227 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Mitharn wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Don't - feed - the - troll!
Simply ignore him.

Excellent video. Lots of humor.

In the last two discussions where you jumped on me like some stalker following me around these forums where I literally owned you, I am surprised you continue to follow me around.

Literally owned him? So......he is your property? Is that not illegal?

Owned is simply a term used to imply bested him in his arguments on the past two occassions.

[esideras]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It is not broken, a disc snapped in half is broken, corrupted data is broken, glitch or bug that prevents you physically reaching the end of the game due to code error is broken. Your dislike of how they ended it is not "broken", if you can reach the end of the game the product "works" as intended.

Ok then, so the script is broken. Happy?

[Iconoclaste]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Owned is simply a term used to imply bested him in his arguments on the past two occassions.

I simply nailed your true troll nature to the wall, quite easily in fact, and you kept trying to divert the focus from it. Did you watch the video mentioned by OP?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 01 avril 2012 - 03:56 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

But as a narrative it really is broken.

All it did was leave a few elements unexplained, things some people personally would like more exposition on.

But as a game, a product my comment is correct.

"All it did was leave a few elements unexplained"

No it totally ignored the rules of good story telling.

- Introducing a new antagonist in the last 5 minutes > Like the Terminator Reaper you mean?
- Introducing a Deus ex machina > An accepted way of telling/ending a story
- Total tonal shift > Tone changes always occur all the time and in most things including most games.
- Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

I could go on but you get the point.

"But as a game, a product my comment is correct."

It's a story based product with a broken narrative, broken story = broken product.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 avril 2012 - 03:54 .

[2papercuts]

Marixus99.9 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...

DnVill wrote...

OP this video says it all... good find.

Get rid of the hologram kid!

Thats not going to fix the issue with the story.

Why people keep saying that removing the catalyst as the controlling force of the reapers is going to make a difference. It boggles my mind.

I agree, just like when people say the indoc theory is a better ending when in reality it is not even an ending. Just a way to leave open for alternative endings to be created.

The theory is the result of a very strong feeling of denial as they look into anything and imagine them as clues to support what they believe.

There are three, I feel, compeling examples of IT in the end. Probably the basis for all of the IT, besides the poorly written ending. Why I feel these three are so strong is because the developers would have to consciously make the decision to show these.

1. The bullet wound that shepard notices after Anderson dies. Its in the same place as Anderson got shot and Bioware made an effort to show it. It could be possibly symbolism, but that seems forced.

2. The way shepards eyes change in the Synthesis and Control endings. They get the orbs like Saren and the Illusive Man, two people we know in the story are indoctrinated. Again, a conscious decision to put in this effect and extra work for the studio.

3. The breathe scene of course. Same reasons as the others.

these don't prove the IT, but they are the basis, I feel, for a legitamate arguement on its validity, and more than just denial. but whatever

Modifié par 2papercuts, 01 avril 2012 - 03:55 .

[Barict78]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

It's sad because the most simple fix is also probably the least likely to happen (getting rid of the hologram).

How would that solve your issue. The crucible was designed physically with only three 'booths' or choices. Removing explanation of those choices resolves nothing. The choices were not the AI you spoke to but the many cycles and generations of previous races that designed the purpose and choices the crucible offers.

Dude whatever Drugs Ur on I want some  it must be some potent ****. wow

[Ashilana]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Owned is simply a term used to imply bested him in his arguments on the past two occassions.

I simply nailed your true troll nature to the wall, quite easily in fact, and you kept trying to divert the focus from it. Did you watch the video mentioned by OP?

But watching the video... would take away valuable trolling time!  

[Noatz]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Noatz wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Noatz wrote...

Oh look its Dragoonlordz the pro ending troll.

Its fine to ignore him everyone, if someone can be satisfied with objectively derided literary tropes defining their storytelling then power to them I guess.

You do not know what that word means.

This is not the kind of reply to make if you don't want to be seen as a troll, fyi.

Why? Because stating your use of a word in a method to discredit another persons view does not work due to your not understanding what the word means?

No, its because you are posting impudence designed purely to bait a response. Indeed you appear to have succeeded in that so I might as well elaborate on why you fit this trait.

I'm probably one of the few that has actually troubled to read your rambling diatribe on why you love the endings, so I know that all of your reasons hinge on an emotional rather than logical basis. Throughout the whole piece you fail to provide one example of why the ending is actually appropriate for the series beyond your own personal (mis)interpretation of various elements.

