57139 réponses à ce sujet

[KingDan97]

No.
/thread

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


^Dismissal of logical statements on multiple occasions. Interpretation was bioware's intention (truth.) So if we can craft up any theory that fits the mythos and lore of mass effect.. then it works.

Except you didn't write the mythos and lore; you admit to crafting the theory, which never existed prior to ME3, and then going back retroactively to support it.


Also, what is the truth? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue. Was IT was their goal, or that interpretation was their goal all along? Do you want them to support IT, or support continued interpretation?

[n00bsauce2010]

NoSpin wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Dwailing wrote...


You can walk through the keepers?  That is actually weird because the keepers were solid earlier on the Citadel.  Why would they change that?

It doesn't have to mean anything, and that's the point. Just because it doesn't make sense is no indication that it's proof of a larger truth; it can simply just be a mistake, an oversight, or just mean nothing at all.

People can attach meaning to anything, and that's pretty clear in the case of the evidence. It never suggested indoctrination before launch; there was no real buildup. Even after Arrival DLC, people weren't insisting to this degree that Shep was now indoctrinated, or at the risk of becoming indoctrinated.


To me, the facts and observation should form the basis for a theory; the theory should not be the basis for making sense of the observations.

Arrival in interesting, didn't they say it had "massive" implications for ME3 or something?

You can't prove God exists, I can't prove he doesn't. A bit extravagant, but the same applies here. I can't prove he/she is indoctrinated, you can't prove he/she isn't. Until our "God" (Bioware) tells us that is.

Holy sh*t that makes sense. Too bad the trolls will completely dismiss it.

[Jadebaby]

Okay

killnoob wrote...

And you clearly have better things to do arguing with trolls on the net about a game with crappy ending.

and where did this speculation come from? For someone that's so opposed to the IT, you sure have some fantasies of your own. I'm not argueing anything. Simply stating obvious troll obviously has no life. You proved that one enough by just calling yourself a troll.

killnoob wrote...

You tell me to grow up?

Grab yourself a mirror.

I couldn't live without one, too bad atm all I can see is your avatar because your self-righteous ego is flooding my room.

[noobcannon]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Interpretation.

Dismissal of anything that doesn't support the IT.

just curious, if bioware came out and suddenly confirmed IT (not saying that will happen) would you support it? 

[Arian Dynas]

 *cough*
www.youtube.com/watch

Thank you Ahnold, and goodnight.

[Dwailing]

GBGriffin wrote...

Dwailing wrote...


You can walk through the keepers?  That is actually weird because the keepers were solid earlier on the Citadel.  Why would they change that?

It doesn't have to mean anything, and that's the point. Just because it doesn't make sense is no indication that it's proof of a larger truth; it can simply just be a mistake, an oversight, or just mean nothing at all.

People can attach meaning to anything, and that's pretty clear in the case of the evidence. It never suggested indoctrination before launch; there was no real buildup. Even after Arrival DLC, people weren't insisting to this degree that Shep was now indoctrinated, or at the risk of becoming indoctrinated.


To me, the facts and observation should form the basis for a theory; the theory should not be the basis for making sense of the observations.

Perhaps, but when the observations begin piling up and it seems as if they point to something more, there comes a point at which you start to wonder.  Also, in science, many observations are explained because of an existing hypothesis/theory.   So, just because we start finding evidence after creating a hypothesis, it doesn't invalidate the evidence we find. 

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


^Dismissal of logical statements on multiple occasions. Interpretation was bioware's intention (truth.) So if we can craft up any theory that fits the mythos and lore of mass effect.. then it works.

Except you didn't write the mythos and lore; you admit to crafting the theory, which never existed prior to ME3, and then going back retroactively to support it.


Also, what is the truth? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue. Was IT was their goal, or that interpretation was their goal all along? Do you want them to support IT, or support continued interpretation?

Man I love repeating myself. Multiple Interpretations were their goal all along for the ending.

I see more dismissal yet again.

[noobcannon]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Okay

killnoob wrote...

