209 réponses à ce sujet

[Amioran]

Secret Elf wrote...
The so-called contrast between free will and the lack of choice in the end is clearly just your poor attempt at rationalization, a feeble defense mechanism of a mind unwilling to accept the simpler truth.

So now a theme is my defense. I understand it.

Do you get that I'm making a reference to a theme you don't know and you accuse me of inventing things? You have no idea of what I'm talking about, so why don't you study it instead of telling me what is good and what is bad in what I say.

Jesus people. It is like I'm talking of chess, trying to make you understand the rules and you insist that what I say is incorrect, when you are the ones that neither know anything about it to begin with.

Secret Elf wrote...
And please don't mention philosophy again in this context, because you clearly haven't got the most distant clue as to what actually constitutes "philosophical". I'd say you know much about sophistry instead, but I somehow doubt you understand what that word even means.

Maybe because there's a philosophical reason because it is so? Again, if you study the theme you will understand this.

Do you get that if you don't know the theme I cannot tell you all about there is to it in a video game forum? It is really complex. The only thing I can do here is trying to make you see that there's more to it than it seems and point you what it is. You cannot expect me to explain you all the theme and its subtleties in this forum.

Secret Elf wrote...
Of course they are. Anything can be found anywhere if one wills it to be there. Especially vague motivations in a nebulous theme, perfect tools for the willfully blind.

What it is nebolous in the "order vs. chaos" theme? You just don't know it and you pretend that I'm the one that's making up things.

Why you people react always in this way is beyond me.

Do you imagine if you go to a literature forum, you start to talk about Rimbaud, for example, someone refers you to a theme and you begin fighting this person because he does so?

Secret Elf wrote...
Correction, he just CLAIMS he is the supreme aspect of order and salvation, and his final rationalizations are nothing more than cheap cliche, awkwardly trying to cover and simplify a very complex underlying issue, based on far-fetched speculation and ludicrous pseudo-logic. You know, kind of like your statements above.

OMG.

Yes, they are cliché, right.

And there's nothing of speculation of pseudo-logic. It is all in the theme, damn.
Why don't you go study it instead of pretending to teach me what's cliché and what's not in it and instead of pretending that I'm making everything up?

Sheesh people, you have really no humility sometimes, seriously. Now you know nothing about a theme, I tell you that there are motivations about it and you insist that's not so, either if you neither know of what I'm talking about.

Sometimes it seems to me I'm in a bar, where everyone you encounter is a genius, that knows everything about all the things and yet never read neither a book in all his/her life.

Secret Elf wrote...
Golly gee, I sure wish someone told the Quarians and the Geth that there can't possibly be any sort of peace between them because apparently their points of view are so distant in the "theme", that there's just no way that Geth would, say, not only make an alliance with their former creators(whom they've never wanted to truly exterminate, by the way, nor did they initiate the war), but also actively participate in the rebuilding of their homeworld, even going so far as downloading themselves into Quarian suits and helping them rebuild their cities. All that is simply not possible, because the almighty THEME hath declared thus! There is simply no other choice, the Starchild says so!
Geth are synthetic, thus – must - destroy – organic life! Ex-ter-mi-nate!
Aw, and they've started to build such nice things together, too. Shucks.

Comprehension FTW!

You are mixing real life with a narrative too much, guy. A theme is meant to propose questions to the user, it must not necessarily reflect what it can happen in real life (or an  hypothetic struggle in a virtual world).

In the case of the "order vs. chaos" theme the destruction choice (in ME) methaphorically explain the lack of cohestitence of the two point of views.

Again, do you know the fallen from heaven of Lucifer's story? That's the same thing, it has the same theme.

But I assume you will have to say something on the line of what you said above also on Lucifer's story, isn't it?

Secret Elf wrote...
Your siding with the Geth it has another scope than a full "order vs. chaos" coexhistence in a greater scale.

So you have now become an expert of the theme and you know everything perfectly to tell me this, isn't it? I also suppose now that you are an expert in literature and can discern what's what in there, isn't it?

Oh well, but I suppose all of this is my fault, after all.
 

Secret Elf wrote...
You know what, I actually really wanted to respond to this rationally, but the more I read through your post, the less sense it makes.

Sure, sure.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is the fact that you want to talk of things you cannot comprehend and yet you want to pass as an expert on them.

Secret Elf wrote...
Bioware is not artistic, and they have no integrity. That's how I know it's not really about artistic integrity.

And instead you are, isn't it?

OMG.

The more time it passes, the more I lose respect for this community.

