223 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

alleyd wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Alleyd, yes, you ARE wrong in your definition of reverse-engineering, because you need tech to reverse-engineer.
Which there isn't any[/b] in the sense you're using. They (Cerbeurs) Didn't reverse-engineer the tech -- they pluged it into to a V.I. and crossed their fingers. They didn't do anything else to the tech because that would require disceting it, and losing the possible benifets of having the tech intact.  And as for them (turians), they had to work with humans to get enough salavge, and even then, it only amounted to one gun -- one gun that still wasn't even past private production two years later. Face facts. Cerberus didn't do jack with what they had other then taking a leap of faith, and the rest of the galaxy only managed to cobble enough surviving tech from the 2 kilometer ship to make just one new gun. Just what other proof do need that we don't know what the hell we're doing with this stuff? This isn't rocket sicence Alleyd, no matter how much you try to play it off as such. The Reaper IFF and the Creation of EDI are examples of using the tech blindly, NOT of reverse-engineering the tech to create our own variants, because we didn't reverse the tech. And the turians are hardly shining examples of your belief, since in two years, all they got from Sovergein was one gun, which wasn't even ready for public production until six months later.

You are saying they took a piece of alien material (Reaper Tech)and plugged it in to a complex computer intelligence (Lunar VI) and got it to work as a true Artifical Intelligence is not an example of reverse engineering.

You are essentially claiming that Cerberus found a piece of alien material, plugged it into a computer and it worked, perfectly out of the Box and the new System has made a tech leap that changes the entire spectrum of computing. I say that is believing in magic and more implausible than my perspective

I see teams of scientists working away trying to understand the technology, You would need to know how the thing connected to your existing technology, how the hardware and software integrated into the system, get the patch fixes written and tested, build a platform to house it. All these tasks are examples of engineering and you would have to analyse the material to do that in Reverse on any alien or unknown material,. It is the definitive version of a genius in reverse engineering. You are claiming it was a leap of faith. I do agree, it was a remarkable scientific achievement. 

Wrong again. Once more, I point you to the vid of Sovergein breaking up, energy spilling out of it as all it's core "organs" are roasted from the inside-out by it's own ruptured power core. And also, here's  a little tip --  when Anderson says that they can't even account for half the thing, he's being straight with you, Most of it is gone -- when it's parts crashed into the station, they were either wrecked by the impact, or recycled by the keepers. And just by looking at the explosion that killed Sovergein, most of the wreckage would be bits of armor or melted slag. Anderson also confirms that nothing that did survive the blast was any more advanced then what they got from the geth -- they couldn't even tell that the geth didn't create it. So much for advancement if between half of it being slagged, damaged, and more being recycled, what little survived is no more ground-breaking then the geth's tech, which we already salvaged in abundance. Just face facts. There's nothing of any real value that survived Sovergien's death besides what's already inside EDI, and those aren't even core components. You don't even listen to the lore when everything is contridicting you. You have to look for some hidden message everywhere when we already know from three seperate sources (Lack of activity on Shadow Broker network, TIM's statements, Anderson's admission) that there's noithing. You can't "re-imagine" what isn't there to begin with -- it completely invalidates ME2's plot of joining Cerberus, which I thought you were avoiding doing.

I yet again say this is NOT the story and discussion forum

It's not a "difference in perspective" -- you're ignoring the simple facs in the Lore. Plain and simple. You'd have to completely x out ME2 with your ideas, because you wouldn't even have joined Cerberus to begin with if any of that was true -- you would have learded via the Shadow Broker network, or Anderson would have told you to get you away from Cerberus. If you want to keep ME2 intact (which you said you did), then that means sticking to the actual story in ME2, in which these Ideas cannot possibly exist because they comprimise the entire basis of the opening plot. You just aren't thinking this through.My poinion is based on the facts that you yourself said were part of the foundation for your re-write -- the maintaining of ME2.

Sorry I told you on my first reply that I did not Set the criteria of the group. I was a member of the group and tried to resolve the problems of the ME2 arc to meet the criteria of the group leader. It didn't work out and I resigned to concentrate on my own story.

No, it isn't. Finding flaws lets you know what to fix -- if there is any potential flaw to fix or repair. It's not "bias" -- just a critisim, positive or negitive. And unlike you apperantly, I keep the Codex close at hand with the games, so I have seen the whole picture, and study it before I post. So you may want to rethink that a bit.

I already said on numerous occassions my perspectiuve on Codex information. It was written to support the offical canon of the Bioware Mass Effect game storyline. If you intend to change anything in the story, you are essentially rewriting the codex to accomdate that change. So yes the Codex is out the window and I applaud your attachment to it. 

AGAIN, you claimed the same route. You wanted to re-write ME3 and keep ME2's story intact. Which, for the same reasons, isn't possible. You're ideas invalidate the entire opening plot, and the simple statistics that were proven fact -- miniscule advancement in two years = little functioning technology. Joining up with Cerberus = no one else is doing anything behind closes doors. It's not my approval -- it's the baseline plot and lore of the game. It's not me that you need to worry about -- you simply aren't keeping in check with the very lore you claim you want to preserve,

The MEU related ideas I've posted are just follies of inspiration, hopefully aimed at writers applying a little more thought to the MEU lore and codex and twisting it. Blindly following the tunnels will only lead to the same destination they claim to be wanting to avoid I've agreed with you since the start on that score. The posts I've been making in defence of the group direction are related to the fact that they can tell whatever story they think best resolves their issues with the franchise. I would make no judgement of their work until it was actually delivered, but approach the effort with an open mind. I know the difficulty in the task they set themselves and I was defending that POV.

I am surprised you gained any insight to make the judgement of my plot, Mainly because you assume that I am writing an ME related story. I posted the Reaper Idea, Leviathan critique and the indoctrination ideas, to show you exactly how little I was using of ME material, or how far I was pushing the lore of core parts of the trilogy, I was trying to show YOU that you made an assumption I was sticking to ME2. I rewrote the Reapers, Keepers Protheans, ME1 and ME2 into a different frame and I deliberately ignored the mythologizing and any of the Mass Effect themes. In the end It was far simpler to just take all ME stuff out and write something in its own setting.

I still had 100's of ME related ideas and was pitching them at the groups to hopefully get them to loosen the restrictions on the criteria for a rewrite. Criteria I did not set and in the end did not agree with. Your are 100% correct that to rewrite ME and stick to Lore,as you see as essential,  will ensure that the story that results is hampered by all the same problems carried forward from the original piece. The writer may not think there is a problem, but my experience is that fans will create a "problem" because of the speculation and amount of imagination the story asks you to impose on the setting 

Yes I made a comment on your critical style, and it may be offensive to you. It was a request for you to chill and just let others have their fun with their imagination. It's easy to down other peoples ideas, far easier than to create an idea or reframe another persons vision. Trying to resolve the issues with Mass Effect is a monumental task, such is the passion of fans and the loose design of the game story and Codex itself. It's full of holes and ambiguities and the harder you look at it, the more complex the issues are.

1> So, what was that about the conversation being over?
NO, it is NOT an example of Reverse-Engineering. It's an example of adaptation -- blind adaptation. There's a difference between the two that you seem incapible of grasping -- reverse-engineer is to discet the tech and make our own. That's the complete opposate of what Cerberus did with EDI, and what EDI did with the Reaper IFF. Just plugging the tech into something is Not a feat of reverse-engineering, since we don't know how the tech works, can't replicate the tech, and thus, can't replicate the result. Base adaptation is taking something and just using it without comprehension of how it works, like what cavemen did with the first flames. Reverse-Engineering is taking it apart and being able to make your own out of what you learn. Which Cerberus did not do. Thus, it's base adaptation by simply utilizing the tech, and NOT reverse-engineering, which is the creation of your own versions of the tech.  It's the same thing with the galaxy and the mass relays -- we plug our ship-computers into them to travel. Does that mean we "reverse-engineered" Mass relays?
Honestly, learn the difference bewteen differnet definitions. - it's not that hard.

