You're not being attacked, we're being skeptical and asking questions, which is something anyone who impersonates Mordin should understand.
Vromrig wrote...
Then why invoke arguer?
Vromrig wrote...
How does this make sense? My point is simple: if literary professor, must be denied until proven. If not literary professor, dishonest thread, and should be ridiculed.
Modifié par G Kevin, 18 avril 2012 - 11:19 .
So the skeptics would be satisfied. It does not bother me.
Vromrig wrote...
Surprised this bothers people.
Modifié par G Kevin, 18 avril 2012 - 11:22 .
Vromrig wrote...
You're not being attacked, we're being skeptical and asking questions, which is something anyone who impersonates Mordin should understand.
Not accusing you of attacking, accusing someone else of.
Confused, however. Is your argument that you are being skeptical of my skepticism?
M0keys wrote...
Vromrig wrote...
You're not being attacked, we're being skeptical and asking questions, which is something anyone who impersonates Mordin should understand.
Not accusing you of attacking, accusing someone else of.
Confused, however. Is your argument that you are being skeptical of my skepticism?
I'm being moderately skeptical of the point that he is a false professor. I don't believe or disbelieve that you are wrong, I just don't want to operate under assertions. If the validity of his identity is under question, then arguments should be made for both sides so that the truth can be revealed.
Vromrig wrote...
clos wrote...
This thread is great and the professor is breaking some knowledge down. I hope Bioware is listening.
Still not likely professor exists.
Bothers me thread gets so much attention.
Vromrig wrote...
M0keys wrote...
Vromrig wrote...
You're not being attacked, we're being skeptical and asking questions, which is something anyone who impersonates Mordin should understand.
Not accusing you of attacking, accusing someone else of.
Confused, however. Is your argument that you are being skeptical of my skepticism?
I'm being moderately skeptical of the point that he is a false professor. I don't believe or disbelieve that you are wrong, I just don't want to operate under assertions. If the validity of his identity is under question, then arguments should be made for both sides so that the truth can be revealed.
No need for argument.
Only need proof. Very simple.
M0keys wrote...
But the moment that you present the idea that the user "Drayfish" is not who he says he is, conflicting viewpoints arise unless the entire population of the forums suddenly came to your side. There is already debate for both sides of an argument.
Regardless, I believe the path to the truth of Drayfish's identity is open, and all it takes now is an e-mail to confirm or deny.
recentio wrote...
Vromrig wrote...
clos wrote...
This thread is great and the professor is breaking some knowledge down. I hope Bioware is listening.
Still not likely professor exists.
Bothers me thread gets so much attention.
Ahahahaha! ^ This is the IT for a pro-ender.
Disagree = must be fake. Pathetic.
Guest_Opsrbest_*
Ahahahaha! ^ This is the IT for a pro-ender.
Disagree = must be fake. Pathetic.
But the moment that you present the idea that the user "Drayfish" is not who he says he is, conflicting viewpoints arise unless the entire population of the forums suddenly came to your side. There is already debate for both sides of an argument.
The credentials don't matter when the person or person's collaborating are able to find an agreeable operating premise. If the merit of the identity as a Literary expert or scholar is to be proved valid or invalid it can only come from consensus based on what they have written in response to the topic. Actually evidentiary submissions based and sorted from acedemic understanding.
Modifié par Peregrin25, 18 avril 2012 - 11:43 .
fle6isnow wrote...
Dr. Dray, you might find some of the links in my "pro-ending" compendium thread interesting, for views on the "other side," so to speak. See my sig for the link.
I don't wholly agree with your interpretation of the ending, but it definitely makes sense. I shall type a more coherent response when my brain isn't dead from doing taxes, lol.
Vromrig wrote ...
Language inconsistent with literary professor, too closely mirrors most popular arguments here.
Not substance of argument, actual argument.
If I say specific thing, and see someone claim to say specific thing on forum, going to conclude they are quoting me, not attributing.
In this case, looks too much like using term "revolting", assigning to literary professor, then using message board arguments.
Very frustrating, does not seem genuine. Do not like dishonest arguments, even if they support position.
