255 réponses à ce sujet

[ld1449]

darkchief10 wrote...

this is the dark energy theory
Scientist a few years ago observed that the farther away one was from the universal core, the faster it was rushing away from it, this revoked an earlier theory that stated that the universe would eventually be unable to expand anymore and would start to collapse. THIS is what should be happening as the gravitational pull of the universe is stronger than the force of the big bang. Something is overcoming the universes own gravitational pull. a little later after making some calculations scientists found that the universe is also heavier than it should(Dark matter which i won't get into), which should have stopped expansion millions of years ago. This dark energy is slowly tearing the universe apart and in several trillion years the universe will freeze to death as galaxies and solar systems begin to rip each other apart due to lack of gravity the only thing that will survive are black holes, which will eventually supernova as they run out of fuel. It is believed that if dark energy can be observed and harnessed we might be able to break the laws of physics as it clearly able to do so if it is slowly tearing the universe apart.

My point is at least the dark energy ending was based in actual scientific theory.
thank you for hearing my rant out.

Huh... learn something new every day I suppose.:happy:

[XqctaX]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Well, from an outsider perspective, and as a guy who has read Drew's books and Mac's comics, I'd say Drew is more focused on trying to tell a plot of events. And he sometimes does a good job (Revelation and Ascension). And sometimes he doesn't (Retribution). Which is why ME1 felt like it had a more focused story. But is main weakness is characters. He doesn't know how to write cool characters, or barely pulls off good to average characters. And when he is doing a good job, he dumps them or screws them up later. Example, he wrote Liara in ME1, and honestly, despite being a Liara fan, I never was happy with ME1 Liara. From the moment you pick her up, majority of her character development is her trying to romance you. She could've helped kill her mother, but instead she's more focused on describing Asari sex. His bad guys are typically evil, and his good guys are typically good. And a lot of ME1's choices were very "This is the good guy choice" and "This is the bad guy choice".

While Mac on the other hand is more focused on characters then plot. Out of all the comics he's written himself, the plots a very basic. They're nothing special, and more of just devices to setup events. And if you look at ME3, majority of that story is following ME1 plot points. You go from picking up a Prothean something being stolen from a rogue group, to going to the Citadel to talk to the Council, then going all over the Galaxy to find a missing Prothean piece. Then discover another beacon, which holds the final piece. But then bad guy shows up, and gets away with it. Said bad guy is also studying indoctrination. A prothean VI tells you the Citadel is important. You get to it by running to a Conduit. Then meet bad guy inside, and convince him to blow his brains out.

But what Mac does excel at is focusing on the characters then the story and developing them. ME3 had Shepard do the most emoting, and going through the most personal stuff. It's the one with the most emotional scenes. It's the one where the characters are put in the most harms way, and you care more about them. Or feel a lost from their sacrifice. He also created and develop the more popular characters, like Garrus, Wrex, Liara, Hackett, Aria, TIM, and Anderson. And ME the series had more focus on grey choices instead of simply good or bad choices. Where any choice could backfire. And a lot more darker things happened. Like Shepard sacrificing an entire system in Arrival.

So you can make an argument that Mass Effect would've been better if they both were Lead Writers instead of separate writers. Because it seems they complete each other, and fill in their weaknesses.

allthough i have some taste issues with your opinions about for example liara in me1

i agree with you that Drew should have stayed Lead,  but instead of co lead with mac
 I think mac should have been senior writer, or what ever titel that puts Mac 1 lvl below Drew and more focused on the characters

[ld1449]

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

No they simply said that "that was not Patrick's post"...they never EVER said the ending was fully peer reviewed and with good reason.

But hey keep rabidly defending them, they thrive in it

They never said that for one or two either, as far as I know.

You proof of them peer reviewing the endings there? 

The fact that they didn't suck perhaps.

Either way the argument is flawed.

