712 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Ok then answer this, just this question, without any justification for the answer...

Since you ask, sure, but note that this is a bit OT for the thread, which is specifically about conventional victory, which does not imply that you get any more "Shep lives" stuff than you already get. It doesn't even require Shep to live at all.

All the endings you can attain in ME3 are clear and unambiguous, we even hear Shepards voice in one of them, we certainly see the result of her/his sacrifice... except for one ending... the only ending that allows the player/customer (that would be me) to 'win' the game in the way that ME (that would be BW) has allowed me to in the previous 2 games and that they themselves have built into ME3...

so my question to you is...

Is it fair that the money I paid for my game didnt buy me a clear and unambiguous ending (depending on the in game mechanics - EMS/player choices etc)?

I can't answer that for you. It is fair for me, because I'm OK that they gave me what you talk about here:

No.... do not give me...' but Shepard can be alive and does survive'... becasue I am telling you as a paying customer I personally have to do a lot of imagining/head cannoning to get me there and I dont have to do that in any of the other endings that other people for the same money that I paid, bought  (that I have also partly paid for...)

It was perfectly obvious to me that Shepard had survived the events on the Citadel , and would be found. (Obvious from YouTube, that is; none of my Sheps so far have found Destroy morally acceptable). The rest I can headcanon to my satisfaction.

Note that we have to do a bit of headcanoning in the other endings too -- what does it mean to be Synthesized? What will the Sheplyst actually do with the power? Again, this suits me fine. But if you don't like this sort of thing, you don't.

As for "fair," I don't have a standard to judge that. My first impulse is to just say "Suck it up. Not every entertainment product you ever buy will be perfectly to your liking." But that's kinda mean.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:12 .

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

I really wish you wouldn't misuse "macguffin" that way. I'd protest the way you use "deus ex machina," but these days the phrase is being misused more often than it's used.

You continually assert something is space magic that isn't.  No one can have a rational discussion with you.  I fully understand the meaning of a MacGuffin and Deus ex Machina-I am not going to elucidate you-you need to do some reading and understand the terms.

The crucible is a MacGuffin. 

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

I can't discuss anything with you if you characterize an unconventional use of conventional items that exist within a game's known universe (setting created as real by the writers) as space magic.  It isn't since it is explained within the confines of known science within the ME stories.

The crucible is an unknown device that is sought after for an unknown reason that will do something that is completely unknown that will solve a problem.  That by definition is a MacGuffin.  I am not misusing it at all. 

A Deus ex Machina is a plot device that comes out of nowhere to solve an unsolvable problem through contrived means.  It is literally a god from the machine, coined because of the overreliance on this to solve problems in Greek plays where some being (a god usually) would drop down on some contraption and fix the problem.  The star kid and the citadel even together form a DeM.  He is the reaper god and uses the citadel which joins with the MacGuffin to solve the problem.

But, actually if one is to be strict about this the kid isn't a DeM because he doesn't solve the problem/goal of 3 games and the story.  He presents his own problem that needs a solution and offers choices to do that and not to complete the goal.


Please before telling me I don't read what others write, do some reading of your own.  It is possible to do some tihngs using conventional weapons and yet you continually assert it makes much more sense to resort to space magic than to even try with things that already exist within the known universe.

And yes I still will say that the game set up things as impossible before and showed that the impossible could be overcome, but in ME3 it's written in stone so that's now a rallying cry.  It's impossible so please find a MacGuffin and use Space Magic!

Suicide mission.  That literally means it's impossible to come out alive but you can. 

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

It was perfectly obvious to me that Shepard had survived the events on the Citadel , and would be found. (Obvious from YouTube, that is; none of my Sheps so far have found Destroy morally acceptable). The rest I can headcanon to my satisfaction.

Note that we have to do a bit of headcanoning in the other endings too -- what does it mean to be Synthesized? What will the Sheplyst actually do with the power? Again, this suits me fine. But if you don't like this sort of thing, you don't.

As for "fair," I don't have a standard to judge that. My first impulse is to just say "Suck it up. Not every entertainment product you ever buy will be perfectly to your liking." But that's kinda mean.

