154 réponses à ce sujet

[newcomplex]

ImperialOperative wrote...

PilotJoe wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Certainly not pointless to Shepard when tens of thousands of humans are being abducted by aliens working with the Reapers.


Or what?  You'd rather wait for the Reapers to show up or are ya going to do something about it?

His point is that saving 10,000,000,000,000  lives > saving 10,000 lives. 

He's got a point.

No, he doesn't.   If the Collectors managed to finish their project, any attempts by Shepard to stop the Reapers would have been futile.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, you don't save any of the abducted colonists.  They're already turned to mush when you get to the base (you can save your crew if you get there in time).

No broski, at the end, it clearly states that they would need "tens of millions more", while currently, they only have colonists in the thousands.     Second, the reaper was a unknown variable, preparing sufficiently would be far superior then to rush in and get killed.   

[Inarai]

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Your opinion is in the minority. Suck it up.

Oh, hey, and appeal to popularity!  Do I need to explain why that's not an argument?

Or that the game isn't 90% shooting unless you skip everything else you possibly can?

Or that the game's plot is all about building your team, and preparing for the toughest mission of your life - either of them?

Or that the plot is very good at being that?  Or that the characters are very good for driving that?  Or that the game's structure is clearly and blatantly built around that?

I mean, really?  Do I?

Appeal to popularity is a argument when we are talking about consumer/corperate relationships.    Retard.   

Which isn't the question at hand.  The question isn't "how many like it", but "how good is it".  Qualitative, rather than quantitative.  Absolute dreck without any quality can still be highly popular.

"Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the
questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e.,
ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.
In some domains, however, it is popularity, rather than other
strengths, that makes an action desirable."-wikipedia.

Bioware is a corperation, which is essentially a democracy, with each consumer being a voter.    In this case, what is "better" simply is fucking irrelevent.     What matters is what is popular, and the current formula is.    I think it isn't as shallow as the troll OP claims, but I don't even need to debate that point, due to Argumentum Ad populum working in a proper, non fallacious capacity.   

You're right, it's irrelevant in the financial picture - or so it seems at first glance.  But it is still the question at hand in this thread.

The question isn't about sales.  It isn't about finances.  It's about QUALITY.  Whether or not you think that's relevant to balance sheets?  Also irrelevant.  Dollars and cents aren't the subject at hand.  Quality is. Quality is not always related to sales - though, it is an anathema to piracy (By game theory, anyways), and the reason Bioware tends to do as well as it does:  by producing games for quality, rather than popularity.  That results in reliable sales and repeat business. People are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  PEople are willing to buy their games just because it has their name on it, because they aim for QUALITY, rather than POPULARITY.  They are not the same thing.

Also, Wiipedia?  Really?

Modifié par Inarai, 25 février 2010 - 08:02 .

[Contempt6289]

Nikitn wrote...follow established laws of physics to attract the shooter crowd

Why are people bring this up again and again? Do you not understand that this is FICTION? People seem to be so concerned that the game doesn't follow the laws of physics, but nobody bats an eye when something explodes in space?

[Nikitn]

thepatriot, And it was not desicive at all. Maybe saving or destroying the collector base was though.

Modifié par Nikitn, 25 février 2010 - 08:07 .

[BatarianBob]

Am I the only one that noticed that the connections between ME1's main plot and the subplots on Therum, Feros, and Noveria were pretty flimsy?



If it wasn't a problem then (I certainly didn't care), why is it a problem now?

[Omega-202]

Nikitn wrote...

Yup, you have a point thepatriot101. My bad, ME2's "main story" (which was in reality a side story, the building of "the team" was the main story in ME2) is really just a side story in the bigger picture. Run around, explore, kill some bad guys, get some companions and stop the collectors from abducting a bunch of small colonies.

in ME1 the entire galaxy was saved from a reaper invasion. I felt that the ending of ME1 was the best and most intelligent one I've ever seen in a videogame. Especially the lore surrounding Illios and that VI there.

Tell me, what was the story of Star Wars Episodes IV and V?

