marharth

I see what you mean, but are you ever actually moving in time? The way I see it everything you live in is always the present. The past is memories and the future does not exist yet.

Still have no clue what you are talking about. Is there any evidence that coordinate systems link dimensions?

So since when was time a "tube?" Not really following the connection between the third dimension and time being the forth dimension.

You can free him and let him go, I wouldn't consider that revenge. Well not really. If you free him you get attacked by Ceaser instantly and Benny pretty much dies within a second.

I think that, to cut to the chase, major media outlets exist to milk their respective audiences (i.e. target demographic) and make money. I would bet a large amount of money that every outlet does a voluminous amount of market research and analysis before they schedule their programming or hire new talent, catering their content to precisely the crowd that their analytics tells them comprises the majority of their viewership (or, to a lesser extent, readership). Going beyond the actual content (both of actual reporting but also in terms of personalities hired), I would also wager that said analytics informs even the presentation of news and commentary as well. You could then begin to form a general list of character traits, personality preferences, and aesthetic sensibilities that are common to the median viewer of a given outlet. I would postulate the following: 1. MSNBC -- Liberals like to view themselves as dispassionate and sober. Hosts will emphasize the intellectual validity of their positions (polling and research data) and defer to data whenever possible. Diversity is regarded as desirable which will be manifested in selection of program hosts and featured commentators. Viewership, however, is mostly white, urban, college-educated, and middle/upper middle class. 2. Fox News -- Conservatives like to view themselves as realistic and reasonable. Hosts will emphasize the "common sense" practicality of their positions versus the overly intellectual/elitist opinions of those they disagree with. Diversity is not viewed as a desirable end unto itself, thus ethnic and sexual minorities are largely absent from their hosting cadre and Commenteriat. Viewership is overwhelmingly white, with majority of viewers in the lower middle and lower tiers of the upper classes (owners of small, traditional businesses), and is drawn more heavily from the rural and suburban areas of the country. Commentators are chosen for bombastic rhetorical talent and charismatic personality;* content presentation is designed to visually stimulate and appeal to various emotions--especially love, patriotism, and derision. *A special feature of conservative programming, especially prevalent in talk radio, is the sense of being aggrieved and/or besieged and/or persecuted by society as a whole, and it being the responsibility of the conservative to react against this. I could elaborate on this, but it's not really material to the discussion at-hand. 3. CNN -- The Middle Path of American news, adhering to a strict belief in the neutrality of journalists. Hosts will take great pains to present both sides of the issue--while continually reminding the audience of this--even if both sides of an issue are not equal in terms of their claims to legitimacy. Viewership is likely more non-partisan than the other networks, as well as more politically apathetic in general. This despite likely having the most authentically diverse audience out of any of the major networks. Diversity is regarded as important, but not overly so. Viewers are probably evenly distributed throughout the economic spectrum, with most culled from the middle of the middle class, as well as being geographically well-distributed throughout the country. 4. CNBC/Bloomberg, etc. -- These are for the high-earners or those that aspire to be high-earners. Viewership probably skews Republican by a mile, but these are likely not social conservatives nor defense hawks. Viewers are fiscal conservatives and pro-Big Business/unregulated capitalism, though demographically viewers are probably white collar professionals or managers in larger-sized companies. Audience is likely heavily, heavily white. Despite political leanings, viewers do not share the "real Americans" aggrieved mentality of conservative radio listeners, as, by and large, they are doing quite well in this economy. Viewers are largely urban and well-educated, likely residing on the coasts or in affluent enclaves/capitals in rural states. Diversity is not regarded as something important, but small amounts of ethnic personalities are featured to (perhaps more subconsciously than intentional) insinuate that our present manifestation of capitalism works for people other than "well-born" whites. 5. ABC/NBC/local -- Honestly, I have no idea. These are probably the last of the bastions for classical liberal journalism (i.e. "just the facts" non-partisanship) in an age of partisan niche specialization. It would then be no wonder that they are losing ground vis-a-vis the demographically focused outlets, as they are essentially ignoring the demands of the market. Viewers of these stations are likely either the poor (unable to afford cable/satellite), the truly politically apathetic (again, perhaps also poor) or those of a certain subset of liberals who are more concerned with local issues than the national political landscape. Diversity is probably contingent on the locality of the broadcast, reflecting the local distribution of minorities/attitudes toward minorities. Once upon a time, this is what our news used to be like. It is sad, in a way, that this is no longer the case. Eh, I had more to say, but I've lost my head of steam. All of the above is strictly "IMO." This is pretty much explains it perfectly. I would change the Fox News one a bit, but for the most part it explains the news outlets spot on.

It is really bad that people are willing to pay for a ending. It is completely horrendous that people actually prefer to pay for a ending over just having a bad ending. Please quit letting companies milk you.

Time is a observation and measurement and not really anything else. It is as much as a physical thing as a foot or a meter is. In no way it it a dimension. You can not predict the future because it hasn't happened yet. It is really that simple. The future will never actually exist because it will become the present.

Actually you are forced to take revenge. At least on Benny. The game does not let you side with Benny at all.

If it is playing out in your head where is Shepard? And what actually stopped the reapers?

