743 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

Terror_K wrote...
What post? I've never said anywhere in here that "everybody who disagrees with me is a Biodrone" (or something of that ilk). I said that you were, and that you were trying to encourage more of those type of posters to come in. A "Biodrone" is made clear in the way they post, rather than what they post.

And I am saying that you are trying to backpeddle like hell.

This is your post:
"Terror is complaining, let's just rag on him because he doesn't suck the BioWare phallus."

This is not arrogance, this is not stupidity, this is downright lying to yourself.

Yes, Terror. You appear to think that people dislike you, or even downright think you are an idiot because you are not a biodrone. You keep telling yourself that these forums attack anyone who isn't a fanboy. You even have the nerve to quote this specifically, and claim that this is the reason that the thread has devolved, rather than the fact that it had hit rock bottom from the moment you clicked on "Post Thread".

Complaining about your unintelligent rant thread goint to hell and back. Sheesh, these boards, sometimes...

Here's a few...

You actually mean that these are all in the thread until now? Because I just checked it, and again, you are trying to make your supporters greater by supposedly only posting a portion of these posts.

The mechanic itself is extremelly important because it brings the fuel requirement, which in turn stops the players from mining the entire galaxy at once without being too restrictive. The fact that not only has this not been realized once, but in none of these posts I can see an intelligent argument, says a lot.

Terror.

• You have made numerous rant threads that hold no merit.
• You make yet another one.
• You haven't once replied to the intelligent arguments concerning your rant, but rather resorted to personal attacks because, hey, you can't actually reply to them.
• You are still perpetuating this situation by cherry picking quotes out of arguments and replying to what you wish
• You claim that your rant holds merit and intelligence
• You proceed to quote 4 people who provide no intelligent argument in their posts to justify their position.

So, I'll go ahead and ask you. You, who have complained about this thread devolving, when are you actually going to make an intelligent argument to support your position.

Yes, you didn't like it. Big deal. You had never developed a rational argument against the flying Normandy, and yet, you complain about BioWare doing what suits them best.

No, sorry, complaining suggests that there is intelligence or criticism in a post. You downright accept that this a rant, ergo, inane whining.

I'll wait for the moment you'll start providing arguments, rather than complain about other people not doing so. Ta-ta.

It just feels... silly to me. Like if I were to watch a serious sci-fi movie or show and see a ship's captain go to the map and start moving around a little toy of his ship while making engine noises. It just feels out of place, stupid and wrong, IMO. I never really saw the point of it at all in ME2 in the first place, and using it annoyed me and pulled me out of the game because I was just thinking how pointless and silly it was.

This again, I believe demonestrates that the problem is your maturity, which was in the first place, the reason this thread was created.

As I had just said, the intelligence of things is not rated by how much Terror_K raves or groans about them. Therefore, it can not be wrong, stupid or silly.

You simply dislike it on principle, and while ranting about it, you seem to think to be in a position to call it stupid. (!) The problem of course is, you are posting exactly why you disliked it, ("
t annoyed me and pulled me out of the game because I was just thinking how pointless and silly it was. ") and yet you are resorting to a childish excuse to justify your opinion. I call it childish, because for not one moment do I fall for "Yeah, I totally thought that it was Shepard moving the Normandy around in the galaxy map". You did essentially the same in ME1, other than the fact that you didn't travel between subcluster systems.

[AlanC9]

Good point about fuel, Phaedon. I don't see how that mechanic can work without tracking the ship's real position.

It's a strange kind of "realism" that ends up abolishing physical constraints on the ship's operations.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

So the ship is wherever my cursor is, no matter how I move the mouse? That feels a lot more wrong than the little model. Or are you saying that we shouldn't care where the ship actually is; it's in a state of quantum uncertainty until we actually interact with some object in the ME universe?

Let me ask you this: where was the ship in ME1 when we were using the cursor? From how I understood it, the cursor wasn't literally the ship, but more an interface for you as Shepard to basically say, "I want to check this out" or "I want to go here" or "I want to scan this area" and then the people actually trained to fly the ship (Joker, Pressly, etc.) would actually take you there. I didn't see it as literal as it was never presented as such... not until ME2.

What does "chibi"  mean, anyway?

