1814 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

And once again, most ME2 characters simply are not important to the grand plot, hence this is why they have smaller roles. Just because you like a character a lot doesn't mean they should be given equal time.

The number of characters relevent to the plot (or should be) introduced in ME2 are about the same as ME1.

Garrus isn't particularly important in ME1 or ME2 or ME3 (hell, you can go through the entire game of ME1 without recruiting him and just have that one conversation with him).

Ashley and Kaidan aren't particularly important after Virmire. They both could have died and not much would have changed.

Yet in ME2 you have Jacob, a competent former top Cerberus agent with connections to top Alliance officials who is entirely optional in ME3 (where you're working with the Alliance against Cerberus) -- Miranda has it even worse. Zaeed the founder of the Blue Suns who has connections with various mercenary groups, when there is an entire sub plot dealing with the Blue Suns and other mercenary groups. Grunt a high ranking Krogan leader, who is again, entirely optional.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

A man of science, huh?

Did you ever figure out what a calcium ion gradient was?

[txgoldrush]

Steelcan wrote...

You speak of evidence and hard facts, yet you use themes as a defense. Themes of a work are open to interpretation.

Not always, a work can have a thematic statement which the author defines the themes. Or it could be highly obvious.

[Steelcan]

txgoldrush wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

You speak of evidence and hard facts, yet you use themes as a defense. Themes of a work are open to interpretation.

Not always, a work can have a thematic statement which the author defines the themes. Or it could be highly obvious.

.
The author is dead, that is all

[ImaginaryMatter]

CynicalShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

and many bashers here on this board is credible? Wow

You're pretty easy to impress. Too bad most people "don't get you". BSN is more fun with you around. You are the living emodiment of irony. 

Ooh, I like that phrase.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, I am dismissing them because they are basing their opinions off of falsehoods, not because I disagree with them.

Lets put it this way, is there any possibility of changing your mind?

Yes...when I learn something and realize I am basing my opinion off of a falsehood or something I missed.

Like the Sopranos ending....hated at first, but then saw the foreshadowing. Now its brilliant.

I'm a practical man. A man of science. And a person who would say the same.

Can you recognize a falsehood whenever you see it? How do you determine the falsehood from the truth?

evidence, cold hard proven facts.

Which one can claim of many things. But when others review your findings through peer review and reject your claims, are they still facts?

[AresKeith]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Which one can claim of many things. But when others review your findings through peer review and reject your claims, are they still facts?

Yes, because "we just don't get it" and we're bashers

[ImaginaryMatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm a practical man. A man of science. And a person who would say the same.

Can you recognize a falsehood whenever you see it? How do you determine the falsehood from the truth?

evidence, cold hard proven facts.

We aren't talking about theorems, we're talking about literary interpretations.

[dreamgazer]

(glances over the last two pages)

[David7204]

It's unfortunate, is it not, how such a thing has become as much a refuge for the foolish as religion doubtless once was? I reflected on that when I made my other thread. I expected and received a few posters with little to say aside from 'lmao science is gud lol.'

Stupid? A politician? Nothing intelligent to say? Well, just declare your support for science, and it's instant thumbs up, isn't it? And while intelligent people will quickly recognize it for the silly triviality it is, many tragically won't.

[txgoldrush]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And once again, most ME2 characters simply are not important to the grand plot, hence this is why they have smaller roles. Just because you like a character a lot doesn't mean they should be given equal time.

The number of characters relevent to the plot (or should be) introduced in ME2 are about the same as ME1.

Garrus isn't particularly important in ME1 or ME2 or ME3 (hell, you can go through the entire game of ME1 without recruiting him and just have that one conversation with him).

Ashley and Kaidan aren't particularly important after Virmire. They both could have died and not much would have changed.

Yet in ME2 you have Jacob, a competent former top Cerberus agent with connections to top Alliance officials who is entirely optional in ME3 (where you're working with the Alliance against Cerberus) -- Miranda has it even worse. Zaeed the founder of the Blue Suns who has connections with various mercenary groups, when there is an entire sub plot dealing with the Blue Suns and other mercenary groups. Grunt a high ranking Krogan leader, who is again, entirely optional.

You are ignoring the fact that Garrus have a thematic important role, characters can be in the story to explore thematic material more than move the plot. And the themes that Garrus embodies is important to ME3 in the grand sense of things.

Nevermind you are also ignoring another point to why ME1 characters come back into the squad and become core characters. Their relationships with eachother. And this is not moving the goalposts, their intersquad relationships are important to the story. ME2 squadmates had very little of this, unlike the ME1 cast.

[AresKeith]

^
And there you go again

David7204 wrote...