Its like arguing in a murder case. "But your honor, my client couldn't have pulled out his gun and shot his neighbor today. Yesterday he was carrying a gun and didn't shoot him."

Your arguing nothing, and the ME1 endings and ME2 endings, like the events of "yesterday" that example points out are completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Which is that this ending was not peer reviewed.

Modifié par ld1449, 23 juillet 2012 - 07:10 .

[3DandBeyond]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Anyone else think, in light of all this, that maybe ME would have been better as a series with a somewhat lower-stakes plot that served mostly as a vehicle to explore the characters and all the different societies in the galaxy? Personally, I tended to find a lot of the subplots and their corresponding issues just as interesting as the overall "stop the Reapers" plot.

In ME1, you have the colonists on Feros and the nefarious scheming of ExoGeni, you have all the corporate maneuvering and illicit research on Noveria, and all the politics and personalities of the Citadel. ME2's suicide mission was probably the best part of the game, but past that, I would again argue that some of the recruitment and loyalty missions, as well as the shipboard conversations, were just as compelling as, say, Horizon or the derelict Reaper. And in ME3, it seems like most of us agree that Tuchanka and Rannoch were our favorite sequences, and both of those used the Reaper invasion as a pretext for digging into the societal issues surrounding the krogan, geth, and quarians.

Star Trek TNG, which is probably still my favorite sci-fi franchise, managed to wring plenty of story and character out of smaller-scale issues - while there's occasionally a big existential threat like the Borg, Picard and company aren't constantly out there "saving the galaxy." Mostly they're dealing with things like trying to resolve threats and conflicts within Federation space, head off war with the Romulans, investigate some new phenomenon or technology, etc.

I wonder if the franchise could have been just as successful and popular if Shepard had simply been appointed a Spectre and then sent off to deal with these situations, without the backdrop of an impending galactic war. You could still have the different missions and stories tie together in some sort of larger conspiracy that would culminate in a bigger threat at the end of each game, but without having it be "win this battle or trillions of people die" like in ME1 and ME3. For that matter, ME2 probably could have worked just as well if the Collectors had just been a group of ruthless, evil aliens going off on their own power trip and trying to harvest humans rather than servants of the Reapers.

I think that you are onto something here.  In creating a galactic war they absolutely needed there to be some big cathartic moment of resolution, that never arrives.  That meant that ME3 would have to be a true epic of a game, like what Harry Potter was for its fans at the end.  The war is coming, make it a war.

ME could have succeeded as self-contained stories dealing with different conflicts in each game, but carrying over the characters and personalities and some decisions.  If you fought mercenaries in the first one, maybe a guy got away that you'd meet again in another game.  Big sidequests and all could have been a lot of fun.  But by making this be a fight for survival it really needed an all out fight for survival, not a conversation with the star kid as to how Shepard can help him.

[LinksOcarina]

ld1449 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

No they simply said that "that was not Patrick's post"...they never EVER said the ending was fully peer reviewed and with good reason.

But hey keep rabidly defending them, they thrive in it

They never said that for one or two either, as far as I know.

You proof of them peer reviewing the endings there? 

The fact that they didn't suck perhaps.

Either way the argument is flawed.

Its like arguing in a murder case. "But your honor, my client couldn't have pulled out his gun and shot his neighbor today. Yesterday he was carrying a gun and didn't shoot him."

Your arguing nothing, and the ME1 endings and ME2 endings, like the events of "yesterday" that example points out are completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Which is that this ending was not peer reviewed.

in your opinion, at least.

Simple really, if you make a claim about something to help you push an agenda, you prove it. 

If you can't, you are a wasting time and energy, and acting like a fool. 

[Outamyhead]

Michelle Howe wrote...

I heard about the Dark Energy ending a bit but I didn't know it was Drew's idea. Thanks for that. But before I knew it was Drew's, I thought that THAT idea made a lot more sense. Now I know why.

