The idea is also silly because why wouldn't you just relive the ancestors' memories directly?
I think the idea is that they're after something Desmond knows, and since you need to synch up first by doing what they did, and the only thing Desmond's ever done is synch up with ancestors, you need to play as Desmond synching up with ancestors before you can relive his later memories.
That theory has zero supporting evidence and is pure speculation. The popularity of a crackpot theory is no indication of it's reliability.
I don't believe it myself, because I'm good at noticing voice actors and I know who that guy sounded like.
The theory has sufficient supporting evidence, and I laid it out logically and explicitly. You don't have to agree with it, but you can not fully contradict it, and you cannot dismiss it as having no evidence either.
The primary contradiction to "it's definitely Desmond" that I, personally, have is Juno's actions at the end of the game. The entire point of her controlling Desmond to kill Lucy is to force him to go out and find Eve. Her final word is "alone." The point of forcing him to kill Lucy - and remember, neither Shaun nor Rebecca can see or hear Juno - is so that they will merely see Desmond uncharacteristically kill Lucy, forcing him to flee.
Can you please explain how Desmond being put into an animus after that makes any sense? It seems Juno knows what she's doing. At this point, I think there is enough evidence - the power of The Ones Who Came Before as evidenced by the Pieces of Eden and their power through sequences of The Truth both in AC2 and ACB, and also in their precognition in talking to Desmond through Ezio - that Juno, Minerva, et al, know what they are doing and how to set the situation up and push people in the right direction.
Anyway, what's the other possibility? Did Shaun and Rebecca subdue Desmond on their own? Remember, to them, all that happened was that Desmond took the Apple of Eden and then walked over to Lucy and stabbed her in the stomach. Or, depending on how you interpret the Apple's effects from the point of view of those under its effects, they will "come to" with the Apple missing, Desmond missing, and Lucy stabbed in the stomach.
Or did somehow Lucy and William M. or whatever manage to subvert the precognition of The Ones Who Came Before somehow and manage to capture Desmond? I doubt it.
The only "evidence" I've seen that refutes the theory that it isn't Desmond are the following:
a) The guy saying "no" is clearly Nolan North. Yep, it is. I do not deny that. However, that is an entirely meta observation and does not sufficiently prove that it actually is Desmond. It may or may not have any in-story significance.
b) Ubisoft said that Desmond Miles is the only protagonist in the series. Again, creators lie. Often. It's a thing. Especially in long-running series filled to the brim with mind screw. And how is Desmond the main character, exactly? By most definitions of main character, he has never been the main character. He's been a pivotal character, the most important character perhaps, but the main characters have been Ezio and before him Altair. Also, this observation is also entirely meta and has no in-story significance.
There is sufficient evidence to support the idea that we have been controlling Desmond via animus. If I went ahead and suggested that there is an Animus 3.0 or something and went to some length to express how that might make all this possible, then yes, that would be "crackpot theory" because there is zero evidence to support it. However, Subject 16's conversation with "Desmond" after you complete The Truth definitely supports the aforementioned interpretation and the mechanics of the animus itself provide the possibility of this theory you call "crackpot."
I think that, in a game where you play as a guy who relives other people's memories, the idea that you're playing as someone else reliving his memories is just too simple and predictable. Think of the other twists in the series, and tell me if you think that that is really on the same level of mindfuckery. Personally, it was one of the first thigns that popped into my head, and maybe I would have believed it would be a twist at the start of the series, but by now they've gone above and beyond that so many times that it would actually serve as downtime between actual twists.
I never thought of it before. There was never any evidence to suggest it before.
There's some emails that counter that theory as well. Supporting evidence that
END GAME SPOILERS
Some people from the assassin's are planning to meet up with them, with those people being implied as experts considering the nature of the advice they are giving Lucy in the emails.
Also
Another Popular Theory that is based on HUGE ASS END GAME SPOILERS INCLUDING THE TRUTH
Most of the Lucy is a templar stuff is only based on the not-Minerva god lady's say so and Subject 16's single line "she is not who you think she is".
Nobody seems to stop and think "wait which she? Lucy or the god thing that controlled a man into stabbing someone against their will?
If the so called evidence for your theory can support multiple interpretations effortlessly, then it's pissweak and not worth thinking about too hard.
What?
I explicitly stated that I think Subject 16 is talking about Minerva/Juno, not Lucy. The first thing that came to mind was Lucy, but when I got to the end and Juno adopted such a hostile tone, I think it's more likely S16 is talking about Juno (or Minerva).
In other words, a lot of people asked the question you just asked. Which, uh, leads us to the interpretation you are calling "crackpot."
I think that, in a game where you play as a guy who relives other people's memories, the idea that you're playing as someone else reliving his memories is just too simple and predictable. Think of the other twists in the series, and tell me if you think that that is really on the same level of mindfuckery. Personally, it was one of the first thigns that popped into my head, and maybe I would have believed it would be a twist at the start of the series, but by now they've gone above and beyond that so many times that it would actually serve as downtime between actual twists.
I never thought of it before. There was never any evidence to suggest it before.
However, now there is.
There might not have been evidence, but it was the most obvious twist possible given the setting. Think about the animus, and then try to come up with a possible twist, and the first thing 9/10 people will think of is that.
In this series, especially 2 and Bro, the twists have not been the most simple and obvious things possible, they have not been the first twist anyone would think of. Sure, it's possible, but you know how it's a really popular theory? That's because thousands of people already thought of it.
I'm going to have more faith than that in the AC team, simply because that theory is basically 'oh and then he woke up and it was all a dream and he went to school and everything was normal again and oh hey he's 12.'
Also, keep in mind that this is a series that invites speculation. Purposefully. They explicitly invoke mind screw and conspiracy theory tropes to get people guessing. In fact, you could say that the theme of the game is conspiracy theory. I mean, we're talking about anachronistically reinterpreting historical events to justify the idea that the Knights Templar are a present-and-future society that has the entire world under its thumb.
So while I don't think that means that any and all hypothesis is valid, I also don't think it's fair to just dismiss any non-obvious interpretation of the information present in the series as "crackpot." Not to mention, it's fun to speculate, and it's annoying to read "no, that's dumb" in a series like this. I mean, this isn't a deconstruction of Mike Tyson's Punch-Out! here, this is a game in which the creators are basically spreading their legs, saying "deconstruct me!" Kind of. At least, they are explicitly inviting interpretation.
I think that, in a game where you play as a guy who relives other people's memories, the idea that you're playing as someone else reliving his memories is just too simple and predictable. Think of the other twists in the series, and tell me if you think that that is really on the same level of mindfuckery. Personally, it was one of the first thigns that popped into my head, and maybe I would have believed it would be a twist at the start of the series, but by now they've gone above and beyond that so many times that it would actually serve as downtime between actual twists.
I never thought of it before. There was never any evidence to suggest it before.
However, now there is.
There might not have been evidence, but it was the most obvious twist possible given the setting. Think about the animus, and then try to come up with a possible twist, and the first thing 9/10 people will think of is that.
In this series, especially 2 and Bro, the twists have not been the most simple and obvious things possible, they have not been the first twist anyone would think of. Sure, it's possible, but you know how it's a really popular theory? That's because thousands of people already thought of it.
I'm going to have more faith than that in the AC team, simply because that theory is basically 'oh and then he woke up and it was all a dream and he went to school and everything was normal again and oh hey he's 12.'
I disagree with your 9/10 people will think of that. At least not when AC1 came out and probably not AC2 came out. I didn't think of it and I never heard anyone else express the theory, not even joking. I don't remember reading anyone putting that theory forward.
