514 réponses à ce sujet

[Ticonderoga117]

archangel1996 wrote...
IT

True, but the EC shows that we aren't realy in dreamland, and even so, the game would be incomplete then. I just like the idea that the ending as it is, EC and all, is completely scrapped.

[Peranor]

drayfish wrote...

'Stupid', 'fake' criticisms...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind all the FALSE criticism of the ending....

txgoldrush wrote...

...but nope, this dense fake criticism continues.

txgoldrush wrote...

Nope, you were not paying attention. 

txgoldrush wrote...

Did you miss that?

txgoldrush wrote...

...deal with it. 

txgoldrush wrote...

Everything else is fake criticisms, or basically the fact that A) You don't like it or You don't get it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its flawed.

...This is really it, isn't it?  This is the level of discourse now.  

'If you don't disagree with me, and my personal analysis of the ending, you are stupid[/i], and are a childish crybaby!  If you don't believe that the game is a shining example of ingenious storytelling, then you are a fool, you weren't paying attention, or you are lying!'

(* sigh *)

So please, take this advice with all of the sincerity that it is meant...

Grow up, txgoldrush.

This kind of rant is infantile.  You do no favours to your side of the argument by using such reductive, childish generalisations and name-calling.

You loved the ending - great for you.  You have no right (and seemingly no persuasive argument beyond insult) to berate others for not sharing your utterly subjective viewpoint.  Some people love it - and they have that right.  Some people hate it - and they equally have that right.  You, however, have no right to attack them for not embracing your headcanon.

And because the irony of everything you just vomited onto this forum seems to have escaped you:

Just because you like it doesn't mean it isn't flawed.[/i]

And before you pout and squeal, 'But the anti-enders are a bunch of meanies too', again:

Grow.  Up[/i].

If you genuinely think that your points are valid, you can make them in a reasoned argument, rather than shout them down with such spiteful, insulting trash.  Otherwise you have just reduced the discussion to squabbling, sniping, childishness - which, hypocritically, you arrogantly declared you were tired of seeing.

Yepp, that is txgoldrush for you. He always does his best to live up to his own sign.

[Necrotron]

Are you serious?

Again, are you serious?

And really, you can't really be serious?

Modifié par Bathaius, 25 novembre 2012 - 03:26 .

[Yaos]

Sorry guys, but what is a "fake criticism" ?

[Peranor]

Yaos wrote...

Sorry guys, but what is a "fake criticism" ?

Not sure. When you just faked that you criticized something?
Don't think anyone has been doing that though

[txgoldrush]

anorling wrote...

drayfish wrote...

'Stupid', 'fake' criticisms...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind all the FALSE criticism of the ending....

txgoldrush wrote...

...but nope, this dense fake criticism continues.

txgoldrush wrote...

Nope, you were not paying attention. 

txgoldrush wrote...

Did you miss that?

txgoldrush wrote...

...deal with it. 

txgoldrush wrote...

Everything else is fake criticisms, or basically the fact that A) You don't like it or You don't get it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its flawed.

...This is really it, isn't it?  This is the level of discourse now.  

'If you don't disagree with me, and my personal analysis of the ending, you are stupid[/i], and are a childish crybaby!  If you don't believe that the game is a shining example of ingenious storytelling, then you are a fool, you weren't paying attention, or you are lying!'

(* sigh *)

So please, take this advice with all of the sincerity that it is meant...

Grow up, txgoldrush.

This kind of rant is infantile.  You do no favours to your side of the argument by using such reductive, childish generalisations and name-calling.

You loved the ending - great for you.  You have no right (and seemingly no persuasive argument beyond insult) to berate others for not sharing your utterly subjective viewpoint.  Some people love it - and they have that right.  Some people hate it - and they equally have that right.  You, however, have no right to attack them for not embracing your headcanon.

And because the irony of everything you just vomited onto this forum seems to have escaped you:

Just because you like it doesn't mean it isn't flawed.[/i]

And before you pout and squeal, 'But the anti-enders are a bunch of meanies too', again:

Grow.  Up[/i].

If you genuinely think that your points are valid, you can make them in a reasoned argument, rather than shout them down with such spiteful, insulting trash.  Otherwise you have just reduced the discussion to squabbling, sniping, childishness - which, hypocritically, you arrogantly declared you were tired of seeing.

