlike ME 1, this isn't a story about discovery and the slow gathering of information and exposure to the galaxy. So the game shouldn't begin as it.

Modifié par David7204, 25 septembre 2013 - 01:31 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Really? Is that why literally the very first lines of the game were Anderson and Udina discussing who to pick for the mission? Because it wasn't important? Is that why some of the very first lines were characters commenting on a Spectre being present?

Is the argument being changed more and more, or is it just me? It looks like David just took a complete 180 from his earlier position.

[David7204]

All three games have a focus on combat. None of them are about people sitting around drinking tea in complete serenity as people are attempting to claim. So yes, they all have strong elements of danger. However, that doesn't negate the very substantial differences in tone between ME 1 and ME 3.

Modifié par David7204, 25 septembre 2013 - 01:33 .

[dreamgazer]

Who said anything about drinking tea in complete serenity?

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Tunchunka, eh, They sort of just threw a Reaper in for no reason. Rannoch however, I must admit that I forgot. 

Let me get this straight. You demand that the story be about Reapers, and then when they're included, you whine that "They sort of just threw a Reaper in for no reason"?

How is, "Oh by the way, Reaper." a story at all? Does it have a beginning, a middle, and an end? No. It was simply an something put there to add a beam run like scene, nothing else. It wasn't eventful, the Reaper wasn't suspected to be there all along. You just start the mission and they go, "New type of Reaper. Oh well." Also, where did I demand anything? As far as I know, I've only analyzed. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

Really? Is that why literally the very first lines of the game were Anderson and Udina discussing who to pick for the mission? Because it wasn't important? Is that why some of the very first lines were characters commenting on a Spectre being present?

They were picking a beacon it was supposed to be the first of several missions so Shepard could be evaluated by Nilhus for spectre status. Prothean beacons also a big deal and the pick up was covert, the crew was told it was a shake down run for a new ship. Covert and clam tone=/=unimporant. Please pay attention to the actual events.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 25 septembre 2013 - 01:36 .

[David7204]

The people claiming that ME 1 had a serious tonal shift.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The overall atmosphere of the story was never what I would call calm. Right from the beginning, it was established that Shepard is a soldier, the Normandy is a warship, and you're on an important and dangerous mission. Having conversations on the ship doesn't negate that.

Yes.

How does having conversations negate the Reapers invading? Does talking to a few NPC's and getting information and background into the story somehow make the Reapers get bored and decide to invade some other galaxy?

Because unlike ME 1, this isn't a story about discovery and the slow gathering of information and exposure to the galaxy. So the game shouldn't begin as it.

But it's not. It's getting background information into the trial and the alliance and their preparations for the Reapers and an examination of Shepard's past actions and an ability to set the tone for Shepard personally during for RP purposes.

You can have your paragon Shepard who takes a pro-alliance stance.

You can have a neutral Shepard who believes that everyone should stop arguing or debating and prepare for the Reapers.

And you can have a Shepard who's more of a renegade and takes a more anti-alliance stance.

And you can tie each into talking about the preparations for war. Then you can have the Reapers invade then and there, or have a 6 month jump to the beginning of ME3 as is. 

It does nothing to hamper the RP experience. And it really doesn't hold up the main story that much... which honestly isn't all that compelling from a narrative viewpoint. The Reapers are pretty cliche.

[Steelcan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Who said anything about drinking tea in complete serenity

I'll just leave this here

Modifié par Steelcan, 25 septembre 2013 - 01:37 .

[David7204]

Br3ad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Tunchunka, eh, They sort of just threw a Reaper in for no reason. Rannoch however, I must admit that I forgot. 

Let me get this straight. You demand that the story be about Reapers, and then when they're included, you whine that "They sort of just threw a Reaper in for no reason"?

How is, "Oh by the way, Reaper." a story at all? Does it have a beginning, a middle, and an end? No. It was simply an something put there to add a beam run like scene, nothing else. It wasn't eventful, the Reaper wasn't suspected to be there all along. You just start the mission and they go, "New type of Reaper. Oh well." Also, where did I demand anything? As far as I know, I've only analyzed. 

What exactly do you think the purpose of an enemy is in any story? Are they 'simply there to add a shooting scene"? Or "simply there to have a fighting scene"? Or "simply there to have a chase scene"? Maybe you somehow think all enemies in every story in existence should be scrapped then, because you clearly believe it's somehow a problem for enemies to exist as a challenge for the protagonist to confront?

I have an idea. Why don't you pick out some enemies for me and explain to me exactly how they have a beginning, a middle, and an end" like you claim?

Modifié par David7204, 25 septembre 2013 - 01:39 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

The people claiming that ME 1 had a serious tonal shift.

It had several but no you're right. The race to the Conduit and theft of the normandy didn't happen, everything was "gentle" throughout.  We just casually strolled to Ilos and out of Virmire.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 25 septembre 2013 - 01:40 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Tunchunka, eh, They sort of just threw a Reaper in for no reason. Rannoch however, I must admit that I forgot. 

Let me get this straight. You demand that the story be about Reapers, and then when they're included, you whine that "They sort of just threw a Reaper in for no reason"?