And you're going to tell me that isn't how they made EDI? That's my entire point --- that is how it played out. Why else do you think Cerberus shackled the thing? Or why they didn't give it a body of it's own? They didn't trust the result. They also never made anouther. If they knew what they were doing when they made EDI, then she wouldn't have been the only Reaper-based A.I. they made. But she is. Ergo, she was a "trial by error" project that got lucky on the first shot. You know, kinda like how Shepard survived a prothean beacon that shoud have killed him/her outright? Luck happens. I say you simply don't account for variables.

I see teems of people getting indoctrinated trying to understand the technology. Guess which outcome has always been consistant? The indoctrinated outcome. Just face it -- no one knew what they were doing with Reaper Tech. The turians are the only race that got anywere, and that was just one gun because most of the valuible computing tech was fried. And No, you really don't need an understanding. Mass Relays are proof of that, now aren't they? You don't understand the workings -- you just send a signal and they automaticalluy alligen to send you off to the coordinides you picked. And Reaper Tech is adaptive, auto-corrective, as is the Artifical Intelligence of EDI -- as in, self-correcting and can program patches itself. It's not just some piece of hardware, you know. Hence the shackles out of lack of trust in the thing. The only thing they did was build a shell to house the A.I. core on the Normandy - the creation of EDI was a lucky shot.  It is the definitive version of simplistic baseline adaptation, NOT reverse-engineering and in fact, it's COMPLETE OPPOSITE. If it was reverse-engineering, they would know how to replicate the effect. The distinct lack of EDI's in the galaxy proves it wasn't "reverse-engineering" because there would be more made if it had. You really need to stop trivilizing everything.

2> Yet again, I say that since this is the storyline you said you would keep, and I mean YOU, not Erezkie, you have to acknowlegde it's lore. This IS the stories and games that you said you wouldn't alter - ME2 and ME1. Yet your ideas contridict ME2's entire opening plot -- the game wouldn't exist if your "secret Council development movement" had been real.

3> I'm not talking about the group. I'm talking about YOU. Your own story is impossible because in that world, Mass Effect 2 would not exist. You claimed that you wanted to re-write ME3, yet your ideas are more focused on re-wirting ME2. Your "Reaper war prep" theroy would not work unless ME2 never existed. If it exists in your plot, then this "secret Council research" would never have existed. You can't keep both -- either you completely re-write ME2 and cut Cerberus and re-wirte the entire subsiquent story, or you accept that the Council did jack to prepare while you were dead.

4> And I already said that I looked over the in-game events and made sure what I said ties together before I speak. Unlike you, I actually change the direction of something using in-game fact. Not wildly altering everything because you want to. And for your information, I'm not even talking about the Codex. I'm talking about in-game character interactions and the things they tell you. I'm talking about the Shadow Broker network, and how it detects nothing from the Council regarding prepping for the Reapers.
Once again, learn the differences bewteen definitions.

5> Ones that don't match up with what you said you would or wouldn't alter. YOU are the one blindly following a tunnel by just ignoring every little direction the story or lore go in. In other words, you refuse to deviate from just doing whatever, simply because it's harder to do? What I've kept saying is that if they want to rewrite ME3 to be a "seemless transition," then why do all their Ideas contridict ME2 lore? If anything, nothing they've said contridicts ME3 lore -- they've done the opposite and affected the game they wanted to keep intact. That POV required knowing what your building off of. What's been firmly established in the past game that you don't want to alter, and what's up for grabs in the future game that you do want to alter. They keep bouncing back and forth between that line.

I'm surprised that you say that when both you and Julia told me that you were talking this through together. Remember? So I wouldn't say my judgement on you working on a re-write is an "assumption" since both of you told me yourselves. I told you that the Leviathans and Indoctrination aren't as mythical as you say, and that their evolution.function is indeed scientifically possible, to show how little of ME (up to the final ending) is "space magic" when you look at it under a microscope, or how the lore actually doesn't allow your ideas - I was trying to show YOU how alot of what you considered "space magic" wasn't that far off, and that not as much of the game's past lore needed to be changed as you so egearly assumed. The Reapers, keepers and protheans all worked as they were, and some of them already had the same story you thought they didn't have (Leviathans, only reversed with them the starting race) - ME was already it's own setting, and it was completely unessessary to toss everything and anything in the original story just because you "didn't think it was scientific."

There;s no point to that -- stuff can be tweeked to work, or you can find ways in the games own lore to beat the problems. There's no need to just toss every bit of lore out the window -- there needs to be some consistancy, some form of guideline to follow. Otherwise, it wouldn't even be an ME game -- just a random AU game. And your OWN criteria is still countered by the game's storylines themselves, as you could not possibly keep any of ME1 or ME2's storyline with your present ideas by rewriting the Reaper, protheans, and Council stance so completely.  Using little to none of the lore that's established, what you'd create would be uncregnizable as Mass Effect, and fans wouldn't react any better to a game that just threw out all the lore in the series. As I told @Julia, the key is the timeframe -- it needs to be lengthened somehow. ME should have taken six to seven years, not three to four. Yes, I think @erezkie's project is likely doomed, but I don't think he was wrong on where to start -- ME2. Just earlier then he thought.

And my responce was that if they want to do this, they have to stay true to whatever piece of lore they say they will keep. @erezkie didn't, and you want to throw all lore out and leave no guidelines for a game that none would asscoiate with ME from how vastly different/altered the lore is. The task is much easier then you think it is -- you just have to know how to go about it. Not as much of the lore is "space magic" or "flawed" as you believe. If anything, it's actually the opposite -- the more you look at it, the [b]easier the issues become to deal with.

[aprilia1k]

@silverexile17s wrote: "No, my interpertation is not subjective here..."

Dude -- you are a perfectly good orator -- but you are totally clueless with regard to "self awareness".

Harbinger's "assuming control" was direct enough involvement.. the Collectors were building a giant "Human Reaper" -- to further accelerate their attacks -- they were not acting on their OWN... their was NO "their own". They were clearly and definitely doing the REAPER'S WORK ... attacking Humankind. Your portrayal of it - which you keep calling factual - is textbook OPINION.

You need to work on self-awareness - on how you come across as completely and totally opinionated to the point of obessiveness. OCD I totally believe. I'd throw-in Borderline quite frankly..... I'm out -- no talking to you.

Modifié par aprilia1k, 06 octobre 2013 - 04:29 .

[silverexile17s]

aprilia1k wrote...

@silverexile17s wrote: "No, my interpertation is not subjective here..."

Dude -- you are a perfectly good orator -- but you are totally clueless with regard to "self awareness".

Harbinger's "assuming control" was direct enough involvement.. the Collectors were building a giant "Human Reaper" -- to further accelerate their attacks -- they were not acting on their OWN... their was NO "their own". They were clearly and definitely doing the REAPER'S WORK ... attacking Humankind. Your portrayal of it - which you keep calling factual - is textbook OPINION.

You need to work on self-awareness - on how you come across as completely and totally opinionated to the point of obessiveness. OCD I totally believe. I'd throw-in Borderline quite frankly..... I'm out -- no talking to you.

Wrong. That would be YOU.

Harbinger's "assuming direct control" was Remote involvement. Direct involvement would be what Sovergein did with the geth. It's still fighting simple pawns instead of doing anything against the main threat. The Collectors were building the Human Reaper as a head-start for the harvest, and it was nothing major for the Reapers -- they had more then enough humans to take when they arrived, taking nearly five times the Collector's qouta in a single week. Making it completely pointless since six months later, they re-did it and got farther along. They were acting on their own - there WAS a "their own" as evidenced by how Harbinger has to directly assume control, meaning that they operate automatically for the most part. Like machines on auto-pilot. They were doing the Reapers work ON AUTO-PILOT. It wasn't a direct involvement like with Sovergein. It is textbook FACT. YOURS is textbook OPINION. Sovergein was here, Harbinger was not. Former is Direct involvement. Latter is Remote involvement.

