I have arguments about this subject with conservative friends/family of mine all the time ... and I'm conservative. They like to accuse me of being liberal because of my thoughts on this issue but I'm anything but. I use to believe in trickle-down economics, even would argue in favor of it, because mathematically it makes sense. The problem has turned out to be, and we've had over 3 decades to observe its effect now, that it fails to take human psychology into account. The idea is that when the rich get richer they'll spend that money in ways that benefit the rest of us; create new jobs, give raises, increase benefits, etc. But they don't. Instead they horde it ... FOREVER. Sure, they invest it but in ways that benefits them, in ways that protects the money. The top few percentage points of the economic landscape is like a black hole: money goes in but never comes back out. The result has been that we now have wealth inequality in this country parallel to what it was in the 1920s, or y'know ... what led to the Great Depression! Emerging facts on the ground have caused me to make a 180 when it comes to this and I wish Republicans would wake up and accept that whether the concept looks good on paper or not it simply doesn't work and has caused considerable harm.
Wickerman777's forum posts
Yeah still not enough performance for 4K... VRAM is not the issue, SLI GTX 970 pretty much beats it in the majority of games at 4K.
12GB VRAM is absolutely useless for gaming no matter the resolution.
I would wait for the GTX 980 Ti 6GB which will perform the same and be cheaper.
OK, my previous post was in jest (Hardware-wise X1 is a joke) but seriously, 4K is ridiculous for gaming. It's a colossal waste of resources. Tons of power being sucked up for only marginal gains in eye-candy ... in 99% of realistic situations anyway. I suppose if you're gonna superglue the monitor to your forehead you might see a bit of a difference. 1080p/60 is plenty for gaming. Certainly no more than 1440p is necessary. Sure, the more powerful the GPU the better but the extra power should go to better art, effects, larger environments, etc.
Meh, who needs 6-7 tflops when the all-powerful X1 shows ya only need 1. :)
We have plenty of water here in Manitoba. We could build a pipeline down to California.
Screw em.
I'm thankful I didn't go to high school in the cell phone / social media age. Make one mistake nowadays and you're gonna be reliving it forever.
Yes, the ending still sucks. The primary reason it sucks is because it was so lazy, wasn't really an ending at all. It was clear the developers couldn't think of a proper ending and so went with the God option instead; y'know, suddenly inject some all-powerful character into the story that can conclude things with a snap of his/her fingers.
An analogy could be a big upcoming MMA fight, say Jon Jones vs Anderson Silva. It's about to begin, you're pumped for it, then Dana White suddenly appears in the center of the Octagon, mumbles some words to Jones who in turn mumbles something back, and Silva falls over unconscious in his corner without a punch or kick thrown. The ref lifts Jones' arm in victory and the credits roll. That is the ending of Mass Effect 3.
Well, that sucks. Just have the guys fight and let's see who wins!
And c'mon, what is gearing up to be a galactic-level confrontation ending because of some chit-chat is silly. If that were a viable solution it never would have gotten that far to begin with.
Wow, you just don't get it. That's the problem now with people who bash ME3's ending, they simply put, did not pay attention to the themes of the game or the foreshadowing of the ending (and I am not talking about Leviathan).
Lets help people get it shall we.
The master, the starchild, the Catalyst, was foreshadowed by Vendetta on Thessia before Kai Leng arrives, he does not appear out of nowhere. Shepard even asks "who is the master?". Second, the Catalyst does NOT solve the problem, he does not resolve the story, Shepard does. In fact the Catalyst says this after Shepard asks why he is helping him/her.
"You have altered the variables, the Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen, if there is to be a new solution, you must act/choose."
Its the CRUCIBLE, which Shepard and his allies successfully bring, that solves the problem, not a deus ex machina.
So, Shepard does win, however, in a cliché break, you finally meet the main villain AFTER its defeat, which is rare in a story. And in fact, if you want to finish off the Catalyst, pick destroy. However, the theme of ME3 is sacrifice and every choice in the end had a price. Victory is not won without cost.
Nevermind the backstory of the Catalyst completely fits the themes of the series and so does its character. The PROBLEM with the original ending was that it was badly underdeveloped in all forms of the ending. The concept itself was not flawed.
Apparently you weren't paying attention. If you've already beaten them prior to the godchild's appearance then why does refusing to answer his goofy questions result in your forces being destroyed and the Reapers winning? If you choose destroy it shows them simply falling out of the sky as though they've chosen to turn themselves off. If the Crucible is doing that it's a ridiculous amount of power for one machine, a godlike power. Speaking of godlike powers what about the synergy option? Simply answer a question and as though God just snapped his fingers all organic life suddenly becomes partially synthetic. C'mon! Bioware didn't know how to show the allied forces winning in anything approaching a realistic way. Obviously the whole thing got too big for them. So they chose a light switch kind of method which not only stretches credulity but is lame storytelling.