And don't get me wrong. I wanted to sit through about 15 minutes-30 minutes of (interactive?) cut-scenes for the ending to see how everything turned out, but... alas. I mean, that long of an ending seems modest for such a long series. : I was fully expecting that, but... nothing.

You should read the first three ME books, and the Darth Bane novels to get a feel for Drew's work, he likes to continue the story in the books, and build up the existing characters, Anderson comes across as a bit of a bad ass, and Saren is truly a bad egg, really makes it clear what Anderson was dealing with.

Modifié par Outamyhead, 23 juillet 2012 - 07:24 .

[incinerator950]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Well, from an outsider perspective, and as a guy who has read Drew's books and Mac's comics, I'd say Drew is more focused on trying to tell a plot of events. And he sometimes does a good job (Revelation and Ascension). And sometimes he doesn't (Retribution). Which is why ME1 felt like it had a more focused story. But is main weakness is characters. He doesn't know how to write cool characters, or barely pulls off good to average characters. And when he is doing a good job, he dumps them or screws them up later. Example, he wrote Liara in ME1, and honestly, despite being a Liara fan, I never was happy with ME1 Liara. From the moment you pick her up, majority of her character development is her trying to romance you. She could've helped kill her mother, but instead she's more focused on describing Asari sex. His bad guys are typically evil, and his good guys are typically good. And a lot of ME1's choices were very "This is the good guy choice" and "This is the bad guy choice".

While Mac on the other hand is more focused on characters then plot. Out of all the comics he's written himself, the plots a very basic. They're nothing special, and more of just devices to setup events. And if you look at ME3, majority of that story is following ME1 plot points. You go from picking up a Prothean something being stolen from a rogue group, to going to the Citadel to talk to the Council, then going all over the Galaxy to find a missing Prothean piece. Then discover another beacon, which holds the final piece. But then bad guy shows up, and gets away with it. Said bad guy is also studying indoctrination. A prothean VI tells you the Citadel is important. You get to it by running to a Conduit. Then meet bad guy inside, and convince him to blow his brains out.

But what Mac does excel at is focusing on the characters then the story and developing them. ME3 had Shepard do the most emoting, and going through the most personal stuff. It's the one with the most emotional scenes. It's the one where the characters are put in the most harms way, and you care more about them. Or feel a lost from their sacrifice. He also created and develop the more popular characters, like Garrus, Wrex, Liara, Hackett, Aria, TIM, and Anderson. And ME the series had more focus on grey choices instead of simply good or bad choices. Where any choice could backfire. And a lot more darker things happened. Like Shepard sacrificing an entire system in Arrival.

So you can make an argument that Mass Effect would've been better if they both were Lead Writers instead of separate writers. Because it seems they complete each other, and fill in their weaknesses.

Holy ****ing ****. 

[crimzontearz]

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

No they simply said that "that was not Patrick's post"...they never EVER said the ending was fully peer reviewed and with good reason.

But hey keep rabidly defending them, they thrive in it

They never said that for one or two either, as far as I know.

You proof of them peer reviewing the endings there? 

they did not suck and no one ever claimed otherwise


 
No proof but theory fits evidence

[crimzontearz]

Oh and...the fact they are still unwilling to flat out deny it ....if you think about it you can deduce why

[LinksOcarina]

crimzontearz wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

No they simply said that "that was not Patrick's post"...they never EVER said the ending was fully peer reviewed and with good reason.

But hey keep rabidly defending them, they thrive in it

They never said that for one or two either, as far as I know.

You proof of them peer reviewing the endings there? 

they did not suck and no one ever claimed otherwise

No proof but theory fits evidence

I did.

Mass Effect 1 had a bad ending. Always did, but no one minded it because of the promise of something better.

So no proof does not make a claim that you made true. So stop making it, or say that "I believe..." or something like that before you make it.

Simple really, stop lying. 

[LinksOcarina]

crimzontearz wrote...

