| Airaku said:
Are you really going with that "I'm right your wrong" bullshit in a debate? Really? *face palms* Would anyone continue to debate unless under the following conditions? You claim that I did not use the word theme in my first post. This is correct. The term "point" was very much used in similar context. Also for the last time. I did initially speak from a story perspective and I did progressively move into a developer mindset. I absolutely do consider games to be a medium of story telling. Not a shed of doubt about this. I am glad that this is getting back on track of the Mass Effect series. The Geth was resolved after being rewriting. Their conflict with each other still links back to organics and synthetics. Can you prove that there would have been conflict without Unity. What would be the point? Why would they need the virus, or a link to Saren who was under control by the Reapers. The Reapers wouldn't even need any involvement. Your examples of synthesis are bad ideas because they were. Very negative approach that were more forced and would have resulted in ugly outcomes. Especially Jack Harpers way, unfortunately later understood Desolas and believed that he was right all a long. Jack then became known as "The Illusive Man". In Mass Effect 2, care to explain why you are bringing all these people together? Yes they each have their own story but there still remains the main subject of the game. Also, the Collectors are both organic and synthetic. The Reapers very much upgraded them. In terms of gameplay they are counted as organics in terms of their weaknesses for gameplay purposes. Plot wise they are both.
Again it is the theme that ties all three games together.
|
I will need to keep this short due to time, unfortunately. It seems that you are consistently trying to twist my words and intentions. Running your words in circles like a dog chasing his tail. Calling me a lair consistently. You do realise you can call someone a "jackass" without the intention of being insulting, correct?
Lol... I twisted the word jackass into an insult... Let's look at the definition for jackass.
From dictionary.com
"a contemptibly foolish or stupid person; dolt; blockhead; ass."
From Oxford English dictionary
"A stupid person."
From Webster's
" a stupid person : fool"
and my favortie, from the online slang dictionary
"a general insult."
That's what the word means. If you want to tell me it is not an insult then you are the one twisting words. I cannot honestly believe you are arguing that jackass is not an insult. And if that is your best evidence of me "twisting" words, then that's pretty sad.
But hey, don't let me "twist" your words. I'll give you the quote, and you explain how it wasn't an insult.
"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."
Go on. Explain how it's not an insult. I'm genuinely interested to see how you try and weasel out of this. I'll be over here with a bag of popcorn.
"Running your words in circles like a dog chasing his tail. "
I notice that whenever I ask you to back up one of the attacks you make against me, you instead move on to a new one. This one at least has *some* merit though. I do admit to being quite verbose. However when your arguments have reached the ludicrous levels of "jackass is not an insult" and I'm forced to prove basic common sense things... then it gets kinda long winded. I think you're so unfamiliar with the concept of using evidence to support your claims, that you think of it as some kind of trickery.
"What is that link to a reputable source that's backing you up? Voodoo! Voodoo I say!!!!!"
You don't have to respond to the whole thing, but can you give me one or two examples of me being, "delusional" or "twisting your words"? If not, then your claim does not stand and I'll consider the point conceded. Maybe you should actually respond to my words instead of making broad attacks?
"As for the talking to people from Bioware. I'm going to drop this subject as you haven't a clue at this point"
You're right... I don't have a clue. Because a clue is evidence, and you haven't provided that. I don't know why you expect me to have some clue about your personal dealings. The only "clue" I have is that you have given contradictory accounts, which is a clue against your claims. But, since you will not provide a clue for me, I'm glad you're finally dropping it.
"Something I studied in Philosophy and I tried to explain the concept to you and you failed to understand it."
Eh... no? This is one of those things that you're saying that just didn't happen... Granted I could have missed this, and I'm not going to scan through the posts, but can you show me where you tried to explain logic?
But ummmm... I did explain logic. I don't know how you can say I failed to understand logic, when I just explained it. Unless your logic is different O_o...
Here's a link to encyclopedia Britanica, which will cite the same three logical absoutes (referred to here as the laws of thought) as I just did.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought
If you say I don't understand logic... then you're just demonstrably wrong. Can you point out something in my description that was inaccurate? As someone who claims to have studied philosophy, you should recognize that these come from Aristotle, so I'm not sure how you didn't recognize this as a valid description of logic.
But, I can't blame you for not being able to follow what I say... you can't quite follow what you say either... For example...
What I said: 11. This conversation WAS about story, and I showed clear evidence that YOU were talking about story originally. Why are you trying to change the scope?
