553 réponses à ce sujet

[Erield]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Don't call my argument a straw man when you are incapable of dismissing it. Old debating tactic, I know it very well, you're not going to make me panic.

What you failed to examine was I never stated that Conviction was stating Arrival's events took place. Conviction is explicitly about Vega, learning about Shepard's involvement with the Alpha Relay, and acting as his bodyguard from a horde of angry batarians who are out for his/her blood.

Arrival is canon. That's all there is to it.

The argument isn't whether the major events in Arrival are canon; the argument is whether Shepard is responsible.  Ignoring what the argument is is the definition of straw manning as I understand it.

Speaking of failing to examine arguments, Hudson speaks about DLC here (2:57).  "Any DLC that we do, whether it's Day One or later is really just sugar on top and is a way to supplement your experience if you want and totally optional."

About Arrival: "We'll try to tell a really compelling story, but they always come after the main goal of telling a satisfying story with the main game."  (4:10.  Questions about Arrival are directly after the previous question is answered, he has more than just that to say.)

There is a direct conflict between what Hudson says, what is presented in the comics, and their link to IT. 

[Arian Dynas]

Erield wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Don't call my argument a straw man when you are incapable of dismissing it. Old debating tactic, I know it very well, you're not going to make me panic.

What you failed to examine was I never stated that Conviction was stating Arrival's events took place. Conviction is explicitly about Vega, learning about Shepard's involvement with the Alpha Relay, and acting as his bodyguard from a horde of angry batarians who are out for his/her blood.

Arrival is canon. That's all there is to it.

The argument isn't whether the major events in Arrival are canon; the argument is whether Shepard is responsible.  Ignoring what the argument is is the definition of straw manning as I understand it.

Speaking of failing to examine arguments, Hudson speaks about DLC here (2:57).  "Any DLC that we do, whether it's Day One or later is really just sugar on top and is a way to supplement your experience if you want and totally optional."

About Arrival: "We'll try to tell a really compelling story, but they always come after the main goal of telling a satisfying story with the main game."  (4:10.  Questions about Arrival are directly after the previous question is answered, he has more than just that to say.)

There is a direct conflict between what Hudson says, what is presented in the comics, and their link to IT. 

Bioware has also EXPLICITLY stated that what happens in the comics and novels is canon. Period. Mass Effect: Conviction explicitly states Shepard was responsible for the events ot The Arrival. Period. It never identifies whom Shepard is, or even what Shepard's gender or appearance are. Only that Shepard took place in the events of Arrival and was arrested as a war criminal to protect him/her from the Batarians.

I am a long time Warhammer 40,000 fan. I know what it is like to have a fandom with confusing fandom. But the fact is, Bioware itself has repeated this statement multiple times in official statements, whereas Casey alone has made his statement once, in a broad generalization, without referring to anything in paticular, in an interveiw.

I think I'll be going with Bioware on this one. How about you?

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.But you know that the artifact is reaper orgin. Point at the prothean beacon is grasping for straws when you know object rho is a reaper artifact.
2. Saren state he tried to limit his contact with Sovergn at first......It even says he planned to do that in ME:REVILATION....He still got indoctrinated.

1. Not all becons are reaper technology. Some of the prothean technology were actually prothean.

2. Sovereign was Saren's FLAGSHIP, they close to each other all the time. And like I said, he also had reaper tech inside him later on. 

Modifié par HagarIshay, 15 juin 2012 - 12:26 .

[zambot]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Erield wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Don't call my argument a straw man when you are incapable of dismissing it. Old debating tactic, I know it very well, you're not going to make me panic.

What you failed to examine was I never stated that Conviction was stating Arrival's events took place. Conviction is explicitly about Vega, learning about Shepard's involvement with the Alpha Relay, and acting as his bodyguard from a horde of angry batarians who are out for his/her blood.

Arrival is canon. That's all there is to it.

The argument isn't whether the major events in Arrival are canon; the argument is whether Shepard is responsible.  Ignoring what the argument is is the definition of straw manning as I understand it.

Speaking of failing to examine arguments, Hudson speaks about DLC here (2:57).  "Any DLC that we do, whether it's Day One or later is really just sugar on top and is a way to supplement your experience if you want and totally optional."

About Arrival: "We'll try to tell a really compelling story, but they always come after the main goal of telling a satisfying story with the main game."  (4:10.  Questions about Arrival are directly after the previous question is answered, he has more than just that to say.)

There is a direct conflict between what Hudson says, what is presented in the comics, and their link to IT. 

