MegumiAzusa wrote...
That sentence doesn't even make sense.CoolioThane wrote...
Ahem, you THINK will never be answered. Please, you pretentious so and so
Modifié par CoolioThane, 06 décembre 2012 - 05:53 .
Yeah, changes were made roughly a day after EC was released. Do you really think everyone's ignored it for months?MegumiAzusa wrote...
Do you just look in posts to insult or do you really read them? I wrote several times I agree with the IT, but there have to be some changes from what it is now to still make sense with the EC.
I said IT without changes with the EC doesn't work. Multiple times. If you cannot accept constructive criticism it's not my problem.CoolioThane wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Do you just look in posts to insult or do you really read them? I wrote several times I agree with the IT, but there have to be some changes from what it is now to still make sense with the EC.CoolioThane wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Because so long as IT doesn't account for something of what is happening it has no real merit. Which is a problem for a theory that wants to fit with what we have.
So you want to constantly whinge at us and not let us discuss something?
Just stay away from the thread, you obviously don't agree with IT.
You said you don't believe in IT since the EC. All you do now is act like daddy's taken away your favourite toy and start arguments over nothing. It just makes you seem like a ****. We'd rather discuss, and everything was fine and dandy before you and Prothe**** got in.
I'll tell you again, just stop. If you have nothing constructive to say DON'T SAY ANYTHING.
There were enough other obvious stuff ignored for months, like the Reaper sounds from the Thessia archives.RavenEyry wrote...
Yeah, changes were made roughly a day after EC was released. Do you really think everyone's ignored it for months?MegumiAzusa wrote...
Do you just look in posts to insult or do you really read them? I wrote several times I agree with the IT, but there have to be some changes from what it is now to still make sense with the EC.
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Yeah, or they just do what the fans want instead of their original intentions.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Word of god in this case says both are valid which you also ignore. I also said BW made a mistake with the EC, which IT doesn't account for.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
You people do fall under the second category as you try to avoid using logic to connect things but believes.Andromidius wrote...
CoolioThane wrote...
I don't really get the outside view of IT. We believe Bioware have made a fantastic ending worthy of Mass Effect, but people say we hate them. It's ignorant and pathetic
Its a reversal technique of criticism. Giving someone you disagree with the opposite attibutes that they actually have. Example:
Intellectually open minded = Close minded crazies
Logical debaters = Religious zealots
Admirers of high art = Haters of 'low art'
Etc.
Yes, 'you people'. All of us!
Look, the scientific method is all fine and dandy, but go ahead and try to use it to interpret literature or cinema. At some point you're going to have to take a look at symbology, foreshadowing, analogies, metaphors. Science says you can't take any of that into account, because you can't be sure of the artist's intentions without word of god.
I'm looking forward to you having something positive to contribute for a change.
Also I contributed much more "positive" stuff then most people here so I see no need to justify my view with more "positive" stuff.
You have contributed a lot in the past. That doesn't change the fact that nowadays, whenever you come into the thread, you are being all negative towards almost everyone and cause the entire thread to fall into pointless argument.
And I don't 'ignore' what word of god says, I don't believe it. For good reasons. They've been completely unreliable so far, and if what I'm taking away from the game is correct, they have a good reason to lie to us.
They want us to go through the experience that Shepard is dead. "No more Shepard", says the PR. It's all just strategy to blow us away when they finally pull the curtain and reveal the return of Shepard in ME4.
If you don't believe that, I can understand it. I won't hold it against you at all.
I'm just saying, if you think you're helping by acting the way you do: you're not.
MegumiAzusa wrote...
I said IT without changes with the EC doesn't work. Multiple times. If you cannot accept constructive criticism it's not my problem.
RavenEyry wrote...
Why do you care?TheProtheans wrote...
You have a cliff hanger that will never be answered, does that make you feel good?
TheProtheans wrote...
RavenEyry wrote...
Why do you care?TheProtheans wrote...
You have a cliff hanger that will never be answered, does that make you feel good?
I take that as it doesn't make you happy.
First, don't put words in my mouth.TheProtheans wrote...
RavenEyry wrote...
Why do you care?TheProtheans wrote...
You have a cliff hanger that will never be answered, does that make you feel good?
I take that as it doesn't make you happy.
