510 réponses à ce sujet

[Optimist Prime]

First off, this thread is in the wrong forum topic.  It should not be in "(No ME3 Spoilers allowed)" as this thread clearly has spoilers riddled through the 20 pages of garbage that have carried on for 3 days.

Secondly, while I respect the OP for his intentions and his effort, wanting to be an eloquent writer doesn't make it so.  I feel like I need a decoder ring to decipher most of these posts.

Lastly...

Amioran wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...
You have been proven wrong whether you acknowledge it or not. By me or the others here, you have.

I said I will end here, but here It is too funny the thing to stop (and I'm also waiting to finish a thing, if someone reply to a certain thing).

I provided you examples, seven, on were you (in general) were FACTUALLY wrong, so let's see if you can do the same.

Provide me some examples on where you (you? ahahahaha) or others here "proved" me wrong. Factually, not your "hypotesis" as always, motivate them (and please don't twist the thing as you always do).

Let's see if A) you can write a post longer than two sentences, you actually will say something of concrete for a time.

slyguy200 wrote...
Your entire point in this topic is a bunch of biased set garbage, and much of it cancels itself out. It would have been okay if you hadn't decided to bias the entire thing to fit your pro-end motives.

There's nothing of  "pro-end" in what I wrote, since from the original post. It is just how you wanted to look at the thing because you have no other way to behave.

So, all you say ("it would have been okay" etc.) it is obviously (again) proven wrong by the way you did behave.

You didn't prove seven of anything to be wrong.  You shot off 7 generalized ideas, some of which were vaguely covered in these 20 pages, and then you dismissed them as having been "proven wrong."  Unless you can quote or link posts that back this up, it's hearsay.

Half of your arguments seem to be smoke-and-mirror responses, either diverting the conversation away from the user's topic or flat-out calling them wrong and then telling them to back up their claims with facts (which some of them did).  You keep calling your arguments facts, but I honestly have yet to see any.

You started with an interesting thought, despite claiming you knew the intentions and/or the train of thought that EA/BioWare *should* follow as a company (as seen by your thread title), but it is solely based on your opinions of the ending - just like the movement for a new ending is based upon their opinions.  Ironically enough, your main point was that BioWare shouldn't side with one group over another based solely on opinions.  And to top it off, you degraded your own initial argument by resulting to name-calling and tantrum-throwing posts; as the OP, you are supposed to be above childish antics.




I started the first few pages disagreeing with- but respecting your point of view.  Now I just disagree with a troll.  I am sorry to see this thread end up in this condition.

Modifié par Optimist Prime, 03 mai 2012 - 05:23 .

[Blavak]

"As I said, Bioware cannot. That would be like admitting that one part of the audience (those that don't like the ending) have an opinion that matters more than those that like it."

So you are basically saying, that majority of players complaining must do what minority and BW wants and get over it? Its like 100 people say red is red 1 say red is blue and 100 have to accept statement "red is blue" ...

[XTR3M3]

he is like a kid that stands underneath the net at an NBA slam dunk contest. I am actually starting to feel sorry for him. He is standing on an island of flawed premises surrounded by a sea of logic, watching a tsunami come at him trying to make it stop by yelling "it doesn't exist! I am right".

I went back and looked. He offers no proof (he thinks his opinion is proof) from any corroborating source except for a reference to a poll where he skewed the numbers by a factor of 10 from 2% liked to 20% liked ending. This was after saying earlier that polls don't matter. He doesn't even own the game and states he doesn't hardly ever buy games.

using logic to debate with him is fruitless. He rants about "proving us wrong" while never offering any proof of his own. he tries to present his own opinion as fact.

do we really need to slam dunk this guy anymore? No one agrees with him and he is unwilling to admit that any of the points we make that are substantiated by outside sources are valid. He has been reduced to the level of "I am right and you are wrong!" level.

let's let this thread die.

[translationninja]

XTR3M3 wrote...

he is like a kid that stands underneath the net at an NBA slam dunk contest. I am actually starting to feel sorry for him. He is standing on an island of flawed premises surrounded by a sea of logic, watching a tsunami come at him trying to make it stop by yelling "it doesn't exist! I am right".

I went back and looked. He offers no proof (he thinks his opinion is proof) from any corroborating source except for a reference to a poll where he skewed the numbers by a factor of 10 from 2% liked to 20% liked ending. This was after saying earlier that polls don't matter. He doesn't even own the game and states he doesn't hardly ever buy games.

using logic to debate with him is fruitless. He rants about "proving us wrong" while never offering any proof of his own. he tries to present his own opinion as fact.

do we really need to slam dunk this guy anymore? No one agrees with him and he is unwilling to admit that any of the points we make that are substantiated by outside sources are valid. He has been reduced to the level of "I am right and you are wrong!" level.

let's let this thread die.