Small and cute basically. While not entirely accurate perhaps, it's a simple way of saying, "the mini Reapers that chase you seem more cute and silly than menacing and dangerous given their representation" basically. It's easier to simply write "chibi" than that every time.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

Let me ask you this: where was the ship in ME1 when we were using the cursor? From how I understood it, the cursor wasn't literally the ship, but more an interface for you as Shepard to basically say, "I want to check this out" or "I want to go here" or "I want to scan this area" and then the people actually trained to fly the ship (Joker, Pressly, etc.) would actually take you there. I didn't see it as literal as it was never presented as such... not until ME2.

That's the best way to interpret how ME1 does things, yep. But that's a bad system. It's limited. The ship can only ever be at whatever I last clicked on. It magically and instantly appears there. No fuel used, no time taken.

Something like the DA:O overland map would be workable.

In any event, if you accept the ME1 map you've already accepted a high degree of abstraction. It's OK to do that, but if ME2 uses a different kind of abstraction you're in no position to oppose it because of "realism" or some such.

What does "chibi"  mean, anyway?

Small and cute basically. While not entirely accurate perhaps, it's a simple way of saying, "the mini Reapers that chase you seem more cute and silly than menacing and dangerous given their representation" basically. It's easier to simply write "chibi" than that every time.

Easier as long as someone's heard the word before. Is "chibi" in common use where you are? It's just so rare for me to see a word for the first time like this.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 février 2012 - 07:50 .

[JeffZero]

"Chibi" has become kind of a common thing on the internet this past decade or so. In otaku subculture it's remarkably common; depending on where you went to high school, how old you are and if you've ever stepped foot in a convention before in your life there's a good chance you've heard it hundreds of times without realizing it.

[WizenSlinky0]

JeffZero wrote...

"Chibi" has become kind of a common thing on the internet this past decade or so. In otaku subculture it's remarkably common; depending on where you went to high school, how old you are and if you've ever stepped foot in a convention before in your life there's a good chance you've heard it hundreds of thousands of times without realizing it.

Let's not underestimate how often that word is used in certain situations. Hundreds is such a low-ball number, I just had to correct it.

[AlanC9]

Thanks, Jeff. Weird that I've never seen it on the internet. Not so weird that I've never heard it IRL; I don't do conventions, and at 47 I'm out of the demographic.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 février 2012 - 07:54 .

[JeffZero]

@Wizen: Hah, perhaps so.

@Alan: No problemo.

[Terror_K]

Phaedon wrote...

And I am saying that you are trying to backpeddle like hell.

This is your post:
"Terror is complaining, let's just rag on him because he doesn't suck the BioWare phallus."

This is not arrogance, this is not stupidity, this is downright lying to yourself.

Yes, Terror. You appear to think that people dislike you, or even downright think you are an idiot because you are not a biodrone. You keep telling yourself that these forums attack anyone who isn't a fanboy. You even have the nerve to quote this specifically, and claim that this is the reason that the thread has devolved, rather than the fact that it had hit rock bottom from the moment you clicked on "Post Thread".

Complaining about your unintelligent rant thread goint to hell and back. Sheesh, these boards, sometimes...

Oh, for crying out loud, Phaedon...

The thread actually managed to move past all this, but you just have to draaaaag it all back with these silly, petty personal attacks. What really is the point of this? Seriously.

In either case, the point of this discussion board is to talk about Mass Effect, and not talk about "haters," "whiners" or whatever other term you want to use. Regardless of how "intelligent" the initial rant was or wasn't (for which I've already admitted was posted in angered haste and venting and that I should have taken more time to consider) the topic is Mass Effect 3 related. Whether I'm an arrogant hater douche is not.

Again, I've already admitted that my initial post wasn't the best and somewhat of an outburst. I have also since posted a more reasoned response. What the hell more do you want?

You actually mean that these are all in the thread until now? Because I just checked it, and again, you are trying to make your supporters greater by supposedly only posting a portion of these posts.

The mechanic itself is extremelly important because it brings the fuel requirement, which in turn stops the players from mining the entire galaxy at once without being too restrictive. The fact that not only has this not been realized once, but in none of these posts I can see an intelligent argument, says a lot.

Then clearly this so called "intelligent argument" you are after is not possible due to your incredibly arrogant standards.

Terror.

• You have made numerous rant threads that hold no merit.
• You make yet another one.
• You haven't once replied to the intelligent arguments concerning your rant, but rather resorted to personal attacks because, hey, you can't actually reply to them.
• You are still perpetuating this situation by cherry picking quotes out of arguments and replying to what you wish
• You claim that your rant holds merit and intelligence
• You proceed to quote 4 people who provide no intelligent argument in their posts to justify their position.

