91 réponses à ce sujet

[gothpunkboy89]

Chronologically the Citadel DLC takes place before Sanctuary mission. So Miranda is still out trying to track down and protect her sister. You misunderstood what I said. I said Liara has been with Shep since game 1. As in Mass Effect 1.  In ME 2 she became an information broker that directly pissed off the Shadow Broker. To the point he literally bombed a building to try and kill her.  She cried because 2 year or close to it she was trying to find her friend Feron. Which if you didn't romance her in the first game shows a deeper feeling then just friendship for him. Though it is never out right said. Much like Jacob for Miranda in ME2.

 

In the first game she is a newb but by the 3rd game she has the experience to more then surpass Steve who is a pilot and particularly Samantha who is IT only.

 

Again you are literally breaking into a safe room of a corrupt individual who sold weapons to people for them to kill other people with. This has so much potential for violence the basic plot has been used in action movies before.

 

Again with the Liara has no combat skills. So when she killed Nyxeris by her self. Or back hands effortlessly the two shadow broker agents while chasing after Vasir means nothing? You are seriously grasping at straws aren't you.

[themikefest]

Chronologically the Citadel DLC takes place before Sanctuary mission. So Miranda is still out trying to track down and protect her sister.

 So why can't Kasumi be on the squad? How about Grunt? How about Jacob? How about Jack? Or Samara? Got an explanation for Zaeed?
 

You misunderstood what I said. I said Liara has been with Shep since game 1. As in Mass Effect 1.  In ME 2 she became an information broker that directly pissed off the Shadow Broker.

I guess becoming an information broker is more important than finding a way to stop the reapers.
 

To the point he literally bombed a building to try and kill her.

Too bad it wasn't successful
 

She cried because 2 year or close to it she was trying to find her friend Feron.

What little I read online of the comic, they didn't act like friends. They know each other only because Feron leads Liara to Shepard's corpse. That's all. Crying like a baby doesn't help. No reason for it. Why would I want a squadmate like that?

 

In the first game she is a newb but by the 3rd game she has the experience to more then surpass Steve

What combat experience has she gained? I rescued her after Virmire. So there was no time for her to get any experience since a short time later Saren is stopped. Her background does not support her to be a squadmate. Is there anything supporting her having more experience than Steve? Or is that your assumption?

 

Again you are literally breaking into a safe room of a corrupt individual who sold weapons to people for them to kill other people with. This has so much potential for violence the basic plot has been used in action movies before.

Again you assuming that Steve would have a problem if he was to be part of the mission? Don't you think that all those guards with headgear would be able to handle any situation that might arise?
 

Again with the Liara has no combat skills. So when she killed Nyxeris by her self. Or back hands effortlessly the two shadow broker agents while chasing after Vasir means nothing? You are seriously grasping at straws aren't you.

I'm guessing your a Liara fan? So because she killed someone and knocks a couple of agents out of the way, that means she's qualified to fight in combat? Would a guy on the street that beats up a couple of people be experienced enough to fight Mike Tyson in the boxing ring?
 

[wass12]

Now that I've been outed like this, I could hardly go back answering in PM. Unfortunately, my question still has little to do with Mass Effect. Even more unfortunately, it seems to me that you didn't understand it, because you only provide a sort-of answer as a tangent to a lengthy ME-focused tirade. That's it, here, bolded out:

 

I'll publicly answer a question wass12 asked me via PM.

 

I repeat it that "university level" is a joke.

First, he doesn't have to do it : is it constructive to show what we consider as failure? Personnaly I think that it's a waste of time, he should have talked about masterpieces and he should have spent time explaining how it works, why it is a masterpiece etc... but it's harder to to talk about masterpiece than to talk about "failure" (masterpieces can't be explained by "rules" while failure can).

Second, I don't get his pupose, if he wants the student to write better or to read properly, a teacher is actually someone who should help people to develop his own skills, he is not supposed to impose his opinion.

