230 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyLycanTrope]

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Why anyone would take someone like that seriously is beyond me.

You are right. It is beyond you.

[Big I]

Here's why I'll never agree with this reviewer on his views of the game.

"...WHEN HULK SAW THAT BEAUTIFUL THING GET TORN APART BY CONCEPTS LIKE OVER-FOCUS ON LOGIC..."


Maybe in other forms of fiction or genre it'd be appropriate for a story to disregard details and logic in favour of metaphor and allegory, but certainly not in science fiction. Personally a story that relies upon disgarding plot and character coherence in order to order to make a visual or allegorical point is uninteresting, but to each their own. However when the nature of the story you're telling is details  dependent, you cannot just wave a magic wand and expect people to go with it.


In fiction where a core part of the story is something impossible, be it magic or conspiracies or element zero, the story only holds up so long as events take place in a mutually understood context. Having Frodo take the One Ring to Mt Doom is appropriate because it's built up over the story; having the crew of the USS Enterprise show up at the last minute to capture Sauron in a "tachyon net" is not appropriate, whether or not you agree with their five year mission.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Why anyone would take someone like that seriously is beyond me.

You are right. It is beyond you.

I imagine it is. And I'm more than glad.

The thing is, when you have to rely on crude gimmicks to get your point across, your usual rhetoric must be incredibly bad. It's hard to take somebody like that seriously.

[Eterna]

I think he's spot on.

[AresKeith]

of course you would

[Torrible]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Why anyone would take someone like that seriously is beyond me.

You are right. It is beyond you.

I imagine it is. And I'm more than glad.

The thing is, when you have to rely on crude gimmicks to get your point across, your usual rhetoric must be incredibly bad. It's hard to take somebody like that seriously.

Yet many seemingly rational people are able to appreciate his writings. Strange isn't it? Maybe they are able to come to a discussion without a personal bias or baggage. Maybe they can see past the gimmick and uncover the true value of his thoughts. Maybe they will read an article before judging it. 

[SpamBot2000]

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Why anyone would take someone like that seriously is beyond me.

You are right. It is beyond you.

I imagine it is. And I'm more than glad.

The thing is, when you have to rely on crude gimmicks to get your point across, your usual rhetoric must be incredibly bad. It's hard to take somebody like that seriously.

Yet many seemingly rational people are able to appreciate his writings. Strange isn't it? Maybe they are able to come to a discussion without a personal bias or baggage. Maybe they can see past the gimmick and uncover the true value of his thoughts. Maybe they will read an article before judging it. 

Yes indeed. Maybe they see the true value of a violent face****ing.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Why anyone would take someone like that seriously is beyond me.

You are right. It is beyond you.

I imagine it is. And I'm more than glad.

The thing is, when you have to rely on crude gimmicks to get your point across, your usual rhetoric must be incredibly bad. It's hard to take somebody like that seriously.

Yet many seemingly rational people are able to appreciate his writings. Strange isn't it? Maybe they are able to come to a discussion without a personal bias or baggage. Maybe they can see past the gimmick and uncover the true value of his thoughts. Maybe they will read an article before judging it. 

If you want to express the true value of your thoughts you might want to express yourself intelligibly. Good rhetoric is an art. Otherwise why bother, you're attracting visitors based on a gimmick. In an attempt to be funny. If your discourse is worth reading you will find a way to express yourself without resorting to just that.

And I read his first article. Disregarding the gimmick, his points were poorly argued, cheery picked, often insulting and decisively anti-intellectual. I have no interest in reading that again.

[Quething]

matt-bassist wrote...

jesus my head just exploded from reading that whole thing in HULK-MODE!!!!

Honestly to me the worst part is it's not even in HULKSPEAK. It's somebody off a capslock LiveJournal who occasionally refers to themselves in the third person. And the rest of the time, uses relatively standard grammar and drops in articles.

The whole Hulk-speak thing can be a very powerful rhetorical trick. Feminist Hulk used it to great effect when talking about sexism in comic books; the inherent contrast between the crude, unsophisticated grammar and shouty all-caps of the Hulk's speech patterns with the high-level intellectual concepts he discusses is amusing, and that humor makes some people more willing to sit and listen to ideas they ordinarily would dismiss.

When you slip constantly into normal grammar and mostly just use the whole thing to go on about face-f*cking people who disagree with you, though, the point is rather lost.

Modifié par Quething, 17 août 2012 - 10:10 .

[Torrible]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Why anyone would take someone like that seriously is beyond me.

You are right. It is beyond you.

