116 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

mauro2222 wrote...

So... it doesn't understand what preservation means. Got it.

Correction: their understanding of preservation is different from yours. Whether you don't uderstand Reaperhood as preservation of a species is irrelevant to whether it fits the Catalyst's understanding.

'Preservation' is a concept that differs between cultures and cost-acceptance. You have to come to terms with your stance of individualism versus community collective, the Ship of Theseus Paradox, and definitions of what constitute 'life,' and the importance of preservation in a particular form versus other priorities.

Remember, the Catalyst does not exist to protect or preserve all life: it exists to prevent a particular sort of synthetic singularity from wiping out all life. The Reapers do not do this by virtue of (a) not killing all life, only the advanced species, and ( preserving them in the form of Reapers.

And there's a problem in your explanation, Artificial intelligence =/= computer-VI

Never said they were. Artificial intelligence are, however, subject to their coding none the less. There is no such thing as an AI without programming.

[Morty Smith]

How dare you question the greatest space magician ever!

I challange you to a duel!

Alakabotzen!



You have now lost.

Modifié par Kroitz, 30 août 2012 - 10:06 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Mixxer5 wrote...

@up: I like ME1 and ME2- I've problems with ME3 only
 

Why?

A great number of the story problems ME3 had were saddled with it by virtue that neither ME1 or ME2 had set them up or even decided on them. The Reaper motivations, the necessity of a superweapon like the Crucible, even the nature of the carryover consequences: these were all things set in motion by ME1 but particularly ME2 because they were never planned out in advance.

ME1 can get a mostly free pass by being the start of the trilogy, but setting up how the Reapers would be fought rested on ME2. Instead of looking for a way to beat the Reapers or pushing the trilogy forward, ME2 spent the vast majority of its time on a cast in which the majority had no ties to the main plot, and ME2 ended without making any forward progress in mobilizing the galaxy or figuring out how to beat the Reapers.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 30 août 2012 - 12:23 .

[Mixxer5]

My biggest issue with ME3 isn't ending (it's stupid but it's the smallest problem for me).

In ME2 every mission have (seemingly) some bigger consequences. Shortest mission I played in ME2 had only one fight, lasting 1 minute- I had to save some Cerberus agent. Whole mission lasted 5 minutes- 3 minutes took me reading logs on computer I've found. At the end of mission I've found agent. Well- it's dangerous job it seems- he was dead (and tortured as logs proved). But he had encrypted data- only he and Cerberus knew the key. Of course they could've been decrypted. At the end of mission I get 3 choices- keep data, send them to alliance or give them back to Cerberus.

Now ME3- wait... Yes I've got this!



(this graph isn't mine- it's from this topic-http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11613755/4)

ME3 quests quality is low. Fetch quests can't be even considered as quests- only "threat" during performing them is running in Reapers during scanning. They're also dumb- I'm in the middle of huge galactic war for survival- and what I'm doing? Looking for some old Batarian "Pillars of Strength" (or whatever). On every step someone reminds me that we lack time- and I'm flying through galaxy saving some relics...

And same thing for multiplayer quests- no plot (apart of few words of briefing...), so I can as well play multi instead of single...

Modifié par Mixxer5, 30 août 2012 - 06:51 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Mixxer5 wrote...

My biggest issue with ME3 isn't ending (it's stupid but it's the smallest problem for me).

In ME2 every mission have (seemingly) some bigger consequences. Shortest mission I played in ME2 had only one fight, lasting 1 minute- I had to save some Cerberus agent. Whole mission lasted 5 minutes- 3 minutes took me reading logs on computer I've found. At the end of mission I've found agent. Well- it's dangerous job it seems- he was dead (and tortured as logs proved). But he had encrypted data- only he and Cerberus knew the key. Of course they could've been decrypted. At the end of mission I get 3 choices- keep data, send them to alliance or give them back to Cerberus.

And the effect of it in ME2 was... nothing. And the effect planned for in ME3 was... nothing, because they hadn't planned the sequel.

