80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Andromidius]

SwobyJ wrote...

"Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, The flag is moving. The other said, The wind is moving. The sixth patriarch, Huineng, happened to be passing by. He told them, Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving"

You try to press the concepts you know into the concepts of the ending which are uncertain by choice. My point is still that you cannot say either one is correct. Therefor saying "It has to be X" has no meaning. "This (could) point(s) to X" would still make much more sense.

Yeah I'm quite aware of that philosophy.

It doesn't always apply to creative writing, which allows for multiple interpretations, intentional symbolism, and the allowance of having foreshadowing.

Narrative vs. Reality is an interesting discussion to have, but I'm not so sure you want to get into that.

Aye.  Not to mention technically speaking they are all correct.  Bar the comment about the wind and flag not moving.

[Andromidius]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Yeah I'm quite aware of that philosophy.

It doesn't apply to creative writing.

If you come with that one could just argue that this stuff is in there to let people think they figured it out while they are dead wrong. Point is still you cannot know.

Which would indeed be bad writing, if they then twist the story again in a non-foreshadowed manner.

So you're substituting bad writing for more bad writing.  Instead of a genius plot twist and explaination for everything that happened.

[Andromidius]

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm not going into Synthesis threads and going "You're wrong and stupid!"

Maybe you should.  Even if you were a Synthesis fan, you have to admit that thread is full of stupid and rampant with headcanon.

[MegumiAzusa]

Andromidius wrote...

Aye.  Not to mention technically speaking they are all correct.  Bar the comment about the wind and flag not moving.

The wind and the flag are just concepts and therefor cannot move. Wind isn't even a physical thing but what we observe when air is moving, a concept. A flag is nothing more then a piece of cloth, maybe painted, consisting of threads. That we see it as a flag is because we see the concept of a flag.

[Andromidius]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Aye.  Not to mention technically speaking they are all correct.  Bar the comment about the wind and flag not moving.

The wind and the flag are just concepts and therefor cannot move. Wind isn't even a physical thing but what we observe when air is moving, a concept. A flag is nothing more then a piece of cloth, maybe painted, consisting of threads. That we see it as a flag is because we see the concept of a flag.

...

Are you being figurative now?  I sure hope so.

[Andromidius]

SwobyJ wrote...

Nope. Even if IT is true, then it would just be Bioware's intent that a segment of the playerbase embraces the ideals of Synthesis instead of the depression of what may truly be happening.

And the ideals of Synthesis are sound. The galaxy is heading that way. It is just (from an IT standpoint) WAY too fast of a change for the galaxy to truly handle, and it would strip the autonamy to make mistakes and progess properly.

I'm not gonna bash all of them for wanting a happy ending.

I was joking.

Apart from the big about them being wrong.  Just don't go bash them.  Unless they come here and ask for it.  Then you have to get in line.

[MegumiAzusa]

Andromidius wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Yeah I'm quite aware of that philosophy.

It doesn't apply to creative writing.

If you come with that one could just argue that this stuff is in there to let people think they figured it out while they are dead wrong. Point is still you cannot know.

Which would indeed be bad writing, if they then twist the story again in a non-foreshadowed manner.

So you're substituting bad writing for more bad writing.  Instead of a genius plot twist and explaination for everything that happened.

Hmm the wording was misleading. What I was trying to say is that they could just have planned it as in the player should make it out for him/herself what is reality. That it is intentionally uncertain and therefor creates lots of problems for the last choice as you have to think on many different levels to make it. But sure, such thinking is still out of the question even for people who try to fill holes. It's not only about filling them, it's also about the uncertainty if you filled them the right way.
It's neither IT nor literal, but it's both.

[MegumiAzusa]

Andromidius wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Aye.  Not to mention technically speaking they are all correct.  Bar the comment about the wind and flag not moving.

The wind and the flag are just concepts and therefor cannot move. Wind isn't even a physical thing but what we observe when air is moving, a concept. A flag is nothing more then a piece of cloth, maybe painted, consisting of threads. That we see it as a flag is because we see the concept of a flag.

...

Are you being figurative now? I sure hope so.

I just explained the meaning of the quote which you didn't seem to understand...

[BleedingUranium]

Megumi, watch the two videos in my signature. They pretty much sum up why "knowing" in the way you're talking about isn't required.

[MegumiAzusa]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Megumi, watch the two videos in my signature. They pretty much sum up why "knowing" in the way you're talking about isn't required.