And anyway, it's a mistake to think that a developer wouldn't do something that people expect them to do. Some authors/designers will sometimes purposefully subvert expectations, some will purposefully go along with expectations, and others just won't give a shit about what their audience expects. Hell, sometimes, doing exactly what your audience expects is actually the thing they least expect because they expect to do the opposite of what they expect you to do.
I mean, if I'm writing a trilogy, and I have it mostly mapped out before hand, I may or may not adapt the course of events based on what my readers expect after reading the first or second novels.
edit: And you are mischaracterizing the hypothesis. No one is suggesting an "It Was All A Dream" ending, or at least I'm not. I'm not talking about the final cutscene. I'm saying it is possible that we may see a fundamental shift in perspective in AC3.
I will be pretty miffed if they ditch Desmond as the main protagonist right as he starts getting interesting
To be honest, I doubt the hypothesis myself. But it's fun to speculate about the possibility, and despite whatever anyone might say,
there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that the guy being put in the animus at the end isn't Desmond.
What I think is mostly likely is this:
It IS Desmond, but the Desmond events haven't been happening in real time, and the "it is far later than you think" line may hint at that. I think that Desmond has been reliving his own memories or something. It just seems impossible to me that Desmond would end up back in an animus right after stabbing Lucy. If someone who disagrees with me here can explain how that could happen given the set up we have been presented with, I would love to hear it.
I mean, anything is possible. It would just seem really weird to me.
he is driven back to Assassin HQ, which was the original plan. Rebecca and Shaun have no reason to deviate from it, getting to a safe place would in fact be more urgent since Lucy's bleeding out. when they get there, William M./whoever believes that the best way to treat Desmond's shock is to stick him back in the animus. Desmond lets out one word of protest before being forced back in.
And, now, just to ruin everyone's night (but you probably shouldn't read this):
The Hidden Blades
(an Ezio, Altair, and Desmond slashfic by Drez)
"I came as fast as I could, Desmond," Ezio said, panting and out of breath.
Altair entered the room from different entrance and scoffed. "Oh, I bet you did."
Ezio was hurt. "Papa, why do you treat me so badly."
"Because you act like a fool."
"Enough!" Desmond had had enough of his ancestors' bickering in the past. "I didn't call you here into the Animus 3.0 to watch you guys hurl insults at each other."
"So why have you summoned me here, Desmond?" Altair's dangerous monotone betrayed nothing of his thoughts.
Desmond smiled and nodded toward one of the pillars, which had a chain and some manacles attached to it. Ezio's face immediately lit up, but Altair's already darkened face, behind the hood, managed to darken even further.
"Really, Desmond, I don't have time for this. I was in the middle of trying to assassinate a templar. I had tracked him down to-"
"Yes, yes, Papa, we're all very impressed with your exploits, but I don't think Desmond called us here to listen to us talk about our contracts and whatnot. I mean, he can just relive them at any time anyway." Ezio was quite fond of Desmond by now and didn't like to keep his great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandson waiting when he wanted something.
Altair just grunted. The idea of Desmond being inside him and his memories troubled him. Well, inside his memories, at least. Altair grinned a little at that last thought. "Fine. Desmond, where shall I stand."
Desmond didn't smile. His ancestors would earn his praise the hard way. The rock hard way. "Altair, I need you to chain yourself to the pillar and spread your legs around it as if you're about to climb. But don't climb. Just stay there. Ezio, I want to watch you approach Altair from behind and use your 'hidden blade' on him."
Ezio smiled and raised an eyebrow comically "use my hidden blade on, Papa?"
"No backtalk. I need to make sure you're ready for Phase II."
"Okay, Desmond." And then, "Papa, I'm coming."
Desmond sat down and watched for awhile. Then without warning he sprinted up to Ezio and thrust his own blade into Ezio's back even while Ezio was thrusting his into Altair's.
Altair said, "Nothing. Is. True."
Ezio continued, "Everything. Is. Permitted."
And Desmond said, "Synchronization complete."
The End.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
That theory has zero supporting evidence and is pure speculation. The popularity of a crackpot theory is no indication of it's reliability.
I don't believe it myself, because I'm good at noticing voice actors and I know who that guy sounded like.
The theory has sufficient supporting evidence, and I laid it out logically and explicitly. You don't have to agree with it, but you can not fully contradict it, and you cannot dismiss it as having no evidence either.
The primary contradiction to "it's definitely Desmond" that I, personally, have is Juno's actions at the end of the game. The entire point of her controlling Desmond to kill Lucy is to force him to go out and find Eve. Her final word is "alone." The point of forcing him to kill Lucy - and remember, neither Shaun nor Rebecca can see or hear Juno - is so that they will merely see Desmond uncharacteristically kill Lucy, forcing him to flee.
Can you please explain how Desmond being put into an animus after that makes any sense? It seems Juno knows what she's doing. At this point, I think there is enough evidence - the power of The Ones Who Came Before as evidenced by the Pieces of Eden and their power through sequences of The Truth both in AC2 and ACB, and also in their precognition in talking to Desmond through Ezio - that Juno, Minerva, et al, know what they are doing and how to set the situation up and push people in the right direction.
Anyway, what's the other possibility? Did Shaun and Rebecca subdue Desmond on their own? Remember, to them, all that happened was that Desmond took the Apple of Eden and then walked over to Lucy and stabbed her in the stomach. Or, depending on how you interpret the Apple's effects from the point of view of those under its effects, they will "come to" with the Apple missing, Desmond missing, and Lucy stabbed in the stomach.
Or did somehow Lucy and William M. or whatever manage to subvert the precognition of The Ones Who Came Before somehow and manage to capture Desmond? I doubt it.
The only "evidence" I've seen that refutes the theory that it isn't Desmond are the following:
a) The guy saying "no" is clearly Nolan North. Yep, it is. I do not deny that. However, that is an entirely meta observation and does not sufficiently prove that it actually is Desmond. It may or may not have any in-story significance.
b) Ubisoft said that Desmond Miles is the only protagonist in the series. Again, creators lie. Often. It's a thing. Especially in long-running series filled to the brim with mind screw. And how is Desmond the main character, exactly? By most definitions of main character, he has never been the main character. He's been a pivotal character, the most important character perhaps, but the main characters have been Ezio and before him Altair. Also, this observation is also entirely meta and has no in-story significance.
There is sufficient evidence to support the idea that we have been controlling Desmond via animus. If I went ahead and suggested that there is an Animus 3.0 or something and went to some length to express how that might make all this possible, then yes, that would be "crackpot theory" because there is zero evidence to support it. However, Subject 16's conversation with "Desmond" after you complete The Truth definitely supports the aforementioned interpretation and the mechanics of the animus itself provide the possibility of this theory you call "crackpot."
I didn't say it was crackpot. I said the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways. The same evidence for can be redrawn into an argument against. It's weak.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
That theory has zero supporting evidence and is pure speculation. The popularity of a crackpot theory is no indication of it's reliability.
I don't believe it myself, because I'm good at noticing voice actors and I know who that guy sounded like.
The theory has sufficient supporting evidence, and I laid it out logically and explicitly. You don't have to agree with it, but you can not fully contradict it, and you cannot dismiss it as having no evidence either.
The primary contradiction to "it's definitely Desmond" that I, personally, have is Juno's actions at the end of the game. The entire point of her controlling Desmond to kill Lucy is to force him to go out and find Eve. Her final word is "alone." The point of forcing him to kill Lucy - and remember, neither Shaun nor Rebecca can see or hear Juno - is so that they will merely see Desmond uncharacteristically kill Lucy, forcing him to flee.