Yepp, that is txgoldrush for you. He always does his best to live up to his own sign.

Once again, look who is talking. All the haters want to bash pro enders for liking the ending...it has to be flawed, it just has too...so lets make criticisms up and IGNORE PLAIN FACTS that dispute your assertion.

And its not just the ending....its Cerebrus and TIM being evil instead of grey, like they were in ME2 (well not really) when ME1 tells you that not only they are evil, but they were experiementing on Reaper husks. But no, fans insist that Bioware making them villians does not fit the series when in fact it does.

The problem isn't your opinion, its your ignorance of clear facts....

[GreyLycanTrope]

Yaos wrote...

Sorry guys, but what is a "fake criticism" ?

It's what the company Yes Men give.

[txgoldrush]

J. Reezy wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

txgoldrush and Seival should form a comedy duo.

"Team Drone" would be an awesome name for those two.

And I am not a Bio-drone...in fact I am critical of many of their games.....especially the cliched by the numbers DAO.and think compared to KOTOR 2, the first KOTOR is overrated.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 25 novembre 2012 - 03:49 .

[txgoldrush]

anorling wrote...

Yaos wrote...

Sorry guys, but what is a "fake criticism" ?

Not sure. When you just faked that you criticized something?
Don't think anyone has been doing that though

How about criticizing something falsely? Thats what you are doing.

[GreyLycanTrope]

txgoldrush wrote...
The problem isn't your opinion, its your ignorance of clear facts....

Yes clear facts like the Reaper IFF which fools the Reapers, except when planet scanning for some reason, and can be used to trick Harbinger but not the Reaper Destroyer orignally stationed by the beam to make access to the conduit easier. Logic.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 25 novembre 2012 - 03:52 .

[txgoldrush]

o Ventus wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Once again, the Normandy is cloaked to the Reapers and Harbinger had other targets.

However, if you have low EMS, Harby kills the squad.

The Normandy's "cloak" doesn't work in atmosphere (since the hull would've been heated in re-entry) and destroying the Normandy would take out those other targets.

See? This is the the nonsense that doesn't hold up.

Never mind that this example is awful because Sam tells you after Rannoch that Jimmy the Rannoch Reaper was shooting at the Normandy.

First, its not a cloak, its a signal.

Second, Normandy FIRES on the Rannoch Reaper, or did you miss this?

[txgoldrush]

Greylycantrope wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
The problem isn't your opinion, its your ignorance of clear facts....

Yes clear facts like the Reaper IFF which fools the Reapers, except when planet scanning for some reason, and can be used to trick Harbinger but not the Reaper Destroyer orignally stationed by the beam to make access to the conduit easier. Logic.

Or maybe its because planet scanning gives you away, because you know, you are using an unsecured alliance message...its obvious.

And wow....the Conduit Reaper has nothing to do with the Normandy other than using the Normandy to lock on to its weakpoints. No where does it fire on the Normandy. Nevermind that it was in th espace battle before Shep calls for it. Lets make more fake criticisms.

[txgoldrush]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

He thinks DA:O was the worst recent Bioware game?

wat

More like overrated.

[Seboist]

DAO is the only recent EAware game with choices worth a damn.

[o Ventus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Second, Normandy FIRES on the Rannoch Reaper, or did you miss this?

Does it matter? If the Normandy is in front of both the Rannoch Reaper and Harbinger, but only the former fires on the Normandy, isn't that suspect?

I don't even know why I ask you, you're an apologist to this game and can't find fault in it.

[txgoldrush]

Seboist wrote...

DAO is the only recent EAware game with choices worth a damn.

But the story is cliched, the characters follow formula and the plot is basically KOTOR in dark fantasy world. The consquences are also very obvious and really don't change the story much.

In fact ME3 does consquence better than DAO.

[o Ventus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Seboist wrote...

DAO is the only recent EAware game with choices worth a damn.

But the story is cliched, the characters follow formula and the plot is basically KOTOR in dark fantasy world. The consquences are also very obvious and really don't change the story much.

In fact ME3 does consquence better than DAO.

... And ME3 is DAO, only now set in space.

