327 réponses à ce sujet

[Blueprotoss]

Fixers0 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

'Analysis" is just another meaning for a opinion that scienctists, engineers, doctors, and so on use.

An analysis it's self  has nothing to do with opionion, it's objectivly breaking down the subject into smaller parts to get a better understanding of the whole.

Yet it is an opinion because anyone can perform an analysis whether they're right or wrong.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Leviathan pretty much covered that, there's really nothing left to add.

- Crucible
- How exactly the Reapers ever got started if their creators had an off button the whole time
- All the other logic flaws in this mess

1.A race made it.
2.It take massive ammounts of consentration for them to control one reaper. It took 3 to control 1 and that was with amplifiers. Added, the first true reaper was not made till after the leviathans fell. Meaning they first fought full synthetic machinces, not organics turned into a machince.

[Blueprotoss]

 

darkway1 wrote...

For those who are clearly Mass3 defenders,who believe Mass3 is perfect and naturally fully understand every thing about Mass3.............can you please tell me if Shepard is dead or alive.....thank you.

Its a two way street and nothing is perfect. 

Xellith wrote...

Id love if these people defending the game could actually write a summary of what the hell happened and why. 

Such as in the beam dash where its ALL OR NOTHING you decide to take a break to let your wounded members go home while the rest of the human race runs into lasers.  And then Harbinger is like "its okay bro you take the time you need" and then they fly off.

RIDICULOUS.  And this is only ONE instance.

I guess some people won't understand that ignorance only spreads ignorance, which means its counter-productive.

[Blueprotoss]

CELL55 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Its all opinion whether something is good or bad while I wonder if you cold do a better job.

It's not opinion it's called "analysis".

'Analysis" is just another meaning for a opinion that scienctists, engineers, doctors, and so on use.  Anyone can analysis anything at any time and its nothing new when its driven by opinion.

Did you seriously just try to use a Homer arguement to prove your point?! Seriously?! 

I guess you haven't read that many analysis articles or watched that many analysis videos then.

[Fixers0]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet it is an opinion because anyone can perform an analysis whether they're right or wrong.

But the purpose of the analysis is not to form an opinion, a good analysis is always objective and based on facts.

[Little Princess Peach]

The Angry One wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
The EC was being worked on conjunction with Leviathan before ME3 was released.  The "best" video game scenario would be Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout 3 since it was the last peice of DLC for that game.

Yes I'm sure, that's why it contradicts the EC.

Yet some people would assume that Harbinger is the Reaper leader or that robots wouldn't kill their creators.

Evidence and events presented in the game =! assumptions.

Yet the crckpot assertions are coming from you since you would rather have headcanon be true instead of whats actually canon. 

Headcanon? The trilogy just doesn't support the ridiculous assertions shoved in at the end, and now BioWare are trying to retroactively shoehorn in justifications while still not making it flow naturally, which they can't because it was never a part of Mass Effect.
The conflicts between organics and synthetics were isolated and solvable, there was never an overarching problem and there still isn't.

All Leviathan does is demonstrate that the Catalyst's creators were complete imbeciles, and contradicts all claims that the created will rebel against the creator because the Reapers never have.

on top of thats the Reapers in me1 and the collectors in me2 and harby don't seem to think they had a leader nor mention any AI since harby is supposed to be a levy, he should at least know about the AI?
since they never mentioned it im guessing it was a last minute job

[Blueprotoss]

Fixers0 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet it is an opinion because anyone can perform an analysis whether they're right or wrong.

But the purpose of the analysis is not to form an opinion, a good analysis is always objective and based on facts.

If the purpose of an analysis isn't to form an opinion of some kind then nobody could form an analysis without having all of the facts.

[Blueprotoss]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

on top of thats the Reapers in me1 and the collectors in me2 and harby don't seem to think they had a leader nor mention any AI since harby is supposed to be a levy, he should at least know about the AI?
since they never mentioned it im guessing it was a last minute job

The Catalyst is the Citadel and the Conduit, which is the control center for the Citadel, was sabotaged by the Protheans before ME1 and he also hid himself on purpose to be a guiding hand.  Harbinger never said there was a leader or that himself was the leader.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:57 .

