448 réponses à ce sujet

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What would be the point of describing the red ending to you? You're a liar. We see the crucible explode right after it shoots its lazer.

You still have a chance to proove me wrong. Your call.

I already did bro, I destroyed your credability because you claimed to know why they made certain decisions and you couldn't back up your claims^_^

I'll bookmark this page and bring it back in due time. You know I'm alone debating here with more than one opponent, that's enough for one guy for now.

You still evade the simple test by diverting attention. Describe red blasts sequence.

[Lokanaiya]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

I don't agree with your conclusion there, but I'll leave that to others to argue. I would like to point out that, even if you did prove that Shepard was in Citadel rubble, there's still TONS of evidence and odd details out there to support IT. A theory is a conclusion based on many facts all put together. If the alive scene and conclusion that it was London was the only evidence to support IT, then it would definitely count as "grasping at straws." But there are still lots of unexplained things out there (how Shepard survived the Harbinger's laser, why he would be closer to the beam than before, why Harbinger flew off when he has shown himself to be very genre-savvy previously, where are your squadmates when you wake up, etc., and that's before you even get into the Citadel!) and disproving one does not disprove the others, and certainly does not disprove IT. You're going to have to work a lot harder to accomplish that.

Also, Jessica has previously said that the Normandy crashed on Mars in the last scene. Just so you know.

Edite for "clarification" because I'm exhausted.

Again quantity of hints does not make quality evidence. I will not engage them 1 by 1, nobody here wants to do that, especially since it's mostly speculative evidence.

I know about the Merizan statement. I don't really care about what she said or said not : I based my assumptions on game content. Even flawed, at face value, the Destroy ending still makes sense to some amount. IT can still make sense to some amount, but not in all its details and timeline.

So please stop insisting you have "disproven" IT, like pretty much every other anti-IT person. You have done nothing of the sort.


We can talk about how much of the three choices make any sense at all. Does Synthesis also make sense? I'd like to know the "logic" behind how that would work.

[Iconoclaste]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

I don't agree with your conclusion there, but I'll leave that to others to argue. I would like to point out that, even if you did prove that Shepard was in Citadel rubble, there's still TONS of evidence and odd details out there to support IT. A theory is a conclusion based on many facts all put together. If the alive scene and conclusion that it was London was the only evidence to support IT, then it would definitely count as "grasping at straws." But there are still lots of unexplained things out there (how Shepard survived the Harbinger's laser, why he would be closer to the beam than before, why Harbinger flew off when he has shown himself to be very genre-savvy previously, where are your squadmates when you wake up, etc., and that's before you even get into the Citadel!) and disproving one does not disprove the others, and certainly does not disprove IT. You're going to have to work a lot harder to accomplish that.

Also, Jessica has previously said that the Normandy crashed on Mars in the last scene. Just so you know.

Edite for "clarification" because I'm exhausted.

Again quantity of hints does not make quality evidence. I will not engage them 1 by 1, nobody here wants to do that, especially since it's mostly speculative evidence.

I know about the Merizan statement. I don't really care about what she said or said not : I based my assumptions on game content. Even flawed, at face value, the Destroy ending still makes sense to some amount. IT can still make sense to some amount, but not in all its details and timeline.

So please stop insisting you have "disproven" IT, like pretty much every other anti-IT person. You have done nothing of the sort.


We can talk about how much of the three choices make any sense at all. Does Synthesis also make sense? I'd like to know the "logic" behind how that would work.

I'm not disproving IT as a whole, just parts of it. I understand the grasp it can have on your feelings, but that's not my objective. I just want the truth, like everybody else, and I will not blind myself for the purpose of making some flawed evidence more sound. You are free to believe what you want. Do not come here to tell me what I shall or shall not support.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 13 avril 2012 - 05:29 .

[adam32867]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

adam32867 wrote...

food for thought
https://docs.google....sle=true&pli=1#

Read your link, organized is good:) but I stil have to disagree. Stuff like them saying "Oh god, they are all gone"  You could just argue that they are far away and can't see shepard  on the ground still alive, Anderson could have very well been knocked into the beam by the blast, or, as he said followed him up, being a single person some people might not spot you from far distances. As for the whole how did he get in front of you? He was beamed to another area, things where moving, shifting, more than one hallway leading to the chasm and then the control panel, things could shift again around him after he got there. Ilusive man was obviously there for a while waiting. He has his ways.

yeah not all of it is spot on, but still a lot of good points, on both sides of the argument.