Finding the endings emotionally satisfying is fine mind you, but thats not really the kind of implied basis you argue from when you come into other threads in this fashion. But because you have no logic foundations on which to base your critiques of other people's ideas on, you simply resort to posting inflammatory comments and swiftly retreating behind the "my opinion is as valid as yours" curtain when they respond with the silver bullet (to you) of cold hard facts.

"My opinion is as valid as yours" is a legitimate point of course, but you are using it in the wrong arena. You can't use emotion to fight logic.

Your entire posting history can be summed up with "I am rubber, you are glue", and that is why no one should pay any further attention to you. Good night.

[tekkaman fear]

Star Bastard is just like Jason. No matter how many times you shoot him he won't die!!!

[DnVill]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...

DnVill wrote...

OP this video says it all... good find.

Get rid of the hologram kid!

Thats not going to fix the issue with the story. 

Why people keep saying that removing the catalyst as the controlling force of the reapers is going to make a difference. It boggles my mind. 

I agree, just like when people say the indoc theory is a better ending when in reality it is not even an ending. Just a way to leave open for alternative endings to be created.

That's because with the existence of the catalyst. It's solution could have been implemented on ME1. What was Sovereign for? To give organics a chance to mobilize against a Reaper threat?

i dont support the indoc theory either. 

Modifié par DnVill, 01 avril 2012 - 04:04 .

[Hexley UK]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

But as a narrative it really is broken.

All it did was leave a few elements unexplained, things some people personally would like more exposition on.

But as a game, a product my comment is correct.

"All it did was leave a few elements unexplained"

No it totally ignored the rules of good story telling.

- Introducing a new antagonist in the last 5 minutes > Like the Terminator Reaper you mean? Not an antagonist...look it up. Just because he's a big bad guy doesn't make him an antagonist.

- Introducing a Deus ex machina > An accepted way of telling/ending a story - Widely considered the worst way to fix a problem in storytelling.

- Total tonal shift > Tone changes always occur all the time and in most things including most games. - But considered to be extremely poor writing if done in the final narrative stage of a story.

- Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added. - Bad writing in other words. You can't just switch up the rules at the last minute with no explanation in good writing.

I could go on but you get the point.

"But as a game, a product my comment is correct."

It's a story based product with a broken narrative, broken story = broken product.

[Dragoonlordz]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Owned is simply a term used to imply bested him in his arguments on the past two occassions.

I simply nailed your true troll nature to the wall, quite easily in fact, and you kept trying to divert the focus from it. Did you watch the video mentioned by OP?

I did watch a fair amount of it thanks for asking and when calls Patrick Stewarts accent ponce British he did himself no favors. You also nailed nothing, in fact in out last discussion when you stated you think a 'troll' is someone who creates a thread for attention back fired and you showed you hypocritical nature of using the word 'troll' constantly to dismiss everyone else. When you failed to show any common sense and extreme ignorance regarding all threads are created for the simple purpose of attention with no exceptions so using your same idiology you called the OP here a troll for creating a thread.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 avril 2012 - 04:04 .

[Iconoclaste]

Trolls are like young kids who need attention. In a discussion, people usually submit arguments and are open to see their factual value put to the test. Trolls do not care to engage in such, they only need the attention. Sophisticated trolls will be wary of keeping a little bit to the discussion by submitting some amount of argumentative matter, but their objective is the same : divert the focus from the object being discussed to personal characteristics of other forumers, to induce an emotional response. Once they get the "hook" in place, they drag the attention towards their own qualities or preferences, hence obliterating the subject being discussed.

Best strategy against Trolls is to simply ignore them.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 01 avril 2012 - 04:03 .

[2papercuts]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

- Introducing a new antagonist in the last 5 minutes > Like the Terminator Reaper you mean? 

was still a reaper, not a new antagonist necessarily, also somewhat foreshadowed. Was done probably to give more information on the reapers

- Introducing a Deus ex machina > An accepted way of telling/ending a story 

since when has Deus ex Machima been critically accepted, especially at the end of a trilogy? really, do you like Deus ex Machima? isn't kind of bad storytelling? the only time its acceptable if it themeatically goes with the story

- Total tonal shift > Tone changes always occur all the time and in most things including most games.

tones can change, but usually not at the end of a planned out trilogy. By the end of a trilogy the themes should be clear and the writer should be able to base the tone off that, to themeatically fit with the story.

- Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

[Dragoonlordz]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Trolls are like young kids who need attention. In a discussion, people usually submit arguments and are open to see their factual value put to the test. Trolls do not care to engage in such, they only need the attention. Sophisticated trolls will be wary of keeping a little bit to the discussion by submitting some amount of argumentative matter, but their objective is the same : divert the focus from the object being discussed to personal characteristics of other forumers, to induce an emotional response. Once they get the "hook" in place, they drag the attention towards their own qualities or preferences, hence obliterating the subject being discussed.