[AlanC9]

dreman9999 wrote...
 Added, the first true reaper was not made till after the leviathans fell. Meaning they first fought full synthetic machinces, not organics turned into a machince.

Yep. Not only would this have been logically necessary, but the Catalyst is quite specific about it.

[Fixers0]

Blueprotoss wrote...

If the purpose of an analysis isn't to form an opinion of some kind then nobody could form an analysis without having all of the facts.

What kind of logic is that? An analysis is a logical breakdown of a certain subject into smaller parts by looking at the given facts in order to obtain a better understanding of  the main subject matter it's not inheritly subjective and it's most certainly not a means of forming an opinion.

Modifié par Fixers0, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:59 .

[Hexley UK]

BiowEAre are going to do whatever it takes to make as make people as possible swallow the tripe that is the ending.

They will also continue to make the travesty that is the "Synthesis" ending blatantly the most appealing as this is obviously what they want as canon....distasteful though it is.

Personally I find this hilarious as it would have probably been far less hassle and far more profitable to just fix the goddam ending rather than doing the weak sauce EC and make it non-bollarks.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:32 .

[Blueprotoss]

Fixers0 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

If the purpose of an analysis isn't to form an opinion of some kind then nobody could form an analysis without having all of the facts.

What kind of logic is that? An analysis is a logical breakdown of a certain subject into smaller parts by looking at the given facts in order to obtain a better understanding of  the main subject matter it's not inheritly subjective and it's most certainly not a means of forming an opinion.

Its common sense and thats logic everyone should have.  Btw subjective is another way to say opinion.

[Fixers0]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Its common sense and thats logic everyone should have.  Btw subjective is another way to say opinion.

Indeed, Thanks for agreeing with me.

Modifié par Fixers0, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:49 .

[Blueprotoss]

Hexley UK wrote...

BiowEAre are going to do whatever it takes to make as make people as possible swallow the tripe that is the ending.

They will also continue to make the travesty that is the "Synthesis" ending blatantly the most appealing as this is obviously what they want as canon....distasteful though it is.

Personally I find this hilarious as it would have probably been far less hassle and far more profitable to just fix the goddam ending rather than doing the weak sauce EC and make it non-bollarks.

To be fair if the ending of ME3 was like that then ME would have died with ME1 just like how Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Neverwinter, and DA wouldn't have had sequels.  Bioware's style has stayed the same for the most part and it shouldn't be new.

[Blueprotoss]

Fixers0 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Its common sense and thats logic everyone should have.  Btw subjective is another way to say opinion.

Indeed, Thanks for agreeing with me.

I didn't agree with you because analysis are mostly opinion based, which means I disagreed with you.

[Fixers0]

Blueprotoss wrote...

 didn't agree with you because analysis are mostly opinion based, which means I disagreed with you.

Please explain to what an analysis has to do with an opinion, i really can't grasp your logic or even think that you know what an opinion is.

[CELL55]

So the Leviathans were capable of dominating their thralls, but not of preventing them from creating synthetics?
The Leviathans were capable of dominating their thralls, but the Catalyst, a construct designed to analyze data and think up a solution to a problem, was MORE capable of dominating the thralls?
If the thralls did rebel, how were they in any way capable of harming the Leviathans without a Reaper?
After the Catalyst killed off the thralls, why didn't the remaining Leviathans just kill the assuredly small handful of Reapers? Maybe one at a time or using guerrilla tactics?
When the Reapers went to Dark Space, why didn't the Leviathans just ROFLSTOMP the Citadel?
Why didn't the Leviathans sabotage the Citadel or the Relays to prevent the Reapers from harvesting future cycles as easily?
Why did the Leviathans not do anything of note in the billions of years since their civilization fell?
Why does Bioware introduce the game-changing Leviathans in a DLC and then not give them any meaningful change to the game once the DLC ends?

Why does none of any of this make any gorram sense?

[Hexley UK]

CELL55 wrote...

