57139 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

wheelierdan wrote...

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.

Or Harbinger

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

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,

You conveniently ignored your decision on why you changed your argument repeatedly now, and my interpretation for this is simple: You lost.

You lost because my theory would have been proven valid by your original statement (if all interpretations are true, then mine is also true).

By editing it further, my theory could not be valid because it is not supported by mythos and lore.

When you have a debate, a discussion, you take a stance and you argue it effectively. You changed your stance repeatedly, but this is the most egregious evidence of that. You added on extra words that generated a new argument, one that shifted my theory from being valid to invalid.

You screwed up, and you haven't addressed it. I even gave you a fill in the blank, which begins with the answer to the question I'm looking for, and you ignored it.

[lex0r11]

Big Bad wrote...

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!

Don't worry, i'll find something else if this escalates any further.


For now.

[Jadebaby]

killnoob wrote...

Trolling mode = off.

Bioware said the new ending DLC will still have room for interpretation.
They did this to make you people happy.

But they also said there won't be new endings, and I.T requires alternative endings to float.

Otherwise, we're left with 'Shepard waking up in a rubble with the reapers alive and kicking"

The game won't be finished.

But if they removed this scene about Shepard waking up in the rubble, then I.T wouldn't make sense because we're not shown Shepard waking up.

Therefore,

Indoctrination theory was not their intention.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Yes, but if you're implying they will get rid of last breath scene. They wont. And you're still trolling.

If you're not then this...

Jessica Merizan[/b]‏

@ it is true that no one starves etc. All that is already implied in the current end. DLC will clarify.


Indoctrination is more likely than taking that last breath scene out simply because Indoc doesn't require anything to be taken out.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 07 avril 2012 - 05:09 .

[UrgedDuke]

If you stop acknowledging the troll it will go away

[killnoob]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

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,

facepalm*

iit works without gameplay?

Indoctrination theory states that everything happened in crucible is mere hallucination created to indoctrinate Shepard - otherwise he wouldn't wake up in the rubble.

Now, if indoctrination theory is correct, and bioware will not give us extra gameplay,

that means they're gonna give us cinematic so long that it explains the REAL purpose of crucible, HOW shepard got to it, and HOW It turns out.

Do you honestly believe that is possible?

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

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,

You conveniently ignored your decision on why you changed your argument repeatedly now, and my interpretation for this is simple: You lost.

You lost because my theory would have been proven valid by your original statement (if all interpretations are true, then mine is also true).

By editing it further, my theory could not be valid because it is not supported by mythos and lore.

When you have a debate, a discussion, you take a stance and you argue it effectively. You changed your stance repeatedly, but this is the most egregious evidence of that. You added on extra words that generated a new argument, one that shifted my theory from being valid to invalid.

You screwed up, and you haven't addressed it. I even gave you a fill in the blank, which begins with the answer to the question I'm looking for, and you ignored it.

I smell a troll who is mad. Repeatedley? MY argument was really only stated clearer. Take it as you will. Again I don't really see how that makes sense. Your second "****ty" theory should include the entire game. And not 99% of it. Therefore it's wrong... and your argument makes no sense.

[Hacedor1566]

 Oh, my god. I see this thread is, finally, over. The trolls are already taken IT, and killed it. Now Bioware can take their endings without opposition. Thanks trolls. you have killed the last hope of ME fans

[GBGriffin]

UrgedDuke wrote...

If you stop acknowledging the troll it will go away

If I was trolling, this would be true.

As it stands, I am disagreeing and pointing out a pretty critical flaw in n00bsauce2010's argument.

[UrgentArchengel]

Hacedor1566 wrote...

 Oh, my god. I see this thread is, finally, over. The trolls are already taken IT, and killed it. Now Bioware can take their endings without opposition. Thanks trolls. you have killed the last hope of ME fans

 HOLY....everybody run for the hills.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

If you stop acknowledging the troll it will go away

If I was trolling, this would be true.

As it stands, I am disagreeing and pointing out a pretty critical flaw in n00bsauce2010's argument.

As am I with yours. A theory should make sense.. and yours doesn't. Because it neglects the  last 15 minutes of the game.

[killnoob]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Trolling mode = off.

Bioware said the new ending DLC will still have room for interpretation.
They did this to make you people happy.

But they also said there won't be new endings, and I.T requires alternative endings to float.

Otherwise, we're left with 'Shepard waking up in a rubble with the reapers alive and kicking"

The game won't be finished.

But if they removed this scene about Shepard waking up in the rubble, then I.T wouldn't make sense because we're not shown Shepard waking up.

Therefore,

Indoctrination theory was not their intention.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Yes, but if you're implaying they will get rid of last breath scene. They wont. And you're still trolling.

