57139 réponses à ce sujet

[MaximizedAction]

A post of mine from from the "Casey Hudson says" thread:

MaximizedAction wrote...

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/ehlien/status/193602566175731712
Combining
THE awesome feature from every game you play into 1 game rarely results
in good. Need to understand the design before copying it

twitter.com/#!/ehlien/status/193602904953851905
A
single "killer" feature is often supported by several more subtle
features. It's the design chain that gives it strength and value.

twitter.com/#!/ehlien/status/193603230004023297
Copying
just the obvious, superficial elements will leave you with a shallow
design with little replay value. Great features are layers deep

Interesting, also, haven't found tweets from him that are similar in content. Speculations!

So,
let's assume he's talking about the ME3 game and is referring to the
previous ME games. What was their killer feature or THE awesome feature?
So that merely 'copying' it wouldn't be special enough to stand out?

Ideas, anyone?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 21 avril 2012 - 08:07 .

[BatmanTurian]

MaximizedAction wrote...

A post of mine from from the "Casey Hudson says" thread:

MaximizedAction wrote...

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/ehlien/status/193602566175731712
Combining
THE awesome feature from every game you play into 1 game rarely results
in good. Need to understand the design before copying it

twitter.com/#!/ehlien/status/193602904953851905
A
single "killer" feature is often supported by several more subtle
features. It's the design chain that gives it strength and value.

twitter.com/#!/ehlien/status/193603230004023297
Copying
just the obvious, superficial elements will leave you with a shallow
design with little replay value. Great features are layers deep

Interesting, also, haven't found tweets from him that are similar in content. Speculations!

So,
let's assume he's talking about the ME3 game and is referring to the
previous ME games. What was their killer feature or THE awesome feature?
So that merely 'copying' it wouldn't be special enough to stand out?

Ideas, anyone?

Indoctrination or the themes of  Control Vs. Subjugation Vs. Destruction.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

The dark energy story sucks quad if you ask me. I'm beyond fed up with this "everything, everything, EVERYTHING EVERYTHING!!! has to be a gray moral area" fad. Apparently every western RPG nowadays is dead set on making it so whether to light a kitten on fire is a moral dilemma. It was a nice change of pace at first, but that change of pace has become the very driven-into-the-ground cliche it was meant to combat. Frankly, I want some black and white. The world isn't all black and white, but it's not all gray either. The Reapers are monsters, pure and simple. I don't want to see them portrayed as the good guys for murdering quintillions of people. I want to kill them, ****** on their graves, and feel good about it.

I can only agree on this, but on a every different level. I write stories, fan fictions mostly especially towards Legend of Spyro. As such I also read alot of fan fictions made by others and one of my major turn offs from any fan fiction universe is when people start making a "excuse" as to why Malafor (the main villian) was evil (or even worse try to paint him as grey moral).

Everything in the games paint him as the ultimate evil, no good, no reedeming qualities and that is how I write him in my own stories. 

Sometimes a villian really dosent have any bigger motivations than rulling the world and is willing to do anything to get there. The Reapers probably have a some kind of justification in their eyes, but I am quite fine with keeping it "beyond our comprehension" and simply knowing they are evil. For all I know there motivations could simply be reproduction using organics of a certain technological levl solely for making more of themselves, aka Reaping us. 

I disagree. Do I think the Reapers are evil? Oh hells yes. Do I think THEY beleive they are evil? Absolutely not. Ultimate Evil can still be gray, because life is Grey, it's also Black and White, it just depends on what perspective you have. To us they're evil, to them... well it's something a bit more alien. (NOTE: Hells yes am I playing Devil's advocate here, I don't beleive the Reapers should live or get away with what they are doing, or that what they think is right, I just think this is how they think. After all, even the Devil himself had a reason to be Evil.)
For my veiw on them see here;

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9727423/1623#11577243

I agree as well i just dident make it clear.

I meant that from all ways we see it the Reapers are evil and I am quite fine with it staying that way instead of us getting some kind of excuse for what they are doing. I am quite aware that they dont see themsleves as evil and few villians do so...

