219 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Indy_S wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

a) Yep, and are you going to just ignore it.

An unproven assertion? Sure will!

and anti ender driven internet polls aren't?

Wow

Strawman. I haven't made that claim. Metacritic user reviews are not invalidated by bias. They do not represent the player base at large but they do represent themselves. You cannot claim that their opinion does not matter simply because yours doesn't align with them.

c) I just provided it, learn to read.

I looked for it in the past 4 pages. Only your claims that its true, no supporting argument.

Tx: 2 + 2 = 5!
Indy: Prove it.
Tx: I just did!

Nope, once again.

How many times in the series has one person or an entire race try to create something or harness another, attempting to control their destinies for their gain or for their motives, and then have it all turn against them and face their rebellion?

And once again the Catalyst and the Reapers fits right into this theme, hence, the endings connection to the entire series

Modifié par txgoldrush, 26 juillet 2013 - 05:52 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

txgoldrush wrote...

a) It is YOU that are doing what you are accusing me of. You drew the false conclusion, not me.

I'm laughing my ass off right now. Seriously? I put up an argument against you, and the best you can do is turn around and accuse me of doing the same thing as you?

Spectacular, bro.

Or maybe they are not and the vocal minority just can't accept that many do not share the same opinion. And why would Bioware side with a vocal minority? Sometimes you have to admit that you don't get your way. Stop trying to say they are "out of touch" when they are being anything but. And Citadel DLC shows that they have been in touch.

There you go, changing you're argument again and throwing out words like "vocal minority" as drivel to put a claim on the validity of your argument. Are you even going to try to challenge me with a real argument, or are you just going to keep repeating hollowed words that boost my argument? Either way is fine with me. I'm always up for a real debate. Just give me something to argue against.

Just because they don't suit your personal needs doesn't mean they are out of touch.

They clearly aren't. If they have to resort to using the "art" excuse to justify their own work in the face of real and legitimate criticism against their storytelling, then odds are they know they messed up with the story.

My personal needs aren't that difficult to satisfy:

I want narrative unity and cohesion. We didn't get that.

I want thematic consistency and clarity. We didnt get that.

I want logical and rational storytelling. We didn't get that.

I want practical and precise science for the execution. We didn't get that.

I want the story to be consistent with the lore and the background of the universe. We didn't get that.

I think my concerns are pretty easy to address.

That BW fails to at least recognize that they didn't do so good of a job with basic storytelling and lore shows that they really have their head in the clouds.

c) I guess you did not get the quote. You are saying its a two way street, but really traffic is only going one way. Why? Because its the anti enders that are the vocal ones, not the pro enders.

And is that a bad thing? Because we're more vocal, our position is somehow less? Because we dare to stand up and criticize a product because we're passionate about it and only want the best for it and the people that make it? 

Our position is lesser because you don't like it or agree with it because we acknowledge that Bioware can make mistakes (I know, marvel concept!)?

I think it's more harmful to just let BW get away with everything and mindlessly buy whatever drivel they try to heave onto us. Even if it's not drivel, and I'm not going to say whether I think it is or isn't, I still think it's important that people stand up and criticize, to show what they dislike about a game or product or whatever.

It seems to me BW has been needing it more and more lately.

If you feel differently, that's your money. 

d) and I bet the ending themes you are thinking of is not the actual ending themes. Also the EC basically adds a thematic statement to ME3. The main theme is "victory through sacrifice", that's not an opinion, that is a fact. That's why all three "good" endings end at the memorial wall.

That is completely opinion. You're using a scene in a context that really isn't objectively founded. I never saw a sacrifice theme throughout the story. I think the themes that I saw, involving order vs. chaos, self-determination, friendship and camaraderie and love, and galactic alliances/unity against the Reapers were the main themes. 

You're objectively espousing an opinion. Something that is not objective. Your evidence is uncredible, and unqualified. It doesn't fly.

e) And sometimes antagonists are contradictions and ironies. That doesn't make them bad, that makes them possible antagonists. Shepard keeps saying that the Reapers don't truly understand organic life and at the end, whaddya know? The catalyst doesn't truly understand organic life....and that causes the CENTRAL CONFLICT. Not organics vs synthetics.

