622 réponses à ce sujet

[KevShep]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

What the hell.

Where did that come from?

Oppening scene....Catalyst playing with toy ship, minutes later Catalyst in vent and then Catalyst boarding shuttle that got blown up by reapers....forgot already? Go play the opening of the game again if you need?

Or are you going to say that the child and the dreams just accidentally happened to look exactly like the Catalyst.

My mind has been blown by the lack of coherence.

Riiiiight....denying something exists or has any worth is the best way to get the last word when you have nothing left to say.

There's certainly a lot of coherence to the fact that the child in the opening level on earth looks exactly like the Catalyst and to the fact that nobody but Shepard ever seems to notice or interact with this child.

That is a hell of a lot of assumptions.

There not assumptions..No one  looks at the boy (yes its true go back and look) but he looks at you from far away twice as if saying something with his eyes.

Yes, they are assumptions, including what you just said.

Saying something with his eyes? You're analyzing far too much.

 Your assuming against evidence. No one sees him! Yes its is true! 

The part about saying something with his eyes IS an assumption BASED on the evidence!

How do you know?

Watch the video no that we see makes eye contact with him....a clue to him not actually being there is that no one helps him up when clearly there are about 4 or more standing right there facing him as he is having trouble getting on.

[DTKT]

 http://i.imgur.com/Yi3K5.png 


Sorry, the boy model is not named Harbinger.

Modifié par DTKT, 26 avril 2012 - 03:26 .

[FatalX7.0]

KevShep wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

There's certainly a lot of coherence to the fact that the child in the opening level on earth looks exactly like the Catalyst and to the fact that nobody but Shepard ever seems to notice or interact with this child.

It is completely reasonable to assume that Bioware simply reused the Earth kid's appearance for the star child because, well, they thought we would find it "emotionally engaging". 

I'd sooner believe this because it actually makes sense with the whole game. Everything was so forced, rushed and disconnected.

I find it fitting that you mentioned "disconnected"! Like a dream!

You're an idiot. You are the biggest, more clueless, contradicting and stubborn idiot I have ever seen on the internet.

The game was rushed, the child, the Earth centric bias, the dreams are forced and Shepard is disconnected from the Player. How could you not understand that at all?

The auto-dialogue, the eavesdropping, the Kasumi/Zaeed dialogue are all disconnections from the RPG elements that this game was once built upon.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 26 avril 2012 - 03:28 .

[FatalX7.0]

KevShep wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

What the hell.

Where did that come from?

Oppening scene....Catalyst playing with toy ship, minutes later Catalyst in vent and then Catalyst boarding shuttle that got blown up by reapers....forgot already? Go play the opening of the game again if you need?

Or are you going to say that the child and the dreams just accidentally happened to look exactly like the Catalyst.

My mind has been blown by the lack of coherence.

Riiiiight....denying something exists or has any worth is the best way to get the last word when you have nothing left to say.

There's certainly a lot of coherence to the fact that the child in the opening level on earth looks exactly like the Catalyst and to the fact that nobody but Shepard ever seems to notice or interact with this child.

That is a hell of a lot of assumptions.

There not assumptions..No one  looks at the boy (yes its true go back and look) but he looks at you from far away twice as if saying something with his eyes.

Yes, they are assumptions, including what you just said.

Saying something with his eyes? You're analyzing far too much.

 Your assuming against evidence. No one sees him! Yes its is true! 

The part about saying something with his eyes IS an assumption BASED on the evidence!

How do you know?

Watch the video no that we see makes eye contact with him....a clue to him not actually being there is that no one helps him up when clearly there are about 4 or more standing right there facing him as he is having trouble getting on.

Good job, more assumptions.

[FatalX7.0]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Evidence is that which proves or disproves.

Imagining things in your head to make sense of plotholes in a game is not evidence. That's an interpretation, that's your view point, that's what you think happened.

You continue to assume and you're too stupid to even realize it.

I'm done, you're deluded.

[ashwind]

KevShep wrote...

 Your assuming against evidence. No one sees him! Yes its is true! 

The part about saying something with his eyes IS an assumption BASED on the evidence!

Really?
PROVE to us that the marine didnt see him getting on the Shuttle.

PROVE to us that the marine didnt signal the Shuttle to LEAVE by bangging on the Shuttle AFTER the kid was securely onboard.

PROVE to us that the marine didnt shouted at the kid to get onboard under his helmet.

Speculations are speculations. Indoctrination Theorist needs to at least have the courtesy to admit that it is just another speculation and dont twist ambient information into EVIDENCE.

The ending is meant to provoke speculations BUT the I.T is so prescriptive, intrusive and arrogant that it basically says: "Hey, if you dont see what I see, you lose, you are indoctrinated and there is only one RIGHT ending: Destroy". It is infinitely worse than the current ending.

Modifié par ashwind, 26 avril 2012 - 03:29 .

[KevShep]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Evidence is that which proves or disproves.

