69153 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

is that dextro-flavoured hot chocolate?

Where do you suppose Tali got the milk for it?

From her sinuses!

[Unschuld]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

I shouldn't need to say how this is a terrible and desperate example. When hunting wolves (and fugitives) they are more or less united against the hunter.

It'll be the same with the quarians.

I don't see how the fleet is a threat to the Reapers in the first place. In fact scattering to the winds is probably the best way for the quarians to emerge from this conflict unscathed.

As I said in my (edited) post, there isn't any reason to be concerned with Quarians "having a better chance of survival" by scattering. They can only run for so long, and only have so many places to run to, since all they can to is FTL if they want to stay away from relays.... Which apparently reapers do much better by probably possessing a faster form of FTL. Doesn't matter. We don't care because we're not reapers checking our wris****ches every hour wondering how much longer it'll take to squash the last space gypseys.

Any forces that could be united against the reapers (even cannon fodder and logistics) is a valuable asset to the galactic population in terms of surviving the war. That's what matters.

Modifié par Unschuld, 05 février 2012 - 06:29 .

[Spartanburger]

Saphra Deden wrote...


Let's try another one.

Will you have an easier time hunting three wolves if they stay in a group or if they split up? (or fugitives, or whatever)

Split up. Taking down one is much easier than taking down three. Tracking three individuals may be difficult, but remember that in this situation I am part of an army consisting of thousands of nigh-unkillable starships. So what if I can't find them. I'll cut them off from their food, land, supplies, energy. They'll be forced to take greater and greater risks, and will be found eventually.

Saphra Deden wrote...

The reason you aren't supposed to meta-game is that it invalidates your argument. It's like going back and calling someone an idiot for doing something a certain way when the reasons why that was bad were only made apparent after the fact. You know, like hindsight.

I definitely see what you mean, although I disagree that it invalidates the argument, more that it doesn't support nor invalidate it at all.
BUT, when making decisions in the game and future outcomes are uncertain, one must weigh the odds and calculate what one is best at the time. Thus there are really two different ways to judge a decision: At the time of the decision, and at the time of the outcome. A good decision can turn bad and a bad decision can turn good.

Saphra Deden wrote...
"Shepard you should have hid the data because when you exposed it bad things happened!"

Well how was Shepard supposed to know that?

Easy. He should take a second and use what's between his ears to think about the possible outcomes of the decision at the time. Being berated for, what at the time may seemed like a good decision (assuming the outcome is unfavorable) is not very nice though.

Saphra Deden wrote...
No it isn't. If that were the case it would be impossible to make decisions, much less justify them, without being able to see the future.

That's absurd.

Now I think we may have different ideas as to what metagaming is.

"Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game." is what Wikipedia says.

I know that I have done this before, but I think you are expanding this on to a much wider set of thinking.

The conclusion that I reached if the data was released to the fleet: That it would split and weaken the fleet in their time of need, did not use anything outside the game itself. It did not transcend a prescribed ruleset (there are no established rules in the game for making a decision in it and having them is stupid and removes what makes games games: The ability for the player to make decisions he wants). I used only information from the game to reach the conclusion. The conclusion is easily possible within the game world.

That's not metagaming. That's cognition.

[XenoAlbedo]

Saphra Deden wrote...

XenoAlbedo wrote...

I didn't want to do this but Tali wants to state her opinion on these annoying arguments.

So what's her opinion? Once again she is being obstinant but not actually providing a solution of her own.

Typicial Tali.

First of all, I don't even know what this argument is on, I just know it's an argument and want it to stop.
Second of all, she stated her opinion: Deal with whatever problem you have and keep it to yourself.

[Unschuld]

Spartanburger wrote...


The conclusion that I reached if the data was released to the fleet: That it would split and weaken the fleet in their time of need, did not use anything outside the game itself. It did not transcend a prescribed ruleset (there are no established rules in the game for making a decision in it and having them is stupid and removes what makes games games: The ability for the player to make decisions he wants). I used only information from the game to reach the conclusion. The conclusion is easily possible within the game world.