And really you don't get the ending because you just do not see the thematic connection. How many times has one or an entire race try to create or harness forces they cannot control and try to shape their destiny and then there is rebellion and conflict? You know the main storylines of the series. Face it, the Reapers and the starchild is another example of this, but on the grand scale.

And they were NOT clear cut, they had no motive.

You just made an argument where there is none for the first paragraph. That's not what I was talking about, nor was it what I was arguing. I don't agree, not completely. But that's a separate argument.

I get the ending perfectly. I know the main storyline to the series. And I disagree completely.O

Once again however, it's irrelevant to what I said. You're arguing content now. That's not my argument. My point is that it was written badly. It was pulled off badly. It was executed badly. The narrative was changed to something different from the rest of the story. The themes were changed to push an agenda for the ending outcomes and what BW wanted you to pick (conjecture on my part of course, though not without merit), and the writing was just back-asswards incompetent.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

txgoldrush wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

a) Yep, and are you going to just ignore it.

An unproven assertion? Sure will!

and anti ender driven internet polls aren't?

Wow

Strawman. I haven't made that claim. Metacritic user reviews are not invalidated by bias. They do not represent the player base at large but they do represent themselves. You cannot claim that their opinion does not matter simply because yours doesn't align with them.

c) I just provided it, learn to read.

I looked for it in the past 4 pages. Only your claims that its true, no supporting argument.

Tx: 2 + 2 = 5!
Indy: Prove it.
Tx: I just did!

Nope, once again.

How many times in the series has one person or an entire race try to create something or harness another, attempting to control their destinies for their gain or for their motives, and then have it all turn against them and face their rebellion?

And once again the Catalyst and the Reapers fits right into this theme, hence, the endings connection to the entire series

You're hiding your argument because you have none. You're claiming to have evidence, then withholding it "because we'll just ignore it." In the absence of evidence, your claim falls apart and your argument is discredited.

Now you're changing your argument because you know you've been beaten at your second point. Changing your argument doesn't change the fact that you got nailed by the second point. Your argument is discredited by changing the premise and moving the goalpost.

And you're not explaining your opinion. You keep saying that it is. Show us. Tell us. Give us evidence.
Your argument is again discredited otherwise.

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

a) It is YOU that are doing what you are accusing me of. You drew the false conclusion, not me.

a) I'm laughing my ass off right now. Seriously? I put up an argument against you, and the best you can do is turn around and accuse me of doing the same thing as you?

Spectacular, bro.

Or maybe they are not and the vocal minority just can't accept that many do not share the same opinion. And why would Bioware side with a vocal minority? Sometimes you have to admit that you don't get your way. Stop trying to say they are "out of touch" when they are being anything but. And Citadel DLC shows that they have been in touch.

b There you go, changing you're argument again and throwing out words like "vocal minority" as drivel to put a claim on the validity of your argument. Are you even going to try to challenge me with a real argument, or are you just going to keep repeating hollowed words that boost my argument? Either way is fine with me. I'm always up for a real debate. Just give me something to argue against.

Just because they don't suit your personal needs doesn't mean they are out of touch.

c) They clearly aren't. If they have to resort to using the "art" excuse to justify their own work in the face of real and legitimate criticism against their storytelling, then odds are they know they messed up with the story.

My personal needs aren't that difficult to satisfy:

I want narrative unity and cohesion. We didn't get that.

I want thematic consistency and clarity. We didnt get that.

I want logical and rational storytelling. We didn't get that.

I want practical and precise science for the execution. We didn't get that.

I want the story to be consistent with the lore and the background of the universe. We didn't get that.

I think my concerns are pretty easy to address.

That BW fails to at least recognize that they didn't do so good of a job with basic storytelling and lore shows that they really have their head in the clouds.

c) I guess you did not get the quote. You are saying its a two way street, but really traffic is only going one way. Why? Because its the anti enders that are the vocal ones, not the pro enders.

d) And is that a bad thing? Because we're more vocal, our position is somehow less? Because we dare to stand up and criticize a product because we're passionate about it and only want the best for it and the people that make it? 

Our position is lesser because you don't like it or agree with it because we acknowledge that Bioware can make mistakes (I know, marvel concept!)?