Though I like it if a villian acknowledges that by common society view what he does is evil, can lead to some fun comments on villiany.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

[Skillz1986]

And the stalker followed him

[NoSpin]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

Well it IS illogical....so there's that.

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

"You disagree with me. Clearly this isnt an honest intellectual disagreement, you're just a conspiracy theorist!"

Oh, you.

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

Or I find the weight of explaining the complete lack of logic in using Occam's Razor to ferret out which interpretation is true to an illogical and close-minded person nauseating.

[lex0r11]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

"You disagree with me. Clearly this isnt an honest intellectual disagreement, you're just a conspiracy theorist!"

Oh, you.

Hai guys.

[Dwailing]

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

"You disagree with me. Clearly this isnt an honest intellectual disagreement, you're just a conspiracy theorist!"

Oh, you.

Hai guys.

Woot!  You're back!  Wait, for me to say that he's back, I have to be back!  And for me to be back while still at home... YES!  My internet service is BACK!  Life is good!  So, can you all tell me that IT has been confirmed?  The day has been going so well up to this point that it would be par for the course, TBH.

Edit: OK, I know that IT hasn't been confirmed.  Still, it's a great day, and I'm back, so let's make it a party.  Let's summon THE GREAT TROLL.  GBGriffin, come on down! 

Modifié par Dwailing, 21 avril 2012 - 08:41 .

[byne]

lex0r11 wrote...


Hai guys.

Crazy Batarian Prophet said...

"Let none in my sight continue to live, lest their impurity displease me." The Word is clear on this, friends. Humans are the hands of the Reapers, here to commit the galaxy to ruin!

Yknow, if you take the endings literally, the batarian prophet was right all along.

[Voodzik]

Guys? Hat to keep being this guy, but there's some troll feeding beginning here. A good way to spot a troll? If they're calling people conspiracy theorists. At that point they have given up on disagreeing without being insulting. They ate not being tactful or arguing logically, they are throwing insults.

We Pro IT-ers are not innocent here, if I think of a similar warning phrase for when we've becone trolls, I'll put up another notice.

[SubAstris]

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

"You disagree with me. Clearly this isnt an honest intellectual disagreement, you're just a conspiracy theorist!"

Oh, you.

Hai guys.

The logical processes often used by IT theorists are analogous to that of conspiracy theorists. Believing that you don't use them to bolster your arguments doesn't mean it doesn't happen

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

The logical processes often used by IT theorists are analogous to that of conspiracy theorists. Believing that you don't use them to bolster your arguments doesn't mean it doesn't happen

>IT theorists use the same logical processes used by conspiracy theorists
>But I'm not going to give any examples

Ok there, big guy.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

Or I find the weight of explaining the complete lack of logic in using Occam's Razor to ferret out which interpretation is true to an illogical and close-minded person nauseating.

All you have debated is that it is illogical to draw complete conclusions based on Occam's Razor on whether IT is right or wrong, and I agree with you. Doesn't mean one explanation isn't more likely than the other (you conveniently seem to "forget" that I say this to further your own argument).

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

"You disagree with me. Clearly this isnt an honest intellectual disagreement, you're just a conspiracy theorist!"

Oh, you.

Hai guys.

The logical processes often used by IT theorists are analogous to that of conspiracy theorists. Believing that you don't use them to bolster your arguments doesn't mean it doesn't happen

But the opposing view uses illogical processes to bolster its own argument. It grows tiresome.

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The logical processes often used by IT theorists are analogous to that of conspiracy theorists. Believing that you don't use them to bolster your arguments doesn't mean it doesn't happen

>IT theorists use the same logical processes used by conspiracy theorists
>But I'm not going to give any examples

Ok there, big guy.

And he's a troll.  I can give an example as to why, too.  He acts just like waldstr18.  There.  

[byne]

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The logical processes often used by IT theorists are analogous to that of conspiracy theorists. Believing that you don't use them to bolster your arguments doesn't mean it doesn't happen

>IT theorists use the same logical processes used by conspiracy theorists
>But I'm not going to give any examples

Ok there, big guy.

And he's a troll.  I can give an example as to why, too.  He acts just like waldstr18.  There.  

