385 réponses à ce sujet

[Nekroso22]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ME3's ending tied far more into key-game themes than either of the other two.

Then it appears we disagree on what the key game themes of Mass Effect as a whole are. Again, not deriding or marginalizing, just disagreeing.

[Elite Midget]

You sound so sure of yourself OP, arrogant perhaps. Maybe you should do less ranting and pay attention to the Master.

Rule#1: What you say isn't fact and you must be willing to see all sides of an arguement and respect the conclusions for each arguement.
Rules#2: You must present your data and explain them in detail. If anyone wishes to contest you than you debate with them. You can call them dumb, if they're indeed just trolling, but you must still respect their opinion and let them discover their own anwser.
Rules #3: No matter how much data you have nothing you say is ever fact. It can be close to the truth but never "the" truth. Look at my variable arguement in the past. What I spoke of did eventually happen though at varying degress(though mostly worse than I predicted) than what I had drawn to my conclusion at that point.
Rules#4: You aren't ready for Rule#4 or the other Rules, you're still learning the basics.

Modifié par Elite Midget, 15 mars 2012 - 04:06 .

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Devs for Eve online thought the opinions of their customers didn't matter. As did Netflix. Wasn't long berfore both were really sorry.

Yep.

What customers think matters.

[bcNimis]

Hey MintyCool..

Cool Story bro... Tell it again... You should tell it at parties. 

[Dean_the_Young]

thealgebraist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

Expecting an ending that meets the quality of the rest of the franchise is hardly a demand for perfection.

It did meet the quality of the rest of the franchise. That's the problem.

Mass effect 2's ending allowed for a variation to a large extent of who survived, with the added value of those decisions directly impacting the content of the next game. Intellectually and emotionally. Granted it has the advantage of being a set up for a follow. But ME3's endings do not meet the brand standard, because ME2's endings had much much more to offer. In more ways the just the number of dead, which is arbitrarilly the same thing as colour of the beams.

No, that was the Suicide Mission, and a particularly poorly designed one. If we include The Game as a whole, ME3 has its own significant opportunities to get people killed.

In the ending choice setup and conclusion, ME2 came down to two things: a blue explosion or a red explosion.

Neither actually mattered, since Cerberus would go down the exact same path and salvage the exact same Reaper tech for the exact same soldiers for the exact same plot regardless. ME2's ending choice setup was actually one of the worst choices in the series, not only for its horribly unbalanced justification setup beforehand that didn't tie into any repeated themes, but because the entire nadir of the choice got made irrelevant by the Cerberus plot of the post-game.

[thealgebraist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

thealgebraist wrote...

Rubbish. I didn't rebrand your arguement.

That is exactly what you did. Your own objection to the counterargument simply placed your argument as the original subject, rather than mine (which came first).

I challanged it's premise and said that your comparison didn't deserve the merit because it deliberately ignored a pertinent point. I took your statistical comparison and described why I thought it couldn't be treated as such. Wasn't you comparison statistical? Where did I rebrand it to?

By making an argument of composition an argument of impact.

If something is originally an argument of composition, addressing it as flawed on the basis of an argument of impact is rebranding the argument.

I never said you were talking about me,'

So since we're agreed that I wasn't talking about you, why bring it up again? I still wasn't talking about you.

In terms of stating explicitly the opposite in regards to effective weight, then why on earth did you attempt to counter my point?

Because you straw-maned my point by mis-representing it in reframing it.

You either believe that a 98% great game cannot be significantly affected by 2% badness, or you don't.

I have never claimed otherwise.

My arguement suggests a reason why I can, you're arguement suggests a reason why it cannot. 

Except that isn't my argument.

Isn't it clever how you left the parts out of the quotes that answered the questions you raised? 

I addressed the fact that compositional difference was without context of the impact of each part of your ratio, which btw is still addressing it terms of composition. Which you already know. Additionally my explanation of my counter arguement (which you actually quoted) shows that I did not in fact reposition my point as the original subject. 

You have argued by the extension of your logic (and with any particular creative liscence on my part) both actually. You used the ratio of good hours to bad ours as a defence, but then tried to tell you stated the opposite of that explicitly.

