269 réponses à ce sujet

[hiraeth]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...
I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

What's unfair about that? 

I meant that it's easier to come up with a list of why conventional victory is impossible than a list supporting it is possible because the game was written to support an unconventional victory. They have more in-game "evidence" to draw from because that is where the writers wanted it to go. Perhaps "unfair" isn't the best word (as it implies that this is a battle of sorts)...maybe just advantage?

[Ratimir]

Samtheman63 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

thats to cover himself incase he says anything offenive

he helped make the game, its not an opinion, its a fact

It is his personal interpretation of the events, not necessarily shared by Bioware or EA as his description states.

events which he helped create, i think we should take his word for it when he says what it is meant to imply

And I think he poorly handled a leading question while using a medium that is distinctly not known for encouraging users to take time to think about their responses.

All that the stargazer (take 2) implies is that the next cycle won. It doesn't imply how.

[Samtheman63]

Ratimir wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

thats to cover himself incase he says anything offenive

he helped make the game, its not an opinion, its a fact

It is his personal interpretation of the events, not necessarily shared by Bioware or EA as his description states.

events which he helped create, i think we should take his word for it when he says what it is meant to imply

And I think he poorly handled a leading question while using a medium that is distinctly not known for encouraging users to take time to think about their responses.

All that the stargazer (take 2) implies is that the next cycle won. It doesn't imply how.

so it shows that liara left the plans for the crucible behind for no reason?

[AlanC9]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What's unfair about that? 

I meant that it's easier to come up with a list of why conventional victory is impossible than a list supporting it is possible because the game was written to support an unconventional victory. They have more in-game "evidence" to draw from because that is where the writers wanted it to go. Perhaps "unfair" isn't the best word (as it implies that this is a battle of sorts)...maybe just advantage?

OK. But people saying that conventional victory is impossible should have the advantage. Since they're, you know, right.

[wantedman dan]

Samtheman63 wrote...

no, it isn't

its heavily implied that the next cycle used the crucible to defeat the reapers, and is backed up on twitter by somone who helped make the game when asked by a confused fan



derp

I love it when people who think they're intelligent are ignorant of the burden of proof.

[AlanC9]

Ratimir wrote...

All that the stargazer (take 2) implies is that the next cycle won. It doesn't imply how.

Well, they didn't fight a "terrible war." Did they fight a non-terrible war rather than build a Crucible? It's conceivable. And since that interpretation makes some Refusers feel better, I'm glad Bio didn't rule it out.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What's unfair about that? 

I meant that it's easier to come up with a list of why conventional victory is impossible than a list supporting it is possible because the game was written to support an unconventional victory. They have more in-game "evidence" to draw from because that is where the writers wanted it to go. Perhaps "unfair" isn't the best word (as it implies that this is a battle of sorts)...maybe just advantage?

OK. But people saying that conventional victory is impossible should have the advantage. Since they're, you know, right.

Did you even read what he wrote? Evidently not, that's like doing a Mac Vs PC comparision and basing it of similiar hardware and not what you would actually expect to buy with the same amount of money.

Of course the results are scewed, the people running the tests made them so.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 14 octobre 2012 - 07:20 .

[Samtheman63]

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

no, it isn't

its heavily implied that the next cycle used the crucible to defeat the reapers, and is backed up on twitter by somone who helped make the game when asked by a confused fan



derp

I love it when people who think they're intelligent are ignorant of the burden of proof.

its implied ingame, and then back up by the producer of the game

what more do you need?

you want me to draw you a picture?

[hiraeth]

AlanC9 wrote...
OK. But people saying that conventional victory is impossible should have the advantage. Since they're, you know, right.

If you mean that they're right based on how the game is currently written, then yes, I agree. I still firmly believe that conventional victory could have easily been made possible within the MEU and with Mass Effect lore, but the way ME3 was written, there's very litle support for it.

Sorry if that was implied and I'm being redundant, I just want to make my opinion perfectly clear.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Samtheman63 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

no, it isn't

its heavily implied that the next cycle used the crucible to defeat the reapers, and is backed up on twitter by somone who helped make the game when asked by a confused fan



derp

I love it when people who think they're intelligent are ignorant of the burden of proof.

its implied ingame, and then back up by the producer of the game

what more do you need?

you want me to draw you a picture?

How about something that isn't just an implication. 

[Samtheman63]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

no, it isn't

its heavily implied that the next cycle used the crucible to defeat the reapers, and is backed up on twitter by somone who helped make the game when asked by a confused fan



derp

I love it when people who think they're intelligent are ignorant of the burden of proof.

its implied ingame, and then back up by the producer of the game

what more do you need?

you want me to draw you a picture?

How about something that isn't just an implication. 

how about a quote from the producer?

[hiraeth]

^I think this conversation has officially become circular

[wantedman dan]

Samtheman63 wrote...

its implied ingame, and then back up by the producer of the game

what more do you need?

you want me to draw you a picture?

Evidence, maybe? I mean, that's what the burden of proof typically means.

[wantedman dan]

Samtheman63 wrote...

how about a quote from the producer?

How about something definite in game?