Besides all the missions in ME2 that didn't have Big Decisions with Consequences (which is, honestly, most of them: all the recruitment missions, most of the N7 missions, and quite a few of the Loyalty Missions: Ronald Taylor is not a man of galactic relevance), ME2 (and ME1) didn't plan out how their choices would impact a sequel. ME2 had more planning than ME1, but most of those were still in the category of 'throw at wall and see what sticks.'

Now ME3- wait... Yes I've got this!



(this graph isn't mine- it's from this topic-http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11613755/4)

It's also a very bad graph. I remember the guy who made it, and it was a pretty blatant display of a biased presentation even as he made it.

ME3 quests quality is low. Fetch quests can't be even considered as quests- only "threat" during performing them is running in Reapers during scanning.

And so? That's still a threat.

They're also dumb- I'm in the middle of huge galactic war for survival- and what I'm doing? Looking for some old Batarian "Pillars of Strength" (or whatever). On every step someone reminds me that we lack time- and I'm flying through galaxy saving some relics...

...because most of those relics have cultural importance to rally the war effort, or are actually scientific artifacts of advanced technology for study. That is, of course, those assets that aren't directly military in nature. In other words, things that help the war effort.

What was the rational for the detours in ME1?

And same thing for multiplayer quests- no plot (apart of few words of briefing...), so I can as well play multi instead of single...

Sure, if you're a biased fool who isn't honest enough to recognize the differences.

[nevar00]

I haven't played the DLC so I don't know if this was addressed, but how was Harbinger created in the first place? I assume the smoothie machine the Collectors had was made except for the size of the Leviathans... how did the Catalyst force the Leviathans into the blender to be made in to Harbinger goo? A 'free candy' sign?

[Dean_the_Young]

The Catalyst had tools that were under its power for the purpose of researching its solution. When it came to its realization, and the Leviathan decided not to go for Synthesis, it used the tools to turn on them.

[SkullStrife]

 The Catalyst used his biggest power against the Leviathans.... ART!!!!!!

[Mixxer5]

 @nevar: That's good point, there's no way to find out though- I can't imagine how big would be machine making Reaper from humans in Leviathan version- they can't be also anyhow indoctrinated too.
@Dean:

And the effect of it in ME2 was... nothing. And the effect planned for in ME3 was... nothing, because they hadn't planned the sequel.
Besides all the missions in ME2 that didn't have Big Decisions with Consequences (which is, honestly, most of them: all the recruitment missions, most of the N7 missions, and quite a few of the Loyalty Missions: Ronald Taylor is not a man of galactic relevance), ME2 (and ME1) didn't plan out how their choices would impact a sequel. ME2 had more planning than ME1, but most of those were still in the category of 'throw at wall and see what sticks.' 

So You're telling me that ME2 had bad plot because ME3 didn't used any of it (at least Collector base should be mentioned somehow- instead I can decide if I want heart or brain of Reaper)? ME2 was good- I didn't liked fact that I'm saving some colonies instead of looking for a way to stop Reapers, then was a time to search for Leviathans, to prepare galaxy for war- not when they attacked. Still- it made much more sense than secret weapon out of nowhere (50 years of access to Prothean archives and they're founding it now? Please...). I can't blame ME1 and 2 that choices I made there aren't (mostly) even mentioned in ME3. 

It's also a very bad graph. I remember the guy who made it, and it was a pretty blatant display of a biased presentation even as he made it.

 

What's wrong with it? I don't say that those numbers are absoulutely correct- but quite enough for me. Especially because fetch quests looked like at least half of my journal.

And so? That's still a threat. 

It's annoyance of any relevance- if they catch me I lose... 30 seconds maybe (and I remember if I've found something). It could be nice addition to quests- not majority of them (I'm really, really upset about Elcor planer- I was sure that it'll take some time to finish this mission. It took me... One minute? And I didn't even met any Reaper on the way)

...because most of those relics have cultural importance to rally the war effort, or are actually scientific artifacts of advanced technology for study. That is, of course, those assets that aren't directly military in nature. In other words, things that help the war effort.

What was the rational for the detours in ME1?