Imagining things in your head to make sense of plotholes in a game is not evidence. That's an interpretation, that's your view point, that's what you think happened.

Your getting backwards. Iam not making up reasons Iam seeing what is there an making an educated guess based on the evidence as a whole that I see!
Your the one trying to make it make sense when cearly the ending does not!

Point being is that I AM seeing what is there your just getting my assumptions confused with the evidence!

[FatalX7.0]

KevShep wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Evidence is that which proves or disproves.

Imagining things in your head to make sense of plotholes in a game is not evidence. That's an interpretation, that's your view point, that's what you think happened.

Your getting backwards. Iam not making up reasons Iam seeing what is there an making an educated guess based on the evidence as a whole that I see!
Your the one trying to make it make sense when cearly the ending does not!

Point being is that I AM seeing what is there your just getting my assumptions confused with the evidence!

You just admitted that you're making guesses based on your view point.

Thanks.

And I'm not trying to make anything make sense, I think the ending is crappy and rushed. There is nothing more to it. You are the one who is trying to make sense of it by making up crap in your head.

You're getting assumptions confused with evidence.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 26 avril 2012 - 03:32 .

[KevShep]

ashwind wrote...

KevShep wrote...

 Your assuming against evidence. No one sees him! Yes its is true! 

The part about saying something with his eyes IS an assumption BASED on the evidence!

Really?
PROVE to us that the marine didnt see him getting on the Shuttle.

PROVE to us that the marine didnt signal the Shuttle to LEAVE by bangging on the Shuttle AFTER the kid was securely onboard.

PROVE to us that the marine didnt shouted at the kid to get onboard under his helmet.

Speculations are speculations. Indoctrination Theorist needs to at least have the courtesy to admit that it is just another speculation and dont twist ambient information into EVIDENCE.

The ending is meant to provoke speculations BUT the I.T is so prescriptive, intrusive and arrogant that it basically says: "Hey, if you dont see what I see, you lose, you are indoctrinated and there is only one RIGHT ending: Destroy". It is infinitely worse than the current ending.

 You have got me all wrong. Iam not proving anyrthing....IAM JUST SAYING WHAT IS THERE! This is not hard people.

You first have to see and hear what ...IS... there in game inoder to get to the truth....This is not that hard!

[FatalX7.0]

Alright, seriously. I just can't drag myself away from this.

KevShep has to be a troll, it's unbelievable how much he has contradicted himself.


Back to Skyrim for me and a bump for my other threads.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 26 avril 2012 - 03:33 .

[KevShep]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Evidence is that which proves or disproves.

Imagining things in your head to make sense of plotholes in a game is not evidence. That's an interpretation, that's your view point, that's what you think happened.

Your getting backwards. Iam not making up reasons Iam seeing what is there an making an educated guess based on the evidence as a whole that I see!
Your the one trying to make it make sense when cearly the ending does not!

Point being is that I AM seeing what is there your just getting my assumptions confused with the evidence!

You just admitted that you're making guesses based on your view point.

Thanks.

And I'm not trying to make anything make sense, I think the ending is crappy and rushed. There is nothing more to it. You are the one who is trying to make sense of it by making up crap in your head.

You're getting assumptions confused with evidence.

No...your not reading right. It starts with evidence then speculations! It hwas nothing to do with my point of view, as I have said Ive been back an forth on both sides of this discussion so Iam not baised. I have an open mind and your trying to fill my mouth with your words.

[KevShep]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Alright, seriously. I just can't drag myself away from this.

KevShep has to be a troll, it's unbelievable how much he has contradicted himself.


Back to Skyrim for me and a bump for my other threads.

If your mad then just walk away!  You dont understand that Iam seeing what is there and you cant figure that out!

Modifié par KevShep, 26 avril 2012 - 03:37 .

[Funkdrspot]

a blow to the ribs?! This was more like a complete whiff as it didn't even address IT, directly or indirectly.

Now the PAX comment, THAT was a blow to the ribs.

[TheCrazyHobo]

Xellith wrote...

twitter.com/#!/GambleMike/status/195308506214187008

Mike Gamble said...

Personally, I don't think the best ending is destroy, actually.

This may be a streach but maybe Gamble is not referring to these three endings at all.  Maybe he is referring to the "El Dorado" Golden ending that may be coming in the EC.  

Just a thought. 

[ashwind]

KevShep wrote...

 You have got me all wrong. Iam not proving anyrthing....IAM JUST SAYING WHAT IS THERE! This is not hard people.

You first have to see and hear what ...IS... there in game inoder to get to the truth....This is not that hard!

What you are saying is what "you perceieve" to be there. It aint. You are ignoring all the contradiction this theory brings. It is not hard to realize that the IT is never intended and it is not the truth. It is not hard to see that.

To fight off indoctrination, all you need to do is to create the weakest fleet possible. Then you WONT have any other option but Destroy. Ooooo that makes perfect sense. How hard is it to see that????? The biggest loophole in I.T

[KevShep]

Funkdrspot wrote...

a blow to the ribs?! This was more like a complete whiff as it didn't even address IT, directly or indirectly.

