57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

OK, time to shower and hit the sack. See you all later. Remember, try not to kill each other while I'm gone. Also, GBGriffin, I don't think it will tell you this, but I thought you would get a laugh. On my friend request for you I listed you as my Nemesis. Thought it was appropriate. OK, good night, and hold the line.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


Your turn to answer my question.

Why should I? You clearly changed your argument; that, to me, is a sign of someone not worth the time.

I smell someone who doesn't have their own theory figured out. Sadly you've proven me right. And I'll take that as a testament to your need in order to belittle those who don't agree with you.

[killnoob]

Arian Dynas wrote...

killnoob wrote...

I'm not even talking about interpretations at this point.

Interpretations are fine. Go happy.

I'm talking about the facts.

The fact is:

Bioware PR statement reads "There will be room for interpretation" (kudos to noobsauce here)

But they also stated "There will not be an alternative endings.'

My question is this:

if indoctrination theory requires Shepard waking up and finish off the reapers

How can you do it if the ending is not expanded?


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they removed this scene, or add more to it. How can you extrapolate the ending using the indoctrination theory?

Assuming everything we learn about the catalyst is false. It is merely the work of indoctrinations.

We still don't know what crucible does.
We still don't know if Shepard will make it to the crucible or not.

Are these questions answerable using a three minute cutscenes?

If you keep this up I'm going to have to wip out my indoctrination theory extended cutscene script again. It got buried more than a hundred pages ago. Don't make me do that.

Can I get a straight answer please?

Or, correct me if I'm wrong,  are you happy with the ending showing Shepard waking up in a rubble, and then fill in the blank yourself, coming up with things like:

1. What crucible does
2. How Shepard got there
3. How Shepard uses it
4. The effect of crucible
5. What happen afterward

If that's the case, then let's take a look at what we take away from the game:

1. The entire galaxy spent its entire resource creating a device, and nobody knows what it does
2. The whole premise of the game revolves around gathering army to protect said machine

And in the end, we still don't know what it does?

Do you REALLY think indoc theory "at this point" is still a good idea?

Modifié par killnoob, 07 avril 2012 - 04:54 .

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


^ again proves my point of choosing to reply to posts in order to fit your argument

You ignored the fact that you changed the argument. The words about mythos and lore were absent in your first argument, but present in the second. That is a fact you chose to ignore.

Why would I waste time debating with you if you do that and seem okay with it?

It's beside the point. You never seem to answer questions that don't fit your argument. How do you justify that? How do you justify mending peoples quotes to fit your needs as well? How do you justify your opinion as a valid argument when your own opinion hasn't been stated? you know.. the question i asked where i said state the theories that are valid as opposed to the indoc theory.. (that means theories btw.. plural)

[Dwailing]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


Your turn to answer my question.

Why should I? You clearly changed your argument; that, to me, is a sign of someone not worth the time.

I smell someone who doesn't have their own theory figured out. Sadly you've proven me right. And I'll take that as a testament to your need in order to belittle those who don't agree with you.

OK, n00bsauce2010, I get that you don't agree with him, but please, EASE UP.  GBGriffin is actually a pretty decent guy if you, oh, I don't know, try not to kill him verbally.  I understand that you want to defend IT, but this isn't the way to win hearts and minds.  Just try to be friendly, and agree that whoever is right will rub it in the other's face when this is over with with no hard feelings on either side.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I smell someone who doesn't have their own theory figured out. Sadly you've proven me right. And I'll take that as a testament to your need in order to belittle those who don't agree with you.

You changed your argument so that you wouldn't have to admit my theory is valid. You also haven't addressed why you felt the need to clarify adding on the bit about mythos and lore.

Why should I even discuss anything with you if you are fine with that?

Modifié par GBGriffin, 07 avril 2012 - 04:54 .