Uhm... Don't You really think that time spent on looking for this things could be better used? They're symbols at best-we're fighting for survival so it's not hard to convince everyone to fight. And even if I'd agree with You... Those things seem irrelevant- if someone would fatigue himself to explain me their value for certain culture (in game I mean- not some codex entry)- I'd consider them a little more precious.

Sure, if you're a biased fool who isn't honest enough to recognize the differences.

Seriously- what differences? During those missions we don't even meet any NPC (except mission where I had to save 2 hostages- first Hackett told me like there was at least few hundreds of them, then they proved to be immortal idiots standing between me and Cerberus forces every time they had occasion), no plot is developed- I get only some useless war assets I can't even see in battle/doing something. Seriously- is team of scientists really equal to team of commandos? They've same point number so it seems like they're.

You want other arguments? ME 1 and 2 had three hub worlds + Citadel. ME3 have very small Citadel only with closed rooms/locked passes everywhere. I know it's bad time for being tourist but it looks small- whole galaxy is smaller than world of Gothic or Skyrim.

And final point- whole ME3 together with both DLCs took me 24 hours (all quests finished). ME2 without any DLC took me 50- and I had plenty of sidequests left. Maybe this graph is wrong- but ME3 is smaller than previous games.

Modifié par Mixxer5, 30 août 2012 - 10:42 .

[plfranke]

Dean do you ever meet someone that you completely agree with?

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Mixxer5 wrote...

So You're telling me that ME2 had bad plot because ME3 didn't used any of it (at least Collector base should be mentioned somehow- instead I can decide if I want heart or brain of Reaper)?ME2 was good- I didn't liked fact that I'm saving some colonies instead of looking for a way to stop Reapers, then was a time to search for Leviathans, to prepare galaxy for war- not when they attacked. Still- it made much more sense than secret weapon out of nowhere (50 years of access to Prothean archives and they're founding it now? Please...). I can't blame ME1 and 2 that choices I made there aren't (mostly) even mentioned in ME3. 
[/quote]No, I'm telling you that ME2 was poor writing because it wasn't written with the trilogy as a whole in mind. ME2 didn't even plan out what was supposed to follow it, or create a strong scenario to follow it. It was functionally a side-story.

I didn't tell you now, but I will make the position now, that ME2 was poor writing because it completely failed to further the Reaper plotline. It introduced and resolved a minor antagonist faction which was never a credible threat, and rather than continue the impetus of ME1's finale and prepare the galaxy for war it spent the entire game getting to exactly the same point vis-a-vis the Reapers that ME1 left off on. No new allies were gathered, the galaxy did not prepare, and the Reapers were totally irrelevant to the majority of the primary supporting cast.
[quote]
What's wrong with it? I don't say that those numbers are absoulutely correct- but quite enough for me. Especially because fetch quests looked like at least half of my journal.[/quote]Selective definitions is a strong one across all of them.

[quote][quote]
And so? That's still a threat. [/quote]

It's annoyance of any relevance- if they catch me I lose... 30 seconds maybe (and I remember if I've found something). It could be nice addition to quests- not majority of them (I'm really, really upset about Elcor planer- I was sure that it'll take some time to finish this mission. It took me... One minute? And I didn't even met any Reaper on the way)[/quote]All the resource scavengings had annoyance mechanics in all the games. In ME1, it was omnigel costs versus simeon says. In ME2, you had restricted probe costs and padding.

[quote]
Uhm... Don't You really think that time spent on looking for this things could be better used? They're symbols at best-we're fighting for survival so it's not hard to convince everyone to fight. [/quote]If you think the time could be better used, don't bother with the mission.

No one, anywhere, is making you hunt down the Prothean data drives that might have information on the Crucible if you don't think it's a credible lead.

[quote]
And even if I'd agree with You... Those things seem irrelevant- if someone would fatigue himself to explain me their value for certain culture (in game I mean- not some codex entry)- I'd consider them a little more precious.[/quote]Many of them do, if you bother to stick around and listen to what the person says before and after the delivery.


[quote]
Seriously- what differences?[/quote]Understanding that the Single Player is a largely story-driven scenario, and that Multiplayer is a combat-driven co-op game, would be a pretty simple start.


