|
View Poll Results: Claymore - Episode 16 Rating | |||
Perfect 10 | 47 | 26.86% | |
9 out of 10 : Excellent | 69 | 39.43% | |
8 out of 10 : Very Good | 45 | 25.71% | |
7 out of 10 : Good | 9 | 5.14% | |
6 out of 10 : Average | 2 | 1.14% | |
5 out of 10 : Below Average | 0 | 0% | |
4 out of 10 : Poor | 1 | 0.57% | |
3 out of 10 : Bad | 0 | 0% | |
2 out of 10 : Very Bad | 2 | 1.14% | |
1 out of 10 : Painful | 0 | 0% | |
Voters: 175. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
2007-07-17, 10:32 | Link #1 | ||||
♪~ Daydreaming ~♪
Graphic Designer
Administrator Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Italy
|
Claymore - Episode 16 Discussion / Poll
Welcome to the discussion thread for Claymore, Episode 16.
Thread Guidelines
|
||||
2007-07-17, 11:12 | Link #3 |
Game Developer
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Orlando, FL.
Age: 38
|
What I want to find out is why that Yoma and that little girl are seeking powerful Claymores and awakening them. Possibly to generate a powerful Yoma organization of their own to battle the Claymore organization?
|
2007-07-17, 11:51 | Link #5 |
B-Gamer and anime otaku
|
The Duffman dude there with the creepy loli is not a Youma. It's an Awaked One, that's for sure. And a very powerful one, to boot. :P
Youmas don't have such powers, and surely can't beat a group of Claymores (with an one-digit included) all alone. Unless, of course, do exist a different kind of youma besides A.O. we don't know yet. If they really want a powerful army of A.O., that leave us with the single question: Why? Maybe they're planning some kind of war? |
2007-07-17, 15:02 | Link #19 |
Proud Yuma Lover.
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
They had better do all the facial expressions a certain someone did in this part in the manga justice, or I will be very very cross. Incidently the cross look is one of the facial expresions I'm looking forward to. It always makes me smile. So yes, I wish I could see this episode.
edit- Oh and I see something else was teased that wasn't in the manga.
__________________
Last edited by Negativedark; 2007-07-17 at 15:04. Reason: additonal comment |
|
|