That's not metagaming. That's cognition.

Hold on a sec... I think I'm getting some deja vu from something I posted in almost the same exact words against the exact same arguement against the exact same person a couple months ago...

[GodWood]

XenoAlbedo wrote...
First of all, I don't even know what this argument is on, I just know it's an argument and want it to stop.
Second of all, she stated her opinion: Deal with whatever problem you have and keep it to yourself.

There vill be no discussion in ze Tali thread! 卐

[Unschuld]

GodWood wrote...

XenoAlbedo wrote...
First of all, I don't even know what this argument is on, I just know it's an argument and want it to stop.
Second of all, she stated her opinion: Deal with whatever problem you have and keep it to yourself.

There vill be no discussion in ze Tali thread! *

I see your point and I can agree with it (to a degree), but it could probably be voiced with less irrelevant imagery of things representing ethnic cleansing and antisemitism.

[GodWood]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

XenoAlbedo wrote...
First of all, I don't even know what this argument is on, I just know it's an argument and want it to stop.
Second of all, she stated her opinion: Deal with whatever problem you have and keep it to yourself.

There vill be no discussion in ze Tali thread! 卐

How did you make that symbol?

Copied it from here.

[XenoAlbedo]

 Excuse me as I go bang my head against a wall. <_< I hope this discussion becomes more friendly by the time I get back so we can continue this thread peacefully.

[Unschuld]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The war is hopeless anyway, you know that.

Defeatist attitudes never won any conflicts that I can remember. I could probably think of several examples of overcoming "hopeless" odds, however.

Modifié par Unschuld, 05 février 2012 - 06:41 .

[Unschuld]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

I see your point and I can agree with it (to a degree), but it could probably be voiced with less irrelevant imagery of things representing ethnic cleansing and antisemitism.

Are you sure that's even the right symbol? There are several very simialr symbols which are often confused with the swastika.

Regardless, it's fitting.

True, I don't have a package of Indian tobacco rolls laying around anymore (which had the Hindu/mirror image symbol was printed on), but the point is the context of the statement.

Yeah, this forum is very on-topicy strict, annoyingly so at times. I can't even talk about the same subject ad infinitum like we're "supposed to", hence why I frequently get off-topic.

[Unschuld]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yeah, sure you can.

You know what defeatist attitudes do? They avoid senseless conflicts.

If it was hopeless you wouldn't have won. Though you need a healthy dose of skepticism. You need to keep your head out of the clouds.

How do you hide from an enemy that finds you wherever you run? Didn't end too well for the protheans, and I can see a less favorable fate for the Quarians. When anything has its back against the wall the only thing left to do is fight, anyway. At least then there's a chance of success because lying down and dying is a guaranteed failure.

Oh, I have plenty of skepticism already. However in this case they're machines, and machines can be broken. Or everyone dies anyway. At least we tried.

Modifié par Unschuld, 05 février 2012 - 06:54 .

[XenoAlbedo]

jreezy wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

The war is hopeless anyway, you know that.

Defeatist attitudes never won any conflicts that I can remember. I could probably think of several examples of overcoming "hopeless" odds, however.

Saphra sounds like Saren.

Now that I look at it, Saphra definitely does sound like Saren. The "We cannot win" speech, which was followed by Sovereign getting curb stomped.

[Unschuld]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

How do you hide from an enemy that finds you wherever you run? Didn't end too well for the protheans,

Like I said. They hide and hope the other races (which have considerably more firepower and resources) can win. If not they're dead anyway along with everyone else.

This is terrible, terrible psuedologic and I hope no one ever shares a foxhole with you.  


So.... Hide and *hope* that everyone wins, contributing nothing to the effort, meanwhile your contribution could have meant that victory was possible, but instead your lack of effort led the defeat. Then you get hunted down next. OR... You contribute something that could possibly lead to a favorable outcome. The worst that can happen is that you all die anyway, but at least you did something about it. Contribution=/=combat.