[arial]

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

how about a quote from the producer?

How about something definite in game?

Anderson, Hackett, Garrus, the Primarch, etc all state it.

Not to mention look at the Codex, If it takes 4-5 dreasdnoughts to down as Reaper Capital Ship, and with the number of dreadnoughts we have, and how many Reaper Capital Ships there are (not to mention destroyers), there is not enough firepower in the know galaxy to win.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

remember when shepard was inside of a dead reaper in mass effect 2 and the shields came on and joker couldn't get you out? You had to shut down the shields just like when you fought soverign in me1 (killing mindlink saren brainfried soverign)

reapers are huge and have super shields and you cant beat them with more lasers. having an entire server (lets say 100,000) of level 1 warriors is not going to take out a level 90 paladin because he is still taking zero damage, he's just taking zero damage 100,000 per second. If you have 25,189,463 max hp and you're taking zero damage per second from 100,000 sources its still 0 x 100,000.

And dont bring up the collector ship. The collector ship is a punk **** and isnt even as big as a reaper.

[arial]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

remember when shepard was inside of a dead reaper in mass effect 2 and the shields came on and joker couldn't get you out? You had to shut down the shields just like when you fought soverign in me1 (killing mindlink saren brainfried soverign)

reapers are huge and have super shields and you cant beat them with more lasers. having an entire server (lets say 100,000) of level 1 warriors is not going to take out a level 90 paladin because he is still taking zero damage, he's just taking zero damage 100,000 per second. If you have 25,189,463 max hp and you're taking zero damage per second from 100,000 sources its still 0 x 100,000.

And dont bring up the collector ship. The collector ship is a punk **** and isnt even as big as a reaper.

thats actually a really good way to describe it

[Ratimir]

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

how about a quote from the producer?

How about something definite in game?

Anderson, Hackett, Garrus, the Primarch, etc all state it.

Not to mention look at the Codex, If it takes 4-5 dreasdnoughts to down as Reaper Capital Ship, and with the number of dreadnoughts we have, and how many Reaper Capital Ships there are (not to mention destroyers), there is not enough firepower in the know galaxy to win.

And we're back to this.

If we're using character statements as evidence, then the Reaper problem goes away. The Council told us there are no Reapers.

Not to mention look at the Codex, it explicitly states that the Reapers can be beaten " theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy".

MassEffectFShep is right. Circular thread is circular.

I'm done here.

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...
Anderson, Hackett, Garrus, the Primarch, etc all state it.

Not to mention look at the Codex, If it takes 4-5 dreasdnoughts to down as Reaper Capital Ship, and with the number of dreadnoughts we have, and how many Reaper Capital Ships there are (not to mention destroyers), there is not enough firepower in the know galaxy to win.

You came in late. Wrong discussion.

[Samtheman63]

also

Samtheman63 wrote...

reapers are trying to harvest us and our technology, not annihilate everything

they have a beam that one shots anything, if we ever began to even get close to winning, they would destroy us, easily

same goes for the next cycle

[arial]

Ratimir wrote...

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

how about a quote from the producer?

How about something definite in game?

Anderson, Hackett, Garrus, the Primarch, etc all state it.

Not to mention look at the Codex, If it takes 4-5 dreasdnoughts to down as Reaper Capital Ship, and with the number of dreadnoughts we have, and how many Reaper Capital Ships there are (not to mention destroyers), there is not enough firepower in the know galaxy to win.

And we're back to this.

If we're using character statements as evidence, then the Reaper problem goes away. The Council told us there are no Reapers.

Not to mention look at the Codex, it explicitly states that the Reapers can be beaten " theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy".

MassEffectFShep is right. Circular thread is circular.

I'm done here.

One character being wrong does not mean all are wrong.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Samtheman63 wrote...

how about a quote from the producer?

Which is an opinion, because it was on twitter not an official press release made on behalf of EA/ware

[wantedman dan]

Pablo Picasso would be genuinely impressed. You still have yet to address my request, however, so continue on with your drawing if it amuses you.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

how about a quote from the producer?

How about something definite in game?

Anderson, Hackett, Garrus, the Primarch, etc all state it.

Not to mention look at the Codex, If it takes 4-5 dreasdnoughts to down as Reaper Capital Ship, and with the number of dreadnoughts we have, and how many Reaper Capital Ships there are (not to mention destroyers), there is not enough firepower in the know galaxy to win.

Which is all bunk because I was told I wouldn't return from the O4 relay, your argument is contridicted by actual in-game evidence.

[arial]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

how about a quote from the producer?

How about something definite in game?

Anderson, Hackett, Garrus, the Primarch, etc all state it.

Not to mention look at the Codex, If it takes 4-5 dreasdnoughts to down as Reaper Capital Ship, and with the number of dreadnoughts we have, and how many Reaper Capital Ships there are (not to mention destroyers), there is not enough firepower in the know galaxy to win.

Which is all bunk because I was told I wouldn't return from the O4 relay, your argument is contridicted by actual in-game evidence.

go play ME2 again, no one says "you won't return" they say "you likely won't return".

There is a major diffrence between a small chance of success, and complete impossibility