136 réponses à ce sujet

[Emzamination]

Icemix wrote...

If it leads the charge doesn't that make a front line ship?

The first time it was ambushed, the second time it was ambushed again, and got all of its systems shutdown. The third time when it was an even battle it won vs a vastly technologically superior ship 1v1. Have you even played any mass effect game? Try again?

The warden led the charge during the battle of denerim as well, funny how every solider seemed to beat him to the front lines while he stood back waiting for a break in formation, no?

In short, no, leading the head of a army into battle isn't the same thing as fighting at the forefront.

[Naughty Bear]

Emzamination wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Go play the ****ing game again you ****ing moron. Seriously, I have been trying to keep my cool, but you are just ****ing retarded. Its like trying to have an argument with a 10 year old.

Your tears are like sweet whine.Everyone of your statements has been explained and dismissed and now you launch a tantrum like a fat kid who got no cake at the party.Step back,take a breather and relax, Boy

Oh, snap!

[Icemix]

The Razman wrote...

I'd like to make it clear that while I did involve myself because I saw somebody making frankly moronic claims as to what were plotholes, I happen to think that both sides in this particular thread need to go away and educate themselves more before attempting to engage in rational arguments in future.

Well how about you enlighten us with your supreme knowledge of anything ME related, instead of just telling us to go away.

[Emzamination]

Icemix wrote...

Kudos, normandy isn't a frontline warship and was generally adressed as being apart of sword.

That what you needed to hear? 

[The Razman]

Icemix wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I'd like to make it clear that while I did involve myself because I saw somebody making frankly moronic claims as to what were plotholes, I happen to think that both sides in this particular thread need to go away and educate themselves more before attempting to engage in rational arguments in future.

Well how about you enlighten us with your supreme knowledge of anything ME related, instead of just telling us to go away.

While I don't claim to be in possession of any kind of superior knowledge ... I did the equivilent of what you're telling me to do on the last page. It might have got lost for you in amidst the petty squabbling.

[wolfwarp]

Get over it. Some like the ending, some don't. Facts of life. Just because you don't like it, you can't force others to do the same. And vice versa. There are times when we have a divided opinion. This is one.

[Emzamination]

The Razman wrote...

Icemix wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I'd like to make it clear that while I did involve myself because I saw somebody making frankly moronic claims as to what were plotholes, I happen to think that both sides in this particular thread need to go away and educate themselves more before attempting to engage in rational arguments in future.

Well how about you enlighten us with your supreme knowledge of anything ME related, instead of just telling us to go away.

While I don't claim to be in possession of any kind of superior knowledge ... I did the equivilent of what you're telling me to do on the last page. It might have got lost for you in amidst the petty squabbling.

There is no need to downgrade our argument and dismiss it as "Petty squabbling".I would think you were above that, sir.

[Icemix]

The Razman wrote...

Icemix wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I'd like to make it clear that while I did involve myself because I saw somebody making frankly moronic claims as to what were plotholes, I happen to think that both sides in this particular thread need to go away and educate themselves more before attempting to engage in rational arguments in future.

Well how about you enlighten us with your supreme knowledge of anything ME related, instead of just telling us to go away.

While I don't claim to be in possession of any kind of superior knowledge ... I did the equivilent of what you're telling me to do on the last page. It might have got lost for you in amidst the petty squabbling.

Even if its fade-to-black, we can't asume that it took it hours to reach the Sol relay, but we can't allso be sure it was instantenious. However, after it hits the relay it spreads just as fast as the other 2, so it kinda leans more to the faster part of the argument. And if it did take longer, it is the only ending in which the Normandy scene is possible.

[Icemix]

Emzamination wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Kudos, normandy isn't a frontline warship and was generally adressed as being apart of sword.

That what you needed to hear? 

What is your definition of a fronline ship then?

[Herr_Fritz]

Emzamination wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Icemix wrote...

I don't know man, in my game the relays blow up before the Normandy scene, and then I saw my ship leaving me in the peak of the battle for no ****ing reason whatsoever. I probably just got the wrong game or something.

Head cannon all you want, it doesn't equal logic.

They all blew up as once? The normandy followed you? Yes you did pick up the wrong game.You should try playing me3, it's boss. 