If you're not then this...

Jessica Merizan‏

@ it is true that no one starves etc. All that is already implied in the current end. DLC will clarify.


Indoctrination is more likely than taking that last breath scene out simply because Indoc doesn't require anything to be taken out.

Then what the hell does crucible do?

ACcording to indoctrination theory, Shepard wakes up in london after defeating the hallucinations.

But bioware says there won't be any new gamplay, just cinematic.

If everything happens in the crucible is false, then we still don't know what it does.

Modifié par killnoob, 07 avril 2012 - 05:10 .

[Simon_Says]

I think this discussion has gotten to the point where someone has to say: There's no shame in walking away from an argument in which you have nothing to win or lose.

[Arian Dynas]

killnoob wrote...

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?

Yup

Next question?

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...



I smell a troll who is mad. Repeatedley? MY argument was really only stated clearer. Take it as you will. Again I don't really see how that makes sense. Your second "****ty" theory should include the entire game. And not 99% of it. Therefore it's wrong... and your argument makes no sense.

Mad? I finally managed to pin you into a corner over something you can't, or won't, explain, which discredits you are someone worth debating or having a discussion with. I'm gleeful because it proves to me that I don't need to argue with someone who utilizes poor tactics (changing/rephrasing an argument so that the opponent goes from right to wrong).

If you wanted that bit about mythos and lore to be the argument you were going to defend, then  you should have made that your intial argument, not a modified second one after I would have been proven correct by your first

I liked your original argument, though. I'ts actually more open-minded than your second, and since you like to believe you're open-minded, I'm inclined to believe your first argument is correct, and that my theory is valid

[CLB17]

No one ever said there wasn't going to be new gameplay in the upcoming dlc. They are still making the dlc so anything is possible.

Modifié par CLB17, 07 avril 2012 - 05:11 .

[killnoob]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Yup

Next question?

Why did you play the game in the first place if you're happy to fill in half the plots by yourself?

[UrgedDuke]

GBGriffin wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

If you stop acknowledging the troll it will go away

If I was trolling, this would be true.

As it stands, I am disagreeing and pointing out a pretty critical flaw in n00bsauce2010's argument.

we all know your a critic and that there is nothing we can say to convince you. The real mistery is why you keep even get on this thread. just leave us alone

[DashingSplash]

Theories are just what they are, speculation. Who says another one is wrong without solid evidence.
Stop attacking each other over speculations, even though you think your theory is more valid.
In the end it is just as valid as the other theory.

I want this thread to continue its previous course and not were people attack and insult each other for their beliefs.

Now, please be kind to each other. There is enough grief and pain elsewhere in the world and is not needed here.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


As am I with yours. A theory should make sense.. and yours doesn't. Because it neglects the  last 15 minutes of the game.

It actually doesn't neglect anything. It encompasses everything.

They were under a deadline to rush the product, so they scrambled and didn't take everything into consideration.

My theory explains poor writing, bad design, and a rushed product. It's valid by your first argument, but not by your second...an issue you seem content to ignore

[killnoob]

CLB17 wrote...

No one ever said there wasn't going to be new gameplay in the upcoming dlc. They are still making the dlc so anything is possible.

I'm pretty sure they said there won't be any new gameplay at Pax.

[Fhaarkas]

killnoob wrote...

that means they're gonna give us cinematic so long that it explains the REAL purpose of crucible, HOW shepard got to it, and HOW It turns out.

They're not. That's the whole point of this 'clarification' DLC, so that it can make sense to everyone, including the ones asking these questions that you laid out.

[Golferguy758]

You guys are going to D'awww and you are going to like it.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...



I smell a troll who is mad. Repeatedley? MY argument was really only stated clearer. Take it as you will. Again I don't really see how that makes sense. Your second "****ty" theory should include the entire game. And not 99% of it. Therefore it's wrong... and your argument makes no sense.

Mad? I finally managed to pin you into a corner over something you can't, or won't, explain, which discredits you are someone worth debating or having a discussion with. I'm gleeful because it proves to me that I don't need to argue with someone who utilizes poor tactics (changing/rephrasing an argument so that the opponent goes from right to wrong).

If you wanted that bit about mythos and lore to be the argument you were going to defend, then  you should have made that your intial argument, not a modified second one after I would have been proven correct by your first

I liked your original argument, though. I'ts actually more open-minded than your second, and since you like to believe you're open-minded, I'm inclined to believe your first argument is correct, and that my theory is valid

You really think too highly of yourself. My argument really shouldn't matter. But your sh*tty theory is based off the assumption that we not include the last 15 minutes of the game. It's just as flawed as mine.