151 réponses à ce sujet

[d4eaming]

Why do you always continue to argue when fifty other people keep telling you how you are wrong? If nearly everyone can explain how you are wrong, then there is clearly something wrong with your arguments. It's the same here as it was in your closed thread. You're wrong, but you are unable to accept it. You are shown time and time again how your beliefs are mistaken by multiple people who explain thoroughly how your insistence is incorrect. Do you just enjoy arguing for argument's sake? Because I know if I had dozens of people telling me I was wrong about something, I'd actually go and reconsider my position to find out why they think that.

[Quirkylilela]

Sportspeople are hardly comparable to real heroes people who dedicate their lives to making the word a better place(not that they can't do that on top of their sporting achievements). Being a hero and being in peoples hearts DOES NOT make you messiah like it just makes you a hero or a superhero. As for Jesus etc. Being the messiah and being hated by some people I'd like to remind you it was YOU who first said a messiah like character was loved by everyone. Get this straight -your definition of a messiah like character is wrong- maybe in what ever language you speak it has a slightly different meaning but In English what you're discribing is just a hero.

[Quirkylilela]

No but the fact I've looked at a dozen different definitions that all disagree with what you believe being messiah like means does mean we're right.

[Dave of Canada]

d4eaming wrote...

Why do you always continue to argue when fifty other people keep telling you how you are wrong?

It's just the way they are, just ignore them and hope they go away before the racism comes out.

[Swagger7]

d4eaming wrote...

Why do you always continue to argue when fifty other people keep telling you how you are wrong? If nearly everyone can explain how you are wrong, then there is clearly something wrong with your arguments. It's the same here as it was in your closed thread. You're wrong, but you are unable to accept it. You are shown time and time again how your beliefs are mistaken by multiple people who explain thoroughly how your insistence is incorrect. Do you just enjoy arguing for argument's sake? Because I know if I had dozens of people telling me I was wrong about something, I'd actually go and reconsider my position to find out why they think that.

This.  So much this.

[Swagger7]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Just a hero is not the same with Messiah-like hero

You guya are no writer...and bring bandwagon doesn't make you guys right

Being stubborn doesn't make you right either.  Seriously, your English is never going to improve if you keep arguing with native speakers over what a word means in our language.

[Johanna]

Nizaris, I understand perfectly what you are saying and I enjoyed reading your comments.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

The Catalyst, the discharge of the Crucible and the Crucible?

[deuce985]

Just to be clear, ME3 can't be a Deus Ex Machina ending when they established a god device 5 minutes into the game. It's not like it came out of nowhere. If you didn't pay attention to that, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't know why people continue to run with this. It's not true. You might have an argument it's Deus Ex Machina for the franchise though.

Unless I'm wrong? I've always seen the definition similar to what the op says except it comes out of nowhere with very little hints.

Modifié par deuce985, 31 décembre 2012 - 09:02 .

[upsettingshorts]

pants witch wrote...

Nizaris, I understand perfectly what you are saying and I enjoyed reading your comments.

Why don't you explain it to the rest of then?

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

The crucible was a deus ex machina, established early. Correct. It hurt the entire game, helped ruined the series and Casey lied about the "there will be red herrings" from the original Game Informer article in how to stop the Reapers. If you liked ME3, congrats, but it is what it is.

The Reapers are finally here. But don't worry! Just in the nick of time, we have this Reaper death machine!

Horrible.

Modifié par sympathy4sarenreturns, 01 janvier 2013 - 12:23 .

[upsettingshorts]

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

The crucible was a deus ex machina, established early.

This is an inherent contradiciton.  Anything that is introduced early, let alone consistently referred to as plot critical, cannot be a deus ex machina.  

Drop the terminology, your dislike of the Crucible is not married to it.  Try this on, "The Crucible isn't a deus ex machina, but it still sucked."  Can you say that?  Good.  Then we don't have to continue that particular argument any longer.

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

It hurt the entire game, helped ruined the series and Casey lied about the "there will be red herrings" from the original Game Informer article in how to stop the Reapers.

It's not a red herring either.  A red herring distracts from the plot.  They are used to lead the characters - and audience - down a false path, which builds in advance of a reveal.  That the nature of the Catalyst was surprising does not mean it is a completely unrelated tangent.  Finishing, protecting, and activating the Crucible is the main plot, and the Catalyst is part of that plot.  

An actual example of a red herring in Mass Effect 3 is the goal of controlling the Reapers that the indoctrinated Illusive Man/Cerberus is chasing as a solution to the problem.  It isn't, at least, not for the Illusive Man.  But he's convinced that's the solution because that's the conclusion the Reapers wanted him to make.  That Shepard is pursuing the real goal (Crucible) and Cerberus the red herring (reverse indoctrination) is the source of conflict between them.  