Third, at this level (university level is only the beginning) someone should have a method. When you consider from a product point of view something that is supposed to be taken from an artistic point of view, then we can say that your method is wrong. It's just like criticizing a comedy because you didn't cry. The criterias aren't the same. Mass Effect is a game, yes, but Bioware had always artistic intention for it, Mass Effect has always a post modernist piece (just like Tarantino's or Edgar Wright's films), the philosophical aspect was explicit from Mass Effect 2 so those who are supposed to be expert reader and didn't see it, well... can we really say that they analyzed it? (When I talked to Melinda Snowdgrass he admitted that she didn't analyze Mass Effect!) Sorry but expert readers are supposed to analyze, they aren't supposed to try to valid their feelings built by bad habits of reading. An expert reader is supposed to criticize from the intentions the authors had, not from the reader's feeling (I am not saying that feeling will not be part of the criticism, I am saying it's not the starting point). That's the basis of reading, if an "university level" can't do that, that's quite ridiculous because I know people who didn't go to the university and they can do that!

 

Now if you want to answer, wass12, you're welcome.

 

So you are following an intentionalist approach in criticism. How is it better that the consequentialist approach that the ending-haters subscribe to? If such quantification* of approaches even makes sense, which I doubt. You yourself said that literature should have no rules. Then why does its criticism should have them?

 

P.S.: Maybe it's just my lack of prowess, but it's difficult to seek out older threads in this forum. Should you provide a link, I would gladly take a look at the conversations you were talking about.

 

*:Quantification, since you need to assign a "goodness" value to each option before you could order them from best to worst.

[gothpunkboy89]

 So why can't Kasumi be on the squad? How about Grunt? How about Jacob? How about Jack? Or Samara? Got an explanation for Zaeed?
 

I guess becoming an information broker is more important than finding a way to stop the reapers.
 

Too bad it wasn't successful
 

What little I read online of the comic, they didn't act like friends. They know each other only because Feron leads Liara to Shepard's corpse. That's all. Crying like a baby doesn't help. No reason for it. Why would I want a squadmate like that?

 

What combat experience has she gained? I rescued her after Virmire. So there was no time for her to get any experience since a short time later Saren is stopped. Her background does not support her to be a squadmate. Is there anything supporting her having more experience than Steve? Or is that your assumption?

 

Again you assuming that Steve would have a problem if he was to be part of the mission? Don't you think that all those guards with headgear would be able to handle any situation that might arise?
 

I'm guessing your a Liara fan? So because she killed someone and knocks a couple of agents out of the way, that means she's qualified to fight in combat? Would a guy on the street that beats up a couple of people be experienced enough to fight Mike Tyson in the boxing ring?
 

Kasumi clearly states she doesn't want to be on the squad again after the suicide mission. Grunt is still in the hospital. Jacob like Kasumi has shown an unwillingness to rejoin Shepard and is more set up watching the kids of the Ex Cerberus kids or being with his wife and their soon to be child.  Jack, Samara and Zaeed are not on the Cit and thus can not be contacted. Remember this whole thing takes place chronologically over the course of a day or two. The only people who Joker would be able to contact on short notice is the current crew of the Normandy.  Wrex is only added in because he is a fan favorite and I'm sure more then a few people wanted him back on the squad. Considering almost every person I've ever seen talk about this DLC with few exceptions love Wrex's inclusion in it. I can come to this conclusion.

 

Information is key to stopping the reapers. Tools, artifacts, new advancements in tech. Liara's actions as Shadow Broker in ME3 did a lot to help the war cause. And lets not forget her job as an info broker is how she was able to find, secure and transfer Shepards body from the Shadow Broker into Cerberus hands. Thus allowing the events of ME2 and ME3 to happen. Without her and her being an info broker the game ends about 4 minutes into ME2.