Oh and...the fact they are still unwilling to flat out deny it ....if you think about it you can deduce why

That means nothing really too, because they likely can't confirm or deny anything through a breech of contract. 

[ld1449]

LinksOcarina wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

No they simply said that "that was not Patrick's post"...they never EVER said the ending was fully peer reviewed and with good reason.

But hey keep rabidly defending them, they thrive in it

They never said that for one or two either, as far as I know.

You proof of them peer reviewing the endings there? 

The fact that they didn't suck perhaps.

Either way the argument is flawed.

Its like arguing in a murder case. "But your honor, my client couldn't have pulled out his gun and shot his neighbor today. Yesterday he was carrying a gun and didn't shoot him."

Your arguing nothing, and the ME1 endings and ME2 endings, like the events of "yesterday" that example points out are completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Which is that this ending was not peer reviewed.

in your opinion, at least.

Simple really, if you make a claim about something to help you push an agenda, you prove it. 

If you can't, you are a wasting time and energy, and acting like a fool. 

He offers no proof, but you offer no proof to dismiss his claims either. In any court room the arguments go both ways. the prosecution has to prove he did it, the defense needs to counter those claims with evidence or some other method.

My opinion. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence in this case.

As he said, no authors have come out to publically state that the endings were indeed peer reviewed. The only statement as that Mr. Weekes didn't write it, which does a politically clean break of the post in question while also keeping the rest of the writing team out of the proverbial fire that could still result from this down the road. As much as people try to dismiss or diminish 67k on Facebook, the fact that there IS something to dismiss or diminish is telling in and of itself. Not even the people dissatisfied with DA2 mannaged to get more than a shrug or two so to speak.

In fact no game has gotten this much protest. So yea, people are angry, they still are, they still want more from the ME team and bioware, and if this installment ultimately flops and doesn't deliver the numbers Bioware or EA were expecting by the end of the day so to speak, there will be some heads rolling considering this was a multi million dollar investment in and of itself and Biowares reputation is on the line now too with DA2, STOR and ME3 all chalking up to be failures financially and critically as well.

So yeah. The authors nor the spokes people have rallied around the two in question. At all ever, which is telling considering how quick everyone in Bioware was to jump to Hepler's defense during the DA2 insult fiasco. Even coming out with a public statement from Myzuka for that one as well.

But here?

Not a peep.

So yeah. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

[LinksOcarina]

ld1449 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

No they simply said that "that was not Patrick's post"...they never EVER said the ending was fully peer reviewed and with good reason.

But hey keep rabidly defending them, they thrive in it

They never said that for one or two either, as far as I know.

You proof of them peer reviewing the endings there? 

The fact that they didn't suck perhaps.

Either way the argument is flawed.

Its like arguing in a murder case. "But your honor, my client couldn't have pulled out his gun and shot his neighbor today. Yesterday he was carrying a gun and didn't shoot him."

Your arguing nothing, and the ME1 endings and ME2 endings, like the events of "yesterday" that example points out are completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Which is that this ending was not peer reviewed.

in your opinion, at least.

Simple really, if you make a claim about something to help you push an agenda, you prove it. 

If you can't, you are a wasting time and energy, and acting like a fool. 

He offers no proof, but you offer no proof to dismiss his claims either. In any court room the arguments go both ways. the prosecution has to prove he did it, the defense needs to counter those claims with evidence or some other method.

My opinion. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence in this case.

As he said, no authors have come out to publically state that the endings were indeed peer reviewed. The only statement as that Mr. Weekes didn't write it, which does a politically clean break of the post in question while also keeping the rest of the writing team out of the proverbial fire that could still result from this down the road. As much as people try to dismiss or diminish 67k on Facebook, the fact that there IS something to dismiss or diminish is telling in and of itself. Not even the people dissatisfied with DA2 mannaged to get more than a shrug or two so to speak.