I did not misrepresent your arguement by reframing, as per the above.

RE: the endings:

Except that the ending of mass effect 3 changed based on which characters were alive. Including the cut scene shown to a minor extent, and the import after. ME3's ending doesn't do that to anywhere near the same extent. Also the **** choice of saving or destroying the base has a minor impact of its own on at which asset cut off certain things are allowed to happen.

Modifié par thealgebraist, 15 mars 2012 - 04:08 .

[Nekroso22]

Malanek999 wrote...

You have no idea how weary I am of people who believe this and keep floating the words plot hole around.

Then I must have a misconception of what a plot hole is. What is a plot hole?

[Dean_the_Young]

Nekroso22 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A plot hole is a plot hole when it can't be explained by pre-existing things. Not when it isn't explained by pre-existing solutions.

A plot hole is a plot hole when it isn't explained. It doesn't matter if you've touched on a possible solution to a problem earlier in a story, if you don't find a way to tie it in with a new problem in the story it is still unexplained. Anything else is theory.

That's not to deride your proposed theories (many of which you'll find harbored by people asking for a new ending).

The gap in this definition is that very little in Mass Effect is actually explained. The same applies to most literature.

Plot holes are irreconciliable differences. The reconciliation doesn't have to be explicit at the point.

[pb1285n]

3. Two camps are formed because of this instance. The story the writers wish to tell, and the fans who feel entitled to observe the story they themselves envisioned.

Here's the thing. The whole premise of a Bioware game is that we are the story tellers not them. So observing the story we envisioned is exactly what Mass Effect is about. To wait until they are 3/4 of the way through the series to go from a story created by the players to a story the writer wants to tell is just poor story telling. It would be like half way through Moby Dick, Herman Melville decided he wanted to write a book about bunnies. That's great, bunnies are awesome, but this is not what I signed on for.

I think why many players are angry is that, we weren't playing a game about some person named Shepard. We were Shepard. The decisions that were made, the ideals he held were our own. To reach the end of the game and have the story hijacked by the writer left a disconnect between the player and Shepard. I know personally I wasn't angry or upset about the game's ending. In fact I didn't feel much at all, because the finally 20 minutes felt so alien to me.

2. The writing team behind Mass Effect 3 was able to elevate the narrative premise by weaving a philosophical debate about the relationship between organic and synthetic coexistence. The entire story throughout the third
addition is laced with the ideas of life, harmony, and self preservation.

That is an interesting take, unfortunately it is wrong. Saran and the Illusive man also thought that organic and synthetic could coexist in the same way, and they were wrong and eventually lost their mind to the machines. Obviously it depends on how you play the game, and the decisions you make, but the paragon route implies that organics and synthetic can coexist without being indoctrinating. So to choose the Synthesis ending goes against everything that you should have learned throughout the game and makes you no better than those you fought to stop.

[Marixus99.9]

aliengmr1 wrote...

Devs for Eve online thought the opinions of their customers didn't matter. As did Netflix. Wasn't long berfore both were really sorry.

I was waiting for someone to reference that :happy:

Modifié par Marixus99.9, 15 mars 2012 - 04:08 .

[Elite Midget]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

thealgebraist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

Expecting an ending that meets the quality of the rest of the franchise is hardly a demand for perfection.

It did meet the quality of the rest of the franchise. That's the problem.

Mass effect 2's ending allowed for a variation to a large extent of who survived, with the added value of those decisions directly impacting the content of the next game. Intellectually and emotionally. Granted it has the advantage of being a set up for a follow. But ME3's endings do not meet the brand standard, because ME2's endings had much much more to offer. In more ways the just the number of dead, which is arbitrarilly the same thing as colour of the beams.

No, that was the Suicide Mission, and a particularly poorly designed one. If we include The Game as a whole, ME3 has its own significant opportunities to get people killed.

In the ending choice setup and conclusion, ME2 came down to two things: a blue explosion or a red explosion.

Neither actually mattered, since Cerberus would go down the exact same path and salvage the exact same Reaper tech for the exact same soldiers for the exact same plot regardless. ME2's ending choice setup was actually one of the worst choices in the series, not only for its horribly unbalanced justification setup beforehand that didn't tie into any repeated themes, but because the entire nadir of the choice got made irrelevant by the Cerberus plot of the post-game.