 

In game talking to her about Feron and him to her it shows a bit of feelings that goes beyond friendship. Assuming of course you didn't romance her in first game and attempted to keep the romance going. This is again similar to Jacob and Miranda in ME2 were Jacob says that Miranda deserves someone better then him.  Chronologically you rescue her before Virmine. Which if you ignore game play mechanics she is there with you during everything. Post ME2 she does off on her own. Going against the shadow broker to recover your corpse would put her in a lot of tough situations. Like wise being an info broker on Lillum would again cause people to take shots at her.  Steve is a pilot not a ground solider. They gain only basic ground combat training with the super majority of their training being based around their air craft. 

 

There is a reason different branches of the military exist. They specialize in different fields of combat because it is impossible to make a single solider perfect in all forms. There is a reason Wrex or Gunt didn't pilot the Normandy and Shepard was in charge of the Med bay.

 

She has the brains and after ME1 she has the skill and the cold blooded ability to kill someone if needed.

 

Now you my personally not like Liara as a squad mate. Switching her out for other squad mates that you like more. And that is fine but a funny little fact it she is over overwhelmingly a popular squad mate. Was flipping though Guinness Book of Video Game World Records. There was a couple of pages devoted to Mass Effect. According to Bioware data Liara was the most popular squad mate selected roughly 64.3% of the time by players.  When possible.

[themikefest]

Remember this whole thing takes place chronologically over the course of a day or two.

Yeah. So what? If the dlc can be played anytime before Chronos, then there's no reason why any of the ME2 squadmates cannot be a squadmate for the gameplay portion. And if they can't be a squadmate because they're doing whatever, then they wouldn't be able to have a meetup or be at the party.
 

Wrex is only added in because he is a fan favorite and I'm sure more then a few people wanted him back on the squad.

And that's what its all about. The fan favorite thing. Its not that an ME2 squadmate couldn't be a squadmate for the dlc, its if they were a fan favorite.
 

Considering almost every person I've ever seen talk about this DLC with few exceptions love Wrex's inclusion in it. I can come to this conclusion.

I don't care about the character. I have no reason to like him. I can come to this conclusion
 

And lets not forget her job as an info broker is how she was able to find, secure and transfer Shepards body from the Shadow Broker into Cerberus hands.

Without Feron, she would never of found Shepard's body
 

Thus allowing the events of ME2 and ME3 to happen. Without her and her being an info broker the game ends about 4 minutes into ME2.

Had her and the other ME1 characters made any effort to find a way to stop the reapers instead of turning into c**kroaches and scattering all over the galaxy after the SR1 was destroyed, they may of found a way.
 

Steve is a pilot not a ground solider. They gain only basic ground combat training with the super majority of their training being based around their air craft.

Liara is not a ground soldier. And she has no training. I still don't see a problem with having him be on the mission with Shepard
 

There is a reason different branches of the military exist. They specialize in different fields of combat because it is impossible to make a single solider perfect in all forms. There is a reason Wrex or Gunt didn't pilot the Normandy and Shepard was in charge of the Med bay.

No kidding. Liara is not part of the military. Never has been.
 

She has the brains and after ME1 she has the skill and the cold blooded ability to kill someone if needed.

She doesn't have the brains. If she does, why didn't she download the plans to her omnitool on Mars before Shepard showed up? Or why didn't she let someone know about Shepard's body being handed to Cerberus. I imagine Shepard's mother would like to know, for those that play a spacer. Or why didn't she use the intercom to tell Shepard that the salarian councilor wants to talk instead of going up to the cabin?

Cold Blooded ability?

On the shuttle to Thessia she says she can't be that callous. Gotta love that cold blooded ability

 

Kai Leng sticks his sword in the ground, runs to Liara and then throws her across the screen. A cold blooded person would've shot at him or at least attempted to jump away from him. What she did is stand there with her tentacles stuck up her fifth point of contact panicking. Remember what happen on Mars with the robot? It ran towards Ashley/Kaidan. They didn't panic or do nothing. They pulled out their weapon and fired at the thing. Yes they do get seriously injured, but they didn't stand there like a dumba**. That's the difference between having training and not having training. Something Liara doesn't have. So much for the cold blooded ability thing.
 

