611 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

RZIBARA wrote...
Yes, why do we agree on everything?

Because I am right, of course!

[RZIBARA]

iakus wrote...

RZIBARA wrote...
Yes, why do we agree on everything?

Because I am right, of course!

I feel the same way about ME2.  I had posted something very similar a good amount of pages back. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

osbornep wrote...
EDIT: I'm not really a historian of philosophy, but where does Xenophon say anything about the Allegory of the Cave? My understanding is that the The Republic really shouldn't be taken as a word-for-word transcription of anything actually believed by the historical Socrates, given that it's written around 20 years after Socrates' death. A lot of Plato's dialogues consist in Plato using the figure of Socrates as a mouthpiece for ideas Plato wants to express.

This is a bit sketchy. Plato was actually the one (supposedly I should say) who mentioned that Xenophon had recorded and acknowelged the Allegory of the Cave, possibly as in a false manner. Thucydides makes no mention of any of Socrates' teachings, and Xenophon only mentions his base teaching methods, if not his exact style or philosphies. 

Plato is of course an unreliable source considering that many of his statements about Socrates have been called into question and acknowledged as embellishments and exaggerations. Any further than that and the technical recording of the actual history is unknown.

[Astartes Marine]

iakus wrote...
Why won't the Council or Alliance help you?
Because you are working with Cerberus

Well it was also that both groups, the Council at the very least, were quite content with the status quo and leaving Sovereign as some advanced Geth Dread.  Shepard was rocking the boat and they couldn't have that.

Besides it's not like the Council ever "helped" before aside from nagging and criticising Shepard's decisions.

[rashie]

iakus wrote...

rashie wrote...

Xplode441 wrote...

]In ME1 you are already an Alliance soldier, not an Admiral or anything so you obviously don't get much choice in your future.  Plus, you need SPECTRE status to take Saren down.  Game universe wise, you wouldn't have the support or authority to do half of the stuff you did in ME1 without SPECTRE status.  If you don't want to be a SPECTRE, then you can shut the game down and pretend some other guy took Saren down.

Just like you need to work with Cerberus for their resources to be able to stop the collectors as both the alliance and the council where blocking shepards request of aid, yet people are asking for them to become optional and that its forced upon the player.

Why won't the Council or Alliance help you?
Because you are working with Cerberus

Why are you working with Cerberus?
Because the Alliance and Council won't help you.

It's stupid circular logic like that that makes me facepalm hard at ME2.

Well, that and the space magic
And the superhero outfits
And the incredible lack of planning for the Suicide Mission

ME2 really should have been a warning of what was to come in ME3

The council would not have helped you anyhow due to the colonies dissapearing being in the terminus systems as well as trying to downplay the reapers as a geth driven conflict.

Modifié par rashie, 14 septembre 2013 - 03:00 .

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, you really do you need a reason to justify not liking it. Because if you can't provide one, you're pretty much proving me right.

David7204 wrote...

If you want to assume everyone on the internet is stupid unless they give you proof otherwise, that's your concern. Not mine. You're not getting proof. I suggest you get used to the reality of never knowing how geniune the people you talk to online are.

Only a few posts apart, too. Wowzers.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

iakus wrote...

rashie wrote...

Xplode441 wrote...

]In ME1 you are already an Alliance soldier, not an Admiral or anything so you obviously don't get much choice in your future.  Plus, you need SPECTRE status to take Saren down.  Game universe wise, you wouldn't have the support or authority to do half of the stuff you did in ME1 without SPECTRE status.  If you don't want to be a SPECTRE, then you can shut the game down and pretend some other guy took Saren down.

Just like you need to work with Cerberus for their resources to be able to stop the collectors as both the alliance and the council where blocking shepards request of aid, yet people are asking for them to become optional and that its forced upon the player.

Why won't the Council or Alliance help you?
Because you are working with Cerberus

Why are you working with Cerberus?
Because the Alliance and Council won't help you.

It's stupid circular logic like that that makes me facepalm hard at ME2.

ME2 really should have been a warning of what was to come in ME3

In my defense of Cerberus, I observed that the alliance and the Council were denying the threat the Reapers posed, as well as fundamentally agreeing with Cerberus and their ideology. I have a general distaste and disgust with alliance and Council philosophy and methodology. That's why I work with Cerberus. But yeah, I guess the pro-alliance paragons got screwed. Oh well, you know how I feel in ME3.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 septembre 2013 - 03:02 .

