407 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfva2]

o Ventus wrote...

I don't see how wanting something to be polarizing could ever be a good thing.

Why is intentionally alienating part of your fanbase a positive thing?

Well, not if you're trying to magnatize metal....
But....that is the MOST sensible comment I've seen in the thread so far.  Did it HAVE to come from you Ventus? 

[Wolfva2]

shingara wrote...

 Your whole replys are based upon IT when talking to me, its the basis of your arguments so dont even go there. Fact is original writers threaded dark energy and the reapers deeply within ME1 and 2, the new writers threw that out and implanted a child ( which is what they wanted the original repo reaper ME2 tobe) and dreams and turned the citidel which is a hidden mass relay into the creator and controler of the reapers (Even though the reapers created all the mass relays hidden or not including the citidel, chicken or the egg anyone!!).

   And people arnt polarised on the endings, they are antagonised by the endings, they are adhoured by specific endings and choices which revolve around no canon ending at all.  This topic is about what hudson is stating he did the endings for which anyone with any sense would call BS on instantly and simply hudson trying to smooth the anger and set a new landbase for the next mass effect to roll out from.

 People trying to find some order from the chaos that they have introduced by the endings to justify for what is for some people years of playing and reading anything and erything todo with mass effect isnt polarising the player base. Its there way of reacting to the situation of no ending at all.

  And if anyone thinks Hudson set out to split the playerbase, some of which were loyal fans for years of bioware and now will not touch a bioware game with a 10 foot bargepole after ME3 are quite simply out of there mind. If his intention was to create a polazrized playerbase they would not have gone back and redone it all and they wouldnt have created a dlc simply to make people feel happy happy and all warm inside to try and placate the older fans.


 So dont confuse polarising with adhourance because this is exactly what you are doing.

     

Really.  My 'WHOLE' replies have been based on IT.  Look, if you can't actually debate what I said than that's fine.  But don't make up hyperbolic arguments based on fantasy and expect me to rebut them.  I ain't playing that game.  Go back, READ my replies, then PROVE that the WHOLE replies have been about IT if you want to prove this paragraph wrong.  Otherwise, go find a more gullible person to troll.

As far as your continued redefining of 'polarise'.  Whatever.  You refuse to use accepted meanings of words and instead try to substitute your own meanings.  Well, words have specific meanings for a reason; without those meanings they're just gibberish.  You can't have a conversation if you only speak gibberish.  When you want to discuss things using the SAME language that I am...ie, 'the King's English' as it's often called, feel free to respond.  Otherwise, keep beating your chest and grunting.  Btw, adhourance?  THAT word ALSO does not mean what you seem to think it means.  It has NOTHING to do with 'polarising'.  Here's a hint, it stems from the verb 'to adhere'.

[FlamingBoy]

Wolfva2 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

"its a game" argument really just does not fly. Yes not everything has to make sense. The point is none of it makes any sense.

<shrug>  It flies for me.  And quite a bit about the game made sense to me; even the PTSD dreams Shep had; something we've debated in other posts ad nauseum. 

Now, let's take 'The Witcher', a game I think you like?  I didn't like it.  Didn't make to much sense to me, and I found it plain boring.  Does that make it a stinking peice of crap that no one likes?  Of course not.  It just means I didn't like it.  No biggie.  Which is the difference between me and many of the haters; they'll harp on a game they don't like for months or years.  I simply move on <shrug>.  I think if more people shared that attitude, the BSN would be a much less argumentive place.

And probably a LOT deader as well <LOL>.

.... There is a difference between you and the "haters", the "haters" criticise a product that exists to be criticised, you criticise the "haters". Unless you work for bioware there really is no logical motivation because you would have "moved on" by now.

If you desire to move on from your experiences in "The Witcher" you have full right to do so, if your still unhappy with the game you also have full right to continue complaining about it. However do it on the Witchers forum.

BSN does not exist to be argumentive, it exists for people to display their feelings upon the company. Any feeling positive or negative are caused (directly and indirectly) by the acts of bioware themselves. Hence the change of attitude to make bsn "a better place" is required by bioware, not the fans.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 août 2013 - 09:12 .

[shingara]

Wolfva2 wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Your whole replys are based upon IT when talking to me, its the basis of your arguments so dont even go there. Fact is original writers threaded dark energy and the reapers deeply within ME1 and 2, the new writers threw that out and implanted a child ( which is what they wanted the original repo reaper ME2 tobe) and dreams and turned the citidel which is a hidden mass relay into the creator and controler of the reapers (Even though the reapers created all the mass relays hidden or not including the citidel, chicken or the egg anyone!!).

   And people arnt polarised on the endings, they are antagonised by the endings, they are adhoured by specific endings and choices which revolve around no canon ending at all.  This topic is about what hudson is stating he did the endings for which anyone with any sense would call BS on instantly and simply hudson trying to smooth the anger and set a new landbase for the next mass effect to roll out from.