So, I'll go ahead and ask you. You, who have complained about this thread devolving, when are you actually going to make an intelligent argument to support your position.

1. Debatable. Just because you, the great Phaedon, say it is so, doesn't make it so.
2. Don't disagree. Again, have admitted as such and apologised. Again, what more do you want?
3. Yes I have. Look harder. I've responded to almost any point I find worth responding to and clarifying.
4. I don't reply to things that aren't worth replying to.
5. I claim that the reasons and aspects behind the rant hold merit and intelligence. I've already admitted the OP wasn't put across in the best way. Doesn't make the points behind it invalid, as I've repeatedly said. I have also since clarified more in following posts.
6. Why does a simple opinion on something need "intelligent argument" behind it in every case? I'm not saying everything should be an "unintelligent rant" as you put it, but some things are just an opinion and that's that. People like and dislike things sometimes just due to taste, not necessarily for a reason that needs lots of debate.

Yes, you didn't like it. Big deal. You had never developed a rational argument against the flying Normandy, and yet, you complain about BioWare doing what suits them best.

No, sorry, complaining suggests that there is intelligence or criticism in a post. You downright accept that this a rant, ergo, inane whining.

There you go... putting words in my mouth again. All I said was that the OP was a rant... I didn't say everything I've said in this thread is.

Also, there is a rational argument against the flying Normandy. You just don't accept it.

And I'm not even going to go into the final part of your post because of that.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Let me ask you this: where was the ship in ME1 when we were using the cursor? From how I understood it, the cursor wasn't literally the ship, but more an interface for you as Shepard to basically say, "I want to check this out" or "I want to go here" or "I want to scan this area" and then the people actually trained to fly the ship (Joker, Pressly, etc.) would actually take you there. I didn't see it as literal as it was never presented as such... not until ME2.

That's the best way to interpret how ME1 does things, yep. But that's a bad system. It's limited. The ship can only ever be at whatever I last clicked on. It magically and instantly appears there. No fuel used, no time taken.

Actually time clearly is taken, considering some of the conversations that take place. You just don't deal with it directly because there's no need.

Beyond that, I don't think it's a bad system at all. For one thing, why does fuel need to be taken into account at all? There was no real need for it, since this isn't a racing game or anything. It was pretty much just a credit sink in ME2 anyway. I personally don't think that fuel needs to be a factor at all, which some may find ironic given how much I miss things like omni-tools and biotic amps, etc. I don't see why the same people who would say, "thank God ME1 style exploration and omni-gel are gone!" would support fuel being part of the game.

In either case, opinions aside, if fuel does need to be a factor, then why not simply have certain set costs for simply traveling between systems instead of having it tick down as you literally drive your Normandy around?

Something like the DA:O overland map would be workable.

In any event, if you accept the ME1 map you've already accepted a high degree of abstraction. It's OK to do that, but if ME2 uses a different kind of abstraction you're in no position to oppose it because of "realism" or some such.

On the DAO comparison, I'd actually, I'd be far more lenient on the system if instead of literally driving it around you merely click on a destination and it went there, using fuel as it went. That would be an acceptable middle-ground, IMO.

It's not really about the fact it's an abstraction so much as the execution of it. One feels like I'm using the interface on the bridge of my ship, indicating where I want to go and why and letting the people that are supposed to pilot the ship and navigate to their work. The other feels like I'm either sitting on a platmat playing "broom brooms" with a toy ship, or like I've kicked Joker out of the pilot seat and gone for a spin myself. And neither really fit to me. It makes sense for Shepard to stand at the galaxy map and plot a course, but not for him/her to drive around like that. I realise that this is largely a personal thing, but it irks me and I just find it silly and off-putting, just like I find Miranda, Jack and Samara's outfits in ME2 silly and off-putting when on a mission.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 février 2012 - 08:21 .

[JakePT]

Chris Priestly wrote...

teh_619 wrote...

You're willingly ignoring the fact that Bioware just removed planet exploration and didn't even try to improve on it.
Just that is a reason to criticize.

We did improve on planet scanning from ME2 to ME3. That was what was being discussed here. That was what I commented on. You can start criticizing the lack of superheroes, ham sandwiches and DDR elements as well if you are going to use this thread to criticize things that are also not included in planet scanning. I just thought we were discussing planet scanning.

Yes yes: "What? No superheroes, ham sandwiches, DDR elements, preorder cancelled". Nothing tired about that yet.