Best strategy against Trolls is to simply ignore them.

Really? Because I have commited more to this discussion than you have in which you resorted to only talking about trolls. I think you need to look in a mirror lad.

[Iconoclaste]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Trolls are like young kids who need attention. In a discussion, people usually submit arguments and are open to see their factual value put to the test. Trolls do not care to engage in such, they only need the attention. Sophisticated trolls will be wary of keeping a little bit to the discussion by submitting some amount of argumentative matter, but their objective is the same : divert the focus from the object being discussed to personal characteristics of other forumers, to induce an emotional response. Once they get the "hook" in place, they drag the attention towards their own qualities or preferences, hence obliterating the subject being discussed.

Best strategy against Trolls is to simply ignore them.

Really? Because I have commited more to this discussion than you have in which you resorted to only talking about trolls. I think you need to look in a mirror lad.

Hats to you for beeing a very sophisticated troll, then.

I said I liked the video. Lots of humor. Most of the first answers to this thread were simply one-liners, I did the same. Nice try to hook me, but try something else. Do you mind if I tell others you are a very sophisticated troll?

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 01 avril 2012 - 04:11 .

[2papercuts]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Trolls are like young kids who need attention. In a discussion, people usually submit arguments and are open to see their factual value put to the test. Trolls do not care to engage in such, they only need the attention. Sophisticated trolls will be wary of keeping a little bit to the discussion by submitting some amount of argumentative matter, but their objective is the same : divert the focus from the object being discussed to personal characteristics of other forumers, to induce an emotional response. Once they get the "hook" in place, they drag the attention towards their own qualities or preferences, hence obliterating the subject being discussed.

Best strategy against Trolls is to simply ignore them.

Really? Because I have commited more to this discussion than you have in which you resorted to only talking about trolls. I think you need to look in a mirror lad.

Hats to you for beeing a very sophisticated troll, then.

I said I liked the video. Lots of humor. Most of the first answers to this threads were simply one-liners, I did the same. Nice try to hook me, but try something else. Do you mind if I tell others you are a very sophisticated troll?

wait, why are you responding then

and yes he is either a troll or overly defensive

[Dragoonlordz]

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

[Hexley UK]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

That was complete gibberish and doesn't even answer the man's question.

[Marixus99.9]

2papercuts wrote...

Marixus99.9 wrote...

The theory is the result of a very strong feeling of denial as they look into anything and imagine them as clues to support what they believe.

There are three, I feel, compeling examples of IT in the end. Probably the basis for all of the IT, besides the poorly written ending. Why I feel these three are so strong is because the developers would have to consciously make the decision to show these.

1. The bullet wound that shepard notices after Anderson dies. Its in the same place as Anderson got shot and Bioware made an effort to show it. It could be possibly symbolism, but that seems forced.

2. The way shepards eyes change in the Synthesis and Control endings. They get the orbs like Saren and the Illusive Man, two people we know in the story are indoctrinated. Again, a conscious decision to put in this effect and extra work for the studio.

3. The breathe scene of course. Same reasons as the others.

these don't prove the IT, but they are the basis, I feel, for a legitamate arguement on its validity, and more than just denial. but whatever

What I mean is how the theory was created as some people refused to believe that Bioware could make a bad ending/s and it was all apparently a setup for this theory in some imagined DLC coming. Now desiring the use of the idea to change the ending is a different story. I'm not sure if its a good solution.

[Iconoclaste]

2papercuts wrote...

wait, why are you responding then

and yes he is either a troll or overly defensive

Because I respect him more than he respects others. He does seem to have need for attention, in his own thread he admits having been bashed by people who disliked the endings, I can understand that. But his seeking some kind of revenge on all threads is mostly pityful.

[Dragoonlordz]

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

That was complete gibberish and doesn't even answer the man's question.

Yes it does. google the word exposition which explains and expands on the content seen prior, the elements left unexplained and contradictory due to being unknown or not understood how 'x' is possible; changes to the rules and results of actions or new situations/possiblities.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 avril 2012 - 04:19 .

[Hexley UK]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

That was complete gibberish and doesn't even answer the man's question.

Yes it does. google the word exposition which explains and expands on the content seen prior, the elements left unexplained and contradictory due to being unknown or not understood how 'x' is possible; changes to the rules and results of actions.

LOL your just pasting stuff from google docs now....ok i'm done your not worth the bother.

LOL