Thread: Patch 5.4 Trailer, Predictions, and Hints

Originally Posted by Kesey

But as other have pointed out to me implicit evidence isn't good enough, even though Midgardsormr claims he'll deliver new knowledge and wisdom to a team of engineers and other survivors who just built a time machine (and an implicit reading says space travel could be new knowledge and wisdom to them) and the narrator says "And so our journey begins anew," but again that just says they took that journey explicitly and implicitly doesn't say the location. And that would make the 8th rejoining an instant win for Ascians. But of course I'm wrong, so lets not consider this interpretation at all.

Journey doesn't just mean physically moving from one place to another, it's often used figuratively to describe moving from one step to another.

"And so our journey begins anew" implies that Midgardsormr is leading them into the 8th Astral era, not space.

This is why implicit evidence isn't really good enough by the way, not to describe something as a "known fact" anyway, because what you think the end of that story suggested and what I think it suggested could not be more different.

Remember, kiddos: we do not start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it, we look at the evidence and draw conclusions from it. Things are false until they are proven true, not the other way around.

There is no evidence the Ascians only need the Eighth Rejoining / Umbral Calamity to come to pass for an instant victory. There is also no evidence Midgardsormr intends to lead the survivors of the Bad Future to settle a new planet. There is evidence the Eighth Rejoining will not give the Ascians an instant win, and there is no evidence Midgardsormr intends to lead the survivors thereof to settle a new planet. (Put in less flowery words he's basically saying he'll protect them as they rebuild.)

Things are false until they are proven true. That's science, kiddos!

(Why are / were the Ascians so desperate to trigger the Eighth Calamity? Well, they weren't desperate per sé... but the Source was still in good shape after the Seventh so there was no reason to delay, and they've wanted to off the PC since s/he became a thorn in their side during A Realm Reborn. Seems good enough reason to me.)

Originally Posted by Kesey

Since the game story is a work of fiction, a literature analysis--which allows for implicit evidence and reading between the lines--is more valid than a scientific one. The story is a work of art, so what is said and what not is said, obvious choices made by the writers, are decisions they explicitly make when crafting the story. So to disallow a speculation or theory, in a speculation or theory thread, in a lore forum about a fictional work because the evidence is implicit doesn't really do justice to the story--story that I want to believe we all care about, which is how we got here in the first place.

I'm worried that this kind of closed minded thinking about literature analysis has lead to the "Red Door" memes. For those who don't know, "a red door represents anger," which is implicitly read from a text, and for those who are frustrated by that level of thinking react with "but what if the door was just red," because it's easier to just stick to explicit evidence. I want to believe this is a symptom of our education system's move away from a humanities education in favor of a stem focused education, but sometimes I fear it is just laziness and closed mindedness that won't see the forest for the trees.

Condescension aside...

The problem is there are explicit statements going against your speculative theories (hypotheses, to use the proper term). In "An Unpromised Tomorrow" it's shown that 100+ years after the Eighth Umbral Calamity Zodiark still has not broken free of his lunar prison and Midgardsormr explicitly states he is going to protect the survivors as they usher in a new Astral Era; nowhere has it been said or implied the Eighth Calamity is the endgame, nor has it been suggested Midgardsormr intends to ferry those selfsame survivors to a new planet.

The issue with literary analysis is that without the author's input it's nothing more than speculation and/or interpretation. A "red door" may represent anger, something else, or nothing at all. Lacking context it's utterly meaningless, and without author commentary there's no way to know whether or not there's a deeper meaning to be had. One can read into just about anything looking for a deeper meaning; that said there's no way to know if there really is one, or if there is whether or not the author intended for one to be there.

I'm fully capable of appreciating a story rife with symbolism (Borderlands 3's MSQ is crap, but the Moxxi's Heist of the Handsome Jackpot DLC is excellent from a storytelling perspective because of how much more attention is paid to characterization and symbolism without being "in your face" about it like Psycho Krieg and the Fantastic Fustercluck) but you're looking for deeper meanings that are explicitly contradicted by details and dialogue in canon material. You're going to need a much more convincing argument than "You're supposed to use literary analysis, not scientific analysis" delivered with a patronizing attitude to convince people.

But then again I'm just a humble factory worker with an Associate's Degree in psychology; literary analysis is... what's the term my acquaintance used... "outside my lane," so my opinion on the subject isn't relevant.

Originally Posted by Kesey

So to disallow a speculation or theory, in a speculation or theory thread, in a lore forum about a fictional work because the evidence is implicit doesn't really do justice to the story--story that I want to believe we all care about, which is how we got here in the first place.

Dude, no one has an issue with you sharing your thoughts, theories and speculation on the lore forum.

Firstly though: you weren't presenting them as your thoughts, theories and speculation though, you were presenting them as if they were incontrovertible fact.

Secondly: you can't expect that you will present your thoughts and everyone will just immediately agree with them. People will have their own theories and speculation that are different to yours, they'll want to know how you arrived at your conclusions, they'll basically want to discuss things.

For something to be implicit, the story has to imply that it happens.

There is nothing to imply that they are going to build a spaceship or that Midgardsormr will encourage them to do so, even if they conceivably might possess the skills and knowledge to construct it.

On the contrary, it is implied that they must be staying where they are, because they plan to "pull their world back from the brink" and by saying they're going to rebuild it's implicit that they are staying around and not going somewhere else.

It is not explicitly stated that they are staying on this planet, but that's because it's the sort of basic assumed thing you don't need to establish. It would hold up the story awkwardly, like casually mentioning that there weren't any elephants in the crowd when the story has nothing to do with elephants in the first place.

If the story isn't supposed to be about the possibility of space travel, bringing it up just to dismiss it would be strange.

On the other hand, if the writer wanted it to be about Midgardsormr planning to lead them to another world in space, it doesn't make sense to leave that fact "between the lines". Something in the dialogue should mention it, even obliquely - looking to the stars, or a new world, a place beyond this ruined one. None of that literary language is there to establish the idea.