[quote]
During those missions we don't even meet any NPC (except mission where I had to save 2 hostages- first Hackett told me like there was at least few hundreds of them, then they proved to be immortal idiots standing between me and Cerberus forces every time they had occasion), no plot is developed- I get only some useless war assets I can't even see in battle/doing something. [/quote]In case you missed it, there's a galaxy-scale war going on outside of Shepard's view. Multiplayer is a reflection of that.

[quote]
Seriously- is team of scientists really equal to team of commandos? They've same point number so it seems like they're.[/quote]In terms of successfully supporting the overall effort so that the Crucible can reach the Citadel with maximum effectiveness, minimum damage, and minimum time, yes.


[quote]
You want other arguments? ME 1 and 2 had three hub worlds + Citadel. ME3 have very small Citadel only with closed rooms/locked passes everywhere. I know it's bad time for being tourist but it looks small- whole galaxy is smaller than world of Gothic or Skyrim.[/quote]Since the ME3 Citadel has more walking space than the hubs in ME2, and certainly does more with what it has than ME1's vast empty spaces, that's not an argument proving anything than your own predisposition. Which we already knew.
[quote]
And final point- whole ME3 together with both DLCs took me 24 hours (all quests finished). ME2 without any DLC took me 50- and I had plenty of sidequests left. Maybe this graph is wrong- but ME3 is smaller than previous games.
[/quote]The graph is wrong. As for your play style, that's on you: ME2 even with DLC takes me nowhere near 50 hours, while ME3 takes me arround 30.

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

Dean do you ever meet someone that you completely agree with?

On a particular subject? Certainly.

I also meet people who can disagree without claiming opinions as facts, and who avoid exagerating flaws and ignorring inconveninet facts that would oppose them.

I hardly expect, demand, or desire people to by sycophants who agree with me. I do expect people to be able to compose their opinions without schewing facts and projecting their biases without restraint.

[SkullStrife]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Catalyst had tools that were under its power for the purpose of researching its solution. When it came to its realization, and the Leviathan decided not to go for Synthesis, it used the tools to turn on them.

those tools/equipment were: 

-Space Magic Beam Launcher: can alter, destroy and fuse DNA of every being, even of those that don´t have DNA (synthetics)
-Plot Hole Bomb: It can create new events and rules out of nothing even if they contradict the whole universe
-Art Talisman: it gives a bonus of -100 to logic and negates any tool used by the enemy 
-Mind Reading Implants: they allow the catalyst to read your mind in order to adopt a form that appears non hostile to you... it does so without establishing any link with your mind at all it works with magic! secondary effect include unexplained dreams (they used this against Shepard in order to read his mind and adopt the form a child, but without indoctrianting him in any way...) 
-RGB Device (aka ABC Device): This device has the power of destroying any enemy that goes as far as reaching the catalyst´s house he basically offers you three ways of dying with consequences according to his objectives

The Leviathans comitted suicide after knowing that they were going to face that tools! all their powers were denied by his power, the survivors fled and hid...

Modifié par SkullStrife, 30 août 2012 - 11:07 .

[plfranke]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Dean do you ever meet someone that you completely agree with?

On a particular subject? Certainly.

I also meet people who can disagree without claiming opinions as facts, and who avoid exagerating flaws and ignorring inconveninet facts that would oppose them.

I hardly expect, demand, or desire people to by sycophants who agree with me. I do expect people to be able to compose their opinions without schewing facts and projecting their biases without restraint.

Hmmm I figured it out. I think it's your avatar that makes me dislike you so much. He's just a mean looking guy.

Though it does seem like at times you are confrontational just for the sake of it, and have you ever considered that to those people those flaws are as large as they present them?

