238 réponses à ce sujet

[estebanus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

I'd say that the problem with this would be that the reapers themselves created the mass relays that are the very source for the uncontrolled spreading of dark energy. Why would the reapers create the very thing they now want to stop? That sems like a pretty big plothole to me^_^

Arg, that's right.  Maybe have them be a test - they lie dormant for the majority of each cycle, but when galactic civilization has learned enough to begin using them that's the cue for the Reapers to come in and reset our technological advancement. 

The fact remains that in the dark energy plot their motivation is to stop the advancement of dark energy which is created by the mass relays.

The reapers created the mass relays. They themselves are responsible for the spreading of dark energy.

Why not just shut the relays down? That way, nobody can use them!

Killing all organic life seems a bit of a overkill to me...

[jijeebo]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

These quote pyramids are dangerously close to showing up on google maps. xP

I know, I was like " how far down am I going to have to scroll?"

I'm just glad I'm not on my iPod or the poor thing might explode.

[SubAstris]

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

[/quote]

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

[/quote]

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

[/quote]

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it
[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

[/quote]

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

[/quote]

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

[/quote]

Lots of projection going on right there...

[/quote]

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

[/quote]

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 
[/quote]

What you don't understand Jules, as I said above, is that SubAstris and I have danced this dance before and had this debate and it never goes anywhere. SO why waste my time and his time? If anything, I think I'm being kind.

[/quote]

Fair enough.  I guess I didn't know the context.

[/quote]

That is what you think...

But seriously, I believe I had some valid points which Batman refuses/didn't want to answer for whatever reason. I'm not mad, I am just picking up logical flaws. If doesn't want to answer, that is his decision, I don't care now

Modifié par SubAstris, 18 juin 2012 - 10:46 .

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

Well, to be fair the technology is the central thing that drives everything in that universe. Also Mass Effect can mean having an effect on a mass of beings, which the Reapers do. It's still fitting imo.

I suppose, I just think that if they had to implement a "twist" ...ultimately revealing that mass effect technology was the undoing of organics would have been one I could swallow.  Bioware could have even kept its destroyed relays and crashed Normandy in that case.  Not sure what the end choices would have been, though. 

That's what's so striking to me about the whole artistic direction they took the game in toward the end - synthetics vs. organics was easily one of the weakest themes in the series, especially since they decided to allow players to broker peace on Rannoch.  Almost anything else would have done.

If IT turns out to be true and the EC begins with Shepard waking up, Bioware still has to explain the Reaper's motivations and the nature of the catalyst - what do you think it will be?

I personally think their only motivation is reproduction. Everything else is an excuse. I think they enjoy being the top predators of the Galaxy. I think they began as a very aggressive religious species that ascended into Reaper form and then decided to wipe any threat to them from the galaxy every 50 thousand years and scavenge whatever new tech to use and organic sludge to reproduce. Ultimately, they are parasitical cyborgs.

But that's just my opinion. Originally they were inspired by the Inhibitors of the Revelation Space Series by Alistair Reynolds.

[jules_vern18]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Because the Indoctrination Delusion is for the weak minded. When you get list of speculations that are less contradictory, illogical, foolish, immature, cliched, and actually have evidence in the game, then I'll stop seeing you as gullible as you are now.

Devil's advocate time! 

IT is not contradictory in terms of the observations it uses to justify itself.  Although I believe that specific ITers may contradict themselves frequently, the theory itself is relatively consistent.

IT is not illogical.  It infers meaning from observations, then pairs those observations with existing lore to generate an interpretation.  The problem is with the inference of meaning, not the conclusion drawn.

IT is not foolish.  Even in its most extreme form ("Bioware planned this from the beginning, just wait and see"), a better criticism would probably be that it's unrealistically optimistic.  And that it really doesn't jive with what we generally know about marketing. 

IT as a theory is not immature.  I may believe that there's a decent amount of straw-grasping and confirmation bias, but that doesn't really speak to one's level of maturity.  If believing in something without definitive proof makes you immature, then only hardcore empiricists could ever escape that label.  And they're a***holes.