The beam from the Citadel reaches the relay almost instantaneous. The Relay starts overcharging and blows up dransfering the beam to the next relay. Then you see Joker trying to get away from it. So now.
1. Joker had to go into the relay before the beam from the Citadel.
2. Joker is running away in conventional FTL, in which case he shouldn't have realy made it that far from Sol.

Now the questions:
If we follow your retarded logic, what the **** was Joker doing standing near the Pluto relay?
Why would he leave me and take my crew? Joker and the crew would never do that. Its either do or die, no running away.

There is only one relay near earth and thats all dust

The Super secret project wasn't created in the sol system so joker would've had to move to help escort said project to the citadel. Logic huh?

Why would he be siting up in space with a war raging waiting for shep to call and say hes done shopping and needs pick up? 

Next

Normandy was an escort?

So you're saying that Joker did what exactly after said escort?

[The Razman]

Icemix wrote...
Even if its fade-to-black, we can't asume that it took it hours to reach the Sol relay, but we can't allso be sure it was instantenious. However, after it hits the relay it spreads just as fast as the other 2, so it kinda leans more to the faster part of the argument. And if it did take longer, it is the only ending in which the Normandy scene is possible.

Why would it need hours to make the other endings possible? The Sol mass relay is at Jupiter ... almost a piddling distance for the Normandy with its FTL drives.

[Herr_Fritz]

The Razman wrote...

Icemix wrote...
Even if its fade-to-black, we can't asume that it took it hours to reach the Sol relay, but we can't allso be sure it was instantenious. However, after it hits the relay it spreads just as fast as the other 2, so it kinda leans more to the faster part of the argument. And if it did take longer, it is the only ending in which the Normandy scene is possible.

Why would it need hours to make the other endings possible? The Sol mass relay is at Jupiter ... almost a piddling distance for the Normandy with its FTL drives.

Incorrect.  Charon Relay is in orbit of Pluto.

[The Razman]

Herr_Fritz wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Icemix wrote...
Even if its fade-to-black, we can't asume that it took it hours to reach the Sol relay, but we can't allso be sure it was instantenious. However, after it hits the relay it spreads just as fast as the other 2, so it kinda leans more to the faster part of the argument. And if it did take longer, it is the only ending in which the Normandy scene is possible.

Why would it need hours to make the other endings possible? The Sol mass relay is at Jupiter ... almost a piddling distance for the Normandy with its FTL drives.

Incorrect.  Charon Relay is in orbit of Pluto.

Meh, my bad. Jupiter, Pluto, not really any difference when it comes to the point though.

[Documental]

Quite frankly I tend to ignore fans of anything related to video games, because fans are ravenous wankers most of the time who will scream bloody murder at anything and then **** between each other in stupid arguments. If I enjoy a game then I enjoy a game, not because someone else enjoyed it.

[The Razman]

Documental wrote...

Quite frankly I tend to ignore fans of anything related to video games

... why did you come to a fan-forum then?

[wolfstanus]

I see strawmen attacking a chewbaca defense...

A Chewbacca Defense is part of an argument that has the effect of confusing the opponent so much that they stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally as flimsy, right? Right?

The sad part? It works. Not just in media, but in real life, too. In fact, most political systems are based on doing this.
Key signs of a Chewbacca Defense include:
Being accused of loving or hating X, where X is a subject unrelated to the debate.
Having a point repeated over and over again.
Shouting
Not giving an opponent a chance to talk.
Having semantics or nitpicks about the argument come up repeatedly, either to tire out or distract the opponent, or to waste time.
The common Chewbacca Defense is based on some combination of the following misconceptions and/or fallacies:
If you can prove the other side wrong, it makes you right. See False Dichotomy.
If you can word your statements and arguments in a way that is too confusing, intelligent-sounding, or nonsensical for the opponent to respond to, it makes them wrong and it makes you right. See Insane Troll Logic.
If you can shock or confuse your opponent and make them think you are a lost cause and not worth arguing with, you are right.
If you can make an opponent look bad, their logic must be equally as bad, and therefore you are right (see also: Godwin's Law, Ad Hominem).
If you are more popular than your opponent, it makes them wrong and it makes you right.
Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense.
Confusing, isn't it?
Compare Confusion Fu, Passive Aggressive Kombat and Abomination Accusation Attack. As the strategy can work very well in conjunction with Obfuscating Stupidity, it's often popular with Simple Country Lawyers. A Chewbacca Prosecution may also be used in a Kangaroo Court, where it doesn't matter what the prosecuter says because he's going to win anyway.