Wow, you are mumbling nonsense. Once again......How is the Catalyst "God"? How is the Crucible "God"? They are not, you weren't paying attention to the story.
On Chronos Station you learn the Citadel amplifies and directs energy throughout the galaxy, and the Crucible is hinted all throughout the game and confirmed by the Catalyst as a power source (for dark energy), nothing more. Control and Destroy involves Shepard interacting with the AI core, and in Synthesis, Shepard him or herself is the trigger. Nevermind the Catalyst is the McGuffin you were looking for the entire game before the twist is that it is the main antagonist. Face facts here, there is no deus ex machina. You just weren't paying attention.
If you refuse, the Catalyst has nothing to go on but the cycle so it continues one more time.
It being mentioned before doesn't change its being retarded at all! An uber-all-powerful-secret weapon conveniently designed by someone else and capable of destroying and/or altering everything in a galaxy in a second is HORRIBLE writing and infinitely lame. That isn't an ending, it's a cop-out.
Wow, once again, failure to understand the story.
The Crucible is not even a weapon, its just an energy generator, a power source. Not only that, it uses the lore that was established in ME1 to even function, which is the Citadel, which we know to direct and amplify this energy and distribute it throughout the galaxy with the relays. The story explains this to you, well before the ending. Nevermind that the Crucible represented cycles upon cycles of resistance which is far from a "cop out" but part of the themes of the narrative, which was present in ME1.
This is the thing about people who hate the ME3 ending, or at least the now current version. They criticize a story that just cannot grasp or refuse to grasp. Its all in the narrative, it proves you wrong.
You keep saying that I don't comprehend this or that yet no matter how many times you are told something you fail to understand what is being conveyed to you: It doesn't matter to me if the Crucible and/or Catalyst were mentioned or alluded to 153 times in ME1, 298 times in ME2, and possibly 1,076 times in ME3. It's still dumb! Just as it would have been dumb if at the end of Star Wars E4 Luke and the other rebels hadn't blown up the Death Star the honest, ol' fashioned way but instead picked a color and every member of the Galactic Empire were instantly vaporized or all rebel fighters in the galaxy suddenly transformed into cyborgs. Foreshadowed or not, dumb is dumb.
Yes, the ending still sucks. The primary reason it sucks is because it was so lazy, wasn't really an ending at all. It was clear the developers couldn't think of a proper ending and so went with the God option instead; y'know, suddenly inject some all-powerful character into the story that can conclude things with a snap of his/her fingers.
An analogy could be a big upcoming MMA fight, say Jon Jones vs Anderson Silva. It's about to begin, you're pumped for it, then Dana White suddenly appears in the center of the Octagon, mumbles some words to Jones who in turn mumbles something back, and Silva falls over unconscious in his corner without a punch or kick thrown. The ref lifts Jones' arm in victory and the credits roll. That is the ending of Mass Effect 3.
Well, that sucks. Just have the guys fight and let's see who wins!
And c'mon, what is gearing up to be a galactic-level confrontation ending because of some chit-chat is silly. If that were a viable solution it never would have gotten that far to begin with.
Wow, you just don't get it. That's the problem now with people who bash ME3's ending, they simply put, did not pay attention to the themes of the game or the foreshadowing of the ending (and I am not talking about Leviathan).
Lets help people get it shall we.
The master, the starchild, the Catalyst, was foreshadowed by Vendetta on Thessia before Kai Leng arrives, he does not appear out of nowhere. Shepard even asks "who is the master?". Second, the Catalyst does NOT solve the problem, he does not resolve the story, Shepard does. In fact the Catalyst says this after Shepard asks why he is helping him/her.
"You have altered the variables, the Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen, if there is to be a new solution, you must act/choose."
Its the CRUCIBLE, which Shepard and his allies successfully bring, that solves the problem, not a deus ex machina.
So, Shepard does win, however, in a cliché break, you finally meet the main villain AFTER its defeat, which is rare in a story. And in fact, if you want to finish off the Catalyst, pick destroy. However, the theme of ME3 is sacrifice and every choice in the end had a price. Victory is not won without cost.
Nevermind the backstory of the Catalyst completely fits the themes of the series and so does its character. The PROBLEM with the original ending was that it was badly underdeveloped in all forms of the ending. The concept itself was not flawed.
Apparently you weren't paying attention. If you've already beaten them prior to the godchild's appearance then why does refusing to answer his goofy questions result in your forces being destroyed and the Reapers winning? If you choose destroy it shows them simply falling out of the sky as though they've chosen to turn themselves off. If the Crucible is doing that it's a ridiculous amount of power for one machine, a godlike power. Speaking of godlike powers what about the synergy option? Simply answer a question and as though God just snapped his fingers all organic life suddenly becomes partially synthetic. C'mon! Bioware didn't know how to show the allied forces winning in anything approaching a realistic way. Obviously the whole thing got too big for them. So they chose a light switch kind of method which not only stretches credulity but is lame storytelling.