Can you please explain how Desmond being put into an animus after that makes any sense? It seems Juno knows what she's doing. At this point, I think there is enough evidence - the power of The Ones Who Came Before as evidenced by the Pieces of Eden and their power through sequences of The Truth both in AC2 and ACB, and also in their precognition in talking to Desmond through Ezio - that Juno, Minerva, et al, know what they are doing and how to set the situation up and push people in the right direction.
Anyway, what's the other possibility? Did Shaun and Rebecca subdue Desmond on their own? Remember, to them, all that happened was that Desmond took the Apple of Eden and then walked over to Lucy and stabbed her in the stomach. Or, depending on how you interpret the Apple's effects from the point of view of those under its effects, they will "come to" with the Apple missing, Desmond missing, and Lucy stabbed in the stomach.
Or did somehow Lucy and William M. or whatever manage to subvert the precognition of The Ones Who Came Before somehow and manage to capture Desmond? I doubt it.
The only "evidence" I've seen that refutes the theory that it isn't Desmond are the following:
a) The guy saying "no" is clearly Nolan North. Yep, it is. I do not deny that. However, that is an entirely meta observation and does not sufficiently prove that it actually is Desmond. It may or may not have any in-story significance.
b) Ubisoft said that Desmond Miles is the only protagonist in the series. Again, creators lie. Often. It's a thing. Especially in long-running series filled to the brim with mind screw. And how is Desmond the main character, exactly? By most definitions of main character, he has never been the main character. He's been a pivotal character, the most important character perhaps, but the main characters have been Ezio and before him Altair. Also, this observation is also entirely meta and has no in-story significance.
There is sufficient evidence to support the idea that we have been controlling Desmond via animus. If I went ahead and suggested that there is an Animus 3.0 or something and went to some length to express how that might make all this possible, then yes, that would be "crackpot theory" because there is zero evidence to support it. However, Subject 16's conversation with "Desmond" after you complete The Truth definitely supports the aforementioned interpretation and the mechanics of the animus itself provide the possibility of this theory you call "crackpot."
I didn't say it was crackpot. I said the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways. The same evidence for can be redrawn into an argument against. It's weak.
Unless I misunderstood what you were referring to, your quote in this very quote tree says "zero supporting evidence, pure speculation, crackpot theory"...?!
Metal Gear?!
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
RandomHajileNot actually a SnatcherThe New KremlinRegistered Userregular
he is driven back to Assassin HQ, which was the original plan. Rebecca and Shaun have no reason to deviate from it, getting to a safe place would in fact be more urgent since Lucy's bleeding out. when they get there, William M./whoever believes that the best way to treat Desmond's shock is to stick him back in the animus. Desmond lets out one word of protest before being forced back in.
he is driven back to Assassin HQ, which was the original plan. Rebecca and Shaun have no reason to deviate from it, getting to a safe place would in fact be more urgent since Lucy's bleeding out. when they get there, William M./whoever believes that the best way to treat Desmond's shock is to stick him back in the animus. Desmond lets out one word of protest before being forced back in.
Slightly less simple
Desmond is re-captured by Abstergo
That is possible, but I think assassins are more likely because he's still using the Animus 2.0 and there was no immediate templar threat at the end of the game.
he is driven back to Assassin HQ, which was the original plan. Rebecca and Shaun have no reason to deviate from it, getting to a safe place would in fact be more urgent since Lucy's bleeding out. when they get there, William M./whoever believes that the best way to treat Desmond's shock is to stick him back in the animus. Desmond lets out one word of protest before being forced back in.
Slightly less simple
Desmond is re-captured by Abstergo
That is possible, but I think assassins are more likely because he's still using the Animus 2.0 and there was no immediate templar threat at the end of the game.
You're probably right, Tal. Vidic's ego is so great that I don't think it's possible for him to be involved without being prominently featured.
he is driven back to Assassin HQ, which was the original plan. Rebecca and Shaun have no reason to deviate from it, getting to a safe place would in fact be more urgent since Lucy's bleeding out. when they get there, William M./whoever believes that the best way to treat Desmond's shock is to stick him back in the animus. Desmond lets out one word of protest before being forced back in.
Slightly less simple
Desmond is re-captured by Abstergo
That is possible, but I think assassins are more likely because he's still using the Animus 2.0 and there was no immediate templar threat at the end of the game.
You're probably right, Tal. Vidic's ego is so great that I don't think it's possible for him to be involved without being prominently featured.
Yeah, I agree that the voiceover during the credits would have been Vidic twirling his figurative mustache:
"Ah, you didn't think you'd get away so easily, did you Mr. Miles? Muahahahahaha!"
I am going to posit that one of the voices is William M. Furthermore, as has been put forth in this thread, I have a pretty strong feeling that William M. is Desmond's father.
this whole "Inception / double kick / dream inside a dream" thing didn't really do it for me.
.
Wait what.
I second this what.
I believe he is talking about during the credits of ACB that you hear someone being put back into an Animus, don't you? Suggesting that someone is in the Animus reliving Desmond's memories of reliving Ezio's?
Right. I think that's very possible.
Sorry guys I was out all day, but yes ^ is exactly what I was talking about
Lucy as a Templar seems sold pretty early on ACB no? Toward the end I was convinced she was about to pull out a gun and double cross everyone in the final room. She basically stops talking and avoids eye contact with the rest of the characters in the ending scenes as you're headed toward the ending. The mind control twist at the end was a bit odd, but I get it.
Also, re:
my inception comment, I play the game with Italian language and English subtitles as I enjoy the immersion more. This makes the ending bits with the Animus harder to follow as I couldn't recognize Nolan North's voice at the end, so I thought it sounded like someone else was reliving Desmond's memories. Who? Well some Templar of course, who was trying to find out where he took the Apple. Realize there are a ton of holes in that theory though.
That theory has zero supporting evidence and is pure speculation. The popularity of a crackpot theory is no indication of it's reliability.
I don't believe it myself, because I'm good at noticing voice actors and I know who that guy sounded like.
The theory has sufficient supporting evidence, and I laid it out logically and explicitly. You don't have to agree with it, but you can not fully contradict it, and you cannot dismiss it as having no evidence either.
The primary contradiction to "it's definitely Desmond" that I, personally, have is Juno's actions at the end of the game. The entire point of her controlling Desmond to kill Lucy is to force him to go out and find Eve. Her final word is "alone." The point of forcing him to kill Lucy - and remember, neither Shaun nor Rebecca can see or hear Juno - is so that they will merely see Desmond uncharacteristically kill Lucy, forcing him to flee.
Can you please explain how Desmond being put into an animus after that makes any sense? It seems Juno knows what she's doing. At this point, I think there is enough evidence - the power of The Ones Who Came Before as evidenced by the Pieces of Eden and their power through sequences of The Truth both in AC2 and ACB, and also in their precognition in talking to Desmond through Ezio - that Juno, Minerva, et al, know what they are doing and how to set the situation up and push people in the right direction.
Anyway, what's the other possibility? Did Shaun and Rebecca subdue Desmond on their own? Remember, to them, all that happened was that Desmond took the Apple of Eden and then walked over to Lucy and stabbed her in the stomach. Or, depending on how you interpret the Apple's effects from the point of view of those under its effects, they will "come to" with the Apple missing, Desmond missing, and Lucy stabbed in the stomach.
Or did somehow Lucy and William M. or whatever manage to subvert the precognition of The Ones Who Came Before somehow and manage to capture Desmond? I doubt it.