[The Razman]

wolfstanus wrote...

I see strawmen attacking a chewbaca defense...

A Chewbacca Defense is part of an argument that has the effect of confusing the opponent so much that they stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally as flimsy, right? Right?

The sad part? It works. Not just in media, but in real life, too. In fact, most political systems are based on doing this.
Key signs of a Chewbacca Defense include:
Being accused of loving or hating X, where X is a subject unrelated to the debate.
Having a point repeated over and over again.
Shouting
Not giving an opponent a chance to talk.
Having semantics or nitpicks about the argument come up repeatedly, either to tire out or distract the opponent, or to waste time.
The common Chewbacca Defense is based on some combination of the following misconceptions and/or fallacies:
If you can prove the other side wrong, it makes you right. See False Dichotomy.
If you can word your statements and arguments in a way that is too confusing, intelligent-sounding, or nonsensical for the opponent to respond to, it makes them wrong and it makes you right. See Insane Troll Logic.
If you can shock or confuse your opponent and make them think you are a lost cause and not worth arguing with, you are right.
If you can make an opponent look bad, their logic must be equally as bad, and therefore you are right (see also: Godwin's Law, Ad Hominem).
If you are more popular than your opponent, it makes them wrong and it makes you right.
Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense.
Confusing, isn't it?
Compare Confusion Fu, Passive Aggressive Kombat and Abomination Accusation Attack. As the strategy can work very well in conjunction with Obfuscating Stupidity, it's often popular with Simple Country Lawyers. A Chewbacca Prosecution may also be used in a Kangaroo Court, where it doesn't matter what the prosecuter says because he's going to win anyway.

Are you going to start detailing the LeBron James defence next?

[Dont Kaidan Me]

wolfstanus wrote...

I see strawmen attacking a chewbaca defense...

A Chewbacca Defense is part of an argument that has the effect of confusing the opponent so much that they stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally as flimsy, right? Right?

The sad part? It works. Not just in media, but in real life, too. In fact, most political systems are based on doing this.
Key signs of a Chewbacca Defense include:
Being accused of loving or hating X, where X is a subject unrelated to the debate.
Having a point repeated over and over again.
Shouting
Not giving an opponent a chance to talk.
Having semantics or nitpicks about the argument come up repeatedly, either to tire out or distract the opponent, or to waste time.
The common Chewbacca Defense is based on some combination of the following misconceptions and/or fallacies:
If you can prove the other side wrong, it makes you right. See False Dichotomy.
If you can word your statements and arguments in a way that is too confusing, intelligent-sounding, or nonsensical for the opponent to respond to, it makes them wrong and it makes you right. See Insane Troll Logic.
If you can shock or confuse your opponent and make them think you are a lost cause and not worth arguing with, you are right.
If you can make an opponent look bad, their logic must be equally as bad, and therefore you are right (see also: Godwin's Law, Ad Hominem).
If you are more popular than your opponent, it makes them wrong and it makes you right.
Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense.
Confusing, isn't it?
Compare Confusion Fu, Passive Aggressive Kombat and Abomination Accusation Attack. As the strategy can work very well in conjunction with Obfuscating Stupidity, it's often popular with Simple Country Lawyers. A Chewbacca Prosecution may also be used in a Kangaroo Court, where it doesn't matter what the prosecuter says because he's going to win anyway.

Fortunately, Chewbacca and Strawmen are both flammable.

You should distribute calligraphed, hand bound copies of this.

[soapmode]

 

Dont Kaidan Me wrote...

You should distribute calligraphed, hand bound copies of this.

 

Agreed, that's the Rosetta Stone for internet arguments.

Modifié par soapmode, 07 mai 2012 - 03:26 .

[The Razman]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

Ok, I stopped right there. I can't believe I am actually going to respond to this but anyway here we go...

1) The only way you and Emule are even trying to disprove anything is with half cocked explainations that make even less sense then the ending you are defending and then simply stating "not a plothole" and then sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "LALALALALALALA I'm right you're wrong LALALALA not a plothole LoLOl.OLoLOloL you are moron HAHAHAHAH TROLOLOLOLOLOL" sorry kid, but that's not how it works. Just because you say something isn't a plothole doesn't make it not a plothole. Stop with you asinine assertions.