Bioware has also EXPLICITLY stated that what happens in the comics and novels is canon. Period. Mass Effect: Conviction explicitly states Shepard was responsible for the events ot The Arrival. Period. It never identifies whom Shepard is, or even what Shepard's gender or appearance are. Only that Shepard took place in the events of Arrival and was arrested as a war criminal to protect him/her from the Batarians.

I am a long time Warhammer 40,000 fan. I know what it is like to have a fandom with confusing fandom. But the fact is, Bioware itself has repeated this statement multiple times in official statements, whereas Casey alone has made his statement once, in a broad generalization, without referring to anything in paticular, in an interveiw.

I think I'll be going with Bioware on this one. How about you?

The game EXPLICITLY states that commandoes were responsible for the events of The Arrival (if you did not do the Arrival DLC).  So if what you are saying about Bioware "canonizing" comics is true, then we have a situation where a comic is in direct disagreement with the game.  In a universe built around the game, you would be justified accepting what the game said in such a case to resolve the conflict.  Therefore there is no way all Shepards were responsible for the events in Arrival.  It cannot be canon.

[llbountyhunter]

..... well thanks guys for defending the thread while I was away....

[UrgentArchengel]

...afriad to talk here, anyway, my IT bros can back me up.

-IT is not "Fan-Fiction". Fan-Fiction is fiction that is created by fan, and is neither canon or true. IT as of this very second is an interpretation. Once EC is out, then we will find out.

-On whether Arrival is canon or not, well, my Shepard did it, so it's canon...to me. I could careless whether somebody did it or not, it not my canon. It nice though, when the outside stuff fits my story though. Besides, if BW releases a DLC, and says it's important, shouldn't that indicate it as a "must buy?". Not arguing whether or not to buy it, but clearly BW screwed themselves over Arrival, and they should fix this, or at least talk about it.

-Now, can we all get along? Anyways you look at it, we're all Shepard's. That makes up brothers-in-arms. Regardless of a few black sheep.

[llbountyhunter]

zambot wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Erield wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Don't call my argument a straw man when you are incapable of dismissing it. Old debating tactic, I know it very well, you're not going to make me panic.

What you failed to examine was I never stated that Conviction was stating Arrival's events took place. Conviction is explicitly about Vega, learning about Shepard's involvement with the Alpha Relay, and acting as his bodyguard from a horde of angry batarians who are out for his/her blood.

Arrival is canon. That's all there is to it.

The argument isn't whether the major events in Arrival are canon; the argument is whether Shepard is responsible.  Ignoring what the argument is is the definition of straw manning as I understand it.

Speaking of failing to examine arguments, Hudson speaks about DLC here (2:57).  "Any DLC that we do, whether it's Day One or later is really just sugar on top and is a way to supplement your experience if you want and totally optional."

About Arrival: "We'll try to tell a really compelling story, but they always come after the main goal of telling a satisfying story with the main game."  (4:10.  Questions about Arrival are directly after the previous question is answered, he has more than just that to say.)

There is a direct conflict between what Hudson says, what is presented in the comics, and their link to IT. 

Bioware has also EXPLICITLY stated that what happens in the comics and novels is canon. Period. Mass Effect: Conviction explicitly states Shepard was responsible for the events ot The Arrival. Period. It never identifies whom Shepard is, or even what Shepard's gender or appearance are. Only that Shepard took place in the events of Arrival and was arrested as a war criminal to protect him/her from the Batarians.

I am a long time Warhammer 40,000 fan. I know what it is like to have a fandom with confusing fandom. But the fact is, Bioware itself has repeated this statement multiple times in official statements, whereas Casey alone has made his statement once, in a broad generalization, without referring to anything in paticular, in an interveiw.

I think I'll be going with Bioware on this one. How about you?

The game EXPLICITLY states that commandoes were responsible for the events of The Arrival (if you did not do the Arrival DLC).  So if what you are saying about Bioware "canonizing" comics is true, then we have a situation where a comic is in direct disagreement with the game.  In a universe built around the game, you would be justified accepting what the game said in such a case to resolve the conflict.  Therefore there is no way all Shepards were responsible for the events in Arrival.  It cannot be canon.

exaclty, just like the mass effect books. the events happen wether you de them or not. thats what a cannon is. 

[llbountyhunter]

Joccaren wrote...

