5213 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMightyEthan]

None of what you said there is false, so I direct you to my third point: you clearly don't know what "lead" means.

[thatbwoyblu]

It is the arrival of the new world order!I mean Bioware is slaves to the illumimnati.

[Omnicrat]

TheMightyEthan wrote...

None of what you said there is false, so I direct you to my third point: you clearly don't know what "lead" means.

... maybe we're arguing about to different things if you agree with everything I said.

Lead:  To run, to be in charge of, to head

We are arguing about the validity of humanity leading the council and whether or not the president is the leader of America.

1)  Define lead

2)  Say what you think we are arguing about

(note: I think you might have "leader" confused with "figurehead")

[Omnicrat]

thatbwoyblu wrote...

It is the arrival of the new world order!I mean Bioware is slaves to the illumimnati.

The sad part is, I can't tell if you're jokeing.

[TheMightyEthan]

Well, as for the human led counsel thing, as I said before I'm not the one who described it that way, it is described that way either in the game or in one of the books, I don't remember which. I was simply putting forth reasons why the council is human-led in spite of the fact that people dislike humans, it was an official source that described it as "human-led" to begin with.

As for the definition of "lead", "be in charge of" is not the only one. If that were the sole definition, then you would be correct that the president does not lead the US and no one councilor can lead the council. It can also mean, however, to be the most prominent, or exert the most influence. By that definition the president *does* lead the US, and a single councilor *can* lead the council.

[Omnicrat]

TheMightyEthan wrote...

Well, as for the human led counsel thing, as I said before I'm not the one who described it that way, it is described that way either in the game or in one of the books, I don't remember which. I was simply putting forth reasons why the council is human-led in spite of the fact that people dislike humans, it was an official source that described it as "human-led" to begin with.

As for the definition of "lead", "be in charge of" is not the only one. If that were the sole definition, then you would be correct that the president does not lead the US and no one councilor can lead the council. It can also mean, however, to be the most prominent, or exert the most influence. By that definition the president *does* lead the US, and a single councilor *can* lead the council.

1)  I understand that you did not say it was a human-lead council, I'm just voicing a complaint about the impracticality of letting the council die leading to a human-lead council where saving the council and gaining the love, trust, and admiration of the galaxy for humanity leading to humans getting side-lined alot.  I'm arguing that the situation that makes it human-lead is unlikely at best and I thought you dissagreed with that.  Prehaps not.

2)  I dissagree that exerting the most influence (presumably through both officail and unofficail means) upon an organization makes one the de facto leader of said organization, but I can see this argument.  Still, even with your defenition, how does the human concilor hold more sway if everyone hates him than if everyone loves him?

(Edit note: The president is a figure head, but being a figure head no more makes one a leader then (than?) Big Brother was a real leader in 1984)

Modifié par Omnicrat, 28 février 2011 - 02:05 .

[TheMightyEthan]

I see one point of confusion: the council is "human led" regardless of whether you save the council or let it die, I wasn't trying to say that it was only human led if you let the original council die.

As for how he holds more sway than the other councilors even if everyone hates him: it's because of what I wrote above about how council space needs the human fleet to be able to hold itself together and defend itself against outside threats, so they are more deferential to the human council member even if they would rather not be.

[RGZ Archer]

I think something big is going to happen on April 4th.

Its odd, but I'm one of those people that actually listens to all the terminals in the game, news, ads, etc. Just a few minutes ago I was listening to one on the Citidel, right outside the electronics shop. It was odd because the ad was one I had never heard before, and I'vecycled through them several times.

I cant repeate word for word, but it was an ad for a C-Sec confiscated items auction, items included weapons, custom vehicles, electronics, various arts and crafts. The auction is set for April 4th 2185. Since time does not move in the Mass Effect universe and calanders along with specific dates are NEVER mentioned I thought this was extremely odd and possibly a teaser given by Bioware. Kasumi was released April of last year as well so it is plausable.

[TheMightyEthan]

April 11 has also been advanced because that's Shepard's birthday.

Both April 4 and 11 are Mondays though, and DLC usually comes out on Tuesdays (at least in the US).

[JustinBB7]

I saw a picture of Liara standing in a london subway, wonder if this is real:



And apparently there is another 1 of Shepard being stealthy/sneaky. Anybody know more? Or is it fake?

Modifié par JustinBB7, 28 février 2011 - 03:04 .

[RGZ Archer]

I said something big, not what exactly lol. I've managed to get the ad to play a few more times. If your interested its on the lowest floor on the side by the two shops. It says the time will be 8:30 zulu time on April 4th 2185.

Zulu time is more commonly known as Greenwich Mean Time, or GMT (thank you google) its possible that this is a play on timezones as it doesnt say AM or PM.

Really though I think there is something to this, its just too exact and too percise for an ad.