SW: A New Hope: Luke rises from obscurity, destroys the Death Star, saves the galaxy ( or so we were led to believe at the end since they were never sure a sequel would be made) aka A HERO'S JOURNEY

SW: Empire Strikes Back: Luke trains and prepares, faces down his inner demons and learns a startling truth.  Story is mostly focused on the development of Luke, Leia and Han aka A CHARACTER STORY


Now lets look at Mass Effect:

ME1: Shepard rises from obscurity, tracks down Saren, destroys Sovereign, saves the galaxy ---Hero's Journey

ME2: Shepard prepares for the coming Reaper threat, builds a team, trains, faces parts of his team's past,  learns a startling truth.  ---Character Story

The second chapter in a Sci-Fi trilogy NEVER FOCUSES ON SAVING THE GALAXY.  Thats just the format of the genre.  Complaining about this shows ignorance of convention.  


This thread goes to show, not that BioWare has poor writing, but that the OP has no idea of literary form, especially in the Sci-Fi/Space Opera setting, and just as poor of a grasp of science as evidence of his other thread.

Yes, losing Drew to BioWare's Star Wars MMO was a big loss.  Sure the writing could have been better, especially with him on board full time.  But it wasn't objectively bad.  Trying to argue "You didn't save the galaxy and it just focused on characters" just shows how much of an idiot you really are when it comes to the large picture story.  

Modifié par Omega-202, 25 février 2010 - 08:09 .

[withateethuh]

Taranatar9 wrote...

Am I the only one that noticed that the connections between ME1's main plot and the subplots on Therum, Feros, and Noveria were pretty flimsy?

If it wasn't a problem then (I certainly didn't care), why is it a problem now?

Its a sequel so it has to suck.

[Nikitn]

omega202, why exactly am I wrong? Please explain (fail flames sent at me =! me being wrong) in SW 5 it was charector development. In ME2 it was all about doing random stuff, and building a team.



There was as much charector development in ME1 as in ME2 at the very least.

[Inarai]

Nikitn wrote...

omega202, why exactly am I wrong? Please explain (fail flames sent at me =! me being wrong) in SW 5 it was charector development. In ME2 it was all about doing random stuff, and building a team.

There was as much charector development in ME1 as in ME2 at the very least.

Not at all.  Every party member in ME2 had a sort of depth absent in ME1.

And though we can't talk about them here, all your loyalty missions stem naturally from the character in question.

Modifié par Inarai, 25 février 2010 - 08:21 .

[ThePatriot101]

Don't you know Niktin that you can't really have consecutive stories which involve saving the galaxy on a grand scale against the same enemy every single time? That makes Shepard less the SpecOps solider s/he is and more the galaxy's babysitter.



You can do one of two things:



1. You vary the overall storyline between titles so you can see both stuff on the grand scale and the down-to-Earth scale.

2. You keep increasing the scale of the story.



Mass Effect 2 did the former, and as for an example of the latter I would have to use the anime "Gurren Lagann" (not a smart example but certainly illustrates the point).



If Mass Effect were to have you blatantly save the galaxy time after time again on the grand scale, you are basically trading in additional substance in favor of looking up instead of down. Mass Effect 2 may not have had the same grade of grand scale storytelling as part of the first one (because ME1 wasn't always about stopping the Reapers), but it gives you a window into stuff that happens on the down-to-Earth scale.

[Omega-202]

Nikitn wrote...

omega202, why exactly am I wrong? Please explain (fail flames sent at me =! me being wrong) in SW 5 it was charector development. In ME2 it was all about doing random stuff, and building a team.

There was as much charector development in ME1 as in ME2 at the very least.

In ME1, Other than facts about their backstories, how much did you really get to know about the personality of a lot of your squadmates?  

How dynamic of a character was Garrus in ME1 versus 2?  As Joker said, he had a permanent "poll up his *ss" for the first game, and even the confrontation over Dr. Saleon did nothing but make him "reconsider" his views.  He never shared anything personal, he never opened up.  In the second game, you've got him opening up about some pretty personal stuff.  His past loves, his personal guilts.  He finally shows a bit of spark beyond the "hard badass" he played in the first.  