Still walking I see, Old Man.

Though you can't blame ME2 for that. It was ME3 that invalidated ME2 and your choices in ME1. Such as Andersan not being a Counciler no matter what. ME3 was supposed to touch on these things, but instead Bioware took a more convient way out and only picked the path they wanted things to flow regardless of past game choices.

[ApplesauceBandit]

TL,DR.

But from the way people are posting i'm guessing its another one of "Those" threads explaining how people who hate the ending are wrong, blah blah blah.

All i can say is... lol.

Seriously: LOL, this entire thread is a waste of space.

[Nekroso22]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Plot holes are irreconciliable differences. The reconciliation doesn't have to be explicit at the point.

I would think it would have to be for it to make any sense, but again, agree to disagree.

If that is the case, then I have to assume that the ending simply wasn't complete at the time of release.

[Dean_the_Young]

thealgebraist wrote...

Isn't it clever how you left the parts out of the quotes that answered the questions you raised?

Since they didn't, no.

I addressed the fact that compositional difference was without context of the impact of each part of your ratio, which btw is still addressing it terms of composition. Which you already know. Additionally my explanation of my counter arguement (which you actually quoted) shows that I did not in fact reposition my point as the original subject.

No, your counterargument (either of them) did not.

Your first one reframed the argument to something I was not claiming. The second merely accused re-framing when I shifted it back. No matter how many times you insist that addressing a compsoitional point as an impact argument isn't reframing, it still is reframing an point.

You have argued by the extension of your logic (and with any particular creative liscence on my part) both actually. You used the ratio of good hours to bad ours as a defence, but then tried to tell you stated the opposite of that explicitly.

Except they aren't opposites.

A product can have a mostly good or bad impact while being the inverse in composition.

I did not misrepresent your arguement by reframing, as per the above.

You pretty much do, but hey. You're committed.

[joshko]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

thealgebraist wrote...

Isn't it clever how you left the parts out of the quotes that answered the questions you raised?

Since they didn't, no.

I addressed the fact that compositional difference was without context of the impact of each part of your ratio, which btw is still addressing it terms of composition. Which you already know. Additionally my explanation of my counter arguement (which you actually quoted) shows that I did not in fact reposition my point as the original subject.

No, your counterargument (either of them) did not.

Your first one reframed the argument to something I was not claiming. The second merely accused re-framing when I shifted it back. No matter how many times you insist that addressing a compsoitional point as an impact argument isn't reframing, it still is reframing an point.

You have argued by the extension of your logic (and with any particular creative liscence on my part) both actually. You used the ratio of good hours to bad ours as a defence, but then tried to tell you stated the opposite of that explicitly.

Except they aren't opposites.

A product can have a mostly good or bad impact while being the inverse in composition.

I did not misrepresent your arguement by reframing, as per the above.

You pretty much do, but hey. You're committed.

Get back to the real debate, your attacks on eachother are getting boring.

[kunzite]

Dean_the_Young, I gotta give you credit. Your debate skills are impressive. Not only are you churning out a rather thought-provoking discussion with Nekroso22, you're essentially debating the art of debating with thealgebraist at the same time. How can you keep so many thoughts running seperate at once?

[dkear1]

jreezy wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Still walking I see, Old Man.

Though you can't blame ME2 for that. It was ME3 that invalidated ME2 and your choices in ME1. Such as Andersan not being a Counciler no matter what. ME3 was supposed to touch on these things, but instead Bioware took a more convient way out and only picked the path they wanted things to flow regardless of past game choices.

Bad example, ME3 does touch on this.

No, they did force the issue.  Another would be the Rachni queen.  Kill her or don't she is still back in Me3.  This invalidates choice.

[ticklefist]

I just want to point something out here. OP said

Midichlorians anyone? You do not need to know how exactly the force works... 

And we responded.

