| JWeinCom said:
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 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. I already explained that the "theme" is not the reason that characters are doing whatever they do. That is the conflict. You are using subject, theme, conflict, and plot interchangeably... but they're just not the same things. Please go and watch the link I gave you about theme.
If you don't know about narrative structure... then you don't know...
Look back to the video on theme I provided, or if you like, find your own source of theme from a story perspective. After reading this, would you still say that "organics vs synthetics" is an accurate description of theme?
Now, if the collectors, the reapers, and the reapers minions can all be counted as organics AND synthetics, then how are you claiming that this game is about organics vs synthetics?
If the reapers and collectors are both organic/synthetic hybrids, then isn't the conflict actually between organics and hybrids?The only time you actually fight pure synthetics is against the Geth, who were themselves instigated by hybrids. The rest of the games you are fighting either pure organics, or hybrids. Considering this, how can you say that organic vs synthetic is the theme of the game, or that synthesis is a good option?
It seems that synethesized being (hybrids) are actually the cause of all the problems in the series... So your claim that organics vs synthetics is the theme of the game fails. You just plain don't fight many synthetics, or even interact with them very much.
I will need to cut this short unfortunately. I will provide the answers as promised. (it is relevant for the subject of theme and this is from a game design prospect) I am very impressed with some of your answers and do give you the credit where it is due.
Eh... I don't think you can provide answers... You can tell me what you think theme is, but whether you think I'm right or wrong, you have not shown you are an authority. It's not that I don't get your meaning of theme... It's just not what we were initially talking about, and I disagree with it.
But, it's interesting that you're claiming that the theme of Mass Effect is human ascension... When the whole point you've been trying to make is that the theme is organics vs synthetics.
 |
*rolls eyes*
Context is everything. If I wanted to insult you. I would. I would say something like along the lines of "Your a fucking idiot" or "Do you even have a brain?" or something along those lines. By no means did I intend to be insulting when I called you a jackass. I'm sorry that you felt this way, but it was not my intention. That is that. Intention and context is very important in this case. You of all people should know this.
So yes. I actually have had difficulties taking you series by your 3rd or 4th reply. I'm not even going to pretend this isn't the case.
Are you seriously thinking that I don't have time because I can't find the answers? That is such a dumb accusation. Some people have lives outside of the internet and tend to be very busy. This is something that is a very simple concept to understand. If you insist, I have been very busy working on a cinematic cutscene for a current project. Damn. I didn't even want to touch this. The next thing you're going to say is that it's just an excuse. Once again grasping at straws.
Exactly how does changing the rods to get at the SAME point, contradictory? When someone is talking about a theme from both a story and game development point of view. Of course we are going to disagree. You have absolutely clearly displayed that you have very little idea on how theme works in the gaming industry. This is clear cut to me, and I rest my case in that aspect. I brought up the meaning in the context of a game developer because we are talking about a video game LOL How is this not common sense? So yes I still stand by what I said.
Are you seriously asking me how hybrids are not synthetic and organic? My god dude... they are hybrids because they are synthetic AND organic. This is children's logic. I don't even know what to say about this without sounding ignorant or insulting. It really is simple, elementary stuff. I don't know how many times I've said both organics and synthetics, organics vs synthetics, synthetics and organics, synthetics vs organics. All statements are true with different wording and different order. From what you've displayed to me. Each wording contradicts the other and therefor is a lie. You really don't need to know the difference because it's all the same. The game explores the difference between the two, hence the word "vs" and the game holds both of them in subject and context, hence I used the word and.
I've given you verbal evidence as you have to me. I bring up the points of philosophy because you mention that we are dealing with logic. You then counter this with man made ideas. I find this very intriguing to say the least. Of course rules are rules, laws are laws. But reality reigns over both. I don't even know why I brought this up because it is completely irrelevant.
It's clear that we are both in a disagreement and we both think the other does not understand logic, when in reality we do. From a different view point. It was also very rude of me to mention philosophy or scientific concepts in my previous posts, because they were essentially gut punch cheap shots.
I don't know why you are saying that theme and what the characters are doing are the same. I said that theme is the base foundation of the games concept. In game design this is true. In Mass Effect it is organics and synthetics. It is also unity. Those are the MAIN two, there are many other subthemes that carry out though the series. The Synthesis ending is the only one that conquers all of the aspects. I have had those told to me and unfortunately no, I cannot prove it to you as I didn't record it. I did however, make the decision to share this knowledge with people who actually may be interested to know this. You on the other hand have a problem with this and contain a obsessive compulsive need to argue against it. That is fine and that is your own personal opinion. You are entitled to it.
You stated that the conflict between collectors and Shepard is the main subject of the game? Did you mean ME2? That was a subject and as you said a conflict. As for the series, it is not the main subject. They weren't in ME1 and played a minor role in ME3. Also, the collectors were actually retconned in ME2. They were originally intended to be the "Inusannon" which we learn about in ME2. Technically they are now the Protheans to the Protheans lol. There were quite a few races that were cut in the later games that they planned on. It sucks, but that's the reality of things.
If you really want to know why the Synthesis ending is considered to be the only one where the peace will last. That is because it is based on philosophy of "All is One"! The destroy and control ending only allows for temporary peace to rebuild. It does NOTHING to resolve future conflict of newer races that will evolved or disagreements between current races. The synthesis ending eliminates ALL of that. It removes the dualistic views and differences and brings everything into a synchronisation and harmony. Thus creating true peace. Here is the concept behind the intentions of the synthesis ending. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_monism.html
http://theoryofuniverse.com/
http://www.one-mind-one-energy.com/connected.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
http://www.mind-your-reality.com/universal_mind.html
I know, it's shocking that I went out of my way to get sources. It would have been so much easier if I've done this from the beginning instead of just typing, typing, typing away.
Either way. That's that. That is the concept behind the synthesis ending. It goes far beyond selfish mind control that that The Illusive Man sought and far beyond the destructive nature of destroying your enemies. Both of these are considered immoral points of view and very black and white. A dualistic way of thinking. Synthesis combines all in one. As I said before. Perfect harmony and distance itself from differences. Throughout the whole series Commander Shepard tries to bring everyone together, to separate their differences and work together, in unity and harmony. The other "solution" answers this. That is the reason why Bioware considers that ending to be the true and canon ending. It is the only one to hold a meaning behind it.
Bioware thought it would be obvious as it is the only ending that requires a lot of extra effort to obtain. In order to achieve it, you need a high level of galactic (war) assets. You need to bring more people together. Once again unity. I believe that the intention was clearly stated by both a story and gameplay point of view. Clearly this is not the case. A disappointment, but a mistake that proves to be useful for future games.
We likely won't see anything regarding the endings in the next Mass Effect as they want it to be separate.