[Dwailing]

OK, I'm out. Peace.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I smell someone who doesn't have their own theory figured out. Sadly you've proven me right. And I'll take that as a testament to your need in order to belittle those who don't agree with you.

You changed your argument so that you wouldn't have to admit my theory is valid. YOu also haven't addressed why you felt the need to clarify adding on the bit about mythos and lore.

Why should I even discuss anything with you if you are fine with that?

I think we can come to the conclusion that you don't have any theories figured out bud. So therefore your argument is pointless.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

I think we can come to the conclusion that you don't have any theories figured out bud. So therefore your argument is pointless.

Actually, I've presented at least one theory, which, by your original argument, was valid. You then changed your argument.

So, no, it isn't beside the point. You shifted your stance and didn't offer an explanation of why you felt the need to do so.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

I think we can come to the conclusion that you don't have any theories figured out bud. So therefore your argument is pointless.

Actually, I've presented at least one theory, which, by your original argument, was valid. You then changed your argument.

So, no, it isn't beside the point. You shifted your stance and didn't offer an explanation of why you felt the need to do so.

What theory is that? Because I have not seen it. Also.. remember you said theories. And as far as I know you haven't explained any.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


What theory is that? Because I have not seen it. Also.. remember you said theories. And as far as I know you haven't explained any.

The game was a rushed product and IT was never intended.

The game intended IT at the start, but it was scrapped during development.

There. Two theories. Care to explain your shift and why you're dodging my question about changing your argument?

Try fill in the blank: I changed my argument because ____________.

[n00bsauce2010]

My argument should not factor into what your opinion is. Therefore if you neglect to state such "theories" it means to me that your argument isn't as foolproof as you portray it to be.

[CLB17]

IT is just a theory. I am a big supporter of this theory because this theory fits the evidence and turns what i originally thought to be a terrible ending into one of the greatest endings ever but it is a theory. I do not know if it is true or not, nor will any of us until either bioware says it is or isn't or the DLC shows us it is or isn't. But regardless i will hold the line and believe in IT cause the alternative gives me nasua. If IT isn't true then hopefully Bioware thought of an explanation that none of us ever thought of and is even more mind blowing than It. But thats me being optimistic.

[killnoob]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

I think we can come to the conclusion that you don't have any theories figured out bud. So therefore your argument is pointless.

Actually, I've presented at least one theory, which, by your original argument, was valid. You then changed your argument.

So, no, it isn't beside the point. You shifted your stance and didn't offer an explanation of why you felt the need to do so.

What theory is that? Because I have not seen it. Also.. remember you said theories. And as far as I know you haven't explained any.

How about facts?
Let's talk about facts?

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

My argument should not factor into what your opinion is. Therefore if you neglect to state such "theories" it means to me that your argument isn't as foolproof as you portray it to be.

It actually does. By your original argument, my theory is valid. By your new one, it is not.

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

I think we can come to the conclusion that you don't have any theories figured out bud. So therefore your argument is pointless.

Actually, I've presented at least one theory, which, by your original argument, was valid. You then changed your argument.

So, no, it isn't beside the point. You shifted your stance and didn't offer an explanation of why you felt the need to do so.

You're worse than star child with your logic buddy... I.T. is the only valid theory and always will be. The logic is infalliable, you know it.

[GBGriffin]

balance5050 wrote...

You're worse than star child with your logic buddy... I.T. is the only valid theory and always will be. The logic is infalliable, you know it.

According to n00bsauce2010's original argument (before he changed it), any interpretation is valid.

According to his new logic, any theory in line with mythos and lore is valid.

Apparently, it isn't the only valid theory.

[balance5050]

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

I think we can come to the conclusion that you don't have any theories figured out bud. So therefore your argument is pointless.

Actually, I've presented at least one theory, which, by your original argument, was valid. You then changed your argument.

So, no, it isn't beside the point. You shifted your stance and didn't offer an explanation of why you felt the need to do so.