Or it's mindscrew to think it ends this way, but in fact it's literal and you doomed EDI, the Geth, etc for nothing, which is one of the questions you should ask yourself at the end when making your choice. Ignoring BW saying both is valid while claiming BW saying IT is valid for the truth is kinda self-contradictory, wouldn't you agree?DoomsdayDevice wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Yeah, or they just do what the fans want instead of their original intentions.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Word of god in this case says both are valid which you also ignore. I also said BW made a mistake with the EC, which IT doesn't account for.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
You people do fall under the second category as you try to avoid using logic to connect things but believes.Andromidius wrote...
CoolioThane wrote...
I don't really get the outside view of IT. We believe Bioware have made a fantastic ending worthy of Mass Effect, but people say we hate them. It's ignorant and pathetic
Its a reversal technique of criticism. Giving someone you disagree with the opposite attibutes that they actually have. Example:
Intellectually open minded = Close minded crazies
Logical debaters = Religious zealots
Admirers of high art = Haters of 'low art'
Etc.
Yes, 'you people'. All of us!
Look, the scientific method is all fine and dandy, but go ahead and try to use it to interpret literature or cinema. At some point you're going to have to take a look at symbology, foreshadowing, analogies, metaphors. Science says you can't take any of that into account, because you can't be sure of the artist's intentions without word of god.
I'm looking forward to you having something positive to contribute for a change.
Also I contributed much more "positive" stuff then most people here so I see no need to justify my view with more "positive" stuff.
You have contributed a lot in the past. That doesn't change the fact that nowadays, whenever you come into the thread, you are being all negative towards almost everyone and cause the entire thread to fall into pointless argument.
And I don't 'ignore' what word of god says, I don't believe it. For good reasons. They've been completely unreliable so far, and if what I'm taking away from the game is correct, they have a good reason to lie to us.
They want us to go through the experience that Shepard is dead. "No more Shepard", says the PR. It's all just strategy to blow us away when they finally pull the curtain and reveal the return of Shepard in ME4.
If you don't believe that, I can understand it. I won't hold it against you at all.
I'm just saying, if you think you're helping by acting the way you do: you're not.
I suppose I could point you towards the massive amounts of foreshadowing and hints they included in the game (which will be obvious in hindsight, when we all know how this will play out). I made a thread about it, but you'll probably go 'confirmation bias'. Just say the word if you're interested.
It could, if you even tried to change it. I give pointer on what is wrong and you are just snapping "you don't like IT, get out". Other then that this thread is 90% off topic anyway.CoolioThane wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
I said IT without changes with the EC doesn't work. Multiple times. If you cannot accept constructive criticism it's not my problem.
Jesus Christ. The IT can't change at the moment because YOU DONT LET US TALK ABOUT IT WITHOUT ACTING LIKE A STROPPY ARSE
Please, constructive criticism is criticism that is constructive.
What you say is overly negative bollocks and you refuse to listen to responses. You won't accept anyone's opinion as it isn't your own. You're just like Hanar. Leave
But have you been on my fence?AresKeith wrote...
@LDS I've been on the fence since day one on IT lol
archangel1996 wrote...
, with Tommy Lee Jones as the picture this is one of the best demotivational posters ever.
Hey, get out of my garden! That fence is private property!LDS Darth Revan wrote...
But have you been on my fence?AresKeith wrote...
@LDS I've been on the fence since day one on IT lol
The problem here is that with the EC they introduced logical flaws in the argumentation of the Guardian and with the new epilog it shows that there are only two states in the long run, which is the crucible is fired or not. IT has to accommodate for the latter in order to make sense. But saying stuff like "there is a feedback and then all Reaper forces are just defeated" doesn't make any sense. The point is I do not know anything that could fix it, which results in my opinion that BW messed up.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
But Megumi, if you thought IT was intended pre-EC, how can you conclude it is otherwise post-EC?
That would mean they would compromise their artistic vision.
People make mistakes. One mistake does not make the entire IT invalid. You can't ignore all the points in favour of it, because of one particular flaw.
Any suggestions on how to adapt the IT to post-EC?
Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:08 .
MegumiAzusa wrote...
It could, if you even tried to change it. I give pointer on what is wrong and you are just snapping "you don't like IT, get out". Other then that this thread is 90% off topic anyway.