IT is cliched.  So is the deus ex machina ending.  So is the tragic hero.  And so are literally dozens of scenes and plotlines in Mass Effect.  We're playing a game filled with cliches (some of which are quite good!)

I don't like IT.  I don't think it works narratively, I don't think the meaning attached to its observations was intended, and I definitely don't think that Bioware designed it from the beginning (and I think there's proof to back me up).  But that doesn't mean that people who believe in it are "weak-minded."

They're just wrong. 

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Because the Indoctrination Delusion is for the weak minded. When you get list of speculations that are less contradictory, illogical, foolish, immature, cliched, and actually have evidence in the game, then I'll stop seeing you as gullible as you are now.

Devil's advocate time! 

IT is not contradictory in terms of the observations it uses to justify itself.  Although I believe that specific ITers may contradict themselves frequently, the theory itself is relatively consistent.

IT is not illogical.  It infers meaning from observations, then pairs those observations with existing lore to generate an interpretation.  The problem is with the inference of meaning, not the conclusion drawn.

IT is not foolish.  Even in its most extreme form ("Bioware planned this from the beginning, just wait and see"), a better criticism would probably be that it's unrealistically optimistic.  And that it really doesn't jive with what we generally know about marketing. 

IT as a theory is not immature.  I may believe that there's a decent amount of straw-grasping and confirmation bias, but that doesn't really speak to one's level of maturity.  If believing in something without definitive proof makes you immature, then only hardcore empiricists could ever escape that label.  And they're a***holes.

IT is cliched.  So is the deus ex machina ending.  So is the tragic hero.  And so are literally dozens of scenes and plotlines in Mass Effect.  We're playing a game filled with cliches (some of which are quite good!)

I don't like IT.  I don't think it works narratively, I don't think the meaning attached to its observations was intended, and I definitely don't think that Bioware designed it from the beginning (and I think there's proof to back me up).  But that doesn't mean that people who believe in it are "weak-minded."

They're just wrong. 

Any story is just a retelling of another story told before with a different setting and different characters playing specific roles. I recommend The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Cambell. He explains myth and storytelling and how our collective unconcious forms specific narratives over and over. The oldest and most popular is the Hero arc, which goes all the way back to Gilgamesh but probably even further. Perhaps some of the scrolls in the library of Alexandria had stories older than Gilgamesh.

[SubAstris]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Because the Indoctrination Delusion is for the weak minded. When you get list of speculations that are less contradictory, illogical, foolish, immature, cliched, and actually have evidence in the game, then I'll stop seeing you as gullible as you are now.

Devil's advocate time! 

IT is not contradictory in terms of the observations it uses to justify itself.  Although I believe that specific ITers may contradict themselves frequently, the theory itself is relatively consistent.

IT is not illogical.  It infers meaning from observations, then pairs those observations with existing lore to generate an interpretation.  The problem is with the inference of meaning, not the conclusion drawn.

IT is not foolish.  Even in its most extreme form ("Bioware planned this from the beginning, just wait and see"), a better criticism would probably be that it's unrealistically optimistic.  And that it really doesn't jive with what we generally know about marketing. 

IT as a theory is not immature.  I may believe that there's a decent amount of straw-grasping and confirmation bias, but that doesn't really speak to one's level of maturity.  If believing in something without definitive proof makes you immature, then only hardcore empiricists could ever escape that label.  And they're a***holes.

IT is cliched.  So is the deus ex machina ending.  So is the tragic hero.  And so are literally dozens of scenes and plotlines in Mass Effect.  We're playing a game filled with cliches (some of which are quite good!)

I don't like IT.  I don't think it works narratively, I don't think the meaning attached to its observations was intended, and I definitely don't think that Bioware designed it from the beginning (and I think there's proof to back me up).  But that doesn't mean that people who believe in it are "weak-minded."

They're just wrong. 

Pretty well summed up

[estebanus]

You do know that cameltoeforedi is a troll, right? Just check out his threads.

Modifié par estebanus, 18 juin 2012 - 11:05 .

[estebanus]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Because the Indoctrination Delusion is for the weak minded. When you get list of speculations that are less contradictory, illogical, foolish, immature, cliched, and actually have evidence in the game, then I'll stop seeing you as gullible as you are now.