You need to work on your comprehension, because it's not my self-awareness that needs to be looked at. I'm using what's shown in the damn game -- you are the one that's using opinion.

[silverexile17s]

alleyd wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

2> Yet again, I say that since this is the storyline you said you would keep, and I mean YOU, not Erezkie[/i], you have to acknowlegde it's lore. This IS the stories and games that you said you wouldn't alter - ME2 and ME1. Yet your ideas contridict [/b]ME2's entire opening plot -- the game wouldn't exist if your "secret Council development movement" had been real.

Sorry I said "The story I WAS working on (Referring to the Erezike group) and I explained several times that I was no longer affiliated with group, that I did not set group criteria but was pitching in ideas for their approval and  was still supporting their Intention to write whatever story they liked.

The plot doesn't exist to my knowledge, I have not read it and I form no opinion. I know they are changing the lore and will have to conjour up justifications and a plotline to "sell" their vision. If I read it, and they ask my critique or opinion, only then would I express the opinion. YOU on the otherhand continually pour scorn on the idea, the timeline, virtually everything. You have already judged the idea. That is preconceived bias. 

silverexile17s wrote...

3> I'm not talking about the group. I'm talking about YOU. Your own story is impossible because in that world, Mass Effect 2 would not exist. You claimed that you wanted to re-write ME3, yet your ideas are more focused on re-wirting ME2. Your "Reaper war prep" theroy would not work unless ME2 never existed. If it exists in your plot, then this "secret Council research" would never have existed. You can't keep both -- either you completely re-write ME2 and cut Cerberus and re-wirte the entire subsiquent story, or you accept that the Council did jack to prepare while you were dead.

You have no idea if it could or couldn't work, and you most definitely haven't read it to form an opinion other than prejudice about the idea of a fan perceiving a fantasy differently and playing with their imagniation. a preconceived bias to an idea to rewrite. 

4> And I already said that I looked over the in-game events and made sure what I said ties together before I speak. Unlike you, I actually change the direction of something using in-game fact. Not wildly altering everything because you want to. And for your information, I'm not even talking about the Codex. I'm talking about in-game character interactions and the things they tell you. I'm talking about the Shadow Broker network, and how it detects nothing from the Council regarding prepping for the Reapers.
Once again, learn the differences bewteen definitions.

If I'm rewriting a game, why would I play the official one? Obviously there is a story there that intriques or inspires me. You cannot deny me the right to try and imagine something, nor is it informed critical opinion to anything before reading. That is preconceived judgement and makes any critique you utter invalid

I'm surprised that you say that when both you and Julia told me that you were talking this through together. Remember? So I wouldn't say my judgement on you working on a re-write is an "assumption" since both of you told me yourselves. I told you that the Leviathans and Indoctrination aren't as mythical as you say, and that their evolution.function is indeed scientifically possible, to show how little of ME (up to the final ending) is "space magic" when you look at it under a microscope, or how the lore actually doesn't allow your ideas - I was trying to show YOU how alot of what you considered "space magic" wasn't that far off, and that not as much of the game's past lore needed to be changed as you so egearly assumed. The Reapers, keepers and protheans all worked as they were, and some of them already had the same story you thought they didn't have (Leviathans, only reversed with them the starting race) - ME was already it's own setting, and it was completely unessessary to toss everything and anything in the original story just because you "didn't think it was scientific."

Yes we invited you to discuss things with us, but I sent you no invite to the group and made no assumption. My FR and PM meassages were only to convery something off of forum. You sent me the piece you wrote and I said you should discuss with Julia and that I was not doing anything with that part of the story. I pointed out what I felt was intriquing and what you did with any opinion is your choice. I took your opinion on board and I disagreed that sticking strictly to the story as you propose would only give you the same story. I did what many fans have done, I wrote a fanfiction, based from my interpretation of the MEU, and based on my own imagination. 

I contributed ideas to two groups and have made hints about some of the plot threads that may or may not be included, but the criteria of the groups and the creative direction comes from the leaders. If they ask for someidea or other I try and imagine it and let them know.  I do not choose if they are included 

Yes Silver rewriting ME and selling the alternative idea is a hard or impossible task. Mostly because most fans of the franchise will have used their vision of the franchise and have their opinion on the "correct" form of how a story MUST be told, and they will have an influence imposed by the game's "flaws" as they perceive it.

Yes  it is entirely space magic, anthro morphic and plaguristic of so many far better derived SCi Fi works. Not one word of Mass Effect is Real, and Bioware really pushed the boat out on what Science fiction means. I enjoyed the game as it is, a game that you shoot stuff. Bioware made an entertaining game that people are passionate about. I am not passionate about it, rather I am passionate about the right of people to use their imagination as they see fit and that no story can be judged or critiqued before it is written. If someone ever reads something with an open mind and is moved to comment on the work, I would listen and accept their opinion.

If someone forms an opinion BEFORE they have experienced the story, then I know its a form of preconceived bias to the idea and that person would not be interested in wasting their time on something that would probably offend them. 

1> And as I said, your rewrite suffers from similar problems. Disregard for the lore. The only problem is that where @erezkie refused to accept that he couldn't keep all of ME2's lore intact, you're the complete opposite extreme -- you'd throw away all guidelines and lore for the story. You act like I didn't know what you ment -- I did. I always have. "Write whatever story you like" requires at least setting a limit to what you put in it. @erezkie didn't push the limit back enough. You want to go too far and remove it completely. Two different extremes.

Dude, there won't be a plot at this rate. Not unless they find a way to either (A) lengthen the timeline, or ( re-write ME2's original storyline to focus more on fighting Reapers rather then just the pawns the whole game. I'm not pouring scorn on it -- I'm being realistic. I'm pointing out that all the baseline ideas -- because they haven't even made a plot yet -- have all failed to uphold the lore of the very game they said they wouldn't touch - ME2. I've said what I have by comparing what he said the plot was ( and he DID say what the baseline plot was earlier in this very thread, so don't even try to say that it's a "pre-concived bias"), and compared it to the lore of the game. And it didn't support what the re-write planned. It's simple as that. It's not scorn. Just plain critisim. The timeline doesn't work because it's too short -- there's not enough time left. You need to lengthen it. If @erezkie had found a way to realistically forestall the Reaper's arrival by another three years or so, I wouldn't have had a problem at all. The story would have worked then had there been more time. Otherwise, you'd need to change ME2 to lay more groundwork. It's all comparison to the plot and lore from the last two games, so, no, it's not a "preconcived bias."

2> Yes, I do. Because the entire core of ME2's plot is completely dependant on no one but Cerberus doing anything to stop the Reapers. That's the entire fundimental basis for the whole game, and since your "Council prep" idea undermines it completely and utterly, there's no way it would work. You'd have to completely remove Cerberus. It's not prejudice at all -- that's your pride talking. It's just simple fact from comparing the two together. Trust me -- I have zero bias to re-writing ME3. I just want it to make sense and not remove bits of lore that don't need to be removed. If you think I don't want a re-write of this game, then you obviously don't know me. After all, YOU of all people should know by now from those PM's (Rembere those?) that if there's a way to change the story without shattering the lore to pieces, I'll do it without a second thought. I'd rather do what Drew, Mac and Hudson couldn't do -- figure out a way to do this without having to re-write the lore to hell. That's giving up on the series.

