310 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

I enjoyed ME3 alot except for certain things. The same cane not be said for ME2, the fact that I normally skip ME2 and just use the ME3 save editor just shows that, ME2 has very little I enjoyed compared to 1 and 3.

[Veneke]

[quote]Kamfrenchie wrote...

Do not argue with Blue Protoss, it's an exercise in futility, he is immune to concept such as objectivity or logic, he says everyting is opinion, ignore points and whatnot, and also thinks the endings are good without justifications.

He's been "trolling" a while on vids like MrBtongue's about the ending, and there is just about no way to convince him.

He considers everything he says to be fact, everything other says to be opinion.
[/quote]

Thanks for the advice mate.

[quote]ZLurps wrote...

...

There
are lot of diffent kind of products in scifi genre. I don't say books
are better or worse, but maybe people in general don't read that much
anymore.
[/quote]

Quite possibly.

[quote]nitefyre410 wrote...

[quote]k-stigus wrote...

[quote]Veneke wrote...
On
the other hand, a great deal of what you've pointed out is, or should
have been given the series' popularity, entirely expected. The more
popular (read lucrative) a game becomes the more important it is to
expand the player base. You've already hooked a particular market
segment with ME 1 so ME 2 builds on that by grabbing a different market
segment and finally then, ME 3 grabs another. The last one in particular
is the broadest, because there is not another installment with which to
gather more sales. In other words, you would not open a series of this
type with a game like ME 3 and then develop it into a game like ME 1.
Things like space ninjas, curious outfits, a big bad 'Empire' (it is
horrofic what they did to Cerberus, frankly), an inane plot device that
wasn't needed in the slightest (Crucible) etc are necessary
simplifications to avoid the 'tedious' dialogue and exposition that, had
the ME 1 style been preserved, would have been requried to explain how
it all came together in a coherent, meaningful way. Such dialogue would
have put-off the broader player base in favour of die-hard sci-fi fans
who'd be buying the game anyway.
[/quote]

Broader appeal has
always seemed like a lousy reason to change a game's style, considering
the fact that there's a resonable chance a newcomer would never be
interested in a third installment of a series he/she was never
interested with in the first place. While that's how I feel they made
mass effect 3, it still stays true to its orgins for the most part.
However, I'm always left wondering, how much better it might have been
if it felt the same way as the ME1

[/quote]   

Appealing
to a wider market is never a bad thing but   how Bioware went about
doing it is completely terrible.  First things first  your 3
installement in a trilogy is never place you want to start  with new
customers  especially with something as inter connected as Mass Effect .
 The upgrading of the game shooting and baltle system was  needed badly
but the scafriced  completly too much other elements.  The sacfriced
elements instead of building on  what they did good  and fixing what
they did poorly. 

[/quote]

[/quote]

The problem is that the elements they sacrificed had to be lost to attract new gamers. Those fans who were hip dip in choices, customization, carefully selected dialogue, speeches and so on were already hooked. Whether these things were included in the third game or not was immaterial - these people would be buying the game anyway. So the game had to shift to attract a new market segment; the casual shooter market, which I suspect is by far the largest market segment out there. If they had started with a ME 3 styled game first I highly doubt that they would have achieved as many sales purely on the basis that the casual market has more options to choose from and can easily ignore an action-shooter that would have, in this alternate universe, lost its way.

This, of course, is giving BW the benefit of the doubt in that the shift was, on some level, deliberate. If it wasn't deliberate then BW are simply incompetent and unable to keep a coherent story going over 3 games. What's really frustrating about all of this is that there are parts of the story which are quite clearly well done across all three games. So if it was deliberate it begs the question of why those elements exist and if it wasn't then it should not be difficult to figure out who are the incompetent culprits at BW.

Of course, in the end, none of this matters. ME went from sci-fi RPG to sci-fi action-shooter over the course of the trilogy and complaints over the issue were sidelined, derided by the new player-base and were generally insulted by the media, BW and others besides. If there's something constructive to be taken away from the shift from ME 1 to ME 3, it's that there's a strong market for a solid RPG/story-focused company to which BW can no longer authoratively lay claim. Whether there'll ever be a company willing to put up with that crowd however, is another matter entirely.

Modifié par Veneke, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:43 .

[The Spamming Troll]

darknoon5 wrote...

I completely agree. ME1 is the most intelligent, mature game I've ever played.