Dalish elves  -> salarians
Werewolves -> krogan
Darkspawn -> Reapers
Dwarves -> turians
Mages -> asari (only major difference being that the asari aren't social outcasts)

[GreyLycanTrope]

txgoldrush wrote...
Or maybe its because planet scanning gives you away, because you know, you are using an unsecured alliance message...its obvious.

reference missing, and you mean like those unsecured signals Shepard sends to call the Normandy for pick up?

And wow....the Conduit Reaper has nothing to do with the Normandy other than using the Normandy to lock on to its weakpoints. No where does it fire on the Normandy. Nevermind that it was in th espace battle before Shep calls for it. Lets make more fake criticisms.

If the IFF, which is soooo obvious, has this power why not use it before hand and not waste so many lives? Galaxy's at stake need ever advantage you can. Exactly it doesn't fire on the Normandy, our magic IFF is super, we should use it more often. Normandy was in a space battle when shepard called it, what was it, 2 minutes later?

Lets make more fake criticisms.

I'm not even sure what that is.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 25 novembre 2012 - 04:10 .

[txgoldrush]

o Ventus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Second, Normandy FIRES on the Rannoch Reaper, or did you miss this?

Does it matter? If the Normandy is in front of both the Rannoch Reaper and Harbinger, but only the former fires on the Normandy, isn't that suspect?

I don't even know why I ask you, you're an apologist to this game and can't find fault in it.

First off, Normandy actively FIRES on the Rannoch Reaper...FIRST...giving it away. The Normandy does NOT fire of Harbinger. Seems logical to me. You are simply ignoring the fact, once again, that on Rannoch, the Normandy gave itself away.

And I found fault in the original ending, see my first post...try again. There are faults in ME3, like every other game.

[txgoldrush]

o Ventus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Seboist wrote...

DAO is the only recent EAware game with choices worth a damn.

But the story is cliched, the characters follow formula and the plot is basically KOTOR in dark fantasy world. The consquences are also very obvious and really don't change the story much.

In fact ME3 does consquence better than DAO.

... And ME3 is DAO, only now set in space.

Dalish elves  -> salarians
Werewolves -> krogan
Darkspawn -> Reapers
Dwarves -> turians
Mages -> asari (only major difference being that the asari aren't social outcasts)

In only in uniting the galaxy, yes, everything else...no.

And those races is nowhere near alike to the DAO races.

Nevermind that ME3 is better told, it actually incorporates its characters and its side plots to the main plot, unlike the unfocused DAO.

[o Ventus]

txgoldrush wrote...

First off, Normandy actively FIRES on the Rannoch Reaper...FIRST...giving it away.

And? Harbinger literally looks directly at the Normandy. Unless he's blind and doesn't have eyes installed, he sees it.

The Normandy does NOT fire of Harbinger. Seems logical to me. You are simply ignoring the fact, once again, that on Rannoch, the Normandy gave itself away.

You mean like how the Normandy is essentially giving itself away during the pickup? What could Harbinger possibly be thinking? "Oh hey, Shepard and friends are running right into Bob! Why are they doing that? I thought they were fighting us?"

[o Ventus]

txgoldrush wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Seboist wrote...

DAO is the only recent EAware game with choices worth a damn.

But the story is cliched, the characters follow formula and the plot is basically KOTOR in dark fantasy world. The consquences are also very obvious and really don't change the story much.

In fact ME3 does consquence better than DAO.

... And ME3 is DAO, only now set in space.

Dalish elves  -> salarians
Werewolves -> krogan
Darkspawn -> Reapers
Dwarves -> turians
Mages -> asari (only major difference being that the asari aren't social outcasts)

In only in uniting the galaxy, yes, everything else...no.

And those races is nowhere near alike to the DAO races.

Nevermind that ME3 is better told, it actually incorporates its characters and its side plots to the main plot, unlike the unfocused DAO.

Oh really? The Dalish created the werewolves in a similar fashion to how the salarians uplifted the krogan. They "created" the monster.

You're really suggesting that the Reapers don't have blatant similarities to the darkspawn? Are you a legitimate moron?

The dwarves are a militaristically strong race with a terrible government, just like the turians.

The mages are very mental combatants, just like how the asari are mostly biotic fighters.