 People trying to find some order from the chaos that they have introduced by the endings to justify for what is for some people years of playing and reading anything and erything todo with mass effect isnt polarising the player base. Its there way of reacting to the situation of no ending at all.

  And if anyone thinks Hudson set out to split the playerbase, some of which were loyal fans for years of bioware and now will not touch a bioware game with a 10 foot bargepole after ME3 are quite simply out of there mind. If his intention was to create a polazrized playerbase they would not have gone back and redone it all and they wouldnt have created a dlc simply to make people feel happy happy and all warm inside to try and placate the older fans.


 So dont confuse polarising with adhourance because this is exactly what you are doing.

     

Really.  My 'WHOLE' replies have been based on IT.  Look, if you can't actually debate what I said than that's fine.  But don't make up hyperbolic arguments based on fantasy and expect me to rebut them.  I ain't playing that game.  Go back, READ my replies, then PROVE that the WHOLE replies have been about IT if you want to prove this paragraph wrong.  Otherwise, go find a more gullible person to troll.

As far as your continued redefining of 'polarise'.  Whatever.  You refuse to use accepted meanings of words and instead try to substitute your own meanings.  Well, words have specific meanings for a reason; without those meanings they're just gibberish.  You can't have a conversation if you only speak gibberish.  When you want to discuss things using the SAME language that I am...ie, 'the King's English' as it's often called, feel free to respond.  Otherwise, keep beating your chest and grunting.  Btw, adhourance?  THAT word ALSO does not mean what you seem to think it means.  It has NOTHING to do with 'polarising'.  Here's a hint, it stems from the verb 'to adhere'.

 Your entire first reply to me was about it and the dreams and ignored everything else i wrote and has followed the same track since. The bulk of your replys to me are you trying to explain the meaning of a word when you dont even understand the basis of its implementation within this debate. PS its the Queens english.

 People arnt polarized by the endings, they are adhoured by the endings, its not that they see those endings as perfect, its that they see the other endings going totaly against everything else sent down for shepard within the canon of mass effect.

 That somehow everything they have done within the previous games within the trilogy is for nothing. That trying to base an ending on a moral standing within the players own setting and to guilt them into specific endings isnt an ending at all.

 The whole ending of mass effect has antagonised alot of people, its has forced others to create whole new endings not related in anyway to the current endings. It caused bioware to go away and give shepard a get out of jail free card and an enitre new option for an ending simply because the endings themselves do not work in any way shape or form.

  And as for redifining anything, its you trying to redifine the article this topic is based upon and you sir who are trolling.

Wolfva2 wrote...

2) The Epilogues prove your IT theory to
be completely wrong.  Since the epilogue is for the PLAYERS edification,
and not SHEPARDS, it tells you exactly what DOES happen.  If you pick
synth or control, Shepard becomes one with the reapers or controls
them. 

Wolfva2 wrote...
Really.  My 'WHOLE' replies have been based on IT.  Look, if you can't
actually debate what I said than that's fine.  But don't make up
hyperbolic arguments based on fantasy and expect me to rebut them.  I
ain't playing that game.  Go back, READ my replies, then PROVE that the
WHOLE replies have been about IT if you want to prove this paragraph
wrong.  Otherwise, go find a more gullible person to troll.

Proven, thanks good night.

 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 09:29 .

[Dieb]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Any feeling positive or negative are caused (directly and indirectly) by the acts of bioware themselves. Hence the change of attitude to make bsn "a better place" is required by bioware, not the fans.

Sorry to chime in here so bluntly, but that is one very dangerous notion.

I don't believe you truly think that BioWare is the one responsible to change the general tone around here, regardless if their decisions made people upset or not. These are two very different things you're speaking of. I don't make my conversational maturity dependent on others.

There's a difference between the content and the choice of words in your postings. And we as a community are very well the only ones responsible to change that -- in other words: if this were a forum filled with mature and constructive discussions solely about things people heavily dislike, I would see no need to make it a "better place" in the first place.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 05 août 2013 - 09:36 .

[Xamufam]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Every producer of a story wants it widely talked about -- that would typically indicate success by them.



Is it so hard to believe that BW simply miscalculated and delivered an ending that didn't create the desired response?

I will say it yet again (in one of your threads): the answer to everything is not "indoctrination."

maybe it isn't, but shepard has showed too many symptoms of it

Modifié par Troxa, 05 août 2013 - 10:01 .

[Wolfva2]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

"its a game" argument really just does not fly. Yes not everything has to make sense. The point is none of it makes any sense.

<shrug>  It flies for me.  And quite a bit about the game made sense to me; even the PTSD dreams Shep had; something we've debated in other posts ad nauseum. 

Now, let's take 'The Witcher', a game I think you like?  I didn't like it.  Didn't make to much sense to me, and I found it plain boring.  Does that make it a stinking peice of crap that no one likes?  Of course not.  It just means I didn't like it.  No biggie.  Which is the difference between me and many of the haters; they'll harp on a game they don't like for months or years.  I simply move on <shrug>.  I think if more people shared that attitude, the BSN would be a much less argumentive place.