You can view it as Bioware's idea if you wish, however it is fanfiction - like it or not.
Bioware's plan was not a dream sequence, but for you to lose control of Shepard. Sadly, this obviously didn't work too well [Likely because you're not in control of Shepard for 90% of the cutscenes anyway, so they can't take your ability to choose what Shepard says away after its already been taken] and they abandoned it.
IT as it currently is is fan fiction based off numerous small bits and pieces from ME3 that just so happen to fit together to make a theory. Half of them aren't even valid ["Dream plants" anyone?].
Bioware have made it abundantly clear that IT was not their plan, and the only way you can defend against this is the "They want it to be a surprise" line - which makes no sense considering the surprise is already 100% ruined thanks to the 500000 threads on IT in these forums.

incorrect. IT is a theory, if has plenty of evidence backing it up. fanfic does not.

this is like calling evolution, fanatic fiction. 

[SubAstris]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

...afriad to talk here, anyway, my IT bros can back me up.

-IT is not "Fan-Fiction". Fan-Fiction is fiction that is created by fan, and is neither canon or true. IT as of this very second is an interpretation. Once EC is out, then we will find out.

-On whether Arrival is canon or not, well, my Shepard did it, so it's canon...to me. I could careless whether somebody did it or not, it not my canon. It nice though, when the outside stuff fits my story though. Besides, if BW releases a DLC, and says it's important, shouldn't that indicate it as a "must buy?". Not arguing whether or not to buy it, but clearly BW screwed themselves over Arrival, and they should fix this, or at least talk about it.

-Now, can we all get along? Anyways you look at it, we're all Shepard's. That makes up brothers-in-arms. Regardless of a few black sheep.

Like they are going to say that it isn't, "no kids, don't buy it"

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

You can view it as Bioware's idea if you wish, however it is fanfiction - like it or not.
Bioware's plan was not a dream sequence, but for you to lose control of Shepard. Sadly, this obviously didn't work too well [Likely because you're not in control of Shepard for 90% of the cutscenes anyway, so they can't take your ability to choose what Shepard says away after its already been taken] and they abandoned it.
IT as it currently is is fan fiction based off numerous small bits and pieces from ME3 that just so happen to fit together to make a theory. Half of them aren't even valid ["Dream plants" anyone?].
Bioware have made it abundantly clear that IT was not their plan, and the only way you can defend against this is the "They want it to be a surprise" line - which makes no sense considering the surprise is already 100% ruined thanks to the 500000 threads on IT in these forums.

incorrect. IT is a theory, if has plenty of evidence backing it up. fanfic does not.

this is like calling evolution, fanatic fiction. 

Really don't compare the evidence for IT to that for evolution

[zambot]

llbountyhunter wrote...

zambot wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Erield wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Don't call my argument a straw man when you are incapable of dismissing it. Old debating tactic, I know it very well, you're not going to make me panic.

What you failed to examine was I never stated that Conviction was stating Arrival's events took place. Conviction is explicitly about Vega, learning about Shepard's involvement with the Alpha Relay, and acting as his bodyguard from a horde of angry batarians who are out for his/her blood.

Arrival is canon. That's all there is to it.

The argument isn't whether the major events in Arrival are canon; the argument is whether Shepard is responsible.  Ignoring what the argument is is the definition of straw manning as I understand it.

Speaking of failing to examine arguments, Hudson speaks about DLC here (2:57).  "Any DLC that we do, whether it's Day One or later is really just sugar on top and is a way to supplement your experience if you want and totally optional."

About Arrival: "We'll try to tell a really compelling story, but they always come after the main goal of telling a satisfying story with the main game."  (4:10.  Questions about Arrival are directly after the previous question is answered, he has more than just that to say.)

There is a direct conflict between what Hudson says, what is presented in the comics, and their link to IT. 

Bioware has also EXPLICITLY stated that what happens in the comics and novels is canon. Period. Mass Effect: Conviction explicitly states Shepard was responsible for the events ot The Arrival. Period. It never identifies whom Shepard is, or even what Shepard's gender or appearance are. Only that Shepard took place in the events of Arrival and was arrested as a war criminal to protect him/her from the Batarians.

I am a long time Warhammer 40,000 fan. I know what it is like to have a fandom with confusing fandom. But the fact is, Bioware itself has repeated this statement multiple times in official statements, whereas Casey alone has made his statement once, in a broad generalization, without referring to anything in paticular, in an interveiw.

I think I'll be going with Bioware on this one. How about you?

The game EXPLICITLY states that commandoes were responsible for the events of The Arrival (if you did not do the Arrival DLC).  So if what you are saying about Bioware "canonizing" comics is true, then we have a situation where a comic is in direct disagreement with the game.  In a universe built around the game, you would be justified accepting what the game said in such a case to resolve the conflict.  Therefore there is no way all Shepards were responsible for the events in Arrival.  It cannot be canon.

exaclty, just like the mass effect books. the events happen wether you de them or not. thats what a cannon is. 