Devil's advocate time! 

IT is not contradictory in terms of the observations it uses to justify itself.  Although I believe that specific ITers may contradict themselves frequently, the theory itself is relatively consistent.

IT is not illogical.  It infers meaning from observations, then pairs those observations with existing lore to generate an interpretation.  The problem is with the inference of meaning, not the conclusion drawn.

IT is not foolish.  Even in its most extreme form ("Bioware planned this from the beginning, just wait and see"), a better criticism would probably be that it's unrealistically optimistic.  And that it really doesn't jive with what we generally know about marketing. 

IT as a theory is not immature.  I may believe that there's a decent amount of straw-grasping and confirmation bias, but that doesn't really speak to one's level of maturity.  If believing in something without definitive proof makes you immature, then only hardcore empiricists could ever escape that label.  And they're a***holes.

IT is cliched.  So is the deus ex machina ending.  So is the tragic hero.  And so are literally dozens of scenes and plotlines in Mass Effect.  We're playing a game filled with cliches (some of which are quite good!)

I don't like IT.  I don't think it works narratively, I don't think the meaning attached to its observations was intended, and I definitely don't think that Bioware designed it from the beginning (and I think there's proof to back me up).  But that doesn't mean that people who believe in it are "weak-minded."

They're just wrong. 

Any story is just a retelling of another story told before with a different setting and different characters playing specific roles. I recommend The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Cambell. He explains myth and storytelling and how our collective unconcious forms specific narratives over and over. The oldest and most popular is the Hero arc, which goes all the way back to Gilgamesh but probably even further. Perhaps some of the scrolls in the library of Alexandria had stories older than Gilgamesh.

That's a great book!

[jules_vern18]

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

I'd say that the problem with this would be that the reapers themselves created the mass relays that are the very source for the uncontrolled spreading of dark energy. Why would the reapers create the very thing they now want to stop? That sems like a pretty big plothole to me^_^

Arg, that's right.  Maybe have them be a test - they lie dormant for the majority of each cycle, but when galactic civilization has learned enough to begin using them that's the cue for the Reapers to come in and reset our technological advancement. 

The fact remains that in the dark energy plot their motivation is to stop the advancement of dark energy which is created by the mass relays.

The reapers created the mass relays. They themselves are responsible for the spreading of dark energy.

Why not just shut the relays down? That way, nobody can use them!

Killing all organic life seems a bit of a overkill to me...

Well, the relays themselves aren't the only (nor probably the biggest aggregate) source of dark energy.  Mass effect technology has been worked into everything - if Traynor has a toothbrush that uses ME fields, you can imagine the tech is extremely pervasive.  All those FTL drives powering up throughout the galaxy are probably a bigger source of dark energy than the mass relays.

Why not just shut the relays down?  Because eventually organics will create the technology on their own.  For all we know, no organic civilization has ever learned to live without ME technology once its discovered (a game changer akin to the a-bomb), so advanced organic life has to be extinguished/harvested to prevent the cumulative growth of the technology.  Maybe the relays are just the tip of the iceberg as far as what ME tech can do, and the Reapers determined that their discovery each cycle represented a good threshold before things got out of hand. 

The negative effects of ME tech might dissipate over long periods of non-use, which is why it's acceptable for the relays to operate over the relatively short period of time that they do each cycle. 

I dunno, but I don't think it would be as hard to explain away as insisting on the inevatibility of synthetics vs. organics only days after you broker peace between the two.

[estebanus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

I'd say that the problem with this would be that the reapers themselves created the mass relays that are the very source for the uncontrolled spreading of dark energy. Why would the reapers create the very thing they now want to stop? That sems like a pretty big plothole to me^_^

Arg, that's right.  Maybe have them be a test - they lie dormant for the majority of each cycle, but when galactic civilization has learned enough to begin using them that's the cue for the Reapers to come in and reset our technological advancement. 

The fact remains that in the dark energy plot their motivation is to stop the advancement of dark energy which is created by the mass relays.

The reapers created the mass relays. They themselves are responsible for the spreading of dark energy.

Why not just shut the relays down? That way, nobody can use them!