The only "evidence" I've seen that refutes the theory that it isn't Desmond are the following:
a) The guy saying "no" is clearly Nolan North. Yep, it is. I do not deny that. However, that is an entirely meta observation and does not sufficiently prove that it actually is Desmond. It may or may not have any in-story significance.
b) Ubisoft said that Desmond Miles is the only protagonist in the series. Again, creators lie. Often. It's a thing. Especially in long-running series filled to the brim with mind screw. And how is Desmond the main character, exactly? By most definitions of main character, he has never been the main character. He's been a pivotal character, the most important character perhaps, but the main characters have been Ezio and before him Altair. Also, this observation is also entirely meta and has no in-story significance.
There is sufficient evidence to support the idea that we have been controlling Desmond via animus. If I went ahead and suggested that there is an Animus 3.0 or something and went to some length to express how that might make all this possible, then yes, that would be "crackpot theory" because there is zero evidence to support it. However, Subject 16's conversation with "Desmond" after you complete The Truth definitely supports the aforementioned interpretation and the mechanics of the animus itself provide the possibility of this theory you call "crackpot."
I didn't say it was crackpot. I said the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways. The same evidence for can be redrawn into an argument against. It's weak.
Unless I misunderstood what you were referring to, your quote in this very quote tree says "zero supporting evidence, pure speculation, crackpot theory"...?!
Metal Gear?!
See, now I am going metal gear!? because I totally forgot that I wrote that. Sometimes I type faster than I can think. I'm having a pretty dazed day today. You are right and I am sorry. Let's start again with some better words on my part, now that I have had some time to think.
Let's have a conversation about these types of speculative arguments. CONTAINS SOME END GAME SPOILERS.
My problem with many of these types of speculative arguments comes down to how they setup and connect the premises that lead to their conclusions.
A premise typically goes in the form
"Something is true"
In this type of argument they are using a different style of premise. That is
"If this particular ambiguity is A, then A is true."
For example: "If the red path of footprints visible on the ground outside the hideout is taken to represent something suspicious occuring in the modern day, then it implicates Lucy since the path stops where she is standing during a cutscene."
This provisional premise is based on ambiguity. That is: "there is a red path of footsteps visible with eagle vision leading up to the hideout" is a fact. The assumption that it represents something occuring in the present is not a fact. It could be referring to the past that desmond just experienced in the animus prior to being able to see it, where Ezio fought countless people along the same pathway. This is a plausible alternative explanation.
Typically in this kind of argument the ambiguity is dealt with by trying to link it to other ambiguities. For example, you could link it to the fact that Lucy ends up getting stabbed. You could link it to the suggestion by Juno that there is something about Lucy that Desmond does not know.
So you get each premise turning into a bloated if then statement along the lines of "because there is something about lucy we do not know and because this results in lucy getting stabbed we should assume that the red path occurs in the present and is thus suspicious and implicates lucy due to it leading up to her in a cutscene, because that would let us make sense of why she has been stabbed. Thus, the red path occurs in the present and is suspicious."
And that's only one premise. This premise is then treated as true and used to support other premises. For example: lucy goes missing in the later sequences. This is suspicious because the red path outside leads up to her when you go and talk to her in a cutscene the first time she went missing. We already know the red path occurs in the present and is suspicious and implicates her because (insert entire argument for previous premise)."
It gets worse from here. You end up with a big argument looping back in on itself.
The ambiguity of the individual provisional premises are not resolved before they are used in the argument. They are resolved because it makes sense in light of the conclusion: Lucy is a templar. It "makes sense." It supports other premises. It makes the argument look "stronger".
This is the same as saying "Because I want the conclusion to be true I am going to assume all of these ambiguities are resolved in this way because that supports the conclusion I want to make". I hope I do not need to explain the problem with this.
Typically when someone tries to challenge this sort of argument by pointing out that the ambiguity underlying a particular provisional premise could have a different interpretation, the counter is that "it does not make sense" because of the other provisional premises. However those other provisional premises are still provisional and they are still based on a particular interpretation of an ambiguous fact. They do not become less ambiguous because you can make a pretty story out of them. So they make sense, in that you can put them in a pattern, but this does not mean they are facts. Provisional premises are not factoids. They are weak arguments that rely entirely on someone not pointing out "you know all of it could be this instead". It is possible to have a different story that accounts for all of the ambiguities in a different light. Such a story would have different provisional premises based on the same ambiguities. Just because you cannot immediately think of an alternative story does not mean there isn't one. It only means you can't think of one. It doesn't make the ambiguity less so in any way or improve the strength of the argument.
You end up with a castle in the sky, based on ambiguities. A mirage that looks like a real argument if you don't try to get to grips with it. If you do take a good look at it, it starts to fall apart and become a lot less solid, because you realise hey many of these premises are just assumptions that don't have to be true.
Hence, I regard all these types of theories that are based on ambiguous pieces of information as possibilities, but tend to regard more highly the simpler ones. This is because having more ambiguous premises does not mean you have a stronger argument, but instead means you are more likely to be constructing a more complicated fairy story.
I place zero importance on wether or not they "make sense". "Making sense" a useless method of determining the validity of an argument based on ambiguous premises. Fiction makes sense, if it is well constructed.
I define a "crackpot theory" as being a theory almost entirely based on this sort of provisional (ambiguous) premise. Not as a "false" theory, but as one that quickly turns into a huge nested "if then" tree that starts climbing back in on itself. So that's why I said crackpot and that's why I sounded so dismissive. And that's why I think it is better to just wait and see what happens rather than spend hours thinking up new details to add to your pet conspiracy story. Ie it's better to just wait and see which ambiguities are resolved in the new game.
I take this critical approach to the premises of all conspiracy theories . Not just assassin's creed. The fact that assassin's creed has been deliberately designed to foster these types of arguments by making all of the more interesting pieces of information highly ambiguous does nothing to change my approach to them. Typically in the case of a standard tinpot conspiracy theory I take a more hardlined approach and just outright dismiss them, using the normal words crackpot etc. Experience and access to much better alternative explanations lets me be comfortable doing that.
I take a softer approach to assassin's creed precisely because it is constructed to support them. Basically "I think that most of the evidence here are all assumptions based on ambiguity and thus the theory is very unlikely to be the case, but hell it might be anyway. I'm going to think it is unlikely for now, but we will have to wait until the next game to really see."
In this case I started out talking like I would about a normal real world conspiracy theory without thinking because I'm having a bit of an off day today. I'm sorry about that.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
See, now I am going metal gear!? because I totally forgot that I wrote that. Sometimes I type faster than I can think. I'm having a pretty dazed day today. You are right and I am sorry. Let's start again with some better words on my part, now that I have had some time to think.
Let's have a conversation about these types of speculative arguments. CONTAINS SOME END GAME SPOILERS.
My problem with many of these types of speculative arguments comes down to how they setup and connect the premises that lead to their conclusions.
A premise typically goes in the form
"Something is true"
In this type of argument they are using a different style of premise. That is
"If this particular ambiguity is A, then A is true."
For example: "If the red path of footprints visible on the ground outside the hideout is taken to represent something suspicious occuring in the modern day, then it implicates Lucy since the path stops where she is standing during a cutscene."
This provisional premise is based on ambiguity. That is: "there is a red path of footsteps visible with eagle vision leading up to the hideout" is a fact. The assumption that it represents something occuring in the present is not a fact. It could be referring to the past that desmond just experienced in the animus prior to being able to see it, where Ezio fought countless people along the same pathway. This is a plausible alternative explanation.
Typically in this kind of argument the ambiguity is dealt with by trying to link it to other ambiguities. For example, you could link it to the fact that Lucy ends up getting stabbed. You could link it to the suggestion by Juno that there is something about Lucy that Desmond does not know.
