nightcobra8928 wrote...
Lmaoboat wrote...
Wow, there's still Indoctrination Theorists? Harold Camping's got nothing on you guys.
we've never left, we're always watching, waiting....
I have a feeling you're going to be doing a whole lot of that.nightcobra8928 wrote...
Lmaoboat wrote...
Wow, there's still Indoctrination Theorists? Harold Camping's got nothing on you guys.
we've never left, we're always watching, waiting....
Modifié par Lmaoboat, 01 juin 2012 - 07:00 .
Taboo-XX wrote...
squee365 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
Or it's terrible writing. It happens. Jesus Christ people.
Continuity errors and plot holes.
That's what it is.
How come the "terrible writing" argument only ever pertains to IT theory related topics?
I've never heard anyone point out continuity errors for something like...Tuchanka or...Rannoch, or the Cerberus Coup.
Cerberus Coup- Why does Kai Leng not kill Bailey? He flees from him.
There is bad writing everywhere in the game, but the Indoc people do nothing but assign meaning to it. Interpreting it that way is FINE but calling it a theory? Utter nonsense.
Modifié par Makrys, 01 juin 2012 - 07:04 .
squee365 wrote...
macrocarl wrote...
When Shep is looking in the vent talking to the kid (after the garden roof apartment thing gets blown up) Shep looks away and you hear the trademark farty Reaper noise that IT'ers have connected with failed Indoc attempts. I don't remember where that info was from (probably one of the ME books) but it's thought that that is the moment the kid is not real and Shep is being directly assaulted with Reaper indoc.
What makes it a wee inconclusive is there's lots of Reaper noises going on at the time of the attack. I tend to agree with the the interpretation myself!
Before we even knew the ending and the whole catalyst shindig, and all we played was the demo, people thought the kid was not real. So its not like we grasped for straws the moment we saw the horrible ending, we speculated the same thing before it even happened.
macrocarl wrote...
squee365 wrote...
macrocarl wrote...
When Shep is looking in the vent talking to the kid (after the garden roof apartment thing gets blown up) Shep looks away and you hear the trademark farty Reaper noise that IT'ers have connected with failed Indoc attempts. I don't remember where that info was from (probably one of the ME books) but it's thought that that is the moment the kid is not real and Shep is being directly assaulted with Reaper indoc.
What makes it a wee inconclusive is there's lots of Reaper noises going on at the time of the attack. I tend to agree with the the interpretation myself!
Before we even knew the ending and the whole catalyst shindig, and all we played was the demo, people thought the kid was not real. So its not like we grasped for straws the moment we saw the horrible ending, we speculated the same thing before it even happened.
Yeah totally! Although I have to admit, after the demo I remember the post asking whether the kid was a figment of Shep's imagination and I was like 'No way d00ds, stop reading into things.' It wasn't until I played ME3 and Starkid showed up I was like I WAS SUCH A FOOL THEM BSN FOLKS WERE ONTO SUMPIN^_^
Modifié par Makrys, 01 juin 2012 - 07:06 .
Lmaoboat wrote...
I have a feeling you're going to be doing a whole lot of that.nightcobra8928 wrote...
Lmaoboat wrote...
Wow, there's still Indoctrination Theorists? Harold Camping's got nothing on you guys.
we've never left, we're always watching, waiting....
Makrys wrote...
macrocarl wrote...
squee365 wrote...
macrocarl wrote...
When Shep is looking in the vent talking to the kid (after the garden roof apartment thing gets blown up) Shep looks away and you hear the trademark farty Reaper noise that IT'ers have connected with failed Indoc attempts. I don't remember where that info was from (probably one of the ME books) but it's thought that that is the moment the kid is not real and Shep is being directly assaulted with Reaper indoc.
What makes it a wee inconclusive is there's lots of Reaper noises going on at the time of the attack. I tend to agree with the the interpretation myself!
Before we even knew the ending and the whole catalyst shindig, and all we played was the demo, people thought the kid was not real. So its not like we grasped for straws the moment we saw the horrible ending, we speculated the same thing before it even happened.