3> So, what, your saying you never played the game? And again, I'm pointing out that your route would re-quire stripping out half of what was in ME2. More then is either needed or necessary -- it's a waste of effort. Instead of stripping out what you don't like, find a way to turn it into a strength. Instead of just quitting and saying "I can't make this work," find a way to turn it into a major strength. Going back and stripping out lore for a "do what I want" path is what the Devs did for ME3's ending. Look what that got them. I don't want a reapeat of that -- THAT's what I'm against, not the idea of re-write. What does it take to get that through to you?

4> And in talking with you, it led to a way to get around the issue of timeframe without needing to turn the lore on it's ear. And I have spoken with @Julia, for the past several days now, although since you two are firends, I thought you'd known that. And I disagree - the story isn't unsavable. You've just given up on it -- you quit trying to save the original series, so you you decieded it was easier to gut the lore entirely. All I've done is show how the basis for the story itself contridicted you, and you took it was pure scorn. We're not face-to-face, so I don't really think you can say anything about the tone of voice I'm using.

In other words, you don't want to fight for your ideas, or for keeping anything in the story consistant? What's the point then if you do that? It won't get solved if you just let the story fall through like that because you couldn't figure out a way to work with the lore you have.

No, it isn't. Not if you know where to start. I mean, the same laws applied to the first two games -- look how well they did though. If everyone followed that line of thought, there wouldn't be any RPG's in the world.

No, it isn't. I've explained indoctrination to you - subsonic and ultrasonic waves with an electromagnetic field, and that it actually doesn't work in a no atmosphere environment, making it grounded in scientific plausibility. Same for the Leviathans, who could have easily evolved past their limitations given enough time, resources, and with the help of their thrall races. A lot of ME has roots in scientific research, from IR lasers to mass accelerators. BioWare did not "push the boat" on sicence-fiction any more then "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" or "Battlestar Galactica" did. It's an RPG -- a bit more then just " a game where you shoot stuff." You want a game like that, play Battlefront. Saying it's "just" a shooter seems to imply you don't get what the game's about -- choice. You've already admitted that you aren't passionate about it -- yet, didn't it ever occour to you that someone that argued so heavily about the topic (me) might just have been? That you need passion in the game if you want to be working on a new story for it. Good writers are passionate about what they write -- if you weren't passionate about this game, then you weren't serious about re-writing or even this debate. In other words -- you of all people don't have the right to judge. All I ever did here was look at the game's lore and compare them with the re-write.

Oh, and here's a secret for you -- I DID know what the plot was. @Julia told me in PM what the basis of the new story would have been - how it started, and where it could go. So, I'm pretty sure that means that, since I do know the plot's basis, and made my comments on it after reading it, I therefore am qualified to critique it. Therefore, you don't know what a preconcived bais is, since you didn't know that mine [i][b]wasn't. It was never offence -- it was simple critique and comparison to the lore they said they wanted to uphold. The very base ideas didn't work. I pointed out as such. Simple as that.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 06 octobre 2013 - 05:58 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Silver the plot will work. You won't even give it a chance. I've mentioned very general ideas and nothing specific.

Bioware did push the boat on sci-fi. They loaded this one up with space magic, and honestly it became a shooter with some player directed conversation by ME3. I don't consider it a role playing game. Saying we're not passionate about this is a bunch of crap. And quite honestly, I am going to have to say that we're going to take this plot where we take it. It is going to develop down the avenues we choose it to go. We will develop the plot lines we choose as we choose them. There are a lot of differences between our plot and the official campaign.

So I'm going to leave this right here. We're not going to change the plot to conform to something everyone likes. We're going to write what we consider a good story. This story probably will never see the light of day outside of a fan fiction interpretation anyway. This is automatically an Alternate Universe of the Mass Effect Universe by definition. From this point on you'll just have to speculate on what it is going to contain. I'm concluding this conversation. 

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 06 octobre 2013 - 06:36 .

[silverexile17s]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Silver the plot will work. You won't even give it a chance. I've mentioned very general ideas and nothing specific.

Bioware did push the boat on sci-fi. They loaded this one up with space magic, and honestly it became a shooter with some player directed conversation by ME3. I don't consider it a role playing game. Saying we're not passionate about this is a bunch of crap. And quite honestly, I am going to have to say that we're going to take this plot where we take it. It is going to develop down the avenues we choose it to go. We will develop the plot lines we choose as we choose them. There are a lot of differences between our plot and the official campaign.

So I'm going to leave this right here. We're not going to change the plot to conform to something everyone likes. We're going to write what we consider a good story. This story probably will never see the light of day outside of a fan fiction interpretation anyway. This is automatically an Alternate Universe of the Mass Effect Universe by definition. From this point on you'll just have to speculate on what it is going to contain. I'm concluding this conversation. 

I thought you concluded it a page ago?

I'm not convinced, though - not with the differences between the base of the story and where this is going. Besides, even if it did get off the ground... would it even be considered Mass Effect? A re-write so drastic basically tosses everything that was established in the last two games. It's not a re-write you're talking about making, it's a full-on re-boot. The majority of the established lore tossed out and re-started from scratch. If the general ideas alone invalidate the baseline lore and mythos, how would smaller details work? because every time they've been explained, I've found they contridict the plot of the series one way or another.

That's not how the series started. And it was a space fanatasy -- what did you expect? Gritter games are things like Call of Duty: Black Ops II. This isn't that -- it was spicifically designed to not be that. Compared to things like the force, Death Star and lightsabers from Star Wars, the borg, teleportation and the Q Continium from Star Trek, or the organic Human-Cylons and the psychic Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica (2004), I don't see what the Reapers, husks, biotics, or hell even the Leviathans do to push the boat any farther then it already has.  I never said you weren't passionate about it -- I commented about how @Alleyd openly admitted not being passionate about Mass Effect (read the post yourself to see). If they're not passionate about it, how do they expect to re-write it, let alone re-boot it? And by changing so much of the core game, it's no longer a re-write -- it's a full-on re-boot. Different definiton -- but tell you this --- if you simply say, right off the bat here and now, that this is a full-on re-boot that ignores all orignal cannon for something else witn no ties to the original lore what-so-ever -- If that's really the case here, I'll drop the cynisim. A re-write needs to follow the cannon of what preciedes it. 
But, If it's a re-boot you and @Alleyd are after, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it. I won't complain if I'm sure -- and you're sure -- you aren't basing it off anything in the established game's plot.

Based on what's been said here, it seemed like you were trying to build off the plot of ME1. Now though, you're saying that what you want to do is re-boot the series into something more "Gears of War" nit-and-grit. My problem is if you're re-writing based on ME1 and ME2's lore and plot. If you're just starting from scratch -- all the way from ME1 onwards, then I wouldn't have a problem. But up until now, it seemed that you were only re-writing ME3 and part of ME2, not the entire series in general from the bottom-up.

That's actually a relief -- if you aren't planning to use anything from the established plot-line, I can finally let the OCD part of me rest easy -- I don't have to look over everything to make sure there isn't any game-breaking flaws that might kill the project and just sit back and see what you make. Hell, I might even like it.

And if it makes a difference to either of you, it seems at least one person in the BioWare dev team - Gamble, I think, IDK - would have liked to Re-Boot ME into something more gritty. However, that was shot down because of the sh*tstorm the series went through regarding the original series, and how their "artistic intregity" would be violated by remaking the series after they defended the endings so doggedly. It was a note -- maybe you can find it by googling "Mass Effect Reboot."

Modifié par silverexile17s, 06 octobre 2013 - 08:05 .

[silverexile17s]

alleyd wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1> And [/b]as I said, your rewrite suffers from similar problems. Disregard for the lore. The only problem is that where @erezkie refused to accept that he couldn't keep all of ME2's lore intact, you're the complete opposite extreme -- you'd throw away all guidelines and lore for the story. You act like I didn't know what you ment -- I did. I always have. "Write whatever story you like" requires at least setting a limit to what you put in it. @erezkie didn't push the limit back enough. You want to go too far and remove it completely. Two different extremes. 