So you get each premise turning into a bloated if then statement along the lines of "because there is something about lucy we do not know and because this results in lucy getting stabbed we should assume that the red path occurs in the present and is thus suspicious and implicates lucy due to it leading up to her in a cutscene, because that would let us make sense of why she has been stabbed. Thus, the red path occurs in the present and is suspicious."
And that's only one premise. This premise is then treated as true and used to support other premises. For example: lucy goes missing in the later sequences. This is suspicious because the red path outside leads up to her when you go and talk to her in a cutscene the first time she went missing. We already know the red path occurs in the present and is suspicious and implicates her because (insert entire argument for previous premise)."
It gets worse from here. You end up with a big argument looping back in on itself.
The ambiguity of the individual provisional premises are not resolved before they are used in the argument. They are resolved because it makes sense in light of the conclusion: Lucy is a templar. It "makes sense." It supports other premises. It makes the argument look "stronger".
This is the same as saying "Because I want the conclusion to be true I am going to assume all of these ambiguities are resolved in this way because that supports the conclusion I want to make". I hope I do not need to explain the problem with this.
Typically when someone tries to challenge this sort of argument by pointing out that the ambiguity underlying a particular provisional premise could have a different interpretation, the counter is that "it does not make sense" because of the other provisional premises. However those other provisional premises are still provisional and they are still based on a particular interpretation of an ambiguous fact. They do not become less ambiguous because you can make a pretty story out of them. So they make sense, in that you can put them in a pattern, but this does not mean they are facts. Provisional premises are not factoids. They are weak arguments that rely entirely on someone not pointing out "you know all of it could be this instead". It is possible to have a different story that accounts for all of the ambiguities in a different light. Such a story would have different provisional premises based on the same ambiguities. Just because you cannot immediately think of an alternative story does not mean there isn't one. It only means you can't think of one. It doesn't make the ambiguity less so in any way or improve the strength of the argument.
You end up with a castle in the sky, based on ambiguities. A mirage that looks like a real argument if you don't try to get to grips with it. If you do take a good look at it, it starts to fall apart and become a lot less solid, because you realise hey many of these premises are just assumptions that don't have to be true.
Hence, I regard all these types of theories that are based on ambiguous pieces of information as possibilities, but tend to regard more highly the simpler ones. This is because having more ambiguous premises does not mean you have a stronger argument, but instead means you are more likely to be constructing a more complicated fairy story.
I place zero importance on wether or not they "make sense". "Making sense" a useless method of determining the validity of an argument based on ambiguous premises. Fiction makes sense, if it is well constructed.
I define a "crackpot theory" as being a theory almost entirely based on this sort of provisional (ambiguous) premise. Not as a "false" theory, but as one that quickly turns into a huge nested "if then" tree that starts climbing back in on itself. So that's why I said crackpot and that's why I sounded so dismissive. And that's why I think it is better to just wait and see what happens rather than spend hours thinking up new details to add to your pet conspiracy story. Ie it's better to just wait and see which ambiguities are resolved in the new game.
I take this critical approach to the premises of all conspiracy theories . Not just assassin's creed. The fact that assassin's creed has been deliberately designed to foster these types of arguments by making all of the more interesting pieces of information highly ambiguous does nothing to change my approach to them. Typically in the case of a standard tinpot conspiracy theory I take a more hardlined approach and just outright dismiss them, using the normal words crackpot etc. Experience and access to much better alternative explanations lets me be comfortable doing that.
I take a softer approach to assassin's creed precisely because it is constructed to support them. Basically "I think that most of the evidence here are all assumptions based on ambiguity and thus the theory is very unlikely to be the case, but hell it might be anyway. I'm going to think it is unlikely for now, but we will have to wait until the next game to really see."
In this case I started out talking like I would about a normal real world conspiracy theory without thinking because I'm having a bit of an off day today. I'm sorry about that.
Okay...I'm actually in bed now and reading this on my phone but I have to sleep so giving this a full, thorough read will have to wait until morning.
I did skim it, though, and I want to say that the theory involves some unambiguous observations as well.
First, let me clarify that while I recognize the possibility that Lucy is a templar, I doubt it. My hypothesis is that someone else is possibly reliving Desmond's memories. It sounds as though you think I've been arguing thw Lucy angle but I haven't.
Anyway, at the end there are only two possibilities. One, that some time elapses between the final image we see: of Lucy being stabbed and someone that sounds like Desmond being placed in the animus. Or two, that someone that sounds like Desmond desynchronized at that exact moment and was then re-placed in the animus. Given the ending and the quote in the credits, these are unambiguously the only two options.
From here, we can speculate and is where ambiguity comes into play. I personally believe it is more likely, given the text of Subject 16's speech and what happens right before you stab Lucy, that someone desynchs in real-time (i.e. Lucy is stabbed and then desynch). For now, this is born mostly of intuition. However, the other possibility is not a given. No matter what, no concrete evidence supports either interpretation, and Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant when you are speculating on future fiction plots, particularly a story like this.
See, now I am going metal gear!? because I totally forgot that I wrote that. Sometimes I type faster than I can think. I'm having a pretty dazed day today. You are right and I am sorry. Let's start again with some better words on my part, now that I have had some time to think.
Let's have a conversation about these types of speculative arguments. CONTAINS SOME END GAME SPOILERS.
My problem with many of these types of speculative arguments comes down to how they setup and connect the premises that lead to their conclusions.
A premise typically goes in the form
"Something is true"
In this type of argument they are using a different style of premise. That is
"If this particular ambiguity is A, then A is true."
For example: "If the red path of footprints visible on the ground outside the hideout is taken to represent something suspicious occuring in the modern day, then it implicates Lucy since the path stops where she is standing during a cutscene."
This provisional premise is based on ambiguity. That is: "there is a red path of footsteps visible with eagle vision leading up to the hideout" is a fact. The assumption that it represents something occuring in the present is not a fact. It could be referring to the past that desmond just experienced in the animus prior to being able to see it, where Ezio fought countless people along the same pathway. This is a plausible alternative explanation.
Typically in this kind of argument the ambiguity is dealt with by trying to link it to other ambiguities. For example, you could link it to the fact that Lucy ends up getting stabbed. You could link it to the suggestion by Juno that there is something about Lucy that Desmond does not know.
So you get each premise turning into a bloated if then statement along the lines of "because there is something about lucy we do not know and because this results in lucy getting stabbed we should assume that the red path occurs in the present and is thus suspicious and implicates lucy due to it leading up to her in a cutscene, because that would let us make sense of why she has been stabbed. Thus, the red path occurs in the present and is suspicious."
And that's only one premise. This premise is then treated as true and used to support other premises. For example: lucy goes missing in the later sequences. This is suspicious because the red path outside leads up to her when you go and talk to her in a cutscene the first time she went missing. We already know the red path occurs in the present and is suspicious and implicates her because (insert entire argument for previous premise)."
It gets worse from here. You end up with a big argument looping back in on itself.
The ambiguity of the individual provisional premises are not resolved before they are used in the argument. They are resolved because it makes sense in light of the conclusion: Lucy is a templar. It "makes sense." It supports other premises. It makes the argument look "stronger".
This is the same as saying "Because I want the conclusion to be true I am going to assume all of these ambiguities are resolved in this way because that supports the conclusion I want to make". I hope I do not need to explain the problem with this.
Typically when someone tries to challenge this sort of argument by pointing out that the ambiguity underlying a particular provisional premise could have a different interpretation, the counter is that "it does not make sense" because of the other provisional premises. However those other provisional premises are still provisional and they are still based on a particular interpretation of an ambiguous fact. They do not become less ambiguous because you can make a pretty story out of them. So they make sense, in that you can put them in a pattern, but this does not mean they are facts. Provisional premises are not factoids. They are weak arguments that rely entirely on someone not pointing out "you know all of it could be this instead". It is possible to have a different story that accounts for all of the ambiguities in a different light. Such a story would have different provisional premises based on the same ambiguities. Just because you cannot immediately think of an alternative story does not mean there isn't one. It only means you can't think of one. It doesn't make the ambiguity less so in any way or improve the strength of the argument.