In fact no game has gotten this much protest. So yea, people are angry, they still are, they still want more from the ME team and bioware, and if this installment ultimately flops and doesn't deliver the numbers Bioware or EA were expecting by the end of the day so to speak, there will be some heads rolling considering this was a multi million dollar investment in and of itself and Biowares reputation is on the line now too with DA2, STOR and ME3 all chalking up to be failures financially and critically as well.

So yeah. The authors nor the spokes people have rallied around the two in question. At all ever, which is telling considering how quick everyone in Bioware was to jump to Hepler's defense during the DA2 insult fiasco. Even coming out with a public statement from Myzuka for that one as well.

But here?

Not a peep.

So yeah. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

All true.

The problem though, I don't have to offer proof of anything, since I asked the question. If you can't answer the question, you have no case. So your absence of evidence is not enough.

By the way, the Hepler case is different, because that was personal attacks and insults via twitter/facebook/email and the like. 

Last I checked no one is really getting personal with Hudson or Walters, they are just calling them incompetant, not "obese c*nts." 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 juillet 2012 - 07:53 .

[crimzontearz]

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Oh and...the fact they are still unwilling to flat out deny it ....if you think about it you can deduce why

That means nothing really too, because they likely can't confirm or deny anything through a breech of contract. 

1 I meant no one denied ME1-2 endings were peer reviewd

2 Bioware gladly Denied other things but not this accusation...why? Because that would imply the other writers went with it and honestly they do not want that tarnishing their resume....rightly so since it was not their doing

[LinksOcarina]

crimzontearz wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Oh and...the fact they are still unwilling to flat out deny it ....if you think about it you can deduce why

That means nothing really too, because they likely can't confirm or deny anything through a breech of contract. 

1 I meant no one denied ME1-2 endings were peer reviewd

2 Bioware gladly Denied other things but not this accusation...why? Because that would imply the other writers went with it and honestly they do not want that tarnishing their resume....rightly so since it was not their doing

How can you say no one denied that the endings for game 1 and 2 were peer reviewed, when you said in a previous post that you have no proof of them saying they were or not. 

That makes no sense. 

[ld1449]

LinksOcarina wrote...

All true.

The problem though, I don't have to offer proof of anything, since I asked the question. If you can't answer the question, you have no case. So your absence of evidence is not enough.

By the way, the Hepler case is different, because that was personal attacks and insults via twitter/facebook/email and the like. 

Last I checked no one is really getting personal with Hudson or Walters, they are just calling them incompetant, not "obese c*nts." 

You ask a question that demands proof, and dismiss/diminish the accepted notion that Walters and Hudson did the ending alone without offering any incentive to dismiss it. As I see it YOU are the one putting forward the statement that WE are wrong, so by court standards the burden of proof does infact rest on you, not the other way around. In this case all you have to do its point at one post, quote or statement that anyone on the Bioware team has made in recent months saying that this is flat out wrong. That it WAS peer reviewed.

You have not.

We on the other hand have considerable amounts of circumstancial evidence including but not limited to the bits I listed above.

Since its circumstancial it takes a backseat to facts. Should you offer us some our statements fall down as quick as a house of cards in a strong breeze.

So even though my "Absence of evidence" might not be enough to confirm it, your absence of evidence is not enough to dismiss it either.


And the Hepler case isn't so different trust me. THIS thread, is relatively civil. Rewind to four months ago and you couldn't mention casey and mac in a good way without hatred spilling over to you.

Hell one guy made a petition for Casey to be fired. Which is a hell of a lot worse if you ask me than just calling someone a name. Because that's messing directly with the mans life and again, no defense of Casey, or his work on the project, or again, a dismissal of the notion by the writers putting themselves in the line of fire. So with all this, myself and many others do believe that this was not peer reviewed. You think we're wrong and neither one of us it seems is gonna convince the other so there's really no point to continue this.

