I don't get how Mass Effect 3 was a bad game (major spoilers)...

[Airaku]

JWeinCom said:
                                       

"Indeed we are wasting our time. I've seen a few of your posts and it appears that you go around trying to prove people wrong and put them down. I don't even know why I am arguing with you at this point. You try to dodge everything and call people out on various opinions or insights. I have come to conclude that it is very possible that you have an "inferiority complex". The need to act superior over others to boost your own confidence."

This is pure flaming, and I would appreciate an apology.  I absolutely enjoy trying to prove people wrong.  I like debate.  I enjoy it as an intellectual exercise, and I value my own opinion, and feel it is worth defending.  

By the way, I did mention I got a degree in English right?  Do you think I spent four years of my life discussing and arguing about literature because I didn't like doing it?

To say I have an inferiority complex is a pure personal attack and is totally unacceptable.  Before you point out that I called you a liar, I called you a liar because I demonstrated that you lied.  It was also directly relevant to the conversation because it pertained to the reliability of information you were citing. 

I do not put people down.  I put ideas down.  If your idea is wrong, I will put it down as such.  I said this very early on in the conversation.  If you don't like this, that is your business.  If you don't want to speak with me, you are not obligated to.  Simply apologize for the personal insults, and move on with your life.

Whether or not I have an inferiority complex is entirely irrelevant to this debate, which is flaming, not to mention another logical fallacy.  (Ad hominen attack).  Which is quite similar to the argument from authority fallacy, in which you're arguing about the characteristics of the person making a claim and not the claim itself.

By the way, I don't know why you put "inferiority complex in quotes".  And did you just accuse someone of having a inferiority complex, and then explain it to them as if they were too dumb to know what a very common term meant?  That's one of the funniest fucking things I've ever seen.

Unfortunately, the reality is that I provided knowledge that I felt many people on her would not have. I concluded that they may not have this knowledge by the simple fact that I doubt every one on here has contact with people from Bioware. I was under no way obliged to share such information nor am I obliged to give you any information on my sources. Sharing information regarding corporate information, including but not limited to staff or affairs is prohibited. I am sorry that such a rule is a thorn to your inconvenience and made you conclude that I am lying. That doesn't mean you should be a jackass and ruin it for people who may actually want to engage in a meaningful conversation about the game and its development. I very much can relate with the information I was told, and the game that I played. I explained why the number went to 7. You chose to ignore what I said about making it sound like marketing BS data. It's not lying, but it's not entirely honest. It makes one look better than they really are. Something that as I said, was unfaithful of myself.

The idea that they can't share the theme of the actual game without getting in trouble is absolutely laughable.  Are you saying that the MAIN THEME of the game is sensitive corporate information?  Or that the company cannot share the name of their staff?  Is this the CIA?  Ridiculous.

And no, you are not obligated to share any information.  UNLESS YOU WANT TO USE IT TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.  If you expect me to take what you're saying as some sort of definitive proof regarding the theme of the game, then you absolutely need to back your shit up.  But that is not why I called you a liar.

I concluded that you lied because you made four statements that all contradicted each other.  They cannot all be true.  If you spoke to two people at Bioware, you lied about talking to seven people.   One of them is a lie.  It is lying 100%, which is why I ignored you talking about marketing BS.  And right after saying you artificially changed the number, you AGAIN changed it from "precisely" 7 to "at least" 7.  So were you lying about it being 7, or about 2?  Can you keep your own lies straight?  

"It's not lying but it's not entirely honest."  We're not politicians here, so I'm not going to accept such nonsense.  If you claim honesty is so important to you, I don't see how you can make such a claim.  If you said something that you knew was untrue, you lied.  Simple.  And now you are lying about lying.  That's lying squared.

And yet again you are making unfounded personal attacks.  You made a claim to me in a conversation with me.  Calling that out does not make me a jackass, and it does not ruin it for anyone else who may want to discuss it with you.  They are free to go ahead.  But keep going with the insults I guess.  