And you clearly have better things to do arguing with trolls on the net about a game with crappy ending.

and where did this speculation come from? For someone that's so opposed to the IT, you sure have some fantasies of your own. I'm not argueing anything. Simply stating obvious troll obviously has no life. You proved that one enough by just calling yourself a troll.

killnoob wrote...

You tell me to grow up?

Grab yourself a mirror.

I couldn't live without one, too bad atm all I can see is your avatar because your self-righteous ego is flooding my room.

trolling the troll... i see what you did there.

[Arian Dynas]

 *cough* To n00b and the trolls in paticular...

 

Thank you Ahnold, and goodnight.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 07 avril 2012 - 04:13 .

[Fhaarkas]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


^Dismissal of logical statements on multiple occasions. Interpretation was bioware's intention (truth.) So if we can craft up any theory that fits the mythos and lore of mass effect.. then it works.

Except you didn't write the mythos and lore; you admit to crafting the theory, which never existed prior to ME3, and then going back retroactively to support it.


Also, what is the truth? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue. Was IT was their goal, or that interpretation was their goal all along? Do you want them to support IT, or support continued interpretation?

I want them to support continued interpretation.

[GBGriffin]

NoSpin wrote...


Arrival in interesting, didn't they say it had "massive" implications for ME3 or something?

You can't prove God exists, I can't prove he doesn't. A bit extravagant, but the same applies here. I can't prove he/she is indoctrinated, you can't prove he/she isn't. Until our "God" (Bioware) tells us that is.

Except if there is no God, then we never get that answer

This isn't God, or some natural phenomenon. You are speculating over a truth, the intent of a creative team, and claiming to know what they intended to do based on what fits a fan-made theory.

Again, to me, their post-launch actions suggests their intent, but clearly, people can dismiss that because it doesn't fit their theory, their interpretation of events. 

[Golferguy758]

I think we need some more majora's mask up in here with my rushed MSpaint effects!

Can't you see? Casey is playing you all for fools!

[killnoob]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Okay

killnoob wrote...

And you clearly have better things to do arguing with trolls on the net about a game with crappy ending.

and where did this speculation come from? For someone that's so opposed to the IT, you sure have some fantasies of your own. I'm not argueing anything. Simply stating obvious troll obviously has no life. You proved that one enough by just calling yourself a troll.

killnoob wrote...

You tell me to grow up?

Grab yourself a mirror.

I couldn't live without one, too bad atm all I can see is your avatar because your self-righteous ego is flooding my room.

That's nice

Now please comment more about my ego and less about I.T.

Let's reduce this thread into nothing but a bunch of pointless bickers

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


^Dismissal of logical statements on multiple occasions. Interpretation was bioware's intention (truth.) So if we can craft up any theory that fits the mythos and lore of mass effect.. then it works.

Except you didn't write the mythos and lore; you admit to crafting the theory, which never existed prior to ME3, and then going back retroactively to support it.


Also, what is the truth? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue. Was IT was their goal, or that interpretation was their goal all along? Do you want them to support IT, or support continued interpretation?

Man I love repeating myself. Multiple Interpretations were their goal all along for the ending.

I see more dismissal yet again.

Sorry, but you honestly don't do a very good job of making your point. I'm sure it sounds fine in your head, but it's not as easy to follow as you might think.

Why, for example, are you supporting continued interpretation in a thread that wants no interpretation and the IT theory to be true?

[NoSpin]

Too much trolling going on to have a decent conversation here. I interpret the ending one way, you guys interpret it a different way, seems to fit what Bioware wanted in the end. But you can't go around slamming people with "No YOU'RE WRONG!!!" in this thread. You can't prove it. The only person who can is Bioware. That is the only Truth until they say.

[blooregard]

Does anybody remember that thread was meant to discuss interesting points in Mass Effect 3 where things get weird and where indoctrination seems like a viable explanation? We should go back to that thread since that one was interesting, entertaining, and constructive.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

NoSpin wrote...


Arrival in interesting, didn't they say it had "massive" implications for ME3 or something?

You can't prove God exists, I can't prove he doesn't. A bit extravagant, but the same applies here. I can't prove he/she is indoctrinated, you can't prove he/she isn't. Until our "God" (Bioware) tells us that is.