The premise of this argument is ridiculous, you are saying that this person is not who he says he is because he shares a similar view point to many people here, many people share similar view points to others, particularly when the topic is as specific as the faults with the ending of mass effect 3. Saying that this person is not who he claims to be is the most outlandish point when compared to him simply being who he says he is so you are the one that must provide evidence to prove your currently baseless assumption, not demand evidence that this person is who he says he is.
Modifié par Vromrig, 18 avril 2012 - 11:52 .
CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
pistolols wrote...
SkaldFish wrote...
You're holding up specific events as if they were broad narrative themes and asking us to tell you why they aren't thematically revolting. It's because they aren't themes, they're events.pistolols wrote...
Another question for the thematically revolting crowd: Remember way back in ME1 when you straight up murdered the Thorian? A sentient creature thousands of years old. A situation which by the way, gave no choice to the player as to how to go about it. Would you say that was equally as "jarring" as "the endings"?
Just trying to get a sense of where exactly Mass Effect turned thematically revolting.
Nobody displays outrage over Shepard being forced to control or destroy the geth heretics. Nobody has a problem with Shepard becoming a cyborg despite this happening to him "without consent". Evidently nobody has an issue with Edi taking control and literally claiming ownership of Eva. But somehow the 3 ending choices are "revolting"? Ridiculous.
The ending is jarring because of a wholesale thematic shift and a sudden, precipitous drop in the quality of its writing, editing, pacing, and gameplay mechanic, not because of any single event within it.
Well i think it's dishonest to claim it's a "wholesale thematic shift" when the ending mirrors so much of what we've experienced before. I mean this professor guy literally wrote something like "my shepard has never had to make a decision like this before".. lol... That's a load of crap. There isn't a damn thing new or "jarring" about the ending. It's all extremely familar. Synthesis... synthesis we can agree is weird. Nobody is sure what the writers were smoking with that one. But to control or destroy the reapers... man, my mind is still blown. What an insane thing to contemplate. I never would have guessed the fate of the reapers would be in our hands like that, but now that it is, it makes so much sense. And to have the method of making that decision physically mimic the conversation wheel mechanic.. that is just too cool and was an awesome tribute to the game.
I guess i'm just a dumb weirdo to have so many good feelings about something the intelligent majority (yeah, i can admit you're not a "vocal minority") collectively scoffed at. Sometimes it is extremely embarrassing to read peoples negative comments about something i liked so much. Perhaps that is why i lash out or often turn to trolling as a means of coping. I should probably just stay away from the forums in general.
Every other time we're given a decision in Mass Effect, it's presented as differing opinions by people we know well, like, or respect. We also have context throughout the game
With the "save the council" thing, we're presented with a lot of information as to what it might mean beforehand, to both aliens and humans. We have one of our squadmates saying we'd take heavy losses, another arguing that it's worth it, and Joker saying he thinks we can pull it off. It's the question of "which is more important: humanity's personal strength or our place within the galactic community?" which is also the question the game has been encouraging you to put in the forefront of your mind the entire time. The Rengade philosophy itself is based on the former, and the Paragon is based upon the latter.
With the Collector base, your decision is based heavily on your relationship with the Illusive man, something the entire game has spent building. The final decision is Shepard going through all of the Illusive Man's logic throughout the game and making a judgement call on his worldview. Again, this directly ties in to the central question of Shepard's personality - is it OK to do horrible things if you see it as the most efficient way to guarantee success, or does victory mean nothing if you've become what you hate?
For the Heretic Geth, we spend an entire mission gathering information about who the Geth are, what they're doing. I'd also argue that it's thematically VERY different from the control/synthesis/destroy question, because again: in the Geth example we have significant coroborating evidence that "Control" is possible (something we don't have in the Control ending), failing control wouldn't be disastrous in the same way that Shepard finding he couldn't actually control reapers would be, and destruction has no implied collatoral damage whatsoever. There's also no completely nonsensical third option.
If the child is who he says he is, there is no reason at all for the destroy ending to have collatoral damage - he could just pilot all the Reapers into the sun. In every other case where we were thinking about potential collatoral damage, there has been a reason that the sacrifice involved seemed necessary: the Council had to die to ensure we had enough firepower against Sovereign. It was also never large-scale genocide.