I could entertain the possibility you're right just like you can do the same for me because neither of us has any definitive proof so we can go back and forth all day with an argument that boils down to

No

No

No

No

No.

And so on and so forth.

[LinksOcarina]

ld1449 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

All true.

The problem though, I don't have to offer proof of anything, since I asked the question. If you can't answer the question, you have no case. So your absence of evidence is not enough.

By the way, the Hepler case is different, because that was personal attacks and insults via twitter/facebook/email and the like. 

Last I checked no one is really getting personal with Hudson or Walters, they are just calling them incompetant, not "obese c*nts." 

You ask a question that demands proof, and dismiss/diminish the accepted notion that Walters and Hudson did the ending alone without offering any incentive to dismiss it. As I see it YOU are the one putting forward the statement that WE are wrong, so by court standards the burden of proof does infact rest on you, not the other way around. In this case all you have to do its point at one post, quote or statement that anyone on the Bioware team has made in recent months saying that this is flat out wrong. That it WAS peer reviewed.

You have not.

We on the other hand have considerable amounts of circumstancial evidence including but not limited to the bits I listed above.

Since its circumstancial it takes a backseat to facts. Should you offer us some our statements fall down as quick as a house of cards in a strong breeze.

So even though my "Absence of evidence" might not be enough to confirm it, your absence of evidence is not enough to dismiss it either.

And the Hepler case isn't so different trust me. THIS thread, is relatively civil. Rewind to four months ago and you couldn't mention casey and mac in a good way without hatred spilling over to you.

Hell one guy made a petition for Casey to be fired. Which is a hell of a lot worse if you ask me than just calling someone a name. Because that's messing directly with the mans life and again, no defense of Casey, or his work on the project, or again, a dismissal of the notion by the writers putting themselves in the line of fire. So with all this, myself and many others do believe that this was not peer reviewed. You think we're wrong and neither one of us it seems is gonna convince the other so there's really no point to continue this.

I could entertain the possibility you're right just like you can do the same for me because neither of us has any definitive proof so we can go back and forth all day with an argument that boils down to

No

No

No

No

No.

And so on and so forth.

That petition was shut down, if I recall correctly. So I guess BioWare is protecting their writers. 

And I do dismiss your claim because it's not proof, its a claim. Prove me wrong that you guys are right. Because I have seen nothing to say that it was or was not peer reviewed that can be verified.

And the reason I dismiss it is because our other friend there is using it as an absolute truth to make a statement such as "one down and one to go".  Seriously. Our whole idea that these two men need to be taken down, and one of them was taken down supposedly because of rumors going on, while the majority of proof is based on a statement that can't be verified.

Give me a ****ing break.

My absense of evidence is purposeful, as I asked a simple qustion for you guys to prove me wrong. I don't have to show a thing because I have nothing to prove right here. When you use absence of evidence to say a true statement, you're either a liar or just really misinformed, or, which was the whole point in the beginning, to say that a statement such as the one above by our friend is just a confirmation bias. 

So it will keep going back to a no, no, no statement or whatever. But if that is the case, why don't both of you drop it already and just move on? Or are you so hell bent on something else now?

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 juillet 2012 - 08:59 .

[AresKeith]

if your so butt hurt about it then ignore it

and telling people to move on is pointless since ME3 is still going on

[LinksOcarina]

AresKeith wrote...

if your so butt hurt about it then ignore it

and telling people to move on is pointless since ME3 is still going on

I'm not really butt hurt about anything, I just won't sit idle when someone like crimzontearz makes a stupid statement and passes it off as fact.

[ld1449]

LinksOcarina wrote...

That petition was shut down, if I recall correctly. So I guess BioWare is protecting their writers. 

And I do dismiss your claim because it's not proof, its a claim. Prove me wrong that you guys are right. Because I have seen nothing to say that it was or was not peer reviewed that can be verified.