I never really saw wasldstr18 as a troll. He disagreed with us, yeah, but that didnt make him a troll.

[SubAstris]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The logical processes often used by IT theorists are analogous to that of conspiracy theorists. Believing that you don't use them to bolster your arguments doesn't mean it doesn't happen

>IT theorists use the same logical processes used by conspiracy theorists
>But I'm not going to give any examples

Ok there, big guy.

In terms of their radical reinterpretation of events to skew them to support the theory. Such as, the Shadow Broker's ship is the same as the one on the Citadel!!! Evidence for IT!!! (or BW reuses things to save time and money; furthermore if you don't play LOTSB, then Shep isn't presumed to be at the Shadow Broker base, therefore he can remember things he hasn't even experienced?" etc. ( I realise not everyone is going to believe this is good evidence, but of IT theorists do believe, just to give you a flavor)

Modifié par SubAstris, 21 avril 2012 - 08:52 .

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

"You disagree with me. Clearly this isnt an honest intellectual disagreement, you're just a conspiracy theorist!"

Oh, you.

Hai guys.

The logical processes often used by IT theorists are analogous to that of conspiracy theorists. Believing that you don't use them to bolster your arguments doesn't mean it doesn't happen

But the opposing view uses illogical processes to bolster its own argument. It grows tiresome.

I thought you were "impartial" LOL

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

The logical processes often used by IT theorists are analogous to that of conspiracy theorists. Believing that you don't use them to bolster your arguments doesn't mean it doesn't happen

>IT theorists use the same logical processes used by conspiracy theorists
>But I'm not going to give any examples

Ok there, big guy.

And he's a troll.  I can give an example as to why, too.  He acts just like waldstr18.  There.  

I never really saw wasldstr18 as a troll. He disagreed with us, yeah, but that didnt make him a troll.

Yes, he disagreed with us, but he also acted in an extremely disrespectful manner.  Plus, I never saw any reason for him to stick around.  It wasn't like he presented any evidence to show WHY he disagreed with us beyond, you're wrong because I say so.  And since he never actually presented any discussion points and acted in a very rude manner, I can only think of him as a troll.

Edit: OK, I just looked up the actual definition of an online troll on the Wikipedia.  I'm not sure if he fits the role of a troll or not, now.

Modifié par Dwailing, 21 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[ThinkIntegral]

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

Or I find the weight of explaining the complete lack of logic in using Occam's Razor to ferret out which interpretation is true to an illogical and close-minded person nauseating.

All you have debated is that it is illogical to draw complete conclusions based on Occam's Razor on whether IT is right or wrong, and I agree with you. Doesn't mean one explanation isn't more likely than the other (you conveniently seem to "forget" that I say this to further your own argument).

I am debating with you whether it is logical to draw complete conclusions on any piece of literature without clear intent of the author(s) provided. It has nothing to do with whether IT is right or wrong. It has to do with misusing Occam's Razor. That's all. I have seen it misused by many and I had to say something. That it was you that I finally confronted about it when you seemed to be using it to further your interpretation is irrelevant. It applies regardless of who I might be speaking to.

[Skillz1986]

Jeez...seems like people in here don't like the quiet and peaceful discussions, so they go out there waking trolls. Well thanks for that.

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...


In terms of their radical reinterpretation of events to skew them to support the theory. Such as, the Shadow Broker's ship is the same as the one on the Citadel!!! Evidence for IT!!! (or BW reuses things to save time and money; furthermore if you don't play LOTSB, then Shep isn't presumed to be at the Shadow Broker base, therefore he can remember things he hasn't even experienced?" etc. ( I realise not everyone is going to believe this is good evidence, but a sizeable number do)

So your main argument against IT is 'Some of the more tenuous evidence isnt very convincing'?

Personally, I find the idea that so many of the things in the final area seem to mirror things Shep has seen before to be pretty intriguing, but it doesnt make or break the entire theory.

Your 'Bioware is lazy, and just reuses things to save time' idea has exactly as much proof behind it as the 'Shep is piecing together the area from things he has seen before' idea.