As for that authority thing you posted. It made me laugh a little because I am quite the opposite of that. As someone who is quite philosophical and scientific. I delve into a lot of research to form my own opinions on various matters. For example global warming is an issue. Some scientist claim that all the ice is going to melt and sea levels will rise drastically. Quite a bold claim that will makes sense to a lot of people. However in reality, the North Pole is shrinking but Antarctica is growing and continues to reach breaking records of growth in human history. One theory is the south is getting colder and the north is getting warmer. A huge change in the eco-system that will affect society. Someone might even try to conclude the possibility of an eventual rain forest in Canada and snow storms in Brazil. Something that is unfathomable to most people. This remains food for  thought in the scientific realm. While this is irrelevant to the conversation, it shows that different people, even in the fields they are from. Will draw different conclusions.

Since you're going to accuse me of dodging questions later, I'll address this now.  I'm not dodging anything, I'm reacting when you're dodging a question.  You're admitting that this is irrelevant, as you have with several other things, and then accusing me of dodging it.  This did not respond to anything I said, or address the argument from authority fallacy.  

Are you really going to use typos and simple mistakes as an example? Really dude, really? Come on. "Larry Potter". I think even the average high school drop out can tell the difference with that one. That was just a silly example that failed to prove a point. It is illogical to assume that a author will intentionally lie about their work. On the contrary it does happen. But this is a very weak argument to use for your case. You can very well argue that the original version of a story and book is canon, but in reality the canon is defined by the "definitive" version. This is very common knowledge and I do not believe for a second that you fail to recognise this. You can assess each version separately to your hearts content. You are also free to imagine that the original version is the real version because you prefer that story. That is your right. Even if it is not correct in reality.

Do you know what an analogy is?  When you use a simpler example to illustrate a more complex concept?  The point is that statements can be wrong.  Maybe it's because of a typo, because of an intentional lie, or simply a mistake. It doesn't matter why the claim is wrong, just that it is wrong.    Regardless of why these mistakes are made, we need a way to determine whether statements are true or not.  We do so by looking at the text.  I  I was trying to dumb it down to a typo level because you consistently are not responding to more complex examples.  

I feel that you have a lack of understanding of themes and base concepts that are the foundation of the story and/or work. In game development it is very common for a game to be created revolving a certain single concept. I've told you what was used in the case of Mass Effect. You do not like the answer and continue to argue against it. God of War is the simplest concept. Santa Monica wrote the theme and concept as "Battling Greek Gods" and "Gore and Violence". A very basic concept that grew into a fun game. Video game development is VERY different than writing a book. Writing a book is very different than film. You are trying to use your knowledge of literature to assess each one with the same logic. So I still stand by my claims and what I have been told. The base foundation remains and it appears to me that you were unable to comprehend this. To say I am wrong is an act of desperation. I cannot admit to the idea that you are right, when you are not. From a game development point of view. You miss the mark by miles.

Can you show that I have a lack of understanding on theme?  Cause, I'm sorry to go to the college well again, but if you are going to AGAIN use persona attacks, I have to defend myself with evidence from my personal life. I have a degree showing I do know a lot about theme.  I also have a master's degree showing I know how to teach theme to others.  Which is not to say I CAN'T be wrong, but I have compelling evidence to show that I am indeed very capable of explaining theme.  So, unless you can point out something I've said that shows I do not (aside from me not believing that your uncle works at Bioware or whatever), then do not insult my intelligence.  Another personal attack.  

Again, I continue to argue against you because you have not given me evidence. And no, yet again, claiming that someone told you does not count.

We are using literary terms because we are analyzing a story, not the gameplay.  But do you want to talk about gameplay?  Fine, let's do that. 

One of the core gameplay elements is the paragon/renegade meter.  The paragon/renegade meter informs the dialogue tree options, which has a direct impact on how the game unfolds.  Paragon options are generally, but not always, associated with allying yourself with the larger intergalactic community, and renegade with placing humanity above all else.  For example, in Mass Effect 1, identifying yourself with the alliance earns you renegade points, and identifying yourself as a spectre earns you paragon points.  In the second game, associating yourself with the anti-alien cerberus gives you renegade points, and defying them gives you paragon points.  Selling out the Krogan for the sake of humanity (to earn Salarian aid) gives you renegade points, and refusing gives you paragon points.