And the reason I dismiss it is because our other friend there is using it as an absolute truth to make a statement such as "one down and one to go".  Seriously. Our whole idea that these two men need to be taken down, and one of them was taken down supposedly because of rumors going on, while the majority of proof is based on a statement that can't be verified.

Give me a ****ing break.

My absense of evidence is purposeful, as I asked a simple qustion for you guys to prove me wrong. I don't have to show a thing because I have nothing to prove right here. When you use absence of evidence to say a true statement, you're either a liar or just really misinformed, or, which was the whole point in the beginning, to say that a statement such as the one above by our friend is just a confirmation bias. 

So it will keep going back to a no, no, no statement or whatever. But if that is the case, why don't both of you drop it already and just move on? Or are you so hell bent on something else now?

And so your outright dismissal of the claim is also a confirmation Bias.

Your absence of evidence is not purposeful. Its just not there. Don't paint it any other way.

Thirdly the poll was shut down. But not with any defence. The statement as far as I recal was something along the lines of

"Ok no

Lockdown

:devil:"

By Chris, hardly a defence.

What your saying is that we need to prove you wrong. I'm saying you have to prove us wrong. You're not. You're just essentially saying No.

That's the long and short of your statement and where we offer circumstancial evidence you offer nothing. So you choose to dismiss it out of hand because of your opinion. Which also makes you guilty of what your accusing our friend here of doing.

So before you start declaring yourself undoubtebly right, and our friend undoubtebly wrong you should go the extra mile when attempting to dismiss something. It takes just as much effort. If not a little more in this case since you're trying to dismiss a rumor as unfounded.

And everyone knows every rumor holds a grain of truth to it. Even the smallest bit of it.

[LinksOcarina]

ld1449 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

That petition was shut down, if I recall correctly. So I guess BioWare is protecting their writers. 

And I do dismiss your claim because it's not proof, its a claim. Prove me wrong that you guys are right. Because I have seen nothing to say that it was or was not peer reviewed that can be verified.

And the reason I dismiss it is because our other friend there is using it as an absolute truth to make a statement such as "one down and one to go".  Seriously. Our whole idea that these two men need to be taken down, and one of them was taken down supposedly because of rumors going on, while the majority of proof is based on a statement that can't be verified.

Give me a ****ing break.

My absense of evidence is purposeful, as I asked a simple qustion for you guys to prove me wrong. I don't have to show a thing because I have nothing to prove right here. When you use absence of evidence to say a true statement, you're either a liar or just really misinformed, or, which was the whole point in the beginning, to say that a statement such as the one above by our friend is just a confirmation bias. 

So it will keep going back to a no, no, no statement or whatever. But if that is the case, why don't both of you drop it already and just move on? Or are you so hell bent on something else now?

And so your outright dismissal of the claim is also a confirmation Bias.

Your absence of evidence is not purposeful. Its just not there. Don't paint it any other way.

Thirdly the poll was shut down. But not with any defence. The statement as far as I recal was something along the lines of

"Ok no

Lockdown

:devil:"

By Chris, hardly a defence.

What your saying is that we need to prove you wrong. I'm saying you have to prove us wrong. You're not. You're just essentially saying No.

That's the long and short of your statement and where we offer circumstancial evidence you offer nothing. So you choose to dismiss it out of hand because of your opinion. Which also makes you guilty of what your accusing our friend here of doing.

So before you start declaring yourself undoubtebly right, and our friend undoubtebly wrong you should go the extra mile when attempting to dismiss something. It takes just as much effort. If not a little more in this case since you're trying to dismiss a rumor as unfounded.

And everyone knows every rumor holds a grain of truth to it. Even the smallest bit of it.

Were not doing a two-way street here, because there is no debate to be had. There is no burden of proof on what I am saying either. I made a statement then asked a question to prove the a said statement from someone else to dismiss my claim, and so far got a run around by two people. 