I imagine it is. And I'm more than glad.

The thing is, when you have to rely on crude gimmicks to get your point across, your usual rhetoric must be incredibly bad. It's hard to take somebody like that seriously.

Yet many seemingly rational people are able to appreciate his writings. Strange isn't it? Maybe they are able to come to a discussion without a personal bias or baggage. Maybe they can see past the gimmick and uncover the true value of his thoughts. Maybe they will read an article before judging it. 

If you want to express the true value of your thoughts you might want to express yourself intelligibly. Good rhetoric is an art. Otherwise why bother, you're attracting visitors based on a gimmick. In an attempt to be funny. If your discourse is worth reading you will find a way to express yourself without resorting to just that.

And I read his first article. Disregarding the gimmick, his points were poorly argued, cheery picked, often insulting and decisively anti-intellectual. I have no interest in reading that again.

It is definitely not anti-intellectual. You were outraged because you fall into the category of people he attacked. It is understandable why you would be vehemently opposed to his opinion but if you can't see any value in his writing, you are simply too biased. 

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Why anyone would take someone like that seriously is beyond me.

You are right. It is beyond you.

I imagine it is. And I'm more than glad.

The thing is, when you have to rely on crude gimmicks to get your point across, your usual rhetoric must be incredibly bad. It's hard to take somebody like that seriously.

Yet many seemingly rational people are able to appreciate his writings. Strange isn't it? Maybe they are able to come to a discussion without a personal bias or baggage. Maybe they can see past the gimmick and uncover the true value of his thoughts. Maybe they will read an article before judging it. 

If you want to express the true value of your thoughts you might want to express yourself intelligibly. Good rhetoric is an art. Otherwise why bother, you're attracting visitors based on a gimmick. In an attempt to be funny. If your discourse is worth reading you will find a way to express yourself without resorting to just that.

And I read his first article. Disregarding the gimmick, his points were poorly argued, cheery picked, often insulting and decisively anti-intellectual. I have no interest in reading that again.

It is definitely not anti-intellectual. You were outraged because you fall into the category of people he attacked. It is understandable why you would be vehemently opposed to his opinion but if you can't see any value in his writing, you are simply too biased. 

When he argues against the use of logic when critisizing art or a product, I take that as being anti-intellectual.

[Conniving_Eagle]

It's hard for me to take him seriously. Not only does he associate and attempt to portray himself as a fictional persona, he admits to not playing the previous Mass Effect games.

[Torrible]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

When he argues against the use of logic when critisizing art or a product, I take that as being anti-intellectual.

Where did he argue against the use of logic? He argued from a position of "artistic integrity must be protected regardless of the quality of the art". He argued against indulgence.  His points were clearly stated and not once did he state that art cannot be criticized. He further explained his rationale in the 2nd article. And since I'm sure you are not going to read them again, I guess our discussion ends here.

[Ticonderoga117]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

It's hard for me to take him seriously. Not only does he associate and attempt to portray himself as a fictional persona, he admits to not playing the previous Mass Effect games.

That's why ME3 is the best starting point, you don't know all the lore or themes ME3 completely dumps in favor of "Hurr Derr".

[Ticonderoga117]

Torrible wrote...
Where did he argue against the use of logic?

His first review. Went along the lines of "Things don't need to make sense."
Which is BS.

[tonnactus]

A little of topic,but starvation? If its possible to replicate weapons just by having their schematics,then producing food for turians and quarians shouldnt be difficult either. And quarians also have their lifeships that have farms.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

It's hard for me to take him seriously. Not only does he associate and attempt to portray himself as a fictional persona, he admits to not playing the previous Mass Effect games.

That's why ME3 is the best starting point, you don't know all the lore or themes ME3 completely dumps in favor of "Hurr Derr".

Maybe that's what they meant. [To enjoy the endings] Mass Effect 3 is the best place to start the trilogy.

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 17 août 2012 - 10:50 .

[AresKeith]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

It's hard for me to take him seriously. Not only does he associate and attempt to portray himself as a fictional persona, he admits to not playing the previous Mass Effect games.

That's why ME3 is the best starting point, you don't know all the lore or themes ME3 completely dumps in favor of "Hurr Derr".

Maybe that's what they meant. [To enjoy the endings] Mass Effect 3 is the best place to start the trilogy.

so F the originaly fans then huh?

[Blueprotoss]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

I can't bring myself to read this guy's writing again. What's his thesis in this new article?