"The Crucible isn't a red herring or a deus ex machina, but it was still unsatisfying and I hated it." It's not that hard.

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

If you liked ME3, congrats, but it is what it is.

Whether or not I liked ME3 is irrelevant, but that is not what it was.

That doesn't mean you or I can't be critical of Mass Effect 3's story, only I think people are using the wrong terms to do it.

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

The Reapers are finally here. But don't worry! Just in the nick of time, we have this Reaper death machine! Horrible.

It's a plot device, easily seen as a contrived and convenient one, but it is not a deus ex machina.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 janvier 2013 - 01:32 .

[Quirkylilela]

We don't need what he is saying explained we understand perfectly what he means we just disagree with the definition he's pushing onto messiah/messianic/messiah like. Even if we agreed with the false definition he has contradicted it more than once in his arguments.

[Johanna]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

pants witch wrote...

Nizaris, I understand perfectly what you are saying and I enjoyed reading your comments.

Why don't you explain it to the rest of then?

Why would I do that?

[Swagger7]

pants witch wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

pants witch wrote...

Nizaris, I understand perfectly what you are saying and I enjoyed reading your comments.

Why don't you explain it to the rest of then?

Why would I do that?

Perhaps to prove that you actually know what you're talking about and aren't deluded like Nizaris seems to be? 
Right now it looks like you're just stepping in to support her for no good reason.

[upsettingshorts]

Swagger7 wrote...

pants witch wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

pants witch wrote...

Nizaris, I understand perfectly what you are saying and I enjoyed reading your comments.

Why don't you explain it to the rest of then?

Why would I do that?

Perhaps to prove that you actually know what you're talking about and aren't deluded like Nizaris seems to be? 
Right now it looks like you're just stepping in to support her for no good reason.

I don't know about pants witch's motivations, they're not relevant.  If you understand her perfectly - considering nobody else does - explaining would do one of two things:

1) Demonstrate that you do get what she's saying, and thus explain it to the rest of us.  
2) Demonstrate that you actually don't understand what she's saying, and Nizaris will (probably) point it out to you that your description doesn't match the point she's trying to make.

[Swagger7]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

pants witch wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

pants witch wrote...

Nizaris, I understand perfectly what you are saying and I enjoyed reading your comments.

Why don't you explain it to the rest of then?

Why would I do that?

Perhaps to prove that you actually know what you're talking about and aren't deluded like Nizaris seems to be? 
Right now it looks like you're just stepping in to support her for no good reason.

I don't know about pants witch's motivations, they're not relevant.  If you understand her perfectly - considering nobody else does - explaining would do one of two things:

1) Demonstrate that you do get what she's saying, and thus explain it to the rest of us.  
2) Demonstrate that you actually don't understand what she's saying, and Nizaris will (probably) point it out to you that your description doesn't match the point she's trying to make.

You put it better than I did, as per usual.

[esper]

Nizaris1 wrote...

The warden, spiderman, batman, Harry Potter and so forth are simply not idealistic enough to fill the last criteria (aIthough the warden can be played close).

Those characters does give a touch in people heart, why? because they are not simply a hero. They have Messiah characteristic, that make them remain in people heart. A hero can be remembered and forgotten, but a Messiah always in peoples heart.

Try to make a character who is just a hero, for example, a soccer player, or boxing champion...yes they are heroes, but they do not have a Messiah character, people may enjoy movies about them, but just that, they don't effect the heart

Why kids want to be Spiderman, Superman, Batman, Harry Potter and such? It is because they are not just heroes, they are the "Savior", kids want to be them, want to be like them, they effect the psychology and emotion, they have meaning, and they are meaningful

For us the adults for sure we see it all just cartoons, comic...for kids it is not, those characters who inspire them. Their dedication to those heroes is the same as dedication of religious peoples toward their Messiah/prophet...the love, the passion...

The succesful heroes (and villains) are the one who are Messiah-like

Umm... just no.

No where on any defenition on any side, book or littarary analyasis is the defefinition of a messiah character: One children can identify with and or idolize. And that dedication is not the same AT ALL. I am seriously beginning to think that you read, wacthed and listen to different stories as a kid.

Have you actually read/wacthed anything Batman? He is not a saviour. At all. He is a vigilante. Awesome cool vigilant, but that is what he is. Spiderman too have a hugh problem in that a lot of his motivation comes from guilt (Uncle Ben) and that he has to live up to the responsibility he feels his power brings (The last sentence something repeated many times in the story) Our love and passsion for these character is not religious at all. We do not learn to be vigilante from these characters or that it is all right to go around go around risiking life and limb to more and less break the law and not let the police do our job.