Killing all organic life seems a bit of a overkill to me...

Well, the relays themselves aren't the only (nor probably the biggest aggregate) source of dark energy.  Mass effect technology has been worked into everything - if Traynor has a toothbrush that uses ME fields, you can imagine the tech is extremely pervasive.  All those FTL drives powering up throughout the galaxy are probably a bigger source of dark energy than the mass relays.

Why not just shut the relays down?  Because eventually organics will create the technology on their own.  For all we know, no organic civilization has ever learned to live without ME technology once its discovered (a game changer akin to the a-bomb), so advanced organic life has to be extinguished/harvested to prevent the cumulative growth of the technology.  Maybe the relays are just the tip of the iceberg as far as what ME tech can do, and the Reapers determined that their discovery each cycle represented a good threshold before things got out of hand. 

The negative effects of ME tech might dissipate over long periods of non-use, which is why it's acceptable for the relays to operate over the relatively short period of time that they do each cycle. 

I dunno, but I don't think it would be as hard to explain away as insisting on the inevatibility of synthetics vs. organics only days after you broker peace between the two.

Makes sense.

[jules_vern18]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Because the Indoctrination Delusion is for the weak minded. When you get list of speculations that are less contradictory, illogical, foolish, immature, cliched, and actually have evidence in the game, then I'll stop seeing you as gullible as you are now.

Devil's advocate time! 

IT is not contradictory in terms of the observations it uses to justify itself.  Although I believe that specific ITers may contradict themselves frequently, the theory itself is relatively consistent.

IT is not illogical.  It infers meaning from observations, then pairs those observations with existing lore to generate an interpretation.  The problem is with the inference of meaning, not the conclusion drawn.

IT is not foolish.  Even in its most extreme form ("Bioware planned this from the beginning, just wait and see"), a better criticism would probably be that it's unrealistically optimistic.  And that it really doesn't jive with what we generally know about marketing. 

IT as a theory is not immature.  I may believe that there's a decent amount of straw-grasping and confirmation bias, but that doesn't really speak to one's level of maturity.  If believing in something without definitive proof makes you immature, then only hardcore empiricists could ever escape that label.  And they're a***holes.

IT is cliched.  So is the deus ex machina ending.  So is the tragic hero.  And so are literally dozens of scenes and plotlines in Mass Effect.  We're playing a game filled with cliches (some of which are quite good!)

I don't like IT.  I don't think it works narratively, I don't think the meaning attached to its observations was intended, and I definitely don't think that Bioware designed it from the beginning (and I think there's proof to back me up).  But that doesn't mean that people who believe in it are "weak-minded."

They're just wrong. 

Any story is just a retelling of another story told before with a different setting and different characters playing specific roles. I recommend The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Cambell. He explains myth and storytelling and how our collective unconcious forms specific narratives over and over. The oldest and most popular is the Hero arc, which goes all the way back to Gilgamesh but probably even further. Perhaps some of the scrolls in the library of Alexandria had stories older than Gilgamesh.

Exactly.  Almost anything can be called a cliche nowadays (and if not now, give it 20 years). 

I never had a problem with the ending because it was cliched and I would have been fine with a better ending that was just as much so. 

Hero rides off into the sunset?  Cliched.
Hero dies to save his friends?  Cliched.
Dark hero realizes his callousness and accomplishes a complete turnaround in the end?  Cliched.
It was all a dream?  Cliched.
Your enemy was actually right all along?  Cliched.
Choice between personal survival and the greater good?  Cliched.

And on and on.  I don't want an innovative ending necessarily.  I just want it to fit properly within the narrative.

[Barsomo92]

Oh no Catamantaloedis have come

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

I'd say that the problem with this would be that the reapers themselves created the mass relays that are the very source for the uncontrolled spreading of dark energy. Why would the reapers create the very thing they now want to stop? That sems like a pretty big plothole to me^_^

Arg, that's right.  Maybe have them be a test - they lie dormant for the majority of each cycle, but when galactic civilization has learned enough to begin using them that's the cue for the Reapers to come in and reset our technological advancement. 

The fact remains that in the dark energy plot their motivation is to stop the advancement of dark energy which is created by the mass relays.

