Ce sujet est fermé
Joroelcapo wrote...
I love the Indoctrination Theory
It makes the game more deep.
But i will love that the dlc don´t clarify if it´s true or not . Letting the ambiguity going is the way that it works for me. Like a David Lynch thing...
Modifié par Golferguy758, 12 avril 2012 - 11:51 .
liggy002 wrote...
Here are my thoughts on a possible solution for the IT people:
http://social.biowar.../index/11339719
Look through the thread and you will see how immature people are. They pass it off as desperation. It's like they're trying to fix square blocks into a round hole.
Golferguy758 wrote...
As a lawyer, I may have a bit of an obsession over the Phoenix Wright games. They did kind of motivate me through Law school
N7L4D wrote...
Yo nick!!! It needs more maya and hamburgers and some steel samurai
It's interesting, a lot of the anti-IT people sound like they're all chanting the same mantra, like they were indoctrinated or something. like it's so obviously false and couldn't possible even be considered as even being remotely true.llbountyhunter wrote...
liggy002 wrote...
Here are my thoughts on a possible solution for the IT people:
http://social.biowar.../index/11339719
Look through the thread and you will see how immature people are. They pass it off as desperation. It's like they're trying to fix square blocks into a round hole.
wow..... is it just me or do they seem more deluded than we are?
as we keep pointing out.
Modifié par Nauks, 13 avril 2012 - 12:08 .
Calling it, Omega was the super-weapon that scarred Klendagon! (although judging by the quality of analysis around here though this is probably old news)Sire Styx wrote...
Ah, I tried comparing Omega, the collector ship, the Citadel and the Crucible together, but I couldn't find many good pics.
I've heard theories about omega being a catalyst or somethign else being something else and I thought I'd have a look.
There doesn't seem to be many visual similarities between them, not to mention the size difference.
Oh well.
It would have been interesting if the collector ship was a small citadel or crucible or somethign, or if omega was an old crucible or somethin but nevermind.
Here's the images anyway, incase anyone else wants to look:
img99.imageshack.us/img99/5122/allme.png
ehh..?
Nauks wrote...
Calling it, Omega was the super-weapon that scarred Klendagon! (although judging by the quality of analysis around here though this is probably old news)Sire Styx wrote...
Ah, I tried comparing Omega, the collector ship, the Citadel and the Crucible together, but I couldn't find many good pics.
I've heard theories about omega being a catalyst or somethign else being something else and I thought I'd have a look.
There doesn't seem to be many visual similarities between them, not to mention the size difference.
Oh well.
It would have been interesting if the collector ship was a small citadel or crucible or somethign, or if omega was an old crucible or somethin but nevermind.
Here's the images anyway, incase anyone else wants to look:
img99.imageshack.us/img99/5122/allme.png
So it's techincally defunct as TIM claims in ME2
And Cerberus are all honry for Omega when they invade and kick Aria out, ehh? ehh?
Nauks wrote...
Calling it, Omega was the super-weapon that scarred Klendagon! (although judging by the quality of analysis around here though this is probably old news)
So it's techincally defunct as TIM claims in ME2
And Cerberus are all honry for Omega when they invade and kick Aria out, ehh? ehh?
Sire Styx wrote...
Speaking of trolls, I posted this in another topic. It demonstrates the logic used by most IT opponents. Quite fittingly, they go round in cycles of regurgetating to same information.
This is a typical conversation between a troll and a IT supporter:
"IT isn't true"
"We're not saying it's true"
"Well it's fake"
"We never said it was real, it's a theory"
"well.... it's full of plotholes!"
"It fixes more plotholes than it makes, but anyway, what plotholes?"
"haha, you can't explain the plotholes!"
"What plotholes?"
"well IT is just desperation!"
"How?"
"Well.... it's just grasping at straws"
"How? We have evidence."
"Well, bioware tweets have proved you wrong"
"The tweets have gave as much evidence for as they have against IT"
"....well you're picking everything and twisting it to prove IT. None of it is fact."
"Not really, some of it is quite sound evidence."
"No, the ending was terrible!"
"I'm not saying it isn't"
"Well... ME3 was rushed, nothing more!"
