>Start thread for MS Paint Adventures

I feel like mentioning that Rose, Jade and the three I mentioned are the only ones where I think there's compelling evidence that they inverted. There's an argument to be made about Crockertier Jane, and I have two pet theories I acknowledge there's no rock solid basis for,^note Porrim early on in their session (though she'd gotten over it by the time we met her) and Equius as part of Scratch but anyone beyond that... I'd need some convincing before I considered it.

I mean, I described it, didn't I?

To an extent, the lack of player agency is illusory; the view that there being only three endings, different only in the color of the cutscene, is flawed, and having to choose one of three (four with EC) endings isn't actually an abnormal limit on agency. Lots of choices in Mass Effect are binary/trinary/quadrary, and to a large extent, the whole third game is the ending; your earlier choices matter to shape it, even if they don't really have much bearing on the final choice.

The problem is that some of the things that seemed to limit agency... were really doing that. Having to accept the Catalyst's choices, and thus the Catalyst's flawed premises, which were demonstrably false in the series; and something one's Shepard could have vocally disagreed with, in the series, the idea that the conflict between organics and synthetics is inevitable. Every ending takes that premise at face value (aside from the refusal ending), which robs the player of the chance to have Shepard call that little holographic shit out on it. It comes off as arbitrary that you can't; it's not that Shepard can't convince the Catalyst of its flawed reasoning (a lack of character agency), but that they can't even try. That's denying the player their agency. And, I mean, come on, by that point you could very well have gotten two of the most embittered synthetic and organic factions (and the main synthetic faction involved in any conflict in this cycle, not counting the Reapers) to not only put aside their hostilities, but to share their world again. And there's no option to just, point to that, and tell the thing that it's wrong about the inevitability, and the only thing enforcing the inevitable, systematic, and total destruction of organic life by synthetics is the Catalyst, with its Reapers.

edited 28th May '16 10:55:09 PM by SmartGirl333

@Raichu: Writing huge explanations of flaws in brief throwaway jokes is not a sign that I'm the one who doesn't get it. It's a sign that you didn't get it, because you wrote a huge explanation of the flaws in a brief throwaway joke.

I mean, there's a reason you rarely see lengthy physics papers on the errors of gravity and momentum shown in the average Road Runner cartoon.

edited 28th May '16 11:51:05 PM by CountDorku

New Avatar:

From this picture

edited 29th May '16 1:20:14 AM by DrPsyche

damn, I saw it before, but I'll be damned if I can remember where.

also uh, sorry if I sounded rude to Ami, that wasn't intended.

lol Undertale

Lesser and Greater Dog as Biggie Smalls is pretty solid.

Dorku, I think you're the one who doesn't get it.

Because,

You said a thing, and I replied to the thing.

The fact that my reply was about eighty times longer than your throwaway joke doesn't really matter? I had fun writing it, that's what's important.

You apparently deigned to read it, and the best response you have is telling me, the guy who's made a whole system of fake physics for a fictional system, that what I just did was like analyzing the fake physics of fiction.

I guess that's a burn?

you mean like act 7?

/flamebait

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

smartie help i cant find the image uploader

edited 29th May '16 9:23:17 AM by MsAmiClassified

Go to any non-forum page and look at the dark toolbar at the top of the page. The image uploader is under the "more" tab.

kthnx

I think that what trips people up in regards to inversion is that people use the theory as a springboard for other theories to the point where it's become a bit indistinguishable in the average mind.

In terms of being a theory that people can act opposite their classpect it's fairly supported

There's nothing really to argue about when taking inversion just as itself because it's just a thing that can happen in the comic, like gotting the tiger or someone being already there

But seriously the magnetic wodka never came back wtf

@Moth: Yeah, it was cool. Though Based on their armor and use of spear, Ornstein should have been the fully armored Undyne, duo comparisons be damned.

@Bocaj: Lots of unfired Chekhovs Guns everywhere. Again, it's very homestuck to try and break those narrative conventions. If it's not necessary don't put it in? Screw that, I'm putting all this shit in, some of it might be incredibly necessary, but some of it might not be. Keep all of you guessing.