Well consdiering the ball of nonsense that was it's difficult to see that anything contained within that was obvious.  It was contradictory and ambiguous as described and then it's unknown even where Shepard is.  And the point is not head canoning after Shepard's fate is known (which is seen in the other endings), it is head canoning Shepard's fate that is wrong.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 23 juillet 2012 - 07:13 .

[Blueprotoss]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

How about no and you accept the consequences of your actions? *rolleyes* You got your opportunity to refuse, and of course, it's still not enough.

To be fair, though - refuse patently ignores the EMS system and any choices made throughout the series, so in that sense it's even less fleshed out than the shipped content. I honestly see no reason why a hard-won victory could not have come from Refuse if the player had done enough to work for it throughout the series, other than writer say-so here, and after how haphazardly ME3's endgame was thrown together, I just don't consider that a valid reason anymore.

You do know that you don't use the Crucible when you do the Refusal Ending.  It sounds like you aren't that big about common sense especially when you're complaining about semantics and rely way too much on opinion.

AresKeith wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Damn you people are a broken record.  Waah space magic this, star child that, blah blah blah.  They aren't changing it! Get over it.

and you going every thread saying "move on, move on" isn't you being a broken record, come on

pls stop trying to argue with people, and take your own advice

Maybe you should practice what you preach before jumping the gun like this. 

darthoptimus003 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
thats why the Crucible was meant to be Dark Energy weapon

It is.  It was stated repeatedly in the game that the Crucible does use dark energy.

thanks for proving the point 
IT was supose to be a dark energy wepon but now in the last 5 min  it shoots space magic with no ties to the main plot and introduces a space brat 
conventional victory is possible we have done it 
blow the catalist and weaken the reapers cause there boss is dead yeah space brat said he controls them so there

Ironically everything in ME is powered by space magic with a thing called Element Zero. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 23 juillet 2012 - 09:45 .

[ddraigcoch123]

AlanC9 wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Ok then answer this, just this question, without any justification for the answer...

Since you ask, sure, but note that this is a bit OT for the thread, which is specifically about conventional victory, which does not imply that you get any more "Shep lives" stuff than you already get. It doesn't even require Shep to live at all.

All the endings you can attain in ME3 are clear and unambiguous, we even hear Shepards voice in one of them, we certainly see the result of her/his sacrifice... except for one ending... the only ending that allows the player/customer (that would be me) to 'win' the game in the way that ME (that would be BW) has allowed me to in the previous 2 games and that they themselves have built into ME3...

so my question to you is...

Is it fair that the money I paid for my game didnt buy me a clear and unambiguous ending (depending on the in game mechanics - EMS/player choices etc)?

I can't answer that for you. It is fair for me, because I'm OK that they gave me what you talk about here:

No.... do not give me...' but Shepard can be alive and does survive'... becasue I am telling you as a paying customer I personally have to do a lot of imagining/head cannoning to get me there and I dont have to do that in any of the other endings that other people for the same money that I paid, bought  (that I have also partly paid for...)

It was perfectly obvious to me that Shepard had survived the events on the Citadel , and would be found. (Obvious from YouTube, that is; none of my Sheps so far have found Destroy morally acceptable). The rest I can headcanon to my satisfaction.

Note that we have to do a bit of headcanoning in the other endings too -- what does it mean to be Synthesized? What will the Sheplyst actually do with the power? Again, this suits me fine. But if you don't like this sort of thing, you don't.

As for "fair," I don't have a standard to judge that. My first impulse is to just say "Suck it up. Not every entertainment product you ever buy will be perfectly to your liking." But that's kinda mean.

Well its pretty clear you feel that as long as your game needs were met then everyone else can go whistle... and if you dont have any standard to judge 'fair' by then I guess we dont have an opportunity to share a reasonable conversation as  I believe most people would at least try to reach for an understanding of fair if someone was standing in front of them and said 'this doesnt feel fair to me what do you think?'