I said that I look at the codex as a myth statement on certain subjects that are not believable. For example you CANNOT describe the behaviour of an Alien with any accuracy if the Alien has not been discovered and say its Fact. In that case the Codex should be looked upon not as Gospel truth, but as a myth statement or at least that some data is confused.  For example it says it take 4 dreadnoughts to impact on a Reaper. How is that true if there was never a time that 4 dreadnoughts actually took on a Reaper? It's a hypothetical statement on an unknown entity, that  has never been seen before and never studied.Until there is hard data, either from observation of the alien, or its corpse, neither was available till ME1, we discovered how the Reaper in reality differed from Codex.

I would most definitely ignore things that break core natural laws of the universe. Since Humans feature in the MEU, it is obviously this universe in question and there are natural laws that apply that the Reaper flat out contradicts in lore. The only difference between Reality and MEU "reality" is the addition on the Mass Effect and a radioactive miracle material called element Zero that makes it possible that the universe depicted in the game "plausible" The existence of EEZO makes the Relays possible, and FTL and biotics. It's an essential part of the Mass Effect, but its properties do not account for some of the more outlandish descriptions of the Reapers capabilities.

The ME1 lore, in that perspective, the entries on Reapers are like Dragon myths. Frightening, scary and impossible creations that could never exist in nature. They were products of a more superstitious mind trying to explain something found in nature, most likely Dragon myths are Dinosaur relics washed up. When we got scientific on these relics, the animals do not breathe fire, fly etc. Humans placed these relics into the new understanding and called the "Dinosaurs"

That is my interpretation of Reaper codex lore, At Me1 beginning the codex is a myth, at ME1 end we have slightly more basis for understanding a Reaper, we killed one and have its corpse.

Dude, there won't be a plot at this rate. Not unless they find a way to either (A) lengthen the timeline, or ( re-write ME2's original storyline to focus more on fighting Reapers rather then just the pawns the whole game. I'm not pouring scorn on it -- I'm being realistic. I'm pointing out that all the baseline ideas -- because they haven't even made a plot yet -- have all failed to uphold the lore of the very game they said they wouldn't touch - ME2. I've said what I have by comparing what he said the plot was ( and he DID say what the baseline plot was earlier in this very thread, so don't even try to say that it's a "pre-concived bias"), and compared it to the lore of the game. And it didn't support what the re-write planned. It's simple as that. It's not scorn. Just plain critisim. The timeline doesn't work because it's too short -- there's not enough time left. You need to lengthen it. If @erezkie had found a way to realistically forestall the Reaper's arrival by another three years or so, I wouldn't have had a problem at all. The story would have worked then had there been more time. Otherwise, you'd need to change ME2 to lay more groundwork. It's all comparison to the plot and lore from the last two games, so, no, it's not a "preconcived bias."

I cannot speak for Erezike or for Julia, nor will I say how issues from the timeline are being tackled, other than both parties ARE sticking to lore FAR more rigourously than Bioware did on that score as I understand things. How they resolve the timescale problem? You're right they will need to be creative and have supported and justified the change.

The Codex says that Reapers need to interact with the Citadel to enter galaxy. In Me1/ME2 we are told that Nazara was in galaxy for several hundred years gaining allies, it risked its life to do an attack (and lost) then in ME2 the Reaper strategy was one that required a longer timeline than the game series gave us, the collectors had been building a Reaper for some time and it was only an Embryo.

Bioware broke that lore themselves with the invasion. In this instance it was Bioware forcing a timeline change. that they themselves set in previous installments. All other strategies of the Reapers pre ME3 changed, Reapers could have just waltzed in and steam rollered the galaxy as they did. So the 6 months timeline need not be hanging over Erezike or Julia or any other fan fiction writer aimed at rewriting the later script.

2> Yes, I do. Because the entire core of ME2's plot is completely dependant on no one but Cerberus doing anything to stop the Reapers. That's the entire fundimental basis for the whole game, and since your "Council prep" idea undermines it completely and utterly, there's no way it would work. You'd have to completely remove Cerberus. It's not prejudice at all -- that's your pride talking. It's just simple fact from comparing the two together. Trust me -- I have zero bias to re-writing ME3. I just want it to make sense and not remove bits of lore that don't need to be removed. If you think I don't want a re-write of this game, then you obviously don't know me. After all, YOU of all people should know by now from those PM's (Rembere those?) that if there's a way to change the story without shattering the lore to pieces, I'll do it without a second thought. I'd rather do what Drew, Mac and Hudson couldn't do -- figure out a way to do this without having to re-write the lore to hell. That's giving up on the series.

 We all have the same opinion there, try and write a plausible story from the source material, if its valid or justified in the timeline criteria of the project. Erezike has more of an ME2 focus, Julia and I took more emphasis from ME1, and fleshed out the timeline where Shepard is off line using the data sources at the end of ME1 and some creative licence.

I repeat the universe is not Shepard alone and does not revolve around him, but the story  of ME2 is a Shepard focussed story and the codex written supports that story. The game does repeatedly state that the Reaper technology is capable of being adapted into integration with ME tech in the most obvious way. You flew in a vessel that incorporated several elements of this billions of years old technology in a timescale of a couple of years. The weapons that destroyed a Reaper sized vessel, the Reaper IFF and the AI. These were adapted by a small, fringe outfit that has no presence in the galactic society in lightening quick time, certainly not billions of years. So the technology is not beyond understanding or even production. 

So if Cerebrus, who are small and on the fringes, could do that. How much could other, more advanced, richer and with more official access to the technology do with the same technology? It is more plausible to believe that in a society like MEU, with competing arms manufacturers, multiple races and capitalism that an arms race resulted. Biowrae did not write that plot, but all the source material is there if you have the imagination to use it.

You may not agree, and it is your right to say that is a wrong choice, but if the writer believes the scenario is more plausible than the "canon" depiction, or that absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence, or that technology does not exist in isolation, especially in a capitalist world, if they stick to their focus with an attention to detail and consistancy applied. Then I will congratulate them for doing something which I know to be exceptionally difficult to resolve. I will not compare it to the work of a major, international game studio with teams of professional writers. Unless the writer states that is what they believe themselves to be doing and how the writing should be judged.

3> So, what, your saying you never played the game? And again, I'm pointing out that your route would re-quire stripping out half of what was in ME2. More then is either needed or necessary -- it's a waste of effort. Instead of stripping out what you don't like, find a way to turn it into a strength. Instead of just quitting and saying "I can't make this work," find a way to turn it into a major strength. Going back and stripping out lore for a "do what I want" path is what the Devs did for ME3's ending. Look what that got them. I don't want a reapeat of that -- THAT's what I'm against, not the idea of re-write. What does it take to get that through to you?

You're over simplifying and misquoting me again. I said If I was rewriting something, I Should not try and copy EVERYTHING from the game and hit EVERY lore point in that game. I didn't need to play the game to write a story featured in the same universe

4> And in talking with you, it led to a way to get around the issue of timeframe without needing to turn the lore on it's ear. And I have spoken with @Julia, for the past several days now, although since you two are firends, I thought you'd known that. And I disagree - the story isn't unsavable. You've just given up on it -- you quit trying to save the original series, so you you decieded it was easier to gut the lore entirely. All I've done is show how the basis for the story itself contridicted you, and you took it was pure scorn. We're not face-to-face, so I don't really think you can say anything about the tone of voice I'm using.

I did take it as scorn because culturally, I am conditioned to believe that posts with Bolding, underlining or Capitalising are methods used to convey emphasis and tone, repeated use in every post makes the writer look "emotional" and the language and opinions expressed by you seem to suggest an entitlement or demand. Others have remarked on your posting style as being off putting. I am not face to face with you, yes and can only form the opinion based on what I read. It may be your style of posting comments or drawing attention to a point, but the repeated use of these techniques makes the comments appear not as a critique, but scornful. 