At least the space ninja's wear armour...

OMG, boobs?

i think you missunderstood the topic.

[Xeranx]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

I hate when people make the statement about rose-tinted glasses or nostalgia because it assumes (wrongly) that people played ME and haven't been back to it since they started ME2, and later ME3.  I played through ME2 four times before I went back to ME and created my last Shepard and right now I'm thinking about going back and finishing her run despite how the dialogue in ME3 plays out.   I was actually in the middle of that run when ME3 came out.  Had I finished before starting ME3, I would have run her through ME2 as well, ready to take on the Reapers come ME3.

My point is, it can't be classified as nostalgia if it still makes an impact on your present.

I'm not sure that quite covers nostalgia. Nostalgia can also deal with the simple fact that you played ME1 first. I see a lot of comments about "remember seeing the Citadel for the first time?" That's nostalgia. A lot of people, though not all, who love ME1 the most played it before the other games. Similarly, a lot of people, like me, who played ME2 first love it the most. That is also nostalgia, at least in part. It's like, what is your favorite RPG? Mine is Chrono Cross. It also happens to be the first RPG I ever played. While I think the game is objectively excellent, I have no delusions that nostalgia also doesn't play a part.

I always understood nostalgia to be a longing for the past.  It's true that when it comes to firsts you usually want to have that same feeling you had for that experience.  Thing is most of what I came to enjoy about Mass Effect occurred after I had the chance to discuss and see it discussed.  When I started making statements about certain things, it made me consider the impact it made on me.  Normally I just play games like they're just there.  My first Bioware game was NWN.  DIdn't like it much and I've only beat it once.  Never played the expansions. 

Next was KOTOR and I remember hating the dark side choices because I felt like a bully.  I much preferred KOTOR2 because of how I felt when I went dark (the dialogue choices for both sides were great, dark especially because I didn't feel like a tool every time).  I had the ability to respond to Atton's character when he mentioned something was off about her.  Something along the lines of, "you don't like what you see?"  That floored me and that choice unfortunately altered my Exile's face from just being pale white to having deep grooves (I'm a sucker for that look, I blame my exposure to Elvira when I was a kid).  So I reloaded and didn't use that option.  Also, Kreia was awesome.  I get a certain Kreia vibe every time I see Flemeth. 

Anyway, I had all these little experiences, but Mass Effect is the first game in which I actually had the chance to look at most, if not all, aspects of the game.  I guess what I'm saying is, I never considered my admiration of Mass Effect as nostalgic.  I had to play the game twice to develop an appreciation for Ashley, another to see that Liara didn't do it for me, and a few more times (at least 3-4) to start to appreciate the atmosphere of the uncharted worlds.  There's also the tactical aspects: throwing a grenade to knock an enemy out of cover and the fact that you have to guage how far your target is before you willfully detonate it.  And some of that is during a firefight.  Crouching to make yourself a smaller target.  Enemy fire flies over your head, but you can still eek out line of sight for shots.  Sure it shows the limitations of AI, but that was awesome.  When people say that combat was improved in ME2 and ME3, I get that enemies respond better, but I don't get that same feeling of actually forcing an outcome.

It took me time to develop the admiration for ME that I did.  Being on the boards here, I discussed ME2 and I can appreciate it for what I was able to still do, but I can't forgive the shortcomings or the fact that it's not a true sequel, but an expansion.  For ME3, it took actually discussing the game for me to pinpoint why I won't play the game again and it has nothing to do with the ending.  Does that fit in with being nostalgic?  I don't know.

Modifié par Xeranx, 14 juillet 2012 - 02:03 .

[RYZ3R]

I don't really have a problem with the fact that the first and third games feel so different in and of itself. The first game felt more mysterious and less dire - we were learning the universe. This is a necessary story element to get everyone introduced and acclimatized to the themes and characters. If they had dropped you right into the heat, none of us would really have had a stake in the battle. I love the mysteriousness and more Trek-y style of the first game, and I can definitely relate to the people who wanted more of that in the sequels, but I think we all knew deep down that the galactic war was inevitable. If we had cut that off, the climax we would have gotten wouldn't have been what the story deserved. This story progression has to play into the game's mood and focus as well. If we spent the Reaper invasion learning instead of acting, it would have made us feel as disconnected from the story as I described we would have felt in the first had we been acting instead of learning. ME1 has its (excellent) place in the series and its luster would have only been dulled with 2 and 3 being copycats.