And either you deliberatly misunderstood, misconstrued or misconceived my premise or you are, unfortunatly, to hunkered down in your entrenched position to be able to 'hear' what I was saying.  In either case this is not a conversation that is going to lead to enlightenment so its probably better if I stop before you say something you may regret.

I'm really happy your are fine with your game endings and it seems you have strong positive views about them... I just wonder why you feel the need to put in so much energy to keep arguing against equally strong views held by people who, very sadly, dont feel as if they have had a positive end to a long and loyal relationship with a game they love in a 'world' they have made a little their own... people usually only put that amount of energy into things when they feel passionate about something or they are getting paid to care...

[The_Crazy_Hand]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

TIM said they only found the weapon on Klendgon but it was defunct and also said that it all fired was one shot and one Reaper was dead. 

The Turian Bomb would probably not even dent a Reaper.

TIM isn't the most credible of sources either.  He was extremely deceitful about his intentions with the Collector Base.  Also the Collector Ship.  I wouldn't have put it past him to lie about the weapon's potential to be restored and/or its effectiveness.  I mean, TIM lying about and keeping secret his ability to restore a WMD or it's abilities?  Nah, not a chance right?

And the Turian Bomb is far more powerful than the might of 4 dreadnoughts, which is defined by canon as able to kill a reaper, so that alone proves you wrong.

Cyberstrike nTo wrote... The Thanix Cannons used by the turains and humans are no where near as powerful the Reapers version and they are also new weaponry and only a limited number of ships have them and it's also a safe bet that aren't a lot factories that are equipped to make them and/or shipyards left to install them.

You don't know how powerful they are or are not.  The only thing we know is that they increase effectiveness against the reapers.  

And stop trying to atomize the argument, my point was that several things, in their totality, would have tipped the scales, not individually.

Modifié par The_Crazy_Hand, 23 juillet 2012 - 10:46 .

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 23 juillet 2012 - 11:11 .

[ddraigcoch123]

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

Sorry but are you reading Euripedes in the original Greek or  Horace's 'Ars Poetica' English translation for your understanding of the term?

is that why you may have lost the meaning in translation... tell you what before you want to argue that the ghost all knowing all powerful creator is not a deus ex machina (latin) or in its translation 'god from the machine' why not google/wiki it and perhaps you will come up with a clearer, deeper understaning of the term and its artistic artifice...

And for those of you who saw the film 'life of brian' the space ship that picked him up and got him out of trouble was a 'deus ex machina'
the end of the invaders in War of the Worlds ends up being common germs on Earth... another deus... well you get my point...

And lets not forget that everyone for the whole of the game talks about a 'super weapon' a 'device' of some kind that will be a 'weapon' no where did anyone start talking tracking down the 'creator' 'controller' of the Reapers... for the love of all things holy will you just accept it was a cheap, quick and dirty way to end a complex and compelling character driven game... FFS enough already...

Modifié par ddraigcoch123, 23 juillet 2012 - 11:44 .

[Kamfrenchie]

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

And the creator of the human race, of the turians and al others is ?

[Blueprotoss]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

And the creator of the human race, of the turians and al others is ?

You could say God or Evolution, but nobody can answer the question.  Either way its best not to create a straw-mann based on a lack of information or not paying attention to the clues.

[ddraigcoch123]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

And the creator of the human race, of the turians and al others is ?

You could say God or Evolution, but nobody can answer the question.  Either way its best not to create a straw-mann based on a lack of information or not paying attention to the clues.

Interesting you should use the term straw man (which is a type of argument based on a misrepresentation of the opponents argument/position etc.) which is something that I am continually seeing and experiencing on these threads... or does that only work one way for you?

[Blueprotoss]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Sorry but are you reading Euripedes in the original Greek or  Horace's 'Ars Poetica' English translation for your understanding of the term?

Yet you're telling us that you're not willing to use common sense based alone on you resorting to petty insults.

ddraigcoch123 wrote... 

is that why you may have lost the meaning in translation... you what before you want to argue that the ghost all knowing all powerful creator is not a deus ex machina (latin) or in its translation 'god from the machine' why not google/wiki it and perhaps you will come up with a clearer, deeper understaning of the term and its artistic artifice...