And probably a LOT deader as well <LOL>.

.... There is a difference between you and the "haters", the "haters" criticise a product that exists to be criticised, you criticise the "haters". Unless you work for bioware there really is no logical motivation because you would have "moved on" by now.

If you desire to move on from your experiences in "The Witcher" you have full right to do so, if your still unhappy with the game you also have full right to continue complaining about it. However do it on the Witchers forum.

BSN does not exist to be argumentive, it exists for people to display their feelings upon the company. Any feeling positive or negative are caused (directly and indirectly) by the acts of bioware themselves. Hence the change of attitude to make bsn "a better place" is required by bioware, not the fans.

Well....that's a phylosophical difference we have...that products exist to be criticized.  I mean, I doubt any game designer sits down and says, "C'mon guys!  It's our job to make something people will complain about!"  Although...that WOULD explain Hudson's comment about wanting to polarise people.  Perhaps you're right.  I always figure they're more like, 'Hey guys, let's make a great game lots of people will want to buy so we can stay employed and pay our bills on time! BOOYAH!"  I'll mention I consider a large difference between what you described (critiquing) and what the 'haters' do...which in my lexicon means 'people who continue to beat the dead horse about how much they hate something while demanding everyone else feel the same way and denigrating those who don't'.  Critiquing is a good thing, and can help companies make better products.  14+ months of, "I hate this game!  The writers SUCK!  They don't know what they're doing!  I hope BW/EA dies in a fire!" isn't exactly critiquing, nor is it a good thing.

Bioware simply makes the product.  They don't direct the way we feel...WE do that.  It is impossible for they, or any other, company to make something that is universally liked.  The only thing they CAN do is make a product they THINK people will like.  If they pick wrong, they go out of business.  And rightly so.

[Modius Prime]

When you beat a game or read a book that is intended to be a conclusion, it should tie all the loose ends, but the ending gave more questions than answers. And coming from a BioWare game that is supposed to be about story and characters, I'm really suprised at the approach that they took on the ending. They knew how much the game ment to so many fans, but ultimately it was their decision. I'm not mad at the ending, not am I mad at BioWare. I'm mad about how many expectations I had for the game, which ending up being hyped nonsense in the end. I guess, in a way, that it's my fault for lingering around these forums, trying to convince myself that it was some b.s reason that the game winded up being the way it is. BioWare made the game, they have the rights to do whatever they want with it, so I'm just going to thank them for making a game that made me care so much, despite the fact that it's been so long and so many other good games have come out. I can only blame myself.

[Wolfva2]

shingara wrote...


 Your entire first reply to me was about it and the dreams and ignored everything else i wrote and has followed the same track since. The bulk of your replys to me are you trying to explain the meaning of a word when you dont even understand the basis of its implementation within this debate. PS its the Queens english.

 People arnt polarized by the endings, they are adhoured by the endings, its not that they see those endings as perfect, its that they see the other endings going totaly against everything else sent down for shepard within the canon of mass effect.

 That somehow everything they have done within the previous games within the trilogy is for nothing. That trying to base an ending on a moral standing within the players own setting and to guilt them into specific endings isnt an ending at all.

 The whole ending of mass effect has antagonised alot of people, its has forced others to create whole new endings not related in anyway to the current endings. It caused bioware to go away and give shepard a get out of jail free card and an enitre new option for an ending simply because the endings themselves do not work in any way shape or form.

  And as for redifining anything, its you trying to redifine the article this topic is based upon and you sir who are trolling.

Wolfva2 wrote...

2) The Epilogues prove your IT theory to
be completely wrong.  Since the epilogue is for the PLAYERS edification,
and not SHEPARDS, it tells you exactly what DOES happen.  If you pick
synth or control, Shepard becomes one with the reapers or controls
them. 

Wolfva2 wrote...
Really.  My 'WHOLE' replies have been based on IT.  Look, if you can't
actually debate what I said than that's fine.  But don't make up
hyperbolic arguments based on fantasy and expect me to rebut them.  I
ain't playing that game.  Go back, READ my replies, then PROVE that the
WHOLE replies have been about IT if you want to prove this paragraph
wrong.  Otherwise, go find a more gullible person to troll.

Proven, thanks good night.

 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

BZZZZZ.  I am sorry, but that is an incorrect answer and you lose.  You stated that my WHOLE RESPONCES to you were entirely IT.  You then post an edited response..my first to you, about what I saw as you talking about IT.  You forgot to edit out the 2) though.  '1)' was me talking about polarizing.  My follow up response to you was:

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee.  Shepard dreamed the whole thing,
or  Shepard was brainwashed into thinking it was real.  Well, I really
don't see the difference between the two.  Especially since many IT
theorists seem to believe that IT IS a dream state.  How they came to
that conclusion, I dunno.  But logic doesn't seem to be a strong point
with them.  

