1127 réponses à ce sujet

[BellaStrega]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yeah when I wrote that piece I had my eyes crossed and drool dribbling down my chin.

Well played, at any rate.

In my own defense at being successfully trolled, I should say I've seen people here apparently argue that in all seriousness.

[Swampthing500]

Mass Effect has never been about choices = negative consequences.

Some RPGS (such as the Kotor series) have given you optional methods of resolving a situation based on skill, but if those skill checks fail, you must face the negative results.

Other RPGs have been about choosing the right response from an array of options. All those options save one lead to negative results.

What I love about the ME series it that the choices have been focused on equally viable ways to resolve a situation, based on different moral/philosophical aspects. No negative ressults, no right-choice-or-die scenarios, only perspective.

Let's keep it that way, devs!

[Gabey5]

No. if there was only one outcome or consequence what would be the point?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Mass Effect has never been about choices = negative consequences.

Some RPGS (such as the Kotor series) have given you optional methods of resolving a situation based on skill, but if those skill checks fail, you must face the negative results.

Other RPGs have been about choosing the right response from an array of options. All those options save one lead to negative results.

What I love about the ME series it that the choices have been focused on equally viable ways to resolve a situation, based on different moral/philosophical aspects. No negative ressults, no right-choice-or-die scenarios, only perspective.

Let's keep it that way, devs!

IF faliure is never na option, where is the challenge?
Where is the realism? Where is the gravity of choice if you know that whatever you choose, you can't fail?

There should be more than 1 way to deal with a situation, bet there should also be plausible conseuqences ranging from one wtreeme to anohter.
You might have several options that are all eqully viable and have similar results. OR you might have 3 options where one is really bad, the other is mediocre and one excelletn. And everything in between.
Just like in real life.

[Aramintai]

Gabey5 wrote...

No. if there was only one outcome or consequence what would be the point?

Yea, I agree. There would be no point in branching paragon and renegade dialogue options if they both lead to the same consequence. But I understand what ultimately people want here - paragon\\renegade dialogues not only with different actual dialogues and interrupts, but also with different, yet both rewarding consequences. For a simple example, what can be done with that mercenary wannabe from Samara's mission:

-if you shot her in ME2, in ME3 you would not be opposed by a gang she may have amassed at some crucial moment during a  mission and can get to some point in time to save more lives.
-if you let her go in ME2, in ME3 she'll appear reformed by leaving the gang and may even help Shepard clear out some gangs, or give intel about them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Luc0s wrote...

AVPen wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

- Keep Collector base (Ren): Even when you don't trust TIM, you can't deny that this base might contain valuable intel on the reapers.

Question:
If you don't trust someone at all, why the **** would you just hand him a goody-bag of the Reapers tech for him to turn around and screw you over on? Unless you really don't trust him at all on major issues, but you're holding on to just a sliver of hope that maybe, maybe he'll be a good little boy and share some of his goodies with you?

Answer:
Without meta-gaming (e.g. withouth the ME3 spoilers), I'd thought that even though I don't trust TIM, he still is an organic, a human, like Shepard. That means he too is a target of the reapers, like Shepard. That means that whatever TIM's ultimate goal is, he too needs to get rid of the reapers.

Since the reapers are the most urgent threat right now, I'm willing to form an alliance with TIM, even though I don't like him and don't trust him, we still share a common enemy. So if TIM thinks he can do somehing against the reapers with that Collector base, I'm willing to give him that base.

This human understands..

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

For a risk vs. risk decision, such as Collector Base, the consequences should be as close to equal as they can make it: pros and cons for both sides, only pros for both sides, only cons for both sides.

No.

Low risk,  High gains (keep base) vs. High risk, no gains (destroy base) should bite paragons in the ass. Teh consequence should hit htem like the first of an angry god.

Of course, that's not gonan happen. Bio will wuss out of making logical decisions with logical consequences...

Oh please. I've been down that road with you and this much is clear: you couldn't see dire negative consequences if it were shown to you on a map.

Giving the Collector Base-of-Operations to an egomaniac with unchecked power and an unprecedented failure record is not low-risk in the least.