What theory is that? Because I have not seen it. Also.. remember you said theories. And as far as I know you haven't explained any.

How about facts?
Let's talk about facts?

Fact:  there was a gameplay sequence where shepard was indoctrinated even in november.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


What theory is that? Because I have not seen it. Also.. remember you said theories. And as far as I know you haven't explained any.

The game was a rushed product and IT was never intended.

The game intended IT at the start, but it was scrapped during development.

There. Two theories. Care to explain your shift and why you're dodging my question about changing your argument?

Try fill in the blank: I changed my argument because _Free Will..I can do whatever the hell I please. You mad?

Read that bold part. You're saying your theory/interpretation comes from an unfinished product? How exactly is that valid? Isn't a valid theory one that encompasses the entire game. And not just the the game -the last 10-15 minutes. And don't say the indoc theory.. because it works without gameplay.. I can interpret what might happen after anyway I please,

[Fhaarkas]

killnoob wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

If you keep this up I'm going to have to wip out my indoctrination theory extended cutscene script again. It got buried more than a hundred pages ago. Don't make me do that.

Can I get a straight answer please?

Or, correct me if I'm wrong,  are you happy with the ending showing Shepard waking up in a rubble, and then fill in the blank yourself, coming up with things like:

1. What crucible does
2. How Shepard got there
3. How Shepard uses it
4. The effect of crucible
5. What happen afterward

If that's the case, then let's take a look at what we take away from the game:

1. The entire galaxy spent its entire resource creating a device, and nobody knows what it does
2. The whole premise of the game revolves around gathering army to protect said machine

And in the end, we still don't know what it does?

Do you REALLY think indoc theory "at this point" is still a good idea?

You're pointing at the wrong thing. IT does not require any 'what happen afterward' - it is there to provoke the exact same question.

I already said the rest in my previous post.

Modifié par Fhaarkas, 07 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[Legion109]

IT trolls vs Non-IT trolls ding round what round is this I lost count oh we'll I'll make up a number round 14,347,981 FIGHT

- I am Krogan hear me roar, you know Asari are just wh*res - <--- just popped in my head don't kill me

- We dont hold lines in Las Vegas we do lines -


Indoception - the belief it was an Indoctrination in a Hallucination caused by the Indoctrination in the Dreams.

[wheelierdan]

balance5050 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

I think we can come to the conclusion that you don't have any theories figured out bud. So therefore your argument is pointless.

Actually, I've presented at least one theory, which, by your original argument, was valid. You then changed your argument.

So, no, it isn't beside the point. You shifted your stance and didn't offer an explanation of why you felt the need to do so.

You're worse than star child with your logic buddy... I.T. is the only valid theory and always will be. The logic is infalliable, you know it.

thats funny because youre mimicking star child. i am right, no you may not question anything, i am just right.

Modifié par wheelierdan, 07 avril 2012 - 05:02 .

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

You're worse than star child with your logic buddy... I.T. is the only valid theory and always will be. The logic is infalliable, you know it.

According to n00bsauce2010's original argument (before he changed it), any interpretation is valid.

According to his new logic, any theory in line with mythos and lore is valid.

Apparently, it isn't the only valid theory.

I.T. is the only interpretation that is in line with the mythos. Thats what we discuss here.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

You're worse than star child with your logic buddy... I.T. is the only valid theory and always will be. The logic is infalliable, you know it.

According to n00bsauce2010's original argument (before he changed it), any interpretation is valid.

According to his new logic, any theory in line with mythos and lore is valid.

Apparently, it isn't the only valid theory.

They kinda sound the same to me. My mistake.. theories like intoxication theory (made by trolls) don't work at all. Because they damn well don't make any sense.

Modifié par n00bsauce2010, 07 avril 2012 - 05:03 .

[Big Bad]

Okay, y'all need to start playing nice or Lexor is going to come in here and start posting pics of blue babies, and I just don't think my poor heart can take that right now!