In any case, none of that matters.  The point being,
the epilogues show that it ISN'T a dream sequence.  The Starbrat isn't
really Anderson's Autistic kid shaking a Normandy snowglobe and making
the whole story up.  Shepard isn't indoctrinated, nor is he dreaming. 
The epilogues tell US...the PLAYERS...what happened after your Shep
makes his decision.

Edited to add....It IS a polarizing issue.
 Considering how much fighting has gone on in this forum with people
taking sides, it's the text book definition of polarising.  Polarising
comes from the world Polar, meaning 'going towards the Poles', or
opposite ends of an argument in this case.  Many people went pro, many
went anti.  Text book definition.

Lessee.  Not only is this ANOTHER responce which was not 'wholly' devoted to IT, it was just a comparison of IT to your dream theory in response to your question.  I was explaining why I thought you were trying to sneak in IT.    Second paragraph though is the prime one.  "In any case, none of that matters."  In other words, whether or not it's a dream, IT, or the Chicago Hope reference DOES NOT MATTER because of the EPILOGUE.  It shows us what happens after Shep makes his decision...meaning those decisions happen.  And then I go on more about polarizing.  Because I couldn't care less about IT, or any of that other guff.  But YOU keep bringing it up.  Why not just let it die?  I've tried to, but you won't let it.

 That you can't even be man enough to admit that my 'WHOLE REPLIES' weren't about IT and instead have to toss up an editted quote to 'prove' yourself is sad.

You are right that 'adhorance' has nothing to do with adherance.  I was in a rush when I looked it up.  In fact, 'adhorance' doesn't seem to mean ANYTHING, nor it's alternate spelling which you used, "adhourance'.  It's not in the dictionary.  I think the word you want to use is ABHORANCE.  Which fits your definition, and proves my point that some people were polarised.  Since when you are polarised you gravitate to either extreme liking (love) or extreme dislike (hate).  Many people were driven to those 2 extremes, as this board is ample evidence of.  Oh the threads back then! 

[Zavox]

shingara wrote...
 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Before you get all mighty on us with your knowledge of the english language, maybe you should look at your own spelling first. 'Adhorance' is completely misspelled and looks more akin to adherance than abhorrence.

I believe that creating a story with the main thought being; it needs to be talked about and I will accomplish such with whatever means I can conjure, is the wrong line of thought. Polarizing a fanbase has never been a good idea, especially on the long term.

[FlamingBoy]

Baelrahn wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Any feeling positive or negative are caused (directly and indirectly) by the acts of bioware themselves. Hence the change of attitude to make bsn "a better place" is required by bioware, not the fans.

Sorry to chime in here so bluntly, but that is one very dangerous notion.

I don't believe you truly think that BioWare is the one responsible to change the general tone around here, regardless if their decisions made people upset or not. These are two very different things you're speaking of. I don't make my conversational maturity dependent on others.

There's a difference between the content and the choice of words in your postings. And we as a community are very well the only ones responsible to change that -- in other words: if this were a forum filled with mature and constructive discussions solely about things people heavily dislike, I would see no need to make it a "better place" in the first place.

People don't have problems with whats written, they have a problem with negativity.

We are as individuals are ultimately responsible for our individual actions, we are not responsible for bsn.  If my behaviour has been less than what is required in legality (ie death threats and the like) point it out. otherwise people need to stop demanding the "community to change" its not our problems.

Bioware cannot be responsible for every single mans actions however they can create a general air of positivitiy....

How? well by creating an ending that is not "polarising" would be a mighty good start.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 août 2013 - 10:47 .

[FlamingBoy]

Wolfva2 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

"its a game" argument really just does not fly. Yes not everything has to make sense. The point is none of it makes any sense.

<shrug>  It flies for me.  And quite a bit about the game made sense to me; even the PTSD dreams Shep had; something we've debated in other posts ad nauseum. 

Now, let's take 'The Witcher', a game I think you like?  I didn't like it.  Didn't make to much sense to me, and I found it plain boring.  Does that make it a stinking peice of crap that no one likes?  Of course not.  It just means I didn't like it.  No biggie.  Which is the difference between me and many of the haters; they'll harp on a game they don't like for months or years.  I simply move on <shrug>.  I think if more people shared that attitude, the BSN would be a much less argumentive place.

And probably a LOT deader as well <LOL>.

.... There is a difference between you and the "haters", the "haters" criticise a product that exists to be criticised, you criticise the "haters". Unless you work for bioware there really is no logical motivation because you would have "moved on" by now.

If you desire to move on from your experiences in "The Witcher" you have full right to do so, if your still unhappy with the game you also have full right to continue complaining about it. However do it on the Witchers forum.

BSN does not exist to be argumentive, it exists for people to display their feelings upon the company. Any feeling positive or negative are caused (directly and indirectly) by the acts of bioware themselves. Hence the change of attitude to make bsn "a better place" is required by bioware, not the fans.