[plfranke]

SkullStrife wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Catalyst had tools that were under its power for the purpose of researching its solution. When it came to its realization, and the Leviathan decided not to go for Synthesis, it used the tools to turn on them.

those tools/equipment were: 

-Space Magic Beam Launcher: can alter, destroy and fuse DNA of every being, even of those that don´t have DNA (synthetics)
-Plot Hole Bomb: It can create new events and rules out of nothing even if they contradict the whole universe
-Art Talisman: it gives a bonus of -100 to logic and negates any tool used by the enemy 
-Mind Reading Implants: they allow the catalyst to read your mind in order to adopt a form that appears non hostile to you... it does so without establishing any link with your mind at all it works with magic! secondary effect include unexplained dreams (they used this against Shepard in order to read his mind and adopt the form a child, but without indoctrianting him in any way...) 
-RGB Device (aka ABC Device): This device has the power of destroying any enemy that goes as far as reaching the catalyst´s house he basically offers you three ways of dying with consequences according to his objectives

The Leviathans comitted suicide after knowing that they were going to face that tools! all their powers were denied by his power, the survivors fled and hid...

This is the kind of humor that certain people on this thread may not appreciate. I do though. Well done.

[SkullStrife]

plfranke wrote...

SkullStrife wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Catalyst had tools that were under its power for the purpose of researching its solution. When it came to its realization, and the Leviathan decided not to go for Synthesis, it used the tools to turn on them.

those tools/equipment were: 

-Space Magic Beam Launcher: can alter, destroy and fuse DNA of every being, even of those that don´t have DNA (synthetics)
-Plot Hole Bomb: It can create new events and rules out of nothing even if they contradict the whole universe
-Art Talisman: it gives a bonus of -100 to logic and negates any tool used by the enemy 
-Mind Reading Implants: they allow the catalyst to read your mind in order to adopt a form that appears non hostile to you... it does so without establishing any link with your mind at all it works with magic! secondary effect include unexplained dreams (they used this against Shepard in order to read his mind and adopt the form a child, but without indoctrianting him in any way...) 
-RGB Device (aka ABC Device): This device has the power of destroying any enemy that goes as far as reaching the catalyst´s house he basically offers you three ways of dying with consequences according to his objectives

The Leviathans comitted suicide after knowing that they were going to face that tools! all their powers were denied by his power, the survivors fled and hid...

This is the kind of humor that certain people on this thread may not appreciate. I do though. Well done.

I´m glad you liked it  

[Neizd]

Really now this is quite simple question with simple answer...

If you look at:
- The leviathans were like gods for lesser races, they could enforce their will, but overall they cared for their thralls and were content that the lesser races revered them.
- They are aquatic race so they have limited possibility of movement
- They need lesser races because apart from their not perfected mind domination, they have neither the ability to fight, neither to construct anything.
- There were probably no more than some leviathans on one planet. This is due to their "god nature" that they need to be in power. To many "gods" and there would be war betwen them.

With the above you can asume that without their believers they couldn't do anything and it was stated, that the catalyst first got control of those. If he was in control of those lesser races it would be quite easy to get rid of some leviathans. Afterall what is 1-3 leviathans agains an army of slaves (husks?). Even they can't controll everyone and since their domination was not as perfectet as reapers indoctrination the just hgot their ass kicked.

EDIT: Also the catalyst could process dead leviathans, it didn't need them alive just as it doesn't need live humans to process into reaper.

Modifié par Neizd, 30 août 2012 - 11:18 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

Ajwol Semreth wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Technically the Reapers never defeated Leviathan's kind, the Catalyst did by turning their own thralls against them. Kind of shameful, and yet Leviathan is able to hemorrhage a capital-ship no problem at all.

It was 3 against 1, they had the element of surprise and their mind attack was being focused through a fair few of those orbs. I know I'm in the minority here, but I really don't think that Reaper kill was impressive as people are making it out to be. Against a Reaper that knew the Leviathan were there, they would not stand a chance in my opinion.

You don't know if it was 3 on 1. The camera deliberately focused on a single Leviathan using those orbs. In addition, I would say that the Reaper capital ship had the element of surprise, not the Leviathans, since the Reapers tracked the Leviathans' lair, and dispatched a capital ship there with the obvious intention of attacking them.

[xsamplexample]

Because leviathans dont have that much capabilities, besides what they can make others do. theyre stuck underwater... probly got fished out with a net.

[nonlethalbizzle]

Mixxer5 wrote...