[TheMightyEthan]

RGZ Archer wrote...

I said something big, not what exactly lol.

lol, yeah, i thought of that right after I posted.

Does it say "eight thirty" or "zero eight thrity"?  The zero on the front could mean they're using 24 hour time, which would mean it's 8:30 AM.

[2kgnsiika]

2185/04/04 was almost one year ago, since ME2 is set in 2185 and came out in early 2010.

[Omnicrat]

TheMightyEthan wrote...

I see one point of confusion: the council is "human led" regardless of whether you save the council or let it die, I wasn't trying to say that it was only human led if you let the original council die.

As for how he holds more sway than the other councilors even if everyone hates him: it's because of what I wrote above about how council space needs the human fleet to be able to hold itself together and defend itself against outside threats, so they are more deferential to the human council member even if they would rather not be.

I have NEVER heard the council you save be called "human lead" befor.  They don't even act human lead ever.  Humanity can't get the votes it needs on pretty much everything you hear about and is viewed more like the turians used to be and still are.  Not as a leader but as a very powerful and important partner.  Hm... I guess under your defenition that would make both us and the turians the leaders of the council, wouldn't it?

Hm... that does make sense... still not seeing the whole human-lead thing comming from the concil you save, though.

[TheMightyEthan]

But as he points out, time doesn't really advance in the ME universe. Just because the game came out a year ago doesn't mean that it's now 2186 in-game.

[TheMightyEthan]

Omnicrat wrote...

I have NEVER heard the council you save be called "human lead" befor.  They don't even act human lead ever.  Humanity can't get the votes it needs on pretty much everything you hear about and is viewed more like the turians used to be and still are.  Not as a leader but as a very powerful and important partner.  Hm... I guess under your defenition that would make both us and the turians the leaders of the council, wouldn't it?

Hm... that does make sense... still not seeing the whole human-lead thing comming from the concil you save, though.

lol, I wish I could remember where that human-led thing came from.  Suffice it to say that I'm not trying to advance the notion that the council is in fact human-led, just trying to come up with a reasons that support that assuming that it was in fact described as such.

[Omnicrat]

TheMightyEthan wrote...

Omnicrat wrote...

I have NEVER heard the council you save be called "human lead" befor.  They don't even act human lead ever.  Humanity can't get the votes it needs on pretty much everything you hear about and is viewed more like the turians used to be and still are.  Not as a leader but as a very powerful and important partner.  Hm... I guess under your defenition that would make both us and the turians the leaders of the council, wouldn't it?

Hm... that does make sense... still not seeing the whole human-lead thing comming from the concil you save, though.

lol, I wish I could remember where that human-led thing came from.  Suffice it to say that I'm not trying to advance the notion that the council is in fact human-led, just trying to come up with a reasons that support that assuming that it was in fact described as such.

K.  I think your just remembering it being called human-lead in your kill-the-council game and throwing it into the whole cannon.

[TheMightyEthan]

Actually the more I think about it the more I think it was from the books.

*Edit* - And the books are player-choice neutral, so anything said in the book applies equally no matter what the player does.

Modifié par TheMightyEthan, 28 février 2011 - 03:22 .

[Omnicrat]

TheMightyEthan wrote...

Actually the more I think about it the more I think it was from the books.

*Edit* - And the books are player-choice neutral, so anything said in the book applies equally no matter what the player does.

Right... but in-game, they never call the saved council human lead... hm...

[JustinBB7]

JustinBB7 wrote...

I saw a picture of Liara standing in a london subway, wonder if this is real:



And apparently there is another 1 of Shepard being stealthy/sneaky. Anybody know more? Or is it fake?

Anybody? 

[Carl the Keeper]

JustinBB7 wrote...

JustinBB7 wrote...

I saw a picture of Liara standing in a london subway, wonder if this is real:



And apparently there is another 1 of Shepard being stealthy/sneaky. Anybody know more? Or is it fake?

Anybody? 

Can't tell whether this is fake or not, but at least two of the words in the bottom left are german. In the first line it's "...connection" and in the last line "...combustion oven". Hard to translate when you don't see the complete words. Would be strange for the London Underground though. Don't know how to interpret that image/screenshot. Maybe the background it is taken from another game.
Interesting though...

Modifié par Carl the Keeper, 28 février 2011 - 03:42 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

TheMightyEthan wrote...

But as he points out, time doesn't really advance in the ME universe. Just because the game came out a year ago doesn't mean that it's now 2186 in-game.

Actually, if you want to be strict, Arrival takes place in 2186, not in 2185 like the rest of ME2. Remember that Cerberus Daily News is real time; in other words, it IS 2186 in-game right now.

[Dragonfable of Dain]

Sound legit enough since there is bearly any information about it... If I saw a leaked trailer, however I will scream FRAUD!!!!