I'm going to sum up this thread...
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.
Just finished my first playthrough . . . Hell of a game Bioware
Débuté par
meatsack
, mai 08 2012 01:48
Retour en haut
#152
Guest_slyguy200_*
Posté 10 mai 2012 - 12:32
Guest_slyguy200_*
Guest_slyguy200_*
-
- Guests
^ That sounds just like what Amioran does!
Strange that the Macguffin page was altered just yesterday, i did read it in march when this had all just started and it seemed quite different as i recall...
I did look up D.E.M, i put the meaning right above the post you responded to. I remain adamant that the crucible, at the very most, was a D.E.M. that impacts the story throughout the game as a macguffin would, It is still a D.E.M. in function, revalation, and purpose.Father_Jerusalem wrote...
slyguy200 wrote...
Ewoks? Really? That is not a real comparison due to the fact that they didn't really solve anything, just helped a little.Father_Jerusalem wrote...
...
Right. Were the Ewoks a DEM in Jedi? They were only introduced in the last third of the trilogy...
Just because something is new doesn't mean it's a DEM. The Crucible is found early in the game and the whole point of the game is to build it - not a DEM. The Catalyst is foreshadowed throughout the entire game - not a DEM. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a DEM.
And the ending was a D.E.M. Regardless of the game surrounding the making of it.
It comes with a new character that fits the D.E.M., it solves a seemingly unsolvable problem in an instant upon activation, and in an almost completely unexpected way.
I'd like you to do a little research for me, please.
Look up the term "MacGuffin".
Then look up the term "Deus ex Machina".
Once you're done, please come back here and tell us which one the Crucible is.
Thank you.
Strange that the Macguffin page was altered just yesterday, i did read it in march when this had all just started and it seemed quite different as i recall...
Modifié par slyguy200, 10 mai 2012 - 01:33 .
#153
Posté 10 mai 2012 - 03:34
ME 3
-
- Members
- 131 messages
*Deleted per Site Rules 1, 2, & 3*
Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 mai 2012 - 10:22 .
#154
Guest_slyguy200_*
Posté 10 mai 2012 - 04:50
Guest_slyguy200_*
Guest_slyguy200_*
-
- Guests
The truth comes out!!!!!!^
#155
Posté 10 mai 2012 - 10:12
Father_Jerusalem
-
- Members
- 2 780 messages
ME 3 wrote...
@Father_Jerusalem
*Deleted per Site Rules 1, 2, & 3*
And you can't handle an argument without slinging out personal attacks.
This exchange is over. I don't deal with people who have nothing to back up their arguments other than calling people idiots. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.
Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 mai 2012 - 10:30 .
#156
Posté 10 mai 2012 - 10:27
Selene Moonsong
-
- Members
- 3 398 messages
If folks wish to argue, please do so in PM's, not in the forums and the insults end here and now.
Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 mai 2012 - 10:31 .
#157
Posté 11 mai 2012 - 05:37
jedisolo
-
- Members
- 55 messages
I have played the game 4 times now and I have loved every minute of the 4 times I have played the game. I will be on my 5th play through this weekend. I can't wait till the extended cut dlc comes out.
Modifié par jedisolo, 11 mai 2012 - 05:38 .
#158
Posté 11 mai 2012 - 03:43
Well
-
- Members
- 765 messages
merrick97 wrote...
I am also amazed that people still say that 95% of the game is great, its just that the ending is bad.
Yet everyone ignores:
1. The bad journal system
2. The lack of branched dialogue
3. Story cop-outs (Rachni queen anyone?)
4. The horrible beginning
5. The HORRIBLE HORRIBLE eavesdropping fetch quests that got you meaningless war assets.
6. The small number of actual sidequests
and for me the biggest issue was:
7. The linearity.
Its just that the endings are so bad that it makes us ignore the games other faults.
Having said that if Mass Effect 3 is judged as a Sci-fi third person shooter with some RPG Id easily give it an 8. Its great fun in that regard.
However, when judged and compared to the Mass Effect games that place strong emphasis on story and decisions it gets a 6 because all of that gets pushed to the back in favor of action. The ultimate insult comes when the ending completely throws all that out.
I still do not believe that Mass Effect 3 is truly the game that Bioware wanted to make.
I DO believe that they had intended the Indoctrination theory to be the actual ending and that there would be another sequence at the end of the game in which Shepard overcomes the indoctrination and actually ends the reaper threat, but a deadline forced them to cut all of that and just end it with what they had.
I also liked the Dark Energy theory and the more I think about it I felt that the Dark Energy theory would have made ME4 much more possible.
Yes, I made this exact same post in another thread.
Sue me.
I agree with 1-6.The game was a 6.5 without the ending.As far as people liking 95% well to each his/her own.It just was lackluster for the most part.The Q/G and T/K missions were excellant.I don't know what happened to the rest.It was just to much pew pew roll pew pew.It got old quick.The 1-6 were spot on.