Well....that's a phylosophical difference we have...that products exist to be criticized.  I mean, I doubt any game designer sits down and says, "C'mon guys!  It's our job to make something people will complain about!"  Although...that WOULD explain Hudson's comment about wanting to polarise people.  Perhaps you're right.  I always figure they're more like, 'Hey guys, let's make a great game lots of people will want to buy so we can stay employed and pay our bills on time! BOOYAH!"  I'll mention I consider a large difference between what you described (critiquing) and what the 'haters' do...which in my lexicon means 'people who continue to beat the dead horse about how much they hate something while demanding everyone else feel the same way and denigrating those who don't'.  Critiquing is a good thing, and can help companies make better products.  14+ months of, "I hate this game!  The writers SUCK!  They don't know what they're doing!  I hope BW/EA dies in a fire!" isn't exactly critiquing, nor is it a good thing.

Bioware simply makes the product.  They don't direct the way we feel...WE do that.  It is impossible for they, or any other, company to make something that is universally liked.  The only thing they CAN do is make a product they THINK people will like.  If they pick wrong, they go out of business.  And rightly so.

God, I hate you insuniations, your examples, your hypotheticals, and your misrepresentation of proper critique which many people on these forums have presented.

The general aggressiveness of writing style makes your points fall flat, not because its without merit but in the way its presented.

[shingara]

Wolfva2 wrote...

shingara wrote...


 Your entire first reply to me was about it and the dreams and ignored everything else i wrote and has followed the same track since. The bulk of your replys to me are you trying to explain the meaning of a word when you dont even understand the basis of its implementation within this debate. PS its the Queens english.

 People arnt polarized by the endings, they are adhoured by the endings, its not that they see those endings as perfect, its that they see the other endings going totaly against everything else sent down for shepard within the canon of mass effect.

 That somehow everything they have done within the previous games within the trilogy is for nothing. That trying to base an ending on a moral standing within the players own setting and to guilt them into specific endings isnt an ending at all.

 The whole ending of mass effect has antagonised alot of people, its has forced others to create whole new endings not related in anyway to the current endings. It caused bioware to go away and give shepard a get out of jail free card and an enitre new option for an ending simply because the endings themselves do not work in any way shape or form.

  And as for redifining anything, its you trying to redifine the article this topic is based upon and you sir who are trolling.

Wolfva2 wrote...

2) The Epilogues prove your IT theory to
be completely wrong.  Since the epilogue is for the PLAYERS edification,
and not SHEPARDS, it tells you exactly what DOES happen.  If you pick
synth or control, Shepard becomes one with the reapers or controls
them. 

Wolfva2 wrote...
Really.  My 'WHOLE' replies have been based on IT.  Look, if you can't
actually debate what I said than that's fine.  But don't make up
hyperbolic arguments based on fantasy and expect me to rebut them.  I
ain't playing that game.  Go back, READ my replies, then PROVE that the
WHOLE replies have been about IT if you want to prove this paragraph
wrong.  Otherwise, go find a more gullible person to troll.

Proven, thanks good night.

 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

BZZZZZ.  I am sorry, but that is an incorrect answer and you lose.  You stated that my WHOLE RESPONCES to you were entirely IT.  You then post an edited response..my first to you, about what I saw as you talking about IT.  You forgot to edit out the 2) though.  '1)' was me talking about polarizing.  My follow up response to you was:

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee.  Shepard dreamed the whole thing,
or  Shepard was brainwashed into thinking it was real.  Well, I really
don't see the difference between the two.  Especially since many IT
theorists seem to believe that IT IS a dream state.  How they came to
that conclusion, I dunno.  But logic doesn't seem to be a strong point
with them.  

In any case, none of that matters.  The point being,
the epilogues show that it ISN'T a dream sequence.  The Starbrat isn't
really Anderson's Autistic kid shaking a Normandy snowglobe and making
the whole story up.  Shepard isn't indoctrinated, nor is he dreaming. 
The epilogues tell US...the PLAYERS...what happened after your Shep
makes his decision.

Edited to add....It IS a polarizing issue.
 Considering how much fighting has gone on in this forum with people
taking sides, it's the text book definition of polarising.  Polarising
comes from the world Polar, meaning 'going towards the Poles', or
opposite ends of an argument in this case.  Many people went pro, many
went anti.  Text book definition.

Lessee.  Not only is this ANOTHER responce which was not 'wholly' devoted to IT, it was just a comparison of IT to your dream theory in response to your question.  I was explaining why I thought you were trying to sneak in IT.    Second paragraph though is the prime one.  "In any case, none of that matters."  In other words, whether or not it's a dream, IT, or the Chicago Hope reference DOES NOT MATTER because of the EPILOGUE.  It shows us what happens after Shep makes his decision...meaning those decisions happen.  And then I go on more about polarizing.  Because I couldn't care less about IT, or any of that other guff.  But YOU keep bringing it up.  Why not just let it die?  I've tried to, but you won't let it.