What we get is characters we as a lack of a better word think is cool, as children we identify us with and most off us have properly indulged in self insert and imagine in our games that we were part of these cool universes. Just as most of us properly have played pirates, thieves and robbers and war. It is fun, It is a game. A game someone are passionate about.  But it has no relation to the religous passion. Those two things are different.

Furthermore you are making that absolutely ridiculess statement that the only people worth idolizing are saviors. That tells me that you have not read, watched or listen to more than a miniscule portion of the naratives in the world.

[Johanna]

I'm supporting her because, as I've already said, I understand what she's saying, and also because I don't like the way some of you are speaking to her.

Beg me to stay and debate. I might. But you aren't owed **** when it comes to my attention.

[upsettingshorts]

pants witch wrote...

I don't like the way some of you are speaking to her.

pants witch wrote...

Beg me to stay and debate. I might. But you aren't owed **** when it comes to my attention.

[lil yonce]

Nizaris1 wrote...

pants witch wrote...

Nizaris, I understand perfectly what you are saying and I enjoyed reading your comments.

Thank you

I understand as well, and while I don't think Hawke was forgettable, I do agree s/he was overshadowed by the companions in some respects, and that the lack of messianic characteristics may have had something to do with it.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 02 janvier 2013 - 05:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

Youth4Ever wrote...

messianic characteristics

This is not a thing.

If it is, neither Hawke nor the Warden possessed any.  If either did, it was because we imparted it upon them, or chose not to.

The reason people are frustrated with Nizaris' argument is that it invents standards by which protagonists are measured that are vague, useless, and supported by nothing more than forever vacillating rhetoric.  

The reason I doubt all who assert they "understand" is Nizaris' concept of "messianic characteristic" is that it is so empty that - in the same manner - I could assert Hawke lacked the reticitude (a word I made up) protagonists like The Warden possess, and having people say they got what I meant.  That would be absurd.  Words have meanings.

Cutting through the semantics, this argument really is very simple:  Dragon Age 2 was a deconstruction.  Of course Hawke was overshadowed.  That.  Was.  The.  Point.

If you don't like that, you don't have to invent some nonsense standard using terminology unilaterally decided upon and unmodified in response to consistent criticism to say so.  To do otherwise, in this thread and others, is not only stubborn, but arrogant and rude.  That's why people are responding the way they are.  Just say, "I would prefer it if we got to play the legendary hero and didn't have our character deconstructed .  Thanks."  

Then there'd be no argument.  Or certainly, if there was one, would actually be productive as it reflects reality.  As it stands, we're only given the option to argue on Nizaris' terms, terms whose very premise are in dispute, because she won't (or can't) countenance the possibility that she might be wrong.  Instead, we're supposed to be converted to believers in the premise, and that's patronizing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2013 - 05:23 .

[lil yonce]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This is not a thing.

It is. The word messianic is an adjective. It describes. In this situation it describes characteristics of a Messiah.

...Neither Hawke nor the Warden possessed any. If either did, it was because we imparted it upon them, or chose not to.

That is untrue. I believe Nizaris defines and demonstrates it clearly.

The reason people are frustrated with Nizaris' argument is that it invents standards by which protagonists are measured that are vague, useless, and supported by nothing more than forever vacillating rhetoric.

I disagree. It is not invented. It's a commonly used trope in literature.

The reason I doubt all who assert they "understand" is Nizaris' concept of "messianic characteristic" is so empty that I could say Hawke lacked the reticitude (a word I made up) people like The Warden possess, and having people say they got what I meant.

I don't think my ability to discern the meaning and intent of Nizaris' post should be belitted, treated as falsehood or delusion, or countered with strawmen.

It's very simple:  Dragon Age 2 was a deconstruction.  Of course Hawke was overshadowed.  That.  Was.  The.  Point.

Please employ tact. I am not simple. I agree Hawke was meant to be overshadowed, but not by his friends. Circumstance was meant to overshadow him. Mage-Templar was meant to be greater than him. I never received the impression that his characterization was meant to be lackluster, in some respects, in comparion to his very colorful companions, however.

If you don't like that, you don't have to invent some nonsense standard using terminology unilaterally decided upon and unmodified in response to consistent criticism to say so.  To do otherwise, in this thread and others, is not only stubborn, but arrogant and rude.  That's why people are responding the way they are.  Just say, "I would prefer it if we got to play the legendary hero and didn't have our character deconstructed .  Thanks."  Then there'd be no argument.  Or certainly, if there was one, would actually be productive as it reflects reality.

I don't think you should assume to know my feelings on DA2. I enjoyed it very much. I prefer it to DA:O. I like Hawke for many reasons but he wasn't as great a protagonist as The Warden. Identifying the differences between Hawke and The Warden through the Messiah trope, a legitimate trope, shouldn't elict such a negative reaction.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 02 janvier 2013 - 06:44 .