Good call man. Nice job keeping a level head.

This whole thread is like arguing with a crack junkie whom is trying to convince you that all will be fine as long as he gets this one last hit.

I don't even get what he wants to accomplish in the first place, is there even a point to his assertions other than "now I'm coming in here and tell you imbeciles how the world works"? Because frankly that's all I heard out of all this so far.

Wow, this is quite something.

But hey, as I mentioned before, for a few select individuals bad attention really is favorable to no attention at all.

[iamthedave3]

Amioran wrote...

Because I expected something completely different. I expected flames, I expected insults but I didn't expect people with no dignity whatsoever.

So you lowered yourself to their level and even lower by spamming your own thread with posts mocking them. Or attempting to, but you can't ever win when you do that. If you're as intelligent as you claim to be you should have known that.

1. A story is built also around non-technical parameters, as an opinion. It doesn't exist a wrong opinion. You can like, for example, a story objectively badly-written. So a story can be good depending on the point of view also if technically it can also not be. Given this, "flaws" in this case (and for what it concerns the particular topic you replied to) are just a matter of, again, opinions.

2. If you want to change something, it is better you do it the fast as possible. By now people are emotionally attached to the story as it is (those who like it), so it becomes less and less plausible to change it, either if Bioware would. The more time it pass, the more variables adds to a work, of whatever type. A typical example of this happened with the car producer Fiat. They wanted to change the very old model of the 500, but they couldn't because it became a "protected" one. Time modified greatly what they could do (or not do) with their products.

1. Liking a bad story does not make the story good. It means you like it. There is a difference between the two things and if you understand the fundaments of criticism in any field you know this. I like Snakes on a Plane. it is not a better movie than No Country for Old Men or Gone With The Wind or The Dark Knight. All of those movies are objectively superior. I am able to like it more than those movies, but my liking it does not make it 'better' nor does it make Snakes on a Plane a 'good' movie.

Any argument that bases itself on reducing all critical thinking in every field to simple opinions is fundamentally flawed.

2. I don't think this carries any weight whatsoever, as based on examples of changes done inside this industry already which were done over a longer time period than this. Adding a new one to the pile, Prince of Persia: Epilogue was produced long after the game was released.

And what would be these "miracolous parameters"?

You should know this already if you've been following the controversy. Hate is centred on fairly uniform areas.

I already elencated the motives why people who like the ending probably would neither tolerate a DLC adding a new one to the same, and you can see here in this same forum (in another thread) that these motives are factually true.

I don't agree. There would be a few who would still be upset, but I think the vast majority would accept additional endings, depending on their content. Again, it should be obvious what areas would need to be addressed for such to be acceptable to the majority of anti-enders given that the complaints are mostly uniform.

This based on which theory? Very limited chance? So you say that changing an ending for those that like it that way would have a "very limited chance" of making them angry? As you prefer...

The only way they would be angry is if they disliked the changed ending. That should be quite logical. A very few might take a fundamental stance - the artistic integrity argument, which is invalid for various reasons - but the majority would at least try the changed content. Ergo, the impact would be based on the changed content. It might well be that you and the majority of pro-enders would prefer the changed ending. It cannot be said for certain, but what CAN be said for certain is that many people DISLIKE what is there now.

So unless the changed ending - which I imagine would remain similar in character if not in detail - committed the same egregious errors in basic editing, narrative logic and so on, then it would in fact be very hard for the current situation to not be improved.

Art is tied also to technical parameters, and "artistic integrity" is tied to some of these parameters.

Yet another one that talks of things he doens't anything about pretending to be an expert, I see.

I studied at the art academy, I perfectly know of what I talk about, thanks. So don't try to say me what's what in this case. They are not "separate fields" at all.

I have a degree in this precise field. A good one, from a respected university. And I am a professional editor.

Where one studies is meaningless. What matters is what they learn. You can't wave around a diploma or a bachelors or a first with honours and impress someone when you're talking complete bollocks. It doesn't matter that I have a degree, and it doesn't matter what I studied or where I studied it. The only thing that matters is what I learned and my ability to express that. If people don't appreciate what I say, knowing where I studied won't change a thing. If they do, then do they need to know how I know what I know or how I learned what I learned?

Learning isn't about inflating your own ego. Not to me, anyway. It seems you think otherwise.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 03 mai 2012 - 05:58 .