In other words, you don't want to fight for your ideas, or for keeping anything in the story consistant? What's the point then if you do that? It won't get solved if you just let the story fall through like that because you couldn't figure out a way to work with the lore you have.

No, it isn't. Not if you know where to start. I mean, the same laws applied to the first two games -- look how well they did though. If everyone followed that line of thought, there wouldn't be any RPG's in the world.

No, it isn't. I've explained indoctrination to you - subsonic and ultrasonic waves with an electromagnetic field, and that it actually doesn't work in a no atmosphere environment, making it grounded in scientific plausibility. Same for the Leviathans, who could have easily evolved past their limitations given enough time, resources, and with the help of their thrall races. A lot of ME has roots in scientific research, from IR lasers to mass accelerators. BioWare did not "push the boat" on sicence-fiction any more then "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" or "Battlestar Galactica" did. It's an RPG -- a bit more then just " a game where you shoot stuff." You want a game like that, play Battlefront. Saying it's "just" a shooter seems to imply you don't get what the game's about -- choice. You've already admitted that you aren't passionate about it -- yet, didn't it ever occour to you that someone that argued so heavily about the topic (me) might just have been? That you need passion in the game if you want to be working on a new story for it. Good writers are passionate about what they write -- if you weren't passionate about this game, then you weren't serious about re-writing or even this debate. In other words -- you of all people don't have the right to judge. All I ever did here was look at the game's lore and compare them with the re-write.

I said I was not passionate about the game series, how could I be? I'm involved in groups that wish to write alternative versions, so I am obviously finding some issue with the game that motivates me to contribute ideas. I will defend them or explain the ideas, Erezike and Julia will both attest that, I believe, I am very passionate about the right of anyone to use their creative imagination. Yes I gave up trying to discuss any plot issues etc, because I am not writing the plot in the groups I contributed to, nor defining the criteria. Yes I changed so much in the game series that my end result would be more economical and logical as a stand alone story. So I wrote it as that, and not as anything directly related to MEU in any way. 

Oh, and here's a secret for you -- I DID know what the plot was. @Julia told me in PM what the basis of the new story would have been - how it started, and where it could go. So, I'm pretty sure that means that, since I do know the plot's basis, and made my comments on it after reading it, I therefore am qualified to critique it. Therefore, you don't know what a preconcived bais is, since you didn't know that mine wasn't. It was never offence -- it was simple critique and comparison to the lore they said they wanted to uphold. The very base ideas didn't work. I pointed out as such. Simple as that.

I was not aware that Julia shared any of her ideas with you. If she has a fully resolved plot, than I am not aware of enough details to forma realistic judgement. I am not editing the work, And I repeat, critiquing a work in progress is not valid criticism or review. It is only opinion and a form of entitlement. 

. Regards any indoctrination ideas, you explained nothing, just ripped the codex out verbatim and make claim to some resolution, well done you. you degraded me in a comment that I somehow "stumbled" onto a solution and that was meant as an insult. I did not Stumble on it, I used a creative imagnination and outlined a possible explanation, of course not being Drew, Mac or Casy or any Bioware writer, I cannot say this is FACT and I never once claimed anything I did was anything other than fan fiction.

 It is obvious (To Me) from your  comments that our conversation descended into a personal "debate" and that both of us have very different views. And I did not decide to defend my views with you simply because it wasn't worth the effort. 

1> And I find the in-game statements that support and validate what I say. It's not just the Codex I'm talking -- I'm talking about the entire mythos -- everything from events to converstaions to info terminals, and take all that into account. You really did completely miss the point of everything I said, didn't you? If the foundation of a re-write itself is flawed, then you can't build upon it because you would building on incorrect or bsaseless information. It's a domino-effect or standard building effect -- bad foundation = bad result every single time. ME2 and ME3 are proof of that -- ME2 didn't lay enough foundation, so ME3 became a rushed job and ultimately fell through. Those two games are proof that you can guage how a future plot will turn out based on what it's predessor did or didn't do. I never did rely solely on the Codex, and you'd be making a massive mistake in assuming I did. I said TIM and Anderson's STATEMENTS validated that he Council did nothing. And that the Shadow Broker network not picking up anything from the Council clinches that fact. None of that is Codex. So your arguement's is out the window.
Also, FYI, there was a time when four dreadnoughts - Turian dreadnoughts - took on a Reaper. Intel report that says four turian dreadnoughts corrdinated a strike on the Reapers as they were coming in-system and dropped a few Sovergein-Class Reapers. So, again, you're arguement's out the window. It's a factual statement that was comfirmed by news reports -- news reports, NOT the Codex. So, once again -- you're arguement's out the window.

Dude, then you don't HAVE a Mass Effect game. The entire title - Mass Effect - is based off a mass-reducing energy field created and harnessed by a rare element. You may as well not even get involved in ME if you're so uptight about that. Also, WRONG. Thus far, nothing about the Reapers has contridicted what we know about them from the lore of the past game. Their methods didn't change, neither did their goals of harvesting us or their doctrine of being "our salvation through destruction." And WRONG -- yes they DO. They can stop things like lasers because, as black holes have shown us, lightwave photons are still subject to the laws of physics regarding gravity -- meaning that the extremely dense barriers of Reapers act as speed-buffers that negate them. Their massive eezo cores are at least three times larger then a standard dreadnoughts are and much more dense, meaning much higer power, and thus, denser barriers and faster flight. They can completely negate their mass allowing them to land on worlds. They use electromagnetic fields to affect neural activity in the brain while subsonic/ultrasonic waves slowly indoctrinate - a feet they haven't used in space, because no atmosphere = no sonic wavelengths. They "grow" technology with nanites, which form the basis for most of their tech from husks to structure contrustion. So far, the Reapers haven't contridicted their own lore.

That's just first impressions. First time you see nanites "grow" machines inside bodies or see people warship a machine, it's going to be offputting. Half the prospect of beating the Reapers was knowing that you were facing a race that was so advanced that their technology could easily be mistaken for magic if you didn't know better. That air of quasi-mystisisym was part of what made them terrifying to go up against. Later on, you start learning the grizzly sicence behind what the Reapers do and how they create their tech. Of course something like that would become a nightmare or a myth -- it's called a coping mechinism. Shepard himself/herself said that if not for having witnessed it firsthand, the Commadner wouldn't believe it either.

So, NO -- Sovergein's capabilities prove that the ME1 Codex is not a "myth," since between it's capabilities and the first-hand look at the base on Virmire, Sovergein's abilaties are real -- the only difference is that we learn they are all the result of very advanced tech and not magic power. De-mystification without stripping them of the threat they pose. And Again, NO WE DON'T - we have less then half of it, shattered, broken, and most of that is several tons of slagged metal that wasn't even distingiushible from geth tech. The fact that we don't have anything but one new gun in three years proves that there's nothing left to study.

2> NO, they aren't. @Julia herself told me that she's completely re-writing it -- even removing husks from her version of the ME timeline completely. She's not re-writing ME3 - she's re-booting the whole trilogy. And @erezkie refused to even try and acknowledge what the Reapers could or couldn't do, or the realsitc chances we'd have of fighting them just based on Sovergein's performance, or even that ME2 failed to do enough, if any, war prep. So, sorry, but you can't say they're "sticking far more rigourously then BioWare did" when @Julia confirmed she's going to completely re-do the entire series, and @erezkie kept contridicting pre-established fact from ME2.

No it doesn't. It says that the Reapers always kicked off the harvest with the Citadel but it never once states that they NEED to use the Citadel Relay to enter the galaxy. Also, time isn't a factor making a Reaper -- just resources, More you have, the quicker the Reaper grows. Likely, it was an embryo only because the Collectors couldn't get enough humans to make it grow any faster. EDI says that they processed tens of thousands of humans to make the embryo.