Now you my personally not like Liara as a squad mate. Switching her out for other squad mates that you like more. And that is fine but a funny little fact it she is over overwhelmingly a popular squad mate. Was flipping though Guinness Book of Video Game World Records. There was a couple of pages devoted to Mass Effect. According to Bioware data Liara was the most popular squad mate selected roughly 64.3% of the time by players.  When possible.

Not only do I not like her as a squadmate, but I don't like the character at all. Bioware has given me no reason to like her.

 

The stats mean nothing to me. And again they rather have a squadmate in a game that is popular then to have it make sense to have that character be a squadmate

Regardless of what she does in the trilogy, if I was in Shepard's shoes, I would ask what experience she has and what she could do to make my team better. I doubt she could answer those questions. I would send her away and get someone else to be on my team.

[angol fear]

Now that I've been outed like this, I could hardly go back answering in PM. Unfortunately, my question still has little to do with Mass Effect. Even more unfortunately, it seems to me that you didn't understand it, because you only provide a sort-of answer as a tangent to a lengthy ME-focused tirade. That's it, here, bolded out:

 

 

So you are following an intentionalist approach in criticism. How is it better that the consequentialist approach that the ending-haters subscribe to? If such quantification* of approaches even makes sense, which I doubt. You yourself said that literature should have no rules. Then why does its criticism should have them?

 

P.S.: Maybe it's just my lack of prowess, but it's difficult to seek out older threads in this forum. Should you provide a link, I would gladly take a look at the conversations you were talking about.

 

*:Quantification, since you need to assign a "goodness" value to each option before you could order them from best to worst.

 

My conversation with Ithurael was here :

http://forum.bioware...the-end/page-23

 

I'll explain few things you misinterpreted.

First I've said that literature has no rules, and I still repeat it. Literature has no rules, it only has on principle : coherence. But coherence has to be defined because it is not credibility. Coherence is when the form and the content are connected.

Second I've never said that criticism has rules. But here it is the same : criticism has a principle : to adapt the analysis to the writing. People who ignore the intention that are visible in the writing, are actually ignoring the writing, and they base their criticism on their own satisfaction, not on why and how it is written. Any real good reader can see the intentions in the writing and can understand why it was written this way.

 

So why is it better to do it this way instead of talking about our own satisfaction? because that's how we do as literature teacher and as professional critic. There are writers that I dislike but I know that they are good. I know that my own satisfaction comes from what I'm looking for in a text. I also know that quality has nothing to do with what I'm expecting, it has to do with the writing. That's why there are famous writers who will be forgotten, and time will reveal the importance of other who are not as popular.

[wass12]

I'll explain few things you misinterpreted.
First I've said that literature has no rules, and I still repeat it. Literature has no rules, it only has on principle : coherence. But coherence has to be defined because it is not credibility. Coherence is when the form and the content are connected.
Second I've never said that criticism has rules. But here it is the same : criticism has a principle : to adapt the analysis to the writing. People who ignore the intention that are visible in the writing, are actually ignoring the writing, and they base their criticism on their own satisfaction, not on why and how it is written. Any real good reader can see the intentions in the writing and can understand why it was written this way.
 
So why is it better to do it this way instead of talking about our own satisfaction? because that's how we do as literature teacher and as professional critic. There are writers that I dislike but I know that they are good. I know that my own satisfaction comes from what I'm looking for in a text. I also know that quality has nothing to do with what I'm expecting, it has to do with the writing. That's why there are famous writers who will be forgotten, and time will reveal the importance of other who are not as popular.

 
That's pretty unscientific. How do you intend to measure the quality of works if you are using a different yardstick for every work? At least "How much I liked it?" is a simple and generally applicable quality function. It, of course, ignores your principle, but you didn't gave a reason why it should accept it.
 
Also:
 

So why is it better to do it this way instead of talking about our own satisfaction? because that's how we do as literature teacher and as professional critic.

 
That's just appeal to authority. Since you brought up consistency, I expected an example of internal contradiction in the consequentialist approach.
 

But coherence has to be defined because it is not credibility. Coherence is when the form and the content are connected.