"Where's your evidence for that?"
"I...well.... IT isn't a fact!"
"We never said it was"
Sure but that Klendagon crater is like *checks wiki* "thirty-seven million years" old, who knows what Crucibel-type constructions-turned-space-stations shenanigans have been in the works meanwhile.Golferguy758 wrote...
Nauks wrote...
Calling it, Omega was the super-weapon that scarred Klendagon! (although judging by the quality of analysis around here though this is probably old news)Sire Styx wrote...
Ah, I tried comparing Omega, the collector ship, the Citadel and the Crucible together, but I couldn't find many good pics.
I've heard theories about omega being a catalyst or somethign else being something else and I thought I'd have a look.
There doesn't seem to be many visual similarities between them, not to mention the size difference.
Oh well.
It would have been interesting if the collector ship was a small citadel or crucible or somethign, or if omega was an old crucible or somethin but nevermind.
Here's the images anyway, incase anyone else wants to look:
img99.imageshack.us/img99/5122/allme.png
So it's techincally defunct as TIM claims in ME2
And Cerberus are all honry for Omega when they invade and kick Aria out, ehh? ehh?
Very very unlikely. Cerberus wants Omega because of it's proximity to the Omega-4 relay so they can go in and loot the collector base.
Modifié par Nauks, 13 avril 2012 - 12:43 .
.
Make a new thread? I know I'd like to see thatGolferguy758 wrote...
Sire Styx wrote...
Speaking of trolls, I posted this in another topic. It demonstrates the logic used by most IT opponents. Quite fittingly, they go round in cycles of regurgetating to same information.
This is a typical conversation between a troll and a IT supporter:
"IT isn't true"
"We're not saying it's true"
"Well it's fake"
"We never said it was real, it's a theory"
"well.... it's full of plotholes!"
"It fixes more plotholes than it makes, but anyway, what plotholes?"
"haha, you can't explain the plotholes!"
"What plotholes?"
"well IT is just desperation!"
"How?"
"Well.... it's just grasping at straws"
"How? We have evidence."
"Well, bioware tweets have proved you wrong"
"The tweets have gave as much evidence for as they have against IT"
"....well you're picking everything and twisting it to prove IT. None of it is fact."
"Not really, some of it is quite sound evidence."
"No, the ending was terrible!"
"I'm not saying it isn't"
"Well... ME3 was rushed, nothing more!"
"Where's your evidence for that?"
"I...well.... IT isn't a fact!"
"We never said it was"
I really really really want to insert all my Phoenix Wright gifs into this conversation to make it more amusing. but it'd take up like....an entire page.
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Modifié par Nauks, 13 avril 2012 - 12:58 .
Nimrodell wrote...
I'm sorry for bumping here and maybe asking the question that has already been answered... blame my lack of skills in searching - and most importantly, I don't want to be understood as a person that is trolling this topic or people who actually believe in IT. I would like one answer from all those who are firm believers in IT - how do you explain attack of Reapers on Sanctuary? Why did they attack Sanctuary if Lawson's discoveries on controlling the Reapers and their indoctrination process weren't ground breaking? What was Reaper logic behind that attack according to IT - and what was the purpose of it in Mass Effect 3 story itself, if TIM's claims at the end weren't true, if it's actually Reapers tempting Shepard? Why would Reapers go through such length of attacking place like Sanctuary that already has indoctrinated forces and those who became husks that are directly reacting to Reaper signal, as stated by Lawson himself in one of his logs? Once again, I don't mean anything bad by these questions nor trolling - I'd just like simple answers that are not based on watching very often used textures and animations - something that could not be denied like images of Jesus seen on piece of toast, cheese or clouds. Thanks in advance to all those who are willing to show me this explanation that I most surely missed
Golferguy758 wrote...
Sire Styx wrote...
Speaking of trolls, I posted this in another topic. It demonstrates the logic used by most IT opponents. Quite fittingly, they go round in cycles of regurgetating to same information.
This is a typical conversation between a troll and a IT supporter:
"IT isn't true"
"We're not saying it's true"
"Well it's fake"
"We never said it was real, it's a theory"
"well.... it's full of plotholes!"