 That you can't even be man enough to admit that my 'WHOLE REPLIES' weren't about IT and instead have to toss up an editted quote to 'prove' yourself is sad.

You are right that 'adhorance' has nothing to do with adherance.  I was in a rush when I looked it up.  In fact, 'adhorance' doesn't seem to mean ANYTHING, nor it's alternate spelling which you used, "adhourance'.  It's not in the dictionary.  I think the word you want to use is ABHORANCE.  Which fits your definition, and proves my point that some people were polarised.  Since when you are polarised you gravitate to either extreme liking (love) or extreme dislike (hate).  Many people were driven to those 2 extremes, as this board is ample evidence of.  Oh the threads back then! 

 Im not sure at the moment if you cannot read or you simply refuse to read. Your first response to me had nothing todo with anything i wrote and was entirly about what you think the word used in the article is based upon and not the actual actions taken at the time of the games initial release and not a reaction to the reactions of the playerbase resulting in the altered endings provided by bioware after the release of the game and  you go on to state about the dream and the indoctrination, and yes ive gone over your replys again just to check and its there in black and white. You ignore everything i wrote. You dont reply to the work put in by the original writers to the game through me1 and 2. You dont respond to the plot holes within 3 that demolish most of the lore in 1 and 2 a prime example again is that in 1 and 2 its stated that the reapers created the citidel and the mass relays yet in 3 somehow the citidel created the reapers who then instructed them to create the other mass relays.


  Whilst you are bounding about trying to state what the word means your not only missing the point but deliberatly ignoring the point of what action was taken upon which time for a specific outcome. And as other have stated aswell as myself that the reaction of the playerbase was not the action bioware wished to have implimented and that this article is a reaction to the initial reaction from the fans and not the action wish tobe attained.

   As for if the word adhorance has been redacted from the dictionary i do not know but whilst i was at shcool it was still there and abhhorance is not the word i was refering to nor the definition of the word.

 As for an edited quote, i removed the 1, which was you defining the word polarised which is quite plain to see simply by going to page 4.

 So all in all within this debate you have argued about what the word polarised means, what the dream could or couldnt mean and IT. You have not read any replays in concern to if bioware intended this reaction to be attained, if they wish this action to be attaion why did they change it twice and to whit is this infact a reaction to possible news coming out about mass effect 4 and how the way the endings were handled by bioware how stable is the footing for any sequel to the mass effect universe when there is no canon ending to ME3 and the dramatic differences between the endings in ME3 require any game set after to create canon the denounces a bulk of the playerbases choices within 3 resulting from actions taken in 1 and 2 culminating within 3 to mean nought.

  Which all in all points to the fact that news shall be coming down the pipe about ME4 that is going to peev off alot of people and they are simply sending out the feelers now to get a sense of the reaction.

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 10:59 .

[Wayning_Star]

polarizing? fans talking?

on the internet?


lolz

[shingara]

Zavox wrote...

shingara wrote...
 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Before you get all mighty on us with your knowledge of the english language, maybe you should look at your own spelling first. 'Adhorance' is completely misspelled and looks more akin to adherance than abhorrence.

I believe that creating a story with the main thought being; it needs to be talked about and I will accomplish such with whatever means I can conjure, is the wrong line of thought. Polarizing a fanbase has never been a good idea, especially on the long term.

 Whos going all high and mighty, ps i wasnt refering to abhorance or adherance but thanks. And yes to get people talking about ME3 just requires them to create a good game, a great story and a brilliant ending. I dont know any company that thinks the best way to get great and loyal fans is to peev off half of them.

[Wayning_Star]

shingara wrote...

Zavox wrote...

shingara wrote...
 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Before you get all mighty on us with your knowledge of the english language, maybe you should look at your own spelling first. 'Adhorance' is completely misspelled and looks more akin to adherance than abhorrence.

I believe that creating a story with the main thought being; it needs to be talked about and I will accomplish such with whatever means I can conjure, is the wrong line of thought. Polarizing a fanbase has never been a good idea, especially on the long term.

 Whos going all high and mighty, ps i wasnt refering to abhorance or adherance but thanks. And yes to get people talking about ME3 just requires them to create a good game, a great story and a brilliant ending. I dont know any company that thinks the best way to get great and loyal fans is to peev off half of them.

I'm thinking that most of the "peeving" is self induced out rage. Not fact based.

[shingara]

Wayning_Star wrote...

shingara wrote...

Zavox wrote...

shingara wrote...
 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Before you get all mighty on us with your knowledge of the english language, maybe you should look at your own spelling first. 'Adhorance' is completely misspelled and looks more akin to adherance than abhorrence.

I believe that creating a story with the main thought being; it needs to be talked about and I will accomplish such with whatever means I can conjure, is the wrong line of thought. Polarizing a fanbase has never been a good idea, especially on the long term.

 Whos going all high and mighty, ps i wasnt refering to abhorance or adherance but thanks. And yes to get people talking about ME3 just requires them to create a good game, a great story and a brilliant ending. I dont know any company that thinks the best way to get great and loyal fans is to peev off half of them.