 
Sorry, but these two sentences just sound like bullsh*t to me. What has coherence to do with credibility? 
 

Any real good reader can see the intentions in the writing and can understand why it was written this way.

 
Seems like an ample opportunity for a No True Scotsman. What happens when two people see different intentions in the same work? How do you decide who is a Real Good Reader™ then?

[gothpunkboy89]

Yes and you can play Arrival DLC any time before or after Collector base. Though doing it before the collector base kind of messes up the fact that it is only after you kill the collectors does it show Harbinger and the Reapers powering up and heading towards the galaxy.  And yet Arrival if done before hand shows the Reapers are already there. So there is a chronological set up in over all story line.

 

Yes Feron played a part which is also why she was so relived and cried when she finally takes down the Shadow Broker. This has nothing to do with them turning into cockroaches and scattering. The Council was adamant that the Geth were behind the attack. They were the only ones with any information. Even the Alliance with Anderson and Hackett if no one else two high ranking officials believing him. Without proof it was just a he said she said set up.  With Shepard dead there wasn't much they could do. The Council and the Alliance buried everything Shepard stirred up. They were left with no other option but to return to their people or go on their own path to try and help.

 

Liara has training. You do not cross the Shadow Broker and live without knowing how and when to fight. You don't hunt down the shadow broker without knowing how and when to fight.  Hell you do not last 3 minutes on sheapards ground squad unless you know how to fight. This isn't even counting the fact she is a fairly powerful biotic. Again I point out to her attacking and killing her secretary in Illuim. Was able to out smart The rouge specter and fight with sheapard all the way though the shadow broker's base filled with his best men. And take on the shadow broker and ultimately kill him.  Steve lacks this. He has basic ground training but specializes in air craft. Now if there was a mission that required us to engage in an aerial dog fight I would say Steve should be picked 100% of the time over Liara.

 

She learned from Shepard an N7. She learned from Wrex veteran krogan bounty hunter. Both of these would well surpass the basic training a pilot would get from standard military.

 

Considering the speed and surprise Cerberus attacked Mars Archives simply trying to not be killed by them would be a good reason not to remember something like that. Remember it is only Shepard that gains the ability to mass slaughter thousands and thousands of enemy soilders. Everyone else besides Shepard is treated like a normal person. Able to do a lot of things but can't just wade though the unlimited corpses of your enemies. That is why Garrus couldn't the Blood Pack leader. yet you can kill him all by yourself during the mission.  Or why just 3 people are able to take down a proto Reaper. But it takes the remaining 6 or so to hold off a swarm of Collectors you literally just tap danced over their pile of bodies before hand.

 

Why didn't she attack Kai Leng. Well why didn't Shepard shoot him in the head from the Executor's office when he had the chance? Why didn't Shepard wound him when he tried to escape. These guns go a near the speed of light. He should have been able to catch him. Like wise why did any other squad member you bring with you. No matter how qualified you feel they are. Run right into Liara being thrown like a part of the 3 stooges?  Why didn't Thane just shoot him when he was stabbed. or why didn't the Slarian Captain who takes the bullet if Thane is dead not just throw the Salarian Counciler to the ground giving Shepard and his squad a clear shot at Kai.

 

She is cold blooded. Threatening and killing people who get in her way both before and after she becomes the Shadow Broker. That is cold. What she can't stand to do is let or allow innocent people to be killed without showing any emotion over it. Zaeed is a veteran mercenary that survived a gun wound to the face and even he still likes to snuggle.

 

There is plenty of reasons to like her. Just the same as reasons to like literally any other squad mate. I might not use her very often if at all because of game play reasons. But the character is very likable. She grows and matures across the trilogy.  But considering how made up your mind is I'm honestly not going to bother to get into detailed specifics because they will be bouncing off a brick wall.

[angol fear]

 
 you didn't gave a reason why it should accept it.

 

I didn't know that I was supposed to convince you. You only asked me to explain why I think that I'm right and some other people are wrong. So now it's "try to convince me!". I don't play that game!

