lillitheris wrote...
You can just click on the link, you're using your internet account
Heavvy Metall wrote...
tobito113 wrote...
Wtf are you guys talking about? it dosent matter if the mexican guy had good information or not, BECAUSE WHAT HE SAID IS THE SAME THING RAY AND THE TWITTER GUY HAVE BEEN SAYING TO US FOR WEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111one.
It IS true based on Bioware representatives that there is no new endings dlc, they will just add closure or more explanations to the last moments. The mexican guy just repeated the SAME THING Ray and @masseffect have been teling us. Its not a rumor or speculation its Bioware's word.
Tbh, this is what most people want. Using the Idoc theory to further the ending.
)
Boh22 wrote...
They'll just release a 30 minute video of Krogans humping each other. OR not.
FOX216BC wrote...
BIOWARE ALREADY RESPONDED!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO CALM DOWN
https://twitter.com/...071073299337216
Again, opinion is subjective concept, not objective.Gigamantis wrote...
Objectivity in opinion just speaks to your ability to judge the game without any inherent bias. Suppressing your emotions is an important part of that.
Modifié par Iconoclaste, 03 avril 2012 - 09:27 .
SaladinDheonqar wrote...
Well, that's that. No amount of clarification or extention is going to make the current ending better. I'm just really disappointed Bioware can't see how bad it is. It's truly bewildering. I won't have anything to do with any future Bioware AND EA products let alone more dlcs for ME3. Congrats on losing this loyal customer.
I can't see it because I don't have a twitter account. Can anyone post the text here?Animositisomina wrote...
FOX216BC wrote...
BIOWARE ALREADY RESPONDED!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO CALM DOWN
https://twitter.com/...071073299337216
Quoting so more people see this.
Iconoclaste wrote...
Again, opinion is subjective concept, not objective.Gigamantis wrote...
Objectivity in opinion just speaks to your ability to judge the game without any inherent bias. Suppressing your emotions is an important part of that.
Opinion : "The endings were good / bad... " (subjective)
Argument / reasoning : "because (fact) + (fact) = conclusion" - (valid or invalid argument)
So, (subjective) opinion is based on valid or invalid argument, that use "objective" facts. Since different opinions can arise from same set of "objective" facts, an opinion cannot be "objective".
That is why, and rightfully, "everyone's entitled to his opinion".
You don't have to tell me. I've been with Bioware since the Baldur's Gate days. It just pains me to see them become another notch on EA's belt after all they've accomplished in the past. It's sorrowful.DoctorEss wrote...
SaladinDheonqar wrote...
Well, that's that. No amount of clarification or extention is going to make the current ending better. I'm just really disappointed Bioware can't see how bad it is. It's truly bewildering. I won't have anything to do with any future Bioware AND EA products let alone more dlcs for ME3. Congrats on losing this loyal customer.
They don't care. The Bioware you knew is dead. The company that made Mass Effect 1 no longer exists. You have an extension of EA, that designs games to maximize the amount of DLC they can sell you.
Screwing this up this badly couldn't have been accidental. It was probably deemed a safe, calculated risk that they'd gain more Gears of Call of Wars of Duty fans than fans that they would lose.
Velocithon wrote...
Stanley Woo, any comment?
Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 03 avril 2012 - 09:41 .
I'm not claiming any opinion is purely objective, I'm just saying that objectivity can be interjected into the formation of an opinion. Most valid opinions attempt implementing some form of objective reasoning.Iconoclaste wrote...
Again, opinion is subjective concept, not objective.Gigamantis wrote...
Objectivity in opinion just speaks to your ability to judge the game without any inherent bias. Suppressing your emotions is an important part of that.
Opinion : "The endings were good / bad... " (subjective)
Argument / reasoning : "because (fact) + (fact) = conclusion" - (valid or invalid argument)
So, (subjective) opinion is based on valid or invalid argument, that use "objective" facts. Since different opinions can arise from same set of "objective" facts, an opinion cannot be "objective".
That is why, and rightfully, "everyone's entitled to his opinion".
Modifié par Gigamantis, 03 avril 2012 - 09:56 .
People are prejudiced but rational people can suppress their prejudice and emotion to the point where it doesn't hinder their judgement. If you can accomplish that it adds heavily to your ability to judge fairly.Myrmedus wrote...