The "you'll wipe out all synthetics if you do" taunt feels like a trick and a trap and a transparent plot device. It's the only thing that makes destroy even remotely unappealing. I've never heard anyone outside the BSN pick green or blue over red for any reason other than not wanting to murder Edi and genocide the Geth. The only two people I know who picked control explained that they were just planning on piloting the Reapers into the sun themselves, essentially getting the destroy ending but without killing EDI and the Geth.
This isn't just about what the choices are, it's about why they are what they are within the narrative of the game... and the answer to that is a combination of "INSCRUTABLE PAST RACES DID THIS THING" and "STARKID'S WHIM."
All other choices have been what they were because of the game's internal logic. I'd always been a fan of what I call "half-curing" the genophage: coming up with something that increases their fertility rates significantly. but not to Krogan Boom levels. I wasn't upset that that choice wasn't offered, because the way Mordin presented it, this was the only cure available based on the research that was done in ME2. I get to experience the circumstances leading to the choices being what they are, so the resulting choices make sense to me.
In the ending we have, the choices don't logically emerge from circumstances we are familiar with... that's why they are a deus ex machina... except again, as the excellent Dr. Dray pointed out, they're not even worthy of that label, since "deus ex machina" was the invocation of a familiar God to resolve things, and this doesn't even have the mollifying quality of meeting a universally accepted cultural standard. It's just a presentation of three arbitrary choices that do not have the kind of narrative support that cure/no cure, control/destroy geth, blow/save base, have. These choices were either created by a past race for reasons you can't know, or decided upon by Starkid, an entity you can't trust.
And, not to harp on the same thing over and over again, but these choices are being made with the galaxy without asking their permission. In every single other choice, your squadmates and friends have served as sort of stand-ins for galactic civilization as a whole, allowing you to get an idea about what the universe might think of your actions. Robbed of their perspective, the ending feels far more presumptuous than anything else in the series.
Modifié par MrFob, 18 avril 2012 - 11:57 .
Congratulation Vromrig, you derailed a really good discussion into a pointless one.
Maybe you should consider the arguments on the topic rather than the person involved.
Vromrig wrote...
The premise of this argument is ridiculous, you are saying that this person is not who he says he is because he shares a similar view point to many people here, many people share similar view points to others, particularly when the topic is as specific as the faults with the ending of mass effect 3. Saying that this person is not who he claims to be is the most outlandish point when compared to him simply being who he says he is so you are the one that must provide evidence to prove your currently baseless assumption, not demand evidence that this person is who he says he is.
Wrong. Premise of argument is that if you wish to be respected as authority, must prove you are authority.
Disgusting that this forum has fallen this far.
Not my responsibility to prove unsubstantiated claim false.
You don't sound at all like Mordin to me. Mordin makes sense. Mordin has ideas.
You're the one who is derailing the single most productive and polite thread I've yet encountered on these forums.
Personally, I believe that Dr. Dray exists. His words sound like the words of someone who writes about lit theory for a living. If you think "thematically revolting" isn't something a lit professor would say, you haven't hung around many literary academics. It's exactly the kind of thing I expect a lit person to say, and it's the kind of turn of phrase I regret losing after leaving acadamia for the working world.
If he is a literary professor, great.
If he's not, and he's just someone who has exactly the same grasp of theme and story and literary jargon that an academic would have, I see no difference in the value of his statements.
Modifié par Vromrig, 19 avril 2012 - 12:03 .
Vromrig wrote...
Wrong. Premise of argument is that if you wish to be respected as authority, must prove you are authority.
Disgusting that this forum has fallen this far.
Not my responsibility to prove unsubstantiated claim false.
Vromrig wrote...
Retake Movement not worth defending, if standard of evidence subject to quality of potential lies.
Retake Movement deserves better than rejection of healthy scrutiny. Appalling.
Vromrig wrote...
Wrong. Premise of argument is that if you wish to be respected as authority, must prove you are authority.
Disgusting that this forum has fallen this far.
Not my responsibility to prove unsubstantiated claim false.
Retour en haut