Now the PAX comment, THAT was a blow to the ribs.

No it was not...They said that they wanted to avoid talking about it in Pax. They said nothing of it being untrue!

[dreman9999]

[quote]FatalX7.0 wrote...

[quote]KevShep wrote...

[quote]FatalX7.0 wrote...

[quote]KevShep wrote...

[quote]FatalX7.0 wrote...

[quote]KevShep wrote...

[quote]FatalX7.0 wrote...

[quote]Darth_Trethon wrote...

[quote]FatalX7.0 wrote...

[quote]Darth_Trethon wrote...

[quote]FatalX7.0 wrote...

What the hell.

Where did that come from?

[/quote]

Oppening scene....Catalyst playing with toy ship, minutes later Catalyst in vent and then Catalyst boarding shuttle that got blown up by reapers....forgot already? Go play the opening of the game again if you need?

Or are you going to say that the child and the dreams just accidentally happened to look exactly like the Catalyst.

[/quote]

My mind has been blown by the lack of coherence.

[/quote]

Riiiiight....denying something exists or has any worth is the best way to get the last word when you have nothing left to say.

There's certainly a lot of coherence to the fact that the child in the opening level on earth looks exactly like the Catalyst and to the fact that nobody but Shepard ever seems to notice or interact with this child.
[/quote]

That is a hell of a lot of assumptions.

[/quote]
There not assumptions..No one  looks at the boy (yes its true go back and look) but he looks at you from far away twice as if saying something with his eyes.
[/quote]

Yes, they are assumptions, including what you just said.

Saying something with his eyes? You're analyzing far too much.

[/quote]
 Your assuming against evidence. No one sees him! Yes its is true! 

The part about saying something with his eyes IS an assumption BASED on the evidence![/quote]

How do you know?

[/quote]

Watch the video no that we see makes eye contact with him....a clue to him not actually being there is that no one helps him up when clearly there are about 4 or more standing right there facing him as he is having trouble getting on.[/quote]

Good job, more assumptions.

[/quote]Ok, let play this a different way....Can you show me a video or link of anyone else pinteracting withthe child? Can you prove that he is real?

[KevShep]

ashwind wrote...

KevShep wrote...

 You have got me all wrong. Iam not proving anyrthing....IAM JUST SAYING WHAT IS THERE! This is not hard people.

You first have to see and hear what ...IS... there in game inoder to get to the truth....This is not that hard!

What you are saying is what "you perceieve" to be there. It aint. You are ignoring all the contradiction this theory brings. It is not hard to realize that the IT is never intended and it is not the truth. It is not hard to see that.

To fight off indoctrination, all you need to do is to create the weakest fleet possible. Then you WONT have any other option but Destroy. Ooooo that makes perfect sense. How hard is it to see that????? The biggest loophole in I.T

No. What I "perceive" to be there is speculations, but what is in the game CAN BE SEEN AND HEARED! THAT is the evidence!

You just said that it was never intended to be the I.T.? How do you know that? dont be a hypocrite if your going to say that Iam being contradicting.

If you go to the catalyst as fast as you can the catalyst says somthing different then "wake up"...He says "what are you doing here" as if he is not ready for you. This also fits with indoctrination. 

Modifié par KevShep, 26 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[dreman9999]

Wait....he is just being vague...How it this a blow to anything?

[KevShep]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ok, let play this a different way....Can you show me a video or link of anyone else pinteracting withthe child? Can you prove that he is real?
[

Thanks! that does put it in a way that Iam trying to get them to understand. We dont "see" anyone make eye contact or verbal contact with him. They cant figure that out.

Modifié par KevShep, 26 avril 2012 - 03:53 .

[DTKT]

Stop it now.

You can't prove he's not real. He can't prove that he's real. Find something else to argue about.

[OdanUrr]

DTKT wrote...

Stop it now.

You can't prove he's not real. He can't prove that he's real. Find something else to argue about.

Thank you.

[Funkdrspot]

KevShep wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

a blow to the ribs?! This was more like a complete whiff as it didn't even address IT, directly or indirectly.

Now the PAX comment, THAT was a blow to the ribs.

No it was not...They said that they wanted to avoid talking about it in Pax. They said nothing of it being untrue!

They wanted to avoid talking about it but I distinctly remember the comment that went something like
"That just shows the......committment our fans have" 

[KevShep]

DTKT wrote...

Stop it now.

You can't prove he's not real. He can't prove that he's real. Find something else to argue about.

Why?        More Speculations!

[KevShep]

Funkdrspot wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

a blow to the ribs?! This was more like a complete whiff as it didn't even address IT, directly or indirectly.

Now the PAX comment, THAT was a blow to the ribs.

No it was not...They said that they wanted to avoid talking about it in Pax. They said nothing of it being untrue!

They wanted to avoid talking about it but I distinctly remember the comment that went something like
"That just shows the......committment our fans have" 

They are talking about the movment not the I.T..