 

 

 
That's pretty unscientific.

 

That's unscientific if you want, so science doesn't adapt itself on the subject studied. Micro and macrostructure are analyzed the same way. Quantum mechanism, biology, astrophysic etc... it all work the same way, it's all analyzed with the same things. You will have to prove me that.

 

 

 
At least "How much I liked it?" is a simple and generally applicable quality function.

 

If you can't see that you are not evaluating quality...

 

 That's just appeal to authority. Since you brought up consistency, I expected an example of internal contradiction in the consequentialist approach.

 

Appeal to authority? No, I just said how it works for us. Once again I wasn't supposed to convince you, you only asked me why and I explained you.

 

 

 What happens when two people see different intentions in the same work?

 

They fight until there's only one who survive. And what happens when there are two people who disagree : the first like and the second dislike, does it mean that it  is at the same time good and bad? If I wanted to play that game I would be expecting some example to show me that two people can see different intentions that create  a contradiction. Your theory is beautiful but in real life it doesn't work the way you want it to fail. If you are not good enough to understand through the text the intention, then you can see interviews, and many things said by the authors, there is always clues.

 

 

If you want me to try to convince you, I won't do that. Do you really think that in five minutes you can understand what people take years to understand? You first have to learn what is a text to understand how to read it, we would have to go back to the very beginning, sorry but I don't have time for this.

[Serza]

It only doesn't make sense if you don't go Destroy.

 

I clearly wouldn't pass that course, because I'd call him the **** out on that ****.

[RZIBARA]

Double post 

[RZIBARA]

 You or anyone else actually tried to debate this with him?

 

I personally find the ending match pretty well with the story. And with DLC and extended cut wrapped it up fairly well.

 

ohhhhhhhhhh.....

 

yeah I'm sure you did, @$$JOWE

[themikefest]

Liara has no training. My Shepard doesn't have time to train the asari. She is not cold blooded. Just because she does a couple of things does not make her an expert in fighting in combat. The trilogy already proves she is not squadmate material. It does not matter what she does in the trilogy, its what she doesn't have when Shepard first meets her. I have no reason to make her a squadmate because she has no experience or any training. Why would I want someone like that on my squad?

 

She was on Mars for at least a week and had access to the archives. So why didn't she download the plans and forward them to Hackett? Not much brain power is required for that. Unless of course she never found the plans. Yeah I bet that's why. She only found clues that led her to Mars.

 

With the liking the character thing. Would you like a character that takes your armor off your dead body and then displays it in a glass case like its some kind of trophy? She has serious head problems. If you say you don't have a problem with that, does that mean you wouldn't have a problem if another character  does the same thing? She also has an obsession with Shepard for some reason. Is that an asari thing? I wonder if its because of the mind meld crap? I don't need that crap. I would like to tell her to get lost.

 

What could they do while Shepard was dead? How hard would it be to have Liara study the archives at Mars? Or how about going back to Eden Prime to see if there's anything more to find. Those two things right there would help. Or why didn't Liara go back to Ilos to study the archives. That's all she talked about on Ilos instead of focusing on the mission. Or is it because that sounds too easy? Without Cerberus bringing Shepard back, this cycle would be turned into a giant milkshake.

[gothpunkboy89]

Liara has no training. My Shepard doesn't have time to train the asari.

 

And yet she managed to survive and out wit The Shadow Broker and his army of mercenaries as well as a Specter for 2 years.

[themikefest]

And yet she managed to survive and out wit The Shadow Broker and his army of mercenaries as well as a Specter for 2 years.

If she's that good as you seem to claim, why does she need dozens of mercs to stop the broker and still Feron is killed, if the dlc isn't completed?

[wass12]

I didn't know that I was supposed to convince you. You only asked me to explain why I think that I'm right and some other people are wrong. So now it's "try to convince me!". I don't play that game!

Do you think I'm referring to myself in third person neutral? That "it" referred to the consequentialist approach. 

