274 réponses à ce sujet

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Okay then, if you want to take everything exactly as presented, without any opinions, explain this one: Bioware has stated that "there are elements of the game that are not intended to be taken literally".

Hint, you can't.

If you take this statement literally, you can't take the game literally, and if you take the game literally, then you're ignoring facts.

Bioware also said that there was no reaper off button. , they're unreliable third party sources when analysing the narrative.

And there's no Reaper Off Button in IT. Big surprise. Actually, they didn't lie about anything with IT!

[Fixers0]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Davik's right guys. This is leading nowhere and I think we've made our point. Fixer isn't looking for a logical debate, he's being intentionally simple. At least I hope it's intentional

You've yet to disprove bad writing.

[BansheeOwnage]

Fixers0 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Alright. Fixer, give us something worth countering.

There's nothing to counter, i'm merely providing you with the sad facts about Mass Effect 3's storytelling quality: it's extermly low.   

That is an opinion. I think it's exceptional.

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...

And there's no Reaper Off Button in IT. Big surprise. Actually, they didn't lie about anything with IT!

Except IT ≠ Mass Effect 3.

[BansheeOwnage]

Fixers0 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Davik's right guys. This is leading nowhere and I think we've made our point. Fixer isn't looking for a logical debate, he's being intentionally simple. At least I hope it's intentional

You've yet to disprove bad writing.

In all honesty, you've yet to disprove good writing!

[OneWithTheAssassins]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Okay then, if you want to take everything exactly as presented, without any opinions, explain this one: Bioware has stated that "there are elements of the game that are not intended to be taken literally".

Hint, you can't.

If you take this statement literally, you can't take the game literally, and if you take the game literally, then you're ignoring facts.

Bioware also said that there was no reaper off button. , they're unreliable third party sources when analysing the narrative.

And there's no Reaper Off Button in IT. Big surprise. Actually, they didn't lie about anything with IT!

Dude, stop before you hurt your brain fellow ITer, you can't unindoctrinate someone who already is indoctrinated.

They will see the truth in time....
...And feel really, really stupid about it....

[BansheeOwnage]

Fixers0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

And there's no Reaper Off Button in IT. Big surprise. Actually, they didn't lie about anything with IT!

Except IT ≠ Mass Effect 3.

How the hell do you figure? What? Does IT happen in ME2 now? Don't tell us what our theory is!

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Davik's right guys. This is leading nowhere and I think we've made our point. Fixer isn't looking for a logical debate, he's being intentionally simple. At least I hope it's intentional

You've yet to disprove bad writing.

It's never about disproving, always proving. The burden of proof is on you.

[Fixers0]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

That is an opinion. I think it's exceptional.

The quality of the narrative can be discovered through analysis, which i've indicated for several pages, and even provide you with one, i've also indicated that certain pieces within the narrative can be intentified as contrived/contradictory or inconsistant which are generally accepted as signs of bad writing. 

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...


It's never about disproving, always proving. The burden of proof is on you.

I've provided analysis on the Mas Effect 3's ending and even provided an explicit example that indicates bad writing, (Contradictions of Anderson\\s location) but you just won't listen.

Modifié par Fixers0, 29 septembre 2012 - 10:16 .

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

That is an opinion. I think it's exceptional.

The quality of the narrative can be discovered through analysis, which i've indicated for several pages, and even provide you with one, i've also indicated that certain pieces within the narrative can be intentified as contrived/contradictory or inconsistant which are generally accepted as signs of bad writing. 

Analysis of fiction = opinion

Give me evidence of bad writing that can't be explained by IT. It's only bad writing if there's no other logical explaination.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 29 septembre 2012 - 10:11 .

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...
Analysis of fiction = opinion

Wrong, Analysis is completly unrelated to one's opinion about the subject matter.

BleedingUranium wrote...
Give me evidence of bad writing that can't be explained by IT.

IT is irrelvant when attempting to prove bad writing, they're not mutally exclusive.

BleedingUranium wrote...
It's only bad writing if there's no other logical explaination.

That's conjecture.

[BansheeOwnage]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

That is an opinion. I think it's exceptional.

The quality of the narrative can be discovered through analysis, which i've indicated for several pages, and even provide you with one, i've also indicated that certain pieces within the narrative can be intentified as contrived/contradictory or inconsistant which are generally accepted as signs of bad writing. 

Analysis of fiction = opinion

Give me evidence of bad writing that can't be explained by IT. It's only bad writing if there's no other logical explaination.

I bet if he could find 1, it would be just that, 1. 1 instance of "bad writing" probably wouldn't mean the whole thing is anyway. Sure IT may not fix everything, but it can fix everything I can think of...

[ElSuperGecko]

Fixers0 wrote...
The quality of the narrative can be discovered through analysis, which i've indicated for several pages, and even provide you with one, i've also indicated that certain pieces within the narrative can be intentified as contrived/contradictory or inconsistant which are generally accepted as signs of bad writing.

Bad writing, bad writing, bad writing.... it's always bad writing isn't it?  It's never the reader's fault.