You end up with a castle in the sky, based on ambiguities. A mirage that looks like a real argument if you don't try to get to grips with it. If you do take a good look at it, it starts to fall apart and become a lot less solid, because you realise hey many of these premises are just assumptions that don't have to be true.
Hence, I regard all these types of theories that are based on ambiguous pieces of information as possibilities, but tend to regard more highly the simpler ones. This is because having more ambiguous premises does not mean you have a stronger argument, but instead means you are more likely to be constructing a more complicated fairy story.
I place zero importance on wether or not they "make sense". "Making sense" a useless method of determining the validity of an argument based on ambiguous premises. Fiction makes sense, if it is well constructed.
I define a "crackpot theory" as being a theory almost entirely based on this sort of provisional (ambiguous) premise. Not as a "false" theory, but as one that quickly turns into a huge nested "if then" tree that starts climbing back in on itself. So that's why I said crackpot and that's why I sounded so dismissive. And that's why I think it is better to just wait and see what happens rather than spend hours thinking up new details to add to your pet conspiracy story. Ie it's better to just wait and see which ambiguities are resolved in the new game.
I take this critical approach to the premises of all conspiracy theories . Not just assassin's creed. The fact that assassin's creed has been deliberately designed to foster these types of arguments by making all of the more interesting pieces of information highly ambiguous does nothing to change my approach to them. Typically in the case of a standard tinpot conspiracy theory I take a more hardlined approach and just outright dismiss them, using the normal words crackpot etc. Experience and access to much better alternative explanations lets me be comfortable doing that.
I take a softer approach to assassin's creed precisely because it is constructed to support them. Basically "I think that most of the evidence here are all assumptions based on ambiguity and thus the theory is very unlikely to be the case, but hell it might be anyway. I'm going to think it is unlikely for now, but we will have to wait until the next game to really see."
In this case I started out talking like I would about a normal real world conspiracy theory without thinking because I'm having a bit of an off day today. I'm sorry about that.
Okay...I'm actually in bed now and reading this on my phone but I have to sleep so giving this a full, thorough read will have to wait until morning.
I did skim it, though, and I want to say that the theory involves some unambiguous observations as well.
First, let me clarify that while I recognize the possibility that Lucy is a templar, I doubt it. My hypothesis is that someone else is possibly reliving Desmond's memories. It sounds as though you think I've been arguing thw Lucy angle but I haven't.
Anyway, at the end there are only two possibilities. One, that some time elapses between the final image we see: of Lucy being stabbed and someone that sounds like Desmond being placed in the animus. Or two, that someone that sounds like Desmond desynchronized at that exact moment and was then re-placed in the animus. Given the ending and the quote in the credits, these are unambiguously the only two options.
From here, we can speculate and is where ambiguity comes into play. I personally believe it is more likely, given the text of Subject 16's speech and what happens right before you stab Lucy, that someone desynchs in real-time (i.e. Lucy is stabbed and then desynch). For now, this is born mostly of intuition. However, the other possibility is not a given. No matter what, no concrete evidence supports either interpretation, and Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant when you are speculating on future fiction plots, particularly a story like this.
But I will give your post a full read tomorrow.
To be honest, I gave you this detailed post because I recognised I was talking to you halfway through the conversation. (I recognise people by avatars first and read names if they say something important).
I woke up this morning and started working backwards from the last post so I wasn't following it properly myself anyway. I got the incorrect impression that you were arguing for a specific concrete theory. In the process of making the post I carefully went through the rest of the thread to see if that would affect what I should be saying and now I understand that you are arguing these points as equal possibilities. I used those examples because I've seen them in other theories. I do not think you have made those points specifically, so I thought they would be neutral.
But yeah I recognised it was Drez and put more effort into it. You and your changing avatars every ten seconds! :P It's a good thing we wont be continuing this until later though, I've got a headache today and making myself clear took a lot out of me just now.
With reference to the END GAME SPOILER.
I think both are possible but the desynch is unlikely. Why? Because desynching doesn't hurt you. All that happens is you restart the session. How many times have you desynched in the game? Not being able to synch right from the start is the reason for the flashbacks. Someone else desynching and being messed up in the head from it contradicts everything we've been shown about how the animus works. AFter all, 16 didn't go crazy because of desynchs. He went nuts because they made him synch too much, so he began seeing it outside the animus in a big way. As a result he started messing with the animus as well.
In addition, the complete lack of foreshadowing makes me think it's probably not going to go that way. They foreshadow everything else, you just don't know they have until it happens. Then you replay the game and get all the warnings. I replayed the game and there's no warnings for the desynch but there is some for someone else turning up at the end (emails).
Finally a personal reason. It turns the idea of a real person going into his ancestors lives on its head. Suddenly the person outside the animus might not really be outside it but just thinks he is. That's too much ambiguity for me.
I dislike those kinds of situations. It's a personal bias and it doesn't mean the theory is wrong, but it's good enough for me to dislike it. I'd be very unhappy if this was so.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
MongerI got the ham stink.Dallas, TXRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
I don't even have the energy to jump into most of this. Suffice to say there's not enough information for much of any theory on what happens post-game, and especially not for the elaborate fictional architecture that some of you are constructing.
Sorry to interrupt the plot analysis, but the Animus 2.0 update is now available. Looking forward to seeing how the new capture the chest mode plays.
Zaylenz on
0
AntibodiesUsed to live in a psychic city. Never knew what would happen in a day. Chicago, ILRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
I'm pretty sure the patch yesterday just made matchmaking a little faster although the games are glitchier and removed visible ranks from the rooms so not everyone quits when a 50 rolls into the room. Also somehow deleted all the profiles save for my upgraded versions I've unlocked via challenges. Definitely looking forward to Capture Chests. The Grind to 50 is becoming tiresome although I do love the gameplay in most instances. Had a 7500 game yesterday I was rather proud of.
Being the cynical git that I am, I can't help but feel that the bit about putting someone back into the Animus was an excuse for us to play the game after the end.
In that vein, the idea that Lucy is/was a Templar is just too obvious as far as i'm concerned, and thus I doubt that is where Ubisoft will go with this. If Juno did mean Lucy, I think it was probably in a more "don't trust her, she isn't telling you everything" kind of way. For all we know the Assassins might of decided that once they've got what they want from Desmond, he is useless and killed/incarcerated/whatever, and Lucy knows this.
Being the cynical git that I am, I can't help but feel that the bit about putting someone back into the Animus was an excuse for us to play the game after the end.
In that vein, the idea that Lucy is/was a Templar is just too obvious as far as i'm concerned, and thus I doubt that is where Ubisoft will go with this. If Juno did mean Lucy, I think it was probably in a more "don't trust her, she isn't telling you everything" kind of way. For all we know the Assassins might of decided that once they've got what they want from Desmond, he is useless and killed/incarcerated/whatever, and Lucy knows this.
To be honest...
I don't even think Lucy is even dead.
It could be a memory hack/ruse. To push Desmond. Didn't Lucy display some kind of sadness in one of her voicemails to William M. (as commented on by him in an email to her) and it regarded what they were doing to Desmond and how it upset her because of how she felt by him?
Perhaps they are fucking with whatever they are having Desmond experience.
I know some people really hate the "it was all a dream" trope, but what I envision would be more similar to The Thirteenth Floor (good movie IMO) rather than some lame handwaving bullshit at the end.