"It fixes more plotholes than it makes, but anyway, what plotholes?"
"haha, you can't explain the plotholes!"
"What plotholes?"
"well IT is just desperation!"
"How?"
"Well.... it's just grasping at straws"
"How? We have evidence."
"Well, bioware tweets have proved you wrong"
"The tweets have gave as much evidence for as they have against IT"
"....well you're picking everything and twisting it to prove IT. None of it is fact."
"Not really, some of it is quite sound evidence."
"No, the ending was terrible!"
"I'm not saying it isn't"
"Well... ME3 was rushed, nothing more!"
"Where's your evidence for that?"
"I...well.... IT isn't a fact!"
"We never said it was"
I really really really want to insert all my Phoenix Wright gifs into this conversation to make it more amusing. but it'd take up like....an entire page.
Modifié par Arian Dynas, 13 avril 2012 - 12:56 .
III Achilles II wrote...
Nimrodell wrote...
I'm sorry for bumping here and maybe asking the question that has already been answered... blame my lack of skills in searching - and most importantly, I don't want to be understood as a person that is trolling this topic or people who actually believe in IT. I would like one answer from all those who are firm believers in IT - how do you explain attack of Reapers on Sanctuary? Why did they attack Sanctuary if Lawson's discoveries on controlling the Reapers and their indoctrination process weren't ground breaking? What was Reaper logic behind that attack according to IT - and what was the purpose of it in Mass Effect 3 story itself, if TIM's claims at the end weren't true, if it's actually Reapers tempting Shepard? Why would Reapers go through such length of attacking place like Sanctuary that already has indoctrinated forces and those who became husks that are directly reacting to Reaper signal, as stated by Lawson himself in one of his logs? Once again, I don't mean anything bad by these questions nor trolling - I'd just like simple answers that are not based on watching very often used textures and animations - something that could not be denied like images of Jesus seen on piece of toast, cheese or clouds. Thanks in advance to all those who are willing to show me this explanation that I most surely missed
This is my personal opinion.
1. Reapers may have come to gather all the forces
2. Reapers might have wanted to prevent further research into discovering a way to "block" indoctrination.
3. Even if the signal could "control" ground forces, TIM and crew never concluded they could control the Reaper ships.
4. One major change in the illusive man is that you see him in the room before you fight Kai Leng AFTER HIS PROCEDURE and his face does not look like it does in the ending scene. That's one reason why I felt like TIM was not real.
Just my thoughts.
Nimrodell wrote...
I'm sorry for bumping here and maybe asking the question that has already been answered... blame my lack of skills in searching - and most importantly, I don't want to be understood as a person that is trolling this topic or people who actually believe in IT. I would like one answer from all those who are firm believers in IT - how do you explain attack of Reapers on Sanctuary? Why did they attack Sanctuary if Lawson's discoveries on controlling the Reapers and their indoctrination process weren't ground breaking? What was Reaper logic behind that attack according to IT - and what was the purpose of it in Mass Effect 3 story itself, if TIM's claims at the end weren't true, if it's actually Reapers tempting Shepard? Why would Reapers go through such length of attacking place like Sanctuary that already has indoctrinated forces and those who became husks that are directly reacting to Reaper signal, as stated by Lawson himself in one of his logs? Once again, I don't mean anything bad by these questions nor trolling - I'd just like simple answers that are not based on watching very often used textures and animations - something that could not be denied like images of Jesus seen on piece of toast, cheese or clouds. Thanks in advance to all those who are willing to show me this explanation that I most surely missed
Nimrodell wrote...
I'm sorry for bumping here and maybe asking the question that has already been answered... blame my lack of skills in searching - and most importantly, I don't want to be understood as a person that is trolling this topic or people who actually believe in IT. I would like one answer from all those who are firm believers in IT - how do you explain attack of Reapers on Sanctuary? Why did they attack Sanctuary if Lawson's discoveries on controlling the Reapers and their indoctrination process weren't ground breaking? What was Reaper logic behind that attack according to IT - and what was the purpose of it in Mass Effect 3 story itself, if TIM's claims at the end weren't true, if it's actually Reapers tempting Shepard? Why would Reapers go through such length of attacking place like Sanctuary that already has indoctrinated forces and those who became husks that are directly reacting to Reaper signal, as stated by Lawson himself in one of his logs? Once again, I don't mean anything bad by these questions nor trolling - I'd just like simple answers that are not based on watching very often used textures and animations - something that could not be denied like images of Jesus seen on piece of toast, cheese or clouds. Thanks in advance to all those who are willing to show me this explanation that I most surely missed
Golferguy758 wrote...