Wow, you are mumbling nonsense. Once again......How is the Catalyst "God"? How is the Crucible "God"? They are not, you weren't paying attention to the story.
On Chronos Station you learn the Citadel amplifies and directs energy throughout the galaxy, and the Crucible is hinted all throughout the game and confirmed by the Catalyst as a power source (for dark energy), nothing more. Control and Destroy involves Shepard interacting with the AI core, and in Synthesis, Shepard him or herself is the trigger. Nevermind the Catalyst is the McGuffin you were looking for the entire game before the twist is that it is the main antagonist. Face facts here, there is no deus ex machina. You just weren't paying attention.
If you refuse, the Catalyst has nothing to go on but the cycle so it continues one more time.
It being mentioned before doesn't change its being retarded at all! An uber-all-powerful-secret weapon conveniently designed by someone else and capable of destroying and/or altering everything in a galaxy in a second is HORRIBLE writing and infinitely lame. That isn't an ending, it's a cop-out.
Yes, the ending still sucks. The primary reason it sucks is because it was so lazy, wasn't really an ending at all. It was clear the developers couldn't think of a proper ending and so went with the God option instead; y'know, suddenly inject some all-powerful character into the story that can conclude things with a snap of his/her fingers.
An analogy could be a big upcoming MMA fight, say Jon Jones vs Anderson Silva. It's about to begin, you're pumped for it, then Dana White suddenly appears in the center of the Octagon, mumbles some words to Jones who in turn mumbles something back, and Silva falls over unconscious in his corner without a punch or kick thrown. The ref lifts Jones' arm in victory and the credits roll. That is the ending of Mass Effect 3.
Well, that sucks. Just have the guys fight and let's see who wins!
And c'mon, what is gearing up to be a galactic-level confrontation ending because of some chit-chat is silly. If that were a viable solution it never would have gotten that far to begin with.
Wow, you just don't get it. That's the problem now with people who bash ME3's ending, they simply put, did not pay attention to the themes of the game or the foreshadowing of the ending (and I am not talking about Leviathan).
Lets help people get it shall we.
The master, the starchild, the Catalyst, was foreshadowed by Vendetta on Thessia before Kai Leng arrives, he does not appear out of nowhere. Shepard even asks "who is the master?". Second, the Catalyst does NOT solve the problem, he does not resolve the story, Shepard does. In fact the Catalyst says this after Shepard asks why he is helping him/her.
"You have altered the variables, the Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen, if there is to be a new solution, you must act/choose."
Its the CRUCIBLE, which Shepard and his allies successfully bring, that solves the problem, not a deus ex machina.
So, Shepard does win, however, in a cliché break, you finally meet the main villain AFTER its defeat, which is rare in a story. And in fact, if you want to finish off the Catalyst, pick destroy. However, the theme of ME3 is sacrifice and every choice in the end had a price. Victory is not won without cost.
Nevermind the backstory of the Catalyst completely fits the themes of the series and so does its character. The PROBLEM with the original ending was that it was badly underdeveloped in all forms of the ending. The concept itself was not flawed.
Apparently you weren't paying attention. If you've already beaten them prior to the godchild's appearance then why does refusing to answer his goofy questions result in your forces being destroyed and the Reapers winning? If you choose destroy it shows them simply falling out of the sky as though they've chosen to turn themselves off. If the Crucible is doing that it's a ridiculous amount of power for one machine, a godlike power. Speaking of godlike powers what about the synergy option? Simply answer a question and as though God just snapped his fingers all organic life suddenly becomes partially synthetic. C'mon! Bioware didn't know how to show the allied forces winning in anything approaching a realistic way. Obviously the whole thing got too big for them. So they chose a light switch kind of method which not only stretches credulity but is lame storytelling.
Yes, the ending still sucks. The primary reason it sucks is because it was so lazy, wasn't really an ending at all. It was clear the developers couldn't think of a proper ending and so went with the God option instead; y'know, suddenly inject some all-powerful character into the story that can conclude things with a snap of his/her fingers.
An analogy could be a big upcoming MMA fight, say Jon Jones vs Anderson Silva. It's about to begin, you're pumped for it, then Dana White suddenly appears in the center of the Octagon, mumbles some words to Jones who in turn mumbles something back, and Silva falls over unconscious in his corner without a punch or kick thrown. The ref lifts Jones' arm in victory and the credits roll. That is the ending of Mass Effect 3.
Well, that sucks. Just have the guys fight and let's see who wins!
And c'mon, what is gearing up to be a galactic-level confrontation ending because of some chit-chat is silly. If that were a viable solution it never would have gotten that far to begin with.
Comeback? Please. This has been more of an implosion ... a MS implosion. They screwed up their launch with a lot of dumb policy decisions and worse, they screwed up their hardware design. The latter is worse because it can't be changed.
Log in to comment