[Grimwick]

@ Amioran

"Sheesh people, you have really no humility sometimes, seriously. Now you know nothing about a theme, I tell you that there are motivations about it and you insist that's not so, either if you neither know of what I'm talking about."
"Do you get that I'm making a reference to a theme you don't know and you accuse me of inventing things? You have no idea of what I'm talking about, so why don't you study it instead of telling me what is good and what is bad in what I say."
"So you have now become an expert of the theme and you know everything perfectly to tell me this, isn't it? I also suppose now that you are an expert in literature and can discern what's what in there, isn't it?"

You have to be kidding me about how ridiculously obnoxious you are acting...

[Amioran]

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Because you are suddenly the objective master of all that is logical and knowledgeable?[/quote]

In this case, yes, because I know the theme and you don't.
As for what it concerns literature in general I suppose it's the same.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
You have based none of your ideas on anything with weight and comments as to my 'understanding' are rude and arrogant.[/quote]

There's nothing of arrogant on telling someone other that he knows little about a thing. If you get offended by it it is just a matter of pride, nothing more.

As for the "weight", there is, and a lot. Why don't you try to post these things in a literature forum?

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Wait, so your justification that we have only 3 choices which are near identical in the end... is because the theme was free will?[/quote]

No, the three choices are consistent with the choices you get at the end of the struggle from the two point of views in the theme.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
What part of the game and story was based around the idea of free will? The only mentions of it are to do with the geth's right to self-determination which funnily enough appears more in the synthetic/organic theme than free will.[/quote]

"Free will" is the part of Shepard and the fact that he always tries to do things indipendently, fighting other restrictions, as for example fighting the villains that are imposed point of views on the choices in the end. Shepard gets to fight those points of view with his "free will" only to find in the end that "they were right all along" (do you remember the quote?).

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
I fail to understand your point (or lack of one?). Just because it "comes to a point where the two points of views cannot be dealt with in ways that are outside of the behaviour established for them" doesn't mean that we can't have a variety of endings does it?[/quote]

It does, because the solutions in the theme are only those. They can be executed in different ways, but the thematics behind the choices are those. You can include more endings if you amplify a choice, but the general aspect of them are those.
 
[quote]Grimwick wrote...
If the theme was free will then we should have had options or have been able to make decisions other than what we are forced into. If the theme was synthetic/organic we should have had options which are other than SYNTHETICS ARE EVIL K?[/quote]

It's not synthetics are evil, but that order and chaos can find a way to "cohabit" one with another only on certain impositions. The choices as executed on ME ending have methaphoricals meanings behind.

I have no time to explain this detailedly. I've done so in the past. Later, if I have time I will expand on this.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
No. I reject the premise that:
1) Chaos vs Order was the theme of mass effect
2) Synthetic vs Organic = Chaos vs Order
[/quote]

If you say so.
I'm sorry to say it to you but there are either direct quotes to this (i.e. "order vs. chaos" as a thematic is quoted directly) and then it is all foundable in the narrative.

Instead of pretending I'm making it all up, why don't you study yourself the "order vs. chaos" theme and see if it's true or not? You insist telling me I'm wrong and yet I'm the only one with the knowledge of the theme here. Don't you think that there's something that it's a bit off place?

But I don't know what to say to you, believe what you want.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Synthetic/Organic is on the nature of life and peaceful coexistance between alien cultures.
Chaos/Order is a complex philosophical idea based on nature and the driving forces which control it.[/quote]

The former is a sub-product of the latter in this case. You want to see synthetics as aliens, but the most important aspect in them it is not the "alien" (in fact they aren't, because they are not a species) but their point of view in confront to the one of organics.

The fight for the indipendency is a sub-product of the struggle between the two point of views, when one assimilates the other.

Just so you know, in fact, narratives that use the theme and apply it to a typical man vs. machine context always have, at their root, the typical question "do I have a soul" (for what it concerns the machine). It is a typical emotional sub-product of the theme tied to the specific contex.


[quote]Grimwick wrote...
They are not the same theme on any level! It is not a case of microscale/macroscale at all. It is ridiculous to suggest this.[/quote]

I specified what kind of "scope" that was, and it was NOT "microscale/macroscale" but microcosm vs. macrocosm that are two completely separate concepts than the two you used. In fact I used specifically those to make you understand what I meant, but since you don't know the meaning you didn't get it.

Microcosm it means that it takes in consideration more "individual" aspects (as in fact, the question of before) while macrocosm it takes in consideaton more "universal" one. In the first case the behaviour between individuals (the moral aspect) is the angle from which you approach the theme, in the second it is more the philosophical aspect to be taken in consideration, and so the "scale" of the thing acquires a completely different value.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
In any case, the idea of chao/order is certainly not the theme of mass effect. [/quote]

If you say so.
I guess you are an expert of the chaos/order theme and since you know everything of it you know this perfectly, isn't it?