So, not only is the idea of cooperation vs individualism baked into every facet of the story, but it is also part of the fabric of the gameplay as well.  It is literally staring you at the face for the entirety of the trilogy.  Notice that there is no "organic vs synthetic" meter as part of the gameplay.  

And your statement that organics vs synthetics is the key gameplay concept is also ridiculously wrong.  A HUGE part of the game is spent not fighting against synthetics.  In fact, I'd say far less than half of the trilogy is spent not fighting synthetics.  In the second game for instance, the only times you fight synthetics are legion and Tali's missions, and the reaper at the end.  At least 75% of the game is spent fighting organic life, and that ratio would also be about right for Mass Effect 3.  Although there are corrupted organics which is a gray area.  As I said, from a story perspective, Mass Effect 1 is the only one where the main theme is (or could be) organics vs synthetics, and that is also the only game where you spend most of your time fighting synthetics.  

This is not to mention the time you spend on the citidel.  A huge part of the game is devoted to building up an intergalactic coalition. In the second game, you do this by building individual ties to your teammates.  In the third, this concept is broadened to forming alliances with different species and organizations.  While this is related to fighting the reapers in the sense of the story, the actual gameplay element is having conversations, and either cooperating with allies or coercing others to fight with you.  If you say that the idea of the game design is just fighting against synthetics you're ignoring more than half the combat, and nearly everything outside of it.  

Now here's the part where I'm going to insult your ideas, and you're going to accuse me of being too mean.  It's not that I'm saying you're wrong as an act of desperation.  It's that I'm saying you're wrong because I'm not a moron.

See what I just did earlier was provide you with EVIDENCE that backs up my claim.  Information from the game that supports what I'm saying.  What you've done is said "someone at Bioware told me".  You have given me no corroborating evidence for that story, you have admittedly been dishonest about at least part of it, and you have provided nothing from the game.  And I'm desperate for arguing against that?  Lolol. 

 "will give you credit where it's due. I think it's quite insightful of you to consider sometimes an author fails to conceive their vision on paper. Failing to explain events that change the interpretation and/or meaning of a plot point. Unfortunately this is not the case for our debate here. Another interesting concept is where an author writes a story with the expectation of the reader to have knowledge on the concept or myth the story is based on. This was the fallacy of the film "Jupiter Ascending". Millions have misinterpreted that film because of this, it backfired backin the face of the Wachowski brothers. In the case of "Memento or K-pax" those films were created to keep people guessing after the film and debate for a long time to come. The ending of Mass Effect had the same intention. The fact we are still talking about Mass Effect today means one thing. Bioware has succeeded in that specific goal. The film "Snowpiercer" is a film that was often misinterpreted by a lot of people. I have tons of friends who have troubles grasping the concept. Yet on the other side of the coin. Thousands of people understand the film without a hitch. Literature can be a double edge sword for many authors. Not everyone thinks the same and not everyone perceives information the same. Clearly this is a case that is relevant to this case."

This is pretty self contradictory.  The idea of Mass Effect was to be ambiguous enough to get people to wonder, yet you're basically telling me I have to believe what you say with no evidence? 

And I haven't seen any of those movies (except for Memento which was fairly clear aside from its structure), so I can't comment on them, nor do I see how they are relevant to this conversation, at least not without more details.  The reason I've been sticking to examples like Harry Potter and Star Wars is because they are really popular.  

"You continue to dodge and weave around certain aspects of the debate. Words such as "I'm not going into this" show that. Perhaps a lack of knowledge on said subjects of that matter. Or it's your way of trying to sound smart when you are wrong. Regardless of your reasons. It is something you should be aware of when you engage in debates."

Again I am going to call you a liar, because again, you are lying.  And you are again attacking me personally. Which is what people often do when they're flailing around in an argument.  

I have said "I'm not going into this" (or something similar) precisely twice (at least in that last post and I don't think at all before).  When I have done so, I have quoted it anyway and given a clear explanation why.  The things I did not address were Star Wars and the ending.  