@That video Anderson was not on board the same shuttles as the kid. It is possible for strong willed people to resist indoctrination. Maybe no one else sees the kid because the kid is just some random kid? Its not like everyone in the world would notice the kid. The only reason Shepard noticed the kid was because he was playing outside at the start of the game, and Shepard noticed. The dreams were just that he felt bad about not being able to save the kid. It had nothing to do with reapers. Don't forget that during some of the dreams he also felt regret about Kaiden/Ashley and other people. The dreams were not just about the kid. At the end the reapers were not talking to Shepard at all. If voices were inside of Shepards head the player didn't hear them. It is kind of deceptive to add the sound files on to make it seem like the reapers are actually there. Shepard is under control at the end because he is being controlled by the Illusive Man. The reason a lot of these things happened was because of plot holes and nothing else. It is possible that theory could be true though I don't see it being likely. If EA tries to put out a DLC for a real ending people really need to get them to stop. It is insane to ask for a DLC for a ending. If that is their plan It is far worse then just having a bad ending. Asking to pay for a DLC to get a finished game (Prothean DLC) once is enough. Asking to pay to get the ending is way over the line. It doesn't matter how you look at it. EA and Bioware screwed up.

I don't think any MMO they make will be good. It is going to probably be WoW style like every other thing. If its a MMO it should have the same mechanics as the other TES (or fallout) games.

I think too many people are taking the kid thing too literal. The way I see it the kid is a actual kid. Shepard just gets traumatized by seeing the kid die (for some reason) and keeps seeing the kid in his dreams. It is not that the kid is the catalyst, it just chose to pick that form when talking to Shepard. Even if the reapers did notice anything moving towards the relay, it is still a good distraction.

The only real way to get news in this country is to view it from multiple sources and be able to determine bias.

Going to be dead honest. I don't think Beth has the coding skill to make a good MMO.

How did this turn into a debate on if Skyrim is being dumbed down or not? There is probably over a thousand topics like that.

This is pretty much how I feel as well.

Why are people still complaining about ACORN? It was shut down over a year ago. It really doesn't matter anymore.

I'm sorry, it takes hours for something as big as a dreadnought to leave a system. As for being terrible ending, it's subjective opinion. I could explain in detail why the endings were terrible. The number of plot holes the ending caused alone makes the ending terrible. It is not just opinion. Also no. Ships in the ME universe can move faster then light.

As did many of the Democrats during their primaries in 2008. Nothing new there. Bill Clinton didn't just stop with having affairs though. He sexually assaulted at least 5 women who have documentation to back that up, and he lied at trial, which is why he damn near got kicked out of office. Had the libs defending him voted the facts, he would have been the first president forcefully removed from office. Sorry, but in the Democratic party today, there's no difference between the two. Yes there is a difference. Pretty much every democrat in office is a corrupt piece of crap. Saying every single democrat is a liberal is silly, and saying every liberal is a democrat is also silly. I certainly don't hold the same views as Obama as you can clearly see.

The reason affairs are worse with republicans is because they spew crap about family values all the time. Obama is a democrat. Not a liberal. Just because his administration keeps the wars going does not mean that is remotely close to what liberals want. Obama is counting the same policies as Bush, it is clear he is not a liberal. Why would congress "force" Obama to pass the tax cuts when he never really opposed them? The majority of the country wants higher taxes for the upper class, so no idea why that would help him in elections. Passing a weak healthcare bill that benefits corporations is not liberal. It is corporatist and authoritarian. Having federal healthcare is fine with liberals. Having a federal healthcare system that forces people to bow down to healthcare companies is not. Really it doesn't matter. Everyone running right now sucks, and the current person in office sucks. Unless there is some serious social and political change we are going nowhere.

It takes less then a minute to move the fleets from pluto (the relay) to earth. It wouldn't be hard at all to withdraw the fleets It is not that people didn't expect it, it is that it was terrible. I am sure most people expected the ending to be pretty sad or unhappy. It is polished sure, and it has better combat then the other games. That does not excuse the failure of the story.

Romney is as liberal as Obama. Meaning he is conservative. Not sure in what world wanting to starting a few wars, extending tax cuts, and passing a weak healthcare reform bill makes you a liberal.

You can't abolish the senate without a constitutional amendment. You can't even change the federal government structure (the three branches) at all without a amendment. Won't ever happen.

If I remember correctly at the end of the game nearly every reaper including harbinger was at earth. Harbinger is the most powerful reaper. Even if the plan wouldn't work, it annoys me it wasn't even mentioned in game. I think it is far better to sacrifice the people on the planet then completely destroying the relays and causing a huge fall back in technology. I also fail to understand why no one used nuclear weapons on the reapers besides a few times. It is quite obvious you can take out a reaper with explosives if you attack it while it is charging the laser thing. A nuclear weapon would easily take out a reaper. Where did everyone's nukes go?

Well since this is working out well for a topic to complain about the ending, I will post what I said in my topic. Does anyone else wonder why you can't withdraw the fleets and blow up the sol relay? Since a destroyed relay takes out a entire system (ending of a me2 dlc, shep took out a entire batarian system to stop the reapers), that would destroy the entire sol system (where all the reapers, including the leader of the reapers currently are) and be the best possible ending. It would save humanity and defeat the reapers, without knocking everything back to the stone age. Does no one else see this? I can't be the only one who thought of this.