[redbaron76]

Sorry to burst your bubble op, but in the ending where we se shepard take a breath in ruble of concrete, which is obviously on earth. Citadel being a space station does not have concrete, and all of citadel blew up. So your theory as is, is debunked.

[Iconoclaste]

redbaron76 wrote...

Sorry to burst your bubble op, but in the ending where we se shepard take a breath in ruble of concrete, which is obviously on earth. Citadel being a space station does not have concrete, and all of citadel blew up. So your theory as is, is debunked.

Nice try. Read the thread.

[moater boat]

Can you stop changing the name of this thread so I stop clicking on it?

[Iconoclaste]

Not my doing, sorry.

[Lokanaiya]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

DevShep wrote...

Fact3) Shepard is NOT on the citadel when He/She takes a breath because the citadel is powered by Reaper tech and is destroyed in the destroy option so hes/she is breathing in a vaccume with no hemlet.

We don't even see his head, how can anyone see he's wearing a helmet or not?

Nevertheless, where can we see the Citadel being "destroyed", to a point survival on any of its parts is impossible? Is EZO "Reaper tech"? Or juste a material found randomly around the galaxy? If the Reapers did not explode on Earth (they just fall like jellyfish), why should the Citadel be in a different state?

1. Shepard wasn't wearing a helmet at any time after Harbinger hit him with the beam, when the dream is supposed to start, even if he was before. How could he be wearing a helmet in the breath scene if the ending was real? I suppose it came from the same place as the infinite ammo?

2. The Citadel has been stated to be Reaper tech multiple times, both by Vigil and Starbrat himself.

Don't try having me run in circles. I already addressed those precisely, even without helmet there is no proof that Shepard is in "space" with "nothing to breathe", in fact we are shown the exact contrary. Taking an actual scene and making it something we don't see with speculation does not make a strong evidence. If IT relies on leaps of faith like the whole endings with plot holes and broken storyline, than it is simply not "better".

Actually, I hadn't read your other arguments and the rest of this thread. I didn't see you address that, I was simply responding to the question you asked in the first post I quoted, since you implied that he could be wearing a helmet. I wasn't talking about IT at all, and my response to your question about whether Shepard was wearing a helmet or not certainly wasn't meant to be evidence for IT. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Also, you still haven't answered what I said about the Citadel being Reaper tech.

But I'll have to wait till morning or after work tomorrow to respond to you. I need to get some sleep.

[Iconoclaste]

Goodnite then. Same here, work in a few hours.

[oblique9]

I disagree with OP's first post because the Indoc. Theory makes me happy.

I am right and he is wrong.

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What would be the point of describing the red ending to you? You're a liar. We see the crucible explode right after it shoots its lazer.

You still have a chance to proove me wrong. Your call.

I already did bro, I destroyed your credability because you claimed to know why they made certain decisions and you couldn't back up your claims^_^

I'll bookmark this page and bring it back in due time. You know I'm alone debating here with more than one opponent, that's enough for one guy for now.

You still evade the simple test by diverting attention. Describe red blasts sequence.

Alright I'll bite.

1. You're all hurt and hunched over.

2. As you walk to the tube you seem to regain your former strength, going from a limp to healthy strides.

3. You shoot through through glass and wires to somehow trigger the red function of the Crucible. (Symbolism)

4. You walk into the explosion and disappear in the smoke and flames (first explosion he would have to survive.)

5. Red wave emits and disable some reapers while making others explode, I don't know why some collapse and some explode.

6. A red lazer then emits from the crucible, through the center of the cidadel.

7. The Crucible explodes engulfing the platform Shep was on in yet another explosion that must be at least 1 kilometer wide. (second explostion Shep would have to survive)

8. We see a relay explode and some important chunks flying off of it. 

9. We see a red beam originate from what looks like the Viper System (from "The Arrival") and NOT from SOL. It then spreads to the rest of the galaxy.

10. Joker isn't in a relay and is just in FTL drive when the red wave hit him.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 avril 2012 - 05:45 .

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

redbaron76 wrote...

Sorry to burst your bubble op, but in the ending where we se shepard take a breath in ruble of concrete, which is obviously on earth. Citadel being a space station does not have concrete, and all of citadel blew up. So your theory as is, is debunked.