The reason I didn't address these things were because they would take us far off topic.  Star Wars was a bad example as that is the case of a film having actual different versions, and not a matter of interpretation.  Our conversation about Star Wars was going nowhere.  The conversation is about Mass Effect 3.  I brought up Star Wars as a quick example, and you got into a whole thing about it, and wouldn't give it up after I explained why it was a bad example.  An author making a claim about an existing work is different than them making a new and different work.  If you don't get this, I'm sorry.

I also said I wasn't going into this regarding the ending, because I never talked about which ending was "real" and I didn't feel like defending a position I never claimed to hold that was irrelevant to the conversation.  But you want me too?  Fine.  I think all the endings are equally real, because it is an interactive narrative.  If you chose control, that is the real ending and so on.  Unless there is something in Andromeda that contradicts one ending or confirms another, all the endings are equally valid in my mind.  For example, if Reapers show up in Andromeda, obviously destroy can't work anymore, and if Shepard still exists, then control can't be right, and if Joker doesn't have a robodick, then synthesis isn't right.  Until then, they're all valid no matter how stupid synthesis is.  There, you happy I addressed this copletely irrelevant topic?  Glad that useless shit is out of the way.

Btw, I have quoted absolutely everything you said to ensure I either responded to it all or provided justification for ignoring it.  Not only that, but I've specifically asked you for clarification on specific points so I COULD address them.  The exact opposite of what you've done.  

Now, let's see how much you dodged...

You completely ignored the logical proof, completely dropped the line of conversation about the statement about my post being wrong, competely ignored the point about the argument from authority fallacy your case has been built upon, you have not clarified whether writers are often or always right, you have STILL NOT EXPLAINED HOW WE SHOULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE STATEMENTS BY AUTHORS, YOU HAVE STILL NOT EXPLAINED HOW SYNTHETICS VS ORGANICS IS MORE RELEVANT THAN ANY OTHER TOPIC.  And you still haven't explained why on Earth I should believe your claim about who you spoke to at Bioware.

You rely on the argument from authority fallacy, you don't back up a single thing you've said, you throw out personal attacks, you clearly lie (unless 1=2=7<7 that is), you ramble about completely irrelevant topics (I really don't care in the least about your script or your anomalous writing on the internet).  And you're telling me how to debate?  Lulz.

But here, I'll teach you the most important thing about debate.  YOU BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH EVIDENCE.  That's really, the most important thing by far.  Your whole argument is "I talked to one... no two... no 7... no at least 7 people at Bioware.  So you have to believe me."  Your whole "debate" is one probably fraudulent claim with no supporting evidence.  So, don't pretend to understand anything about debate when you can't get the first thing right. ^_^

 

 

I will try to keep this one short and brief so you can understand what I am saying. I've spent enough time on this so I will address a few things, most which regards Mass Effect. It seems a lot of things fly over your head. Feel free to think the same of me.

First of all. I am willing to apologise to you on mutual grounds. I felt "attacked" by your from the beginning. I am sorry if you felt that I was attacking you, that was not my intentions. Which is why I was clear to state that I believe you are intelligent, but I do feel that you may have an inferiority complex simply because you are displaying indications of this to me. Just as I am displaying indications to you that I am lying. Unfortunately, I am not. I did post a link to the web-site of one of guys I talked to. An ex-founding father to be exact. One of the men behind the Baulders Gate games. He gave a very interesting lecture on the game industry and the way it works. A great guy.

I could claim that  you are lying about a masters degree as. I haven't seen evidence for a lot of your claims. Like myself. I only see a wall of text. I haven't seen you post your degree online. Feel free to do so if you want to rest your case on this matter.

Now back to Mass Effect. I am putting this back on track. It seems we are both sick of putting each other down. Yes, I'll admit I felt guilty the whole time and no I do not take pride in such words.

- You are correct about brining peace to the galaxy is a major theme that overlays in the series. The theme of that was drawn from one word "Unity". As far as themes in game development goes. You remain incorrect. You ignored my God of War example. Probably the simplest example. Would you like me to give you more?