Again, no they didn't - Reapers could make mass effect fields strong enough to nullify the pull of black holes. Add that to a much more advanced propulsion system, and the fact that it's a straght shot to teh galaxy through dark space, and the Reapers getting here in three years is about right. Especally since they started right after Sovergein died. They just didn't use that timeframe efficantly.
No -- the stratagies of the Reapers did not change - not from what Vigil told us. They were brutal and methodical. And No, they couldn't have. I believe we went over this before -- tactical convience. Just because you can steemroll through an angry mob and not be killed, doesn't mean you have to when there's an avalible back-door through which you can kill their leaders and place the area on segregated and systemic lock-down. It's not changed at all -- it's compensating for Plan A failing. They go to Plan B.  Plan A is an easy instant victory. Plan B is the hard way. Both have the same result, but the first one is instant gratafication. Not a hard choice. And given what was shown of the Reapers in ME1 with Sovergien, and ME2 with the Collector Base's capabilities and the Derelict Reaper, yes that time constraint is still there because based on what we saw before, it's an accurate estimate. And once again, you're fighting about nithing since @Julia isn't going to use any of the established plot from the original series besides what makes it "more gritty."

3> In other words, you're doing a full re-boot that takes none of the original plot. That's easier to accept then saying you'll use the lore. You and @Julia would have an easier time of it because your ideas are a re-boot with a completely re-imagined timeline, lore, and mythos. A re-write is taking a point in the series and writing a different direction from there with the pre-existing cannon -- much harder to do.

I repeat, creating a universe like that is the POINT of space fanatsies. Star Wars being the most evidence of this -- after all, ME carries on the "save the galaxy" vibe Star Wars: KOTOR and Star Wars: TOR have. The entire point of an RPG based around you're characters epic story -- it's not supposed to be realistic. Just look at the Dragon Age games and how important the Warden and Hawke are to their respective stories. And again, "intigration" isn't the same as "reverse-engineering." If it was reverse-engineering, we could replicate it without fear of limited production. With "intigration," it's just plugging the enemy tech into ours and hoping it doesn't backfire, and it's dependant on the finite amount of remaining enemy tech we have stored away. Which isn't much. You flew in a vessel that has hardly any Reaper tech in it -- it's all in that one room - the A.I. Core - behind the Medical bay. EDI herself says that there are only fragments of Sovergein, and only in her A.I. Core - not strewn through the ship. In other words, the SR2 isn't based on Reaper-Tech  And again, the Collector Vessel had weaker barriers and a weaker hull then a Reaper, so it doesn't count. And the Reaper IFF is not evidence of "reverse-engineering" since it's simple "intigration" and thus, there's only one. And there's only so much one single copy of a device can do. It took millions of credits to create  the A.I., and it cost millions more, plus the death of an entire research team of at least 40 people  to get that IFF. So, YES -- thus far, we've seen evidence of nothing BUT the tech being beyond understanding and production.

EDI, after having her databases unlocked, reveals that the majority of ALL Cerberus' resources went into re-building the Normandy and ressurecting Shepard.. She reveals that Cerberus basicaly exhausted their reserves making the ship - mostly because they believed they'd get a return investment by Shepard giving them the Collector base. Also, it's noted that Cerberus's tech advancement exceeds the Council's. The Citadel Council themselves admit this when Anderson brings them Paul Grayson's body in the books, saying that Cerberus's tech is even better then theirs with how they revived Shepard, and even mistake Grayson's Reaper implants as Cerberus tech. So that arguement's out the window. It's not plasuible at all -- anything but. Carberus operates outside the Citadel conventions -- meaning they don't care about things like live experimentation or genocide or loss of life to get their research. Meaning that groups like Cerberus would always be ahead in the tech race - which BioWare got right in that regard. Your imagination is overactive, since you keep missing what's established fact in the game and what isn't.

If the writer picks a piece of established cannon to base their re-write off of, and then does something that violates that cannon, then they are wrong because they aren't even paying attention to the very lore they said they'd work off of. As I said before, for you and @Julia, it's easier because you're making a re-boot that has no ties to any of the original timeline and thus, don't need to care. But with @erezkie, he said he'd build off ME2 -- that means he's chained to the limitations of the established lore and the plot of ME2 and must work accordingly with them.  You and @Julia aren't planning to work off any established cannon and are making your own from the ground-up. @erezkie isn't and thus, is more limited in options then you are by the pre-established cannon of the game he chose to build off of. That's the simple truth.

4> Unless you chose a pre-established part of the game to build off of. Once again, you and @Julia aren't going to use the original cannon and are making your own. @erezkie's entire goal was to use pre-established cannon to make a ME3 that made more sense. And you still didn't answer me -- did you play ME2 or didn't you? Because I have trouble believeing you didn't play it. It you pick a pre-set part of the game to re-write from, like @erezkie did, you are resticted by the lore of the past game in what you can or can't do. That's the price of making a game that transitions from ME2 "seemlessly" - you have to build off the cannon of what's established in that game to make a new one that flows from it.

5>No. That's just automatic. I'm a positively-diagnosed OCD, remember? It's just how I emphesise a topic or word or sentance. It's not representitive of my mood or tone. If it were, I'd be using color-coding to dye it red (yes, that probably is as stupid as it sounds, but it's just how my mind functions). If anything, I'm the most reserved-looking emotionless-sounding person you'd ever meet face-to-face -- half the people I talk to or meet would never even believe I know how to laugh or raise my voice. That;s just how I am -- when I write in these forms or debates, I'm not conveying emotions like scorn of hate or anything of the like -- it's just mechanical underlining and emphesising. Nothing personal.

6> So then, how do you expect to really be able to re-write or re-boot a game if you' aren't passionate about it? I had @Julia chewing me out earlier in this very page saying that it was bull that you "weren't passionate" about it, and yet here you are admitting it. There's a difference between being passionate about a story and passionate about writing in general. To truly write a good story, you need to be passionate about it -- it's characters, it's lore, it's mythos. You can't do that if you don't care about any of those things. And with you, you're so blindly defending those "writers rights" that you refuse to accept that @erezkie's foundation for his re-write was flawed and thus would lead to a product that woud collapse. @Julia went around that by just re-booting the series from the ground-up into something new. You don't seem to get that if you do build off a set storyline like the end of ME2, you're restricted by the lore and cannon of what happened in that game.

7> She showed me what the original plot to bridge ME2 and the new ME3 would have been. It didn't hold up. And now, because she's shifted gears to a story that doesn't have any connection to the plot or lore of the original series, it doesn't matter. I judged what the original basis for @erezkie's story was because the foundation wasn't stable or grounded, meaning a product that, if built upon, would likely collapse.

Wrong. If you think that, you didn't read a single thing, or just skipped over it. I explained that Indoctrination operates through subsonic/untrasonic signlas that re-condition a person's thoughts while an electromagnetic field alters their neural functions. I also pointed out that this has never worked in a vacume due to the lack of atmosphere to conduct the soundwaves, making Indoctrination fall into the relm of fesible science. The info from the Codex was corrilated by the log entires made by the crew of the Derilict Reapers.
And IFY -- I WAS COMPLEMENTING YOU. You're comments led to something I never thought about before - a way to realsiticly and effectively block indoctrination (an airtight vacuum where subsonic waves can't be carried). I was THANKING YOU.. Did you really misinterpert me that much? I was saying that what you said is SUPPORTED by the events and lore of what's in the game.

If you think that, you really misinterperted everything I've ever said here. As I've said before, it was [b]never personal. Not once in this entire thing -- there was never any sort of grudge match like what you're claiming. And by saying that, you're basically saying it wasn't worth it to defend you're ideals.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

:head desk: I didn't say I was rebooting the whole trilogy. I've changed the name of our group. It may or may not be properly called a rewrite. It may or may not be properly called a reboot. It may or may not be properly called seamless, and seamless has been removed from the vision because that may not be necessary either.