It's like saying that North Korea could defeat US army by launching surprise attack... They could make some harm, sure. But they'd be obliterated very fast. Protheans fought with Reapers few hundreds of years and they were much less advanced than Leviathans. And Reapers had much bigger "element of surprise". Leviathans at least knew about existence of starkid and his "army of pawns"

A closer example
would be if the joint chiefs of staff and head of NSA/CIA staged surprise a
coup. Assuming they managed to bring along a portion of the army+airforce,
their initial attack would be devastating as those forces loyal to the
president/congress would have no leadership and could not know who to trust.

[plfranke]

nonlethalbizzle wrote...

Mixxer5 wrote...

It's like saying that North Korea could defeat US army by launching surprise attack... They could make some harm, sure. But they'd be obliterated very fast. Protheans fought with Reapers few hundreds of years and they were much less advanced than Leviathans. And Reapers had much bigger "element of surprise". Leviathans at least knew about existence of starkid and his "army of pawns"

A closer example
would be if the joint chiefs of staff and head of NSA/CIA staged surprise a
coup. Assuming they managed to bring along a portion of the army+airforce,
their initial attack would be devastating as those forces loyal to the
president/congress would have no leadership and could not know who to trust.

Even at that though, they would have to defeat almost ever american. That's just so unfeasible.

[Han Shot First]

Ajwol Semreth wrote...

MassEffectBelzac wrote...
They have thralls on their homeworld = They became the most powerful organic race ever and controls whole galactic. No doubt about that
No thralls on their homeworld? = They would be sea monsters for a freakin eternity 0.O
That's how i see it.

That's how I see it too... They are indeed a powerful race, but they're not the unstopable Reaper killers that a lot of people on this forum are making them out to be.

Exactly.

The Leviathans were able to bring down that Reaper because it ran into a defense network they had set up on their new homeworld. They have no ability to seize control of destroy Reapers outside their own world, which is part of the reason why they were so intent on hiding from the Reapers.

The Reapers could easily wipe out what remains of the species by setting a mountain sized asteroid on a collision course with that planet. Without thralls the Leviathans would have no ability to deflect it, and would end up as dead as the dinosaurs.

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Dean do you ever meet someone that you completely agree with?

On a particular subject? Certainly.

I also meet people who can disagree without claiming opinions as facts, and who avoid exagerating flaws and ignorring inconveninet facts that would oppose them.

I hardly expect, demand, or desire people to by sycophants who agree with me. I do expect people to be able to compose their opinions without schewing facts and projecting their biases without restraint.

Hmmm I figured it out. I think it's your avatar that makes me dislike you so much. He's just a mean looking guy.

I used to frequently switch between The Old Guy and various other Villainous avatars, particularly Collector Armor Shepard and such. The Old Guy is most bookish, which suits me, and eventually I got typecast. Now adays when I switch Avatars, the people who know me get confused.

Though it does seem like at times you are confrontational just for the sake of it,

Not quite: I am naturally contrarian, not confrontational. My contrarian tendencies express themselves in challenging the arguments of others, particularly in factual errors or misrepresentations or misapplications of broader points: for example, I regularly disputed the people who called Cerberus terrorist based on their crimes in ME1 and ME2. (They weren't: terrorism is far more political and public than Cerberus ever has been. Cerberus is most accurately a para-military cabal.) While some confuse opposition to an argument to opposition to themselves, by and large I challenge people to make better arguments rather than their views. Someone with a coherent, consistent argument without doublestandards will get nary a complaint from me, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

However, many people again confuse disagreeing with an argument with agreeing for the inverse. Back in the ME2 days, because I opposed a number of anti-Cerberus positions I was conflated with being pro-Cerberus when I was infact largely ambivalent. I post much less now than I used to, but in the post-ME3 because I am regularly opposing anti-enders I am often accused of being a pro-ender.



By contrast, my confrontational tendencies go up directly in response to the attitude I perceive from others. I may start blunt, but my patience only shortens when I perceive hostility or is incapable of listening to what is actually being said, rather than straw-manning or otherwise ignorring the actual argument. If someone de-escelates, as you've done here, or seeks clarification with something they disagree or intelligently dissents, my courtesy grows in turn.

and have you ever considered that to those people those flaws are as large as they present them?