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
If you are trying to tell me that after 100 hours of gameplay and touching many strong topics such as racism/the genophage/free will/syntheticvsorganic/nature of life/survival against the impossible/friendship+cooporation that the theme is in fact based in 2 lines of dialogue in ME1 and 2 lines of dialogue in ME3? [/quote]

The other "topics" are not the primary aspect of the context of the narrative. They are important, just because the protagonist, Shepard, is an important part of the narrative, but a theme is a different thing. They are just little "parentesis" in the narrative, all treating a different argument within themselves.

It is like, in the same case of ME, using different villains to battle, but the PRIMARY villain remains always the Reapers. So they are the primary villain and they bring with themselves the primary theme.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Nu-uh. Not buying it.[/quote]

As you prefer.


[quote]Grimwick wrote...
I'm sorry but why is coexistance impossible? The geth that weren't heretics lived peacefully in their own corner of space for centuries... peacefully. [/quote]

They lived peacefully, in fact, because they lived on their own. That's the same as the choice "where you exist I cannot". Have you read one single word of what I said, for god's sake?

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
If you are trying to propel the claim that war is inevitable then try and find some evidence first please, don't base it from what the SC says in the last 3 mins of the game.[/quote]

If you would read something of what I write instead of pretending you do maybe I already did.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
In fact the two points of view aren't that opposed and I don't see why a peaceful resolution is impossible (it was certainly possible about 5 hours before the ending).[/quote]

A treaty is not peace.
As for why it's impossible, again, it is all explained in the theme.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
The choices we are given are in NO way the only 3 solutions. Since when is having to control one of the sides one of the only three solutions? Since when is having to unite them both in some stupid mega-DNA another solution? That's one of the most stupid sci fi ideas I have heard in a long time. And then the only other option is to destroy them? These are definitely, definitely not the only solutions.[/quote]

Those three solutions are methaphorical explanations of the fundamental choices in the theme to have the two point of views cooperate (or remain in "peace").


[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Please retype with better english? I have a feeling you were trying to subtly insult me here.[/quote]

No. I just said that you don't know the theme and so you cannot understand what the choices imply.
If it's an insult decide for yourself.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Why does Shepard even have an opinion to side with the geth anymore when in the end we are forced into believing that they will inevitably want to kill us?[/quote]

If you know the theme it has a dramatic impact. Because you understand that by making that choice (the two points not being compatible) you must really sacrifice what you loved for it. The choice methaphorically means (as I already explained) that "where you exist I cannot" and this is put in evidence in a dramatic way.

If you have no attachments to the Geths then the choice is less dramatic and it has less impact. It is this one of the motives, btw, that the Geths are made so adorable ;-)

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
I have no idea why Shepard's free will must contrast with anything...[/quote]

It is in contrast with already decided outcomes or it is in contrast with so-called "inevitability", at last in the beginning.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Not supported with any substantiated evidence.[/quote]

It depends on how you see the thing.

[/quote][quote]Grimwick wrote...
You have to be joking here. There is no way you could compare a vague religious parable with synthetic/organic coexistance and still make sense.[/quote]

They have the same methaphorical meaning, having the same theme behind.
Occidental religions have all, at their root the theme "order vs. chaos". If you study esoterism you learn this quite soon.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
It doesn't work both ways if you already have what you want and don't have to change yourself...[/quote]

You have what you want just because you like the product as it is. It is not that Bioware is supporting your point of view.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Just because it would never have done anything otherwise doesn't mean anything. If a company for example really believed everyone in the world liked dark chocolate and then planned to make all their chocolate dark, only later to find out that most people preferred milk chocolate, then they would change their plans regardless. Plans change - don't assume they would never had done something just because it wasn't required at the time.[/quote]

This is another concept altogheter. We were talking of a different thing.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Actually, the fact that I don't like the ending gives me the right to state it, and also gives me the right to ASK for another one. [/quote]

Never said the contrary. It just depends on which way you ask it. Method is important, you know.

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
We are not forcing BW to do anything, we are trying to persuade them to make something that would increase our overall enjoyment.[/quote]

Maybe you forget something, isn't it? What about the Retake movement? Doesn't seem to me they were asking nicely or "persuading", isn't it?

And all the flaming for the same end? All all the boycotting? Blackmail is "persuading" now?

[quote]Grimwick wrote...
Pro-enders are welcome to voice their opinions on the ending... but openly petitioning in order to deny others of what they want IS selfish. You cannot claim otherwise.
[/quote]

I claim that's even more selfish not care about what others think and pretend a change.

