View Single Post
Old 08-20-2008, 05:42 PM   #110
nine.roses
Rookie
 
nine.roses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: England
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Not even close for reasons that I won't go into here for fear of derailing the thread. I'll be happy to take the matter up with you via PM if you'd like to discuss it further.
Very well. Nevertheless, see below for what I said was "fragile evidence".

Quote:
Which begs the question: Why would the devs go out of their way to place a bunch of dots that aren't supposed to draw a picture? I suppose that they just coincidentally created all those coincidences.
You're misinterpreting my metaphor, so here's another one: those dots are a few stars in a galaxy full of them. A different picture - another theory - can be drawn from entirely different stars in a different order, but that doesn't make it correct. You say "all those coincidences", but even across the entire argument I only see a few. Most points don't even pass as coincidences.

Quote:
Except that it isn't Kreia weaving this tale, but the writers themselves.
You're either just misunderstanding me or else being stubborn. You know you cannot prove to me that the writers clearly intended for this theory of yours to fit. So until Chris Avellone states that Kae is Kreia, I cannot accept that statement.

Quote:
Feel free to do so. I suspect that when you try to put it to paper, it won't work, but I'll be happy to eat my words if I'm wrong.
I would, were it not for the fact that "it won't work" means "you cannot convince me with such a method". That said, though I know you as a man who always sticks to his guns, I also recognise that you place a great value on the truth. Should further evidence come to light either for or against this argument, I know I can trust on you to shift your opinion and stand by it.

Quote:
How convenient.
Please don't try to antagonise me.

I dislike large walls of text, and also dislike spending too long a period preparing an answer which I doubt would convince many anyway. My aim with that post was to pick holes in some arguments put forward in this thread.

As there is not much evidence for this argument, picking apart every supposition made by various posters previously across the many threads on this topic would be an excersise in futility. I'm sure you recognise the same strong adherance to a single theory in previous threads.

Quote:
All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?
Achilles, look carefully at each line of text in the game and tell me that no other lines have such ambiguous pragmatic meaning just BEGGING for a plot hook to come and attach itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Different developer/writer.
True, quite true. Yet an example, I feel, of how revelations should be done. Nevertheless, I know it's an opinion - and one you can disregard at your leisure.

Quote:
Matter of opinion. I, for one, thought it was great that you got a little bit more of the story each time depending on which perspective you played. Kinda like how real life works.
Oh, quite. I enjoyed hearing Mical's past as a female as much as I enjoyed Brianna's as a male. I also love the differences between light side and dark side playthroughs.

Yet with every sub-element of the story I can mention in the game, the beginning, middle and end could be encountered in one playthrough of the game. Very nice, very neat. Rather like the character subquests in KotOR, if you don't mind me referring to the prequel again.

But it is odd, don't you think, that this hypothetical Arren Kae story would be the only one spread across the two playthroughs?

Quote:
The site? No. Scorchy simply condensed it all onto one page. The credit belongs with the writers, not the guy doing the walkthrough.
You rest your entire argument on an assumption that the writers intended your story to exist even though not a single confirmation has been made by them or has been found hiding amongst the dialogue notes.

Sir, you cannot second-guess Chris Avellone or put words into his mouth. Until there is actual hard fact, in-universe (which it would seem you would not prefer), or out-of-universe in the form of the actual written words of the writers themselves (a simple "yes", perhaps?), this issue may never be resolved.

Many theories have existed on similarly "unshakeable" evidence which has proven to far from unshakeable. This theory is much the same. That said, I'm sure an exponent of the scientific method such as yourself would actually still recognise it as a theory and not a proven fact, yes? Otherwise we would not even be arguing this point: we would be on the same ground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCarter426
Eh...not buying it.
See below. The Force is not responsible for real-life coincidences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Again, different developers and writers with a different message and world view. Surely you acknowledge this, correct?
You're avoiding the crux of my point, and furthermore you are wrong: in this case, Kreia's message and view is much the same as Zhar's. (Edit: Yes, thanks JCarter. In any case, "luck" and "coincidence" are in the same boat...). This said, my original point was not about Master Vandar; he was just an illustration.

"True - but as one trained in the Force, you know that true coincidences are rare"

So tell me then, does this statement hold true in reality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I did. You don't just sit down in front of MS Word and start randomly hitting keys, hoping to get something passable. A story is something that you craft over multiple reviews, edits, etc. The fact that it ended up in the final draft means that they worked to get it there. It didn't just "appear" by mistake.
Again, you’re assuming that it’s even there at all. The text highlighted by Scorch serves a primary function, to impart the relevant information or else to mislead. This spectre of a secondary function you envisage – as if the developers were trying to tell us something through pragmatic meaning – may only be a figment of your imagination. Arren Kae appears to fill a large empty gap which has otherwise not been dealt with. Your natural reaction is to plug it with a character which seems to fit, and allow the rife ambiguity to mask your assumptions and leaps of faith. This does not mean you are correct. It just means you know how a jigsaw piece can fit in a hole which isn’t its own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
…as for "disproving" you, I'm afraid that the burden of proof is yours.
You were correct in your dissection of his point but in this case in general, however, the burden of proof is actually on you Achilles.

Quote:
Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
As demonstrated, the burden of proof is on Bill. To rephrase the above:

Quote:
Achilles: "I think that my theory of Arren Kae and Kreia is correct."
nine.roses: "What is your proof?"
Achilles: "No one has shown me that Chris Avellone did not plan this. Thus, it is correct."
I apologise if I sound patronising in doing this: I'd rather know that I've covered it from the right angle than have several pointless posts full of misunderstanding.

Finally, I notice you didn't deal with my statements dealing with the content of the argument itself, instead choosing to "<snip>". Should I be led to believe, then, that I am on a correct heading within these select areas of the argument?


`
,,`,,
,,,,`,,
,,`,,
`
`

Last edited by nine.roses; 08-20-2008 at 06:16 PM.
nine.roses is offline   you may: quote & reply,