In a (likely vain) attempt to stave off shredding of my post, I am only speaking about the story progression here at a very high level. Obviously the ending is atrocious and completely unlike the series thereto, and there are plenty of other contextual divergent story points in 3 as well, but those speak more to ME3 than they do to the series as a whole, which is what the above was really about.

Modifié par RYZ3R, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:57 .

[chevyguy87]

I posted this elsewhere but it applies here as well.

Bioware dumbed ME3 down for the general audience which would explain the auto dialogue and "action mode" under narrative options. The worst offender of them all though is the fact that a person who has never heard of the Mass Effect series can pick up ME3 play it and be at the same level (story wise) as those of us who have played every game (multiple times) read every book invested hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars, is by far the most disgusting aspect of the whole mess.

In short, the Bioware I used to know, used to love died in that Relay explosion in the Arrival DLC. ME3 almost completely ignores what made the other two installments so great.

[Veneke]

RYZ3R wrote...

I don't really have a problem with the fact that the first and third games feel so different in and of itself. The first game felt more mysterious and less dire - we were learning the universe. This is a necessary story element to get everyone introduced and acclimatized to the themes and characters. If they had dropped you right into the heat, none of us would really have had a stake in the battle. I love the mysteriousness and more Trek-y style of the first game, and I can definitely relate to the people who wanted more of that in the sequels, but I think we all knew deep down that the galactic war was inevitable. If we had cut that off, the climax we would have gotten wouldn't have been what the story deserved. This story progression has to play into the game's mood and focus as well. If we spent the Reaper invasion learning instead of acting, it would have made us feel as disconnected from the story as I described we would have felt in the first had we been acting instead of learning. ME1 has its (excellent) place in the series and its luster would have only been dulled with 2 and 3 being copycats.

In a (likely vain) attempt to stave off shredding of my post, I am only speaking about the story progression here at a very high level. Obviously the ending is atrocious and completely unlike the series thereto, and there are plenty of other contextual divergent story points in 3 as well, but those speak more to ME3 than they do to the series as a whole, which is what the above was really about.

Fair points and most of which I agree with but I don't believe that OP was referring to the progression of the story across the series. Rather, and I'm open to correction on this, his point was that the third installment made very little sense in light of what we had explored and covered in the previous games. Things which we had learned in ME 1 and 2 were completely discarded in 3, including setting and some major plot elements. Nobody, I think, is suggesting that ME 3 shouldn't have been about the final confrontation with the Reapers or the darker and grittier vibe but there is no reason why this was incompatible with the more discursive style of ME. If anything, ME 3 should have been more so precisely because of the impossibility of the task. Instead, we get an insta-win button in the form of the Crucible which, for some bizarre reason, nobody knows how to work or even what it does!

[Seifer006]

@ OP
you should read my review (signature)

Modifié par Seifer006, 14 juillet 2012 - 02:13 .

[-Skorpious-]

Damn, listening to that track made me realize why I fell in love with Mass Effect in the first place. It wasn't because of action-oriented gameplay and scripted, cinematic cutscenes like ME3 - it was the immersive, sci-fi atmosphere.

I miss that atmosphere. =/

[RYZ3R]

Veneke wrote...

RYZ3R wrote...

I don't really have a problem with the fact that the first and third games feel so different in and of itself. The first game felt more mysterious and less dire - we were learning the universe. This is a necessary story element to get everyone introduced and acclimatized to the themes and characters. If they had dropped you right into the heat, none of us would really have had a stake in the battle. I love the mysteriousness and more Trek-y style of the first game, and I can definitely relate to the people who wanted more of that in the sequels, but I think we all knew deep down that the galactic war was inevitable. If we had cut that off, the climax we would have gotten wouldn't have been what the story deserved. This story progression has to play into the game's mood and focus as well. If we spent the Reaper invasion learning instead of acting, it would have made us feel as disconnected from the story as I described we would have felt in the first had we been acting instead of learning. ME1 has its (excellent) place in the series and its luster would have only been dulled with 2 and 3 being copycats.

In a (likely vain) attempt to stave off shredding of my post, I am only speaking about the story progression here at a very high level. Obviously the ending is atrocious and completely unlike the series thereto, and there are plenty of other contextual divergent story points in 3 as well, but those speak more to ME3 than they do to the series as a whole, which is what the above was really about.