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 06:37 .

[dunstan1993]

@Amioran
"I don't think anyone seriously went in there thinking "it's just a weapon that we activate and then it'll kill all the Reapers", did they?"
I did kinda think something like that, yeah. 

[The Razman]

dunstan1993 wrote...

@Amioran
"I don't think anyone seriously went in there thinking "it's just a weapon that we activate and then it'll kill all the Reapers", did they?"
I did kinda think something like that, yeah. 

That was me who said that, not Amioran.

And seriously ...? You thought it was that easy? I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything like that, but there was an absolute truckload of foreshadowing about the Crucible and how we didn't know what it was going to do when it was turned on?

[AlanC9]

Yep. I don't want to sound mean, dunstan, but were you actually listening to any of the dialogues about the Crucible?

[Amioran]

SalsaDMA wrote...
No.

And you didn't add anything new to the table with any of those words either.

Thank you, as always, for taking the time to understand what I said.

It is so beautiful to talk with walls, and either more with presumptuos people that think they already know everything when it's not the case.

I bet you have never read a book in all your life (apart maybe Tolkien or other sci-fi/fantasy crap) and you now want to pretend if what I'm saying is real or not.

Ok, whatever.

SalsaDMA wrote...
And the hypocrisy of your being reeks from this part: "I have no problems on people saying "I don't believe you". That's pefectly fine, and I encourage it, in fact." when you have on several occasions stated the exact opposite in actions and even literal words.

Maybe you missed the next part or you did it voluntarily (as always)? Because, you know, there's nothing in what you say that goes with "I don't believe in it a priori but I will check". There's only about the second's sentence (that you discarded).

SalsaDMA wrote...
Keep dreaming up your own world if it makes it happy. Just don't expect the rest of us to be converted to your idea of reality. :innocent:

At last my "own world" is the creation of an high IQ.
Feel free to fill the gaps of what I didn't say here.

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 06:45 .

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...

@ Amioran

"Sheesh people, you have really no humility sometimes, seriously. Now you know nothing about a theme, I tell you that there are motivations about it and you insist that's not so, either if you neither know of what I'm talking about."
"Do you get that I'm making a reference to a theme you don't know and you accuse me of inventing things? You have no idea of what I'm talking about, so why don't you study it instead of telling me what is good and what is bad in what I say."
"So you have now become an expert of the theme and you know everything perfectly to tell me this, isn't it? I also suppose now that you are an expert in literature and can discern what's what in there, isn't it?"

You have to be kidding me about how ridiculously obnoxious you are acting...

What is your "field of competence" so to speak?

Let's pretend that it is chess. Suppose that you go in a forum and there's a reference to chess somewhere. You, being good at it try to explain what it means to those that are there.

Those people, however, also if they know absolutely anything of chess pretend to tell you that what you say it's all an idiocy or a fantasy, they insult you and are either arrogant when you are just trying to help them understanding the thing.

Then, if you react and try to let them notice the fact that they know anything about chess and yet pretend to tell you (that know it) what's right or wrong in it, then they either say you are "obnoxius".

But as I said, I suppose that all of this is my fault. I could just stay quiet. It's not that I get something in return for what I do anyway.

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 06:53 .

[The Razman]

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

@ Amioran

"Sheesh people, you have really no humility sometimes, seriously. Now you know nothing about a theme, I tell you that there are motivations about it and you insist that's not so, either if you neither know of what I'm talking about."
"Do you get that I'm making a reference to a theme you don't know and you accuse me of inventing things? You have no idea of what I'm talking about, so why don't you study it instead of telling me what is good and what is bad in what I say."
"So you have now become an expert of the theme and you know everything perfectly to tell me this, isn't it? I also suppose now that you are an expert in literature and can discern what's what in there, isn't it?"

You have to be kidding me about how ridiculously obnoxious you are acting...

What is your "field of competence" so to speak?

Let's pretend that it is chess. Suppose that you go in a forum and there's a reference to chess somewhere. You, being good at it try to explain what it means to those that are there.

Those people, however, also if they know absolutely anything of chess pretend to tell you that what you say it's all an idiocy or a fantasy, they insult you and are either arrogant when you are just trying to help them understanding the thing.

Then, if you react and try to let them notice the fact that they know anything about chess and yet pretend to tell you (that know it) what's right or wrong in it, then they either say you are "obnoxius".

But as I said, I suppose that all of this is my fault. I could just stay quiet. It's not that I get something in return for what I do anyway.

What in the name of holy fishsticks are you two rabbiting on about?

[Selene Moonsong]

This is going nowhere good. Let's give it a rest for now.