[Jorji Costava]

@MassivelyEffective0730:

That's helpful. There are a number of distinct metaethical views that people run together, and sometimes, arguments that really support one are used in favor of the other. Error theorists hold that moral judgments are all, well, in error. They're all wrong. Relativists disagree; they hold that many moral judgments are true, but they're only "true for" members of a subcultural group, so that Billy can hold that theft is wrong and  Sally can hold that it's okay without either being wrong, supposing that they're from suitably distinct cultures. What I'll call "subjectivism" is similar to relativism, except that it holds that moral judgments are true/false relative to individuals. Roughly, if Sally believes that X is wrong, then "X is wrong" is true for her. What I objected to about this view is that it makes the making of moral errors impossible. If morality is a matter of your own opinion, then you can only go wrong by not knowing what your own opinions are.

There's way more than this (non-cognitivism, etc.), but I'm still not quite sure where you fit on this spectrum. Constructivism doesn't narrow it down that much, since some self-identified constructivists (i.e. Kantians) hold that morality actually is universal. So I guess I'll just ask this question: When you deny a universal standard, what do you mean to be denying?

EDIT: Fixed grammar

Modifié par osbornep, 14 septembre 2013 - 03:03 .

[Iakus]

Astartes Marine wrote...

iakus wrote...
Why won't the Council or Alliance help you?
Because you are working with Cerberus

Well it was also that both groups, the Council at the very least, were quite content with the status quo and leaving Sovereign as some advanced Geth Dread.  Shepard was rocking the boat and they couldn't have that.

Besides it's not like the Council ever "helped" before aside from nagging and criticising Shepard's decisions.

And yet at the very end of ME1, the Council thanks you for saving them "from Sovereign and the Reapers"...

The continuity of this series even with imports was rather pathetic.

[Iakus]

rashie wrote...
The council would not have helped you anyhow due to the colonies dissapearing being in the terminus systems as well as trying to downplay the reapers as a geth driven conflict.

maybe, but that wouldn't/doesn't stop the Alliance.

And the Council has no apparant objection to sending Spectres into the Terminus

[RZIBARA]

iakus wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

iakus wrote...
Why won't the Council or Alliance help you?
Because you are working with Cerberus

Well it was also that both groups, the Council at the very least, were quite content with the status quo and leaving Sovereign as some advanced Geth Dread.  Shepard was rocking the boat and they couldn't have that.

Besides it's not like the Council ever "helped" before aside from nagging and criticising Shepard's decisions.

And yet at the very end of ME1, the Council thanks you for saving them "from Sovereign and the Reapers"...

The continuity of this series even with imports was rather pathetic.

Pretty big "What the hell are you talking about" moment for me in ME2.

Just another stupid way to force the story into working with Cerberus

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

rashie wrote...
The council would not have helped you anyhow due to the colonies dissapearing being in the terminus systems as well as trying to downplay the reapers as a geth driven conflict.

maybe, but that wouldn't/doesn't stop the Alliance.

And the Council has no apparant objection to sending Spectres into the Terminus

.  We should totally trust the Alliance to handle this issue, eventually, like in a decade or two.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

osbornep wrote...

@MassivelyEffective0730:

That's helpful. There are a number of distinct metaethical views that people run together, and sometimes, arguments that really support one are used in favor of the other. Error theorists hold that moral judgments are all, well, in error. They're all wrong. Relativists disagree; they hold that many moral judgments are true, but they're only "true for" members of a subcultural group, so that Billy can hold that theft is wrong, Sally can hold that it's okay without either being wrong, supposing that they're from suitably distinct cultures. What I'll call "subjectivism" is similar to relativism, except that it holds that moral judgments are true/false relative to individuals. Roughly, if Sally believes that X is wrong, then "X is wrong" is true for her. What I objected to about this view is that it makes the making of moral errors impossible. If morality is a matter of what your own opinion, then you can only go wrong by not knowing what your own opinions are.

There's way more than this (non-cognitivism, etc.), but I'm still not quite sure where you fit on this spectrum. Constructivism doesn't narrow it down that much, since some self-identified constructivists (i.e. Kantians) hold that morality actually is universal. So I guess I'll just ask this question: When you deny a universal standard, what do you mean to be denying?

I'll say that as you've mentioned, I'm a relativist towards the universal standard. There comes a problem in defining an objective standard. Is it in-built into the universe? Is there a universal, or cosmic threshold of good and evil? I don't believe so. I believe that the universe is inherently neutral. It's nature. It has no threshold to bear. I also take a bit of a... I don't really know how to call this: I believe that the only things that are objective in the universe is things or principles that are observable fact. Gravity is an objective truth to the universe. Arithmetic is an objective proof. Newton's 3 Laws are objective proofs. This of course doesn't account for non-natural (i.e. man-made capabilities that overcome these temporarily). Let's put it this way; I hold that if things were objective, then the opposite or some other set would not be possible. I hold that since morality, ethics, philosophy, etc. is abstract an non-concrete, and therefor not a real, tangible, physical objects, they cannot be objective. 