You are still assuming one of the "solutions" was intended.

[BleedingUranium]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Yeah I'm quite aware of that philosophy.

It doesn't apply to creative writing.

If you come with that one could just argue that this stuff is in there to let people think they figured it out while they are dead wrong. Point is still you cannot know.

Which would indeed be bad writing, if they then twist the story again in a non-foreshadowed manner.

So you're substituting bad writing for more bad writing.  Instead of a genius plot twist and explaination for everything that happened.

Hmm the wording was misleading. What I was trying to say is that they could just have planned it as in the player should make it out for him/herself what is reality. That it is intentionally uncertain and therefor creates lots of problems for the last choice as you have to think on many different levels to make it. But sure, such thinking is still out of the question even for people who try to fill holes. It's not only about filling them, it's also about the uncertainty if you filled them the right way.
It's neither IT nor literal, but it's both.

That's something I could have believed for the first month, maybe two, post launch. It's much clearer now, both in the information we have gathered, comments from Bioware, DLC like Leviathan, and much more.

[MegumiAzusa]

SwobyJ wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Yeah I'm quite aware of that philosophy.

It doesn't apply to creative writing.

If you come with that one could just argue that this stuff is in there to let people think they figured it out while they are dead wrong. Point is still you cannot know.

Which would indeed be bad writing, if they then twist the story again in a non-foreshadowed manner.

So you're substituting bad writing for more bad writing.  Instead of a genius plot twist and explaination for everything that happened.

Hmm the wording was misleading. What I was trying to say is that they could just have planned it as in the player should make it out for him/herself what is reality. That it is intentionally uncertain and therefor creates lots of problems for the last choice as you have to think on many different levels to make it. But sure, such thinking is still out of the question even for people who try to fill holes. It's not only about filling them, it's also about the uncertainty if you filled them the right way.
It's neither IT nor literal, but it's both.

I do agree with this.

I just think its problematic if Bioware is planning a game to take place post-ME3. We'll see.

Problem here is, even if a post ME3 game will come out we still don't know if it was planned until the players screamed for it. As Chris said it they have to go with synthesis if a post ME3 game is happening. To do that they have to move in time for several thousand years so all choices can lead up to that point so they don't discourage players. Same for DLC... they have to cater the fans in some way.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[BleedingUranium]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Megumi, watch the two videos in my signature. They pretty much sum up why "knowing" in the way you're talking about isn't required.

You are still assuming one of the "solutions" was intended.

I am. There's a lot of evidence to support one very well thought out view, and overwhelming amout, and very little for anything else.

Restrider posted this video earlier today, and it pretty much sums up my views on IT. Could IT be wrong? Sure it could! But I would be extremely surprised, like the one guy mentions about plate tectonics being disproved. It's possible, but that doesn't mean much to me.

[demersel]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Megumi, watch the two videos in my signature. They pretty much sum up why "knowing" in the way you're talking about isn't required.

You are still assuming one of the "solutions" was intended.

Only one of the "solutions" is always intended. 

[MegumiAzusa]

SwobyJ wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Yeah I'm quite aware of that philosophy.

It doesn't apply to creative writing.

If you come with that one could just argue that this stuff is in there to let people think they figured it out while they are dead wrong. Point is still you cannot know.

Which would indeed be bad writing, if they then twist the story again in a non-foreshadowed manner.

So you're substituting bad writing for more bad writing.  Instead of a genius plot twist and explaination for everything that happened.

Hmm the wording was misleading. What I was trying to say is that they could just have planned it as in the player should make it out for him/herself what is reality. That it is intentionally uncertain and therefor creates lots of problems for the last choice as you have to think on many different levels to make it. But sure, such thinking is still out of the question even for people who try to fill holes. It's not only about filling them, it's also about the uncertainty if you filled them the right way.
It's neither IT nor literal, but it's both.

I do agree with this.

I just think its problematic if Bioware is planning a game to take place post-ME3. We'll see.

Problem here is, even if a post ME3 game will come out we still don't know if it was planned until the players screamed for it. As Chris said it they have to go with synthesis if a post ME3 game is happening. To do that they have to move in time for several thousand years so all choices can lead up to that point so they don't discourage players.

I think Synthesis is a beautifully dramatic ending.

Same for DLC... they have to cater the fans in some way.
You cannot just undo synthesis, that's a problem.

[Rifneno]

6,488 pages and we're still at the point where we can't just discuss stuff without somebody blathering on about proof. Depressing.