You couldn't properly asses risk/reward and prioritize if your life depended on it.

We've been over this before, and your argument have ben lacking in proper support. You failed to provide any evidence TIM woudl turn agaist the races of the galaxy, failed to even provide proper motivation; you failed ot provide any concrete plan on how to defeat reapers or demonstrate that it's even possible to defeat them.
You have uttery faield to debunk my analysis of the reaper advantages and the disproportionate balance of power.

So, untill you properly adress those points, your theories have no legs to stand on.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Drone223 wrote...

Yet another PvR thread, you continue to amaze (sp) me BSN

I am not a renegade.. I'm actually a almsot full paragon
However, there are a few instances where the renegade choice is clearly the more sensible one. And that's what I go after. Damn the labels, full speed ahead!

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IF faliure is never na option, where is the challenge?
Where is the realism? Where is the gravity of choice if you know that whatever you choose, you can't fail?

There should be more than 1 way to deal with a situation, bet there should also be plausible conseuqences ranging from one wtreeme to anohter.
You might have several options that are all eqully viable and have similar results. OR you might have 3 options where one is really bad, the other is mediocre and one excelletn. And everything in between.
Just like in real life.

You mean, the game that's revolving around ground-breaking scientific technology built by ancient machines that have systematically wiped out thousands of civilizations for millions of years isn't realistic?

No way!

Seriously, the argument that Mass Effect isn't realistic is WEAK.

[Swampthing500]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Mass Effect has never been about choices = negative consequences.

Some RPGS (such as the Kotor series) have given you optional methods of resolving a situation based on skill, but if those skill checks fail, you must face the negative results.

Other RPGs have been about choosing the right response from an array of options. All those options save one lead to negative results.

What I love about the ME series it that the choices have been focused on equally viable ways to resolve a situation, based on different moral/philosophical aspects. No negative ressults, no right-choice-or-die scenarios, only perspective.

Let's keep it that way, devs!

IF faliure is never na option, where is the challenge?
Where is the realism? Where is the gravity of choice if you know that whatever you choose, you can't fail?

There should be more than 1 way to deal with a situation, bet there should also be plausible conseuqences ranging from one wtreeme to anohter.
You might have several options that are all eqully viable and have similar results. OR you might have 3 options where one is really bad, the other is mediocre and one excelletn. And everything in between.
Just like in real life.

The challenge comes from combat. The social/dialogue aspect was always about story, characters, how they interact, how the player chooses to resolve situations and how everybody develops.

Social/dialogue interaction was never a test, where you had to find the right answer. It was always about putting you and your philosophy/morality into the story.

Modifié par Swampthing500, 20 décembre 2011 - 08:43 .

[Swampthing500]

Aramintai wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

No. if there was only one outcome or consequence what would be the point?

Yea, I agree. There would be no point in branching paragon and renegade dialogue options if they both lead to the same consequence. But I understand what ultimately people want here - paragonrenegade dialogues not only with different actual dialogues and interrupts, but also with different, yet both rewarding consequences. For a simple example, what can be done with that mercenary wannabe from Samara's mission:

-if you shot her in ME2, in ME3 you would not be opposed by a gang she may have amassed at some crucial moment during a  mission and can get to some point in time to save more lives.
-if you let her go in ME2, in ME3 she'll appear reformed by leaving the gang and may even help Shepard clear out some gangs, or give intel about them.

It was never about the same outcome, but about different but equally viable outcomes.

[Lumikki]

Luc0s wrote...

 Sometimes the Renegade choice is the most logical choice. Sometimes the Paragon choice is the most logical choice. That's how it is in Mass Effect.


The most logical choices in my opion are:

ME1:
- Kill Fist (Ren): Fist is a scumbag. There is no reason to let him go freely.
- Save Feros colonists (Par): Humans have to help each other, because no one else will.
- Kill Shaila (Ren): She was indoctrinated, possibly still is. Too risky to let her stay with the Feros colonists.
- Save Rachni Queen (Par): She could become a valuable ally against the reapers.
- Kill Balak (Ren): He's obviously way too dangerous to let him go.
- Focus on Sovereign (Neutral): Killing Sovereign is obviously the highest priority.

