Ce sujet est fermé
UrgedDuke wrote...
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
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
killnoob wrote...
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?
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
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.
CLB17 wrote...
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
So what is you main point that IT isn't true? I'm willing to listen.
CLB17 wrote...
So what is you main point that IT isn't true? I'm willing to listen.
killnoob wrote...
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.
GBGriffin wrote...
UrgedDuke wrote...
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
There is nothing you can say because I actually used to believe in the same evidence you did, then I changed my opinion given evidence to the contrary, and I am nowe posting for the sake of discussion.
This is a discussion board, correct? Not a pro-IT only board?
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
something along the lines of "I can make any theory I want to and ignore all evidence that points to it being untrue"
Therefore his own theory is disproven by the same logic.. because there is an ending to the game.
DuskRose wrote...
Lex0r, you got any Shepard/Kaiden pics? It'd make me happy.
GBGriffin wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
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.
It shouldn't, but it does, because I am debating directly with you, and one argument confirms my theory, while the other says it is not valid. You goofed up by editing/"clarifying" it.
Also, my theory is that they just dropped the ball on the last 15 minutes and didn't take everything into consideration. Another theory is that they wrote it for the sake of "artistic integrity" and because they liked it...both of which are valid by your first argument, but invalid by your second.
GBGriffin wrote...
UrgedDuke wrote...
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
There is nothing you can say because I actually used to believe in the same evidence you did, then I changed my opinion given evidence to the contrary, and I am nowe posting for the sake of discussion.
This is a discussion board, correct? Not a pro-IT only board?
Ponei wrote...
IT THEORY DID NOT DIE WHO'S WITH ME
UrgedDuke wrote...
It would be one thing if you were giving valid arguments in a civil manner but your being a cynical a**hole and a trololololololol
GBGriffin wrote...
CLB17 wrote...
So what is you main point that IT isn't true? I'm willing to listen.
Yes, that is my point. IT is not true, and the game as it stands came about as a combination of a rushed product and bad writing/design. They're defense of the endings as is, and their reaction overall, confirms this for me.
Again, the evidence for IT came about after the theory was formed. The evidence did not form the theory. People proposed the idea and then went back to twist game elements to make it work, while simultaneously discarding any evidence to the contrary.
That is my main point.
GBGriffin wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
something along the lines of "I can make any theory I want to and ignore all evidence that points to it being untrue"
Therefore his own theory is disproven by the same logic.. because there is an ending to the game.
How am I ignoring the ending? I've addressed my thoughts on it.
Fhaarkas wrote...
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.
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
We're talking about theories regarding the ending.. ya'know.. like Indoctrination.. or face value or reaper consensus.
Legion109 wrote...
I think we should all agree that the ending as it stands now sucks major donkey d*ck and just about anything else would be better in the meantime I have found the thought process behind the ending do enjoy Mass Effect 3 creative process
killnoob wrote...
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.
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
your post was something along the lines of.
I believe indoctrination was intended but was cut in the last 15 minutes.
Therefore answering my question about ending theories. Meaning you state that indoctrination occurs to some extent and because the mechanic wasn't included we get what we see in the end.
killnoob wrote...
Fhaarkas wrote...
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.
Clarification DLC = cinematics.
I really dont think you can explain the real purpose of crucible using cinematics.
Nor do I think you can explain how Shepard gets to the citedal, how he uses it, and what happens afterward.
It's good that you have a straight answer though. Appreciate it.
Modifié par lex0r11, 07 avril 2012 - 05:21 .
Retour en haut