 And frankly, I don't have to go an extra mile on this one because in the end, our friend is still wrong about his claim. That is not debatable, sadly. I can't prove him wrong, no one can really do that actually unless if they have that smoking gun. But I don't have to prove them wrong either. I just have to ask a question to make it doubtful. 

So the point was missed it seems. Oh well, I guess,  I should expect as much.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 juillet 2012 - 09:40 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

LinksOcarina wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

if your so butt hurt about it then ignore it

and telling people to move on is pointless since ME3 is still going on

I'm not really butt hurt about anything, I just won't sit idle when someone like crimzontearz makes a stupid statement and passes it off as fact.

This is a message board not a term paper. Get off your high horse already.

All you ever do is make stupid posts nitpicking and making molehills into mountains.

[LinksOcarina]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

if your so butt hurt about it then ignore it

and telling people to move on is pointless since ME3 is still going on

I'm not really butt hurt about anything, I just won't sit idle when someone like crimzontearz makes a stupid statement and passes it off as fact.

This is a message board not a term paper. Get off your high horse already.

All you ever do is make stupid posts nitpicking and making molehills into mountains.

I honestly don't care if you think I make stupid posts or nitpick or whatever. If you say something that is dumb or misinformative, I have to call you out on it.

it's the teacher in me, honestly. I won't sit idlely by through insipid commenting and general statements with no substance to them, or outright lies and misinformation.  Simple as that. If you don't like it, report me then, or ignore me, but i'm not going to stop. 

And before you even say it, yes, I make them too. And I always apologize when I do. So no i'm not infalliable, but at least I recognize it. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 juillet 2012 - 09:54 .

[dark_secret7]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

if your so butt hurt about it then ignore it

and telling people to move on is pointless since ME3 is still going on

I'm not really butt hurt about anything, I just won't sit idle when someone like crimzontearz makes a stupid statement and passes it off as fact.

This is a message board not a term paper. Get off your high horse already.

All you ever do is make stupid posts nitpicking and making molehills into mountains.

I honestly don't care if you think I make stupid posts or nitpick or whatever. If you say something that is dumb or misinformative, I have to call you out on it.

it's the teacher in me, honestly. I won't sit idlely by through insipid commenting and general statements with no substance to them, or outright lies and misinformation.  Simple as that. If you don't like it, report me then, or ignore me, but i'm not going to stop. 

And before you even say it, yes, I make them too. And I always apologize when I do. So no i'm not infalliable, but at least I recognize it. 

It's still irritating. For example: I've never had any problem with spelling, but it still pisses me off when some idiot who thinks that he's "the $#!7" decides to intellectually masturbate all over some poor guy who had the tiniest of spelling mishaps. It doesn't make you a better person. It makes you seem like a douche.

[crimzontearz]

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...Oh and...the fact they are still unwilling to flat out deny it ....if you think about it you can deduce why

That means nothing really too, because they likely can't confirm or deny anything through a breech of contract. 

1 I meant no one denied ME1-2 endings were peer reviewd2 Bioware gladly Denied other things but not this accusation...why? Because that would imply the other writers went with it and honestly they do not want that tarnishing their resume....rightly so since it was not their doing

How can you say no one denied that the endings for game 1 and 2 were peer reviewed, when you said in a previous post that you have no proof of them saying they were or not. That makes no sense. 

Are you trying to be dense?





1 Mass Effect 1&2 endings were peer reviewed, it is implied in weekes post...no one ever claimed they were hijacked like ME3's allegedly were. The first two endings were not universally reviled





2 you can keep being a happy lil fanboy but the truth is the ARE hiring a new lead writer and Casey has been demoted (even if maybe just in name) on top of the fact that STILL BIOWARE DOES NOT DENY THE ENDING HIJACKING. Wanna know what they DID deny/clarify? A number of things like ripping off the stone prisoner from the final DAO game for instance...there is more like the decision to cut off gay romances in ME1&2 and so on but this accusation remains UNDENIED. Again....are you trying to be dense?