[Geraro]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Neither actually mattered, since Cerberus would go down the exact same path and salvage the exact same Reaper tech for the exact same soldiers for the exact same plot regardless. ME2's ending choice setup was actually one of the worst choices in the series, not only for its horribly unbalanced justification setup beforehand that didn't tie into any repeated themes, but because the entire nadir of the choice got made irrelevant by the Cerberus plot of the post-game.

Which was not apparent to the player until part way into ME3. If you are comparing the "quality" of the ME2 and ME3 endings, you create an unfair playing field by using plot developments in ME3 to retrospectively reduce the perceived impact of decisions made in ME2.

[joshko]

kunzite wrote...

Dean_the_Young, I gotta give you credit. Your debate skills are impressive. Not only are you churning out a rather thought-provoking discussion with Nekroso22, you're essentially debating the art of debating with thealgebraist at the same time. How can you keep so many thoughts running seperate at once?

Get into enough fights online and it comes naturally.

[kunzite]

joshko wrote...

kunzite wrote...

Dean_the_Young, I gotta give you credit. Your debate skills are impressive. Not only are you churning out a rather thought-provoking discussion with Nekroso22, you're essentially debating the art of debating with thealgebraist at the same time. How can you keep so many thoughts running seperate at once?

Get into enough fights online and it comes naturally.

Well, he shut me down earlier in the thread, just been a quiet spectator since. It's rather odd to admit I've been entertained by the whole thing.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

jreezy wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Still walking I see, Old Man.

Though you can't blame ME2 for that. It was ME3 that invalidated ME2 and your choices in ME1. Such as Andersan not being a Counciler no matter what. ME3 was supposed to touch on these things, but instead Bioware took a more convient way out and only picked the path they wanted things to flow regardless of past game choices.

Bad example, ME3 does touch on this.

It was also pretty foreseeable in Mass Effect 1. As soon as Anderson steps down as Captain of the Normandy, he talks about how he hates the idea of sitting behind a desk. There are definitely import issues, but I don't consider this one of them.

[thealgebraist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

thealgebraist wrote...

Isn't it clever how you left the parts out of the quotes that answered the questions you raised?

Since they didn't, no.

I addressed the fact that compositional difference was without context of the impact of each part of your ratio, which btw is still addressing it terms of composition. Which you already know. Additionally my explanation of my counter arguement (which you actually quoted) shows that I did not in fact reposition my point as the original subject.

No, your counterargument (either of them) did not.

Your first one reframed the argument to something I was not claiming. The second merely accused re-framing when I shifted it back. No matter how many times you insist that addressing a compsoitional point as an impact argument isn't reframing, it still is reframing an point.

You have argued by the extension of your logic (and with any particular creative liscence on my part) both actually. You used the ratio of good hours to bad ours as a defence, but then tried to tell you stated the opposite of that explicitly.

Except they aren't opposites.

A product can have a mostly good or bad impact while being the inverse in composition.

I did not misrepresent your arguement by reframing, as per the above.

You pretty much do, but hey. You're committed.

Out of interest, do you actually expect me to believe that? Of course you can have something of most one type of impact but opposite of composition. But go back and look at what it was you were using the composition as a defence against. That's what makes addressing the composition in terms of its deliberate lack of context not reframing. 

The bits you claim don't explain your question? I brought it up again because of what immediately followed that sentence.

They are opposites. Either the composition is justification to negate the impact of the ending. Or the Impact of the ending negates using composition as justification.

I've read all the Tl:DRs in your signature, which leaves me wondering why you are even having this debate.

[joshko]

kunzite wrote...

joshko wrote...

kunzite wrote...

Dean_the_Young, I gotta give you credit. Your debate skills are impressive. Not only are you churning out a rather thought-provoking discussion with Nekroso22, you're essentially debating the art of debating with thealgebraist at the same time. How can you keep so many thoughts running seperate at once?

Get into enough fights online and it comes naturally.

Well, he shut me down earlier in the thread, just been a quiet spectator since. It's rather odd to admit I've been entertained by the whole thing.

It's simple realy.
People are looking to hard to justify why they should have a new ending.
If you relax and think a bit you will realize that it's all because you don't agree with the writer's style or interpritation.
All this talk of plot holes are desperate attempts to justify oneself, sure they are problems, but inflated due to the anger inspired due to the endings.