 

That's unscientific if you want, so science doesn't adapt itself on the subject studied. Micro and macrostructure are analyzed the same way. Quantum mechanism, biology, astrophysic etc... it all work the same way, it's all analyzed with the same things. You will have to prove me that.

Using the same yardstick in all situations is an important part of (hard) science. From the standardization of units, to double blind tests, peer review, the use of largest possible samples are all about diminishing the opportunity for randomness and bias to distort the end results. And above all else, the scientific method is universally applicable, and not in a Swiss Army Knife-way either.

 

They fight until there's only one who survive. And what happens when there are two people who disagree : the first like and the second dislike, does it mean that it  is at the same time good and bad? If I wanted to play that game I would be expecting some example to show me that two people can see different intentions that create  a contradiction. Your theory is beautiful but in real life it doesn't work the way you want it to fail. If you are not good enough to understand through the text the intention, then you can see interviews, and many things said by the authors, there is always clues.

Ever heard about the concept "Death of the Author?" The entire basis of that concept is that different people (the author and the reader, in this case) see different intentions behind the same work.

 

 

Appeal to authority? No, I just said how it works for us. Once again I wasn't supposed to convince you, you only asked me why and I explained you.

If you try to dismiss other approaches to criticism on the basis that they not intentionalist, then that is appeal to authority.

 

But, if this is the end of this conversations, let me summarize. You subscribed to the intentionalist school of criticism since it was the most popular in literary circles, and dismiss other approaches, even though you cannot point out how they are dissimilar to yours in self-consistency and groundedness in reality. Well, that answers my initial questions, but only strengthens my skepticism towards literary critics.

[AlanC9]

 
P.S.: Maybe it's just my lack of prowess, but it's difficult to seek out older threads in this forum. Should you provide a link, I would gladly take a look at the conversations you were talking about.

I've had success with just using Google site search and including the date as a search team, since posts have their dates in them. You need to have a oretty good idea of the date range you want, of course.

[angol fear]

@wass12, yes this is the end of our "conversation" (which has never been a conversation, actually, because you wanted it to be a debate). And yes as a post structuralist, I know the theory of the death of the author but you actually misunderstand it.

[gothpunkboy89]

If she's that good as you seem to claim, why does she need dozens of mercs to stop the broker and still Feron is killed, if the dlc isn't completed?

 

And yet Shepard despite his ability to wade though the corpse of their enemies surviving things that would kill everyone else wasn't able to prevent Saren from attacking the Citadel with a Geth army.

 

She has done about as well as Shepard has.

[themikefest]

She has done about as well as Shepard has.

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

 

At least Shepard has the experience and training whereas the asari doesn't when she's first rescued on Therum.

[wass12]

@wass12, yes this is the end of our "conversation" (which has never been a conversation, actually, because you wanted it to be a debate). And yes as a post structuralist, I know the theory of the death of the author but you actually misunderstand it.

When I said "basis," I used it in the sense of "prerequisite." You couldn't question the value of different readings if everyone got the exact same one, now could you?

[gothpunkboy89]

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

 

At least Shepard has the experience and training whereas the asari doesn't when she's first rescued on Therum.

 

Seemed to hit a bit of a nerve me thinky.

 

Yes Shepard has the experience and training and he still on multiple occasions dropped the ball like a noob. And yet you are going to complain about someone who by your standards is a complete noob dropping the ball like a noob.

[themikefest]

Seemed to hit a bit of a nerve me thinky.

What nerve do you think you hit?
 

Yes Shepard has the experience and training and he still on multiple occasions dropped the ball like a noob. And yet you are going to complain about someone who by your standards is a complete noob dropping the ball like a noob.

It still doesn't convince me that the asari is squadmate material. If you want to believe she is worthy of being a squadmate, go ahead.

[gothpunkboy89]

The Yea sure what ever bit is what makes me think I hit a bit of a nerve.

 

By your own standard Shepard isn't even qualified to be a part of your squad.

[themikefest]

Assume all you want, but you're wrong

 

Shepard is more qualified than the asari will ever be