On the one hand, it does keep us guessing, on the other we're left with a lot of useless/pointless stuff, like the Wodka. HS in a nutshell really. It breaks the rules of story telling, sometimes for the better, other times it makes us realize why those rules were there in the first place.

Also, not Homestuck but: These lamps made me think of Prospit and Derse

edited 29th May '16 11:43:20 AM by DrPsyche

we should make a list of loose ends and divide it into 3+ tiers

• the story 8r8king tier
• the moderate tier
• the thats a hell of a mystery no one thought was a mystery and didnt even really need solving but damn that it didnt get solved so nice work hussie tier

oh my eldritch god look at those magic circles.

*WMG has a moment of magic weeabooness as usual* edit: fuck you wiki markup

I want those lamps. I would kill for them.

also, I believe someone else (guess who? yeah, myself) will also have something to do with twisting storytelling rules to the point of orderly topsy-turvy chaos in the near future. unless that's just what I want you to believe. hellahahaha. you can never tell.

edited 29th May '16 12:57:06 PM by WolfMattGrey

@Raichu: Your immediate reaction to a one-sentence joke was to state, pretty explicitly, that I clearly didn't understand the subject of the joke unless I included a lot of extraneous detail that would not have actually improved the joke or made it any funnier.

If you had fun writing it, great, but ultimately the core thesis you seemed to be expressing was wrong. If that wasn't your intention, also great, but you might want to work on that because if you were trying to say something else it did not come across in your post.

@Dr Psyche: Those remind me of CCS, myself.

Homestuck's greatest failure.

That's what they are.

edited 29th May '16 1:45:51 PM by DrPsyche

no, that honor goes to the lack of pumpkinkind strife specibus.

although we never really got to know the deal with trickster Jake.

...No? I said you didn't get indoctrination theory because you said that. Not just now, but not too long ago. In here. In another comparison with inversion theory. You called them both inexplicably popular.

If you didn't mean to say that you couldn't actually understand why it was popular, great, but ultimately the core thesis you seemed to be expressing was wrong. If that wasn't your intention, also great, but you might want to work on that because if you were trying to say something else it did not come across in your post.

I don't get why you don't think inversion makes sense (you're on record as thinking it doesn't), and I don't get why you don't think indoctrination makes sense (you're on record as thinking it doesn't), and you're on record for both on not understanding why other people think it makes sense, which I don't get.

But, seriously, if you don't think they make sense, then, well sure I guess, but as someone who understands why people think they make sense, I can try to help you understand why people think they make sense, since you've mentioned not really understanding that.

I responded to the count of indoctrination on the spur of the moment joke because, well, I've tried to say the same thing before (when you called it inexplicable), and this was really just a better statement of that.

If... you honestly think I write up giant walls of text because I didn't think your throwaway joke was informed, because I need to enlighten you, then you're mistaken. Firstly, responding to a joking sentence with a serious wall of text is a joke in itself.

I uh. Thought that was obvious?

I was trying to explain a thing to you, because you've mentioned the thing was inexplicable. And... If you don't want something explained to you,^note That isn't, like, a terrible thing; we're talking fan theories here, not, like, "I don't understand why someone would do that to another person" or something that would make sense to not want to know when you don't understand it, then I don't understand you;^note Especially when you bother to read the explanation anyways and if you knew everything I was saying already but still couldn't grasp the theory's popularity, then I don't understand you; and if you really did understand why the theory was so popular, then, well, why in the heck did you call it inexplicable? Ahem.

And I did this with indoctrination theory, but not inversion theory, because I know a fool's errand when I see one.

The short of it is that talking is easy, fun, and cheap, you dismiss inversion for reasons I don't get, you seem to dismiss indoctrination for reasons I don't get, and I want to try to help you understand the things, because I'm affording the benefit of the doubt that you really don't get them, when you say you don't get them, and aren't just being a pretentious ass.

And writing serious-tone walls of text in response to a non sequitur joke is still hilarious, damnit.

edited 29th May '16 5:02:06 PM by RaichuKFM