ME1 didn't have Ham Sandwiches, DDR elements or Superheroes. Way to strawman Priestley.

[Poison_Berrie]

Terror_K wrote...

And why does it need to? Seriously? The only time that really matters from what I can tell is when we get those cheesy, chibi Pacman ghost-esque Reapers making chase. There's no reason what we see there couldn't be done with the same cursor the ME1 galaxy map used. We used it to find hidden resources in asteroid belts in the original game, so we can use it to scan and ping. It would be quicker and easier too, since you wouldn't have to drag yourself around the map and instead just move your cursor anywhere quickly to scan.

I don't see how they could have done the Reapers chasing you without it. The way I look at it the entire Reapers appearing part (the risk factor) would become moot. 
I get the feeling that perhaps what irks you the most is the oversized representation of the ships (it does look somewhat comical). That's for convenience sake, though. To accuratly show where the ship is.
Perhaps it would have been better if your ship was represented with a blue dot and the Reaper red one. 

Terror_K wrote...

It's not really about the fact it's an abstraction so much as the execution of it. One feels like I'm using the interface on the bridge of my ship, indicating where I want to go and why and letting the people that are supposed to pilot the ship and navigate to their work. The other feels like I'm either sitting on a platmat playing "broom brooms" with a toy ship, or like I've kicked Joker out of the pilot seat and gone for a spin myself. And neither really fit to me. It makes sense for Shepard to stand at the galaxy map and plot a course, but not for him/her to drive around like that.

That's because you are infering it wrong. Each time you take the ship somewhere in ME2, you are given joker the order to do so and he navigates the ship toward it, only now you can make changes on the fly. 
I get what you are trying to say, though. The other map felt more like it was part of the actual interface. It's perhaps part of your immersion.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 27 février 2012 - 08:52 .

[mitthrawuodo]

It will take one hour before someone puts the beeny hill theme over a reaper chase on youtube. I can guarantee that

[Auts]

Looking that, scanning seems far less hideous than in ME2 and that is all that matters.

[Catsith]

I think it looks better than ME2, but I have to wonder why Bioware is so dedicated to having us fly a little starship around the map. Why couldn't we just go back to having an amazing, immersive interface like the old old one?

Instead we got a cheap version of star control.

Modifié par Catsith, 27 février 2012 - 09:02 .

[adamashepard]

BlahDog wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

It looks great! I'm so glad we don't have to use the mako anymore. Driving through that straight tunnel on Ilos took me a good 20 minutes.

Lucky you, I forgot I brought the mako on Ilos (don't ask how) and I walked the whole way my first run.

^this

you sir made my day.

[Cody211282]

mitthrawuodo wrote...

It will take one hour before someone puts the beeny hill theme over a reaper chase on youtube. I can guarantee that

As mucj as I think the reaper chase is sorta neat looking this would be funny as hell.

[Terror_K]

JakePT wrote...

ME1 didn't have Ham Sandwiches, DDR elements or Superheroes. Way to strawman Priestley.

Actually, with a bit of CSI work, I think I found the former of those three...

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 février 2012 - 09:52 .

[theBreadSultan]

the Reaper chase thing looks like a really good game mechanic -

[GuardianAngel470]

AlanC9 wrote...

Thanks, Jeff. Weird that I've never seen it on the internet. Not so weird that I've never heard it IRL; I don't do conventions, and at 47 I'm out of the demographic.

Its pretty likely you've seen drawings in that style, especially if you've spent any significant time in the Tali or Liara threads over the past couple years. You probably just didn't know that was the name of it.

Here's an example of chibi:

http://fc04.devianta...ire-d3bavp9.png 

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 27 février 2012 - 10:55 .

[Sith_exar_kun]

Catsith wrote...

Instead we got a cheap version of star control.

Hey! Star Control is the greatest game ever. (maybe only Monkey Island is Better).

[Phaedon]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Oh, for crying out loud, Phaedon...

The thread actually managed to move past all this, but you just have to draaaaag it all back with these silly, petty personal attacks. What really is the point of this? Seriously.[/quote]
I find this highly amusing, actually.

You have yet to respond to my list of arguments made from the very early pages, you have failed to raise a single rational argument, but rather invoke your own feelings about how 'silly and stupid and wrong' the flying Normandy is. On top of that, you fail to explain why scanning itself is worse than Mass Effect 2.