- Andromeda will be an all new chapter in the Mass Effect universe. It will have some relations to the original trilogy but it will feel new and fresh. We likely will not see the Reapers as it should be outside of the cycle. Keep in mind that not all the Reapers just go to one galaxy lol. The will be a new type of enemy. Should it remain unchanged. Feel free to record this. The enemies will be know as "The Revenants". The game will be heavily focused on exploration and colonisation. You will be a pathfinder. I will refrain from any more details. It will very much feel like a Mass Effect game, but it will be a very different game. It will bring in new fans and hopefully please all of the existing fans. At least that is the goal. Again, feel free to copy paste this into a note pad for next holiday season. November should be the sweet spot. It will be a more human story.

- All Bioware games follow the dialogue wheel. The new Bioware IP from the main studios in Edmonton will once again use the standard Bioware formula. This game is top secret. I am happy to say that there has been no leaks as of yet. All that has and can be stated about the game is that one of the main focuses that Bioware is working on is motion capture. This is to be expected and they feel that the facial expressions in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age series did not capture the essence they wanted. Bioware is taking a look at what Naughty Dog has done with Uncharted and The Last of Us. This game will be very different from other Bioware games and will capture the best of their work. The game may or may not be more modernish. That last part is just a wild guess on my part. Oh and by all means. Please do press the print screen button and copy this into paint and save a copy. It would be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately the evidence may come late, but it's better late than never. After all, as you stated. I am a pathological lair. // sarcasm.

- This comment may sound a little bit of an asshole. So I apologise in advance. You dodged my comments regarding game design and it's core themes that are expanded on. Why is this? Do you have any experience what so ever in game design, or knowledge of how the game industry works? Or do you just merely play games and talk about them online? Just a curious question that must be asked at this point. Because again, I am fabricating bullshit on such matters. You seem to flaunt your English degree around to prove your point. You don't and won't see me doing such a thing. But what do I know?

- I want to give a shout out to Darc Requiem for stating the following. He is 100% dead on the mark. I want to thank him for pointing out something very insightful to the conversation regarding Mass Effect. This is something I brought up in my original posts. I can confirm that what he said is true. Oh but I suppose you'll call me a lair again for not being able to prove it. Either way. I want to thank Darc Requiem for his contribution do the table.

"The original theme of ME was dropped completely after the original lead writer, Drew Karpyshyn, left Bioware. This resulted in the sudden "organics vs. synthetics" motivational change for the Reapers. The original motivation of the Reapers was tied to the Dark Energy story point brought up in ME2. I'll try to be brief. The Reapers original motivation was to solve the Dark Energy issue. In ME2, Tali's team on Haelstrom was studying Dholen a star that was aging rapidly. The source of the rapid aging was Dark Energy. The Mass Effect Field technology that powered the ME Universe was the source. The Reapers cycle wipes out all advanced life to stop the proliferation of Dark Energy. This was to buy  time to resolve the problem. Without the Cycle's the dark energy would continue to build, this would cause all stars to exihibit the aging present in Dholen. This would lead to the eventual end of life in the galaxy. Shepard original was going to have the choice destroying the Reapers and hoping the Council races could resovled the dark energy problem or letting the cycle continue to ensuring that some form of life would go on."

- I also state for a multiple times (I won't give a number because I am too lazy to look back and do not have the time, and you'll call me a lair if I am one number off :3 ) companies contain certain rules regarding the flow of information. I would like to respect that for the people I have talked to. So yes, I will refuse to give you information on this. Feel free to call me out on this one, but hey. It's better to be safe than sorry ;) In this case. Being called a liar or an idiot is much more preferred on my part. I should learn to keep my mouth shut while sharing. Perhaps you'd agree that I should be a little more.... selective?




I think this is enough for now. I am sorry that I did not address as much as possible this time. I intentionally did that because of the amount of time we spent on arguing. You said we were going off subject, so I turned this back on subject. Feel free to say I'm dodging your questions. I feel that it's time that if we are going to talk about Mass Effect. We shall return to the subject of Mass Effect as you have subtlety suggested when I went off subject. Forgive me for my hasty reply.