ME2:
- Keep genophage cure data (Par): We need the krogan at their best against the reapers.
- Rewrite heretic geth (Par): With Legion, the geth are valuable ally against the reapers, thus more geth = better.
- Advocate peace between the quarians and geth (Par): We need every species focussed on the reapers.
- Stop project Overlord (Par): With Legion and his geth as our ally, Overlord becomes counter-productive.
- Keep Collector base (Ren): Even when you don't trust TIM, you can't deny that this base might contain valuable intel on the reapers.

I would not make same choices than you do, or even think that they are the most logical. That's the hole point that everyone can make they own choices as what they think is the "best" choice for them, without it been wrong choice. I think half of my choices would be different.

Some people seem to think that everyting has to be like there is one optimal path to something. It's not allways have to be so, it can also be just different way to get same goal. I don't mean that player can't make wrong choices what cause issues for player, but that there is just one optimal way to play the game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 11:15 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Andorfiend wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The second has no basis whatsoever. The Only time TIM witheld info is the Collector cruiser, and he had a good reason. How is that "constantly"?

During your first conversation he withheld his suspicions about the collectors.

During Horizon he withheld information about him baiting them.

I don't think there was a single converstion with TIM where he didn't withold information. Even for something as minor as Zaeed and Kasumi's dossiers he couldn't bring himself to tell Shepard that he has made side deals with them, to do their loyalty missions, even though both of them tell you it was a condition for their being hired. It's habitual with him, even when nothing is to be gained. OF course he is, at all points, also trying to mainipulate you. He is incapable of grasping that a fully informed ally is better than a partially informed tool.
 

Witholding information that is not relevant is not the same as lying.

TIM has SUSPICIONS. They were unconfirmed. No reason to tell you. Why trouble you with theories?

Horizon - no reason to tell you. Why should he? Does the Council tell you everything? Does the Alliance? Nope. NEED TO KNOW basis.

He tells you all you need to complete the mission. That's what military brass always does.

Shep is supposed to be military, so he should be used to that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IF faliure is never na option, where is the challenge?
Where is the realism? Where is the gravity of choice if you know that whatever you choose, you can't fail?

There should be more than 1 way to deal with a situation, bet there should also be plausible conseuqences ranging from one wtreeme to anohter.
You might have several options that are all eqully viable and have similar results. OR you might have 3 options where one is really bad, the other is mediocre and one excelletn. And everything in between.
Just like in real life.

You mean, the game that's revolving around ground-breaking scientific technology built by ancient machines that have systematically wiped out thousands of civilizations for millions of years isn't realistic?

No way!

Seriously, the argument that Mass Effect isn't realistic is WEAK.

Oh, shut it you.

You know exactly what I mean. Believabiltiy. Versimilitude. Immersion.
Pick your poision.


Real life is unpredictible and choices nad situation run the whoel range. You don't always have jsut 3 option. You don't always have  jsut 1 right choice. Variability.


2 choices. 3. 4. 5. 10..

1 good. 2 good. 4 good. all good. no good.

mix it up.
Unless you think it would be bad?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
IF faliure is never na option, where is the challenge?
Where is the realism? Where is the gravity of choice if you know that whatever you choose, you can't fail?

There should be more than 1 way to deal with a situation, bet there should also be plausible conseuqences ranging from one wtreeme to anohter.
You might have several options that are all eqully viable and have similar results. OR you might have 3 options where one is really bad, the other is mediocre and one excelletn. And everything in between.
Just like in real life.

The challenge comes from combat. The social/dialogue aspect was always about story, characters, how they interact, how the player chooses to resolve situations and how everybody develops.

Social/dialogue interaction was never a test, where you had to find the right answer. It was always about putting you and your philosophy/morality into the story.

So the only challenge should be combat? Why? Why limit oneself so?
Even what it makes no sense at all.

You say i'ts about putting you and your philospohy/morality into the stor,y but you want to avoid logical consequences of that pilosophy/morality. IF everything can be solved by combat (and making the fight more difficult is nothing to the player. Unless htere's more to it) then where'the true gravity of such decisions.