And yet, you present yourself, as the paragon of constructive discussion and debate.

Quite literally, your only intelligible contribution to this thread, apart from the personal attacks and the unstructured, illogical rants is that 'The flying Normandy is stupid an wrong and pointless'. Well, that's a darn-tootin' shame, sure, you have yet to actually participate in a constructive discussion with the people you consider to be, as you eloquently put it 'Attack you because you don't suck BioWare's phallus'.

Attack the maturity of other posts when you have yourself, managed to restrain yourself from childish behavior, both in your self-acquired freedom of venting in a public forum for every little thing you don't like, without making any intelligent remark whatsoever, or quite literally calling anyone who doesn't agree with you -as you especially expressed it- BioWare's c*cksuckers.

At least, even when replying to your personal attacks, I have again, raised arguments for the logical fallacies in your opinion of the exploration system, which you have attempted to ignore since my initial post 10 or so pages ago.



[quote]In either case, the point of this discussion board is to talk about Mass Effect, and not talk about "haters," "whiners" or whatever other term you want to use. Regardless of how "intelligent" the initial rant was or wasn't (for which I've already admitted was posted in angered haste and venting and that I should have taken more time to consider) the topic is Mass Effect 3 related. Whether I'm an arrogant hater douche is not.[/quote]

That is incorrect, and had you sat down to consider it, rather than just post it, to once again vent, about the apparent injustice people who disagree with you seem to impose, you'd have seen it by yourself.

Your threads never follow logical structure. People see that, criticise you for it (as they should, as mindless rants are condemnable), and you keep doing it. Listen up. People won't shut up until you stop punching your keyboard in an attempt to form words, and rather create discussion threads that deal with topics in a logical, intelligent and level-headed way.

A debate requires people to point out the logical flaws in other posts. In your case, people are pointing it out on the OP, in comparison and in retrospect of your other threads. Maybe this is a sign that it's time to sit down and think that all of those people asking you to think before you post, or generally stop posting, aren't just raving lunatics.


[quote]Again, I've already admitted that my initial post wasn't the best and somewhat of an outburst. I have also since posted a more reasoned response. What the hell more do you want?[/quote]
Where exactly do you feel that you have achieved some moral catharsis? You claim that your OP was a rant, say so what, claim that that doesn't make it unintelligent, and continue the personal attacks. The closest thing to an argument that you have had is that 'The flying Normandy is stupid and wrong'.

Not only is that actually rather off-topic, it is not rational (it's emotional, and the source of that is highly debatable), doesn't respond to any previous arguments others have posed, and certainly doesn't move the 'debate' forward.

Your remark that 'What more should I do?' just as you have posted a personal attack is well, not amusing, no.

Here's a list of things you might want to start with, anyway:

• Remove the original post or ask a mod to lock this thread so that you can create a new one.
• Create an OP with a readable, intelligent, rational AND logical argument.
• 'Logical' here is not used to describe 'It feels wrong'.
• Apologize for the tone of your previous OP and/or thread(s), encourage a level-headed discussion about whether or not the new scanning system is good or bad.
• Rename the title of your thread to actually reflect what you are going to argue about (The flying Normandy is not part of the scanning system)
• Think before you post.
• Consequently, stop venting on public forums.

[quote][quote]
You actually mean that these are all in the thread until now? Because I just checked it, and again, you are trying to make your supporters greater by supposedly only posting a portion of these posts.

The mechanic itself is extremelly important because it brings the fuel requirement, which in turn stops the players from mining the entire galaxy at once without being too restrictive. The fact that not only has this not been realized once, but in none of these posts I can see an intelligent argument, says a lot.[/quote]

Then clearly this so called "intelligent argument" you are after is not possible due to your incredibly arrogant standards.[/quote]
This reply has nothing to do with the quoted paragraphs neither in context or as a direct reply. Your evasive manuevres are rude and silly.

Here, try again:
[quote]
The mechanic itself is extremelly important because it brings the fuel requirement, which in turn stops the players from mining the entire galaxy at once without being too restrictive. The fact that not only has this not been realized once, but in none of these posts I can see an intelligent argument, says a lot. [/quote]

[quote]
Terror.

• You have made numerous rant threads that hold no merit.
• You make yet another one.
• You haven't once replied to the intelligent arguments concerning your rant, but rather resorted to personal attacks because, hey, you can't actually reply to them.
• You are still perpetuating this situation by cherry picking quotes out of arguments and replying to what you wish
• You claim that your rant holds merit and intelligence
• You proceed to quote 4 people who provide no intelligent argument in their posts to justify their position.