Gigamantis wrote...
I believe the correct phrasing in the juror's oath is "without prejudice or sympathy" meaning an emotion free application of the law.That's where my problem lies - that isn't objectivity.
And it is
interesting you raise the point of being a juror. To be objective as
juror is not to judge without bias or pride or with complete emotional
sterility. It is to judge solely based upon knowledge (evidence) and the
pre-defined knowledge base given as the pivot (legislation - the law).
This is exactly the same as what I describe in my post that you quoted. Exactly the same.
I would
also define that your appraisal of the ending being "objectively" good
because it instigated an emotion in you when you define objectivity as
"emotional sterility" as being a paradox.
Objectivity in opinion just speaks to your ability to judge the game without any inherent bias. Suppressing your emotions is an important part of that.
Also, the ability to elicit an emotional response is just one measure I use to form my opinion. That's different than reviewing a game in an emotional state.
I know that's the juror's oath but in truth that is not all they expect from a juror's judgment. I also argue that it is inherently impossible for an individual human to judge without prejudice or sympathy as these are not just emotions but, especially in the case of prejudice, already incorporated into our very way of thinking, personality and sub-conscious.
In short, it's a load of balony: jurors will always be prejudiced because jurors are people and people are prejudiced.
DoctorEss wrote...
Not to mention this from their @masseffect twitter feed:
"We're so glad you liked it. Don't worry, your ending won't be changed. "
In other words, it's over. Expect to be sold a dreck DLC to go with the dreck writing of the ending. It'll probably be a comic like the ME1 decision maker they have on PS3. And they'll want 10 bucks for it.
Then some PR rep will announce how "surprised" they are at the negative reaction of the fans, etcetera. Then they'll release some MP DLC nobody cares about.
Modifié par Rafe34, 03 avril 2012 - 10:06 .
Gigamantis wrote...
People are prejudiced but rational people can suppress their prejudice and emotion to the point where it doesn't hinder their judgement.Myrmedus wrote...
Gigamantis wrote...
I believe the correct phrasing in the juror's oath is "without prejudice or sympathy" meaning an emotion free application of the law.That's where my problem lies - that isn't objectivity.
And it is
interesting you raise the point of being a juror. To be objective as
juror is not to judge without bias or pride or with complete emotional
sterility. It is to judge solely based upon knowledge (evidence) and the
pre-defined knowledge base given as the pivot (legislation - the law).
This is exactly the same as what I describe in my post that you quoted. Exactly the same.
I would
also define that your appraisal of the ending being "objectively" good
because it instigated an emotion in you when you define objectivity as
"emotional sterility" as being a paradox.
Objectivity in opinion just speaks to your ability to judge the game without any inherent bias. Suppressing your emotions is an important part of that.
Also, the ability to elicit an emotional response is just one measure I use to form my opinion. That's different than reviewing a game in an emotional state.
I know that's the juror's oath but in truth that is not all they expect from a juror's judgment. I also argue that it is inherently impossible for an individual human to judge without prejudice or sympathy as these are not just emotions but, especially in the case of prejudice, already incorporated into our very way of thinking, personality and sub-conscious.
In short, it's a load of balony: jurors will always be prejudiced because jurors are people and people are prejudiced.
Gigamantis wrote...
People are prejudiced but rational people can suppress their prejudice and emotion to the point where it doesn't hinder their judgement. If you can accomplish that it adds heavily to your ability to judge fairly.Myrmedus wrote...
Gigamantis wrote...
I believe the correct phrasing in the juror's oath is "without prejudice or sympathy" meaning an emotion free application of the law.That's where my problem lies - that isn't objectivity.
And it is
interesting you raise the point of being a juror. To be objective as
juror is not to judge without bias or pride or with complete emotional
sterility. It is to judge solely based upon knowledge (evidence) and the
pre-defined knowledge base given as the pivot (legislation - the law).
This is exactly the same as what I describe in my post that you quoted. Exactly the same.
I would
also define that your appraisal of the ending being "objectively" good
because it instigated an emotion in you when you define objectivity as
"emotional sterility" as being a paradox.
Objectivity in opinion just speaks to your ability to judge the game without any inherent bias. Suppressing your emotions is an important part of that.