The reapers created the mass relays. They themselves are responsible for the spreading of dark energy.

Why not just shut the relays down? That way, nobody can use them!

Killing all organic life seems a bit of a overkill to me...

Well, the relays themselves aren't the only (nor probably the biggest aggregate) source of dark energy.  Mass effect technology has been worked into everything - if Traynor has a toothbrush that uses ME fields, you can imagine the tech is extremely pervasive.  All those FTL drives powering up throughout the galaxy are probably a bigger source of dark energy than the mass relays.

Why not just shut the relays down?  Because eventually organics will create the technology on their own.  For all we know, no organic civilization has ever learned to live without ME technology once its discovered (a game changer akin to the a-bomb), so advanced organic life has to be extinguished/harvested to prevent the cumulative growth of the technology.  Maybe the relays are just the tip of the iceberg as far as what ME tech can do, and the Reapers determined that their discovery each cycle represented a good threshold before things got out of hand. 

The negative effects of ME tech might dissipate over long periods of non-use, which is why it's acceptable for the relays to operate over the relatively short period of time that they do each cycle. 

I dunno, but I don't think it would be as hard to explain away as insisting on the inevatibility of synthetics vs. organics only days after you broker peace between the two.

I don't know. For me, the Dark Energy plot seemed... far-fetched. We don't know anything about it beyond that it causes the universe to expand faster than light and will cause the Big Rip some day long after all of the stars are burned out and the universe reaches maximum entropy. It seemed like an overly-ambitious plot that didn't follow the theory very well.  I don't really understand how changing the mass of something would increase Dark Energy. But Drew might have known what he was writing about. Dunno.

[estebanus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Because the Indoctrination Delusion is for the weak minded. When you get list of speculations that are less contradictory, illogical, foolish, immature, cliched, and actually have evidence in the game, then I'll stop seeing you as gullible as you are now.

Devil's advocate time! 

IT is not contradictory in terms of the observations it uses to justify itself.  Although I believe that specific ITers may contradict themselves frequently, the theory itself is relatively consistent.

IT is not illogical.  It infers meaning from observations, then pairs those observations with existing lore to generate an interpretation.  The problem is with the inference of meaning, not the conclusion drawn.

IT is not foolish.  Even in its most extreme form ("Bioware planned this from the beginning, just wait and see"), a better criticism would probably be that it's unrealistically optimistic.  And that it really doesn't jive with what we generally know about marketing. 

IT as a theory is not immature.  I may believe that there's a decent amount of straw-grasping and confirmation bias, but that doesn't really speak to one's level of maturity.  If believing in something without definitive proof makes you immature, then only hardcore empiricists could ever escape that label.  And they're a***holes.

IT is cliched.  So is the deus ex machina ending.  So is the tragic hero.  And so are literally dozens of scenes and plotlines in Mass Effect.  We're playing a game filled with cliches (some of which are quite good!)

I don't like IT.  I don't think it works narratively, I don't think the meaning attached to its observations was intended, and I definitely don't think that Bioware designed it from the beginning (and I think there's proof to back me up).  But that doesn't mean that people who believe in it are "weak-minded."

They're just wrong. 

Any story is just a retelling of another story told before with a different setting and different characters playing specific roles. I recommend The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Cambell. He explains myth and storytelling and how our collective unconcious forms specific narratives over and over. The oldest and most popular is the Hero arc, which goes all the way back to Gilgamesh but probably even further. Perhaps some of the scrolls in the library of Alexandria had stories older than Gilgamesh.

Exactly.  Almost anything can be called a cliche nowadays (and if not now, give it 20 years). 

I never had a problem with the ending because it was cliched and I would have been fine with a better ending that was just as much so. 

Hero rides off into the sunset?  Cliched.
Hero dies to save his friends?  Cliched.
Dark hero realizes his callousness and accomplishes a complete turnaround in the end?  Cliched.
It was all a dream?  Cliched.
Your enemy was actually right all along?  Cliched.
Choice between personal survival and the greater good?  Cliched.

And on and on.  I don't want an innovative ending necessarily.  I just want it to fit properly within the narrative.

