1483 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

You're questioning my intelligence?! And before going on about spelling (it's one of those terms where you could argue either way is fine) you might want to bother with little details like starting sentences with capital letters.

 

The power trip thing is a strawman because you brought it up to criticise based on nothing. Having read the rest of your posts I'm prepared to accept that wasn't your intention, you just misunderstood the OP and took some of his comments rather out of context and jumped to a bad conclusion. After all he never said anything along the lines of "Being able to boss everyone in the galaxy around, everyone telling me 'Wow, Shepard, my hero and saviour!' is what I really loved about Mass Effect."

[rekn2]

the post you call a straw man:

"OP, i think you feel kicked in the balls because ME is a power fantasy and they remove your power in me3. i think thats why most people hate starkid."

 

 

 

 

"The power trip thing is a strawman because you brought it up to criticise based on nothing."

 

i didnt bring it up to criticise anything or anyone. in fact every other post of mine in this thread is in response to you. i never brought up the devs again. i didnt even claim that I FEEL its bad or good just that the majority of posts I HAVE read lead me to that conclusion.

 

"Having read the rest of your posts I'm prepared to accept that wasn't your intention, you just misunderstood the OP and took some of his comments rather out of context and jumped to a bad conclusion."

 

idk, maybe youre female but when a male is kicked in the balls...its a bad conclusion.

 

"After all he never said anything along the lines of "Being able to boss everyone in the galaxy around, everyone telling me 'Wow, Shepard, my hero and saviour!' is what I really loved about Mass Effect."

 

youre right he said "My shepard treated her crew well but layed the smackdown on enemies" his shep was a badass. ya know what im not going to quote his entire post but look at it. it starts off with his shep kicking ass and then devolves into him being powerless. its like he had power and some how it was removed while he sat in some rubble with a rock on his head.

 

 

heres what a straw man is

 

1. Person 1 has position X.
2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
   1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
   2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).^[4]
   3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.^[3]
   4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
   5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

However, the actual form of the argument is:

"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

 

person 1 would have to be the OP but again

 

"you understand that the original poster had no arguement? he only had questions and examples for his logic in coming to the frustration he/she did. not one time did he make an arguement for anything and neither did i."

 

the starw man fallacy, by definition cant be applied here. i never attacked the op who had position x i simply gave assumptions from observations about why he held position x

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

the end to me3 is an inconsistantcy. you win over and over again and then bam, no matter what you loose...but that doesnt even matter. what ever my opinion was to my original post doesnt matter. a straw man arguement is just that an arguement. it takes 2 to tango.

 

the entirety of the OP's post (the initial person i was talking to) says things like "Sure they show all the good stuff happening to the others in the universe but nothing more on shepard who saved billions of people" and "So if I did everything to get the best possible outcome, why do I feel like someone kicked me in the

quads?" it seems to me that hes a badass and then "just one breath to hint at survival laying there with a boulder on her head."

 

 

do you understand now why i felt it was a power fantasy for THE OP. that, ill say it a 100th time, had no stance on what i said what-so-ever.

This is the difference between a movie and a video game. In a video game, even though it is a story, you beat the game. It is not the time to get all philosophical and throw a deep dark ending at the player. Call me shallow. Call me 1980s and 1990s retro, but I don't want any post-modern pseudophilosophical bull**** thrown at me at the end of a video game.

 

Shepard and company comes in, kicks ass, and takes names. It's an Arnold movie in which you're making choices of the character's actions. Hell, the dialogue is simplistic enough. It's not deep. Don't try to get deep at the end and railroad a character death or merely "hint" the character lives with a "glimmer of hope" with that crappy breath scene just because the player may have worked hard. The breath scene was tacked on because the writers felt bad about it and wanted to give the player a glimmer of hope, and that's exactly what they said at the SD Comicon in April 2012. It sucked.

 

Shepard should have ended the game a "big goddamn hero," to quote Zaeed. Yes, it's a power trip for the player this way, and you know what? I don't give a damn.