I think you mean "disingenous".

And sorry, you've read the explanation (which isn't even hard to understand, and is actually what is in the game if you listen) and then instead of writing a paragraph refuting the logic of it ... you wrote that. The only one sticking their fingers in their ears is you ... I'm trying to have a logical discussion here.

I've given you what the logic is. Refute it or GTFO.

2) "

This is the most asinine of your arguments. Here you try to defend a plothole with misdirection when you are obviously horrible at creating misdirection.

Let me spell it out for you. Shepard was vaporized into tiny atoms, and then in the ending you are defending, he is back on Earth in whole taking a breath... that is the PUREST definition of plothole. How you can be dense enough to try to argue otherwise is so beyond comprehension I can't help but think that you have no business in an intelligent conversation.

Would you like a list of movies which end with the villain/hero being blasted/stabbed/crushed/falling off a cliff/vaporised/suffocated/drowned/killed to death in any number of ways/etc that proceed to include a little teaser at the end which suggests that they're not dead?

And after that, a little treatise on science-fiction conventions circa-1950s Hollywood and how Mass Effect emulates them?

And that... is logic.

I'm sorry ... I honestly have never seen anything that is less logic than what you've just posted. I know you're using the "No, YOU are" defence (which I get enough of from the children I work with, tbh), and so pointing out that you're being completely illogical and not addressing anything I've said is going to be met with "No, YOU'RE being completely illogical" line ... but seriously. Nobody else is being fooled here, mate.

If you want to actually understand the whole "Reaper cycle preserves organic life" logic (because it's obvious you haven't understood it), I'm here to talk to. As is my PM box.

[Icemix]

The Razman wrote...

Icemix wrote...
Even if its fade-to-black, we can't asume that it took it hours to reach the Sol relay, but we can't allso be sure it was instantenious. However, after it hits the relay it spreads just as fast as the other 2, so it kinda leans more to the faster part of the argument. And if it did take longer, it is the only ending in which the Normandy scene is possible.

Why would it need hours to make the other endings possible? The Sol mass relay is at Jupiter ... almost a piddling distance for the Normandy with its FTL drives.

Bcecause Pluto is about four light years away from Earth if I am not mistaken. And if the math of some people that have been trying to figure out how fast the Normandy can go is correct, she can cover around 12 light years per day.
Even if their math is not correct and she goes a bit faster, the journey would be a bit more than instantenious.

[The Razman]

Icemix wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Icemix wrote...
Even if its fade-to-black, we can't asume that it took it hours to reach the Sol relay, but we can't allso be sure it was instantenious. However, after it hits the relay it spreads just as fast as the other 2, so it kinda leans more to the faster part of the argument. And if it did take longer, it is the only ending in which the Normandy scene is possible.

Why would it need hours to make the other endings possible? The Sol mass relay is at Jupiter ... almost a piddling distance for the Normandy with its FTL drives.

Bcecause Pluto is about four light years away from Earth if I am not mistaken. And if the math of some people that have been trying to figure out how fast the Normandy can go is correct, she can cover around 12 light years per day.
Even if their math is not correct and she goes a bit faster, the journey would be a bit more than instantenious.

... Pluto is four light years away from Earth?

... are you quite sure about that?

[The Master Chief]

Come on, guys, can we all just argue nicely? If you present your argument in a condescending manner, your opponent won't take you seriously, and the point of your argument gets lost.

And for the record, Pluto is an average of about 5 light hours away from Earth. lol

[Icemix]

The Razman wrote...

Icemix wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Icemix wrote...
Even if its fade-to-black, we can't asume that it took it hours to reach the Sol relay, but we can't allso be sure it was instantenious. However, after it hits the relay it spreads just as fast as the other 2, so it kinda leans more to the faster part of the argument. And if it did take longer, it is the only ending in which the Normandy scene is possible.

Why would it need hours to make the other endings possible? The Sol mass relay is at Jupiter ... almost a piddling distance for the Normandy with its FTL drives.

Bcecause Pluto is about four light years away from Earth if I am not mistaken. And if the math of some people that have been trying to figure out how fast the Normandy can go is correct, she can cover around 12 light years per day.
Even if their math is not correct and she goes a bit faster, the journey would be a bit more than instantenious.

... Pluto is four light years away from Earth?

... are you quite sure about that?

Oh wow misinformed, but still, it won't be instantenious.