Look at the major molding possibiliies with Jack.  She goes from an angry, borderline delusional, unconfrontable **** to someone who has actually moved on from some of the pain she felt.  The closure from her personal quest meant something and you could see it.  What kind of closure did Wrex show when you got his armor?  

Look at the (meager) intrateam dynamic that was shown with Jacob and Miranda.  There was nothing like that in ME1.  To show that there may have been something there, especially when she went out of her way to try and help Jacob settle the issues with his father, behind everyone's back, just to show some compassion for a friend (or maybe more than a friend).  

I'm sorry, but its not a subjective assertion to say that character development was much deeper in the second.  If you don't see that, then you're being purposefully blockheaded.

I have a feeling you're trying to vilify a game that you simply didn't enjoy.  You're trying to pick it apart to find the flaws when there really were none as badly as you want there to be.  

Sometimes a person simply doesn't like a game.  Accept that you didn't like it and move on.  Venting on something like this isn't healthy, just move on.  

Modifié par Omega-202, 25 février 2010 - 08:33 .

[newcomplex]

Inarai wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Your opinion is in the minority. Suck it up.

Oh, hey, and appeal to popularity!  Do I need to explain why that's not an argument?

Or that the game isn't 90% shooting unless you skip everything else you possibly can?

Or that the game's plot is all about building your team, and preparing for the toughest mission of your life - either of them?

Or that the plot is very good at being that?  Or that the characters are very good for driving that?  Or that the game's structure is clearly and blatantly built around that?

I mean, really?  Do I?

Appeal to popularity is a argument when we are talking about consumer/corperate relationships.    Retard.   

Which isn't the question at hand.  The question isn't "how many like it", but "how good is it".  Qualitative, rather than quantitative.  Absolute dreck without any quality can still be highly popular.

"Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the
questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e.,
ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.
In some domains, however, it is popularity, rather than other
strengths, that makes an action desirable."-wikipedia.

Bioware is a corperation, which is essentially a democracy, with each consumer being a voter.    In this case, what is "better" simply is fucking irrelevent.     What matters is what is popular, and the current formula is.    I think it isn't as shallow as the troll OP claims, but I don't even need to debate that point, due to Argumentum Ad populum working in a proper, non fallacious capacity.   

You're right, it's irrelevant in the financial picture - or so it seems at first glance.  But it is still the question at hand in this thread.

The question isn't about sales.  It isn't about finances.  It's about QUALITY.  Whether or not you think that's relevant to balance sheets?  Also irrelevant.  Dollars and cents aren't the subject at hand.  Quality is. Quality is not always related to sales - though, it is an anathema to piracy (By game theory, anyways), and the reason Bioware tends to do as well as it does:  by producing games for quality, rather than popularity.  That results in reliable sales and repeat business. People are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  PEople are willing to buy their games just because it has their name on it, because they aim for QUALITY, rather than POPULARITY.  They are not the same thing.

Also, Wiipedia?  Really?

Your ****ing retarded.    Let me just make this clear.   Yes, Appeal to popularity is irrelevent to OP.    I wasn't addressing the OP, and hes intentionally trolling (unlike you, who is just unintellionally being moronic).     I was addresing a single statement YOU MADE.   Someone said to "suck it up because most people like it".   Then you pull this fallacy nonsense when he was using Appeal for popularity perfectly properly.   Hes telling you guys to stfu because the majority likes it, and Bioware will listen to the majority.     That is a perfectly valid use of Appeal to popularity.    

[Nikitn]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Don't you know Niktin that you can't really have consecutive stories which involve saving the galaxy on a grand scale against the same enemy every single time? That makes Shepard less the SpecOps solider s/he is and more the galaxy's babysitter.

You can do one of two things:

1. You vary the overall storyline between titles so you can see both stuff on the grand scale and the down-to-Earth scale.
2. You keep increasing the scale of the story.