If you really want to turn the "star child" into a Deus Ex Machina then you would have to say the same about Sovreign in ME1 or Harbinger in ME2.

ddraigcoch123 wrote... 

And for those of you who saw the film 'life of brian' the space ship that picked him up and got him out of trouble was a 'deus ex machina'
the end of the invaders in War of the Worlds ends up being common germs on Earth... another deus... well you get my point...

I'm surprised that you're not complaining about Hal in 2001: a Space Odessey and Skynet in the Terminator series.  The germs in War of Worlds isn't a Deus Ex Machina based on how the aliens were never explained and thats an old concept nonetheless.

ddraigcoch123 wrote... 

And lets not forget that everyone for the whole of the game talks about a 'super weapon' a 'device' of some kind that will be a 'weapon' no where did anyone start talking tracking down the 'creator' 'controller' of the Reapers... for the love of all things holy will you just accept it was a cheap, quick and dirty way to end a complex and compelling character driven game... FFS enough already...

Yet you didn't write the story for ME and its ironic when you're only talking about ME3 here.  Btw its still useless for complaining about semantics.

[Blueprotoss]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

And the creator of the human race, of the turians and al others is ?

You could say God or Evolution, but nobody can answer the question.  Either way its best not to create a straw-mann based on a lack of information or not paying attention to the clues.

Interesting you should use the term straw man (which is a type of argument based on a misrepresentation of the opponents argument/position etc.) which is something that I am continually seeing and experiencing on these threads... or does that only work one way for you?

Yet its ironic when you resorted to a straw-mann when people don't agree with your opinions based on the facts.

[ddraigcoch123]

Blueprotoss wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

And the creator of the human race, of the turians and al others is ?

You could say God or Evolution, but nobody can answer the question.  Either way its best not to create a straw-mann based on a lack of information or not paying attention to the clues.

Interesting you should use the term straw man (which is a type of argument based on a misrepresentation of the opponents argument/position etc.) which is something that I am continually seeing and experiencing on these threads... or does that only work one way for you?

Yet its ironic when you resorted to a straw-mann when people don't agree with your opinions based on the facts.

Actually what i did was use 'facts' to illustrate my understanding of a deus ex machina... which obviously was in opposition to your proposal that the 'start brat ghost kid' was not... and in doing so i asked where you were getting your source information about said Greek plot device to support your argument when we must have been mining the same facts yet coming to completely different evaluations...

And you know just because you keep saying the same thing that doesn't actually make any sense, or answer any questions you have been asked, or counter any 'argument' (in its technical sense) that have been put to you it doesnt make what you say more real or truthful or accurate than someone putting a counter argument...

[AresKeith]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

And the creator of the human race, of the turians and al others is ?

You could say God or Evolution, but nobody can answer the question.  Either way its best not to create a straw-mann based on a lack of information or not paying attention to the clues.

Interesting you should use the term straw man (which is a type of argument based on a misrepresentation of the opponents argument/position etc.) which is something that I am continually seeing and experiencing on these threads... or does that only work one way for you?

Yet its ironic when you resorted to a straw-mann when people don't agree with your opinions based on the facts.

Actually what i did was use 'facts' to illustrate my understanding of a deus ex machina... which obviously was in opposition to your proposal that the 'start brat ghost kid' was not... and in doing so i asked where you were getting your source information about said Greek plot device to support your argument when we must have been mining the same facts yet coming to completely different evaluations...

And you know just because you keep saying the same thing that doesn't actually make any sense, or answer any questions you have been asked, or counter any 'argument' (in its technical sense) that have been put to you it doesnt make what you say more real or truthful or accurate than someone putting a counter argument...

its best to just ignore him, because thats what he does in most thread, repeat the samething over and over

[darthoptimus003]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

How about no and you accept the consequences of your actions? *rolleyes* You got your opportunity to refuse, and of course, it's still not enough.