Sure... and I believe people who make foolish claims are being foolish no matter how much an issue affects them. Being personally upset by something is not an excuse to misrepresent it: that way lies the circle-jerking hyperbole effect, in which people twist anything and everything to suit their predisposed opinions. That line of reasoning is more than factually wrong, it's personally pathetic.

A good example are the people who don't like the writing of Mass Effect, and who don't like Mac Walters writing style, who then go on to claim that Mac Walters is an utterly talentless writer who is the source of all that is wrong in the Mass Effect franchise and that everything that is good is the influence of Drew or anyone but Mac. The first two positions are more than fair, but the third is a grotesque, petty example of infantile projection.

[plfranke]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Dean do you ever meet someone that you completely agree with?

On a particular subject? Certainly.

I also meet people who can disagree without claiming opinions as facts, and who avoid exagerating flaws and ignorring inconveninet facts that would oppose them.

I hardly expect, demand, or desire people to by sycophants who agree with me. I do expect people to be able to compose their opinions without schewing facts and projecting their biases without restraint.

Hmmm I figured it out. I think it's your avatar that makes me dislike you so much. He's just a mean looking guy.

I used to frequently switch between The Old Guy and various other Villainous avatars, particularly Collector Armor Shepard and such. The Old Guy is most bookish, which suits me, and eventually I got typecast. Now adays when I switch Avatars, the people who know me get confused.

Though it does seem like at times you are confrontational just for the sake of it,

Not quite: I am naturally contrarian, not confrontational. My contrarian tendencies express themselves in challenging the arguments of others, particularly in factual errors or misrepresentations or misapplications of broader points: for example, I regularly disputed the people who called Cerberus terrorist based on their crimes in ME1 and ME2. (They weren't: terrorism is far more political and public than Cerberus ever has been. Cerberus is most accurately a para-military cabal.) While some confuse opposition to an argument to opposition to themselves, by and large I challenge people to make better arguments rather than their views. Someone with a coherent, consistent argument without doublestandards will get nary a complaint from me, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

However, many people again confuse disagreeing with an argument with agreeing for the inverse. Back in the ME2 days, because I opposed a number of anti-Cerberus positions I was conflated with being pro-Cerberus when I was infact largely ambivalent. I post much less now than I used to, but in the post-ME3 because I am regularly opposing anti-enders I am often accused of being a pro-ender.



By contrast, my confrontational tendencies go up directly in response to the attitude I perceive from others. I may start blunt, but my patience only shortens when I perceive hostility or is incapable of listening to what is actually being said, rather than straw-manning or otherwise ignorring the actual argument. If someone de-escelates, as you've done here, or seeks clarification with something they disagree or intelligently dissents, my courtesy grows in turn.

and have you ever considered that to those people those flaws are as large as they present them?

Sure... and I believe people who make foolish claims are being foolish no matter how much an issue affects them. Being personally upset by something is not an excuse to misrepresent it: that way lies the circle-jerking hyperbole effect, in which people twist anything and everything to suit their predisposed opinions. That line of reasoning is more than factually wrong, it's personally pathetic.

A good example are the people who don't like the writing of Mass Effect, and who don't like Mac Walters writing style, who then go on to claim that Mac Walters is an utterly talentless writer who is the source of all that is wrong in the Mass Effect franchise and that everything that is good is the influence of Drew or anyone but Mac. The first two positions are more than fair, but the third is a grotesque, petty example of infantile projection.

The problem is "foolish claims" is subjective. What you consider twisting, somone else considers straight. Unless of course, you're referring to people taking facts and manipulating them, in which case they aren't facts anymore. I really don't know where some of your post came from. It seems like you just went on one long rant lol

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

The problem is "foolish claims" is subjective. What you consider twisting, somone else considers straight. Unless of course, you're referring to people taking facts and manipulating them, in which case they aren't facts anymore.

It's a nicer wording than 'lies', which is what could be said of the chart that was posted earlier.

I really don't know where some of your post came from. It seems like you just went on one long rant lol

It was a response, and explanation, of my disagreement with your post. I am not so much confrontational as I am contrarian, and and plenty of people blow the flaws of ME3 past reasonable proportions.