Nice try. Read the thread.

Nice try, looks more like London to me:?




 

[majinbuu1307]

moater boat wrote...

Can you stop changing the name of this thread so I stop clicking on it?

Crafty yes:)

[majinbuu1307]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

redbaron76 wrote...

Sorry to burst your bubble op, but in the ending where we se shepard take a breath in ruble of concrete, which is obviously on earth. Citadel being a space station does not have concrete, and all of citadel blew up. So your theory as is, is debunked.

Nice try. Read the thread.

Nice try, looks more like London to me:?




 

The shot it too close to say its london.

[Grasich]

OP is clearly indoctrinated.

[Catroi]

I don't need a f*cking guide to understand this piece of sh*t they dare call an ending, although by calling it a "guide" you make it worse:
Only a broken ending could need a guide to save it and even then it doesn't salvage it in any way.

I understand the ending and it didn't transform from sh*t to nutella... Whatever shall I do?

[majinbuu1307]

redbaron76 wrote...

Sorry to burst your bubble op, but in the ending where we se shepard take a breath in ruble of concrete, which is obviously on earth. Citadel being a space station does not have concrete, and all of citadel blew up. So your theory as is, is debunked.

Sigh. People learn how to read, and pay attention to the ending. You think the Citadel blew up, so right there I'm stopping listening to you.

[majinbuu1307]

Catroi wrote...

I don't need a f*cking guide to understand this piece of sh*t they dare call an ending, although by calling it a "guide" you make it worse:
Only a broken ending could need a guide to save it and even then it doesn't salvage it in any way.

I understand the ending and it didn't transform from sh*t to nutella... Whatever shall I do?

If you understood it you would understand WHY the catalyst was logically sound. I raged too at first, took me a few weeks to actually take everything in and go, OH!

I'm still not too fond of the ending options though. Ending DLC might help.

[majinbuu1307]

Grasich wrote...

OP is clearly indoctrinated.

You already formulated your response and I bet you didn't read or take in 20 percent of what I wrote, you saw key parts, skimmed, and already had your opinion ready.

[Grasich]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Grasich wrote...

OP is clearly indoctrinated.

You already formulated your response and I bet you didn't read or take in 20 percent of what I wrote, you saw key parts, skimmed, and already had your opinion ready.

You, sir, are a mind reader.

[majinbuu1307]

Grasich wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Grasich wrote...

OP is clearly indoctrinated.

You already formulated your response and I bet you didn't read or take in 20 percent of what I wrote, you saw key parts, skimmed, and already had your opinion ready.

You, sir, are a mind reader.

[III Achilles II]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Catroi wrote...

I don't need a f*cking guide to understand this piece of sh*t they dare call an ending, although by calling it a "guide" you make it worse:
Only a broken ending could need a guide to save it and even then it doesn't salvage it in any way.

I understand the ending and it didn't transform from sh*t to nutella... Whatever shall I do?

If you understood it you would understand WHY the catalyst was logically sound. I raged too at first, took me a few weeks to actually take everything in and go, OH!

I'm still not too fond of the ending options though. Ending DLC might help.

The better question I have is....

Why include a scene of Shepard waking up if no DLC or anything will come after? 

[shurryy]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

If you understood it you would understand WHY the catalyst was logically sound. I raged too at first, took me a few weeks to actually take everything in and go, OH!

I'm still not too fond of the ending options though. Ending DLC might help.

WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
THE CATALYST WAS LOCICALLY SOUND.

... The catalyst made sense?
... I'm done here. Anyone who approves the god-child have failed. 

[majinbuu1307]

III Achilles II wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Catroi wrote...

I don't need a f*cking guide to understand this piece of sh*t they dare call an ending, although by calling it a "guide" you make it worse:
Only a broken ending could need a guide to save it and even then it doesn't salvage it in any way.

I understand the ending and it didn't transform from sh*t to nutella... Whatever shall I do?

If you understood it you would understand WHY the catalyst was logically sound. I raged too at first, took me a few weeks to actually take everything in and go, OH!

I'm still not too fond of the ending options though. Ending DLC might help.

The better question I have is....

Why include a scene of Shepard waking up if no DLC or anything will come after? 

Because it was to give us hope, my take anyway.