[BellaStrega]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You couldn't properly asses risk/reward and prioritize if your life depended on it.

We've been over this before, and your argument have ben lacking in proper support. You failed to provide any evidence TIM woudl turn agaist the races of the galaxy, failed to even provide proper motivation; you failed ot provide any concrete plan on how to defeat reapers or demonstrate that it's even possible to defeat them.
You have uttery faield to debunk my analysis of the reaper advantages and the disproportionate balance of power.

So, untill you properly adress those points, your theories have no legs to stand on.

Did you even play the first two games?

I am curious, because you seem to be viewing TIM and Cerberus through rose-colored glasses. Really, what would a violent human supremacist organization willing to go to any lengths to achieve success, and even greater lengths to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat (given how spectacular their failures tend to be), be willing to do to the rest of the galaxy with Reaper technology?

All of the information you receive on Cerberus in both games points to a ruthless organization willing to take any action to promote human ascendance in the galaxy. Speaking logically, from the information you have available, you cannot trust The Illusive Man past a certain point, and that point is apparent early on. And if you understand this, his decision at the 11th hour to ask you to preserve the base for Cerberus makes perfect sense: He wants the power the Collectors represent. Certainly, he doesn't want the Reapers to overrun the galaxy, but that's because it's where he keeps all of his stuff.

You may choose to believe his argument that the Collector Base will provide the necessary technology to fight the Reapers, and that he will use it as such, but you honestly don't really know, and history shows that his behavior is, well, as above. You may choose to believe that indoctrination will not be a problem, even though it has been a problem on multiple other occasions. Handing that base over to TIM may mean handing Cerberus' resources and knowledge over to Harbinger before the Reapers arrive.

As for concrete plans to defeat the Reapers: There is not enough information to make any predictions. You may argue that the Collector Base is necessary for victory, but there is simply no evidence that this is so. You are just as likely at least to simply add to the number of enemies you have to fight by doing so.

Logically speaking.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Oh, shut it you.

You know exactly what I mean. Believabiltiy. Versimilitude. Immersion.
Pick your poision.


Real life is unpredictible and choices nad situation run the whoel range. You don't always have jsut 3 option. You don't always have  jsut 1 right choice. Variability.


2 choices. 3. 4. 5. 10..

1 good. 2 good. 4 good. all good. no good.

mix it up.
Unless you think it would be bad?

Give me one good reason why it should be realistic beyond diversity instead and I might care.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I thought you can make differences to the end in Mass Effect 3 ... and your decision does matter, like the games like Knights of the old Republic and Fallout: New Vegas.
If the purpose of putting Renegade options is to expand jackassness in the game for lulz and not for important and realistic consequences, I will be sorry for degrading in Bioware games.

[Lotion Soronarr]

BellaStrega wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You couldn't properly asses risk/reward and prioritize if your life depended on it.

We've been over this before, and your argument have ben lacking in proper support. You failed to provide any evidence TIM woudl turn agaist the races of the galaxy, failed to even provide proper motivation; you failed ot provide any concrete plan on how to defeat reapers or demonstrate that it's even possible to defeat them.
You have uttery faield to debunk my analysis of the reaper advantages and the disproportionate balance of power.

So, untill you properly adress those points, your theories have no legs to stand on.

Did you even play the first two games?

I am curious, because you seem to be viewing TIM and Cerberus through rose-colored glasses. Really, what would a violent human supremacist organization willing to go to any lengths to achieve success, and even greater lengths to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat (given how spectacular their failures tend to be), be willing to do to the rest of the galaxy with Reaper technology?

You mean Cerberus woudl risk surival of humantiy to maybe assure dominance of humanity?
Makes no sense. Huaminty can't be dominant if it's not alive.

No rose-tinted glasses. Cerberus is ruthless and bent on it's goal. But it's goal is for the galaxy to survive the reapers.
You're the one who makes no sense here, asy ou assume cerberus will do comicly stupid stuff for the sake of being evil - evne whan its' detremental to their goal.