Alleyd and I are on the same page. We're going to do what we're going to do. I'm not that passionate about the games either -- they're messes IMO. I like the universes and the characters. Story writing is something I love.

I'm enjoying the last few nice days we're having before the rains start playing golf and enjoying the nice new set of irons and fairway woods I got for my birthday. I've never had a really nice set of clubs before. I just need to get a nice driver and a new putter.

What I don't like to do is have to fix someone else's mess before starting on a creative endeavor. So I'm no longer going to guarantee seamless. The old story may fall off in a black hole, or someone on the team can fix it to fit with a 10 page canon plot summary (aka "CliffsNotes") for the two games.

This exchange is over.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 07 octobre 2013 - 08:57 .

[Redbelle]

edit

nvm

Modifié par Redbelle, 07 octobre 2013 - 02:20 .

[Erez Kristal]

I updated the op message, the project is continuing to make good progress.

[silverexile17s]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

:head desk: I didn't say I was rebooting the whole trilogy. I've changed the name of our group. It may or may not be properly called a rewrite. It may or may not be properly called a reboot. It may or may not be properly called seamless, and seamless has been removed from the vision because that may not be necessary either.

Alleyd and I are on the same page. We're going to do what we're going to do. I'm not that passionate about the games either -- they're messes IMO. I like the universes and the characters. Story writing is something I love.

I'm enjoying the last few nice days we're having before the rains start playing golf and enjoying the nice new set of irons and fairway woods I got for my birthday. I've never had a really nice set of clubs before. I just need to get a nice driver and a new putter.

What I don't like to do is have to fix someone else's mess before starting on a creative endeavor. So I'm no longer going to guarantee seamless. The old story may fall off in a black hole, or someone on the team can fix it to fit with a 10 page canon plot summary (aka "CliffsNotes") for the two games.

This exchange is over.

You practally are though -- by re-botting the entire baseline lore of how the Reapers operate to how severaly the protheans lost. That alters everything from ME1 onward -- that makes it a full re-boot.

And so-far, it doesn't look like you're on the same page since he didn't know half of what you told me in the PM. Besides, I already said that since you aren't using any of the established lore and are doing things from the ground-up, I've got no problem. It's only if you'd picked a set of established lore like @erezkie did with ME2 -- he failed to make a story that didn't contridict what was in the lore he was building off of. You aren't using any of it yourself, so there's no problem here. And again, it's hard to write a good story for something if you don't have any real love for the series. You can say "hey, I'm an anime fan," but if you pick just any random anime that you don't have any actual love for, you likely aren't going to succeed in making a story that does it justice.

No kidding? I golf too -- Tiwn Lakes in Wisconsin. Nice place.

Again, that's my point -- you've cast aside the idea of fixing or re-writing ME3, and instead have opted to make a completely seperate mythos with it's own lore.

Now, this exchange is over.

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

I updated the op message, the project is continuing to make good progress.

Speaking of that -- you fix the faulty lore problems? Because if not, you're just making a faulty building.

BTW, you sent me a firend request? Why?

Modifié par silverexile17s, 08 octobre 2013 - 08:18 .

[Erez Kristal]

silverexile17s wrote...

erezike wrote...

I updated the op message, the project is continuing to make good progress.

Speaking of that -- you fix the faulty lore problems? Because if not, you're just making a faulty building.

BTW, you sent me a firend request? Why?

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

erezike wrote...

I updated the op message, the project is continuing to make good progress.

Speaking of that -- you fix the faulty lore problems? Because if not, you're just making a faulty building.

BTW, you sent me a firend request? Why?

THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. What is it you want? A PM. Are you trying to involve me in this group. I'd just like some spicifics is all. That's NOT much to ask for.

So how about you just stop beating around the bush and give me a straight answer?

Modifié par silverexile17s, 08 octobre 2013 - 09:41 .

[Erez Kristal]

This page has been getting into unproductive discussion, you are passionate about mass effect which is good. maybe it could still be made of good use.

I am not planning to discuss any plot decisions here. and even more so, i will not discuss anything in this manners.(thus the faceplam)

[silverexile17s]

erezike wrote...

This page has been getting into unproductive discussion, you are passionate about mass effect which is good. maybe it could still be made of good use.

I am not planning to discuss any plot decisions here. and even more so, i will not discuss anything in this manners.(thus the faceplam)

Then just say up front that you'd rather talk in PM. Which you could have done from the start (thus my facepalm).

[silverexile17s]

Also - there was one last thing to ask @Julia and @Alleyd.

The method to alter Arrival -- the one I figured out to delay the Reapers -- Is that safe for me to post here?

[Erez Kristal]

you are free to posts your ideas as you see fit.
but please avoid from spoilers for the other writers.

Modifié par erezike, 09 octobre 2013 - 06:48 .

[aprilia1k]

silverexile17s wrote...

aprilia1k wrote...

@silverexile17s wrote: "No, my interpertation is not subjective here..."

Dude -- you are a perfectly good orator -- but you are totally clueless with regard to "self awareness".

Harbinger's "assuming control" was direct enough involvement.. the Collectors were building a giant "Human Reaper" -- to further accelerate their attacks -- they were not acting on their OWN... their was NO "their own". They were clearly and definitely doing the REAPER'S WORK ... attacking Humankind. Your portrayal of it - which you keep calling factual - is textbook OPINION.

You need to work on self-awareness - on how you come across as completely and totally opinionated to the point of obessiveness. OCD I totally believe. I'd throw-in Borderline quite frankly..... I'm out -- no talking to you.

Wrong. That would be YOU.

Harbinger's "assuming direct control" was Remote involvement. Direct involvement would be what Sovergein did with the geth. It's still fighting simple pawns instead of doing anything against the main threat. The Collectors were building the Human Reaper as a head-start for the harvest, and it was nothing major for the Reapers -- they had more then enough humans to take when they arrived, taking nearly five times the Collector's qouta in a single week. Making it completely pointless since six months later, they re-did it and got farther along. They were acting on their own - there WAS a "their own" as evidenced by how Harbinger has to directly assume control, meaning that they operate automatically for the most part. Like machines on auto-pilot. They were doing the Reapers work ON AUTO-PILOT. [/b]It wasn't a direct involvement like with Sovergein. It is textbook FACT. YOURS is textbook OPINION. Sovergein was here, Harbinger was not. Former is Direct involvement. Latter is Remote involvement.

You need to work on your comprehension, because it's not my self-awareness that needs to be looked at. I'm using what's shown in the damn game -- you are the one that's using opinion.

Harbinger was participating IN REAL TIME.   Comprehension?  Auto-pilot as in programmed, i.e. NOT "their own".  Doing the bidding of Harbinger.  And - your idea of inactive or indirect and remote is semantic at best.  Remote involvement can STILL be direct and active involvement - you retreat behind a weak semantic when you corner yourself dude.    Even in TODAY'S WORLD, people [b]ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in activities and projects from AROUND THE WORLD.  Multi-player ME3 -- is it autopilot or direct? Are people actively participating in that endeavor or not?  Harbinger's involvement IN EVERY ALTERCATION WAS ACTIVE, DIRECT INVOLVEMENT - AS MUCH AS ANY MULTI-PLAYER PARTICIPANT OR TELECONFERENCE-PARTICIPANT can direct activities REMOTELY...     - the simple fact that, at the VERY LEAST, your interpretation of Collector's activites is SUBJECTIVE OPINION that you REPRESENT AS FACT betrays your distorted logic and egocentric view of subjective material.  You use words like "FACT" with no regard for the definition of the word.  It's more than annoying..

[BioWareMod02]

This went down the hill pretty fast....and look! It stops right here!