Mass Effect 2 did the former, and as for an example of the latter I would have to use the anime "Gurren Lagann" (not a smart example but certainly illustrates the point).

If Mass Effect were to have you blatantly save the galaxy time after time again on the grand scale, you are basically trading in additional substance in favor of looking up instead of down. Mass Effect 2 may not have had the same grade of grand scale storytelling as part of the first one (because ME1 wasn't always about stopping the Reapers), but it gives you a window into stuff that happens on the down-to-Earth scale.

No. ME1 saving-the-galixy was just the beginning. In ME2 the Reapers were supposed to launch the invasion. Instead we got some sidestory.

[Inarai]

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Your opinion is in the minority. Suck it up.

Oh, hey, and appeal to popularity!  Do I need to explain why that's not an argument?

Or that the game isn't 90% shooting unless you skip everything else you possibly can?

Or that the game's plot is all about building your team, and preparing for the toughest mission of your life - either of them?

Or that the plot is very good at being that?  Or that the characters are very good for driving that?  Or that the game's structure is clearly and blatantly built around that?

I mean, really?  Do I?

Appeal to popularity is a argument when we are talking about consumer/corperate relationships.    Retard.   

Which isn't the question at hand.  The question isn't "how many like it", but "how good is it".  Qualitative, rather than quantitative.  Absolute dreck without any quality can still be highly popular.

"Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the
questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e.,
ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.
In some domains, however, it is popularity, rather than other
strengths, that makes an action desirable."-wikipedia.

Bioware is a corperation, which is essentially a democracy, with each consumer being a voter.    In this case, what is "better" simply is fucking irrelevent.     What matters is what is popular, and the current formula is.    I think it isn't as shallow as the troll OP claims, but I don't even need to debate that point, due to Argumentum Ad populum working in a proper, non fallacious capacity.   

You're right, it's irrelevant in the financial picture - or so it seems at first glance.  But it is still the question at hand in this thread.

The question isn't about sales.  It isn't about finances.  It's about QUALITY.  Whether or not you think that's relevant to balance sheets?  Also irrelevant.  Dollars and cents aren't the subject at hand.  Quality is. Quality is not always related to sales - though, it is an anathema to piracy (By game theory, anyways), and the reason Bioware tends to do as well as it does:  by producing games for quality, rather than popularity.  That results in reliable sales and repeat business. People are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  PEople are willing to buy their games just because it has their name on it, because they aim for QUALITY, rather than POPULARITY.  They are not the same thing.

Also, Wiipedia?  Really?

Your ****ing retarded.    Let me just make this clear.   Yes, Appeal to popularity is irrelevent to OP.    I wasn't addressing the OP, and hes intentionally trolling (unlike you, who is just unintellionally being moronic).     I was addresing a single statement YOU MADE.   Someone said to "suck it up because most people like it".   Then you pull this fallacy nonsense when he was using Appeal for popularity perfectly properly.   Hes telling you guys to stfu because the majority likes it, and Bioware will listen to the majority.     That is a perfectly valid use of Appeal to popularity.    

Reading comprehension, you need it - the post I was responding to was an appeal to popularity with regard to quality, not with regard to how many people were going to purchase it.  Not a valid use.  A vaild use is, frankly, when the argument itself is about popularity.  Which this is NOT.

Grow yourself a few more neural connections, and stop thinking insult make your argument look anything other than pathetic - and yes, I do appreciate the irony of how I said that.

[Omega-202]

Nikitn wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Don't you know Niktin that you can't really have consecutive stories which involve saving the galaxy on a grand scale against the same enemy every single time? That makes Shepard less the SpecOps solider s/he is and more the galaxy's babysitter.

You can do one of two things:

1. You vary the overall storyline between titles so you can see both stuff on the grand scale and the down-to-Earth scale.
2. You keep increasing the scale of the story.

Mass Effect 2 did the former, and as for an example of the latter I would have to use the anime "Gurren Lagann" (not a smart example but certainly illustrates the point).