So, I'll go ahead and ask you. You, who have complained about this thread devolving, when are you actually going to make an intelligent argument to support your position.[/quote]

[quote]1. Debatable. Just because you, the great Phaedon, say it is so, doesn't make it so.[/quote]
Alas, it is so. I have managed to find and link 5 threads, only in your recent post history. You can find them earlier in this thread.


[quote]2. Don't disagree. Again, have admitted as such and apologised. Again, what more do you want?[/quote]
The closest to apology I have seen was either "Okay, this is a rant, so what?" or "OK, I didn't mean to say that everyone who disagrees with me puts their mouth anywhere near BioWare's phallus" , while you keep replying in my posts, which try to raise an intelligent argument, only to respond with personal attacks. Hm. It would also seem to me, that the title and OP of this thread remain unchanged.

How many more rant threads are you planning to do with the release of ME3?

[quote]3. Yes I have. Look harder. I've responded to almost any point I find worth responding to and clarifying.[/quote]
I did. I just checked every single of your posts in this thread. You have yet to respond to my initial argument, while you either try to evade, or downright ignore entire portions of my other posts.

[quote]4. I don't reply to things that aren't worth replying to.[/quote]
And yet, you keep replying to your own thread.

As I said, you have responded to my argumentantion by either ignoring it or saying "No, you are wrong, whether you like it or not".


[quote]5. I claim that the reasons and aspects behind the rant hold merit and intelligence. I've already admitted the OP wasn't put across in the best way. Doesn't make the points behind it invalid, as I've repeatedly said. I have also since clarified more in following posts.[/quote]
No, you. Have. Not.

You consistently evade arguments, and still don't make any logical reply as to why the scanning system is bad. Or ME2's system supposedly sucked.

Also, this holds merit and intelligence?:
[quote]Terror_K wrote...

So... according to this video from IGN showing the galaxy map, not only do we [color=rgb(255, 102, 0)">have to ]stupidly pilot the Normandy[/color] around like a little toy ship, but on top of that we now have to scan the areasbetween planets as well?! Seriously?

Gotta say... confidence that this final part will actually be good when you don't seem to have learned from what sucked about ME2 isn't high, BioWare.
[/quote] 

INTELLIGENCE:
a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : 
reason; also : the skilled use of reason 

MERIT:
b. A quality deserving praise or approval; virtue.


Explain.



[quote]6. Why does a simple opinion on something need "intelligent argument" behind it in every case? I'm not saying everything should be an "unintelligent rant" as you put it, but some things are just an opinion and that's that. People like and dislike things sometimes just due to taste, not necessarily for a reason that needs lots of debate.[/quote]
Because that's how a dialogue works. No one cares for your irrational and unexplainable, even by yourself, opinion on things. I think you are failing to differentiate the point of a forum and Facebook.

[quote]There you go... putting words in my mouth again. All I said was that the OP was a rant... I didn't say everything I've said in this thread is.

Also, there is a rational argument against the flying Normandy. You just don't accept it.[/quote]
"I don't like it but I have no logical argument to make a valid point with my opinion" is not a rational argument.

RATIONAL
1.agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan foreconomic development.2.having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:a calm and rational negotiator.
[quote]And I'm not even going to go into the final part of your post because of that.
[/quote]
Caramba. That is an unfair punishment.

Modifié par Phaedon, 27 février 2012 - 12:47 .

[Ricvenart]

First reaction was: They left in the worst bit?
Then: Oh you discover the planet then it's just a matter of pinpointing one thing, that's not so bad then.
Although I am a bit worried about remembering where I scanned and haven't for planet's, when trying to do it efficiently and avoid reapers or coming back after reapers have gone.

And I am also wondering if any of the areas we need to scan for planets are ones we're already been too, has the alliance mapping crew suffered amnesia and forgot where planets should be?

Edit: And suddenly having dejavu, think my reaction was similar to kotaku's interview with the founders.

Modifié par Ricvenart, 27 février 2012 - 01:06 .

[Wulfram]

There have been entirely rational reasons given for why the toy ship thing is bad. The original point and click gave a far better sense of being Captain giving orders. Plus, people find it boring and silly. And the new mini-game seems like it devalues the reapers as serious enemies.

[TheRealJayDee]

Seriously, Phaedon, could you please just stop it or take it to PM?