I'm thinking that most of the "peeving" is self induced out rage. Not fact based.

 Very well could be but ME3 was only hated for the ending, not the majority of the game and no one understood the kid thing. And facts are few and far between when it comes to ME3, be it the canon or what its based upon, the canon introduced in 3 and wtf it actualy means for most of it and how in the bejesus do they set a sequel after 3 if that is infact there intention without forcing a canon ending down peoples throats that revoke any choices made within 1-2-3 of the trilogy.

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 11:14 .

[Wayning_Star]

shingara wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

shingara wrote...

Zavox wrote...

shingara wrote...
 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Before you get all mighty on us with your knowledge of the english language, maybe you should look at your own spelling first. 'Adhorance' is completely misspelled and looks more akin to adherance than abhorrence.

I believe that creating a story with the main thought being; it needs to be talked about and I will accomplish such with whatever means I can conjure, is the wrong line of thought. Polarizing a fanbase has never been a good idea, especially on the long term.

 Whos going all high and mighty, ps i wasnt refering to abhorance or adherance but thanks. And yes to get people talking about ME3 just requires them to create a good game, a great story and a brilliant ending. I dont know any company that thinks the best way to get great and loyal fans is to peev off half of them.

I'm thinking that most of the "peeving" is self induced out rage. Not fact based.

 Very well could be but ME3 was only hated for the ending, not the majority of the game and no one understand the kid thing. And facts are few and far between when it comes to ME3, be it the canon or what its based upon, the canon introduced in 3 and wtf it actualy means for most of it and how in the bejesus do they set a sequel after 3 if that is infact there intention without forcing a canon ending down peoples throats that revoke any choices made within 1-2-3 of the trilogy.

Yeah, but in the end, the time frame is what makes the next ME possible as is. There can be no references, or only small references to the current situation/decision/greatwars thing left over from Shepards trilogy. Then a new experience can be retro fitted into another story in the MEU.


As far as it goes, that forcing thing is only a reference to the fact that all choices are not crafted to be equal.  The aggravator, imho, is that there isn't just ONE choice all can or get stuck with as the story absolute. My take on it was synthesis as the basic win win choice or an inevitable absolute. Base this on the fact that MEU cannot exist with out reaper technology and that stuff being the basis for living machines to compete with by organic life forms. The irony is that the organic races devise this through their evolution. Heck, we even cheat to get the stuff we think we need, and the catalyst relies on that evolutionary trait to gather thralls.

[Zavox]

shingara wrote...

Zavox wrote...

shingara wrote...
 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Before you get all mighty on us with your knowledge of the english language, maybe you should look at your own spelling first. 'Adhorance' is completely misspelled and looks more akin to adherance than abhorrence.

I believe that creating a story with the main thought being; it needs to be talked about and I will accomplish such with whatever means I can conjure, is the wrong line of thought. Polarizing a fanbase has never been a good idea, especially on the long term.

 Whos going all high and mighty, ps i wasnt refering to abhorance or adherance but thanks. And yes to get people talking about ME3 just requires them to create a good game, a great story and a brilliant ending. I dont know any company that thinks the best way to get great and loyal fans is to peev off half of them.

Adhorance simply doesn't exist, nor has it ever existed, outside of misspelling of abhorrence.

You said:

Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Dictionary on abhorrence:

Abhorrence is a feeling of hate and disgust

ad = prefix for towards
ab = prefix for away from

If you feel that you're repulsed by something to a degree of hate, how would ad as a prefix make sense?

Modifié par Zavox, 05 août 2013 - 11:35 .

[shingara]

@wayning_star, wont quote cos it will prob take up a full page now

As it stands everything bar the endings can be carried over from 1,2 and 3 without major impact upon any sequel. But the endings are a whole different story. If synth is chosen by someone that would require a total different game then destroy. If control is chosen that also requires major alterations within 4 if it is a sequel.

My gut tells me that bioware are about to land a huge canon ending on us for 3 to set 4 in place is all and they are relating the "ow but we wanted to polarise the playerbase" stuff now so any bad press can be pointed to well they were aiming for that in the first place.

[dorktainian]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee. Shepard dreamed the whole thing,
or Shepard was brainwashed into thinking it was real. Well, I really
don't see the difference between the two. Especially since many IT
theorists seem to believe that IT IS a dream state. How they came to
that conclusion, I dunno. But logic doesn't seem to be a strong point
with them.

In any case, none of that matters. The point being,
the epilogues show that it ISN'T a dream sequence. The Starbrat isn't
really Anderson's Autistic kid shaking a Normandy snowglobe and making
the whole story up. Shepard isn't indoctrinated, nor is he dreaming.
The epilogues tell US...the PLAYERS...what happened after your Shep
makes his decision.

.........



Lulz... lets talk logic eh?
Just answer me one question and one question only.

Why does shepard take a breath in the destroy ending?