Edit* I just read that you are a Philosophy instructor. I know not to debate you in such topics outside of simply professing my opinions now . I have an AA in Logic and Persuasion in argument, and a BA in Political Science and International Relations. I can talk with you there if you like.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 septembre 2013 - 03:15 .

[Iakus]

Steelcan wrote...
  We should totally trust the Alliance to handle this issue, eventually, like in a decade or two.

Or we could come up with a more reasonable/rational reason to force Shepard to work for Cerberus than "You were dead and now your old allies don't trust you"

Me, I recall hoping it would be a deep cover operation or something

Modifié par iakus, 14 septembre 2013 - 03:13 .

[YourFleshIsMine]

David7204 wrote...

YourFleshIsMine wrote...
Sometimes they might be right, sometimes not...but then, who am I to judge that? It's just a personal opinion.

So obviously, if someone mugged you, you wouldn't be angry or upset, then? Because who are you to judge what's right and wrong.

That's a non sequitur.

I would be upset by my views and opinions but that is because to me there is a clear wrong doing towards me, because of my attachment to my possessions. A buddhist monk might see it as an opportunity to share.

My example was that of polygamy. I cannot judge whether that's wrong or right as a concept. But in my view it's wrong any time it's used to harm someone. But the interesting thing is that mugging has never been considered a good or nice thing in known history, whereas polygamy has been and still is in some areas of the world. So I cannot judge it as wrong or right by itself. It's not the concept but the abuses thereof that tend to be the issue and because of that association people have at some point decided that the concept is wrong. Religion takes an interesting position in that as it professes to follow a book that has prophets with many wives and concubines but now they say it's against god's will. Times change and so do opinions, but what makes something wrong or right?

To me it's usually how it's used and to what end. Not necessarily the concept or item itself. Is a weapon evil by itself or because of how it can be used?

[Ravensword]

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, you really do you need a reason to justify not liking it. Because if you can't provide one, you're pretty much proving me right.

David7204 wrote...

If you want to assume everyone on the internet is stupid unless they give you proof otherwise, that's your concern. Not mine. You're not getting proof. I suggest you get used to the reality of never knowing how geniune the people you talk to online are.

Only a few posts apart, too. Wowzers.

He does that a lot when he argues w/ people in here.

David isn't here to add to the discussion or have a constructive conversation about--well, anything. He's simply here to act like an lord over everyone on here like he's some kind of intellectual badass and impose his opinions on people.

David is infinitely more interested in being winning arguments than actually trying to come to an understanding w/ other humans beings. I realize that many people on here on here are like this, but they are nowhere near the level of arrogance, grandiosity, and rudeness that David consistently displays.

[YourFleshIsMine]

Ravensword wrote...

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, you really do you need a reason to justify not liking it. Because if you can't provide one, you're pretty much proving me right.

David7204 wrote...

If you want to assume everyone on the internet is stupid unless they give you proof otherwise, that's your concern. Not mine. You're not getting proof. I suggest you get used to the reality of never knowing how geniune the people you talk to online are.

Only a few posts apart, too. Wowzers.

He does that a lot when he argues w/ people in here.

David isn't here to add to the discussion or have a constructive conversation about--well, anything. He's simply here to act like an lord over everyone on here like he's some kind of intellectual badass and impose his opinions on people.

David is infinitely more interested in being winning arguments than actually trying to come to an understanding w/ other humans beings. I realize that many people on here on here are like this, but they are nowhere near the level of arrogance, grandiosity, and rudeness that David consistently displays.

From my experience, power exists where it is given. I don't know this David very well yet but it seems to me that people are perfectly happy to empower him. If everybody who didn't like his posting would actually stop replying to him, my guess is he wouldn't have the effect that he is having now. Just saying...

[tonnactus]

I agree. Mass Efffect 3 just couldnt suceed to fix the mess Mass Effect 2 left.
Crap like the Crucible was inevitable because Shepard just wasted his time in 2 playing uncle doctor for daddy issues instead of searching for ways to defeat the Reapers.

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 septembre 2013 - 03:20 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I'm one of the people who actually thinks that if the execution of the ending had been performed differently, it would have been quite alright IMO. I'm fine with the Crucible concept, I just think it was executed poorly.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

YourFleshIsMine wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes, you really do you need a reason to justify not liking it. Because if you can't provide one, you're pretty much proving me right.

David7204 wrote...

If you want to assume everyone on the internet is stupid unless they give you proof otherwise, that's your concern. Not mine. You're not getting proof. I suggest you get used to the reality of never knowing how geniune the people you talk to online are.

Only a few posts apart, too. Wowzers.

He does that a lot when he argues w/ people in here.