It's unfortunate, is it not, how such a thing has become as much a refuge for the foolish as religion doubtless once was? I reflected on that when I made my other thread. I expected and received a few posters with little to say aside from 'lmao science is gud lol.'

Stupid? A politician? Nothing intelligent to say? Well, just declare your support for science, and it's instant thumbs up, isn't it? And while intelligent people will quickly recognize it for the silly triviality it is, many tragically won't.

What?

Modifié par AresKeith, 04 janvier 2014 - 11:44 .

[Steelcan]

What themes does Garrus help explore? Because he doesn't really do that. He's there to stand by your side and kick ass. He was kept around because he is popular, not because he had thematic importance, same with Liara.

[David7204]

Just reflecting on the 'support' of science seen often this day and age.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Just reflecting on the 'support' of science seen often this day and age.

.  Yet recent polling done by a number of well known institutions suggest that Americans do not trust scientists or science in general.

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, I am dismissing them because they are basing their opinions off of falsehoods, not because I disagree with them.

Lets put it this way, is there any possibility of changing your mind?

Yes...when I learn something and realize I am basing my opinion off of a falsehood or something I missed.

Like the Sopranos ending....hated at first, but then saw the foreshadowing. Now its brilliant.

I'm a practical man. A man of science. And a person who would say the same.

Can you recognize a falsehood whenever you see it? How do you determine the falsehood from the truth?

evidence, cold hard proven facts.

Which one can claim of many things. But when others review your findings through peer review and reject your claims, are they still facts?

If I claim them as facts when they are incorrect, than they are incorrect. And those who unintentionally mislead people would adjust their opinions if this fact is the only thing they base their opinion on.

[txgoldrush]

Steelcan wrote...

What themes does Garrus help explore? Because he doesn't really do that. He's there to stand by your side and kick ass. He was kept around because he is popular, not because he had thematic importance, same with Liara.

the ruthless calculus of war, having to make decisions that will cost the lives of others for th egreater good.

Liara is the deuetragonist of not only ME3, but ME1 and the entire series.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 04 janvier 2014 - 11:50 .

[AresKeith]

txgoldrush wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What themes does Garrus help explore? Because he doesn't really do that. He's there to stand by your side and kick ass. He was kept around because he is popular, not because he had thematic importance, same with Liara.

the ruthless calculus of war, having to make decisions that will cost the lives of others for th egreater good.

Which Garrus still isn't really needed for this

[Steelcan]

txgoldrush wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What themes does Garrus help explore? Because he doesn't really do that. He's there to stand by your side and kick ass. He was kept around because he is popular, not because he had thematic importance, same with Liara.

the ruthless calculus of war, having to make decisions that will cost the lives of others for th egreater good.

In which case he is redundant, Javik does a much better job of examining those themes.

[txgoldrush]

Steelcan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What themes does Garrus help explore? Because he doesn't really do that. He's there to stand by your side and kick ass. He was kept around because he is popular, not because he had thematic importance, same with Liara.

the ruthless calculus of war, having to make decisions that will cost the lives of others for th egreater good.

In which case he is redundant, Javik does a much better job of examining those themes.

doesn't mean Garrus doesn't as well.

However Javik can be contradicted more often than Garrus. He goes too far.

[spirosz]

Their relationships with each other help structure that "core"?

[spirosz]

txgoldrush wrote...
However Javik can be contradicted more often than Garrus. He goes too far.

Subjectively. 

[Steelcan]

It means that Garrus is an unnecessary addition to the squad, if the only themes he examines are done better by someone else, what purpose does he serve?

And Javik had the right idea on just about everything.

[ImaginaryMatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

You are ignoring the fact that Garrus have a thematic important role, characters can be in the story to explore thematic material more than move the plot. And the themes that Garrus embodies is important to ME3 in the grand sense of things.

You spoke of importance to the grand plot, Garrus is not important on that front.

Nevermind you are also ignoring another point to why ME1 characters come back into the squad and become core characters. Their relationships with eachother. And this is not moving the goalposts, their intersquad relationships are important to the story. ME2 squadmates had very little of this, unlike the ME1 cast.

What, intersquad relationships? You mean the elevator banter in ME1? Because that's really the only intersquad relationships that ME1 has vs ME2.

[David7204]

Considering Javik actively campaigns for Shepard to destroy the geth on the basis of "I don't like them," that seems to be less 'ruthless' and more 'stupidity.'

In fact, that seems to be quite the opposite of being 'ruthless.' I would think 'ruthless' would mean something along the lines of "I don't like them, but they're a useful ally, so let's work together anyway.' Javik supports the exact opposite.

Modifié par David7204, 04 janvier 2014 - 11:55 .