Essentially  "I'm sorry I came of as combative in my defense of ME3, I could have formed my statement better and I shouldn't have told people who didn't like it to f*ck off, but I stand my orignal statement that I liked the ending because etc."

This part made me chuckle a bit:

"12. ON IRONY...

SO AT THIS POINT THERE ARE THOSE OF YOU WHO WILL NOTE THE IRONY OF HULK WRITING ANOTHER ARTICLE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE LAST ARTICLE IS ACHINGLY SIMILAR TO HOW BIOWARE RELEASED THE EXTENDING ENDINGS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS FROM THE EARLIER ENDINGS. HULK UNDERSTANDS THE DESIRE TO MAKE THE COMPARISON, BUT A GAME OR A PIECE OF ART IS INHERENTLYDIFFERENT THAN A COLUMN OF THIS NATURE. FOR ONE, HULK'S COLUMNS ARE 100% PREDICATED ON THE NATURE OF AN ONGOING CONVERSATION AND TWO, HULK WOULD NEVER DO THAT WITH AN ARTISTIC PIECE OF STORYTELLING IF HULK WAS CONFIDENT IN IT. THE FINAL PIECE WOULD BE THE FINAL PIECE.

STILL, ASIDE FROM HULK'S MISGIVINGS ABOUT HULK'S ANGER AND THE WAY THAT HULK WENT ABOUT THE COLUMN, HULK WANTED TO TAKE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTATE THAT HULK STANDS BY THE IDEAS IN THE ORIGINAL COLUMN. SO:"

Like comparing video games to art flims Mr. Hulk?

How is saying video games are art is a bad thing especially when the National Smithsonian of Art disagrees with you.  Btw you clearly don't know what irony is based on your comment.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

I can't bring myself to read this guy's writing again. What's his thesis in this new article?

Essentially  "I'm sorry I came of as combative in my defense of ME3, I could have formed my statement better and I shouldn't have told people who didn't like it to f*ck off, but I stand my orignal statement that I liked the ending because etc."

This part made me chuckle a bit:

"12. ON IRONY...

SO AT THIS POINT THERE ARE THOSE OF YOU WHO WILL NOTE THE IRONY OF HULK WRITING ANOTHER ARTICLE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE LAST ARTICLE IS ACHINGLY SIMILAR TO HOW BIOWARE RELEASED THE EXTENDING ENDINGS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS FROM THE EARLIER ENDINGS. HULK UNDERSTANDS THE DESIRE TO MAKE THE COMPARISON, BUT A GAME OR A PIECE OF ART IS INHERENTLYDIFFERENT THAN A COLUMN OF THIS NATURE. FOR ONE, HULK'S COLUMNS ARE 100% PREDICATED ON THE NATURE OF AN ONGOING CONVERSATION AND TWO, HULK WOULD NEVER DO THAT WITH AN ARTISTIC PIECE OF STORYTELLING IF HULK WAS CONFIDENT IN IT. THE FINAL PIECE WOULD BE THE FINAL PIECE.

STILL, ASIDE FROM HULK'S MISGIVINGS ABOUT HULK'S ANGER AND THE WAY THAT HULK WENT ABOUT THE COLUMN, HULK WANTED TO TAKE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTATE THAT HULK STANDS BY THE IDEAS IN THE ORIGINAL COLUMN. SO:"

Like comparing video games to art flims Mr. Hulk?

How is saying video games are art is a bad thing especially when the National Smithsonian of Art disagrees with you.  Btw you clearly don't know what irony is based on your comment.

Oh, hi there.

[Jadebaby]

This is a repeat thread.

Hulk is a troll.

edit; I stand corrected, so he made another article about it....

Analyzing the above statement, if HULK were confident about his original coloumn he wouldn't have done this one. Regardless of the comments received.

It's just his opinion, who cares?

Comparing his release of said coloumn to that of the extended cut is laughable.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 17 août 2012 - 11:06 .

[Conniving_Eagle]

AresKeith wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

It's hard for me to take him seriously. Not only does he associate and attempt to portray himself as a fictional persona, he admits to not playing the previous Mass Effect games.

That's why ME3 is the best starting point, you don't know all the lore or themes ME3 completely dumps in favor of "Hurr Derr".

Maybe that's what they meant. [To enjoy the endings] Mass Effect 3 is the best place to start the trilogy.

so F the originaly fans then huh?

Of course! Those idiots are already going to buy the game! **** em'! **** em' all!

[AresKeith]

abandon thread

[Conniving_Eagle]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

This is a repeat thread.

Hulk is a troll.

Nope, this is his second troll post.