How is, "Oh by the way, Reaper." a story at all? Does it have a beginning, a middle, and an end? No. It was simply an something put there to add a beam run like scene, nothing else. It wasn't eventful, the Reaper wasn't suspected to be there all along. You just start the mission and they go, "New type of Reaper. Oh well." Also, where did I demand anything? As far as I know, I've only analyzed. 

What exactly do you think the purpose of an enemy is in any story? Are they 'simply there to add a shooting scene"? Or "simply there to have a fighting scene"? Or "simply there to have a chase scene"? Maybe you somehow think all enemies in every story in existence should be scrapped then, because you clearly believe it's somehow a problem for enemies to exist as a challenge for the protagonist to confront?

I have an idea. Why don't you pick out some enemies for me and explain to me exactly how they have a beginning, a middle, and an end" like you claim?

That totally wasn't a strawman or anything. You totally didn't just make up a position then shift it onto him and criticize him for it.

[dreamgazer]

Steelcan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Who said anything about drinking tea in complete serenity

I'll just leave this here

This wasn't in my Mass Effect game.  If it had been, I would've bought twenty-seven copies and built a shrine. I think I would remember doing that. 

[Steelcan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Who said anything about drinking tea in complete serenity

I'll just leave this here

This wasn't in my Mass Effect game.  If it had been, I would've bought twenty-seven copies and built a shrine. I think I would remember doing that. 

:wub::wub:

11/10 would play again and again,

sadly the triolgy would never have made it to ME3 in this case though

[David7204]

I've really never been all that much of a fan of Wheadon.

It's funny. His works are filled with tropes people on the BSN continually whine at me for supposedly supporting. And I don't like him at that much.

Modifié par David7204, 25 septembre 2013 - 01:46 .

[Br3admax]

David7204 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Tunchunka, eh, They sort of just threw a Reaper in for no reason. Rannoch however, I must admit that I forgot. 

Let me get this straight. You demand that the story be about Reapers, and then when they're included, you whine that "They sort of just threw a Reaper in for no reason"?

How is, "Oh by the way, Reaper." a story at all? Does it have a beginning, a middle, and an end? No. It was simply an something put there to add a beam run like scene, nothing else. It wasn't eventful, the Reaper wasn't suspected to be there all along. You just start the mission and they go, "New type of Reaper. Oh well." Also, where did I demand anything? As far as I know, I've only analyzed. 

What exactly do you think the purpose of an enemy is in any story? Are they 'simply there to add a shooting scene"? Or "simply there to have a fighting scene"? Or "simply there to have a chase scene"? Maybe you somehow think all enemies in every story in existence should be scrapped then, because you clearly believe it's somehow a problem for enemies to exist as a challenge for the protagonist to confront?

I have an idea. Why don't you pick out some enemies for me and explain to me exactly how they have a beginning, a middle, and an end" like you claim?

Uh, no. I think that an enemy should be established before they are just thrown into the plot, as I said. Notice tha I do include Rannoch, although I forgot it, because there was an established Reaper connection there. The geth are at a Reaper base and they are recieveing upgrades. The fact that a Reaper appeared there is fine because their connection to the plot is established. However, on Tuchanka, Reaper scouts are the only thing that should even take interest there. The krogan have nothing that is strategic about them in any single way that would require a Reaper Destroyer to be there. But no, one just appears at the last second because, plot. If anything, this is just another example of how they try to force Cerberus to be a Reaper ally, as they were the most established enemy here as well as the only ones who knew about the cure happening then before hand. It's just bad writing, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. This is a similar situation to where a dreadnaught suddenly appears after you are told to clear out a small space station. There is no point to except to add an action scene. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 25 septembre 2013 - 12:01 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

I've really never been all that much of a fan of Wheadon.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
  BURN THIS HERETIC

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Who said anything about drinking tea in complete serenity

I'll just leave this here

This wasn't in my Mass Effect game.  If it had been, I would've bought twenty-seven copies and built a shrine. I think I would remember doing that. 

Shepard drinks tea in his diogenes club then. No Reapers are allowed to invade as long as he stays within the confines.

[Steelcan]

how David doesn't like Wheadon is a surprise...


I mean its got Big Damn heroes

[Jorji Costava]

David7204 wrote...

I've really never been all that much of a fan of Wheadon.

It's funny. His works are filled with tropes people on the BSN continually whine at me for supposedly supporting. And I don't like him at that much.

Actually, I'd say that a lot of Whedon is about calling attention to and subverting those tropes, often to humorous effect (especially on Buffy, which is far and away his best TV work IMO). That's not to say he never plays them straight; he does all the time, but I just think he's got a very good feel as far as when to go for cleverness and when to go for pathos. But hey, different strokes, I guess.

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Shepard drinks tea in his diogenes club then. No Reapers are allowed to invade as long as he stays within the confines.

Totally plausible. Shepard's heroic presence is, after all, that important.

[David7204]

I wonder how many people this board consider River Tam a 'badass.'

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

how David doesn't like Wheadon is a surprise...


I mean its got Big Damn heroes

Do you know what the definition of a hero is, Steelcan?

It's somebody who gets other people killed.

Similar to what I tell my Soldiers.

Heroes are for idiots. Surviving is for smart people. Heroes get blown up. Survivors go home to their life. and to live to fight again.