[von uber]

That breath scene is still bloody awful isn't it.
It's not even high quality but a low res fmv.

[rekn2]

This is the difference between a movie and a video game. In a video game, even though it is a story, you beat the game. It is not the time to get all philosophical and throw a deep dark ending at the player. Call me shallow. Call me 1980s and 1990s retro, but I don't want any post-modern pseudophilosophical bull**** thrown at me at the end of a video game.

 

Shepard and company comes in, kicks ass, and takes names. It's an Arnold movie in which you're making choices of the character's actions. Hell, the dialogue is simplistic enough. It's not deep. Don't try to get deep at the end and railroad a character death or merely "hint" the character lives with a "glimmer of hope" with that crappy breath scene just because the player may have worked hard. The breath scene was tacked on because the writers felt bad about it and wanted to give the player a glimmer of hope, and that's exactly what they said at the SD Comicon in April 2012. It sucked.

 

Shepard should have ended the game a "big goddamn hero," to quote Zaeed. Yes, it's a power trip for the player this way, and you know what? I don't give a damn.

asl? lol i kid

[Reorte]

 

the starw man fallacy, by definition cant be applied here. i never attacked the op who had position x i simply gave assumptions from observations about why he held position x

If you read my last post then you'd see that I've accepted that you didn't create it as a strawman, you'd just arrived at a questionable conclusion that made it look rather like one, at which point you couched a reply in a derogatory tone.

 

The OP feels like he did a good job and it still turned out crap. You've then decided that means the OP just wanted a power trip.

[AlanC9]

Don't try to get deep at the end and railroad a character death or merely "hint" the character lives with a "glimmer of hope" with that crappy breath scene just because the player may have worked hard. The breath scene was tacked on because the writers felt bad about it and wanted to give the player a glimmer of hope, and that's exactly what they said at the SD Comicon in April 2012. It sucked.

Note that the leaked pre-release outline is unequivocal. Shepard lives in high-EMS Destroy, full stop. I don't see a good way to reconcile this with your argument, unless they decided to kill Shepard about the time they moved Javik to DLC but changed their minds later.

[rekn2]

Note that the leaked pre-release outline is unequivocal. Shepard lives in high-EMS Destroy, full stop. I don't see a good way to reconcile this with your argument, unless they decided to kill Shepard about the time they moved Javik to DLC but changed their minds later.

The breath scene was tacked on because the writers felt bad about it and wanted to give the player a glimmer of hope, and that's exactly what they said at the SD Comicon in April 2012.

 

so youre saying shotgun was lied to?

[Iakus]

Note that the leaked pre-release outline is unequivocal. Shepard lives in high-EMS Destroy, full stop. I don't see a good way to reconcile this with your argument, unless they decided to kill Shepard about the time they moved Javik to DLC but changed their minds later.

 

Then perhaps that's precisely what happened, as the quote Julia mentioned was pretty unequivocal.

[Mcfly616]

I wish I had a dime for every time a dev quote was taken way out of context around here.

[rekn2]

I wish I had a dime for every time a dev quote was taken way out of context around here.

The breath scene was tacked on because the writers felt bad about it and wanted to give the player a glimmer of hope

 

how can this be taken out of context?

[Mcfly616]

The breath scene was tacked on because the writers felt bad about it and wanted to give the player a glimmer of hope
 
how can this be taken out of context?

the same way anything can....

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It's on Youtube somewhere FFS.

[rekn2]

the same way anything can....

im trying to spin the sentence in any other way and i cant.

[Iakus]

It's on Youtube somewhere FFS.

 

http://www.youtube.c...L9FMVwCk#t=2840

 

So much for "clarity and closure" eh?

[rekn2]

http://www.youtube.c...L9FMVwCk#t=2840

 

So much for "clarity and closure" eh?

so shotgun was right and what she said wasnt taken out of context.