Sire Styx wrote...
Speaking of trolls, I posted this in another topic. It demonstrates the logic used by most IT opponents. Quite fittingly, they go round in cycles of regurgetating to same information.
This is a typical conversation between a troll and a IT supporter:
"IT isn't true"
"We're not saying it's true"
"Well it's fake"
"We never said it was real, it's a theory"
"well.... it's full of plotholes!"
"It fixes more plotholes than it makes, but anyway, what plotholes?"
"haha, you can't explain the plotholes!"
"What plotholes?"
"well IT is just desperation!"
"How?"
"Well.... it's just grasping at straws"
"How? We have evidence."
"Well, bioware tweets have proved you wrong"
"The tweets have gave as much evidence for as they have against IT"
"....well you're picking everything and twisting it to prove IT. None of it is fact."
"Not really, some of it is quite sound evidence."
"No, the ending was terrible!"
"I'm not saying it isn't"
"Well... ME3 was rushed, nothing more!"
"Where's your evidence for that?"
"I...well.... IT isn't a fact!"
"We never said it was"
I really really really want to insert all my Phoenix Wright gifs into this conversation to make it more amusing. but it'd take up like....an entire page.
Sire Styx wrote...
Speaking of trolls, I posted this in another topic. It demonstrates the logic used by most IT opponents. Quite fittingly, they go round in cycles of regurgetating to same information.
This is a typical conversation between a troll and a IT supporter:
"IT isn't true"
"We're not saying it's true"
"Well it's fake"
"We never said it was real, it's a theory"
"well.... it's full of plotholes!"
"It fixes more plotholes than it makes, but anyway, what plotholes?"
"haha, you can't explain the plotholes!"
"What plotholes?"
"well IT is just desperation!"
"How?"
"Well.... it's just grasping at straws"
"How? We have evidence."
"Well, bioware tweets have proved you wrong"
"The tweets have gave as much evidence for as they have against IT"
"....well you're picking everything and twisting it to prove IT. None of it is fact."
"Not really, some of it is quite sound evidence."
"No, the ending was terrible!"
"I'm not saying it isn't"
"Well... ME3 was rushed, nothing more!"
"Where's your evidence for that?"
"I...well.... IT isn't a fact!"
"We never said it was"
Modifié par Gallifreya, 13 avril 2012 - 01:03 .
Nauks wrote...
Make a new thread? I know I'd like to see thatGolferguy758 wrote...
Sire Styx wrote...
Speaking of trolls, I posted this in another topic. It demonstrates the logic used by most IT opponents. Quite fittingly, they go round in cycles of regurgetating to same information.
This is a typical conversation between a troll and a IT supporter:
"IT isn't true"
"We're not saying it's true"
"Well it's fake"
"We never said it was real, it's a theory"
"well.... it's full of plotholes!"
"It fixes more plotholes than it makes, but anyway, what plotholes?"
"haha, you can't explain the plotholes!"
"What plotholes?"
"well IT is just desperation!"
"How?"
"Well.... it's just grasping at straws"
"How? We have evidence."
"Well, bioware tweets have proved you wrong"
"The tweets have gave as much evidence for as they have against IT"
"....well you're picking everything and twisting it to prove IT. None of it is fact."
"Not really, some of it is quite sound evidence."
"No, the ending was terrible!"
"I'm not saying it isn't"
"Well... ME3 was rushed, nothing more!"
"Where's your evidence for that?"
"I...well.... IT isn't a fact!"
"We never said it was"
I really really really want to insert all my Phoenix Wright gifs into this conversation to make it more amusing. but it'd take up like....an entire page.
EDIT: nah just give it to us right here, why not.
Retour en haut