To be fair, though - refuse patently ignores the EMS system and any choices made throughout the series, so in that sense it's even less fleshed out than the shipped content. I honestly see no reason why a hard-won victory could not have come from Refuse if the player had done enough to work for it throughout the series, other than writer say-so here, and after how haphazardly ME3's endgame was thrown together, I just don't consider that a valid reason anymore.

You do know that you don't use the Crucible when you do the Refusal Ending.  It sounds like you aren't that big about common sense especially when you're complaining about semantics and rely way too much on opinion.

AresKeith wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Damn you people are a broken record.  Waah space magic this, star child that, blah blah blah.  They aren't changing it! Get over it.

and you going every thread saying "move on, move on" isn't you being a broken record, come on

pls stop trying to argue with people, and take your own advice

Maybe you should practice what you preach before jumping the gun like this. 

darthoptimus003 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
thats why the Crucible was meant to be Dark Energy weapon

It is.  It was stated repeatedly in the game that the Crucible does use dark energy.

thanks for proving the point 
IT was supose to be a dark energy wepon but now in the last 5 min  it shoots space magic with no ties to the main plot and introduces a space brat 
conventional victory is possible we have done it 
blow the catalist and weaken the reapers cause there boss is dead yeah space brat said he controls them so there

Ironically everything in ME is powered by space magic with a thing called Element Zero. 

yeah unfortantly

[darthoptimus003]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid is a Deus ex Machina

Yet this is false based on how the Crucible and Catalyst were known from the beginning of ME3, which this alone disapproves the "kid" being a Deus Ex Machina.  Another reason is that there is always a creator for the created while the "kid" became the creator for the Reapers.

Sorry but are you reading Euripedes in the original Greek or  Horace's 'Ars Poetica' English translation for your understanding of the term?

is that why you may have lost the meaning in translation... tell you what before you want to argue that the ghost all knowing all powerful creator is not a deus ex machina (latin) or in its translation 'god from the machine' why not google/wiki it and perhaps you will come up with a clearer, deeper understaning of the term and its artistic artifice...

And for those of you who saw the film 'life of brian' the space ship that picked him up and got him out of trouble was a 'deus ex machina'
the end of the invaders in War of the Worlds ends up being common germs on Earth... another deus... well you get my point...

And lets not forget that everyone for the whole of the game talks about a 'super weapon' a 'device' of some kind that will be a 'weapon' no where did anyone start talking tracking down the 'creator' 'controller' of the Reapers... for the love of all things holy will you just accept it was a cheap, quick and dirty way to end a complex and compelling character driven game... FFS enough already...

thanks i agree

[ddraigcoch123]

Blueprotoss wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Sorry but are you reading Euripedes in the original Greek or  Horace's 'Ars Poetica' English translation for your understanding of the term?

Yet you're telling us that you're not willing to use common sense based alone on you resorting to petty insults.

SORRY I ASKED YOU A QUESTION IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMON SENSE

ddraigcoch123 wrote... 

is that why you may have lost the meaning in translation... you what before you want to argue that the ghost all knowing all powerful creator is not a deus ex machina (latin) or in its translation 'god from the machine' why not google/wiki it and perhaps you will come up with a clearer, deeper understaning of the term and its artistic artifice...

If you really want to turn the "star child" into a Deus Ex Machina then you would have to say the same about Sovreign in ME1 or Harbinger in ME2.

IRRELEVENT AND SPURIOUS - WE HAD EVIDENCE ABOUT HARBINGER WE MET AND FOUGHT HARBINGER - WE HAD A BODY OF EVIDENCE ABOUT HARBINGER AND SOVREIGN THEY DO NOT FIT DEUS EX THEREFORE YOUR ARGUMENT HOLDS NO LOGIC

ddraigcoch123 wrote... 

And for those of you who saw the film 'life of brian' the space ship that picked him up and got him out of trouble was a 'deus ex machina'
the end of the invaders in War of the Worlds ends up being common germs on Earth... another deus... well you get my point...