[shepskisaac]

This is the difference between a movie and a video game. In a video game, even though it is a story, you beat the game. It is not the time to get all philosophical and throw a deep dark ending at the player. Call me shallow. Call me 1980s and 1990s retro, but I don't want any post-modern pseudophilosophical bull**** thrown at me at the end of a video game.

 

Shepard and company comes in, kicks ass, and takes names. It's an Arnold movie in which you're making choices of the character's actions. Hell, the dialogue is simplistic enough. It's not deep. Don't try to get deep at the end and railroad a character death or merely "hint" the character lives with a "glimmer of hope" with that crappy breath scene just because the player may have worked hard. The breath scene was tacked on because the writers felt bad about it and wanted to give the player a glimmer of hope, and that's exactly what they said at the SD Comicon in April 2012. It sucked.

 

Shepard should have ended the game a "big goddamn hero," to quote Zaeed. Yes, it's a power trip for the player this way, and you know what? I don't give a damn.

If the creators wanna do pseudophilosophical stuff they can do so, if they fail to achieve good result it's a different thing, but where does your nonsense belief that video games need to be nothing more than power trips comes from I have no idea. That's not retro, that's just being dismissive about the entire medium as a storytelling platform

[Iakus]

so shotgun was right and what she said wasnt taken out of context.

Yep.

[AlanC9]

Then perhaps that's precisely what happened, as the quote Julia mentioned was pretty unequivocal.

 

It's hard to reconcile that with the statement at the panel, actually, since it was clearly stated that at some stage of the design Shepard wasn't supposed to live at all.I suppose it's conceivable that first came the outline where Shepard lived in Destroy, then they decided to kill Shepard, and then they decided to put in the "glimmer of hope" after people objected to Shepard always dying in the revision. But I think it's more likely that the outline is the revision, and they never intended any other presentation for Shepard living.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If the creators wanna do pseudophilosophical stuff they can do so, if they fail to achieve good result it's a different thing, but where does your nonsense belief that video games need to be nothing more than power trips comes from I have no idea. That's not retro, that's just being dismissive about the entire medium as a storytelling platform

 

No, I'm not. If you're going to have a deep story with a deep ending, please take the time and write one. Don't write one with a bunch of cheesy one liners, bad dialogue, a shallow plot, and then try to throw a deep meaningful ending on it. Why? The last example is ME3 - it doesn't work. The first one can work. Some video game plots will be power trips. ME ended up that way.

[Massa FX]

To OP: I don't have quads but did feel a deep depression from watching years of fun gaming fizzle like a deflated balloon with the r,g,b "art".

But... Hopefully well get back to the "fun" entertaining game experience instead of the "art" experience in the next ME installment.

[angol fear]

It's surprising to see that people wanted a stupid ending because they couldn't see the potential the game had. The ending actually revealed this potential. Trying to understand the ending just with the ending doesn't make sense because the writers did a very good job to create an ending based on the whole writing of the trilogy.

[Daemul]

Shepard should have ended the game a "big goddamn hero," to quote Zaeed. Yes, it's a power trip for the player this way, and you know what? I don't give a damn.

I have the game just for you, it's called Spec Ops:The Line, it makes you feel like a "big goddamn hero". Play it, and then see whether you still hold the same view.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's surprising to see that people wanted a stupid ending because they couldn't see the potential the game had. The ending actually revealed this potential. Trying to understand the ending just with the ending doesn't make sense because the writers did a very good job to create an ending based on the whole writing of the trilogy.

 

I really don't think this is the case at all. 

[von uber]

I have the game just for you, it's called Spec Ops:The Line, it makes you feel like a "big goddamn hero". Play it, and then see whether you still hold the same view.

Slightly different circumstances and foe do you not think?
The reaper conflict itself is fairly black/white despite the last gasp bollocks at the end. It should have stuck to its strengths of shep the saviour and (yes a somewhat clichéd) ending where you do save the day and get the turian in the end.
I can see what they were trying to do but the games as a whole don't support it.