Yeah totally! Although I have to admit, after the demo I remember the post asking whether the kid was a figment of Shep's imagination and I was like 'No way d00ds, stop reading into things.' It wasn't until I played ME3 and Starkid showed up I was like I WAS SUCH A FOOL THEM BSN FOLKS WERE ONTO SUMPIN^_^
Your avatar scares the crap out of me...
Taboo-XX wrote...
You...can't....test...a...video...game.
You need evidence in the real world that is observable.
Take gravity for instance, it's a theory but it has visible effects on the world. If it was just a "theory" people could jump out of windows and not fall.
Your "theory" is nothing more than a massive confirmation bias. You are no different than a conspiracy theorist when you promote it as a theory.
Bible thumpers are the same way. You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims.
Everyone else has considered the IT and dismissed it based upon the lack of REAL WORLD observations.
Taboo-XX wrote...
You...can't....test...a...video...game.
You need evidence in the real world that is observable.
Take gravity for instance, it's a theory but it has visible effects on the world. If it was just a "theory" people could jump out of windows and not fall.
Your "theory" is nothing more than a massive confirmation bias. You are no different than a conspiracy theorist when you promote it as a theory.
Bible thumpers are the same way. You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims.
Everyone else has considered the IT and dismissed it based upon the lack of REAL WORLD observations.
Modifié par Makrys, 01 juin 2012 - 07:12 .
I'm perfectly happy to listen to counterpoints. Just because nothing has convinced me yet doesn't mean I don't isten.Taboo-XX wrote...
Bible thumpers are the same way. You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims.
Not to mention it's apparently "generally believed to be true" ...by the people who believe it's true.Taboo-XX wrote...
You...can't....test...a...video...game.
You need evidence in the real world that is observable.
Take gravity for instance, it's a theory but it has visible effects on the world. If it was just a "theory" people could jump out of windows and not fall.
Your "theory" is nothing more than a massive confirmation bias. You are no different than a conspiracy theorist when you promote it as a theory.
Bible thumpers are the same way. You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims.
Everyone else has considered the IT and dismissed it based upon the lack of REAL WORLD observations.
Taboo-XX wrote...
You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims..
Makrys wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims..
Its funny you say that considering you're the same way in regards to the IT. Every anti-ITist is. Loads of evidence you just want to ignore.
jijeebo wrote...
Makrys wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims..
Its funny you say that considering you're the same way in regards to the IT. Every anti-ITist is. Loads of evidence you just want to ignore.
Way to generalise... <_<
Modifié par Makrys, 01 juin 2012 - 07:19 .
Makrys wrote...
jijeebo wrote...
Makrys wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims..
Its funny you say that considering you're the same way in regards to the IT. Every anti-ITist is. Loads of evidence you just want to ignore.
Way to generalise... <_<
Did he not just say the same about all ITists? Or do you only care about fairness when it is in reference to you?
jijeebo wrote...
Makrys wrote...
jijeebo wrote...
Makrys wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
You refuse to look at any evidence presented to you and only favor that which supports your claims..
Its funny you say that considering you're the same way in regards to the IT. Every anti-ITist is. Loads of evidence you just want to ignore.
Way to generalise... <_<
Did he not just say the same about all ITists? Or do you only care about fairness when it is in reference to you?
I thought his post was directed at yourself, not just a general rant about testing a theory in a video game. If I'm wrong about that then I apologise for being hypocritical.
Modifié par Makrys, 01 juin 2012 - 07:30 .
I don't care either, except when it's called 'fanfic' because that is objectively wrong.Makrys wrote...
And I honestly I don't give a flying f*** if its called a theory or not. If you have nothing better to do than sit around and argue about that, then find something to do, please.
Shallyah wrote...
After watching that, I believe more in IT. It has to be true.
Modifié par Makrys, 01 juin 2012 - 07:40 .
Makrys wrote...
Shallyah wrote...
After watching that, I believe more in IT. It has to be true.
"Now you're just a 'Bible thumping' moron, basing your interpretation on a confirmation bias because you're so desperate to believe the endings aren't as they are, even though there is plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise. You are an idiot for believing in such a thing. Give up and become a Bioware hater! Its much more fun and self gratifying. Plus, we mock people who don't agree with us! You'll love it!"
Retour en haut