All of the information you receive on Cerberus in both games points to a ruthless organization willing to take any action to promote human ascendance in the galaxy. Speaking logically, from the information you have available, you cannot trust The Illusive Man past a certain point, and that point is apparent early on. And if you understand this, his decision at the 11th hour to ask you to preserve the base for Cerberus makes perfect sense: He wants the power the Collectors represent. Certainly, he doesn't want the Reapers to overrun the galaxy, but that's because it's where he keeps all of his stuff.

Nope. Speaking logicly, you can safely trust TIM to do whatever he can to save huamnity and fight reapers. It's what he's been doign for 20 years.

It is you who assume Cerberus will shoot itself in the foot, and TIM will do a compelte 180° in regards to his persionality and goals. You happily ignore 20 years of past actions to jsutify your TIM/Cerberus hate.

All of this "TIM wants everything for himself" is not supported by anything. Not the comics, not the game, not anything.

Logicly, from the information you have avialable, it is illogical to assume Cerberus will turn against you.
After all, you're both facing a threat that is far more powerfull than you. Both Shep and TIM know what happens to reaper slaves/servants.

You may choose to believe his argument that the Collector Base will provide the necessary technology to fight the Reapers, and that he will use it as such, but you honestly don't really know, and history shows that his behavior is, well, as above. You may choose to believe that indoctrination will not be a problem, even though it has been a problem on multiple other occasions. Handing that base over to TIM may mean handing Cerberus' resources and knowledge over to Harbinger before the Reapers arrive.

I believe the facts present on reaper strength. I saw a single reaper, alone, caught with his pants down, butchering our fleet nonchalantly.
I believe we got no chance agaisnt the reapers as it is - it's pretty well supported by the game and codex.
I believe the base may yield cruuicial advantages - all study of reper tech did. Again, supported by the game.
I beliee it is in tIMs, Cerberuses and humanites best interests

As for concrete plans to defeat the Reapers: There is not enough information to make any predictions. You may argue that the Collector Base is necessary for victory, but there is simply no evidence that this is so. You are just as likely at least to simply add to the number of enemies you have to fight by doing so.

Logically speaking.

Yes, there is enough information. But of course, since you don't like those predictions, it's easier to just ignore em, right.


In all these discussion, not once has anyone yet managed to prove me wrong on the reaper advantages arguments. And if you cannot debunk that, then you cannot claim that we have any credible chance of wining this war.
And if we cannot win this war, then we have to grab ever opportunity to try and remove those advantages, no matter how remote (and the CB is anything but remote).

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Oh, shut it you.

You know exactly what I mean. Believabiltiy. Versimilitude. Immersion.
Pick your poision.


Real life is unpredictible and choices nad situation run the whoel range. You don't always have jsut 3 option. You don't always have  jsut 1 right choice. Variability.


2 choices. 3. 4. 5. 10..

1 good. 2 good. 4 good. all good. no good.

mix it up.
Unless you think it would be bad?

Give me one good reason why it should be realistic beyond diversity instead and I might care.

What kind of diversity ou talking about?

And why should't it?
Believabiltiy makes the universe feel more "real", which in turn increases immersion.
Also, believabiltiy halps make a setting feel more mature.

But if you prefer, predictable, artifical and trite....

[Someone With Mass]

Okay, credibility and realism aren't the only things that create immersion.

Because in that case, anyone that ever played a fantasy game wouldn't feel immersed.

Not to mention that it has nothing to do with the maturity of the setting. No, that would lie in the nature of the characters that inhabits that particular universe.

Besides, Mass Effect rejected all attempts at being realistic a long time ago, because I doubt any real government would allow a potential coup like the one after the battle of the Citadel go without response or that they would create agents like the Spectres that can disobey any law just for the sake of maintaining law and order without running over any bumps in the road. The laws weren't written to be dismissed so quickly.

[CroGamer002]

^Ahem, Turians started a Cold War with Alliance if Council died.

Reason why they didn't do some real action is because most of Citadel was guarded by Alliance fleet and military, while going with war with Alliance would have been just devastating for both sides.