I'm surprised that you're not complaining about Hal in 2001: a Space Odessey and Skynet in the Terminator series.  The germs in War of Worlds isn't a Deus Ex Machina based on how the aliens were never explained and thats an old concept nonetheless.

I DONT ACCEPT THE PREMISE OF YOUR CHARACTERISATION OF MY ARUGMENT - I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS AS A DEVICE IN ITS PROPER PLACE - THESE ARE YOUR EXAMPLES NOT MINE - YOU WILL NEED TO TAKE ISSUE WITH LITERARY TYPES IN YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT WAR OF THE WORLDS

ddraigcoch123 wrote... 

And lets not forget that everyone for the whole of the game talks about a 'super weapon' a 'device' of some kind that will be a 'weapon' no where did anyone start talking tracking down the 'creator' 'controller' of the Reapers... for the love of all things holy will you just accept it was a cheap, quick and dirty way to end a complex and compelling character driven game... FFS enough already...

Yet you didn't write the story for ME and its ironic when you're only talking about ME3 here.  Btw its still useless for complaining about semantics.

NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE - NO I DIDNT WRITE THE STORY FOR ME BUT I BOUGHT IT, PLAYED IT, PLAYED SOME TIMES MORE AND STILL THOUGHT THE ENDING WAS CRAP - I AM ONLY TALKING IN DETAIL ABOUT ME3 BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION IS ABOUT THE 'CATYLIST' WHO ONLY APPREARS (LIKE MAGIC...) IN ME3 - I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT SEMANTICS YOU CHALLENGED THE PERFECTLY ACCURATE (IMHO) DESCRIPTION OF THE 'CATYLIST' IN ME3 AS A DEUS EX MACHINA PLOT DEVICE - WE ARE DISCUSSING OUR INDIVIDUAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM - YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN YOUR ORGINAL POST
(sorry about the caps but no idea how to post my comments within an existing notated exchange) <_<

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

its best to just ignore him, because thats what he does in most thread, repeat the samething over and over

Yet you're still contradicting yourself by resorting to insults and arguing when you're proven wrong.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 24 juillet 2012 - 12:26 .

[ddraigcoch123]

@ AresKeith you are right... and I will give up soon, but I have flu and not sleeping well so its entertaining in short amounts

[Blueprotoss]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Actually what i did was use 'facts' to illustrate my understanding of a deus ex machina... which obviously was in opposition to your proposal that the 'start brat ghost kid' was not... and in doing so i asked where you were getting your source information about said Greek plot device to support your argument when we must have been mining the same facts yet coming to completely different evaluations...

Yet you're contradicting yourself based on how the Catalyst is the "star child" based on how the Crucibe was explained at the beginning of ME3 .  If you really want to go after the "star child" then you should also go after Sovreign in ME1 and Harbinger in ME2.

ddraigcoch123 wrote... 

And you know just because you keep saying the same thing that doesn't actually make any sense, or answer any questions you have been asked, or counter any 'argument' (in its technical sense) that have been put to you it doesnt make what you say more real or truthful or accurate than someone putting a counter argument...

Yet I keep on countering you in debate form with facts while you're using opinions in an arguement form, which means you shouldn't contradict yourself.

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE - NO I DIDNT WRITE THE STORY FOR ME BUT I BOUGHT IT, PLAYED IT, PLAYED SOME TIMES MORE AND STILL THOUGHT THE ENDING WAS CRAP - I AM ONLY TALKING IN DETAIL ABOUT ME3 BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION IS ABOUT THE 'CATYLIST' WHO ONLY APPREARS (LIKE MAGIC...) IN ME3 - I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT SEMANTICS YOU CHALLENGED THE PERFECTLY ACCURATE (IMHO) DESCRIPTION OF THE 'CATYLIST' IN ME3 AS A DEUS EX MACHINA PLOT DEVICE - WE ARE DISCUSSING OUR INDIVIDUAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM - YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN YOUR ORGINAL POST
(sorry about the caps but no idea how to post my comments within an existing notated exchange) [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

Putting everything in caps is useless just like how you're complaining over semantics.