So the Leviathans were capable of dominating their thralls, but not of preventing them from creating synthetics?
The Leviathans were capable of dominating their thralls, but the Catalyst, a construct designed to analyze data and think up a solution to a problem, was MORE capable of dominating the thralls?
If the thralls did rebel, how were they in any way capable of harming the Leviathans without a Reaper?
After the Catalyst killed off the thralls, why didn't the remaining Leviathans just kill the assuredly small handful of Reapers? Maybe one at a time or using guerrilla tactics?
When the Reapers went to Dark Space, why didn't the Leviathans just ROFLSTOMP the Citadel?
Why didn't the Leviathans sabotage the Citadel or the Relays to prevent the Reapers from harvesting future cycles as easily?
Why did the Leviathans not do anything of note in the billions of years since their civilization fell?
Why does Bioware introduce the game-changing Leviathans in a DLC and then not give them any meaningful change to the game once the DLC ends?

Why does none of any of this make any gorram sense?

Ssshhhh...

[Blueprotoss]

CELL55 wrote...

So the Leviathans were capable of dominating their thralls, but not of preventing them from creating synthetics?
The Leviathans were capable of dominating their thralls, but the Catalyst, a construct designed to analyze data and think up a solution to a problem, was MORE capable of dominating the thralls?
If the thralls did rebel, how were they in any way capable of harming the Leviathans without a Reaper?
After the Catalyst killed off the thralls, why didn't the remaining Leviathans just kill the assuredly small handful of Reapers? Maybe one at a time or using guerrilla tactics?
When the Reapers went to Dark Space, why didn't the Leviathans just ROFLSTOMP the Citadel?
Why didn't the Leviathans sabotage the Citadel or the Relays to prevent the Reapers from harvesting future cycles as easily?
Why did the Leviathans not do anything of note in the billions of years since their civilization fell?
Why does Bioware introduce the game-changing Leviathans in a DLC and then not give them any meaningful change to the game once the DLC ends?

Why does none of any of this make any gorram sense?

I highly doubt you know what you're talking even if you played Leviathan.

[Blueprotoss]

Fixers0 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

 didn't agree with you because analysis are mostly opinion based, which means I disagreed with you.

Please explain to what an analysis has to do with an opinion, i really can't grasp your logic or even think that you know what an opinion is.

Yet you still seem to avoid the written or video based editiorials.  A good example that happens with most games are the analysis that some people do with every peice of information that gets released.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Top 3 games this is currently happening with is Black Ops 2, Halo 4, and Borderlands 2.

[Fixers0]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Yet you still seem to avoid the written or video based editiorials.  A good example that happens with most games are the analysis that some people do with every peice of information that gets released.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Top 3 games this is currently happening with is Black Ops 2, Halo 4, and Borderlands 2.

Irrelevant, i've asked you a question, anwser it, let me  help you a bit.

Opinion ''An opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts''

Analysis ''Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it.''

What does the former have to do with the latter?

Modifié par Fixers0, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:10 .

[Blueprotoss]

Fixers0 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
Yet you still seem to avoid the written or video based editiorials.  A good example that happens with most games are the analysis that some people do with every peice of information that gets released.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Top 3 games this is currently happening with is Black Ops 2, Halo 4, and Borderlands 2.

Irrelevant, i've asked you a question, anwser it, let me  help you a bit.

Opinion ''An opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts''

Analysis ''Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it.''

What does the former have to do with the latter?

Yet there opinion isn't excluded in analysis.  There's also another problem since defintions vary from dictionary to dictionary and words have multiple definitions.  Your point is only based on semantics and its far from the topic.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:19 .

[Skeem]

LucasShark wrote...

Is Bioware really going to try and retroactively add foreshadowing for the insanity of the ending?

This will NOT work, it is the writing equivillent of cheating honestly.

Yep, this sounds like the work Winston does at the 'Ministry of Truth' in 1984.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Blueprotoss, I don't know what you're arguing here. Literary analysis is just breaking down a complex topic into multiple parts. For the endings, a start would be:

ME3 Endings= Control + Synthesis + Destroy + Refuse

And so on. It has nothing to do with criticism or what you define as "opinion". That comes later.

Modifié par Chaotic-Fusion, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:25 .