You replied last post: "It may or may not surprise you to know that I actually WAS referring to the theme from both points of view (developer and story) when I made the initial claim. Other wise (sic), why would I even both (sic) brining (sic) it up? LOL I'm sorry but.... wow dude, just wow. You are throwing in a lot of smoke and mirrors and straight up ignorance of ignoring half of my replies."
You now... :"I did initially speak from a story perspective and I did progressively move into a developer mindset. I absolutely do consider games to be a medium of story telling. Not a shed (sic) of doubt about this."
These statements are contradictory. Before, you said that you were referring to theme from both points of view initially. In fact, you attacked me for implying otherwise.
Now, you're saying that you were initially speaking about if from a story perspective, and then moved to a developer mindset.
So, you laughed at me, accused me of being deceptive and ignorant, and were basically a jerk when I said you were initially talking about story and changed the conversation to being about game development... then, just one post later you say you were initially talking about story and moved on to talking about game development. Lulz.
It seems that you're the one who is ignoring your replies. Good thing one of us is paying attention ^_~
You're you really going with that "I'm right your wrong" bullshit in a debate? Really? *face palms* Would anyone continue to debate unless under the following conditions?
1) They believe they are right
or my personal favorite
2) To engage a thought provoking conversations
Sadly this debate follows option 1. The most undesirable in my eyes.
Speaking of twisting words, my saying "I'm right and your wrong", was part of a clearly sarcastic critique of your silly theme game. Let me bring up the quote for you.
"""""""""To prove your case, you need to tell me the theme of 1984, Bioshock Infinite, House of Leaves, The Sun Also Rises, War and Peace, The Cat In The Hat, Home Alone 3, 19Q4, The Wind Up Bird Chronicle, Xenoblade Chronicles, Final Fantasy X, Braid, and Debbie Does Dallas.
If you cannot do this, you're wrong and I am right. AND I am the one who gets to decide what the theme is. If you disagree with me you're wrong. """""""""
Now, before you dragged my poor little quote kicking and screaming from it's context, it was clear that I was mocking your ridiculous "Name That Theme" game. Unless you thought that I was seriously asking you for the theme of Debbie Does Dallas (ambition and the American dream btw).
At this point, I've moved from frustration to exasperation to straight up amusement. You accuse me of "twisting" the word jackass into an insult, jumping on little openings, then ten seconds later, you rip something out of context like that.
But, if we're facepalming stupid things...
I take it that point #1 on the first question was conceded, at least to the extent that you do not maintain an author's comments are 100% reliable evidence.
The Geth was resolved after being rewriting. Their conflict with each other still links back to organics and synthetics. Can you prove that there would have been conflict without Unity. What would be the point? Why would they need the virus, or a link to Saren who was under control by the Reapers. The Reapers wouldn't even need any involvement.
But the Geth aren't necessarily rewritten. This is an interactive narrative. They can be rewritten or destroyed. As of now, there is no canonical story. Canon is something that HAS to be established publicly, so what Bioware said is irrelevant, even if you did have private conversations. Canon by definition can not be a secret.
Your response doesn't really address the point I was making. You said that synthesis would end conflicts between different ethnicities. This proves that it would not necessarily do that. That does not mean I can guarante there will be conflict between the synthesized world, just that there is no reason to expect there won't be. The only "evidence" that we have that shows synthesis will lead to peace is the word of the starchild, who I take it you accept is not a reliable source of information.
Furthermore, I demonstrated how the game shows that differences between races can be solved without everybody being robots.
I honestly don't know what you mean when you say "can you prove there would be conflict without unity"?
"Your examples of synthesis are bad ideas because they were. Very negative approach that were more forced and would have resulted in ugly outcomes. Especially Jack Harpers way, unfortunately later understood Desolas and believed that he was right all a long. Jack then became known as "The Illusive Man".
And those are the examples of synthesis we have. So, if every example we have of synthesis leads to horrible outcome, what reason do we have to believe that it would lead to a positive outcome in this case?
In Mass Effect 2, care to explain why you are bringing all these people together? Yes they each have their own story but there still remains the main subject of the game. Also, the Collectors are both organic and synthetic. The Reapers very much upgraded them. In terms of gameplay they are counted as organics in terms of their weaknesses for gameplay purposes. Plot wise they are both.
I agree that the battle between the collectors and Shepard is the main subject of the game. But that is not the same as the theme.