Fair points and most of which I agree with but I don't believe that OP was referring to the progression of the story across the series. Rather, and I'm open to correction on this, his point was that the third installment made very little sense in light of what we had explored and covered in the previous games. Things which we had learned in ME 1 and 2 were completely discarded in 3, including setting and some major plot elements. Nobody, I think, is suggesting that ME 3 shouldn't have been about the final confrontation with the Reapers or the darker and grittier vibe but there is no reason why this was incompatible with the more discursive style of ME. If anything, ME 3 should have been more so precisely because of the impossibility of the task. Instead, we get an insta-win button in the form of the Crucible which, for some bizarre reason, nobody knows how to work or even what it does!

Yeah, sorry. I wasn't really replying to the OP. I was kind of just commenting on some of the arguments on the last page or two that the third game just felt too different from the first (heavily summarizing).

[o Ventus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Actually there aren't any plot holes in ME3 while it would affect the entire series if ME3 did have plot holes, which I already knew.

This is objectively false.

Yet that is fact not opinion.

just because you call it facts doesn't mean it is, those plotholes were created by ME3, 1 and 2 had nothing to do with it

The fact that you can play ME3 as a standalone game and lose nothing that is of value to the ending indicates that large plotholes do exist.

ME3 is loosely based upon Mass Effect.  It carries the name, uses the characters, but like a mutt it lacks the pedigree.

The game feels very disconnected from the previous 2 because it is, in a way that even ME2 is not disconnected from ME1, given that there's a clear and present break between the two that smacks you in the face when Shepard puts on a Cerberus uniform.  ME2 is not ME1 and it doesn't try to hide it.  But ME3 should be totally connected to the other 2 because it exists to bring it all together and to lead to what is supposed to be the most intense point in any story, the ending, followed by a kind of cooldown, denouement and epilogue. 

ME3 dumps a lot of what occurred in ME1 and 2 and totally contradicts other things that are even in ME3, but also things in 1 and 2.  Anyone that says differently is being disingenuous.

Basically this, but with kinder words than I would have used.

[Kathleen321]

naes1984 wrote...

I think that the flaw in the writing is that once you have the Reapers invading in full force then it is too late to do anything unless you end up solving it with a deus ex machina or an ancient weapon we just happen to find. Destroying Soveriegn took a combined fleet and they just barely did it. They could have upgraded the fleets in the 3 years since then but how much difference could that make? I can accept the notion that conventional victory is impossible as they state many times.
I can identify the problem with the story but I'm not sure how someone could write their way out of it and make it satisfying.
As for being rushed, I think it is definitely the case.

If they'd spent a few more months... even another year this game could have been damn near perfect. My first playthrough I thought it WAS damn near perfect until I got to the end.

[Mathias]

Kathleen321 wrote...

naes1984 wrote...

I think that the flaw in the writing is that once you have the Reapers invading in full force then it is too late to do anything unless you end up solving it with a deus ex machina or an ancient weapon we just happen to find. Destroying Soveriegn took a combined fleet and they just barely did it. They could have upgraded the fleets in the 3 years since then but how much difference could that make? I can accept the notion that conventional victory is impossible as they state many times.
I can identify the problem with the story but I'm not sure how someone could write their way out of it and make it satisfying.
As for being rushed, I think it is definitely the case.

If they'd spent a few more months... even another year this game could have been damn near perfect. My first playthrough I thought it WAS damn near perfect until I got to the end.

I thought the game was flawed even before i got to the ending. Enjoyable, but flawed.

[Kathleen321]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I thought the game was flawed even before i got to the ending. Enjoyable, but flawed.

Well said. I couldn't find the words but that sums it up. I enjoyed it so much at first that I tried to ignore the bad writing and plot holes. Hell I still enjoy playing it- but it is, as you said- flawed.

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The fact that you can play ME3 as a standalone game and lose nothing that is of value to the ending indicates that large plotholes do exist.

ME3 is loosely based upon Mass Effect.  It carries the name, uses the characters, but like a mutt it lacks the pedigree.

The game feels very disconnected from the previous 2 because it is, in a way that even ME2 is not disconnected from ME1, given that there's a clear and present break between the two that smacks you in the face when Shepard puts on a Cerberus uniform.  ME2 is not ME1 and it doesn't try to hide it.  But ME3 should be totally connected to the other 2 because it exists to bring it all together and to lead to what is supposed to be the most intense point in any story, the ending, followed by a kind of cooldown, denouement and epilogue.  