I think it's more harmful to just let BW get away with everything and mindlessly buy whatever drivel they try to heave onto us. Even if it's not drivel, and I'm not going to say whether I think it is or isn't, I still think it's important that people stand up and criticize, to show what they dislike about a game or product or whatever.

It seems to me BW has been needing it more and more lately.

If you feel differently, that's your money. 

d) and I bet the ending themes you are thinking of is not the actual ending themes. Also the EC basically adds a thematic statement to ME3. The main theme is "victory through sacrifice", that's not an opinion, that is a fact. That's why all three "good" endings end at the memorial wall.

e)That is completely opinion. You're using a scene in a context that really isn't objectively founded. I never saw a sacrifice theme throughout the story. I think the themes that I saw, involving order vs. chaos, self-determination, friendship and camaraderie and love, and galactic alliances/unity against the Reapers were the main themes. 

You're objectively espousing an opinion. Something that is not objective. Your evidence is uncredible, and unqualified. It doesn't fly.

e) And sometimes antagonists are contradictions and ironies. That doesn't make them bad, that makes them possible antagonists. Shepard keeps saying that the Reapers don't truly understand organic life and at the end, whaddya know? The catalyst doesn't truly understand organic life....and that causes the CENTRAL CONFLICT. Not organics vs synthetics.

And really you don't get the ending because you just do not see the thematic connection. How many times has one or an entire race try to create or harness forces they cannot control and try to shape their destiny and then there is rebellion and conflict? You know the main storylines of the series. Face it, the Reapers and the starchild is another example of this, but on the grand scale.

And they were NOT clear cut, they had no motive.

f) You just made an argument where there is none for the first paragraph. That's not what I was talking about, nor was it what I was arguing. I don't agree, not completely. But that's a separate argument.

I get the ending perfectly. I know the main storyline to the series. And I disagree completely.O

Once again however, it's irrelevant to what I said. You're arguing content now. That's not my argument. My point is that it was written badly. It was pulled off badly. It was executed badly. The narrative was changed to something different from the rest of the story. The themes were changed to push an agenda for the ending outcomes and what BW wanted you to pick (conjecture on my part of course, though not without merit), and the writing was just back-asswards incompetent.

a) no, you are being very ignorant and idiotic and making up an argument I did not argue. Once again, when did I say that players must rent the game or play a friends copy? Because I never said that, but yet you are arguing it.

Then prove a vocal majority, but be aware you simply cannot use internet polls or forums. Why? Because they are simply not accurate. The only thing we have that is legit is Bioware's confidential market studies. Deal with it.

c) yeah, the anti enders didn't get it...its simply all there, especially in the Extended Cut but once again you are refusing to recognize it.

d) oh so now you playing the victim card, waaaaah. You are simply not dealing with the fact that perhaps you are in the minority. But instead of recognizing it, you are still acting entitled, making demands that Bioware do it your way. Sorry, they aren't going to. And if a silent majority likes the product, there is nothing much a vocal minority can do, that's a simply fact.

e) Then you really must be blind...the entire game talks about sacrifice, and giving yourself for the mission or loved ones. This happens multiple times. And it also explores the morality of calling others to sacrifice and the notion you cannot save them all. And no, I did not take the scene out of context. The point of the memorial wall scene is to state that because of those sacrifices, including Shepard, victory is possible, in ALL good endings. Red, green, or Blue....all end on the wall.

f) No, I made an argument because you stated that the Catalyst contradicts itself. And that he does isn't a bad thing.

The narrative never changed. Throughout the game you were told you couldn't defeat the Reapers conventionally, that tough choices had to be made, that you cannot save everyone and that you may die. Nevermind the hints of Control and Synthesis throughout the series.

The problem with you is that you are trying to judge ME3 for what you want it to be, not for what it truly is.

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

a) Yep, and are you going to just ignore it.

An unproven assertion? Sure will!

and anti ender driven internet polls aren't?

Wow

Strawman. I haven't made that claim. Metacritic user reviews are not invalidated by bias. They do not represent the player base at large but they do represent themselves. You cannot claim that their opinion does not matter simply because yours doesn't align with them.

c) I just provided it, learn to read.

