spirosz wrote...
Their relationships with each other help structure that "core"?
Steelcan wrote...
. Yet recent polling done by a number of well known institutions suggest that Americans do not trust scientists or science in general.David7204 wrote...
Just reflecting on the 'support' of science seen often this day and age.
Modifié par spirosz, 04 janvier 2014 - 11:58 .
David7204 wrote...
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.
txgoldrush wrote...
spirosz wrote...
Their relationships with each other help structure that "core"?
Yep it does....so a crew slapped together that barely talks to eachother is far less of a core than a group that's been together through it all that do have stronger bonds with eachother.
David7204 wrote...
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 mavqt, 05 janvier 2014 - 12:01 .
txgoldrush wrote...
spirosz wrote...
Their relationships with each other help structure that "core"?
Yep it does....so a crew slapped together that barely talks to eachother is far less of a core than a group that's been together through it all that do have stronger bonds with eachother.
Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 05 janvier 2014 - 12:02 .
ImaginaryMatter wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
spirosz wrote...
Their relationships with each other help structure that "core"?
Yep it does....so a crew slapped together that barely talks to eachother is far less of a core than a group that's been together through it all that do have stronger bonds with eachother.
Considering they all split up after Shepard's first death and never spoke to each other until Shepard put them in the same room after resurrecting... yep, birds of a feather all of them.
mavqt wrote...
ImaginaryMatter wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
spirosz wrote...
Their relationships with each other help structure that "core"?
Yep it does....so a crew slapped together that barely talks to eachother is far less of a core than a group that's been together through it all that do have stronger bonds with eachother.
Considering they all split up after Shepard's first death and never spoke to each other until Shepard put them in the same room after resurrecting... yep, birds of a feather all of them.
Pretty much the same as between ME2 and 3 then.
ImaginaryMatter wrote...
mavqt wrote...
ImaginaryMatter wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
spirosz wrote...
Their relationships with each other help structure that "core"?
Yep it does....so a crew slapped together that barely talks to eachother is far less of a core than a group that's been together through it all that do have stronger bonds with eachother.
Considering they all split up after Shepard's first death and never spoke to each other until Shepard put them in the same room after resurrecting... yep, birds of a feather all of them.
Pretty much the same as between ME2 and 3 then.
Yep, pretty much.
Garrus does nothing in ME3 except calibration crap. He has no use in ME3.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.
Liara is the deuetragonist of not only ME3, but ME1 and the entire series.
Stop it! You're killing me!txgoldrush wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Can you recognize a falsehood whenever you see it? How do you determine the falsehood from the truth?
evidence, cold hard proven facts.
Modifié par David7204, 05 janvier 2014 - 12:23 .
David7204 wrote...
This is a silly argument on all sides.
Pretty much all side characters in all stories in existence could be removed or compressed without significantly affecting the main plot. Characters are not measured by their supposed 'importance' to the central plot.
I should remark on how very, very ridiculous it would be to argue this and demand characters the player can dismiss, kill, or ignore at their leisure, which of course necessitates characters have little involvement in the central plot.
themikefest wrote...
Garrus does nothing in ME3 except calibration crap. He has no use in ME3.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.
Liara is the deuetragonist of not only ME3, but ME1 and the entire series.
T'soni is an annoying little piece of nothing. Her usefulness ended after Mars. Since she is helping with the Crucible and doing her broker thing why not send her to Hackett or give an office on the Citadel to use and let an ME2 character onboard the Normandy.
So you wouldn't have a problem if the robot wasn't a squadmate(which it shouldn't of been) and have T'soni sent to Hackett to help with the Crucible(like she should've been)?David7204 wrote...
This is a silly argument on all sides.
Pretty much all side characters in all stories in existence could be removed or compressed without significantly affecting the main plot. Characters are not measured by their supposed 'importance' to the central plot.
I should remark on how very, very ridiculous it would be to argue this and demand characters the player can dismiss, kill, or ignore at their leisure, which of course necessitates characters have little involvement in the central plot.
Modifié par themikefest, 05 janvier 2014 - 12:34 .
spirosz wrote...
I say the only important people to the story series are - Mordin, Miranda, Wrex, EDI and Taylor (since she does a better job of gathering information than Liara).
Hey look at that, the core squad consists of more Mass Effect 2 characters!'
edit: Legion to an extent, but that depends on how you want the story to flow.
David7204 wrote...
I have. And I know Morrigan can be dismissed. However, since her role is only during the ending, I'm guessing, and entirely optional, it's a weak example.
David7204 wrote...
I have. And I know Morrigan can be dismissed. However, since her role is only during the ending, I'm guessing, and entirely optional, it's a weak example.
txgoldrush wrote...
spirosz wrote...
I say the only important people to the story series are - Mordin, Miranda, Wrex, EDI and Taylor (since she does a better job of gathering information than Liara).
Hey look at that, the core squad consists of more Mass Effect 2 characters!'
edit: Legion to an extent, but that depends on how you want the story to flow.
Lets look at it as this
Deuetragonist: Liara
Core Characters: EDI, Garrus, Tali, Joker, and Virmire Survivor
Important secondary characters: Traynor, Mordin, Miranda, Legion
Then there is the rest.
txgoldrush wrote...
David7204 wrote...
I have. And I know Morrigan can be dismissed. However, since her role is only during the ending, I'm guessing, and entirely optional, it's a weak example.
and that's what weakens DAO, no one is important outside Allistair and Loghain,
They are actually, quite often measured by that standard. Even if they're not central characters, supporting characters still have a role in shaping the protaganists outlook or journey and therefore have a role to play in the plot if a minor one. Hell Redshirts basically exist to help emphasize how dangerous a certain situation is for the characters involved and help establish the challenge which needs to be overcome.David7204 wrote...
This is a silly argument on all sides.
Pretty much all side characters in all stories in existence could be removed or compressed without significantly affecting the main plot. Characters are not measured by their supposed 'importance' to the central plot.
Who's demanding such a thing exactly?I should remark on how very, very ridiculous it would be to argue this and demand characters the player can dismiss, kill, or ignore at their leisure, which of course necessitates characters have little involvement in the central plot.
Just because she has been there from the beginning doesn't mean crap. If she has to be in the game she can do it from the sidelines.txgoldrush wrote...
themikefest wrote...
Garrus does nothing in ME3 except calibration crap. He has no use in ME3.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.
Liara is the deuetragonist of not only ME3, but ME1 and the entire series.
T'soni is an annoying little piece of nothing. Her usefulness ended after Mars. Since she is helping with the Crucible and doing her broker thing why not send her to Hackett or give an office on the Citadel to use and let an ME2 character onboard the Normandy.
Because Liara has been in since the beginning and is a more developed character.
Once again, Garrus embodies the main theme of the game, that's why he is important.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut