marharth

I understand what you mean. I just don't think it is even fair to call the "new group" the Illuminati, if it is so drastically changed.

And this is how you find out which people you should engage in discussions with - they reveal themselves as not worth the time without them even realizing it. Hence the reason I looked the subject up on Google first, then challenged you to go do the same. I had already assumed you wouldn't bother, and I was right. Plausible deniability, or perhaps deliberate misinformation. If they're really the shadowy conspiracy group people say they are, you can't discount the possibility. I looked it up back on page two, reread my posts. If you actually did look up what you said on Google you would discover you were wrong about human sacrifice, slave torture, and Egyptian society being evil. Since you can't be bothered to actually post evidence (because you don't have any) I will post what I have. We don't even know for sure what purpose slavery had in Egypt, and if they even had slaves by our definition. We certainly do not know if they tortured slaves. http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/social/index.html As said previously, there may be evidence of human sacrifice but there is not enough known to claim for certain human sacrifice took place. The best evidence that we have for that is sketchy drawings. No written record or any solid evidence. http://www.ancient-egypt.org/index.html As for the women having equal rights to men http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/ As for the Illuminati not being evil, how about Tomas Jefferson calling the founder a "enthusiastic philanthropist?" http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj090050%29%29 So yea, doesn't seem like you did look the subject up on Google. What was that about "finding out which people you should engage in conversation with?"

I already tried finding evidence for his claims. No longer my problem. @Subject If the Illuminati controls your mind and the world, how do you know about them?

I think all of these could be valid forms of payment. Ill break down each one with the pros and cons. Full game at once This is pretty good idea, but 60 dollars can be a bit much. That and publishers then move on to sell DLC and expansions which will end up being closer to 80, if not 100 dollars. F2P with Ads in the game This might work for smaller budget games, but I doubt Ads would be able to fully fund a large budget game. I could be wrong, someone might have statistics for that. F2P with Micro-transactions This is probably the most hated model. It is okay if it does not require to you buy essential gameplay items. As in if it requires you to buy a gun to get it, your doing it wrong. Micro transactions should only be to speed things up, and for cosmetic items only. You should be able to get any item that effects gameplay through the game itself. With micro-transactions you can end up paying for a game that is better then a full priced game, for less then a full priced game. Content updates that would be DLC in some full priced games are released for free. For example in a game like CoD, they release map packs as DLC. In a game like TF2, map packs are released in patches. Pay for it bit by bit An example of this is the current Walking Dead game. Episodic gaming seems like it is fine. You end up paying the same amount if not less, just over a longer period of time. This allows you to fund the developer to make the other episodes, and it allows the developer to release small parts at a time so they don't have to worry about rushing out a full game.

They aren't really aliens but they are pretty much aliens. The story uses a lot of popular components from the ancient alien theory (if it is even fair to call it a theory), such as humans being made for slave labor. The story in AC also has a lot of biblical and religious things based around a older civilization instead of a god. The ending of revelations pretty much proves they were a older civilization though, not actual aliens.

I agree with you for once. And yes, the Bavarian Illuminati is the only Illuminati with actual historical proof. That is what I am referring to when I say they are not evil.

So I guess we know what they do teach. That someone else is supposed to do all your work for you and provide you with everything. When I went to school, doing your own research if you didn't like the answer you got from someone was par for the course. If you failed to do so, you failed the assignment. You didn't just get to say "links or it isn't true" or something similar. Of course it helped that there wasn't a civilian internet to use as an excuse for being lazy. I truly do feel sorry for the current generation of school kids, but that's not the topic of this thread. I don't think you understand burden of proof :whistling: If you make a claim, it is your job to back it up, not mine. By the way did you know that the Egyptians also had a GPS system that used stone satellites?

He trained with them right? Why is there no dialogue option at all? Is there one and I am just missing it?

It took you longer to type that than it would have to check Google yourself and see. Not to mention the Egypt thing is common knowledge in any world history class - unless of course they stopped teaching actual history in history classes since I graduated high school. So you don't have anything?

But why is that a bad thing? Either way, if the Illuminati actually was ruling the world what makes you think you would know about it?

Two seconds on Google proves this wrong. Which wasn't even being disputed. You grossly misread if you thought anyone claimed the organization had been founded in ancient Egypt. What's not in dispute though is that they made/make heavy use of Egyptian occult symbols. They are not "Illuminati symbols". They're Egyptian. Perhaps because they were evil? When your society engages in human sacrifices (and considers it normal) and tortures their slave labor pool, that pretty much writes off any attempt to call them civilized or good. Links for the proof of the Illuminati believing in slavery, and for Egyptians torturing slaves and human sacrifice. Uhhh, imput "Ancient Egypt" into Google...... Nothing on slave torture or human sacrifice. A ton of past civilizations have had slaves. That is not a good thing of course, but the Egyptians having slaves does not make them any worse then a lot of other civilizations that have previously existed. Using their symbols does not mean your group is evil. People still use symbols made during the Middle Ages, that doesn't mean they are evil. Ancient Egypt had a fair law system in comparison, and men and women were considered equal.

Two seconds on Google proves this wrong. Which wasn't even being disputed. You grossly misread if you thought anyone claimed the organization had been founded in ancient Egypt. What's not in dispute though is that they made/make heavy use of Egyptian occult symbols. They are not "Illuminati symbols". They're Egyptian. Perhaps because they were evil? When your society engages in human sacrifices (and considers it normal) and tortures their slave labor pool, that pretty much writes off any attempt to call them civilized or good. Links for the proof of the Illuminati believing in slavery, and for Egyptians torturing slaves and human sacrifice.

After you feed ask a inn keeper about gossip. It should trigger a quest to cure vampirism.

What? The Illuminati didn't believe in slavery, and opposed all forms of religion. The Illuminati was founded in 1776. That is not anywhere close to the time of ancient Egypt. The Egyptians weren't evil either. What does their symbols have to do with being evil? Ancient Egypt was a fairly civilized society compared to other past civilizations.

Yea well it seems it would be a bit harder for a secretive group to completely reverse their ideology.

As I said before, the Illuminati was not a evil group at all. It believed in freedom and to change humanity through education. It also believed in replacing tyrant governments such as some of the ones in Europe ruled by state religion. I have no clue why people get the idea that it is a evil group. It was secretive during its existence, but just because something is secretive doesn't mean it is evil. So even if the Illuminati was someone still in existence, it wouldn't really be a bad thing.

Why not make it so you have separate accounts for online and singleplayer?

And its not like the mainstream media is trustworthy either. The ACORN thing was heavily edited, the other thing had a single part cut out so it would appear to be racist out of context. It doesn't even matter if he was born in the US or not. Politics or so corrupt it wouldn't change a damn thing. The Constitution is getting destroyed in worse ways then this, even if it was true, which it is not.

Every interview you have ever seem in the mainstream media has been heavily edited. I guess non of it was accurate. Just because YOU don't like Brietbart that doesn't mean he's wrong. He didn't fake documents like say....Dan Rather. Not everything in the media heavily edited to purposely hide the truth. Breitbart heavily edited those videos to make them appear to be something they were not. None of what you see in those videos actually happened within that context.

Ever considered the game makers put them in as Easter eggs or because the story actually has to do with that kind of stuff? Assassins Creed is about secret groups. Not really a big surprise there.

Obama refused to provide his birth certificate, yet the Democratically controlled Congress of the time in charge of certifying these things allowed him to be put on the ballot anyway. Without verifying it. We didn't demand a birth certificate from Bush because he provided it willingly. We didn't demand one from McCain because he provided it willingly. The left wing press tried to smear McCain with it anyway because he was born in Panama - except they deliberately left out the small but critical detail that he was born on a US military base, which made him a US citizen. Since it's pretty damned obvious at this point that Obama had nothing to hide, why did he continue to do so for TWO WHOLE YEARS? For political gain to make some people on the right look crazy. It worked pretty well. Also once again, I challenge you to find any other presidents birth certificate online.

If it was factually accurate he wouldn't of needed to edit it. And that was not his point at all. He edited the video to make it appear to be racist. Has nothing to do with his point of view. His site is not trustworthy and if all you have is a link from his site it is not valid. And the media didn't look into were he was born because there is no reason to. Why do you care so much about were Obama was born and not any other president? Why didn't you demand a birth certificate from Bush or McCain? Any specific feature Obama has that they don't have?

No, a right wing bias site said he did that. Since you asked me in the other topic, do you remember the whole ACORN pimp thing? The videos were proven to be heavily edited. He also posted edited videos of Shirley Sherrod which took what she said out of context to make her appear racist. So this is nowhere close to valid. There is no evidence for this and it shouldn't be taken seriously. And yes, the birthers are still crazy.

That is probably what makes the most sense. Another idea is that part of the land was done for the 3d map. The white gold tower could of just been a easter egg, but if it was a easter egg why didn't they at least make it look a bit nicer?

It being in the game doesn't make much sense to me. The white gold tower being in makes no sense at all. Even if it was just a land mass for a DLC, why would they have a low res texture of the white gold tower? Kinda wondering why that happened.