Also, the ability to elicit an emotional response is just one measure I use to form my opinion. That's different than reviewing a game in an emotional state.
I know that's the juror's oath but in truth that is not all they expect from a juror's judgment. I also argue that it is inherently impossible for an individual human to judge without prejudice or sympathy as these are not just emotions but, especially in the case of prejudice, already incorporated into our very way of thinking, personality and sub-conscious.
In short, it's a load of balony: jurors will always be prejudiced because jurors are people and people are prejudiced.
Versidious wrote...
Gigamantis wrote...
People are prejudiced but rational people can suppress their prejudice and emotion to the point where it doesn't hinder their judgement. If you can accomplish that it adds heavily to your ability to judge fairly.Myrmedus wrote...
Gigamantis wrote...
I believe the correct phrasing in the juror's oath is "without prejudice or sympathy" meaning an emotion free application of the law.That's where my problem lies - that isn't objectivity.
And it is
interesting you raise the point of being a juror. To be objective as
juror is not to judge without bias or pride or with complete emotional
sterility. It is to judge solely based upon knowledge (evidence) and the
pre-defined knowledge base given as the pivot (legislation - the law).
This is exactly the same as what I describe in my post that you quoted. Exactly the same.
I would
also define that your appraisal of the ending being "objectively" good
because it instigated an emotion in you when you define objectivity as
"emotional sterility" as being a paradox.
Objectivity in opinion just speaks to your ability to judge the game without any inherent bias. Suppressing your emotions is an important part of that.
Also, the ability to elicit an emotional response is just one measure I use to form my opinion. That's different than reviewing a game in an emotional state.
I know that's the juror's oath but in truth that is not all they expect from a juror's judgment. I also argue that it is inherently impossible for an individual human to judge without prejudice or sympathy as these are not just emotions but, especially in the case of prejudice, already incorporated into our very way of thinking, personality and sub-conscious.
In short, it's a load of balony: jurors will always be prejudiced because jurors are people and people are prejudiced.
Gigamantis, you seem like a knowledgable chap to me, intelligent, logical, etc. So, perhaps you can explain the issues I have with the ending to me? I've noticed you think that the endings are good. I've had lots of arguments with pro-enders, who claim that we just don't get the ending, but never deign to explain what it is we don't get. So, I'm going to ask you some questions about the endings directly. Maybe you can help me make sense of them. They are not matters of opinion, nor of 'But isn't it horrible that...', but of logic and narrative flow.
1. Why were the Collectors bothering to make a human Reaper well in advance of the Reapers arriving?
2. Why did the Catalyst create AI if he thought it was inevitable that AI would rebel against its creators and destroy them?
3. Why did the Catalyst live in the Citadel, yet was apparently unable to affect its functioning, needing a signal from the Reapers to activate the Keepers to activate the Citadel as a Mass Relay?
4. Why would the Catalyst admit the dying Shepard into its secret hideaway in the first place, and why does it think that him being there shows that his 'solution' will no longer work?
5. Why does he let Shepard choose from three outcomes, two of which are in no way a 'solution' to the problem, if he was convinced enough of the neccesity for such a solution to implement genocide on a godlike scale every 50,000 years for goodness knows how many times?
6. If he himself is an AI, and AIs will inevitably kill organics, why does he want to protect them in the long term and prevent this?
7. Why can't Shepard argue with him in this scene, when Shepard has disproved his entire notion of a solution? Arguing with monologuing madmen is something Shepard pretty much does constantly throughout the series, yet not here, when it really matters?
8. How exactly *did* people who I had thought were vaporised by Harbinger manage to suddenly appear on the Normandy, and why was it in mass relay transit, running away from the battle it had been heading to?
9. If the Reapers could've popped up and taken the Citadel to decapitate galactic government any time they wanted to, as they did at the end, why didn't they do this earlier?
10. Sovereign literally bulldozed its way through a fleet, ramming several cruisers and dreadnoughts to destruction and out of its angry way. So, why didn't the Reapers charge through to the Catalyst and take it out as a priority target that might be able to defeat them, if the Illusive Man has told them of humanity's plan?
Seriously, if you can shed any light on this, I would be grateful. I've been tearing my hair out over it, and I'm balding as it is.
!!!! Oh silly you....
Retour en haut