Here's a suggestion.  You go write yourself an award-winning sci-fi series set in a richly-detailed universe, that has millions of fans in multiple languages worldwide, and then we'll start taking your claims (and they are mere claims, not facts) of "bad writing" with a little more than a bucketful of salt.

The only bad writing I'm currently seeing is present in your argument.

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
Analysis of fiction = opinion

Wrong, Analysis is completly unrelated to one's opinion about the subject matter.

BleedingUranium wrote...
Give me evidence of bad writing that can't be explained by IT.

IT is irrelvant when attempting to prove bad writing, they're not mutally exclusive.

BleedingUranium wrote...
It's only bad writing if there's no other logical explaination.

That's conjecture.

A scientific analysis of real life things is not opinion, however, fiction is. Why, because it's invented by someone.

Sure, you could have terribly written IT, but that's not what I'm talking about. Anderson's location, among plenty of other things, is fully explained and makes perfect sense in IT.

Since you don't know whether Bioware did or did not intend IT, you can't say it's bad writing, as it's only bad from a literal point of view. From an IT point of view, it's good writing.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 29 septembre 2012 - 10:18 .

[Fixers0]

BansheeOwnage wrote...


I bet if he could find 1, it would be just that, 1. 1 instance of "bad writing" probably wouldn't mean the whole thing is anyway. Sure IT may not fix everything, but it can fix everything I can think of...

Unfortuantly IT requires me to invent the scenario in which i am hallucinating and that i'm being indoctrinated, as such IT is purley speculation. 

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...


I bet if he could find 1, it would be just that, 1. 1 instance of "bad writing" probably wouldn't mean the whole thing is anyway. Sure IT may not fix everything, but it can fix everything I can think of...

Unfortuantly IT requires me to invent the scenario in which i am hallucinating and that i'm being indoctrinated, as such IT is purley speculation. 

There we go again. Your basic problem is that you don't understand what IT is to begin with.

You can objectively analyse ME3 and come to different conclusions. That's why both Literal and IT exist.

You also ignored my previous point. Bioware has stated that the correct way to view the game is with some elements not being literal. If you're taking the game literally, you're viewing it wrong.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 29 septembre 2012 - 10:22 .

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...
A scientific analysis of real life things is not opinion, however, fiction is. Why, because it's invented by someone.

But it doesn't involve the opinion of the one who's analysing though.

BleedingUranium wrote...
Sure, you could have terribly written IT, but that's not what I'm talking about. Anderson's location, among plenty of other things, is fully explained and makes perfect sense in IT.

IT, however is purely based upon a speculative scenario that isn't their, as such i can't accept it valid explanantion for bad writing.

BleedingUranium wrote...
Since you don't know whether Bioware did or did not intend IT, you can't say it's bad writing, as it's only bad from a literal point of view. From an IT point of view, it's good writing.

IT has no weigh in determing the quality of the narative.

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...

There we go again. Your basic problem is that you don't understand what IT is to begin with.

It's based around speculative content, as such it's always trumphed by facts from the game.

Modifié par Fixers0, 29 septembre 2012 - 10:22 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Fixers0 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...


I bet if he could find 1, it would be just that, 1. 1 instance of "bad writing" probably wouldn't mean the whole thing is anyway. Sure IT may not fix everything, but it can fix everything I can think of...

Unfortuantly IT requires me to invent the scenario in which i am hallucinating and that i'm being indoctrinated, as such IT is purley speculation. 

Yes, it is speculation. It does not however, require you to invent anything. We didn't invent anything; everything we need is right in front of us, and slightly to the right.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 29 septembre 2012 - 10:22 .

[Fixers0]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...


I bet if he could find 1, it would be just that, 1. 1 instance of "bad writing" probably wouldn't mean the whole thing is anyway. Sure IT may not fix everything, but it can fix everything I can think of...

Unfortuantly IT requires me to invent the scenario in which i am hallucinating and that i'm being indoctrinated, as such IT is purley speculation. 

Yes, it is speculation. It does not however, require you to invent anything. We didn't invent anything; everything we need is right in front of us, and slightly to the right.

Except the hallucination which "clarifies"  all the bad writing.

[BleedingUranium]

Two things you can't dispute:

The only correct way to view the game is with some non literal elements.

The Indoctrination interpretation is on the same level of validity as the Literal interpretation.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 29 septembre 2012 - 10:26 .

[MajorKellyRisner]

Why do i get the feeling that Fixer here is just a bot?

[OneWithTheAssassins]

"You also ignored my previous point. Bioware has stated that the correct way to view the game is with some elements not being literal. If you're taking the game literally, you're viewing it wrong."

I like how Fixer is ignoring this.

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...


I bet if he could find 1, it would be just that, 1. 1 instance of "bad writing" probably wouldn't mean the whole thing is anyway. Sure IT may not fix everything, but it can fix everything I can think of...

Unfortuantly IT requires me to invent the scenario in which i am hallucinating and that i'm being indoctrinated, as such IT is purley speculation. 

Yes, it is speculation. It does not however, require you to invent anything. We didn't invent anything; everything we need is right in front of us, and slightly to the right.

Except the hallucination which "clarifies"  all the bad writing.

How does it clarify bad writing?