Now think about this for one moment.  The breath invalidates every other ending.
Why?  Because Shepard is taking a breath while lying in the rubble.      

If you look, there are earth alliance markings on the concrete of the rubble.  Clearly visible as the camera pans over towards where shepard is lying in the rubble.

Is it the citadel rubble?  err........nope.  Huge explosion would have kinda used up all the air around shepard, if the explosion didnt fry the guy.  Which it would have if you look at the scale of it.  Imagine the intensity of the heat alone...  Crispy Shepard wings plz...      No........  Science fiction besides.  No just No.  If he's on the citadel he's dead no matter what.  

[shingara]

Zavox wrote...

shingara wrote...

Zavox wrote...

shingara wrote...
 Ow PS adhorance is nothing todo with adherance, Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Before you get all mighty on us with your knowledge of the english language, maybe you should look at your own spelling first. 'Adhorance' is completely misspelled and looks more akin to adherance than abhorrence.

I believe that creating a story with the main thought being; it needs to be talked about and I will accomplish such with whatever means I can conjure, is the wrong line of thought. Polarizing a fanbase has never been a good idea, especially on the long term.

 Whos going all high and mighty, ps i wasnt refering to abhorance or adherance but thanks. And yes to get people talking about ME3 just requires them to create a good game, a great story and a brilliant ending. I dont know any company that thinks the best way to get great and loyal fans is to peev off half of them.

Adhorance simply doesn't exist, nor has it ever existed, outside of misspelling of abhorrence.

You said:

Adhorance is to detest or be repulsed by something to a degree of hate.

Dictionary on abhorrence:

Abhorrence is a feeling of hate and disgust

ad = prefix for towards
ab = prefix for away from

If you feel that you're repulsed by something to a degree of hate, how would ad as a prefix make sense?

 Fine suzy let it be Abhorrance if it makes you feel better. Though i did just realise that its an aramaic reference i am refering too.

[Wayning_Star]

shingara wrote...

@wayning_star, wont quote cos it will prob take up a full page now

As it stands everything bar the endings can be carried over from 1,2 and 3 without major impact upon any sequel. But the endings are a whole different story. If synth is chosen by someone that would require a total different game then destroy. If control is chosen that also requires major alterations within 4 if it is a sequel.

My gut tells me that bioware are about to land a huge canon ending on us for 3 to set 4 in place is all and they are relating the "ow but we wanted to polarise the playerbase" stuff now so any bad press can be pointed to well they were aiming for that in the first place.

I dunno, they've been pretty adamant about the next one not having any bearing or relation to the present MEU, only that it exists IN the MEU as the story continues without Shepard.(actual long shot I'd guess it would have to occur way off in the future. Nearest relation to the star gazer scene as it seems to of happened millions of years in the future and all that remains of the actual Shepard story is mythical legend and lore. All can be misinterpreted handily... fog of war stuff. 

[shingara]

Wayning_Star wrote...

shingara wrote...

@wayning_star, wont quote cos it will prob take up a full page now

As it stands everything bar the endings can be carried over from 1,2 and 3 without major impact upon any sequel. But the endings are a whole different story. If synth is chosen by someone that would require a total different game then destroy. If control is chosen that also requires major alterations within 4 if it is a sequel.

My gut tells me that bioware are about to land a huge canon ending on us for 3 to set 4 in place is all and they are relating the "ow but we wanted to polarise the playerbase" stuff now so any bad press can be pointed to well they were aiming for that in the first place.

I dunno, they've been pretty adamant about the next one not having any bearing or relation to the present MEU, only that it exists IN the MEU as the story continues without Shepard.(actual long shot I'd guess it would have to occur way off in the future. Nearest relation to the star gazer scene as it seems to of happened millions of years in the future and all that remains of the actual Shepard story is mythical legend and lore. All can be misinterpreted handily... fog of war stuff. 

 Well all they have said is that it wont have shep in it. doesnt mean he or she wont be in the universe or history of the universe. As it stands the next mass effect could be anything from a private eye on the citidel, ooo goody not. Or something else mundain.

 We know they dont want you to be militery, but we can guess its gonna be on a crew based system, its gonna have a running world similar to DA so possibly open free roaming world and its more then likly gonna be in the future cos they have covered everything upto the end of 3.


 With the stargazer they talk about shepard as if that isnt the last thing they did but who knows maybe thats for a future not yet got enough money from the fans game.  But if direction is taking the same track as in ME3 then we could end up being a Corsec police man sat behind a desk for 15 hours filling in paper work.


 Edit, sorry being very skeptical in that reply. Just going over this topic brings up alot of old feelings of how bioware not only trounced most of 1 and 2 with 3 but never gave us a real ending.

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 12:09 .

[crimzontearz]

As I used to say before...the only thing I can think when I see this is "you want me to do your job and "imagine" the actual ending? You want me to speculate about the ending to a story you marketed to me as MINE? FINE....when ME4 comes out you can speculate as per why I am getting it used and imagine my $59.99 plus tax"