And sanctions wouldn't work since, well, Alliance has power in Council and controls Citadel.

It is for the best just prepare and wait for Alliance to make mistake until making major action about that coup.

[Someone With Mass]

Okay, the combined forces of the Citadel races would be more than enough to knock humanity off their throne and I doubt the turians would be alone in such an act.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 20 décembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[Lumikki]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope. Speaking logicly, .....

What seem logical to you aren't allways same to others. Logic is based every persons own values as how they see everyting in the life and how they think something should be.

So, what you argue is you own perspective vs someones else perspective. Right? Meaning it seem logical to you...

Most arguments exist because person doesn't accept others perspectives to look something. Meaning you see something different ways and don't think other way is right, because it doesn't fit in your own values how you see things or want them to be. How ever, others may not share same values than you, so they argue back agaist your values. What cause neverending argument, because different values in life.

Only way get to pass it, is accepting that someone else just doesn't share same point of view and you can't change others opinions. Meaning no-one can pass they own values of life like they are fact of life to everyone. Point been, what seem logical to you, may not be logical to someone else, because they different way seeing things.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 11:48 .

[BellaStrega]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

In all these discussion, not once has anyone yet managed to prove me wrong on the reaper advantages arguments. And if you cannot debunk that, then you cannot claim that we have any credible chance of wining this war.
And if we cannot win this war, then we have to grab ever opportunity to try and remove those advantages, no matter how remote (and the CB is anything but remote).

This is because you do not pay attention to nor apparently understand what other people are saying. You just say "nope, you're wrong" and post the same arguments over and over. You won't see any arguments that contradict your cherished beliefs because you do not wish to see them. The fault is not with the points people bring to you, it's in your own ideological rigidity over a video game.

You see, the funny thing here is that in my first play through, I gave the collector base to TIM for many of the reasons you have yourself stated. But that doesn't mean there were not and are not valid reasons for withholding it, as I have done on my second and third play throughs.

As for Cerberus shooting itself in the foot: It is axiomatic that anyone intended to do large scale work on a Reaper installation walked in with guns pointed at their feet. It's only a matter of when the trigger goes off. If you paid attention to the games, you would be aware of this. Every large scale operation involving Reaper technology - Bahak, the Derelict, Sovereign - result in mass indoctrination, and sometimes eventual huskification of the people working on that technology. The second attempt to study and understand Sovereign resulted in Sovereign attacking the Citadel with a geth fleet at its back. Are you really sure that would never happen with the Collector Base? 

And no, there really is not enough information to decide whether or not it's possible to fight the Reapers. Yes, Sovereign was difficult to stop. No, we don't know what all of the Reapers are like and they may not all be the same kind of monsters that Sovereign was. We do know that in order to take on the intelligent spacefaring races in each cycle that Reapers shut down the Mass Relays, to better divide and conquer. Surely that wouldn't be necessary if they were undefeatable. Sovereign was a surprise attack. Surprise attacks have a tendency to be extremely damaging before anyone can react. And finally, Sovereign was backed by a geth fleet, which no doubt had a lot to do with how dangerous the attack was.

Now, see, those paragraphs? I make actual arguments in them on the basis of material provided in the books and games. Anyone could play these games and come to similar conclusions because none of this information is cryptic and hidden. You may not agree with it, but this does not mean that you possess the only possible truth.

And please, knock it off with the "logic." Your arguments are not that logical - you mostly say "No, you're wrong," state the opposite of what you're trying to refute, and call it logical. Even if your logic were valid, that does not mean that the arguments you use logic to support are also valid. There's a phrase - "garbage in, garbage out." If your baseline data is rubbish, then any logical conclusions you derive from that data is rubbish. And the idea that anyone could safely tame a Reaper ship or installation without a proper understanding of just what indoctrination  is, is - bluntly - rubbish. And I know from reading the novels that Cerberus has no idea what indoctrination really is, just what the results of it are. Is the risk worth it for the rewards? Maybe. Some people say yes (like you, although I get the impression you don't believe the risks are there), and some people say no.

Modifié par BellaStrega, 20 décembre 2011 - 12:14 .