337 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's exactly right, yes. I was providing the sillest example I could think of.

You are FULLY aware of how retarded that sounds, yes?

And why exactly is it 'retarded'?

Because you aren't providing and rule or context as to why something is acceptable in one form of fiction, while the exact same thing in another form of fiction is not. It's a total lack of a coherent argument.

Your point boils down to "it is because I say it is".

Modifié par o Ventus, 12 août 2013 - 01:16 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

o Ventus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I'm sorry o Ventus, but you really, really, REALLY are wrong on this.

Except I'm not. Unlike most things that happen here, this actually IS a difference in subjectivity. I consider something to be a "benefit" when it provides me with a means to sustain myself (or otherwise improve myself) or puts me in a position above someone else. If it does either of these things, then that's great. If not, then I see it as little more than something else to carry around.

If you miss a 10,000 dollar payment on your house, I wouldn't call your next 5,000 dollar paycheck a "benefit", because now your house has been foreclosed.

Ventus, according to Keynesian Economics, you're wrong.

According to monetarism, you're wrong.

According to Capitalist theory, you're wrong.

According to Value Theory, you're wrong.

The many different theories behind economics are all subjective in their effectiveness, yes. If they weren't, then we'd have a perfect economic system.

But when it comes to actually defining a benefit or a gain, that $5,000 is a gain. A benefit. It's something to your name. It's resources. You're gaining from something. You're benefitting from something. It's cause-and-effect.

[David7204]

I didn't intend to explain why. Is it necessary? Surely we all realize the vast difference between how death is portrayed and received in comedy and lighter fiction and how death is portrayed in serious, dramatic fiction such as Mass Effect? Not to mention the differences between characters within that genre?

Modifié par David7204, 12 août 2013 - 01:18 .

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The many different theories behind economics are all subjective in their effectiveness, yes. If they weren't, then we'd have a perfect economic system.

That depends on if the goals of such a system are defined or not. Since they generally are, it's really not subjective at all.

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

I didn't intend to explain why. Is it necessary? Surely we all realize the vast difference between how death is portrayed in comedy and lighter fiction and how death is portrayed in serious, dramatic fiction such as Mass Effect?

Which is irrelevant. You only mentioned ATHF after the fact.

According to you, ME is a drama. Using this same logic, the first Spider-Man movie is a drama. The first Spider-Man movie, like I said, involves the Green Goblin throwing a pumpkin grenade into a crowd of civilians, which then incinerates them. If it's "badass" in one form of fiction, why is it automatically NOT in another?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Right. I should have said friendly characters. Obviously the villains kill innocent people.

Are they really the villains? 

It's not as clear cut as that. It's never that clear cut.

That's what makes Mass Effect so interesting.

TIM interesting after ME3?

As I wrote in the 'Cerberus Vindication' thread. Look at the ultimate reasons for why he did what he did. Look at his reaction when you talk him into killing himself. Look at how he believes in prosecuting the war against the Reapers (at least before indoctrination).

I don't know about you, but I find that very interesting and intriguing.

Sur'Kesh, the Citadel Coup and the Tuchanka bomb and cannon are not the mark of a great, intellectual and interesting villain. They are the marks of a retarded one.

As I recall, TIM was under indoctrination at this time. His purpose, beyond the superficial veneer of helping humanity that the Reapers allowed him to believe, was to cause chaos and conflict to the forces fighting the Reapers. It falls under their divide and conquer strategy.

So you admit that TIM's role in ME3 can be summerized as "indoctrinated idiot" ? That his only purpose in the story is to provide more badguys to shoot.

Indoctrination was a great plot twist the first time it was used with Saren, but come ME3 and it is nothing more than a lazy excuse for cheap writing. Why give characters proper motivation for their actions when you can just handwave it all away with "lol he's brainwashed"?

You made a post that said "Are they really the villains?" yet when the character's action consist of nothing more than sabotaging the war effort and doing dumb **** for no other reason than lolindoctrination. Then said character is not some ambigious and interesting opposing force, he is instead just a annoying cartoon villain who needs to be stopped.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

And all that dumb mustache twirlling he did in the conversations didn't help either.

He didn't really do any mustache twirling. They way he spoke of his arguments makes it pretty obvious that he's not in control. The Reapers are.

Sure he did. On Mars and the old video logs on Cronos station he is not indoctrinated.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The many different theories behind economics are all subjective in their effectiveness, yes. If they weren't, then we'd have a perfect economic system.

That depends on if the goals of such a system are defined or not. Since they generally are, it's really not subjective at all.

That doesn't make any sense. Did you even read what ME0730 wrote?

[David7204]

It makes perfect sense. For example, suppose the goal of an economic system is to have the lowest rates of interest possible. An expansionary economic policy will do a better job of achieving that goal than a contractionary economic policy. That's not subjective at all. It's a statistical, objective fact.

Modifié par David7204, 12 août 2013 - 01:27 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The many different theories behind economics are all subjective in their effectiveness, yes. If they weren't, then we'd have a perfect economic system.

That depends on if the goals of such a system are defined or not. Since they generally are, it's really not subjective at all.

It's entirely subjective.

If they weren't subjective, we'd have a perfect economic system already. One of the methods would have to be correct.

Keynes wasn't right. The economy isn't some machine that the government can just force to work.

The Capitalist theory, or laissez-faire, isn't right either. The economy isn't something organic that will always balance itself out or work towards growth completely free of government control or regulation.

[shingara]

Im just wondering if we need the Brain gremlin from the new batch in here. Why are we discussing economics again ?

[Kel Riever]

Um, totally not reading through all 14 pages, BUT

@OP. Well, while I agree that High EMS destroy and finding out what happened to Shepard since Shep lived would be the best way to go, the issue is that BioWare SO screwed up the ending that there isn't any recovering from it until they fix the end of ME3. And since that is never, the best solution doesn't merit paying attention to.

You have the Glowjob in the first place, a premise that makes no sense, no choices worth mentioning because of the lack of logic used to make them, and you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of why any of the Geth or EDI had to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Now, if someone wants to totally hand-wave that the reason the Geth and EDI are destroyed makes not one iota of sense, and also totally ignore anything that comes out of the Glowjob's mouth, then sure....you would be presenting the best choice.

There's no recovering the series until that end is fixed. And since it isn't going to be, there's no recovering the series.

[Xilizhra]

Kel Riever wrote...

Um, totally not reading through all 14 pages, BUT

@OP. Well, while I agree that High EMS destroy and finding out what happened to Shepard since Shep lived would be the best way to go, the issue is that BioWare SO screwed up the ending that there isn't any recovering from it until they fix the end of ME3. And since that is never, the best solution doesn't merit paying attention to.

You have the Glowjob in the first place, a premise that makes no sense, no choices worth mentioning because of the lack of logic used to make them, and you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of why any of the Geth or EDI had to be destroyed along with the Reapers. Now, if someone wants to totally hand-wave that the reason the Geth and EDI are destroyed makes not one iota of sense, and also totally ignore anything that comes out of the Glowjob's mouth, then sure....you would be presenting the best choice.

There's no recovering the series until that end is fixed. And since it isn't going to be, there's no recovering the series.

Also, I'd really rather continue from Control or Synthesis myself.

[Ninja Stan]

No longer on topic.

End of line.