[Amioran]

Optimist Prime wrote...
You didn't prove seven of anything to be wrong.  You shot off 7 generalized ideas, some of which were vaguely covered in these 20 pages, and then you dismissed them as having been "proven wrong."  Unless you can quote or link posts that back this up, it's hearsay.

If you really followed all the thread then you would know already to what I did refer as proofs. There's nothing of "hearsay" in them. In fact, the proofs are provided all in the same thread. So what links I have to do if it's all here?

Anyway, here is what I wrote along with explanations for you.

"1. The guy who said that people defend the things that gets attacked, proven wrong by one of his same friends, with a poll that proved exactly the contrary."

A guy said that the numbers of people who like the ending should be much more because they would have to obviously defend it and you would see it. I said that human nature doens't work this way. People said that I did make any sense. Then this was PROVEN, by a poll posted by an user (a post above), that had 20% of people like the ending. Since you get to see here only max 5 people (all the same) defending the ending and there are 20% of 70.000 who instead like it, the point of "they are little or you could see them defending it" completely falls. Do you understand?

So, it's this not a proof of him being wrong?

"2. The guy who said that people would be perfectly happy with new endings just because YOU want them, it has been proven wrong by another thread here."

People insisted that I was saying idiocies when I said that people who like the ending would not be to happy either with a DLC adding a new one. I elencated all the motives why that was so and, guess what? There's a thread in this same forum of today that talks just of this and you can find exactly the same motivations I proposed here, proving what I said.

So, isn't this a proof of them being wrong?

"3. The guy who said that Bioware supports pro-enders just because they leave the ending as it is (and being already so as the product shipped). Proven wrong by the fact that every type of support (moral support, technical support, phisical support etc. etc.) requires an active action on the part of the supporter (you can read a vocabulary about that, or study a little of psychology)."

This is self-evident, the motivation is already explained in the point. Namely: supporting of whatever type requires an active action, so just leaving the product as it is CANNOT be support as these people insist.

So, again, isn't this a proof of them being wrong?

"4. The guy that provided a poll and insisted I was "changing" the same only because I said the context is different. Proven wrong by what it happens on canditates in real life (i.e. the context can change the percentual of votes)."

A guy/girl proposed a poll here as evidence. I said that if you can get a result of 20% here of people liking the ending, in a context obviously anti-ending, things can change in a different context and the numbers can, indeed, be higher in a completely different one (for various motives, many having to do, again, with human nature). This is proven by how votes work in real life. If you can have an higher percentual of vote in a state that has an usual context adverse to your candidate it is higly probable that you will have much higher votes on a state that doesn't do the same, isn't it?.

The guy/girl insisted I was trying to deny the value of the poll just for this, when I just stated that different contexts CAN change the thing.

So, again, isn't this proof of the guy/girl being wrong?

"5. The one that insist of talking of majority based on flawed evidence from the start (as if you would base an equation on a flawed parameter) and insisting that's so. Proven wrong by simple numbers (as copies sold and the numbers in his "evidence")."

The polls quoted contains at max 100.000 individuals. Estimated copies sold in the U.S. are about 1.6 million. If you add worldwide and considering the thing in defect let's say the copies are 3 millions (very low estimate, but whatever). Do the math for yourself. Can 3% of the TOTAL picture constitue proof of the same? Reply for yourself.

So, again, isn't this a proof of them being wrong?

The others are more personal, having to do with single replies, so I will leave them alone, but the trend is the same.

So, tell me, what of "fabricated" and "hearsay" there is in all these proofs? I'm curious.

Optimist Prime wrote...
Half of your arguments seem to be smoke-and-mirror responses, either diverting the conversation away from the user's topic or flat-out calling them wrong and then telling them to back up their claims with facts (which some of them did).  You keep calling your arguments facts, but I honestly have yet to see any.

I elencated five of the seven proofs and explained all of them (not too much in detail but let's hope it will suffice), let's see you prove that those are not facts.

Modifié par Amioran, 03 mai 2012 - 05:55 .

[XTR3M3]

slyguy200 wrote...

I made a poll for it, hope that can solidify all of this.
And editing the topic now would falsify the results.

http://social.biowar...25/polls/33288/

sly.....really? We don't need a poll to see that the logic we present to him falls on deaf ears. If he doesn't see the logic in our posts, how will he see anything valid in a poll that seems to nothing other than try and crucify him? I have agreed with you on multiple occasions across multiple threads in these forums. This is the first time I am disappointed in you. Please take that poll down. it is beneath you.

[John Epler]

I think we are done here. Both replete with spoilers and full of bickering.

Locking.