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

@ AresKeith you are right... and I will give up soon, but I have flu and not sleeping well so its entertaining in short amounts [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

If thats the case then why do you keep on taking a beating with or without me. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 24 juillet 2012 - 12:37 .

[ddraigcoch123]

Blueprotoss wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Actually what i did was use 'facts' to illustrate my understanding of a deus ex machina... which obviously was in opposition to your proposal that the 'start brat ghost kid' was not... and in doing so i asked where you were getting your source information about said Greek plot device to support your argument when we must have been mining the same facts yet coming to completely different evaluations...

Yet you're contradicting yourself based on how the Catalyst is the "star child" based on how the Crucibe was explained at the beginning of ME3 .  If you really want to go after the "star child" then you should also go after Sovreign in ME1 and Harbinger in ME2.

ddraigcoch123 wrote... 

And you know just because you keep saying the same thing that doesn't actually make any sense, or answer any questions you have been asked, or counter any 'argument' (in its technical sense) that have been put to you it doesnt make what you say more real or truthful or accurate than someone putting a counter argument...

Yet I keep on countering you in debate form with facts while you're using opinions in an arguement form, which means you shouldn't contradict yourself.

Yeah you stopped being fun right there... you didnt come back with anything that related to the original exchange that prompted the discussion.. and now you want me to solve your problem for you about Sovereign and Harbinger possibly being deux ex machina (even though they are not and I have not said they were) but in your crazy space magic logic I have to answer that question.... oh hang on... just a minute...

this is feeling a little deja vu... isnt that what' star/ghost creator kid' just did to my Shepard... noooooo not playing your game...

[ddraigcoch123]

Putting everything in caps is useless just like how you're complaining over semantics.

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

@ AresKeith you are right... and I will give up soon, but I have flu and not sleeping well so its entertaining in short amounts [img]http://na.llnet.bioware.cdn.ea.com/u/f/eagames/bioware/socialhttp://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/img]

If thats the case then why do you keep on taking a beating with or without me.



I explained about the caps already... no idea what you mean about beating... seriously are you on better flu medicine than i am?

Ah semantics... linguistic semantics i am assuming you refer to... (semantica - in greek but i cant do the bits on the letters...)  well I am not 'complaining' about semantics which would infer that i was at issue with meaning of words or phrases that had been employed during our exchange.

We are, rather, disagreeing on the application of the explanation of a common (and many would say overused) plot device dating from the Ancient Greeks, used rather a lot by Euripides (as I previously stated)... but many others also...

But just to be clear... the meaning of words and our agreement on them is the cornerstone of everything we hold dear, as it is our ability to communicate complex and abstract 'data packets' between each other... so yeah i may also get a little picky over semantics if the need should arise... 

[AresKeith]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

Putting everything in caps is useless just like how you're complaining over semantics.

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

@ AresKeith you are right... and I will give up soon, but I have flu and not sleeping well so its entertaining in short amounts [img]http://na.llnet.bioware.cdn.ea.com/u/f/eagames/bioware/socialhttp://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/img]

If thats the case then why do you keep on taking a beating with or without me.



I explained about the caps already... no idea what you mean about beating... seriously are you on better flu medicine than i am?

Ah semantics... linguistic semantics i am assuming you refer to... (semantica - in greek but i cant do the bits on the letters...)  well I am not 'complaining' about semantics which would infer that i was at issue with meaning of words or phrases that had been employed during our exchange.

We are, rather, disagreeing on the application of the explanation of a common (and many would say overused) plot device dating from the Ancient Greeks, used rather a lot by Euripides (as I previously stated)... but many others also...

But just to be clear... the meaning of words and our agreement on them is the cornerstone of everything we hold dear, as it is our ability to communicate complex and abstract 'data packets' between each other... so yeah i may also get a little picky over semantics if the need should arise... 

just wait his comments gets more weird

[Shallyah]

Refusal is already a form of victory.

If you can't understand what Refusal ending entails do not make a fool of yourself with threads like this.

Modifié par Shallyah, 24 juillet 2012 - 12:56 .