1053 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Elite Midget wrote...

You clearly haven't read this whole Topic GA. If you did you would know that this Topic was made way before the GI issue thus your arguement hsa no basis for what happened up to page 24.

Waiting for that lock.

"Oh no!  I was wrong!  QUICK!  DESTROY THE EVIDENCE!"

[CulturalGeekGirl]

mrsph wrote...

Even in Mass Effect 2 you had characters that were essentially clones of each other skill wise. Like Garrus and Zaeed.

I actually found it interesting that we had two full biotics, two tech experts with drones, two stealthers, etc. It actually made it a lot more believable that people would carry over, even with deaths - there was some level of redundancy in every role.

[Zulu_DFA]

mrsph wrote...

Even in Mass Effect 2 you had characters that were essentially clones of each other skill wise. Like Garrus and Zaeed.

Are you kidding? Inferno Grenade FTW!!!

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

mrsph wrote...

Even in Mass Effect 2 you had characters that were essentially clones of each other skill wise. Like Garrus and Zaeed.

Are you kidding? Inferno Grenade FTW!!!

True, but they've said they'll likely have more branching with skills in ME3. Which might mean that if you have a pure biotic, you can choose to give them one of several biotic ultimates. Or that different soldier-types can learn Inferno Grenade.

[-Skorpious-]

No, Garrus and Zaeed have pretty much exactly the same moveset.

[lovgreno]

mrsph wrote...

Seems there is a flexible roster if you got squadmembers, like Garrus, killed.

Yep, this basicaly sums everything up.

[Speakeasy13]

-Skorpious- wrote...

No, Garrus and Zaeed have pretty much exactly the same moveset.

They are very similar, considering how their alternate abilities how mirror opposite of each other. armor-piercing vs. disruptor (shield) ammo; overload (area shield) vs. inferno grenade (area armor).

But Zaeed's passive powers are MUCH more powerful, with that +50% dmg option.

[Elite Midget]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
"Oh no!  I was wrong!  QUICK!  DESTROY THE EVIDENCE!"

A prime example as to why this Topic must be locked. People like this contribute nothing and only serve to cause mischeif and attempt to toss venom at others when some had desired intelligent debate. So here's one of the many reasons as to why I have requested a lock.

Modifié par Elite Midget, 11 avril 2011 - 03:12 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Elite Midget wrote...

A prime example as to why this Topic must be locked. People like this contribute nothing and only serve to cause mischeif and attempt to toss venom at others when some had desired intelligent debate. So here's one of the many reasons as to why I have requested a lock.

So basically, you're mad that you lost the debate and we're celebrating.

[Dave666]

Elite Midget wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
"Oh no!  I was wrong!  QUICK!  DESTROY THE EVIDENCE!"

A prime example as to why this Topic must be locked. People like this contribute nothing and only serve to cause mischeif and attempt to toss venom at others when some had desired intelligent debate. So here's one of the many reasons as to why I have requested a lock.

Don't worry, locked or not, this thread will be remembered. 

[johnbonhamatron]

Actually, I was one of the ones who would've liked intelligent debate, but I'm kinda with Cheez on this one...

:-P

[lovgreno]

This thread makes me think of that philosophical thing about half full or half empty glasses...

Modifié par lovgreno, 11 avril 2011 - 03:32 .

[Elite Midget]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

A prime example as to why this Topic must be locked. People like this contribute nothing and only serve to cause mischeif and attempt to toss venom at others when some had desired intelligent debate. So here's one of the many reasons as to why I have requested a lock.

So basically, you're mad that you lost the debate and we're celebrating.

Mad? No, not at all. Though if this is you celebrateing than what have you been doing for the other 30+ Pages, hm? Celebrateing?

[AdmiralCheez]

Elite Midget wrote...

Mad? No, not at all. Though if this is you celebrateing than what have you been doing for the other 30+ Pages, hm? Celebrateing?

Well, we warned you that you'd be proven wrong, didn't we?

[lovgreno]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Mad? No, not at all. Though if this is you celebrateing than what have you been doing for the other 30+ Pages, hm? Celebrateing?

Well, we warned you that you'd be proven wrong, didn't we?

We warned them that they might be proven wrong. We weren't the ones who said that anything that was different from what we were guessing was impossible.

[Dave666]

johnbonhamatron wrote...

Actually, I was one of the ones who would've liked intelligent debate, but I'm kinda with Cheez on this one...

:-P

Many of us wanted an intelligent debate, many of us did in fact try, repeatedly.  The evidence for this is in this and other threads.

Not once was the OP willing to concede that he was stating his opinion.  Not once was he willing to say, I can see where you are coming from, but I believe this to be the case.  Every single time we suggested something we were met with the same old arguments, over and over again, ad nauseum. Not once was he willing to accept that Variables are not Constants.  His view has always been, that because a character COULD die then they should not return.  It was pointed out repeatedly that a character's only real variable for not returning was simply down to the writers. When we mentioned the idea that if a character was dead in someones playthrough then that character was simply unavaliable, this was met with claims by the OP of Retcons and similar nonsense.


Honestly, read through the thread, it really does speak for itself.

[AdmiralCheez]

lovgreno wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Mad? No, not at all. Though if this is you celebrateing than what have you been doing for the other 30+ Pages, hm? Celebrateing?

Well, we warned you that you'd be proven wrong, didn't we?

We warned them that they might be proven wrong. We weren't the ones who said that anything that was different from what we were guessing was impossible.

Ah, true.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I've learned something very important, both about the internet, and about forums in particular, from inhabiting these boards over these last few short weeks.

If you start a thread titled "Hey, maybe we should eat some broccoli, if you like. Here are my ideas for Broccoli recipes, and some information on the health benefits," people will read your post, agree with you, and not reply to it. It will fade from the front pages quickly, without having a chance to become hot.

If you start a thread titled "Broccoli is poison - why I'm right," then you'll have pro-and-anti broccoli posters going seven kind of nuts in it, and it will become "hot" almost immediately.

This kind of thread, this is where you can post your reasonable discussions, and have them appreciated. If you say "either is possible, but something in the middle is much more likely" you will have people who feel strongly on both sides to argue with. Reasonable people, instead of just nodding at your post and agreeing silently, will feel like they want to post, because disagreement is a great motivator. At first I wondered why we can't I have a nice thread where absolutely everyone is reasonable and we all express our opinions with complete respect? Then I realized it is because that is boring, and after a page or two it essentially boils down to "Well, have we established everything? Ok. Good. We're done I guess." (That or shops, anyway.) But I can't start a thread with a definite opinion on something that I'm not 100% sure about. I just don't have it in me.

So I like threads like this. They provide a place for reasoned debate, largely because they start off polarizing. As time goes on, if it is allowed, and fueled by a few people who don't wish to compromise, it can become a wellspring of both creativity and humor.