ME3 dumps a lot of what occurred in ME1 and 2 and totally contradicts other things that are even in ME3, but also things in 1 and 2.  Anyone that says differently is being disingenuous.

 This is a huge straw-mann and if ME3 was really like this then ME2 would be the opposite of what you described.  If you really had that disconnect in ME3 then you clearly didn't play it or you could careless about most of the Action RPGs. 

AresKeith wrote...

thats what he does, he'll talk in a circle and take things off topic

Pot calling the kettle black especialy when you haven't played ME1 and aren't interested in the facts.

o Ventus wrote...

Basically this, but with kinder words than I would have used.

Yet that isn't true at all. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 juillet 2012 - 07:12 .

[Blueprotoss]

 

Random Jerkface wrote...

They DO have plotholes. I would even go on to say that ME2 is one giant plothole. However, a good number of the problems in the overarching narrative are retroactively caused by ME3 sh*tting on logic and established lore left and right.

Yet you're confusing fact and opinion here because ME3 hasn't contradicted anything from ME1 and ME2 just like how ME2 didn't contradict anything from ME1 and ME3.  It sounds like some people want to have tantrum and causes them to throw the baby out with the bath water.  

CronoDragoon wrote...

Since you plugged the Romance thread, I'd respond by bringing up the fact that ME1 romances are nothing compared to their ME3 counterparts.

Agreed especially when there's more thought involved. 

chevyguy87 wrote...

I posted this elsewhere but it applies here as well.

Bioware dumbed ME3 down for the general audience which would explain the auto dialogue and "action mode" under narrative options. The worst offender of them all though is the fact that a person who has never heard of the Mass Effect series can pick up ME3 play it and be at the same level (story wise) as those of us who have played every game (multiple times) read every book invested hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars, is by far the most disgusting aspect of the whole mess.

In short, the Bioware I used to know, used to love died in that Relay explosion in the Arrival DLC. ME3 almost completely ignores what made the other two installments so great.

Here's a straw-man especially if you played ME1 and ME2 before ME3.  Btw your choices aren't null and void.

Kathleen321 wrote...Nuem: Forver

If they'd spent a few more months... even another year this game could have been damn near perfect. My first playthrough I thought it WAS damn near perfect until I got to the end. 

Time is a double-edged sword that can cause a lot of damage especially when we're talking about Too Human, Splinter Cell: Conviction, and Duke Nukem: Forever.  Btw ME3 already had enough time based on how its developement and production alongside ME2,  which was between 3 to 4 years. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 juillet 2012 - 07:28 .

[SpamBot2000]

It's strange that so many people seem to see life as a maturity measuring contest to me. When we'd like to say that something was good, we fall back on saying it's "mature" because no one could possibly be against that, could they? Conversely, when our supposed perfect enjoyment of ME3 is diminished by a disturbance in the hive mind caused by someone expressing dissatisfaction, we waste no time in calling the ultimate shame of immaturity on them. The people who won't shut up and put up are children with no control over their tempers or bladders.

So I'm not going to play that game here. What I love about ME1 in comparison with the sequels is the sense of possibility and freedom. These games take place in outer space, with supposedly a galaxy to roam. Obviously no video game can provide this in any realistic sense, nor should they even try, seeing as most of the galaxy is probably pretty empty. But ME1 still had a feel of exploration and wonder of discovery. Regrettably, a current trend in game design is to eliminate every square inch of virtual real estate that is not absolutely necessary for the smooth progression along a predetermined path, doing the same thing over and over again. ME2 still had some vestigial missions that were not simply shooting ranges. ME3 not so much. If you're making a game set in the infinite reaches of space and everything feels cramped and claustrophobic, just maybe you're not doing it right.

Now don't get me wrong, I admit that the combat system is improved in ME3 over that in 1. But Mass Effect was not supposed to be a straightforward Headshooter. Had it been, I probably would never have played it. An RPG should offer the player tasks other than taking down hordes of identical enemies. There should be alternate paths and approaches, choices and places that are open for certain kind of protagonist and not for another. ME3 is clearly a much lesser game for giving up on these things in favor of MP horde modes and such.