And I'm sorry MLord...its been a busier day at work than I expected but I will read your post in full soon.
When they say 'put him back in the Animus', someone says 'the animus is what did this to him'. Also, Desmond has been seeing things outside the animus, and Lucy had said that spending too much time in the animus made people go crazy, cf. Subject 16. Also also, Lucy said that Desmond was spending too much time in the animus (and the computer shows that he's in there every day).
With all this in mind, I wonder if we're playing as future Desmond reliving past Desmond's memories. Future Desmond is a little fruitloops due to excess animus, and the people talking at the end are keeping him in the animus so he doesn't write all over the walls in blood or anything. When Desmond got up to that bit where he killed Lucy he got really upset and this caused him to leave the animus, or alternately in reality he didn't kill Lucy, and by doing something so different to reality he was desynched.
I think they've been foreshadowing the whole 'Desmond going the way of Subject 16' thing pretty hard, and it would, at the least, explain that last sentence, that the animus 'did this to him'.
Posts
The theory has sufficient supporting evidence, and I laid it out logically and explicitly. You don't have to agree with it, but you can not fully contradict it, and you cannot dismiss it as having no evidence either.
Can you please explain how Desmond being put into an animus after that makes any sense? It seems Juno knows what she's doing. At this point, I think there is enough evidence - the power of The Ones Who Came Before as evidenced by the Pieces of Eden and their power through sequences of The Truth both in AC2 and ACB, and also in their precognition in talking to Desmond through Ezio - that Juno, Minerva, et al, know what they are doing and how to set the situation up and push people in the right direction.
Anyway, what's the other possibility? Did Shaun and Rebecca subdue Desmond on their own? Remember, to them, all that happened was that Desmond took the Apple of Eden and then walked over to Lucy and stabbed her in the stomach. Or, depending on how you interpret the Apple's effects from the point of view of those under its effects, they will "come to" with the Apple missing, Desmond missing, and Lucy stabbed in the stomach.
Or did somehow Lucy and William M. or whatever manage to subvert the precognition of The Ones Who Came Before somehow and manage to capture Desmond? I doubt it.
The only "evidence" I've seen that refutes the theory that it isn't Desmond are the following:
a) The guy saying "no" is clearly Nolan North. Yep, it is. I do not deny that. However, that is an entirely meta observation and does not sufficiently prove that it actually is Desmond. It may or may not have any in-story significance.
b) Ubisoft said that Desmond Miles is the only protagonist in the series. Again, creators lie. Often. It's a thing. Especially in long-running series filled to the brim with mind screw. And how is Desmond the main character, exactly? By most definitions of main character, he has never been the main character. He's been a pivotal character, the most important character perhaps, but the main characters have been Ezio and before him Altair. Also, this observation is also entirely meta and has no in-story significance.
There is sufficient evidence to support the idea that we have been controlling Desmond via animus. If I went ahead and suggested that there is an Animus 3.0 or something and went to some length to express how that might make all this possible, then yes, that would be "crackpot theory" because there is zero evidence to support it. However, Subject 16's conversation with "Desmond" after you complete The Truth definitely supports the aforementioned interpretation and the mechanics of the animus itself provide the possibility of this theory you call "crackpot."
I never thought of it before. There was never any evidence to suggest it before.
However, now there is.
What?
In other words, a lot of people asked the question you just asked. Which, uh, leads us to the interpretation you are calling "crackpot."
There might not have been evidence, but it was the most obvious twist possible given the setting. Think about the animus, and then try to come up with a possible twist, and the first thing 9/10 people will think of is that.
In this series, especially 2 and Bro, the twists have not been the most simple and obvious things possible, they have not been the first twist anyone would think of. Sure, it's possible, but you know how it's a really popular theory? That's because thousands of people already thought of it.
I'm going to have more faith than that in the AC team, simply because that theory is basically 'oh and then he woke up and it was all a dream and he went to school and everything was normal again and oh hey he's 12.'
So while I don't think that means that any and all hypothesis is valid, I also don't think it's fair to just dismiss any non-obvious interpretation of the information present in the series as "crackpot." Not to mention, it's fun to speculate, and it's annoying to read "no, that's dumb" in a series like this. I mean, this isn't a deconstruction of Mike Tyson's Punch-Out! here, this is a game in which the creators are basically spreading their legs, saying "deconstruct me!" Kind of. At least, they are explicitly inviting interpretation.
I disagree with your 9/10 people will think of that. At least not when AC1 came out and probably not AC2 came out. I didn't think of it and I never heard anyone else express the theory, not even joking. I don't remember reading anyone putting that theory forward.
And anyway, it's a mistake to think that a developer wouldn't do something that people expect them to do. Some authors/designers will sometimes purposefully subvert expectations, some will purposefully go along with expectations, and others just won't give a shit about what their audience expects. Hell, sometimes, doing exactly what your audience expects is actually the thing they least expect because they expect to do the opposite of what they expect you to do.
I mean, if I'm writing a trilogy, and I have it mostly mapped out before hand, I may or may not adapt the course of events based on what my readers expect after reading the first or second novels.
edit: And you are mischaracterizing the hypothesis. No one is suggesting an "It Was All A Dream" ending, or at least I'm not. I'm not talking about the final cutscene. I'm saying it is possible that we may see a fundamental shift in perspective in AC3.
To be honest, I doubt the hypothesis myself. But it's fun to speculate about the possibility, and despite whatever anyone might say,
What I think is mostly likely is this:
I mean, anything is possible. It would just seem really weird to me.
I didn't say it was crackpot. I said the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways. The same evidence for can be redrawn into an argument against. It's weak.
Unless I misunderstood what you were referring to, your quote in this very quote tree says "zero supporting evidence, pure speculation, crackpot theory"...?!
Metal Gear?!
This is...this is just...disturbing...I think I hate you.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
Slightly less simple
"Ah, you didn't think you'd get away so easily, did you Mr. Miles? Muahahahahaha!"
I am going to posit that one of the voices is William M. Furthermore, as has been put forth in this thread, I have a pretty strong feeling that William M. is Desmond's father.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
Sorry guys I was out all day, but yes ^ is exactly what I was talking about
Also, re:
To catch other assassins? Those other groups that you hear about?
Or get the apple.
No wait, they could probably do that without letting him out.
See, now I am going metal gear!? because I totally forgot that I wrote that. Sometimes I type faster than I can think. I'm having a pretty dazed day today. You are right and I am sorry. Let's start again with some better words on my part, now that I have had some time to think.
Let's have a conversation about these types of speculative arguments. CONTAINS SOME END GAME SPOILERS.
A premise typically goes in the form
"Something is true"
In this type of argument they are using a different style of premise. That is
"If this particular ambiguity is A, then A is true."
For example: "If the red path of footprints visible on the ground outside the hideout is taken to represent something suspicious occuring in the modern day, then it implicates Lucy since the path stops where she is standing during a cutscene."
This provisional premise is based on ambiguity. That is: "there is a red path of footsteps visible with eagle vision leading up to the hideout" is a fact. The assumption that it represents something occuring in the present is not a fact. It could be referring to the past that desmond just experienced in the animus prior to being able to see it, where Ezio fought countless people along the same pathway. This is a plausible alternative explanation.
Typically in this kind of argument the ambiguity is dealt with by trying to link it to other ambiguities. For example, you could link it to the fact that Lucy ends up getting stabbed. You could link it to the suggestion by Juno that there is something about Lucy that Desmond does not know.