I want a happy ending, goddamnit! I want all my sacrifices to mean something in the end! I want Shepard to live her life peacefully with Liara and her many blue babies, I don't want some cheap bible allegory crap!

Call me old-fashioned, but the storys with the happy endings are usually those we remember fondest.

[BatmanTurian]

estebanus wrote...

You do know that cameltoeforedi is a troll, right? Just check out his threads.

I'm not sure why the guy hasn't gotten a permanent ban yet. He never seems to add anything positive to any thread. Ever.

[Vox Draco]

estebanus wrote...
I want a happy ending, goddamnit! I want all my sacrifices to mean something in the end! I want Shepard to live her life peacefully with Liara and her many blue babies, I don't want some cheap bible allegory crap!

Call me old-fashioned, but the storys with the happy endings are usually those we remember fondest.

*sigh* Nothing bad about old-fashioned...there is a reason why we love the stories from our youth so much, the fairy-tales and the likes...I can live with a Moorcock-Elric-destroy-the-world-ending now and then...but at the end of the day, I prefer the ones where the hero/ine gets some kind of reward for her/his deeds, especially after more then enough prizes got payed...

I want my happy-ending, no matter what! And IT seems the most likely to at least get near it, if Bioware does what I hope...otherwise...I have to play Dragon Age again...and install the "marry Alistair"-mod finally for my warden...

[UrgentArchengel]

So IT is stupid, and the whole dream thing is just bad writing. Yet the ending is stupid, and the writing is also just as bad. So the Anti-IT'ers are saying we'd never get bad writing from bad writers that do bad writing? That makes sense.

Honestly, the whole senerios is very similar to Religous Zealots vs Atheists, with the IT's being more respectful in general, and the ones usually being insulted, they'd be the Atheists. While you have the Anti-IT's being the Religous Zealots, because they are the most harsh with insults, treat OT with unwarranted hatred, hostility, and anger. Yeah, there are extremes on both sides, but from what I've seen, it's Anti-IT that need to chill with the hate. Hate the theory, not the theorists.

[Apocaleepse360]

I've seen both sides calling each other morons.

No, one side of the argument isn't "better than the other", as I've seen an equal amount of insults being thrown around this forum and other Mass Effect related discussion pages on both sides.

Modifié par Apocaleepse360, 19 juin 2012 - 12:58 .

[D24O]

Because Tyga says F*** School.

[UrgentArchengel]

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

I've seen both sides calling each other morons.

No, one side of the argument isn't "better than the other", as I've seen an equal amount of insults being thrown around this forum and other Mass Effect related discussion pages on both sides.

Lot's of ITists aren't very vocal.  I don't dare venture into the Anti-IT realms, but they seem to be the most vocal in general.  Like a bunch of peope holding picket signs.

[shepdog77]

IT-er's are idiots and non-IT-er's are also idiots.
there, I just insulted everybody. Now just shut up and wait till the EC comes out 

Modifié par shepdog77, 19 juin 2012 - 01:23 .

[Humakt83]

shepdog77 wrote...

IT-er's are idiots and non-IT-er's are also idiots.
there, I just insulted everybody. Now just shut up and wait till the EC comes out 

You forgot to insult people who do not belong in either group.

[Dragoonlordz]

I do not think those who wish to believe in IDT are stupid, far from it. I do however think those who believe it will fix the ending to be neive. IDT as said before merely erases what once was and replaces it with nothing. You still lack an actual ending after IDT if was true. So for all the thought process and changing perspectives people have to go through to alter how they see what happened to match the theory of IDT you still lack the actual ending which comes after IDT resets the story.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 juin 2012 - 02:07 .

[UrgentArchengel]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I do not think those who wish to believe in IDT are stupid, far from it. I do however think those who believe it will fix the ending to be neive. IDT as said before merely erases what once was and replaces it with nothing. You still lack an actual ending after IDT if was true. So for all the thought process and changing perspectives people have to go through to alter how they see what happened to match the theory of IDT you still lack the actual ending which comes after IDT resets the story.

A lot of people seem to think IT is an ending.  Whoever said it was though.  It's a means to getting a better ending, not the end itself.