If Mass Effect were to have you blatantly save the galaxy time after time again on the grand scale, you are basically trading in additional substance in favor of looking up instead of down. Mass Effect 2 may not have had the same grade of grand scale storytelling as part of the first one (because ME1 wasn't always about stopping the Reapers), but it gives you a window into stuff that happens on the down-to-Earth scale.

No. ME1 saving-the-galixy was just the beginning. In ME2 the Reapers were supposed to launch the invasion. Instead we got some sidestory.

Please, I beg of you, look at other Sci-Fi / Fantasy movie trilogies.  

Look at the Matrix.  Look at Star Wars.  Look at Pirates of the Caribbean.  Look at Lord of the Rings.  Look at Halo.  Look at ANYTHING.  

The big battle NEVER happens in the second one.  The second in the trilogy is always a character story with a large scale counter strike and preparations for the final battle.  


If BioWare wasted the Reaper invasion of ME2, WHAT would they have used for ME3?  


I'm thoroughly convinced that you simply aren't intelligent.  An answer of "No." with no intelligent backing isn't the way a smart person argues their point.  Your last response should solidify your standing as either a troll or a moron.  

[Nick Fox]

Personally I kind of agree with the OP on the subject, Me 2 doesnt feel or act as a true sequal to me at all. Its like a standard thing they pull in the gameing industry, its like Resident Evil 1 to 2, takes place in the same World and some references thats all. A matter of fact if thats the route BW wants to take, by all means go ahead, I just think I'll find something a little more intruiging and interesting to me instead.

*Shrugs*

[TJSolo]

And a smart person argues their point with several attacks on a person, noted.



ME2 the Moby-dick edition is an interesting sidestory after ME1 but offered one revelation on the story of ME.

ME2s story isn't disconnected from the ending of ME1 where Shep and Anderson stated now is the time to prepare galaxy for the Reapers...and ME2 turns out there are no preparations and the general consensus of the galaxy is the same as it was in the start of ME1.(Few people believe Shep about the Reaper threat)

[Obadiah]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

PilotJoe wrote...

I'm trying to discuss with him, you should too. Even if we disagree on fundamental issues, we probably agree on others, and despite the inflammatory thread title, it was probably just meant to spur discussion/get attention. If you're on this thread, odds are that you LIKE these games, so that's common ground to start with.

He's obviously venting.  If he checked he'd know that the writing staff increased between ME1 and ME2 and that would answer his question (this was brought up in the OTHER thread he started).

Wait, the writing staff went up, and we got the ME2 story?
Oh dear....

[MPaBkaTa123]

For the love of god stop feeding the troll. The OP is a whining moron who keeps making the same topic about 10 times and if the people agreeing with him don't mind i suggest them to go on the dissapointment thread, you know the one that is not made by an idiot. Sorry for the outburst but the OP is just a pest. All he does is make copy paste topics flaming things that have been said a million times and claiming things that are blatantly untrue( this topic).

[TJSolo]

MPaBkaTa123 wrote...

For the love of god stop feeding the troll. The OP is a whining moron who keeps making the same topic about 10 times and if the people agreeing with him don't mind i suggest them to go on the dissapointment thread, you know the one that is not made by an idiot. Sorry for the outburst but the OP is just a pest. All he does is make copy paste topics flaming things that have been said a million times and claiming things that are blatantly untrue( this topic).

Copy and pasting, sounds familiar. I must had read it somewhere else.

Attacking the person does not prove the points raised as invalid.
There is a general dissapointment thread as well as there being a general praise thread. Neither stops someone from posting something more specific.

[ThePatriot101]

Nikitn wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Don't you know Niktin that you can't really have consecutive stories which involve saving the galaxy on a grand scale against the same enemy every single time? That makes Shepard less the SpecOps solider s/he is and more the galaxy's babysitter.

You can do one of two things:

1. You vary the overall storyline between titles so you can see both stuff on the grand scale and the down-to-Earth scale.
2. You keep increasing the scale of the story.