I looked for it in the past 4 pages. Only your claims that its true, no supporting argument.

Tx: 2 + 2 = 5!
Indy: Prove it.
Tx: I just did!

Nope, once again.

How many times in the series has one person or an entire race try to create something or harness another, attempting to control their destinies for their gain or for their motives, and then have it all turn against them and face their rebellion?

And once again the Catalyst and the Reapers fits right into this theme, hence, the endings connection to the entire series

You're hiding your argument because you have none. You're claiming to have evidence, then withholding it "because we'll just ignore it." In the absence of evidence, your claim falls apart and your argument is discredited.

Now you're changing your argument because you know you've been beaten at your second point. Changing your argument doesn't change the fact that you got nailed by the second point. Your argument is discredited by changing the premise and moving the goalpost.

And you're not explaining your opinion. You keep saying that it is. Show us. Tell us. Give us evidence.
Your argument is again discredited otherwise.

BS....anti enders like you are ignoring the evidence against you...hence why I discredit you.

I just gave you evidence, and him evidence in how the Catalyst connects with the themes of the game, and in your ignorance, you choose to ignore it.

[Cainhurst Crow]

We still arguing over this? Wow, that's sad.

[Erez Kristal]

txgoldrush wrote...

1. Metacritic user rating is not reliable, hell, a person who doesn't have the game can score the game.

2. No they don't, they can rent it, borrow from a friend, etc.

people who dont own the game can also give it a 10, 
The change for the negative and positive can go both way on meta critic.
You have to compare a game user score to other games user scores.

I find the meta critic user score to be very reliable with what i would rate games.
So at least for me. they are good.

If it isnt good for you then you should use different site.

A good thing to do when judging a negative or positive review is to see what were the negative or positive things about the game and to compare it with your past exprience.

If i had used meta critic before me3. i could have avoided the emotional backslash of playing that game.:innocent:

[Indy_S]

txgoldrush wrote...

Nope, once again.

How many times in the series has one person or an entire race try to create something or harness another, attempting to control their destinies for their gain or for their motives, and then have it all turn against them and face their rebellion?

And once again the Catalyst and the Reapers fits right into this theme, hence, the endings connection to the entire series

I don't exactly know what that 'Nope' was against but I'm glad you finally gave an explanation. Thank you.

It is an inherit part of conflict that one side will try to dominate a part or the whole of another side. Conflict is such a broad term that to claim it as a theme is incredibly ambitious and so generic as to be meaningless. The end of the game shifts the focus off character interaction, arguably the game's strength, and places it solely on this flat, go-nowhere theme. It doesn't ask you how you like to resolve conflict generally because it gives you too much framing on the specific choice. Worse, it doesn't back up this thematic premise with a sensible explanation of the options. Synthesis might be representing compromise and cooperation but its in-universe description is so vague that it calls into question every single detail of the outcome.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

We still arguing over this? Wow, that's sad.

It's a sad inditement of the ****** poor writing of Mac and Casey, that's for sure!

I have a feeling mac and casey have moved on from this issue, while we're still here, still arguing over it, as if that will make a difference.

Anyway, on to more important issues. Ponies? or Spiderman? Decisions, decisions.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Hmmmmm....no. This thread frankly is beneath spider man. Not nearly lolz enough to have earned it.

This thread will be about something of equal interest and relevance to the OP's topic and the responses made here.

[Indy_S]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Tx is on the ropes! How old are you dude? And what does your sig mean? Serious questions.

Who were those questions asked to?

DarthBrotarian wrote...

Anyway, on to more important issues. Ponies? or Spiderman? Decisions, decisions.

I think Spiderman is over-saturated as a superhero. Other Marvel heroes deserve spotlight in his place. Daredevil needs a new (and better) movie.

EDIT: Now fish-specific fishing line I don't think is over-saturated. I've long thought that the generic lake fishing line wasn't good enough for the job.

Modifié par Indy_S, 26 juillet 2013 - 06:48 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

You think I'd go with fish? you have a lot to learn.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Not even Spiderman can save this thread.

[Cainhurst Crow]

This thread was doomed from the moment bribery was mentioned.

[Cainhurst Crow]

The life and times of micheal r. trout.