So what then?  Bioware made a mistake when they said commandos did Arrival?

[Erield]

zambot wrote...

So what then?  Bioware made a mistake when they said commandos did Arrival?

I've been searching and trying to find other places where the events in novels/comics/etc. specifically assume that Shepard went on an optional DLC mission.  I haven't been able to so far, but I'm also at work and haven't purchased the extra material. 

Arrival's Object Rho serves as strong foreshadowing for IT.  If it is intentional canon that Shepard was the one sent to the Alpha Relay, then someone at Bioware should clarify why they have specifically, on multiple occasions, said that DLC is optional and not necessary--especially if IT is true.

[KingZayd]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

You can view it as Bioware's idea if you wish, however it is fanfiction - like it or not.
Bioware's plan was not a dream sequence, but for you to lose control of Shepard. Sadly, this obviously didn't work too well [Likely because you're not in control of Shepard for 90% of the cutscenes anyway, so they can't take your ability to choose what Shepard says away after its already been taken] and they abandoned it.
IT as it currently is is fan fiction based off numerous small bits and pieces from ME3 that just so happen to fit together to make a theory. Half of them aren't even valid ["Dream plants" anyone?].
Bioware have made it abundantly clear that IT was not their plan, and the only way you can defend against this is the "They want it to be a surprise" line - which makes no sense considering the surprise is already 100% ruined thanks to the 500000 threads on IT in these forums.

incorrect. IT is a theory, if has plenty of evidence backing it up. fanfic does not.

this is like calling evolution, fanatic fiction. 

Really don't compare the evidence for IT to that for evolution

Lol i just assumed he was referring to Mass Effect: Evolution

[llbountyhunter]

KingZayd wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

You can view it as Bioware's idea if you wish, however it is fanfiction - like it or not.
Bioware's plan was not a dream sequence, but for you to lose control of Shepard. Sadly, this obviously didn't work too well [Likely because you're not in control of Shepard for 90% of the cutscenes anyway, so they can't take your ability to choose what Shepard says away after its already been taken] and they abandoned it.
IT as it currently is is fan fiction based off numerous small bits and pieces from ME3 that just so happen to fit together to make a theory. Half of them aren't even valid ["Dream plants" anyone?].
Bioware have made it abundantly clear that IT was not their plan, and the only way you can defend against this is the "They want it to be a surprise" line - which makes no sense considering the surprise is already 100% ruined thanks to the 500000 threads on IT in these forums.

incorrect. IT is a theory, if has plenty of evidence backing it up. fanfic does not.

this is like calling evolution, fanatic fiction. 

Really don't compare the evidence for IT to that for evolution

Lol i just assumed he was referring to Mass Effect: Evolution

I'm comparing the thought process behind both. The scientific method was used to comeup with IT. look it up.

[SubAstris]

KingZayd wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

You can view it as Bioware's idea if you wish, however it is fanfiction - like it or not.
Bioware's plan was not a dream sequence, but for you to lose control of Shepard. Sadly, this obviously didn't work too well [Likely because you're not in control of Shepard for 90% of the cutscenes anyway, so they can't take your ability to choose what Shepard says away after its already been taken] and they abandoned it.
IT as it currently is is fan fiction based off numerous small bits and pieces from ME3 that just so happen to fit together to make a theory. Half of them aren't even valid ["Dream plants" anyone?].
Bioware have made it abundantly clear that IT was not their plan, and the only way you can defend against this is the "They want it to be a surprise" line - which makes no sense considering the surprise is already 100% ruined thanks to the 500000 threads on IT in these forums.

incorrect. IT is a theory, if has plenty of evidence backing it up. fanfic does not.

this is like calling evolution, fanatic fiction. 

Really don't compare the evidence for IT to that for evolution

Lol i just assumed he was referring to Mass Effect: Evolution

If that were the case, I guess he would put ME:Evolution or at least capitalise the first letter.

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

I'm comparing the thought process behind both. The scientific method was used to comeup with IT. look it up.

But can't you see the potential flaws of applying the scientific method to a literary piece of work?

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

I'm comparing the thought process behind both. The scientific method was used to comeup with IT. look it up.

But can't you see the potential flaws of applying the scientific method to a literary piece of work?

That's why its still only a theory. And the scientific method can be used anywhere.

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

I'm comparing the thought process behind both. The scientific method was used to comeup with IT. look it up.

But can't you see the potential flaws of applying the scientific method to a literary piece of work?

That's why its still only a theory. And the scientific method can be used anywhere.

But you can see the difference between the real world and a world created by people, and how it is wrong to assume that whatever works in determining one cannot always be used for the other?