Now I understand that EA does what it does for reasons of, well, sweet sweet money. But I have to wonder if that is a losing game in the end. A series progression like ME's is simple. ME1 was a kind of an experiment that proved a success with those who appreciate a carefully crafted environment and well-drawn characters. So the developer thinks "well, we've got those people now, so let's expand to those who don't care for such things." You bought ME, they think they have you. So the progress according to this logic is that the sequel will always be less of the thing the original fans wanted. But at some point, people are going to wise up and stop buying sequels that are an inevitable letdown. And the developer is going to have an identikit shooter with the only distinguishing features being vestigial remains of those features the original fans liked. So it's not even as good a shooter than the competition. Everyone loses. EA puts developer out of its misery. End of yet another story.

Of course it doesn't have to be this way. Another trend in game design are open world sandboxes, which of course are very different to the classic BW character-driven model. But looking through the forums of those games, you find many players just relating how they enjoyed the DOWNTIME in those games, just walking around and taking in the sights. Which kinda proves that there is an audience for games that are not 100% gunplay with no breathing time between hordes. Maybe not as big an audience as for MP Headshooters, but then again, the competition is not as intense either.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 14 juillet 2012 - 07:59 .

[M Hedonist]

Eain wrote...

I'm at a point where it just feels increasingly easy to dismiss the entire third game as non-canon. The reasons are simple:

1) People are called the same but look different.
2) Thematically the game has nothing in common with its predecessors.
3) The Reapers adhere in no way to the invasion plan establish in earlier games.
4) TIM is completely out of character.
5) Shepard's autodialogue means that she speaks when I should be speaking for her.
6) Space ninjas start appearing out of nowhere.
7) The Crucible appears out of nowhere and has no foreshadowing.
8) The game disregards choices I made in previous installments.
9) Were it not for the Lazarus Project, a fan effort at fixing face import, my Shepard would have looked nothing like the one I played in ME1 and ME2.

It really does feel like a big glorified piece of fanfiction.

[o Ventus]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet that isn't true at all. 

I don't need to tell you that this makes no sense, do I?

[JDee3]

The feel and everything about ME1 was just soo perfect with the grainy look of things, shadowy effects in the corner and the story. It was beautiful. Even exploring every planet even though I got tired of it at one point because all the structures of the buildings were the same and all that idk.. it still went well with it. Once you get into ME2 it steps into a theme where you have to leave that world of Mass Effect and kinda go into the high tech, CGI, more advanced, futuristic (because you were dead for 2 years) criminal looking stuff which made sense but wasn't the same. Then ME3 had that alliance Earth and destruction and war feel to it with the feel of ME2 advanced tech but they kinda abandoned ME1 stuff. I just wish they managed to keep the look of the first game while portraying all this in a different way maybe in the later games?

Idk it sucks but I get that with a game like this they couldn't have kept that look and feel throughout the series. that look and feel is what made ME1 which was the introduction into this world that we would carry in our minds all the way to ME3 when we (and our crew mates) think "Damn.. remember how it used to be?"

[Blueprotoss]

o Ventus wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet that isn't true at all. 

I don't need to tell you that this makes no sense, do I?

Opinion isn't fact while you think otherwise.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 juillet 2012 - 08:27 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

Yet you're confusing fact and opinion here because ME3 hasn't contradicted anything from ME1 and ME2 just like how ME2 didn't contradict anything from ME1 and ME3.  It sounds like some people want to have tantrum and causes them to throw the baby out with the bath water.  

What did you even say here?

Where did I even posit an opinion?

[What a Succulent Ass]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Opinion is fact while you think otherwise.

...Quoting for posterity.

[o Ventus]

Blueprotoss wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet that isn't true at all. 

I don't need to tell you that this makes no sense, do I?

Opinion is fact while you think otherwise.

Opinion, by definition, cnanot be fact.

Congratulations.

[Blueprotoss]

 

Random Jerkface wrote...

What did you even say here? 

Where did I even posit an opinion?

I see that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion, which is ironic how you focus on opinion. 

Random Jerkface wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Opinion is fact while you think otherwise.

...Quoting for posterity.

Yet you only think with ignorance.

o Ventus wrote...

Opinion, by definition, cnanot be fact.

Congratulations.

I see that you're being a hypocrite by abusing a spelling error. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 14 juillet 2012 - 08:34 .