David isn't here to add to the discussion or have a constructive conversation about--well, anything. He's simply here to act like an lord over everyone on here like he's some kind of intellectual badass and impose his opinions on people.

David is infinitely more interested in being winning arguments than actually trying to come to an understanding w/ other humans beings. I realize that many people on here on here are like this, but they are nowhere near the level of arrogance, grandiosity, and rudeness that David consistently displays.

From my experience, power exists where it is given. I don't know this David very well yet but it seems to me that people are perfectly happy to empower him. If everybody who didn't like his posting would actually stop replying to him, my guess is he wouldn't have the effect that he is having now. Just saying...

I just like to make him angry. I do it so well. 

The thing is, we actually like his posting, just not for the reason he wants anybody too.

It's a case of 'So bad it's hilarious.'

[Jorji Costava]

@MassivelyEffective0730:

Thanks for this. This discussion could conceivably derail this thread, so I'll just say a few quick thing. The problem you identify for realism is a serious and well-known one (see Mackie's "argument from queerness"), but there are a couple things you can do to try and get around it. One is to deny that realism does involve any abstract or "weird" commitments (which is what the constructivists and ethical naturalists try to do), or live with the weirdness and say that moral norms have "partners in crime", so to speak (i.e. mathematics, epistemic norms, etc.).

Also, don't worry about me being a philosophy teacher. One of the things I try to teach my students is that sure, you should respect the old dead guys, but don't have too much reverence for them either. Don't be cowed into submission by someone's credentials or reputation. And since I have neither, there should be no problem.

@iakus:

Having the affiliation with Cerberus be (or at least start out as) an undercover operation sounds like a good idea to me. It needn't preclude ultimately siding with them, but would do something to reduce the dissonance for mostly-paragon players.

[tonnactus]

RZIBARA wrote...

If
-Better combat than ME1, but still pales in comparison to ME3

Combat in Mass Effect is more then shooting. Playing as a biotic in 2 was simply awfull because basicly only Singularity and Warp were powers worth to use in higher difficulties.
Same was true for playing as an engineer. Just boring.
In the first i could basicly shut down down enemy offense. Here its just stripping "protections".

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 septembre 2013 - 04:00 .

[Bossnormandy]

Gabbenator8787 wrote...

 Do you agree with the above statement or not? Was ME 3 bad as a whole or just the awful matter in which it ended? IMHO opinion ME 3 felt too much like a FPS at times with all the previous RPG charm of the prior games almost completely stripped away. Certainly having a very limited dialogue wheel is one the many things that ultimately hamper the replayability factor. 

Mass Effect 3 would have been an easy 10/10 for me if they had done these things:

1) more dialogue with crew - and not the linear stuff..I missed my conversation wheel
2) Gotten rid of the annoying kid as catalyst, I think giving just 1 option (destroy) would have been fine...the universe would actually have been affected by your decisions/preparation a bit more (were you able to unite everyone and put up some resistance? or did the reapers waltz through star systems and destroyed everything in seconds?). Plus they would have options for what to do on ME: 4.
3) Implemented a "MEHEM" type ending - debatable I suppose, I like closure

Aside from these 3 gripes, I thought Mass Effect 3 was a great game with fun gameplay and a storyline that was interesting enough to keep me hooked. 

[KaiserShep]

tonnactus wrote...

RZIBARA wrote...

If
-Better combat than ME1, but still pales in comparison to ME3

Combat in Mass Effect is more then shooting. Playing as a biotic in 2 was simply awfull because basicly only Singularity and Warp were powers worth to use in higher difficulties.
Same was true for playing as an engineer. Just boring.
In the first i could basicly shot down down enemy offense. Here its just stripping "protections".

Yeah ME3 greatly improved biotic combat along with Shepard's maneuverability. In the Armax Arsenal Arena, one could possibly manage an entire round without any ammo left on higher difficulties, and every power came in handy somehow.

[RZIBARA]

KaiserShep wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

RZIBARA wrote...

If
-Better combat than ME1, but still pales in comparison to ME3

Combat in Mass Effect is more then shooting. Playing as a biotic in 2 was simply awfull because basicly only Singularity and Warp were powers worth to use in higher difficulties.
Same was true for playing as an engineer. Just boring.
In the first i could basicly shot down down enemy offense. Here its just stripping "protections".

Yeah ME3 greatly improved biotic combat along with Shepard's maneuverability. In the Armax Arsenal Arena, one could possibly manage an entire round without any ammo left on higher difficulties, and every power came in handy somehow.

While I actually felt ME1 to be clunky, I still think the combat was more than ME2. This may be due to the enemies though mainly. Powers as well.

Modifié par RZIBARA, 14 septembre 2013 - 04:01 .