Except if there is no God, then we never get that answer

This isn't God, or some natural phenomenon. You are speculating over a truth, the intent of a creative team, and claiming to know what they intended to do based on what fits a fan-made theory.

Again, to me, their post-launch actions suggests their intent, but clearly, people can dismiss that because it doesn't fit their theory, their interpretation of events. 

Hence your opinion. Therefore not fact. Therefore back to square one.

The problem is... bioware exists and have made the intent about the ending clear... interpretations and wild speculation. Idn how many times I have to repeat that.

[Jadebaby]

RedShft wrote...

So how to people feel about IT? You still believe it is a possibility? Personally, I've lost faith several announcements ago but I'm interested to hear how people feel about it now.

I think a lot of us are remaining optimistic about it still.

It gets harder as we walk down this dark tunnel of speculation... All the reality trolls are coming out of the crevasse's to shatter our light before we reach the end, too bad they're fighting metal and armor with sticks and stones.

[AnuzaGray]

I reject truth that is illogical and idiotic.

[AnuzaGray]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

RedShft wrote...

So how to people feel about IT? You still believe it is a possibility? Personally, I've lost faith several announcements ago but I'm interested to hear how people feel about it now.

I think a lot of us are remaining optimistic about it still.

It gets harder as we walk down this dark tunnel of speculation... All the reality trolls are coming out of the crevasse's to shatter our light before we reach the end, too bad they're fighting metal and armor with sticks and stones.

And the fact that unless Bioware pulls something glorious out of left field, IDT is vastly superior to what they've done.

[Jadebaby]

killnoob wrote...

That's nice

Now please comment more about my ego and less about I.T.

Let's reduce this thread into nothing but a bunch of pointless bickers

Notice I said self-righteous....

Also, you started the bickering multiple pages ago, I just hate having good discussions ruined by trolls.

[Fhaarkas]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


^Dismissal of logical statements on multiple occasions. Interpretation was bioware's intention (truth.) So if we can craft up any theory that fits the mythos and lore of mass effect.. then it works.

Except you didn't write the mythos and lore; you admit to crafting the theory, which never existed prior to ME3, and then going back retroactively to support it.


Also, what is the truth? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue. Was IT was their goal, or that interpretation was their goal all along? Do you want them to support IT, or support continued interpretation?

Man I love repeating myself. Multiple Interpretations were their goal all along for the ending.

I see more dismissal yet again.

Sorry, but you honestly don't do a very good job of making your point. I'm sure it sounds fine in your head, but it's not as easy to follow as you might think.

Why, for example, are you supporting continued interpretation in a thread that wants no interpretation and the IT theory to be true?

There are 10 kinds of IT subscribers - those that want clear cut confirmation (and new gameplay) and those in favour of interpretation.

[GBGriffin]

AnuzaGray wrote...

I reject truth that is illogical and idiotic.

But if it's truth, and it is illogical and idiotic, then you're rejecting the truth.

Not all truth is logical, nor does all truth make sense. it remains the truth, however.

Just because it doesn't fit your version of what the truth should be does not make it false.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


^Dismissal of logical statements on multiple occasions. Interpretation was bioware's intention (truth.) So if we can craft up any theory that fits the mythos and lore of mass effect.. then it works.

Except you didn't write the mythos and lore; you admit to crafting the theory, which never existed prior to ME3, and then going back retroactively to support it.


Also, what is the truth? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue. Was IT was their goal, or that interpretation was their goal all along? Do you want them to support IT, or support continued interpretation?

Man I love repeating myself. Multiple Interpretations were their goal all along for the ending.

I see more dismissal yet again.

Sorry, but you honestly don't do a very good job of making your point. I'm sure it sounds fine in your head, but it's not as easy to follow as you might think.

Why, for example, are you supporting continued interpretation in a thread that wants no interpretation and the IT theory to be true?

I can ask you a similar question. Why are you in a thread clearly disproving your ****** poor logic? You seem to bring the same point up.. over and over and over again. Only to have it logically countered. And you seem to selectively reply to posts that clearly fit your argument. The sad truth.