So you get each premise turning into a bloated if then statement along the lines of "because there is something about lucy we do not know and because this results in lucy getting stabbed we should assume that the red path occurs in the present and is thus suspicious and implicates lucy due to it leading up to her in a cutscene, because that would let us make sense of why she has been stabbed. Thus, the red path occurs in the present and is suspicious."
And that's only one premise. This premise is then treated as true and used to support other premises. For example: lucy goes missing in the later sequences. This is suspicious because the red path outside leads up to her when you go and talk to her in a cutscene the first time she went missing. We already know the red path occurs in the present and is suspicious and implicates her because (insert entire argument for previous premise)."
It gets worse from here. You end up with a big argument looping back in on itself.
The ambiguity of the individual provisional premises are not resolved before they are used in the argument. They are resolved because it makes sense in light of the conclusion: Lucy is a templar. It "makes sense." It supports other premises. It makes the argument look "stronger".
This is the same as saying "Because I want the conclusion to be true I am going to assume all of these ambiguities are resolved in this way because that supports the conclusion I want to make". I hope I do not need to explain the problem with this.
Typically when someone tries to challenge this sort of argument by pointing out that the ambiguity underlying a particular provisional premise could have a different interpretation, the counter is that "it does not make sense" because of the other provisional premises. However those other provisional premises are still provisional and they are still based on a particular interpretation of an ambiguous fact. They do not become less ambiguous because you can make a pretty story out of them. So they make sense, in that you can put them in a pattern, but this does not mean they are facts. Provisional premises are not factoids. They are weak arguments that rely entirely on someone not pointing out "you know all of it could be this instead". It is possible to have a different story that accounts for all of the ambiguities in a different light. Such a story would have different provisional premises based on the same ambiguities. Just because you cannot immediately think of an alternative story does not mean there isn't one. It only means you can't think of one. It doesn't make the ambiguity less so in any way or improve the strength of the argument.
You end up with a castle in the sky, based on ambiguities. A mirage that looks like a real argument if you don't try to get to grips with it. If you do take a good look at it, it starts to fall apart and become a lot less solid, because you realise hey many of these premises are just assumptions that don't have to be true.
Hence, I regard all these types of theories that are based on ambiguous pieces of information as possibilities, but tend to regard more highly the simpler ones. This is because having more ambiguous premises does not mean you have a stronger argument, but instead means you are more likely to be constructing a more complicated fairy story.
I place zero importance on wether or not they "make sense". "Making sense" a useless method of determining the validity of an argument based on ambiguous premises. Fiction makes sense, if it is well constructed.
I define a "crackpot theory" as being a theory almost entirely based on this sort of provisional (ambiguous) premise. Not as a "false" theory, but as one that quickly turns into a huge nested "if then" tree that starts climbing back in on itself. So that's why I said crackpot and that's why I sounded so dismissive. And that's why I think it is better to just wait and see what happens rather than spend hours thinking up new details to add to your pet conspiracy story. Ie it's better to just wait and see which ambiguities are resolved in the new game.
I take this critical approach to the premises of all conspiracy theories . Not just assassin's creed. The fact that assassin's creed has been deliberately designed to foster these types of arguments by making all of the more interesting pieces of information highly ambiguous does nothing to change my approach to them. Typically in the case of a standard tinpot conspiracy theory I take a more hardlined approach and just outright dismiss them, using the normal words crackpot etc. Experience and access to much better alternative explanations lets me be comfortable doing that.
I take a softer approach to assassin's creed precisely because it is constructed to support them. Basically "I think that most of the evidence here are all assumptions based on ambiguity and thus the theory is very unlikely to be the case, but hell it might be anyway. I'm going to think it is unlikely for now, but we will have to wait until the next game to really see."
In this case I started out talking like I would about a normal real world conspiracy theory without thinking because I'm having a bit of an off day today. I'm sorry about that.
Okay...I'm actually in bed now and reading this on my phone but I have to sleep so giving this a full, thorough read will have to wait until morning.
I did skim it, though, and I want to say that the theory involves some unambiguous observations as well.
Anyway, at the end there are only two possibilities. One, that some time elapses between the final image we see: of Lucy being stabbed and someone that sounds like Desmond being placed in the animus. Or two, that someone that sounds like Desmond desynchronized at that exact moment and was then re-placed in the animus. Given the ending and the quote in the credits, these are unambiguously the only two options.
From here, we can speculate and is where ambiguity comes into play. I personally believe it is more likely, given the text of Subject 16's speech and what happens right before you stab Lucy, that someone desynchs in real-time (i.e. Lucy is stabbed and then desynch). For now, this is born mostly of intuition. However, the other possibility is not a given. No matter what, no concrete evidence supports either interpretation, and Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant when you are speculating on future fiction plots, particularly a story like this.
But I will give your post a full read tomorrow.
I read the descriptor and immediately moved on. Damn you Internet.
STEAM | XBL | PSN
To be honest, I gave you this detailed post because I recognised I was talking to you halfway through the conversation. (I recognise people by avatars first and read names if they say something important).
I woke up this morning and started working backwards from the last post so I wasn't following it properly myself anyway. I got the incorrect impression that you were arguing for a specific concrete theory. In the process of making the post I carefully went through the rest of the thread to see if that would affect what I should be saying and now I understand that you are arguing these points as equal possibilities. I used those examples because I've seen them in other theories. I do not think you have made those points specifically, so I thought they would be neutral.
But yeah I recognised it was Drez and put more effort into it. You and your changing avatars every ten seconds! :P It's a good thing we wont be continuing this until later though, I've got a headache today and making myself clear took a lot out of me just now.
With reference to the END GAME SPOILER.
In addition, the complete lack of foreshadowing makes me think it's probably not going to go that way. They foreshadow everything else, you just don't know they have until it happens. Then you replay the game and get all the warnings. I replayed the game and there's no warnings for the desynch but there is some for someone else turning up at the end (emails).
Finally a personal reason. It turns the idea of a real person going into his ancestors lives on its head. Suddenly the person outside the animus might not really be outside it but just thinks he is. That's too much ambiguity for me.
I dislike those kinds of situations. It's a personal bias and it doesn't mean the theory is wrong, but it's good enough for me to dislike it. I'd be very unhappy if this was so.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
That meme is perpetuated by the Templars.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
In that vein, the idea that Lucy is/was a Templar is just too obvious as far as i'm concerned, and thus I doubt that is where Ubisoft will go with this. If Juno did mean Lucy, I think it was probably in a more "don't trust her, she isn't telling you everything" kind of way. For all we know the Assassins might of decided that once they've got what they want from Desmond, he is useless and killed/incarcerated/whatever, and Lucy knows this.
To be honest...
It could be a memory hack/ruse. To push Desmond. Didn't Lucy display some kind of sadness in one of her voicemails to William M. (as commented on by him in an email to her) and it regarded what they were doing to Desmond and how it upset her because of how she felt by him?
Perhaps they are fucking with whatever they are having Desmond experience.
I know some people really hate the "it was all a dream" trope, but what I envision would be more similar to The Thirteenth Floor (good movie IMO) rather than some lame handwaving bullshit at the end.
And I'm sorry MLord...its been a busier day at work than I expected but I will read your post in full soon.
With all this in mind, I wonder if we're playing as future Desmond reliving past Desmond's memories. Future Desmond is a little fruitloops due to excess animus, and the people talking at the end are keeping him in the animus so he doesn't write all over the walls in blood or anything. When Desmond got up to that bit where he killed Lucy he got really upset and this caused him to leave the animus, or alternately in reality he didn't kill Lucy, and by doing something so different to reality he was desynched.
I think they've been foreshadowing the whole 'Desmond going the way of Subject 16' thing pretty hard, and it would, at the least, explain that last sentence, that the animus 'did this to him'.