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

I'm comparing the thought process behind both. The scientific method was used to comeup with IT. look it up.

But can't you see the potential flaws of applying the scientific method to a literary piece of work?

That's why its still only a theory. And the scientific method can be used anywhere.

But you can see the difference between the real world and a world created by people, and how it is wrong to assume that whatever works in determining one cannot always be used for the other?

But it can. Thats the point of the scientific theory. In fact id say it may work better in a world made by people, because, while this creation may be complex, no work can reach the same level of comlexity as the universe.

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

I'm comparing the thought process behind both. The scientific method was used to comeup with IT. look it up.

But can't you see the potential flaws of applying the scientific method to a literary piece of work?

That's why its still only a theory. And the scientific method can be used anywhere.

But you can see the difference between the real world and a world created by people, and how it is wrong to assume that whatever works in determining one cannot always be used for the other?

But it can. Thats the point of the scientific theory. In fact id say it may work better in a world made by people, because, while this creation may be complex, no work can reach the same level of comlexity as the universe.

The scientific method is hampered somewhat when dealt with literature, it is a different kettle of fish. You can use some of its principle and they can be useful, but realise its limit.

Nonetheless, this is getting a bit off topic now,

[llbountyhunter]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Illbountyhunter, I am ashamed of you.

You make this thread for the purpose of explaining IT...

And don't even reference one of my posts?

Oops:P

Just tell me what you think i should add...
Also im trying to only explain flawed anti-IT arguments for the sake of simplicity.

[dreman9999]

HagarIshay wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.But you know that the artifact is reaper orgin. Point at the prothean beacon is grasping for straws when you know object rho is a reaper artifact.
2. Saren state he tried to limit his contact with Sovergn at first......It even says he planned to do that in ME:REVILATION....He still got indoctrinated.

1. Not all becons are reaper technology. Some of the prothean technology were actually prothean.

2. Sovereign was Saren's FLAGSHIP, they close to each other all the time. And like I said, he also had reaper tech inside him later on. 

1. But the one on arrival is a reaper artafact. Why are you even trying to argue this?
2. So? That still is an example of indoctrination not only not going away but build  on past indoctronation development. Evoultion is where it started but it did take a full hold on Saren till sovergin. Saren still did limit his contact with Sovergin at first, thats why the base of virmire was build. But coming into ME1, That no longer is the case because he became indcotrinated.

[dreman9999]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

You can view it as Bioware's idea if you wish, however it is fanfiction - like it or not.
Bioware's plan was not a dream sequence, but for you to lose control of Shepard. Sadly, this obviously didn't work too well [Likely because you're not in control of Shepard for 90% of the cutscenes anyway, so they can't take your ability to choose what Shepard says away after its already been taken] and they abandoned it.
IT as it currently is is fan fiction based off numerous small bits and pieces from ME3 that just so happen to fit together to make a theory. Half of them aren't even valid ["Dream plants" anyone?].
Bioware have made it abundantly clear that IT was not their plan, and the only way you can defend against this is the "They want it to be a surprise" line - which makes no sense considering the surprise is already 100% ruined thanks to the 500000 threads on IT in these forums.

incorrect. IT is a theory, if has plenty of evidence backing it up. fanfic does not.

this is like calling evolution, fanatic fiction. 

Really don't compare the evidence for IT to that for evolution

Sorry, Point to the solid proof of evolution please.

[dreman9999]

Erield wrote...

zambot wrote...

So what then?  Bioware made a mistake when they said commandos did Arrival?

I've been searching and trying to find other places where the events in novels/comics/etc. specifically assume that Shepard went on an optional DLC mission.  I haven't been able to so far, but I'm also at work and haven't purchased the extra material. 

Arrival's Object Rho serves as strong foreshadowing for IT.  If it is intentional canon that Shepard was the one sent to the Alpha Relay, then someone at Bioware should clarify why they have specifically, on multiple occasions, said that DLC is optional and not necessary--especially if IT is true.

Here's you comfermation...
 

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. But the one on arrival is a reaper artafact. Why are you even trying to argue this?
2. So? That still is an example of indoctrination not only not going away but build  on past indoctronation development. Evoultion is where it started but it did take a full hold on Saren till sovergin. Saren still did limit his contact with Sovergin at first, thats why the base of virmire was build. But coming into ME1, That no longer is the case because he became indcotrinated.

1. Seriously, are we even arguing about the same thing here?

2. But he was on and with Sovereign. His contact with Sovereign was not limited to a few hours. 

And one of the reasons he build the base on Virmire was because he wanted to learn about the process of indoc, how to stop it. Obviously he failed, since he was eventually indoc.