Mass Effect 2 did the former, and as for an example of the latter I would have to use the anime "Gurren Lagann" (not a smart example but certainly illustrates the point).

If Mass Effect were to have you blatantly save the galaxy time after time again on the grand scale, you are basically trading in additional substance in favor of looking up instead of down. Mass Effect 2 may not have had the same grade of grand scale storytelling as part of the first one (because ME1 wasn't always about stopping the Reapers), but it gives you a window into stuff that happens on the down-to-Earth scale.

No. ME1 saving-the-galixy was just the beginning. In ME2 the Reapers were supposed to launch the invasion. Instead we got some sidestory.

Wait, since when were the Reapers supposed to start the invasion in ME2?  Doesn't that create a problem if Bioware were to release a third ME title?  And even if they did, wouldn't that start to move the story more into the Halo series?

You're assuming the Reapers (as a whole) had been active throughout ME1 and were waiting as some plot device.  If the Reapers did invade in ME2 it would be another plot device.  Why?  Because that would assume they take the loss of one of their own to the humans very lightly.

It would only make sense that they wouldn't invade in ME2 because of Sovereign's destruction.  They needed to use their next card in the galaxy (the Collectors) to study and weaken the humans before they could invade because of the threat humans bring forward.  They're not stupid.

[MPaBkaTa123]

TJSolo wrote...

MPaBkaTa123 wrote...

For the love of god stop feeding the troll. The OP is a whining moron who keeps making the same topic about 10 times and if the people agreeing with him don't mind i suggest them to go on the dissapointment thread, you know the one that is not made by an idiot. Sorry for the outburst but the OP is just a pest. All he does is make copy paste topics flaming things that have been said a million times and claiming things that are blatantly untrue( this topic).

Copy and pasting, sounds familiar. I must had read it somewhere else.

Attacking the person does not prove the points raised as invalid.
There is a general dissapointment thread as well as there being a general praise thread. Neither stops someone from posting something more specific.

Of course it smells of copy pastedom because some people have already said it about ten billion times. If you read his posts instead of just blindly hating on us you would see that some of his messages ( the one talking about idiot fanboys on his science topic) are just there to cause an unneeded flame war. If there is a already a topic about the failings of the game then there is no reason to make up his own cut-and-paste topics with a changed title and slightly different text. Arguing with a troll is pointless, discussing with a troll will get you flamed all valid points are shown more coherently and without pointless bile in different topics.

[Joseph_Shepard]

Firstly they didn't "destroy" any previous lore. It all still stands except for any changes that would have occurred over two years. Matter of fact, if you listen to the galactic news in game it's cool to see what you'll hear. Secondly, I personally believe the new storyline was far superior, as long as they don't pull the 'oh look he died, oops we got a place that can bring dead people back" cliche a second time. The Mass Effect 1 storyline was highly linear and it didn't go in depth with its characters like ME 2.



Not to mention, the choices and side effects of those choices in Mass Effect 2 are lightyears ahead of Mass Effect 1. I personally love the way the series is going and it still stand as the greatest example of gaming as an art.

[danien.grey]

Some people on these forums need to learn to crop their "quote" posts.  Anyone who has been reading the thread doesn't need you to quote your entire conversation from beginning to end.  All it does is artificially inflate the length of your post and those of us trying to follow the conversation find it inane.

If you've spent any amount of time on a forum, you know that you should only be quoting one or two posts back.  My mouse's scroll wheel thanks you for your cooperation. 

Modifié par danien.grey, 25 février 2010 - 10:32 .

[Omega-202]

TJSolo wrote...

And a smart person argues their point with several attacks on a person, noted.

I've never made a claim that I wasn't condescending.  If you want to insult the logic or content of my posts, make your point.  If you want to reprimand me for belittling the OP's ignorance, then just say so.  Two very different things.  

Its not hard to look down on someone who is too lazy or too stupid to type out the word "to" in at least 50% of his posts.  Combined with his aggressive ignorance, he deserves no respect.