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The problem here is that with the EC they introduced logical flaws in the argumentation of the Guardian and with the new epilog it shows that there are only two states in the long run, which is the crucible is fired or not. IT has to accommodate for the latter in order to make sense. But saying stuff like "there is a feedback and then all Reaper forces are just defeated" doesn't make any sense. The point is I do not know anything that could fix it, which results in my opinion that BW messed up.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
But Megumi, if you thought IT was intended pre-EC, how can you conclude it is otherwise post-EC?
That would mean they would compromise their artistic vision.
People make mistakes. One mistake does not make the entire IT invalid. You can't ignore all the points in favour of it, because of one particular flaw.
Any suggestions on how to adapt the IT to post-EC?
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Or it's mindscrew to think it ends this way, but in fact it's literal and you doomed EDI, the Geth, etc for nothing, which is one of the questions you should ask yourself at the end when making your choice. Ignoring BW saying both is valid while claiming BW saying IT is valid for the truth is kinda self-contradictory, wouldn't you agree?DoomsdayDevice wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Yeah, or they just do what the fans want instead of their original intentions.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Word of god in this case says both are valid which you also ignore. I also said BW made a mistake with the EC, which IT doesn't account for.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
You people do fall under the second category as you try to avoid using logic to connect things but believes.Andromidius wrote...
CoolioThane wrote...
I don't really get the outside view of IT. We believe Bioware have made a fantastic ending worthy of Mass Effect, but people say we hate them. It's ignorant and pathetic
Its a reversal technique of criticism. Giving someone you disagree with the opposite attibutes that they actually have. Example:
Intellectually open minded = Close minded crazies
Logical debaters = Religious zealots
Admirers of high art = Haters of 'low art'
Etc.
Yes, 'you people'. All of us!
Look, the scientific method is all fine and dandy, but go ahead and try to use it to interpret literature or cinema. At some point you're going to have to take a look at symbology, foreshadowing, analogies, metaphors. Science says you can't take any of that into account, because you can't be sure of the artist's intentions without word of god.
I'm looking forward to you having something positive to contribute for a change.
Also I contributed much more "positive" stuff then most people here so I see no need to justify my view with more "positive" stuff.
You have contributed a lot in the past. That doesn't change the fact that nowadays, whenever you come into the thread, you are being all negative towards almost everyone and cause the entire thread to fall into pointless argument.
And I don't 'ignore' what word of god says, I don't believe it. For good reasons. They've been completely unreliable so far, and if what I'm taking away from the game is correct, they have a good reason to lie to us.
They want us to go through the experience that Shepard is dead. "No more Shepard", says the PR. It's all just strategy to blow us away when they finally pull the curtain and reveal the return of Shepard in ME4.
If you don't believe that, I can understand it. I won't hold it against you at all.
I'm just saying, if you think you're helping by acting the way you do: you're not.
I suppose I could point you towards the massive amounts of foreshadowing and hints they included in the game (which will be obvious in hindsight, when we all know how this will play out). I made a thread about it, but you'll probably go 'confirmation bias'. Just say the word if you're interested.
Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:12 .
1. that is the point, I cannot see a way to do that, and it is only in the best interest to IT that only the ideas that make sense are used, not ideas that are so remotely true that you seriously have to want it to make sense.CoolioThane wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
It could, if you even tried to change it. I give pointer on what is wrong and you are just snapping "you don't like IT, get out". Other then that this thread is 90% off topic anyway.
Christ. How about instead of just saying "NO THAT'S WRONG"...you say what it could be changed to in your opinion so that IT makes more sense to you...that way we can discuss as you're actually contributing.
It's not 90% off topic at all, and a lot of offtopicness comes from trolls/people like you who are incredibly close to trolling
To find a new solution.CoolioThane wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The problem here is that with the EC they introduced logical flaws in the argumentation of the Guardian and with the new epilog it shows that there are only two states in the long run, which is the crucible is fired or not. IT has to accommodate for the latter in order to make sense. But saying stuff like "there is a feedback and then all Reaper forces are just defeated" doesn't make any sense. The point is I do not know anything that could fix it, which results in my opinion that BW messed up.DoomsdayDevice wrote...
But Megumi, if you thought IT was intended pre-EC, how can you conclude it is otherwise post-EC?
That would mean they would compromise their artistic vision.
People make mistakes. One mistake does not make the entire IT invalid. You can't ignore all the points in favour of it, because of one particular flaw.
Any suggestions on how to adapt the IT to post-EC?
In that case you don't agree with the IT...so why are you here?
hukbum wrote...
Oh, time for the next 50 pages of sandbox-fighting?
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut